Vulnerability to nature is, unfortunately, characteristic of life for the poor everywhere. Millions of people live in conditions of poverty, malnutrition and disease and are vulnerable to natural disasters and weather-related events like floods and droughts.
At the UN's global warming conference in Nairobi, activists and government agencies were touting these problems as evidence that Africa is already experiencing the devastating effects of global warming.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that water will be drastically affected by the earth's rising temperatures, especially through a decline in rainfall in Africa. This, it is alleged, will cause more droughts and damaging floods, resulting in threats to water supplies, harming agriculture, human health and the natural environment.
Yet current predictions of adverse effects of global warming on water supplies, floods and droughts in Africa are completely unfounded, both in theory and measurement. Alarmists have been quick to uphold regional variations in rainfall as evidence of global warming -- but no evidence supports this claim.
More broadly, they have assumed that all climatic change is undesirable. In fact, an increase in the magnitude and frequency of heavy rains would be beneficial over most of Africa.
Ideal
South Africa is the ideal sub-continental region to observe climatic signals related to global warming and water. The eastern part has high rainfall, while the west is an arid desert. The south receives rain in the winter, while the north receives it in the summer. The average annual rainfall for the whole region is 500mm, compared with a world average of more than 850mm.
Studying the South African data, we find that the mean annual precipitation over almost the whole of South Africa has progressively increased by at least 9 percent during the 78-year period of record with a high degree of assurance.
The 19 districts that constitute the southern and western Cape benefited from a 17 percent (57mm) increase in rainfall from 1950 to 1992. Obviously, in a region like South Africa that suffers from water shortage, such change is desirable.
Although the 1990s were reported to be the warmest decade of the past millennium, this was not reflected in an unusual increase in the numbers and magnitudes of exceptional hydrological events in South Africa.
More recently, last year's global temperatures were proclaimed to be higher than any in the recent geological past.
Yet again, no exceptional rainfalls, river flows, floods or droughts occurred during the year. Any additional global warming will further increase the annual rainfall over South Africa.
The possibility that it will decrease the rainfall in the foreseeable future is remote and without scientific merit.
Meanwhile, neither South African climatologists nor their overseas counterparts have produced evidence that links increased CO2 emissions to South African rainfall patterns.
The increases discussed above were already occurring early in early parts of the 20th century -- well before post-World War II increases in industrial activity and carbon dioxide emissions.
Rainfall
While the causal linkage between variations in solar activity and global climate can be debated, the parallel increases in sunspot numbers, surface air temperature, open water surface evaporation and rainfall during the last century are incontestable. Records show a significant 21-year periodicity in the South African annual rainfall and river flow records that is synchronous with solar activity.
It is water, not temperature, that determines the habitability of our planet. Furthermore, temperature is a measurement -- not a property.
Temperature does not feature in hydrological analyses: their principal variables are rainfall, river flow and open water surface evaporation.
Their relative values vary greatly from region to region in South Africa.
Moreover, it is the consequences -- such as changes in rainfall and river flow -- that are important, not changes in the atmospheric and oceanic processes that produce them. Proof of global warming is not proof of the postulated undesirable consequences.
In recent years, high losses of life and damage to property in South Africa and elsewhere in the world were primarily the consequence of rising populations and not enough space, so people moved to flood-prone areas.
The floods were worsened by socio-economic conditions -- not increases in flood magnitude or frequency. This is similarly the case with droughts.
Recently some scientists have repeated their predictions that global warming will degrade the natural environment, based on the assumption that future climate will be warmer and drier. This alarmist view suffers from two fundamental errors. First, rainfall is increasing -- not decreasing. Second, the predicted increases in temperature are no more than the temperature increase between dawn and midday, to which vegetation is already well adapted. It is thus unlikely that large swathes of natural vegetation will be destroyed.
Evidence
Sadly, many claims about how global warming will affect us all are not backed up by scientific evidence -- and those who make them appear to be indifferent to the needs of much of humanity. Environmental doomsayers and alarmist scientists have effectively stifled the debate over climate change -- with serious implications for many other issues.
For instance, South Africa is rapidly approaching the limit of its available water resources.
The only large-scale, viable alternative is energy-consuming seawater desalination. The most economical source of this energy is from coal-fired power stations near the site. If this is not possible because it will increase greenhouse gas emissions, the obvious inevitable consequence will be that South Africa's future development will be increasingly constrained by lack of water supplies.
If the present alarmism continues, the poor will be the first casualties of the war on global warming.
Will Alexander is professor emeritus in the department of civil and biosystems engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa, and was a member of the UN's Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters from 1994 to 2000.
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
US president-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named US Representative Mike Waltz, a vocal supporter of arms sales to Taiwan who has called China an “existential threat,” as his national security advisor, and on Thursday named US Senator Marco Rubio, founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China — a global, cross-party alliance to address the challenges that China poses to the rules-based order — as his secretary of state. Trump’s appointments, including US Representative Elise Stefanik as US ambassador to the UN, who has been a strong supporter of Taiwan in the US Congress, and Robert Lighthizer as US trade
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
RSS