I wonder if you've heard of this old piece from co2science.org (1) which just now has made its way to Christopher Booker at the UK's Telegraph paper (2).
Booker says that G Narisma (3) found that there were more droughts in the early part of last century than in the later part. This seemed to me to run counter to the aim of the paper, which seemed to be an exploration of drought properties for possible use in climate models. Booker is trying to use it as further evidence of the rickety scaffolding that is the global warming religion, as is Lubos, which is where I first came across this. (Booker also repeats a lot of hogwash and misdirection about the recent US temperature correction, by the by.) My question is this: Is the relative lack of droughts an indication that the models are flawed? How to explain this dip in frequency? REFS (1) http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N29/EDIT.jsp (2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/nbook109.xml (3) "Abrupt Changes in Rainfall in the Twentieth Century", GEOPHYS RES LETT, 34(6), 2007. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
