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

By Schrag4 on 9/13/2007 10:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Several of the authors on this website write as if they were heavily funded by big oil. Intelligent readers will draw their own conclusions."

Shouldn't this just come out and say 'If you agree with me then you are intelligent, otherwise your're not.'? Nice...

"It is very easy to buy some scientists and have them produce reports that support a viewpoint."

So, you're telling me not to listen to ANY scientists, because they may or may not have been bought. Yeah, that really helps your argument...

"As an aside, one might comment that when we look at the problems in America, and to some extent in the world, many of them come from allowing "freedom of speech" to mean "freedom to lie"."

You're right. None of the alarmist environmentalists would every lie to us to get us to change our ways. Ever. Or was your point that you don't want freedom of speech? Or is it ok to lie if you get someone to start doing what you think is the right thing?

Sorry for all the sarcasm, but your whole post was just a bunch of attacks against this site, which isn't debate and isn't helpful. You've persuaded nobody of anything. Very nicely done. Give us some counterpoints, stats, SOMETHING!

Also, isn't a pipeline the most efficient and least likely to pollute means of transporting oil (and other products)? In other words, isn't less oil burned if pipelines are used rather than trucking it around? It seems to me that opposing pipelines is asking for increased CO2 output. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles
















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