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: Michael, time to pull your head out.
By dluther on 9/13/2007 1:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Several of the authors on this website write as if they were heavily funded by big oil. Intelligent readers will draw their own conclusions.

If it were that simple, it would be almost understandable.

However, it appears that Michael Asher has fallen to a far more powerful force than money: pride.

Several conservative news sources have started using Michael Asher's blog here at DailyTech as a source for furthering AGW skepticism, including one of my US Senators -- Jim Inhofe.

It doesn't matter to these people that Michael Asher isn't a climatologist, or that he presents "evidence" from sources unrelated to climatology. For instance, a recent "news article" by Asher (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641) states that "Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints". However, this survey was done by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, a surgeon specializing endocrinology. Now, you may ask yourself what does endocrine surgery have to do with climatology, and if you come up with an answer, then you're doing a lot better than I am. However, I think that if a climatologist were to take exception to Dr. Schulte's research in the field of endocrinology, the conversation would be vastly different and very well justified. But since it's a detraction from anthropogenic global warming, it is accepted.

Michael Asher is a very well-spoken, intelligent person, with a keen ability to defend his positions with links to supporting research, and without stooping to name-calling.

However, I simply cannot agree with his positions or conclusions, because the evidence he continues to present doesn't come from reliable sources.


By GeorgeOrwell on 9/13/2007 7:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
The first step in helping to save our planet is not coming up with some indisputable grand unified theory of global temperature.

Though some people would have you believe that without such a theory, proven by at least 99.999% of all scientists on a scale from quantum mechanics to planetary ecology, progress is impossible.

These people are playing nothing more than the "divide and conquer" game. The division itself achieves the goal -- lack of ability to combat the big oil agenda.

To avoid being divided on an issue that is critical to the survival of this world, we must rely on common sense, wisdom, and morals.

Common sense tells us there are consequences for every action.

Wisdom tells us that science often takes decades, if not centuries, to really understand these consequences.

Wisdom also tells us that many scientific opinions that try to tell us that something obviously dangerous -- i.e. smoking -- is completely safe, are paid for by those who benefit from this deception.

And morality tells us that given the choice to do right by the world or to do wrong by the world, that it is our imperative to do right.

Hence, we do not need to pay attention to the cock fight that is pretending to establish truth through some one-sided presentation of so-called "scientific" research.

As governments, industry and individuals the world over make choices to save the world, the truth becomes obvious. And likewise the falsity of this blog becomes readily apparent to all.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Related Articles
















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