Climate Scientists Have Discovered Cause of Syrian War - Guess what it is

[Subyman]

So, our climate scientists scour the globe for instances of war/disaster and then somehow attempt to link it to global warming? To what end? To further science OR perhaps to push for a POLITICAL agenda? Why do climate "scientists" only look for disaster areas and not boon areas? If the bad is all down to global warming, wouldn't all the good be as well?

Given the long rich history of war/famine on earth, climate "scientists" will never run out of global warming disasters to report on. Makes one wonder how the countless catatrosphic disasters of the past ever happened without global warming to cause them.

To what end? That's not the point of science. Science is to understand the world around us, there doesn't have to be an end goal other than curiosity. I really think you should do more research into this article before making claims. The second author has a Masters in International Affairs from Columbia University. The article sprouted from previous research in sociology showing strong correlation between the drought and unrest. These scientists researched the mechanics behind the unusual drought and found there may be human influences that caused it. This is a very interesting finding.

You keep belittling the field of science by putting quotations around "scientists" and equated their drive to understand to "hubris." I implore that you read the articles and actually try to understand their logic. Its all right there. That is what is so great about science, it is completely open. You can actually read all the logical steps they made to get to their opinion or conclusion. Hardly any other field gives you this insight. If you find issue with their evidence or logical process then you can refute it on those points. Its a great thing.

 

[Subyman]

Well if war does come to California, we'll know that global warming may have caused their drought and that it may have been a factor causing the war....just like Syria. There is NOTHING conclusive here...just speculation and sensationalism. Is this the kind of science you want us to believe in?

Science is not always equations on a chalkboard that are irrefutable. There are plenty of fields that show probabilities and extrapolations. They all explain the downsides or window of error. Droughts in California cause unrest, but not in the same way as the middle east. Unrest in the US is typically economical or crime based. It is amazing how you obfuscate issues like trying to compare california to syria...

 

[Jaskalas]

Actually that is what most deniers expect.

Yes, when the weather is cold we'll point to it. A bit of reflexive irony when faced with the oppose use of weather, such as a three year drought. Both sides have their... snowballs.

 

[Subyman]

Yes, when the weather is cold we'll point to it. A bit of reflexive irony when faced with the oppose use of weather, such as a three year drought. Both sides have their... snowballs.

FWIW, a 3 year drought isn't the same as a cold day or a bunch of snow. There are regional effects to global climate change. The only sticking point it seems to be with deniers is that humans are causing it. The rest should be A-OK.

 

[Atreus21]

What if we made the world a better place for no reason? Right?

Yeah, the truth doesn't matter if the end goal is making the world a better place.

 

[bshole]

FWIW, a 3 year drought isn't the same as a cold day or a bunch of snow. There are regional effects to global climate change. The only sticking point it seems to be with deniers is that humans are causing it. The rest should be A-OK.

Didn't the Dust Bowl happen nearly a century ago? How come America hasn't had a drought since that comes remotely close to approaching that one in breadth, intensity and length? Wouldn't 80+ years of constant CO2 injection have caused a worse drought at some point?

 

[dainthomas]

What if we made the world a better place for no reason? Right?

So we've decided that massive wealth redistribution from the United States will make the world a better place? Because that's exactly what cap and trade is. If you want to send all your money to Ethiopia or Bangladesh on the hope that it will magically make the world colder, then go right ahead. Some people don't want to. And certainly not on the say-so of climate scientists.

And the point of the OP is that there is the appearance that literally everything bad is caused by AGW. Seriously, I can't think of one natural disaster or conflict (other than earthquakes/volcanoes) that hasn't been blamed on AGW.

 

[Subyman]

Didn't the Dust Bowl happen nearly a century ago? How come America hasn't had a drought since that comes remotely close to approaching that one in breadth, intensity and length? Wouldn't 80+ years of constant CO2 injection have caused a worse drought at some point?

Funny you should say that! The Dust Bowl was caused by man. Particularly, clear cutting the vast forests and deep rooted grasses of the central US and poorly implementing agriculture.

I think you need to read the article to see how they correlated the drought to warming, they have their logical process in their report if you really want to understand. Global warming doesn't equal drought everywhere. It depends on the region and how warming affects the weather in each region. You need to be a phd to properly make conclusions in that regard. You could do a literature search and find more information.

 

[Jaskalas]

FWIW, a 3 year drought isn't the same as a cold day or a bunch of snow. There are regional effects to global climate change.

Is an expected regional effect a more stable United States?
Imagine the propaganda you'd be buying wholesale if we repeated our own droughts of the 30s and 50s.

 

[Subyman]

So we've decided that massive wealth redistribution from the United States will make the world a better place? Because that's exactly what cap and trade is. If you want to send all your money to Ethiopia or Bangladesh on the hope that it will magically make the world colder, then go right ahead. Some people don't want to. And certainly not on the say-so of climate scientists.

And the point of the OP is that there is the appearance that literally everything bad is caused by AGW. Seriously, I can't think of one natural disaster or conflict (other than earthquakes/volcanoes) that hasn't been blamed on AGW.

You haven't looked or you only read sensational headlines. There have been impact studies that show benefits to global warming. Particularly the midwest in the US. Agriculture worldwide will benefit.

 

[Subyman]

Is an expected regional effect a more stable United States?
Imagine the propaganda you'd be buying wholesale if we repeated our own droughts of the 30s and 50s.

Could be. Like I said, the US is often shown to benefit from global warming. I'd have to do some digging to find the journal articles.

The difference between me and you is that I am open to the ideas of a changing environment and am interested in what the potential impacts are, both good and bad. It is highly fascinating. Its too bad some people are too hung up on not accepting the simple mechanisms of green house gases to move on to exploring the changes we may face.

 

[fskimospy]

Is an expected regional effect a more stable United States?
Imagine the propaganda you'd be buying wholesale if we repeated our own droughts of the 30s and 50s.

More Steven Goddard I see. In this case, as in many others, if Goddard is trying to make the case you're making he's lying to you. By not controlling for other factors you're conducting an invalid analysis.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Science is not always equations on a chalkboard that are irrefutable. There are plenty of fields that show probabilities and extrapolations. They all explain the downsides or window of error. Droughts in California cause unrest, but not in the same way as the middle east. Unrest in the US is typically economical or crime based. It is amazing how you obfuscate issues like trying to compare california to syria...

The word may was used twice to arrive at a rather dubious conclusion. Not only is this "conclusion" highly subjective, it's not even remotely close to being anything close to scientific fact. It's speculation...nothing more.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jesus, these scientists are just crazy. The next thing you know and they will be telling us that Black Death plague is tied to the climate in Asia, that Europe always experienced plague outbreaks after central Asia had a wet spring followed by a warm summer, terrible conditions for black rats, but ideal for Asia’s gerbil population. Those sneaky rodents and their bacteria-ridden fleas then hitched a ride to Europe via the Silk Road, arriving on the continent a few years later to wreak epidemiological havoc. Anybody can just make this shit up.

 

[Jaskalas]

More Steven Goddard I see. In this case, as in many others, if Goddard is trying to make the case you're making he's lying to you. By not controlling for other factors you're conducting an invalid analysis.

That's NOAA's PMDI data for the US... and you think you can somehow deny it?

Yeah... I think it's crystal clear the propaganda we'd be seeing from you guys, if the drought of the 30s and 50s returned.

 

[Subyman]

Jesus, these scientists are just crazy. The next thing you know and they will be telling us that Black Death plague is tied to the climate in Asia, that Europe always experienced plague outbreaks after central Asia had a wet spring followed by a warm summer, terrible conditions for black rats, but ideal for Asia’s gerbil population. Those sneaky rodents and their bacteria-ridden fleas then hitched a ride to Europe via the Silk Road, arriving on the continent a few years later to wreak epidemiological havoc. Anybody can just make this shit up.

Go through the research to find weather patterns and climate data at the time. Test your hypothesis. There absolutely could've been a weather based impact on the spread. You may have an article there if you cared enough to find the evidence. It is just "shit" until you back it up.

 

[Atreus21]

Go through the research to find weather patterns and climate data at the time. Test your hypothesis. There absolutely could've been a weather based impact on the spread. You may have an article there if you cared enough to find the evidence. It is just "shit" until you back it up.

I think you didn't detect his sarcasm.

 

[Atreus21]

Its too bad some people are too hung up on not accepting the simple mechanisms of green house gases to move on to exploring the changes we may face.

If it was that simple, I wouldn't be averse to it. But the issue has been politicized and its skeptics excoriated to such an extent as to arouse suspicion.

 

[fskimospy]

That's NOAA's PMDI data for the US... and you think you can somehow deny it?

Yeah... I think it's crystal clear the propaganda we'd be seeing from you guys, if the drought of the 30s and 50s returned.

Huh? This is what comes from reading too much Steven Goddard.

Climate change makes droughts more likely and it makes them more likely to be more severe. That in no way means we couldn't or didn't have severe droughts in the past, and it doesn't mean that droughts that happen today are entirely caused by climate change or anything like that.

It's sad that you're trying to paint scientists as propagandists, especially because the reason you're doing so is that you've fallen victim to climate denial propaganda.

 

[realibrad]

I think you didn't detect his sarcasm.

Maybe. Its hard to tell with him though.

 

[Subyman]

The word may was used twice to arrive at a rather dubious conclusion. Not only is this "conclusion" highly subjective, it's not even remotely close to being anything close to scientific fact. It's speculation...nothing more.

Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007−2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone.

Again from the abstract. 2-3 times more likely from evidence in the article. This isn't idle speculation or back-of-the-napkin estimates. You can dive into their method if you want to, again the article is there. Its funny how you accuse them of speculation when you are doing just that.

 

[Subyman]

If it was that simple, I wouldn't be averse to it. But the issue has been politicized and its skeptics excoriated to such an extent as to arouse suspicion.

No amount of politicizing or moron pundits changes hard science. Quit looking at all that and research the real science yourself.

 

[Subyman]

I think you didn't detect his sarcasm.

Hard to tell in P&N.

 

[Moonbeam]

I 100% agree. Climate change deniers have become so brainwashed that even common sense arguments about its effects are treated as some sort of conspiracy.

You have to wonder how people got this nuts, you know?

Sadly, liberals have a brain defect that causes them to deny the reasons that neuroscience has demonstrated as the cause. We have our conservative climate deniers and our liberal causes of conservative brain defect deniers.

Are you acquainted with Jonathan Haigt's work?:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

 

[Moonbeam]

Hard to tell in P&N.

Does anybody actually believe my hypothesis? Sure, I bet if I scoured the scientific literature for say tree ring growth in Asia, around the time of plague outbreaks, is such data even exists, I could maybe find one or two places where there could be a connection, but what would cause me to think of doing that first. As we should well be aware, when a scientific hypothesis is made, it isn't invented out of the air. Some scientific question has to arise that causes science to postulate a possible link. What in Gods name would make me wonder if Gerbils in Asia would have anything to do with the Black Plague?

But I am convinced now that gerbils caused the Arab Spring.