backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Polynikes.. on Sep 15 at 3:09 PM


  (Source: StormVideographer.com)
It might be a little premature to declare a primary tenet of global warming theory "invalidated" ...

Analysis of rainfall and surface moisture trends have led to a number of studies investigating whether the Earth has been undergoing drying, or whether drying is reversing.

Fellow DailyTech blogger Michael Asher recently reported on one study that analyzed historical rainfall data between 1900 to 2000, and using wavelet analysis concluded that droughts were decreasing, and that major drought events were decreasing as well.

Another study, released just days before by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), analyzed the data on rainfall and concluded that worldwide the Earth is undergoing significant drying effects.  In particular, much of the Mediterranean area, North Africa and the Middle East are rapidly becoming drier. 

The study goes on to use this data to predict current weather patterns.

This study continues a long chain of research which supports a unanimous conclusion that the Earth is experiencing significant drying.

In 2006, the British government funded a climate study carried out by the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. 

Its conclusion: global drought increased 25 percent in the 1990s.

It also modeled possible future weather scenarios and found that indicated that extreme drought could affect 30 percent of the world's land surface, up from the current span of 3 percent.  Severe drought (the next worse) would rise from 8% land area to 40%, and mild drought would rise from 25% to 50%.

In 2005, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a U.S. government funded research center, released a study that the percentage of Earth's land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s.

It also found that drought had increased and surface moisture had decreased, on average, worldwide.

Along the lines of the study mentioned in the other Dailytech article, it found that water vapor in the air and global precipitation have increased over the past few decades--however, warming caused the moisture to evaporate at a faster rate, and land moisture levels have been dropping, leading to droughts.

To examine how soil moisture has evolved over the last few decades, the NCAR researchers produced a unique global-scale analysis using the Palmer index, which for decades has been the most widely used yardstick of U.S. drought. The Palmer index is a measure of near-surface moisture conditions and is correlated with soil moisture content.

Interestingly, the study indicated that the U.S. has become wetter over the past 50 years, while most of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere has dried.

While rainfall has increased worldwide, the study found that it has decreased in Africa's Sahel and East Asia, leading to further expansion of dry soils.

The conclusions of these studies: the U.S. may be getting wetter, and rainfall may not be decreasing, but land moisture is definitely decreasing, due to increasing temperatures.  Decreased land moisture will lead to more droughts, and more extreme droughts, as the soil experiences further decrease in moisture.

While this is only one element of global warming and climate change theory, it certainly seems premature to declare it "invalidated," as some critics are inclined to proclaim.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2007 1:54:45 PM , Rating: 1
The article is incorrect. The 2006 GISS study did not examine any actual data. It simply applied computer modelling to simulate future conditions. You can't compare a simulation to actual historical rainfall data...especially given the the fact that GISS modelling has not once yet accurately predicted any climate trend.

The 2005 NCAR study cited is also misrepresented. First of all, it didn't examine precipitation at all, but used the PDSI as a proxy to measure soil dryness...and it specifically stated the increase in dryness was due primarily to surface warming, not any decrease in precipitation. The paper concluded there may be in an increased risk of droughts for the future, but it did not measure any actual increase.

(Actual paper at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai_pdsi_p... )

Also, when the newest of these research papers is over a year old, I question the presentation of this as "news". The NCAR study was actually first presented for publication in early 2004...an eternity ago in the fast-moving field of climate research.




RE: Not correct
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/12/2007 2:09:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The article is incorrect. The 2006 GISS study did not examine any actual data. It simply applied computer modelling to simulate future conditions. You can't compare a simulation to actual historical rainfall data...especially given the the fact that GISS modelling has not once yet accurately predicted any climate trend.


"By comparing historical records of the climate impact of changes in the sun's output with model projections of how a warmer climate driven by greenhouse gases would change rainfall patterns, the researchers found that a warmer future climate will likely produce droughts in the same areas as those observed in ancient times, but potentially with greater severity."

From GISS page:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070212/

Historical data is not "actual data"?? Curious.

Also:
quote:
used the PDSI as a proxy to measure soil dryness...and it specifically stated the increase in dryness was due primarily to surface warming


From my article:
"It also found that drought had increased and surface moisture had decreased, on average, worldwide.

Along the lines of the study mentioned in the other Dailytech article, it found that water vapor in the air and global precipitation have increased over the past few decades-- however, warming caused the moisture to evaporate at a faster rate, and land moisture levels have been dropping, leading to droughts .

To examine how soil moisture has evolved over the last few decades, the NCAR researchers produced a unique global-scale analysis using the Palmer index, which for decades has been the most widely used yardstick of U.S. drought. The Palmer index is a measure of near-surface moisture conditions and is correlated with soil moisture content. "

Reading the article, I clearly state this, I did not misrepresent it at all. The study includes an analysis which indicates that percipitation has increased slightly over the last couple decades, as I even mentioned.

quote:
The paper concluded there may be in an increased risk of droughts for the future, but it did not measure any actual increase.


The paper specifically mentions the amount of land experiencing very dry conditions has increased. That sounds like a drought to me. Reread the institute's press release:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/ncf...

quote:
Also, when the newest of these research papers is over a year old, I question the presentation of this as "news". The NCAR study was actually first presented for publication in early 2004...an eternity ago in the fast-moving field of climate research.


The research paper your article cited was also written in 2006, published in 2007, as was the GISS paper I cited. Anyone who clicks the link you provided can see that.

I simply cited more studies than you did.

And the publishing of climate papers may be "fast paced", as is the development of theories and models, but actual data and trends develop at a very slow pace, so a period of two years does not increase or decrease a studies factuality. The only difference it makes is it less likely for the public to find it a catchy news story by the study correlating the changes or lack thereof to current weather events.

I would expect better from you than this weak rebuttal. When I specifically write something and you write a reply that tells me that I did mention that thing, that either tells me you are arguing sentence semantics or you did not read the article and/or sources carefully.

Michael, I was hoping for a far better reply from someone of your intelligence.


RE: Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not correct
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/12/2007 2:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
The University of Wisconsin-Madison study:

Received 30 October 2006; accepted 26 February 2007; published 30 March 2007.

The GISS study (Shindell, et. al. )

appeared in v. 33, Geophysical Research Letters, received July 2006, published Dec 2006. Not 2007.

I can't see why you would complain about a difference of three months between the publishing date of the two studies. Both studies are more than a few months old.


RE: Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2007 2:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
Come Jason, your article stated:
quote:
"another study, released just days before...analyzed the data on rainfall and concluded that worldwide the Earth is undergoing significant drying effects"
The study was actually released the previous year, it didn't analyze rainfall, and it simply predicted future droughts, and made no statement about present conditions.

Your statement was wrong on all three counts, and you ask why I questioned it?


RE: Not correct
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/12/2007 3:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
NASA had issued a press release (not the study) days before, so I agree you are right correct the first point, but I think you are nitpicking for points against me.

quote:
didn't analyze rainfall,


The study did analyze rainfall data which it cited in the study. It used this data to test its model and draw conclusions.

For example, from the article

"Reductions in monsoon rainfall may have contributed to
cultural events in Asia such as the collapse of Angkor early
in the Little Ice Age."


quote:
made no statement about present conditions


From the study:
"We also performed transient climate simulations
using the same setup as the solar runs without chemistry.
These experiments ran from 1880 to 2003 using observed
forcings..."


They did examine current scenarios via simulation.

Again, I would prefer if you would specifically refute the scientific theories or data used within the papers I mentioned as opposed to picking out small points where you don't think I stated something precisely correct.

While you can obviously do the latter, I feel you would make a stronger case if you based your arguments on the former.


RE: Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2007 3:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "The study did analyze rainfall data which it cited in the study...For example.."

You're even further off base here. A single remark that rainfall reductions "may" have contributed to a civilization collapse several hundred years ago is not an analysis of rainfall data. The study did not examine any rainfall records, nor did it use rainfall data to draw any conclusions. It simply made an offhand remark to demonstrate the potential impact of drought on mankind.

> "From the study: "We also performed transient climate simulations...These experiments ran from 1880 to 2003..."

You're still dodging the point. The study didn't conclude anything about current conditions. It didn't try to claim droughts have gotten worse. It only attempted to model future conditions. Clearly, your summary of the paper was incorrect.

Now, I don't blame you for misinterpreting it, as the GISS press release was (as usual for them) written in a very misleading manner. But let's be honest. There is research out there that supports your position. But this paper isn't one of them.


RE: Not correct
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:24:25 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah basically I could come up with a study where my model takes historical data and applies a predictive model to it where 100% of the earth will be covered by extreme drought in 10 years. Wow, if we believed my new study our only solution would be to kill ourselves before we get embroiled in some sort of Malthusian tragedy. So yeah, everyone just drink some of my special Kool-Aid and you will be just fine.


RE: Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2007 2:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
It took me a while to dig up the third paper cited, as the
'Environmental News Service' story didn't cite an author or title, but it was eventually uncovered. Turns out it's based on computer simulations as well, using the Hadley Centre GCM (global climate model):

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ab...


RE: Not correct
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 1
"with model projections of how a warmer climate driven by greenhouse gases would change rainfall patterns"

...and this "warmer climate driven by greenhouse gases" is not an assumption? They could pulled that model from their collective asses for all we know. Historical fact + alarmist projection = alarmist catastrophic scenario. Wow, that was hard to figure out. People like to assign more power to themselves than they really have. There is nothing we can go in such short time frames to cause change on a global scale like that article states.


RE: Not correct
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/12/2007 3:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from these papers, there are numerous articles which discuss record droughts both in the U.S. and abroad, which support the conclusion that while precipitation may be increasing worldwide, the desparity between wet and dry areas is increasing.

For example, from the Environmental News Network (which I know you probably don't approve of)

"Drought Reduces Level of Lake Okeechobee, Threatens Water Supply in South Florida"
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/6654

"China Creates Artificial Snowfall in Tibet"
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/6392

"North Carolina Drought Worsens, Lowest Streamflows In More Than 110 Years"
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/22700

"USDA Declares Colorado, Iowa and Maryland Disaster Areas In 3 States"
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/22293

"Australian Water Crisis Could Be Worse Than Thought"
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/6573

"Indiana: High Temperatures, Low Precipitation Creating Many Problems"
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/22156

And from other sources....

Florida's drought
http://stormvideographer.com/blog/2007/04/04/flori...

Current U.S. drought
http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

California's driest year in 230 years
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/western_drought.html

Australian drought
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/drought.html

U.S. droughts
http://www.dailyyonder.com/drought-2007-what-maps-...

America's Worst Drought Since the Dustbowl
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/artic...

N.Y. Times on Drought Conditions Worldwide
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=hea...

There is a lot of data out there that shows that 2007 has been a very bad drought year, and much data to show that droughts resulting from soil drying due to warming are an increasing trend. It is hard to deny this fact, even if one or two studies do some sort of statistical analysis to skew the numbers to make it look like this phenomena is not occuring.


RE: Not correct
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 4:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Most of these articles talk about current or recent drought conditions - I don't see anything which really looks at the longer-term trend, not to mention tie-in to global warming, not to mention tie-in to human CO2 generation.

It seems like you're engaging in some kind of shotgun debating technique, to me at least.


RE: Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2007 4:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
> " there are numerous articles which discuss record droughts both in the U.S. and abroad"

Article 2: Nothing to do with "record drought". It demonstrates Chinese efforts to combat drought in case of future need .

Article 4:
quote:
USDA said Delta County, Colorado, was designated a natural primary disaster area because of losses caused by a freeze that occurred in April. Rio Blanco County, Colorado, also was impacted by frost and freezing temperatures in June and drought that is ongoing since May.

USDA said Audubon, Crawford, Fremont, Harrison, Monona, Pottawattamie, Polk and Tama counties in Iowa had a freeze in early April...
Were you including this as a joke?

Article 5: New South Wales is experiencing drought conditions, but I don't see anything about a "record drought".

Article 6: No "record droughts" here either. Some portions of Indiana are drier than they've been in 50 years. Meaning, they were drier in 1960 than today.

Article 7: Same area as article 1. It's still just one small area, no matter how many times you report it.

Article 8: Just a map of current US conditions. No "record breaking" droughts mentioned.

Article 9: "California has a history of drought, sometimes lasting 100 years, as far back as 1,100 years ago". Sounds like nothing new for the area to me.

Article 11: No "record droughts" mentioned. Some areas in the US are experiencing a drought (which you've already covered in prior links).

Article 12: Entitled, "America's Worst Drought Since the Dust Bowl". Meaning, "drought was worse in the 1930s than today". Explain again how you believe this proves global warming is responsible? And how many times are you going to repeat the same areas?

Pick a year, any year at all, and you'll find some regional areas will break records. Hottest temperature, coldest temperature, most rainfall, least rainfall, most storms, fewest storms, etc, etc. This is natural, normal, and in no way indicative of anything at all, other than natural variability.


RE: Not correct
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/12/2007 5:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
The point is the worldwide prevalence of these droughts.

quote:
Were you including this as a joke?


Article 4:

"Separately, 22 Maryland counties were declared disaster areas because of drought and excessive heat that has occurred since June."

Middle of the article, mentions droughts, clearly.

I agree that some of these are not "record-breakers", but it does show an overall increase in incidence of droughts.

quote:
Pick a year, any year at all, and you'll find some regional areas will break records. Hottest temperature, coldest temperature, most rainfall, least rainfall, most storms, fewest storms, etc, etc. This is natural, normal, and in no way indicative of anything at all, other than natural variability.


Soil moisture is a far better way to look at whether droughts are occuring/will occur, as preciptation can increase, but given sufficient increase in evaporation, the soil can actually dry.

For some more good reading:

"Drought halts Wildebeest Trek"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989...

"Drought devastates Romanian agriculture: World Vision plans relief"
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/SJHG-...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989...

"Major Drought in Moldova"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/25072007ne...

"Record Drought in Turkey"
http://mnweekly.ru/world/20070816/55268085.html


RE: Not correct
By masher2 (blog) on 9/12/2007 5:44:05 PM , Rating: 1
> "Middle of the article, mentions droughts, clearly."

Right...after mentioning all the areas hit by record cold, it mentions some that have droughts. What was your point again?

> "it does show an overall increase in incidence of droughts"

How so? Scrounging up a few random web links is not a statistical survey, and proves nothing. I can quickly round up several dozen links showing areas which have had record-breaking cold recently. Does that prove the globe is getting colder?


RE: Not correct
By theflux on 9/12/2007 7:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree that some of these are not "record-breakers", but it does show an overall increase in incidence of droughts.


No, actually it doesn't.


RE: Not correct
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
Coming up with some examples of droughts is poor form. It means nothing. Come back with some real ammunition next time.


RE: Not correct
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 11:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
You speak of many US droughts while citing an article that says the US is getting moister. Some record droughts here and there do not an alarming catastrophic drought-prone world make.


RE: Not correct
By nangryo on 9/12/2007 11:07:20 PM , Rating: 3
Just adding something

here in my homeland (Indonesia), drought is almost increasing each year in some area, whereas in some area there is flood. The government even recently warn farmer not exert to do rice plantation because of the upcoming prolonging drought.

Even thought there some area with flood, its scale is minor compared to the drought area.

This is fact, not just from research .

I hope this will make thing's a bit clearer.


Oh boy
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/12/2007 1:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think I will stick to my military and space tech rather than get involved in the global warming debate between you and masher. >.>




RE: Oh boy
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/12/2007 1:19:05 PM , Rating: 5
On a side note, perhaps you two should pick a topic and do a point and counter-point article going back and forth. Might be more practical.


RE: Oh boy
By jskirwin on 9/12/2007 1:32:50 PM , Rating: 3
GEEK FIGHT!!!

(slap)(slap)(slap)


RE: Oh boy
By novacthall on 9/12/2007 2:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see that very much. Both Mr. Asher and Mr. Mick are clearly intelligent fellows, and to bring the differing viewpoints together in one forum would be a treat, indeed.


RE: Oh boy
By 3kliksphilip on 9/12/2007 4:11:24 PM , Rating: 5
It's good to see somebody capable of taking the other viewpoint. I've grown weary of Masher's attacks on anybody that even SUGGESTS global warming. At least by having Jason Mick Daily Tech can at least claim to offer both viewpoints. I logged on today, saw this article and laughed. It's made my day.


RE: Oh boy
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 7:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the idea of what you say, but this article seems thrown together and doesn't really stand up to serious analysis of Jason's conclusions.


RE: Oh boy
By James Holden on 9/12/2007 1:36:22 PM , Rating: 1
The only problem I have is GISS are KNOWN crackpots. I of course respect anyone in the science community; people actually doing something other than armchair scientists like myself.

But interview after interview of GISS New York employees makes me cringe. Those are just not centered researchers, and almost all of their research is doom and gloom to get more funding.

Maybe doom and gloom is the only scenario for our future. But if I saw GISS do at least one opposing study for climate change that didn't include images of water 20 feet high on the old WTC in 2080 then I would be more likely to believe them.


RE: Oh boy
By Ringold on 9/12/2007 2:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
All I had to do to know that is look at their homepage. Alarmist article after alarmist article, many of which have seemingly little to do with what "GISS" supposedly means.

Anybody that extreme isn't credible, and that therefore reflects for me on the blog posts credibility. That'd be no different than qouting studies done by known communist front groups to support a supposedly balanced blog post supporting communisms performance.


RE: Oh boy
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 3:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, GISS is a very shameful part of the federal government - they should be de-funded immediately.


RE: Oh boy
By PitViper007 on 9/13/2007 8:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed... ;)


So epic.
By i4mt3hwin on 9/12/2007 2:45:00 PM , Rating: 5
Masher vs Mick

I got my popcorn ready.




RE: So epic.
By Zurtex on 9/12/2007 3:27:41 PM , Rating: 4
It saves me so much time, effort and research though.

Arguing with Masher is tiring, I wish Mick good luck.


RE: So epic.
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 3:44:35 PM , Rating: 3
Michael seems to have all the facts in the universe immediately available at his fingertips, not to mention a very strong intellect to be able to tie things together into logical arguments.


RE: So epic.
By emboss on 9/13/2007 4:46:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Michael seems to have all the facts in the universe immediately available at his fingertips


It's called Google :)


RE: So epic.
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 9:35:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think so - I think he has access to more than what is on google. I'm very good with google searches, but I can't come up with the same kind of information that Michael does.


RE: So epic.
By A5un on 9/13/2007 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yea I'll give you that. It seems like he can just dig up stuff like nobody's business.

I tried countering his claim couple of times, and each time, he'll find find paper somewhere that support his claim. Validity of these papers aside, as I think people give scientists or anyone who publishes a paper way too much credit, it's amazing that he can do that. When you've got other people to support your claim, your claim all of a sudden appears a lot more concrete and logical. Needless to say, the only ways to counter such countermeasure is to discredit the scientists behind the papers (which needless to say is very difficult) or to find another paper supporting my claim (which is just time consuming).

Though I don't agree with Michael with a lot of current issues, I do like seeing his posts.

And might I suggest something? I know there are a lot of GW skeptists out there, and there should be. And I don't know if something like this has been published before. But, couldn't the ever increasing ozone hole in the arctics be a primary factor in the cooling of the global. As there's less and less atmosphere, heat is less efficiently "trapped" on earth. The absorptivity between vaccuum and atmosphere is vastly different. Though the increasing CO2 level "may" have a directly proportional effect with temperature, the increasing ozone hole may act in the other way to offset this increase. Therefore, we get the end result which is that we don't see much of a change.

Well, that's just me and my tin-foil hat talking.


Related to Global Warming? Or other factors?
By geddarkstorm on 9/12/2007 5:04:11 PM , Rating: 3
I do have to disagree with the general interpretation of the studies, Jason. Mostly, in that soil moisture is affected by far more than precipitation: cloud cover, vegetative cover and composition, and soil composition are the three main forces I can think of. These factors are too important (all together more so than just temperature, as 'cold and sunny' gravel with no plant cover will retain no soil moisture as well) and no study that overlooks them can be taken very seriously. All of these interplay.

If precipitation is staying the same, other factors must be investigated instead of just saying there's a growing chance for drought and it's connected to growing temperatures. If the whole Mediterranean area is being over grazed, farmed, or clear cut, then there sure is going to be a growing possibility of drought. Only if all these factors are held constant can the effects of temperature on drought be reliably looked at.




RE: Related to Global Warming? Or other factors?
By andrinoaa on 9/13/2007 6:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
Here in Melbourne, Australia ( not Austria ! ) we haven't had good rains in over 15yrs. The ice caps are melting, pacific islands are disappearing and Venice is sinking, just in case no one has noticed. If it rains more in the ocean but less on land,do we have a drought?
If the people who study these things say its us, I'm inclined to beleive them. After all, what part of science do you beleive and what part don't you beleive? If it is us and we do nothing, what kind of F&*&^%g animals are we? If its not us, what harm can we do? DOH. I for one am not inclined to put up my arms and say its too overwhelming.
We have the luxury to be smug in the "civilized west", but what will we do if humanitarian disasters occur globaly? This could affect half the global human population !! Are you going to stop 50 - 300 million refugees?
Think of the problem as an insurance risk. At what rate will your insurance company abandon your policy, 2%, 5% ?
Scientists are telling us the risk is greater than 10%
If this isn't food for thought, you ain't thinking but the bean counters are!
We don't have the luxury of waiting 50 yrs to see if its man made or natural cycles. Its do now while there is hope or do nothing because there is no hope. Which band are you in? We pray to god in hope for miracles ( the impossible we can do, miracles take a little longer lol lol ) but surely when hope is based on advantageous probability we fail to grasp it ?!?!?!
Where is my logic wrong?


By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2007 9:10:18 AM , Rating: 2
> "Venice is sinking".

Indeed it is. It's built on unstable marshy ground, and has been sinking for the past 1000 years. It's dropped 24 cm just in the past century. And it has nothing to do with global warming.

> "Here in Melbourne, Australia...we haven't had good rains in over 15yrs"

The drought Eastern Australia is now experiencing is not nearly as severe as the one which began there in the late 1930s. Australia is prone to droughts; this is a natural state of affairs.

> "what will we do if humanitarian disasters occur globaly? "

The planet warmed more in during the Medieval Climate Optimum than its expected to do over the next 100 years. No "disasters" were experienced by humanity; in fact, the climate was one of the most stable, salubrious periods in man's history.

> "Think of the problem as an insurance risk"

In this case, the cost of that insurance policy is far more expensive than any possible payoff, as many economists have pointed out. Kyoto, for instance, is estimated to cost the world up to one trillion dollars alone-- for a net reduction in world temperatures of 0.07 degrees over the next 50 years. That's IF the alarmists are correct and the warming isn't natural...if they're wrong, its zero reduction.

The difference between a world that warms 2 degrees and a world that warms 2.07 degrees is too small to measure. Far better to spend that trillion dollars actually helping people.


RE: Related to Global Warming? Or other factors?
By TomZ on 9/13/2007 9:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The difference between a world that warms 2 degrees and a world that warms 2.07 degrees is too small to measure. Far better to spend that trillion dollars actually helping people.

And that's really the point of AGW skeptics - we should be devoting our attention, time, and money to something that is worthwhile instead. A lot of people in the world are suffering due to poverty, malnutrition, disease, etc - TODAY AS IN RIGHT NOW - and so I think it is pretty irresponsible that people accept this as the status quo and instead focus money on some possible future hypothetical problem. Imagine what kind of impact the "Kyoto trillion" could have in helping people in need in Africa for example.


RE: Related to Global Warming? Or other factors?
By sxr7171 on 9/13/2007 12:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's because we in the west have it too good. We sit here in our big-ass SUVs driving alone to the mall and worry about "Global Warming." We have too much free time on our hands and we'd rather spend billions of dollars on curbing some stupid crisis we imagined because we have nothing better to do than imagine up all sorts of disaster scenarios. How about spending that money on poverty right here in the US? How about that for a fucking "cause." We are so pompous as to think that what we can cause any more than a tiny dent in something so vast and dwarfing as GLOBAL climate patterns. How about spending money on something we actually have half a chance at actually affecting? The worst part of this is that we sit in our SUVs and expect developing nations to impede their progress so that we can feel better about doing "something" for the environment. This is all feel good bullshit by hypocrites.


By TomZ on 9/13/2007 12:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.


Relavance to Dailytech
By Flunk on 9/12/2007 3:52:35 PM , Rating: 3
If you read the About page it states:

" DailyTech is a leading online magazine for a well-educated, tech audience. Our readers enjoy hard-hitting and up to the minute CE, PC, IT and information technology news. DailyTech’s fast-moving content also reaches out via news syndications, public portals, and forums. "

How does this political/semi-scientific blog post relate to Dailytech's mandate. I submit that it does not and that perhaps Dailytech needs to review the way posts are edited, maybe even require peer editing on all new news articles at least if not blog posts.




RE: Relavance to Dailytech
By Flunk on 9/12/2007 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Before anyone says this, I meant relevance. That is a typo.


RE: Relavance to Dailytech
By B on 9/12/2007 4:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
You may have missed this, but your point was explained on other DailyTech Blog comments.

1.) The Blogs are meerley hosted by DailyTech, the authors are not paid for their entries and are entitled to post just about anything they wish.

2.) Dailytech has a huge audience from NASA and the NOAA and it would follow that this segment of the audience would probably be quite interested in reading these posts.


This almost makes me...
By Puddyglum1 on 9/12/2007 6:12:38 PM , Rating: 3
Wish that we could rate the articles, not just the comments. This one seems like the retort of a politician who relies on sketchy facts to try and overwhelm the discussion.

"Oh, this" began Filby, "is all----"
"Why not?" said the Time Traveller.
"It's against reason," said Filby.
"What reason?" said the Time Traveller.
"You can show black is white by argument," said Filby, "but you will never convince me."




RE: This almost makes me...
By theflux on 9/12/2007 7:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.


RE: This almost makes me...
By TomZ on 9/12/2007 7:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, I would like being able to rate an article.


Please qualify
By Martimus on 9/12/2007 2:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its conclusion: global drought increased 25 percent in the 1990s


Increased from what? The 80's? The rest of the 1900's? From the rest of Earths History? That statement doesn't tell me anything. Please qualify it, so that I know what you are talking about.

I made the assumption that your article would have more meat to it than Mr. Asher's, because his was pretty thin, but this one is even thinner. I feel like I know nothing more about global warming than I did before I read either article.




Was this really necessary?
By theflux on 9/12/2007 2:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
This should have been posted in the comments of the other thread. You might as well have titled it "Researchers: NUH-UH"




Jeez
By Polynikes on 9/15/2007 3:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
No offense guys, but you're making science look more and more stupid. How are we supposed to convince the religious types that science is fact when clearly scientists can't agree on the same topic. I mean, droughts are either getting more common or less common. How the hell can two groups of intelligent people find completely different answers to the same questsion? It's not like this is quantum physics where things are being discovered and interpreted. There should be no debate in climate studies, it's either better or worse.

How can anyone be expected to pick a side when nobody in the scientific world agrees with one another?




Junk Science
By arazok on 9/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Junk Science
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/12/2007 3:14:26 PM , Rating: 3
The study's model was predicting based on land surface area, not total surface area, hence the "30 percent of the world's land surface".

I am sure you can find other valid arguments against the study, but that is not one of them.


RE: Junk Science
By arazok on 9/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Junk Science
By masher2 (blog) on 9/13/2007 11:01:05 PM , Rating: 1
> "I refuse to believe that 40% of the land mass will EVER experience 'severe drought' at any single moment."

Results like that are what happens when you take a simplified model of one aspect of a chaotic system, then extrapolate future behavior well past the realm for which your assumptions were valid.

In hundreds of millions of years of past history, the earth has never had anywhere near 40% of its land mass in drought conditions, even when CO2 levels were some 20X higher than they are today. This is the hallmark of the silliness coming out of GISS these days. If your models can't even accurately describe past conditions we know occurred, why on earth would you believe they're valid for future predictions?


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Related Articles
Researchers: Droughts Becoming Less Common
September 12, 2007, 9:13 AM
















botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki