backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Sep 13 at 8:48 PM


The Dust Bowl of the 1930s was the worst drought in US history
A primary tenet of global warming alarmism is invalidated.

A recurring theme in my past columns is that a moderate degree of global warming is likely to be beneficial to mankind. Al Gore, on the other hand, says climate change is already causing catastrophic results. In testimony before Congress last March, he stated, "droughts are [already] becoming longer and more intense". But the findings of a group of University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers say otherwise.

The scientists, led by Gemma Narisma, examined 100 years of global rainfall data. Using sophisticated wavelet analysis methods, they identified 30 cases of severe droughts lasting 10 or more years. The results showed the number of droughts dropping sharply over time. From 1900-1920, seven droughts, another seven from from 1920-1940, and eight from 1940-1960. But after that, the picture changes. In the period 1960-1980, only five droughts were recorded, and from 1980-2000 (the warmest period of all), only three occurred. Furthermore, of the most severe droughts, none began in the last 30 years..

The researchers found another surprising result. Changes in rainfall levels are not only much more common than previously thought, but they tend to occur in a very abrupt, unexplained manner. More proof that climate change is part of nature.

The work represents the first systematic survey of abrupt climate changes that have occurred in recent history. Professor Johnathan Foley, who also participated in the research, says the study is important, "because previous work largely focused on ancient climates or theoretical changes in future climates".

The findings are published in Geophysical Research Letters.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Environmentalism, the new religion
By Schrag4 on 9/12/2007 12:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
"I'll never buy the argument that you need to kill people to save people..."

Wow, are you really so dense that you can't even come up with a single hypothetical situation? What if some monster, let's call him 'Hitler', just a hypothetical of course, was actually succeeding at wiping out an entire race? Couldn't you kill him and a few hundred thousand of his goons to save millions?

Ok, in all seriousness, a real hypothetical. What if you had a hostage situation where the hostage taker was killing a hostage every hour and he had already killed 2 of them after 2 hours? And he had no apparent demands? I can't think of a simpler situation where it's obvious that ending his life would indeed save many others. Of course you can try non-lethal means of stopping him, but that's not always an option that leads to the least loss of life.

Seriously, Murst, making such sweeping generalized statements really makes you sound either dumb or at least extremely political (in other words deceitful).


By Murst on 9/12/2007 3:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. I should not have phrased my statement as such. I will completely agree that if someone is threatening the right to life of another being, they can be killed (however, I will disagree that they should be killed after the fact - no death penalty)

My statement was meant more in terms of ideology such as environmental issues, abortion, etc.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki