NASA: Increasing Carbon Emissions Risk Megadroughts 264
An anonymous reader writes: Droughts in the western U.S. have been bad recently, but not as bad as they could be. Researchers from NASA, Cornell, and Columbia are now warning that if we don't slow the rate at which we produce greenhouse gases, then we're dramatically increasing our odds of a drought that lasts upwards of three decades. "The scientists were interested in megadroughts that took place between 1100 and 1300 in North America. These medieval-period droughts, on a year-to-year basis, were no worse than droughts seen in the recent past. But they lasted, in some cases, 30 to 50 years. When these past megadroughts are compared side-by-side with computer model projections of the 21st century, both the moderate and business-as-usual emissions scenarios are drier, and the risk of droughts lasting 30 years or longer increases significantly."
Good thing we have Nasa . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
while those poor old dark ages folk didn't and look what happened to them! They burned and burned and burned and, so, history shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.
What? I don't even (Score:2)
Re:What? I don't even (Score:4, Informative)
you're confused because this is a rare case of a reverse poe's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
rather than fundamentalism though, what is being misunderstood is the sarcasm
the troll is speaking sarcastically. his position is "like NASA knows shit, and we should all bow down before mighty NASA, what a joke"
but since the position he is speaking sarcastically about is extreme (that NASA doesn't have anything useful to say), he sounds genuinely earnest about not heeding NASA's warnings. he sounds earnest, by accident
so i guess a follow up observation to poe's law would be "a sarcastic troll is unintentionally useful and perceptive"
Climate models (Score:5, Insightful)
When these past megadroughts are compared side-by-side with computer model projections of the 21st century,
How about we fix the climate models [ed.ac.uk] before using them to predict things? If they can't predict things, they can't predict things.
Re:Climate models (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we fix the climate models before using them to predict things?
How about these guys take into account the rising temperatures in oceanic heat reservoirs instead of restricting their analysis to lagging indicators like air temperature?
If they can't predict things, they can't predict things.
Can't argue with logic.
Re: (Score:2)
How about these guys take into account the rising temperatures in oceanic heat reservoirs instead of restricting their analysis to lagging indicators like air temperature?
Some scientists have started incorporating that into their models since the paper was written (it was only published last year, so things take time). I don't find the approach very promising, but you never know, it might work.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought there was a paper out late last year saying they didn't find any heat reservoirs in the oceans - at least none that could account for the predicted increase in surface temperatures. I heard someone speculating that the reservoirs could be deep in the ocean, which would be really weird since warmer water generally stays near the top.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought there was a paper out late last year saying they didn't find any heat reservoirs in the oceans
Maybe. If you have a citation for that, I'd like to see it. The paper I remember seeing said the heat could possibly have been stored in the North Atlantic.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is it:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How about we fix the climate models before using them to predict things?
How about these guys take into account the rising temperatures in oceanic heat reservoirs instead of restricting their analysis to lagging indicators like air temperature?
Because historical deep oceanic temperature records do not exist. There is no evidence of rising oceanic temperatures.
Well, then, very clearly, ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, then, very clearly, we need to start giving government contracts to your brother in law's company which manufactures deep oceanic temperature sensors. You know, "just to be sure"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate models (Score:5, Informative)
While we're at it, let's fix the economic models that predicted hyperinflation as a result of the Fed's money creation. Instead, we have a strong dollar. Creating more money makes it stronger. What economic model ever predicted that?
I don't know if you're serious, but the standard model predicted it. Here is the equation: mv = pq Where m is the total amount of money, v is is the velocity of money (how quickly money gets transferred from person to person), and pq is the total price of everything. Essentially what has happened as the fed prints more money and m increases, the velocity has gone down because banks have been keeping the extra money in their vaults instead of loaning it out. The equation balanced out, just as expected.
Speaking of hyper-inflation, anyone who predicted that was wrong. The fed can theoretically slip up and create inflation, but to get hyper-inflation you have to continue printing more and more money. The fed wasn't about to do that, and Bernanke had several methods for countering large inflation if it became a problem (those methods hadn't been tested necessarily, I am just pointing out that it clearly wasn't his intention to spur hyper-inflation).
Also, the dollar is strong relative to the Euro and Yen. Relative to itself, we've had inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate models (Score:5, Insightful)
I learned this from the global warming skeptics:
Re:Climate models (Score:4, Funny)
if its colder than predicted - its weather
if its the same temp as predicted - it shows "the models are right
if its warmer than predicted - OMG global warming!!!!
apples to oranges (Score:3)
if its colder than predicted - its weather
Because those are short term predictions made days ahead by weathermen. Weather is less predictable in the short term than climate in the long term. Over a longer term (meaning years, not days) temperatures haven't been "colder than predicted".
if its the same temp as predicted - it shows "the models are right"
So?
if its warmer than predicted - OMG global warming!!!!
14 of the 15 hottest years on record have been this century. (The exception was 1998, an El Nino year.) 15 years is a longer term than weathermen deal with.
People do seem to understand the difference between short term and long term phenomena if it's a stock price
Re:apples to oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw on the news just yesterday that this cold in the north east "is a clear sign of climate change" meanwhile this happens every single year here
as for your 15 warmest years on record, I take that with a grain of salt knowing that
1 - the temps taken >100 years ago cannot be as reliable today
2 - that the scientists have been adjusting numbers to fit models, rather than fixing models to fit the numbers
3 - that we have better tech now to better record temps then we have in the past. so that
Re: (Score:2)
1 - the temps taken >100 years ago cannot be as reliable today
The increase in temperature over the last 100 years is well over the margin of error.
2 - that the scientists have been adjusting numbers to fit models, rather than fixing models to fit the numbers
They correct both bad data, as well as bad models. All of the data and model source code is available on line, so if you suspect any wrongdoing, please be so kind to point it out.
Re:Climate models (Score:5, Funny)
I learned this from the global warming alarmists:
1. If its warm its global warming, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
2. If its cold its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
3. If it rains its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
4. If it doesn't rain its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
5. If its humid its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
6. If its dry its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
7. If we get a breeze its climate change, lets have a press release and call for the end of the world.
Re:Climate models (Score:4, Interesting)
I learned this from the global warming alarmist alarmist:
Hold all climate forecasts to higher standards than financial reports.
Equate all predictions as equal to the one with the worst case scenario.
Interpret all forecast as paranoia that the world is ending.
Never offer explanations as to why releasing significant amounts of known greenhouse gasses won't disrupt the climate society is adapted to.
Note that the earth has been much hotter...at a time that was not conducive to human society
Note that the earth has been much colder...at a time that was not conducive to human society
Claim humans can adapt to anything but ignore the fact that when they need to do it within a few generations, most of them will die.
Re: (Score:3)
Hold all climate forecasts to higher standards than financial reports.
You climate catastrophists are good at inventing analogies that make no sense, but sound smart. What if we did hold them up to the same standards... what if we didint... what does it have to do with anything at all? I will hold it up to high enough standard, because those predictions are being used to completely disrupt our economy and to siphon money from every consumer to give to the UN, the IMF and ultimately, the bankers.
Equate all predictions as equal to the one with the worst case scenario.
We don't have to do that. The media goes all worst case scenario all the time... an
Re: (Score:2)
I guess humans didint live through the MWP or the LIA.
Bad example. It is hotter than MWP right now.
stop this BULLSHIT about climate change and wasting 100s of billions a year into it
We're not spending 100s of billions on it. In fact, we're doing pretty much nothing.
Megasolution (Score:2)
Oh, wait, building stuff is so last century. It is so environmentally unfriendly to let people live in comfort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Measurements & Modeling (Score:2, Interesting)
But then Correlation vs Causation doesn't often exist. Since mankind was not causing mega-droughts in the 1100-1300 era, what leads us to think it is now carbon emissions causing droughts? Could it be other long term Solar variation & then seawater circulation issues that reappear regularly on long cycles.
Then when data appears to be tweaked in some field measurements or too sparse, it seems that unjustified claims are being made that can't be backed by solid science.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the biggest factor that will make the droughts stronger in the near future is higher temperatures will cause more soil drying than in past droughts.
Re: (Score:3)
I see these two arguments being made over and over in these threads.
This one: "Correlation is not causation. So if something correlates, it means it's being caused by something else."
And this: "They're saying we're going to get more hurricanes? I guess they were driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels in 1667 when a hurricane hit Jamestown, Virginia, right? Huh? Huh?"
It's not less precipitation. (Score:2)
It's not necessarily less precipitation overall that will cause the megadroughts but higher temperatures that will cause the soil to dry our more than during past droughts. Also the precipitation patterns are trending toward more sudden big precipitation and less spread out in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not necessarily less precipitation overall that will cause the megadroughts but higher temperatures that will cause the soil to dry our more than during past droughts.
Not necessarily true. Droughts also occur because precipitation cycles move location due to geological or other natural causes, not necessarily because of a change in air/ground temperature or drop in average frequency or quantity, the rainfall location(s) just move(s).
The present-day Kalahari Desert in Africa used to be a mega-lake named Lake Makgadikgadi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Other prehistoric lakes here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Significant changes in climate patterns have happened over
Re: (Score:3)
What you say is true. There were prehistoric lakes, several of them like Lake Bonneville and Fort Rock lake in my neck of the woods. But then the climate changed and they dried up.
If you had read the NASA release on the study you would have seen that they explicitly called out soil moisture as a factor in the predicted droughts in North America. That's what I was pointing out in my post.
In the Southwest, climate change would likely cause reduced rainfall and increased temperatures that will evaporate more water from the soil. In the Central Plains, drying would largely be caused by the same temperature-driven increase in evaporation.
So what they're saying is in the Central Plains there won't necessarily be less precipitation but hotter temperatures w
Re: (Score:2)
So what they're saying is in the Central Plains there won't necessarily be less precipitation but hotter temperatures will cause the soil to dry out more exacerbating the drought situation.
"They" have said many things in the past, and were flat out wrong. I see no reason to treat this any differently.
Saying humans are significant sounds sciencey but you need to provide actual evidence for that statement, not just some hand waving.
FTFY
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, scientists can't even get their climate models to match previous known conditions and outcomes. I think more proof is required before radically lowering standards of living and destroying national and world economies while plunging the poorest into even deeper levels of Hell.
Of course, for those to whom such results empower themselves
Re: (Score:2)
So why should events that man did not create or cause prove man CANNOT create or cause similar events?
Why should we believe that things that occurred before humans existed and continue to occur today are suddenly *NOW*, specifically and to a significant degree, the result of humans and their activities?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You want to convince people to make major sweeping changes that would negatively impact the standard of living of large populations (or as in the case of China, keep them from reaching a comparable standard of living to Western nations), you'd better have some
We are an Impact Player in Earth's balance (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate change science is kind of like that. Something bad is happening, and it is causally linked to our exponential spread over the earth's crust. Current indications are that we are impacting weather patterns to our detriment.
You don't have to be thankful the work of your planet-saving scientists, but we'll not have a cross word from you neither.
Re:We are an Impact Player in Earth's balance (Score:4, Interesting)
This. Science is a process of progressive refinement, with occasional revolutionary paradigm-changes. Newer, broader understandings of nature almost invariably extend previous work, instead of replacing it.
A good example of the evolution of scientific thought can be found in this essay [tufts.edu] by Isaac Asimov. TL;DR:
- We used to think the earth was flat. We found out this was an accurate view for short distances, but failed for longer ones.
- Then we thought the earth was spherical. This also was an accurate view for many purposes, but more precise measurements revealed that the earth bulges at the equator due to its rotation.
- Then we thought the earth was an oblate spheroid. This view held until satellites revealed irregularities in the earth's gravitational field due to very slightly larger bulging in the southern hemisphere.
The point is that each successive refinement of our understanding of the earth's shape did not render previous concepts "completely wrong." Rather, it revealed limits on their applicability.
Re:We are an Impact Player in Earth's balance (Score:4, Insightful)
You think the people commenting on this story on a Friday night are going to be swayed by science? Read the comments above. These are people watching Fox News with the sound off hoping that blond hoo-er reading the news re-crosses her legs.
We got a guy up there who just stated that there can't be no damn droughts in the future because he doesn't remember there being so much rain in years. I'm not joking. He said that.
You might as well be making the case to your cocker spaniel. You're just as likely to be understood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, here's exactly what the guy said:
Now tell me how I misrepresented that statement. He's basing his critique on NASA's report on his memory of rainfall over 30 years. "I don't remember a year as wet as this one in 30 years" Come on. We've got a guy who's claiming NASA is engaged in "pseudo-science" and his refutation is based on his recollections of the weather.
This is only true... (Score:2)
...in the absence of trees. We've removed half of them in the past 100 years. That's what's killing us here, we actually need the extra carbon or we'll starve, see the math here:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon... [liebertpub.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ziska was specifically talking about "heat islands" in very dense urban areas like Manhattan, which don't cover enough of the surface of the planet to make a difference globally. His conclusions are generally considered a little bit kookie.
Re: (Score:2)
Irony (Score:2)
Ironically, the places with the least amount of natural water today will do just fine, because they're already investing heavily in desalination. Since they're already investing in that infrastructure, as their demand for water increases, they simply build more plants.
The places with abundant water and very little water end up fine, it's the places in the middle that will be screwed if they don't plan ahead.
Thermodynamics (Score:2)
Q: Is the heat generated by society affecting the total heat in the biosphere? A: There is no way it could not be doing so, therefore, AGW.
Q: Is it possible to reverse this process? A: There is no current way to reverse this process, therefore the best we can possibly hope for is to slow the rate at which we descend into hell.
Did I miss anything? It seems fucking elementary to me...
Re: (Score:2)
There is no current way to reverse this process, therefore the best we can possibly hope for is to slow the rate at which we descend into hell.
Or we can adapt and not turn it into a descent into hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Q: Is the earth a closed system?
For that to be relevant, you have to show math proving so, which would involve at minimum data showing that the earth is radiating exactly as much, or more, energy as the sun + society is creating. My argument is that heat is created by society, which is a law of thermodynamics, and, I assure you, much harder to argue against.
Q: Is it possible to reverse the process? A: Yes, return the faked weather data...
What in the fuck has that to do with reversing thermodynamics?
Did I miss anything? Seems even easier to me.
Because you don't understand what you're arguing against.
What a mess (Score:3, Interesting)
Reading the posts here saddens me. All this hate on climate research telling that NASA is only interested in more funding (sound like MY TAX DOLLARS!!!!), or that man made climate change is a hoax comments, or the science was wrong in the past. This only tells me that all this poster do not understand science or don't want to understand science. And that a deep conservatism has hit the US. So while we try to change our impact on climate and in general on natural resources, you will continue to pollute the world. Too bad that we have to life on the same planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1100-1300 eh? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually 1100 years ago CO2 was pretty much at a high point for the last 1 million years at 280 ppm. During the cycle of glaciations/interglacials that have occurred on an ~100,000 year period for the last 800,000 years the peak CO2 level was 300 ppm or below and during the height of the glaciations it dropped into the 190 ppm range. At 400 ppm now it's higher than it's been in 4 or 5 million years if not longer, before anything resembling modern humans evolved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
WtfUWT. ROTFLMAO.
Actually that graph may be reasonably accurate but it's mostly irrelevant because CO2 is not the only factor affecting climate. But most of the other big climate factors operate on long enough time scales that they aren't a significant factor on century time scales. For instance you may notice that there is a big temperature drop from 5.2 to 1.64 million years ago. A major factor in that appears to be the rising of the Isthmus of Panama cutting off water flow between the tropical Atlant
Re: (Score:2)
Crappy and totally uninformative graph. Try some high resolution [joannenova.com.au] ones.
Then understand that follows temps [scientificamerican.com]
Even the Skeptical Science people agree [skepticalscience.com] but they try to dismiss it with a bunch of speculative "Ya...but...".
Even the IPCC admits this. [www.ipcc.ch]
Facts are facts no matter where you find them. Don't be a Face Painting Homer cheering "my team rules, no matter what the score!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1100-1300 eh? (Score:4, Informative)
Ahh no. [posts link to site funded by ALEC, Exxon Mobil, and Richard Mellon Scaife] But yes keep telling yourself that the warm periods weren't global and miraculously just materialized where people could record it.
Ahh no., I didn't just tell myself. [psu.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Mann. Great.
Ask him why the shepherd nomadic Genghis Khan led Mongol hordes bothered leaving Mongolia in the MWP. I thought Mongolia was in Eurasia. Even the Zhou Chinese knew well enough that Xiongnu invasions happened when they could not feed themselves. Particularly in dry years where their cattle did not have enough land to graze on.
Re: (Score:3)
Michael Mann. Great.
Ask him why the shepherd nomadic Genghis Khan led Mongol hordes bothered leaving Mongolia in the MWP.
Maybe because they were nomadic.
Re: (Score:2)
There is actual historical evidence that there were droughts and higher temperatures in the MWP in Mongolia. Which is in Eurasia. There is plenty of evidence of the same effect happening elsewhere all over the globe. Even Wikipedia has plenty of examples of this. Claims that it only happened in the Atlantic are ridiculous on the face of it. It goes against actual archeological evidence. It goes against recorded history. But don't let that stop you from believing the Mann.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no evidence that it has. What's more if it *had*, then predicting negative climate change impacts isn't going to change the mind of the denialists; it'll only make their hostility toward scientific research greater.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I watched the video. Pathetic. So there is no record of long droughts in the US. But it is going to get worse! I suggest you ask the Anasazi [wikipedia.org] why they left their lands. Oh geez. A 300 year drought without any SUVs and with less population?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see. Sarcasm is something that escapes a lot of people in the USA.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
I watched the video. Pathetic. So there is no record of long droughts in the US. But it is going to get worse! I suggest you ask the Anasazi [wikipedia.org] why they left their lands. Oh geez. A 300 year drought without any SUVs and with less population?
+5 insightful? What is insightful about this?
The linked Wikipedia article mentions the supposed "300 year drought" in a single sentence that ends with... wait for it... "citation needed". Nice.
If you actually bother to read TFA, you will see that the entire point is that droughts in the near future are likely to be similar to those that occured around the time the Anasazi were abandoning their villages. The researchers never claim that "there is no record of long droughts in the US". Their conclusion is that there were long droughts in the past, and we are likely to soon see them again.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the link to the PNAS paper. From what I could tell from an admittedly quick read of the article, though, it makes no claims about a "300 year drought" during the medieval period in North America. What it does say is that drought events were common during this time period, and that they often persisted for one or more decades. For example, the article says, "the 12th century medieval drought persisted with an extent and severity displayed in the worst-case decade, 1146–1155, for two decad
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying that people who eat healthy can get heart problems, so a diet of greasy cheeseburgers is fine. That problems in one instance were not man made does not indicate that present ones are similarly not man made, nor is it a compelling case against a given course of action.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Why you stupid sonofabitch. You think because there's been a lot of rain in your zip code that it has anything to do with global climate patterns? And not only that, but you're basing it on your memory of the last 30 years when you can't even remember the difference between weather and climate. How are you even able to turn your computer on in the morning?
God damn, it's no wonder this country is in such decline. We have people who don't have the sense of a fucking housefly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligence is a tool, it'll do what you tell it to. If you want an accurate prediction of the consequences of various actions, it'll do its best to provide. And if you want to delude yourself, it'll happily oblige that request too.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could be as sanguine. It's honestly something I'm working on.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Funny)
Uh huh. Those damn NASA scientists trying to put one over on old cheesybagel, you betcha. And those other scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who confirmed the findings, they're in on it, too. They'll have to get up pretty early in the morning if they want to fool an expert in "Earth history and geology" such as yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be missing his point. The M.M. Hockey stick is largely based on one tree. Yet he and the rest of the activists would have us believe that that represents all or the world.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an appeal to authority argument PopeRatzo.
Your parents should have read to you the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.
And your arguments seem to be based on appealing to yourself as an authority; e.g. your claim that you "know Earth history and geology well to know that AGW is bunk".
I find PopeRatzo's appeal to legitimate expertise much more compelling.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not asking for anyone to believe me. I gave quotes to the appropriate historical record when needs be you can check it out for yourself. And if you guys can't spot the logical fallacies which litter NASA's little video I have to doubt your ability to reason properly.
The video begins from a real problem, then extrapolates a theory based on a ridiculous premise, and reaches the conclusion that AGW is the bogeyman in the end. NASA does a gigantic fallacy of defective induction in that video. And you just b
Re: (Score:2)
The "convincing evidence" of NASA is not convincing. And you sure downmod other people well while shielding yourself from being modded little anonymous coward.
It does not follow that increased CO2 causes more desertification. The argument is pathetic on the face of it. You just need to look at the fossil record for evidence. The Jurassic is a fine counter-example of it. And it is known as a fact that with increased CO2 levels plants need less water to grow.
Also looking at tree ring data to figure out moistu
Re: (Score:2)
It does not follow that increased CO2 causes more desertification. The argument is pathetic on the face of it.
They have a better argument than you. They are putting all the data in a model, and see what comes out. Whereas you just compare our climate with the Jurassic, and do a bit of handwaving, as if there are no differences except the CO2 levels.
Re: (Score:2)
The above is what is known as a straw man argument, i.e. implying that climate change evidence amounts to measuring tree rings in a single place.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile where I live January is usually the wettest month of the year. We got no rain last month and this month is looking quite dry as well, this after dealing with extreme drought. It's looking like 2015 won't be much better than 2014 for California.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I was there. I'm getting sick of all the rain. The slugs are everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It was sunny and around 80 degrees today with sun for the foreseeable forecast. I'd love to have some nice rain in there, during the week of course with nice sunny weekends.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
These AGW stories keep getting more pathetic as time goes by. I don't remember a year as wet as this one in 30 years.
That seems.. a somewhat less scientific method of reaching a conclusion than the methods climatologists use to reach theirs.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Obscuring measurements by lying with statistics is more scientific.
If you genuinely believe this whole AGW thing is a global conspiracy and that only enlightened ones who can see through the lies (such as yourself) can save us from the deception, then I'll make sure I never waste my time engaging you in conversation again.
Re: (Score:2)
not by much
Well then, I suggest you turn in all your modern technology and go back to living in a fucking mud hut.
The scientific method you are emptying your bowels on with your comment is the same that put you in a nice warm house with electricity and Internet.
If you can't find it within yourself to see the value that science and the scientific method had brought us (in spite of the tireless stupidity of religion I might add) then you're nothing but a hypocrite.
Tell me I've gotten you wrong, please. You've never stru
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember a year as wet as this one in 30 years.
It seems a lot of Americans don't even realise how rain gets into the sky in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more to rain than getting water up. It must fall down as well. Snatch.
Re: (Score:2)
All droughts are man's fault. Water can be transported across continents just as easily as gas and oil. We are now capable of greening the deserts, but most people feel it's more profitable to prepare for war over water, and keep it scarce and profitable. There is no reason for shortages of any kind anymore. They are all due to waste and greed.
Giving everyone on the planet a billion dollars (Score:3, Funny)
Cons:
Re: (Score:2)
"PROXIES OF TEMPERATURE" ... part of the problem is that so-called proxies of temperature aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we have error bars, and the proxies have much wider error bars than the direct measurements.
Re: (Score:2)
error bars cannot compensate for questionable underlying assumptions
Re: (Score:2)
Thermometer readings are proxies of temperature.
Re: (Score:3)
We can desalinate, end of story.
That takes energy. Lots of it. Desalination is not a panacea for drought-relief. Just ask California.
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of sun, wind, and nukes.
Sun? I'm not having your dirty solar panels in our street, they are unsightly and will adversely affect our property prices. No, you won't be building a solar farm either, because BANANA and a bunch of other irrelevant and emotional reasons.
Wind? Dear God, those things are the work of the Devil! There will be absolutely no wind turbines anywhere near anything that I can see or might one day reasonably expect to travel to. I'll mire up any such attempts [youtube.com] (from Age of Stupid) by opposing your project in coun
Re: (Score:2)
Sun? I'm not having your dirty solar panels in our street
They don't want your street. They want all that desert that no-one is using. I'm sure you think your street is the most awesome, special, exceptional street anywhere, but it's not good enough.
Know your enemy (Score:2)
Step 1 - stop being naive and kicking harmless dogs instead knowing where the problem really lies. Step 2 - learn enough about the topic you like to be able to argue for it on it's own merits. Solar and wind don't even fill the same energy supply niche so should be irrelevant when you advocate nuclear power
Re: (Score:2)
Stop taking our money and giving it to flyover states that we should just depopulate and give back to the tornadoes
Re:publishing (Score:4, Interesting)
It's definitely not falsifiable with the red herrings and ad hominems you're using.
But keep trying. Maybe you'll have a breakthrough.
From reading your comments since you created your Slashdot account a few weeks ago, I get the feeling that before we're done here, you're going to be calling climate scientists, "SJWs". That might help make you're point, or at least clarify for the rest of us how seriously we should take your comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone has your ethics. This seems like a general problem, too many people who would rip others off take it for granted everyone is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems unlikely - they'd all be in their late 80s and 90s by now, surely NASA has a retirement age?
In any case according to the movie I saw, Iron Sky, they were exiled to a base on the far side of the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously guys, when even a site like this is arguing that NASA doesn't know shit then we've got a serious luddite problem. Maybe we've lost this generation to snake handling while speaking in tongues at one end and crystal energy naturopathic shit at the other so it could be time to either teach the kids more about reality or give up and start learning Mandarin.