Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The study suggests that volcanic activity has contributed to the slowing-- not stopping, not reversing-- of global warming.
So what happens when volcanic activity dies down?
And of course, since it's the dailymail, they're going to attempt to skew the issue and even feature an interview with Ross McKitrick, who is an economy professor and has nothing to do with climatology... and sure is good at stirring up confusion and doubt with worthless speculations like:
He would fit in well on this board.
I know this much, if an ice age would happen, we would be having plenty of people screaming for global warming.....that is all except those idiots that believe the feds and would still think that the planet is in a warming phase.
What about it? Globally, it's warmer now than then. Despite the fact that the sun has been quieter for the past 35 years or so, and TSI has been lower.
So why don't you tell us about the so called "medieval warm period" and what caused it?
No it isn't warmer then than now. Back then it was warm enough to grow a variety of grapes in England that currently it is too cold to grow.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'
Implies? The numbers are higher or they're not. They've been increasing, or they haven't. And what does "essentially no trend" mean? Does that mean there's a trend, or there is no trend? Your quotation full of weasel words from your denialist clown site doesn't really have any sort of scientific merit. Don't let that stop you from pretending your right-wing talking points have worth, though.
If only there was actual research to support your claims. That way you wouldn't have to pretend unsupported comments on denialist websites are just like real science.
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon. In the early 1990s, Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard, entitled Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) for the conduct of epidemiological studies. Under the GEP guidelines, odds ratios of 2 or less would not be considered strong enough evidence of causation, invalidating in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of many exposures. Although Philip Morris eventually scaled back its GEP programme, as no epidemiological body would agree to such a standard, British American Tobacco still uses this criterion to refute the risk associated with passive smoking.
And yet the temperature is the highest in recorded history. I guess AGW is for real.
Well, since we started recording temperatures during the Little Ice-Age, I would hope temps today are the highest in recorded history, otherwise we'd still be stuck in a LIA.
So you think humans alone are responsible for warming up the planet by one degree, over the past one hundred years, or so?
That's delusional thinking, isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
