Pollution in Northern Hemisphere help...

Pollution in Northern Hemisphere helped cause 1980s African drought

There are 14 comments on the Science Daily story from Jun 7, 2013, titled Pollution in Northern Hemisphere helped cause 1980s African drought. In it, Science Daily reports that:

The shrinking lake and prolonged drought was initially blamed on overgrazing and bad agricultural practices.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Science Daily.

LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1 Jun 8, 2013
An interesting example of 'externalized cost' of dirty fuels such as coal and ships using Bunker C.

We need better mechanisms to use science to allocate the costs of these internataional problems to the countries who are responsible for them. INCLUDING AGW.

Can ANYBODY see a way that the current US congress could act responsibly on ANY issue?
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#2 Jun 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Can ANYBODY see a way that the current US congress could act responsibly on ANY issue?
All depends on your definition of 'responsibly'.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#3 Jun 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
All depends on your definition of 'responsibly'.
Try Websters, not 'conservapedia'. You have a right to your own opinions, not your own facts (or word definitions)
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#4 Jun 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Try Websters, not 'conservapedia'. You have a right to your own opinions, not your own facts (or word definitions)
It depends on your definition of responsible.

Your being political, global warming is about science. Science says the debate is not over and the conclusion not reached.

Our legislators act responsibly when they do not act on concensus but defer to the science.

No statistical warming for the last 16 years. CO2 has steadily increased, but no warming.

Yes we are in a negative phase of the ENSO/PDO and La Ninas rule, but if the La Ninas can cause cooling in spite of the steady increase in CO2, 400 ppm, did the El Ninos cause the warming? Of course they did.

All the warming? No, the sun played a big part. So did the MOC and the PDO. And the deforestation, reservoirs, irrigation, concrete cities, a lack of cloud cover, increased precipitation.....climate is a million piece puzzle of which CO2 is a very small piece. 400 parts per million.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#5 Jun 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>No statistical warming for the last 16 years.
Denier scum Big Lie. The truth?- 9 of the 10 warmest years in the last 15 yrs.
Fun Facts wrote:
... CO2 is a very small piece. 400 parts per million.
Fallacious lowest-common-denominator argument. The percentage of the entire atmosphere is irrelevant inre: its GHG status. N2 is 78%. O2 is 21% Neither N2 or O2 are GHG's. Therefore, AT LEAST 99% of the atmosphere is irrelevant, which immediately changes the ratio by two orders of magnitude.

Remember folks, if denier scum had valid arguments, they wouldn't repeat prima facie stupid ones endlessly - long after they've been refuted.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#6 Jun 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends on your definition of responsible.
It's defined in the dictionaries. I kmow you right wing tea bagger want to redefine all the words that sound good to fit YOUR agenda, but it isn't working. Too many copies of the dictionaries around.

Get an education. Then you can read. Hint. Dictionaries are usually ordered alphabetically.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#7 Jun 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It's defined in the dictionaries. I kmow you right wing tea bagger want to redefine all the words that sound good to fit YOUR agenda, but it isn't working. Too many copies of the dictionaries around.
Get an education. Then you can read. Hint. Dictionaries are usually ordered alphabetically.
I take it you have looked and can't find a definition to post that would support your statement. LOL
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#8 Jun 9, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text> Denier scum Big Lie. The truth?- 9 of the 10 warmest years in the last 15 yrs.
<quoted text> Fallacious lowest-common-denominator argument. The percentage of the entire atmosphere is irrelevant inre: its GHG status. N2 is 78%. O2 is 21% Neither N2 or O2 are GHG's. Therefore, AT LEAST 99% of the atmosphere is irrelevant, which immediately changes the ratio by two orders of magnitude.
Remember folks, if denier scum had valid arguments, they wouldn't repeat prima facie stupid ones endlessly - long after they've been refuted.
The basic premise of CO2 warming is that CO2 will block the outgoing radiation from leaving the system, create a positive feedback that raises temperatures.

The atmosphere has a content of 400ppm of CO2. 400 parts per million. Imagine an atmosphere with parts you might be able to see, out of the 1 million parts, 400 of them will be CO2.

There would be at any nano second in time 400 parts of CO2 to block energy leaving the system, there would be 999,999,600 'spaces' where CO2 isn't, therefore is unable to block out going energy. Important to consider that CO2 is not the only gas that blocks energy from leaving the system so the remaining 999,999,400 are not all entirely open for the exit of energy.

The entire atmosphere is very important to the premise or CO2 would not be stated in terms of it's relationship to the entire atmosphere.

16 years ago we hit a plateau in warming. We have remained warm, but are not warming.
SpaceBlues

United States

#9 Jun 9, 2013
hey ff, how are things in your state? Any water rationing yet?
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#10 Jun 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
hey ff, how are things in your state? Any water rationing yet?
No rationing, but we have water restrictions in place and have had for the last 25 years I have lived here. In El Paso it is code that no grass can be planted in a front yard. Not so here but many follow that suggestion in the new developments. Routinely you will see older homes being converted from grass to rock in the front yards.

The rationing is in the irrigation for farmers from the Rio Grande. This year only one water drop for small farms and gardens, the rest will come from wells.

Last year the lack of fresh water from the river and the need to replace from ground wells caused the chili to be hotter than usual, the salts in the ground water.

We prefer the little boy (El Nino), the little girl, not so much.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#11 Jun 11, 2013
Pay close attention, especially you denier scum. This is an example of how NOT to be a convincing denier. Check out this pathetic drivel:
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>The basic premise of CO2 warming is that CO2 will block the outgoing radiation from leaving the system, create a positive feedback that raises temperatures.
First, it is specifically IR radiation. Second, it doesn't block it, it absorbs it and then reemits it in a random direction. Third, though there are feedbacks in GW, the "basic premise" doesn't involve any. It simply changes the radiant heat balance.
Fun Facts wrote:
The atmosphere has a content of 400ppm of CO2. 400 parts per million. Imagine an atmosphere with parts you might be able to see, out of the 1 million parts, 400 of them will be CO2.
So effin' what? An Argument form Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance? It's clearly one or the other.
Fun Facts wrote:
There would be at any nano second in time 400 parts of CO2 to block energy leaving the system, there would be 999,999,600 'spaces' where CO2 isn't, therefore is unable to block out going energy.
So effin' what?! This is not an argument. It might be an argument, if you want to insert some logical train of thought, but since you didn't, there's nothing requiring refutation.
Fun Facts wrote:
Important to consider that CO2 is not the only gas that blocks energy from leaving the system so the remaining 999,999,400 are not all entirely open for the exit of energy.
Vague talk of "energy" impresses people who buy healing crystals, but not scientists. Only GHG's "blocks" IR. CO2 is the largest independent variable of all GHG's. It's the 2nd largest overall; the 1st is H2O, which is a positive feedback. The 999,999,400ppm are transparent to the IR band. YOU HAVE NO POINT.
Fun Facts wrote:
The entire atmosphere is very important to the premise or CO2 would not be stated in terms of it's relationship to the entire atmosphere.
No, dumbass, CO2 is stated in terms of concentration because that is a meaningful metric. What would a dumbass like you recommend instead? ;o)
Fun Facts wrote:
16 years ago we hit a plateau in warming. We have remained warm, but are not warming.
First, most of the years in the last 16 are among the hottest years on record. Second, the minimum statistically significant time frame (95% confidence level) for determining a trend is 17 yrs. This is simply the mathematical properties of the data. Both points make your assertion STUPID.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#12 Jun 12, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>So effin' what? An Argument form Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance? It's clearly one or the other.
Not so. I would characterize it as "Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point)– an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question"

The point that is missed is the Greenhouse effect of 400 ppm of CO2, relative to the 33C warming of 280 ppm.

AGW is not caused by the relative mass of CO2. i.e the argument is true but misses the point.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#13 Jun 12, 2013
Kyle wrote:
Pay close attention, especially you denier scum. This is an example of how NOT to be a convincing denier. Check out this pathetic drivel:
<quoted text>First, it is specifically IR radiation. Second, it doesn't block it, it absorbs it and then reemits it in a random direction. Third, though there are feedbacks in GW, the "basic premise" doesn't involve any. It simply changes the radiant heat balance.
<quoted text>So effin' what? An Argument form Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance? It's clearly one or the other.
<quoted text>So effin' what?! This is not an argument. It might be an argument, if you want to insert some logical train of thought, but since you didn't, there's nothing requiring refutation.
<quoted text>Vague talk of "energy" impresses people who buy healing crystals, but not scientists. Only GHG's "blocks" IR. CO2 is the largest independent variable of all GHG's. It's the 2nd largest overall; the 1st is H2O, which is a positive feedback. The 999,999,400ppm are transparent to the IR band. YOU HAVE NO POINT.
<quoted text>No, dumbass, CO2 is stated in terms of concentration because that is a meaningful metric. What would a dumbass like you recommend instead? ;o)
<quoted text>First, most of the years in the last 16 are among the hottest years on record. Second, the minimum statistically significant time frame (95% confidence level) for determining a trend is 17 yrs. This is simply the mathematical properties of the data. Both points make your assertion STUPID.
If you would like to discuss the above, find a scientific paper that you think supports your position, read it, post it, then tell me how you think the paper supports your position.
Kyle

Columbia City, IN

#14 Jun 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
If you would like to discuss the above, find a scientific paper that you think supports your position, read it, post it, then tell me how you think the paper supports your position.
No, a-hole, you do that. I've got all the science on my side - you deniers simply deny it. You need to show the science that supposedly makes denial a reasonable position.

This is like a creationist asking me to support evolution. All of the science supports it. That's the whole point. The creationist is the one with the onus to produce some science. Of course they never do that. They do EXACTLY what climate deniers do - they pick at the real science with non-scientific arguments, lies, fallacies, etc. to create doubt among the ignorant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Latest: Obama pledges federal support in fl... 3 hr Peter 13
News SJC grants new trial to homeless man in trespas... 5 hr Golf club 3
News Get furnace checked or face a fine (Nov '14) 6 hr silly rabbit 96
News Climate change implicated in France floods 7 hr Into The Night 23
News Global warming made Paris floods far more likel... 7 hr Into The Night 114
News New York Attempts to Fight Street Homelessness ... Tue Ice Man 1
News Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) Jun 27 Jim 776
More from around the web