Death In The Sahel
By Paul Homewood
In 1977 Reid Bryson and Thomas Murray published Climate of Hunger, a book about changing climates:
https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/114865
This of course was during an era of falling global temperatures, and Bryson’s introduction made clear about the effects:
Climate is changing. Parts of our world have been cooling. Rain belts and food-growing areas have shifted. People are starving. And we have been too slow to realize what is happening and why. In recent years, world climate changes have drawn more attention than at any other time in history. What we once called "crazy weather," just a few years ago, is now beginning to be seen as part of a logical and, in part, predictable pattern, an awesome natural force that we must deal with if man is to avoid disaster of unprecedented proportions. Along with drought in some places and floods in others, both caused by changing wind patterns, average temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere have been falling. The old-fashioned winters our grandfathers spoke of might be returning. In England, the growing season has already been cut by as much as two weeks.
We commonly hear that global warming is making droughts worse, but Bryson’s book is a reminder that the opposite is the case, with a chapter devoted to the terrible Sahel drought of the 1970s and 80s.
It is well worth a read, not just for its historical approach, but also for its clear analysis of why the droughts occurred:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
But real facts only get in the way of the “proven science” based predictions of doom, so must be ignored at all costs, and it certainly does cost!
Fascinating – thanks for posting.
And furthermore, the last time the Northern Hemisphere was much warmer than today, back during the Holocene optimum around 5,000 to 8,000 years ago, much of the Saharan Desert greened up into savanna inhabited by numerous animals and a large population of humans who hunted them. So for the Sahara at least, warmer should mean wetter in general.
As shown by the Tassili frescos in what is now quite arid desert with giraffes, various bovines and hippopotamuses . The last shows that there were permanent waterholes, and fairly good rainfall for their food (grasses) to grow.
Today, the explanations would be cast in terms of the ‘Southern Annular Mode’ and the “Northern Annular Mode’, formerly described as the Antarctic and and the Arctic Oscillations. The driving force is not the solar energy that impinges most directly on the expansive low latitudes about the equator. It would instead be cast in terms of what causes the chain of ‘polar’ or ‘extratropical cyclones’ to increase in intensity, lowering surface pressure in high latitudes and so shifting atmospheric mass to increase surface pressure in tropical and subtropical latitudes. The dominant force emanates from the margins of Antarctica where surface pressure has been falling over the period of record.In this way, the climate of the entire globe is affected, but in different ways according to latitude and hemisphere.
But its of great interest to see how Bryson interprets the forces that change the winds.Much more satisfying than the global warming meme.
UK: Hubert H. Lamb (22 Sept. 1913 – 28 June 1997)
USA: Reid Bryson (7 June 1920 – 11 June 2008)
I read some of their work as it was published.
I think they co-authored some, but don’t remember.
Thomas J. Murray was a professional writer who specialized in the presentation of scientific information to non-scientists.
One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.
It is neither.
By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the vacuum of space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined.
However, any molecular substance capable of kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the energetic radiative pathway of the spherical expanding solar photonic gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.
This intuitively obvious and calculated scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory that has the atmosphere warming the earth and no atmosphere producing a frozen ice ball at -430 F.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 global warming, no man caused nor cured climate change.
Did you listen to BBC Radio Four ‘In our time’, yesterday? If not, here is a link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057s5
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Climate changes, it always does but at least before when this was explained we didn’t have the CO2 fairy sprinkling her narrative dust everywhere. As Paul writes:
We commonly hear that global warming is making droughts worse, but Bryson’s book is a reminder that the opposite is the case, with a chapter devoted to the terrible Sahel drought of the 1970s and 80s.
It is well worth a read, not just for its historical approach, but also for its clear analysis of why the droughts occurred
Indeed. Thanks for posting Paul.
Back in the days of being able to tell the truth. Seems a long time ago.
Herodotus Histories Book 2
Libyans (and of them many races) extend along the whole coast, except so much as the Hellenes and Phenicians hold; but in the upper parts, which lie above the sea-coast and above those people whose land comes down to the sea, Libya is full of wild beasts; and in the parts above the land of wild beasts it is full of sand, terribly waterless and utterly desert.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.