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 3:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are missing the point, because probably 100% of government spending pisses off someone.

- Defense spending? plenty of pacifists don't want to pay for it
- Police? plenty of African-American non-criminals don't like the police one bit
- Science? there are still plenty of Luddites left in the world
- etc. etc.

For instance, there was plenty of criticism some years ago on research on "cow flatulism". However, if say a cheap cow supplement could decrease their flatulence then this would do more for global warming than decreased carbon emissions, as Masher points out quite often. However, we spend billions on GW research, and nothing on "cow flatulism", because one sounds serious and the other sounds like a bad joke.

If you want to stop AIDS then you're going to have to study prostitutes, if you want to stop POTENTIAL man-made global warming then study cow flatulence too, and if want to stop teen sex then do a study into whether abstinence-only programs ACTUALLY work, etc etc. Otherwise you're just wasting our tax money.

Politicians should set the ground rules, and then let the scientists decide what research is relevant in reaching those goals (and this applies to Democrat politicians too).

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton
Related Articles

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