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

By Kuroyama on 9/12/2007 1:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if we dump more water in the ocean it will not effect the amount of rain much because as the sea level rises the surface area (which is what matters for evaporation) will only increase minimally.

However, even if volume were what mattered, your point would not hold. The oceans have a total volume of water of 1.37 × 10^9 cubic kilometers. The Greenland glacier has a volume of 5 × 10^6 cubic kilometers, and the Antarctic ice cap has a volume of about 6.5 × 10^7 cubic kilometers. And of course, when ice melts it loses some of its volume in changing to water.

So, even if the Greenland glacier melts entirely then it will only add 0.5% to the volume of the oceans. Hypothetically, if the Antarctic ice cap were to melt then it woul raise the volume around 5%, which on the "more water = more rain" hypothesis would still only effect rainfall minimally (but would raise sea levels by 200 feet so rain would be the least of our worries).

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki