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: If you stop and think about it.....
By Murst on 9/12/2007 2:25:19 PM , Rating: 1
It is very egotistical to think we aren't just another animal on this planet.

We humans are the only ones to come up with all sorts of things

Isn't that a contradiction? Sure, if you take the view that everything that is made up of cells is equal, then yes, we're no different from a roach. However, I think you'll be in the minority here. I think most would agree that we are by far the most unique beings on this planet.

Mother nature changes constantly, this destroys old species that can't adapt to make way for new species that can.

Exactly. I completely agree with you there. However, the point I'm trying to make is that the same should not apply to humans, especially when we don't have clue as to the effects.

Today humans can to some extent cheat the evolution system and provide vaccine's and technology to keep us alive even when naturally we would die.

I'd have to disagree with you here. Just because we're not evolving to physically cope with these, it doesn't mean we're not evolving. Our evolution is in our mental abilities to deal with issues such as the ones you've listed.

We may be capable of many things, but thinking you can beat mother nature is laughable at best.

When have I ever stated we can "beat mother nature"? I've been arguing to let nature do its thing on its own all along. I think you missed my point completely.

RE: If you stop and think about it.....
By borismkv on 9/12/2007 4:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Did I actually say that humans were "just animals"? No. I was pointing out that the argument, "How many lost species is too far?" was flawed, simply because that's what happens in nature. There have been periods in Earth's history of MASS extinctions on a global scale, none of which was caused by humans. From a biological standpoint, it makes complete sense that in periods of extreme change (following the end of an ice age, at the begining of an ice age, just prior to and immediately after a very hot period) that more species would become extinct, simply because they cannot adapt quick enough to the rapid changes that occur to their environment. What bugs me most about this whole global warming thing is that the people who are so vocal against the changes in America's security policy due to terrorist activities (The government shouldn't be butting into my life and taking away my freedom!!!) are the same people who think that the government should step in and wrangle the entire Industrial structure of our country into complying with guildlines that might not even work at all ("But go ahead and take away those evil corporations' freedom...that's not a problem at all."). Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

RE: If you stop and think about it.....
By Murst on 9/12/2007 5:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I completely agree that the government should not be involved (except maybe in some extreme cases), unless it is funding research, education, or something similar.

Minimizing our contributions to global warming requires action from people anyways... the government, through rules and regulations, is not willing nor capable of changing the lifestyles of its citizens.

However, I'm also against the government pretending it is not an issue. IMHO, the government should be encouraging "green" behavior, but unfortunately, I do not think it will happen with this administration, at least not at the level it should be happening.

By TomZ on 9/12/2007 7:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, I think that the so-called "green" movement is the only policy area where Bush has been successful. His sandbagging of initiatives like Kyoto has allowed us to avoid the humiliation of being in any way associated with that trainwreck.

Green is good, but it has to be based on good science, not junk science. AGW is pure junk science at this point.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh
Related Articles

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