1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Good news? green house gasses reduce sahel famine

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by austingreen, Jun 8, 2015.

  1. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,533
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    One of the theories of ghg climate change is it will make some area's dryer and some wetter.

    A scary hypothesis is that it will make the dry drier, and the wet wetter. This is part of an idea that all changes will be bad, but we should expect some good changes as well. Here is an article that describes an attribution study that highlights one of these "good" changes.

    We Are The World: Global Warming Ends African Drought Catastrophe

    Now IMHO it is politics not just rain that caused the famine. This is true on most famines in the last 50 years. Different agricultural policies, and better distribution of food aid would have prevented much of the starvation, but what do you think of the science of attribution here.
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2664.html
    My own feeling is human fingerprint on climate here is weak, but stronger than in the california drought.
     
  2. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,002
    3,508
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    This looks like latitudinal broadening of tropical rainfall (West African Monsoon) driven by air T increases. They cite 3 previous studies finding the same patterns. So it is not quite revolutionary.

    General broadening of tropics with higher T might be a general pattern. Poleward broadening of desert areas as well? They probably as plausible as wet -> wetter and dry -> drier.

    We are always glad to hear of increased agric production. Also remember that there are some serious disease-carrying insects in African core tropics. It would not be good if they spread northward. I suppose people are looking at that right now.
     
  3. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,533
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    yep, not groundbreaking at all, but the story is not exactly out on these studies.

    Yes that theory seems more plausible to me. My common sense may come from living in a place that most of these studies would consider extreme weather. Mitigation measures were decided on long ago, but population keeps increasing possibly beyond what these were first intended for. I'm happy to hear the literature, but am distrustful of those that have confirmation bias.

    killjoy;)

    Drought and overhunting reduced buffalo herds to near extinction.

    what happened to those rocky mountain locust?
    The Big M-T :The Mysterious Disappearance of the Rocky Mountain Locust
     
  4. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,002
    3,508
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    Can't open the Bozeman Magpie. Read the wiki page though.

    Locusts in general do the boom & bust thing (it got them in the Bible )

    About killjoy, I pretty much reject that. I am looking for the bad hidden in the good and the good hidden in the bad, More or less in equal measure.
     
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,199
    15,435
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    One of the authors had this to say:

    An average day's rainfall during the summer rainy season is now around 0.3 mm higher than it was during the drought period. The study's co-author Prof Rowan Sutton, director of climate research at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) at the University of Reading, tells Carbon Brief:

    "[The increase] may not look that large, but the recovery had been about a 10% change in the seasonal average rainfall. This is a semi-arid region and those changes are significant."
    . . .
    Rain only comes to the Sahel in the summer months, as the tropical rain belt moves north from the equator and then returns south again. This migration is caused by the sun, Sutton says:

    "The sun heats up the land more rapidly than the ocean, and that temperature gradient - the higher temperatures over the land than the ocean - causes the rain band to move northward."
    His team's model simulations show that human-caused climate change is making this temperature gradient stronger because the land is warming up more quickly than the oceans. Sutton explains:

    "It turns out that greenhouse gases do something rather similar - they also cause greater warming over land than over the ocean. [This] amplifies the normal seasonal cycle, causing the rain band to move a bit further north and intensify a bit."
    . . .
    It's important not to draw too much from the new findings, says Sutton. For one thing, they only look at rainfall and conditions on the ground are more complicated in reality. He tells Carbon Brief:



    "The notion of whether it's 'good' or 'bad' is a very simplistic framing. It will have had some benefits, but we're just looking at one variable."
    Since temperatures are rising globally, more moisture is being evaporated off the land. That's important when thinking about drought, Sutton says:

    "That is leading to a higher drought risk regardless of changes in rainfall. And that will be something that's true across most of Africa … If you get more rain and it just evaporates really quickly then it's not much good for the crops, for example."
    . . .
    Even if a recent return of the rains has offered respite to people in the Sahel, this doesn't mean climate change is "helping Africa" as a whole, Sutton says:

    "It's very misleading to suggest that climate change is a good thing for Africa. There's no doubt that the overall impacts of climate change on Africa are very serious. Potential short-lived benefits will be greatly outweighed by longer-term costs."
    . . .
    The bottom line, he says, is that a possible short-term positive impact on Sahel rainfall shouldn't be a reason not to act on climate change.

    "One of the reasons that the issue is so serious is that the impacts are essentially irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia. So we don't have the option of waiting to see whether the benefits might be a bit better than we fear."
    It's not all about what could happen in future either. The new study is a reminder that climate change is already having consequences, says Sutton:

    "Our new study shows that our activities are not just causing problems for future generations. They are causing major changes now … I trust the governments meeting later this year in Paris will appreciate the gravity of this message."
    Source: Factcheck: Is climate change ‘helping Africa’?

    The thing is when some scribbler tries to write a 'cute' story they often get the facts and data wrong. For the most part, few care but not here. After all, we're PriusChat:
    [​IMG]

    Bob Wilson
     
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,533
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I'll pull out a few choice comments

    Absolutely starts our true. It is "good" in one region. When similar things are "bad" in one region, people act like they are bad for the entire world. There are regional winners and losers.

    Potential short lived benefits, long term costs? I think you need to analyse each cost and benefit to get there. This is one study. That is an overarching conclusion that you can't get from this one or other percipitation attribution studies.
    . . .

    Absolutely agree here. But that means the actions should take the costs and benefits into account. What if it is a very positive long term impact for Sahel, but a hugely negate impact for England (I find this likely). Perhaps the british should as part of their carbon tax provide money for wind turbines and food for sahel.

    Well this is the kind of histerics that makes sure people talk past each other. I don't know how less starvation in affrica is that huge negative climate change that will get china to act. This guy really needs a reality check.
     
  7. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,199
    15,435
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Just quoting one of the study authors. He clarified that what some of the lay-press had inflated for entertainment. BTW, I was amused by this gem found in the comments:

    Dodgy Geezer6 days ago

    ...Since temperatures are rising globally, more moisture is being evaporated off the land. ...

    What I can't understand is that air temperatures are NOT rising globally.

    [MOD. Remainder of comment deleted. Please do not make assertions without providing links to scientific evidence in support of your contention.] (BOLD added for emphasis RJW)
    Bob Wilson
     
    #7 bwilson4web, Jun 10, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2015
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,533
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Well we have a vicious circle here. There are affinity authors in the press - in this case Telegraph and Times (both in UK) and reuters. They sensationalized the story to mean things that the science does not say. Attribution is not causation, it means that ghg made the slightly higher precipitation more likely. Since it is only more likely, then natural variation can take it away again. These sources often exaggerate negative environmental studies too. This makes it very hard for readers to understand what is going on.

    Now the authors probably got a bunch of hate mail also from people that don't like anything published that doesn't show the worst about climate change. In the clarification of the results IMHO sutton perhaps mispoke, and that is what I was commenting on. He was probably parroting somethings said to him.

    Let's analyse that last statement again
    First part, human activities may cause problems for future generations. That is a widely accepted theory. Great

    Second part, the study shows that human activities are causing major changes now - Weak but no problem when used for advocacy not science. The study shows that human activities are making changes more likely. Cause is too strong a word for science, but not for advocacy Whether they are major or not is subject to debate, but most scientists seem to find virtue in the hypothesis that they will become major. A quantitative definition is needed here.

    Third part. governments will listen to this advocacy. hmm. We will see. I hope he is right, but we will find out after Paris in December.

    Probably a more scientific way to frame this for politicians is thus.
    Burning fossil fuel is already changing regional climates. There are mainly weather events that can be attributed to this climate change. We don't know if the changes will be catastrophic or not, but catastrophic can not be ruled out scientifically. Actions to slow these changes seem like the least expensive path compared to the possible huge costs in cleaning up disasters.
     
  9. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,199
    15,435
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Peace my friend. My understanding is "Sutton" is one of the authors and his quotes read in the style of typical scientist (known a few in my family too!) For example, conversations with my uncle Robert Caswell were also enlightening and totally incomprehensible to lay people. The term 'parroting' is a little rough although some of the 'cut-and-paste' deniers fit the term.

    The problem with a consensus view is it can sound like 'parroting' in the same way my physics teachers were consistent explaining the acceleration of gravity as '32 ft/sec**2'. Sometimes we just have to recognize that there is a different and hard reality of 'facts and data' that professionals live-in.

    Bob Wilson
     
  10. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    9,002
    3,508
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    What is that MOD thing @7? Are we actually to 'back up' our assertions?

    This would be the end of PC as we know it.

    Ah well we can always post cute cat (sheep, bonobo, tardigrade) pictures
     
  11. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,199
    15,435
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Just I was amused to see someone say 'you must provide facts and data.' <GRINS>

    Bob Wilson
     
    john1701a likes this.