"It was a real challenge to separate the influence of human-caused temperature increases from natural climate variations or other confounding factors, such as land-use changes or pollution," says study co-author David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. Scientists reported in the study, however, that "these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone."

But Pat Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., says the research "is a retrospective study, with very little to say prospectively, given the unevenness of global warming."

Michaels says that there has been no warming since 1997 and that a recent study, also published in Nature, found that global warming isn't likely to get started again for at least another 10 years. "I think the problem with this study is not in matching the past with the changes but in projecting the future. "

The data show that changes are most notable in North America, Asia and Europe — mainly because many more studies have been done there, Rosenzweig says.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Ok, I know I'm going to get a bunch of crap from the "holier-than-thou", you are a dumb-shit if you don't believe the world as we know it will end due to Global Climate change crowd but ...

AND

People!  People!

Please, let's leave off the "my beliefs are better than yours" stuff.

quote:


Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

The danger is that such short-term trends will be taken out of context and perceived as license to ease up on the climate fight. According to Noel Keenlyside, climate researcher at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences who led the study:

“The natural variations change climate on this timescale and policymakers may either think mitigation is working or that there is no global warming at all. . . Natural changes as opposed to human causes may play a bigger role in the short term . . . This is important because policies are made in the short term. Our results show we might not have as much change in climate over the next 10 years.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Ok, I know I'm going to get a bunch of crap from the "holier-than-thou", you are a dumb-shit if you don't believe the world as we know it will end due to Global Climate change crowd but ...

AND

People!  People!

Please, let's leave off the "my beliefs are better than yours" stuff.

So you have already dismissed the opposition to your thesis and then you offer the second line in reply to a reasoned rebuttal of your thesis and you want to take the moral high road on this thread.

OK - and you want people to play nicely, after you have insulted a whole bunch of them already...

And anyone with something real to add here should participate in this slugfest for what reason?


Z.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So far, just from reading their posts, and not the supplied links, the only "pro-GW" poster who hasn't immediately gone into full ideological attack mode is shallowdeep, whose links I intend to read and study in detail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So far, just from reading their posts, and not the supplied links, the only "pro-GW" poster who hasn't immediately gone into full ideological attack mode is shallowdeep, whose links I intend to read and study in detail.

quote:


But I am also a staunch supporter of scientific method, logic, and reason when collecting data - either for or against my particular personal agenda and views.  This one is something that I'm going to have to do a bit of digging in, to see if I can't find related source materials either for or against.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So far, just from reading their posts, and not the supplied links, the only "pro-GW" poster who hasn't immediately gone into full ideological attack mode is shallowdeep, whose links I intend to read and study in detail.

(Hmmmmmmmmm.... funny... I distinctly remember saying right from the get-go that I was going to have to do significantly more digging..... hard for me to consider that some sort of ideological attack, even if you include my statement that I don't trust the limited data that was specifically asked about.... )

quote:


But I am also a staunch supporter of scientific method, logic, and reason when collecting data - either for or against my particular personal agenda and views.  This one is something that I'm going to have to do a bit of digging in, to see if I can't find related source materials either for or against.

Oh... yep... there it is right there... I knew I said that....

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So far, just from reading their posts, and not the supplied links, the only "pro-GW" poster who hasn't immediately gone into full ideological attack mode is shallowdeep, whose links I intend to read and study in detail.

Well that was a waste of time then because you asked where the ten year prediction came from and I showed you so if you aren’t going to read the link because you realise it doesn't actually support your case then what kind of scientist are you? Not the kind you claim to be that is for sure because you seem to be the kind of person that wants the answer he is looking for rather than the person who is prepared to see where the trail leads.

You should read all the information or none at all: it is what we call being objective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Ok, I know I'm going to get a bunch of crap from the "holier-than-thou", you are a dumb-shit if you don't believe the world as we know it will end due to Global Climate change crowd but ...