"In climate, when this happens, the climate state changes. You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. This way we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century," Tsonis said. "The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001."
The most recent climate shift probably occurred at about the year 2000.
Now the question is how has warming slowed and how much influence does human activity have?
"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.
Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.
So yes, find out what effect humans are having. But the bottom line is so far that no matter what you find, human activity is currently not enough to break the cycle of natural climate shifts.
Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.
The Arctic sea ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than it has since 1979.
The number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the past decade. There are 15,000 of them in the Arctic now, where 10 years ago there were 12,000.
"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," says Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, confidently. He maintains a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun’s magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977."
Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise."
"The data suggest cooling not warming in Earth's future," he says.
Ah yes. Global Warming. One of the lies that Obama based his illegal campaign on and one of the lies the Democrats and their UN allies continue to foist on the ignorant in order to gain power.
Kyoto is not to protect the earth, it's to hobble the US economy in order to circumvent deomcracy.
Ok then, let's have some evidence of how exactly the US economy is going to be crippled, and how much money is going to be poured into climate change?
I'm curioius, do you think that the amount will: a) be far below; b) be relatively close to; or, c) far exceed the amount spent prosecuting the Iraq war?
I'm quite certain Kyoto will far exceed the cost of the Iraq war. It's already costing us billions now.
Take for example nuclear power regulations which require the level of radiation released to be below the level of background radiation. At the Idaho National Engineering Labratory, there are coal fired power plants because the nukes are mostly experimental. When the coal train arrives, the radiation alarms all over the site go off.
But this is all avoision on your part as you can't stand the notion that global warming was just a farce anyway and an excuse for democrats to take control.
bcspace wrote:I'm quite certain Kyoto will far exceed the cost of the Iraq war. It's already costing us billions now.
Documented evidence please.
Take for example nuclear power regulations which require the level of radiation released to be below the level of background radiation.
Do you always just make things up out of whole cloth?
But this is all avoision on your part as you can't stand the notion that global warming was just a farce anyway and an excuse for democrats to take control.
That's an excellent attempt at mind reading! Too bad you utterly failed.
Edited to ask: I'm just curious, are you intentionally using the invented word "avoision"? Do you know it's origin? (I'm not trying to be the grammar police.)
Edited to ask: I'm just curious, are you intentionally using the invented word "avoision"? Do you know it's origin? (I'm not trying to be the grammar police.)
Yes. It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Your questions imply a root ignorance of the facts. What science shows global warming as presented by the rabid environmentalists and how many scientists agree with it?
Notice the last four items in the list. You get far less radiation dosage living near a nuclear power plant than a coal fired plant. Notice also that you can get more simply by wearing a wrist watch than by living near a nuclear power plant.
bcspace wrote: Yes. It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Your questions imply a root ignorance of the facts. What science shows global warming as presented by the rabid environmentalists and how many scientists agree with it?
Why do I have to defend the "rabid environmentalists"? I don't even know who they all are, and I'd rather not be charged with the task of being their apologist, since who knows what pronouncements they've made.