To these people who dont believe Global Warming..

Endy said:
Jiro won't and refuse looking into Wikipedia as he stated in the previous posting.

Again, Looks like he sets his mind to win the arguement, no matter what. It's not a win-win game, he made it a win-lose game. Jiro and I are simply on the opposite sides. It's not getting me anywhere agreeing on his part. After I laid out the links to support my claims, he denied couple things. He is patronizing me, discouraging me, discrediting me for having my viewpoints and even on my learnings. This is not getting healthy in the argument and I am not having fun now.

I mean... everything is right in front of you, the news reporting the unusual incidents that links to the warm air/water temperatures. It's right there... Look over there, it's just right there... Hey, look over there... its right there. Look at this, it is next to your shoes, it's right there. Did you see that, no? Oh, never mind!

BradBob, I agree with ya and I am going to give in. I think I see your point that its best to move on.

I already posted one or two posts before this. Those posts will be my last ones for this thread.
Click to expand...

so you look at only the pictures and listen to media/non-experts? You do not want to bother to find the scientific explanations behind the pictures? You were very selective on that part simply because it makes sense to you. That is what I'm trying to explain it to you and it is you who do not want to listen to me.

I'm helping you to understand the complex scientific explanation of it in layman's term but it is not easy as this subject is full of paradoxes and unexplained/unpredictable/unexpected phenomenon. It took me 4 years of study to understand it and it is an extremely rewarding experience as I have learned it from several remarkable professors (yes they are extremely passionate about Earth but they are realistic). You cannot get this kind of IN-DEPTH experience & knowledge at home and Internet. You need to learn it from experts/scientists and that doesn't mean you have to go to college for that. It would be GREAT if you have a neighbor who is like that.

Please do not accuse me of patronizing you. You should blame yourself for being shortcoming in this confusing subject. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to reside in Colorado/Texas based on your profile. State colleges in Colorado have EXCELLENT programs relating to geography, Earth, etc. I highly suggest you to go there and no they are not costly - they're state colleges. I'm assuming you have hearing disability and you can have DVR to pay for your college tuition. IMO - Geography Departments in West Coast are better than East Coast because the program structures are slightly different depending on where the university is located. In East Coast - we are more concerned with water issue as we're very proned to water disaster especially flooding. For West Coast - they're more concerned with land because of drought, agriculture, and obviously - land disaster (tornado, earthquake, etc.) But it's just my opinion because I don't really give a shit about water because we're land-based mammals lol.
 
A rather humorous read... somewhat

Signs of the Coming Green Dictatorship

Have environmentalists gone too far when they tell you when you can run your air conditioner? How about when they tell you if you can keep your job? Or who you should be dating?
Click to expand...

At what point does “environmentalism” become “fascism?”

Yeah, that’s a deliberately provocative question – but it’s a fair one. We know that nationalism is good in small doses but leads to McCarthyism in large ones; we know that religion can become theocracy, and capitalism oligarchy.

So OK: Environmentalism is a good thing, but at some point can too much of it become a bad one? Could it lead to a “Ecologarchy?”

We don’t like to talk about that, but the answer is yes. And the signs are already coming.

The first one came a few months back when Gavin Newsom announced that he would propose mandatory recycling and composting for all citizens: it would be enforced by your trash collectors, who would root through your garbage to make sure that you’d deposited the right trash in the right bins, and fine you if you didn’t.

If this proposal ever becomes law, it means that – in the name of environmentalism – agents of the government would be paid to sift through your trash looking for evidence to use against you.

If these are the bad ideas Gavin shares with the public, imagine the shit he thinks is too stupid to put in writing.

This second sign of the coming ecologarchy came out this week, when the Guardian devoted its entire issue to sustainability.

Now, unlike the Mayor, the Guardian has editors and professional standards, so I must emphasize that they didn’t say anything nearly so stupid as our mayor (whose idea of “sustainability” is to pay private security contractors $2,000 a week to look after a small garden). In fact, I enthusiastically agree with 90% of what the Guardian proposed.

But there were, around the edges, signs that something ugly may be coming out of all these good intentions.

It began with Amanda Witherll’s piece on green power. In the future she envisions, a “smart grid” would adjust to intermittent power reductions (like clouds blocking the sun from solar panels or a lack of wind to drive turbines) by automatically shutting off people’s air conditioners or changing their thermostats until full power generation is restored.

Once again, environmentalism goes from a voluntary effort to do good and to an enforced regime. What if I don’t want the government shutting off my air conditioning? What if I don’t want a bureaucrat at city hall deciding what temperature my house is? Or what if I actually have a good reason to want my own house climate controlled at the time? Maybe I’m tending to rare flowers, my kid is sick, or I’m having a romantic dinner? The fact that personal choice in the matter is assumed out of the equation isn’t trivial: smarter city policies is one thing, and giving government support to people who want to generate green power is one thing – but the minute the government starts making household decisions for you, we’ve got a problem.

Next came a truly terrifying line in Sarah Phelan’s piece on smart development. She quotes SPUR Executive Director Gabriel Metcalf on the importance of public transit to job location:

“Metcalf said he believes people should be able to work where they want, provided that it’s reachable by public transit.”

How nice of him!

But what happens to the rest of us? Do we lose our jobs? Or need to move? Or must we apply for a government permit in order to keep the privilege of living and working where we choose?

Was Metcalf misquoted, or are we now suggesting that government regulation of the workforce means someone in city hall decides who can and cannot live and work here on the basis of their carbon footprint?

Either way, it’s the ecologarchy at its finest.

A similar comment came in Tim Redmond’s piece on encouraging local businesses – again, something that I am all for. Redmond writes:

“The owners of businesses need to live in the community. They need to interact with their customers and neighbors, to see the local schools where their tax dollars go.”

That “need” has me worried, because it suggests the force of law. I’d have no problem with “it’s best if the owners of businesses … “ or “it’s desirable,” but they “need?” When we say “need” it suggests that we are justified in punishing those who keep us from meeting our “needs,” instead of encouraging their participation through tax breaks, investment programs, and civic support.

But by far the most disturbing piece of green fascism to come out this week didn’t come from San Francisco: it came from Slate magazine contributor Barron Young Smith, whose article on the ecological cost of long distance relationships demands the creation of a “Date Local” movement.

He writes:

“Let's start thinking about "sex miles": Just how far was this person shipped to hook up with you? And how many times more efficient would it be to date someone within a 100-mile radius? If the movement spread globally, mirroring either the decentralized development of Local Food co-ops or the manifesto-and-chapter model that built up to the Slow Food movement's mega-confab this summer, its environmental benefits could multiply many times.”

I’m just going to say this flat out: No.

No. This goes too far. I will not subject who I love to an environmental purity test, or ask that of anyone else.

In fact, the very notion that who I “can” love should be determined by an environmental calculus makes me want to fly to Nova Scotia for sex.

This is not a condemnation of environmentalism, only of extremism. Despite the best efforts of some friends and colleagues, I plan to vote for Prop H – and encourage you to: the arguments for municipal power are too convincing not to at least give it a real hearing. Well planned growth is essential; taking steps to increase municipal sustainability is a good thing – and all of that can be done without demanding that people relinquish their free will to carbon impact calculator.

We can encourage people to take public transit by making it more convenient; we can support local businesses by supporting them, rather than demonizing ones that don’t pass muster; we can create public power with a smart grid that people opt in to in exchange for credits – I doubt most people will mind, most of the time. And most of this is what the environmentalists, the Guardian, and even the mayor are talking about, most of the time. Encouraging people to live sustainably, and making it easier for them, is not the same thing as demanding they relinquish their freedom.

But we’re also seeing people put environmentalism directly against liberty, and when that happens I’m going to choose liberty. A lot of us are. It’s counterproductive to demand that we make that choice.

Oh well - at least I have the consolation of knowing, should I ever be sent to a gulag for my political views, that it will be made of 100% recycled human dignity.
Click to expand...
 
another humorous read.....

The Hypocrisy of the World Wildlife Fund's Eco Tour

Lush plant life and exotic wild animals. Formal dinners and luxury accommodations. Twenty five adventurous days in 11 different countries, all reached by private jet. Sounds like a great vacation, sure, but also an expensive exercise in hypocrisy by the World Wildlife Fund.

The organization does an admirable job protecting the world's flora and fauna from the impact of human development and global climate change. We applaud so noble a cause, but it is hard to take the WWF seriously when it organizes a fundraising trip that will spew 1,200 tons of carbon dioxide shuttling well-heeled donors around the globe on a private jet.

The WWF says the tour allows adventurous travelers — those who can pony up the $64,950 ticket price, anyway — to "touch down in some of the most astonishing places on the planet to see the top wildlife, including gorillas, orangutans, rhinos, lemurs and toucans."

Good thing they aren't planning to visit any glaciers.

While the whole thing is way over the top, it's the private jet that really gets us. The 88-seat, luxuriously appointed jet will transport passengers on a whirlwind tour with stops in such far-flung places as the Amazon, Easter Island, Chile, Malaysia, Laos, Nepal and London.

We're not sure what kind of plane the WWF is using — the sales pitch says only that it is "a specially outfitted private jet." But an excellent piece by Steven Milloy in JunkScience notes that flying the 36,000 mile route in a Boeing 757 would burn about 100,000 gallons of jet fuel and produce more than 1,200 tons of CO2. Milloy says that's the same as putting 1,560 SUVs on the road for the three weeks the eco-adventurers are jetting around the world. He uses the WWF's carbon footprint calculator to estimate it would cost $44,000 to offset the emissions — though the WWF's brochure (.pdf) doesn't say anything about offsets.

It gets even harder to take once you read the WWF's mission statement, which states it is committed to "protecting natural areas and wild populations of plants and animals, including endangered species; promoting sustainable approaches to the use of renewable natural resources; and promoting more efficient use of resources and energy and the maximum reduction of pollution."

Um, hello?

We disagree with a lot of what Milloy has said in the past — he's dedicated an entire page of his website to debunking the myth of climate change — but in this case he's spot on. An organization that implores us to do our part by carpooling, embracing fluorescent bulbs, replacing our old appliances and taking other steps toward eco-friendliness shouldn't be taking wealthy donors on a 25-day pollution-fest.

The WWF does good work, and like every other nonprofit, it needs money to carry out that work. But a fundraising trip like this is a bad idea. There must be a better way.
Click to expand...
 
BradB08 said:
You don't have to post the WTO stuff. I was just barely out of high school when the WTO protests happened (otherwise known as N30 for November 30, 1999). I'm familiar with them. They were the catalyst that caused me to pursue left-wing politics.

As for Dubai, you seem a little naive. Dubai is an island home to plenty of people with money and connections. There are also Americans who live there to avoid paying taxes. Halliburton is permanently locating to Dubai. There's no "second headquarters" like you said.
Click to expand...

I'm not impressed with WTO especially what happend in Seattle!
 
~♥~Pinky~♥~ said:
You got good posts both 43 and 45. I want to be green friendly. I used to clean up the landfill in black people's neighborhood from my school. It was on Earth Day. I learned about recycles at school.

I agree with you about Gore's half truth. He tried to scare us. :roll:

I am wonder. Who is the responsible to handle with America's environment?
Click to expand...

Not really, Gore made good point about sea level rises and very easier to see it, you can find via google, wikipedia or anywhere, he's not scare me off and you probably have difficult to understand about him.

You talk about related thing with God, God has nothing with earth or global warming, however, it's your religious views.
 
Again, don't attack the messenger. Attack the message. There's no time for partisan politics here.
 
Foxrac said:
Not really, Gore made good point about sea level rises and very easier to see it, you can find via google, wikipedia or anywhere, he's not scare me off and you probably have difficult to understand about him.

You talk about related thing with God, God has nothing with earth or global warming, however, it's your religious views.
Click to expand...

Noah%20Beavers%20Mura.jpg
 
So, are you saying that you are disqualifying the website links I included to support my claims? The matter of the fact is those websites are made and created by the governments and environmental agencies. The web resources on global warming are so massive over the internet. You decided to disregard these websites and preaching me your own scientific facts. You are overthrowing the governments' efforts to reduce or slow down the effects of global warming because you simply don't believe in global warming, even its not agreeable to your scientific research, aren't you? This could sound like Bush Administration-ish discrediting Al Gore-ish

Basically, you are denying those claims on the websites, you are denying people's claims that affected themselves, you are denying the affects of impacts from obvious on-goings, Hurricane Katrinia, droughts, increasing unusual storms, flooding, human consumption through human activities. You are shrugging off what is going out there, and chuckling off while witnessing the impacts in some areas in the United States, even to some other countries such as Myammar, and Indonesia islands. What I understand is you are revoking the reality facts because its not matching up with your scientific facts. All I can say is that you are distorting my claims. Websites are evidently RIGHT THERE full of rich sources on global warming and climate changes... and you are still shrugging off the facts of websites everywhere over Internet.

Are you implying that you are nullifying people's claims that climates change affecting themselves because they were there and you are not buying? Are you invalidating everyone's word saying "global warming" because its not satisfying your scientific facts. Are you abolishing the Al Gore's projects on global warming because your science professor and Bush Administration said so.

So, overall, are you discrediting all links I provided to support my claims? These website links are clearly addressing the global warnings/climate changes. You mentioned that you refused checking the websites' resources such as Wikipedia.

If so, are you saying that alternative energy resources are full of bullsh*t? Are you advising us to reject the ideas of Green Living?

Again, you are patronizing me to go to college while the web resources are so rich and abundant out there. You are patronizing by altering your words into the layer's man terms for me to understand. You are targeting me while others are agreeing on the global warming issues. You VS. THEM! You are telling me that all websites are misleading (those are made by governments and environmental agencies) You are suggesting me to reject all film documentaries, researches, obvious facts to the trash bin because its not making scores with your scientific facts. You VS. them.

Again, you are denying the global warming and climate changes.
 
Of course, El Nino and La Nina are manageable!

Jiro said:
The subject of El Nino is remarkably confusing for many people. Many people have viewed it as a warning sign... a God's wrath due to our "activity" that contributes to Global Warming. I have to correct you on that. This is how Earth adapts to itself in response to destructive El Nino -

El Nino's Blessing Kiss

BEFORE El Nino -


AFTER El Nino (not a same location but you get some idea) -
Click to expand...

uh, ugh? El Nino, La Nina and other natural causes are predictable patterns. They have their cycles. Thanks to the greenhouse gas. Because, it is manageable. Cooling and warming shifting around the earth. This is totally agreeable and I am with you on this... everybody is so caught and stuck in their behavior patterns. They know the Spring/Summer, its the tornado season, They know the September nearing, its hurricane seasons, Winter seasons are well-known to everybody, they are fully prepared because they know their localized weathers and localized climates. They locked themselves in those seasonal patterns. Of course!

However, when the greenhouse gas/effect is "messed up" (linking to climate changes), warm air and water temperatures rising, the weather goes crazy, such as increasing unusual tornadoes, unusual flooding, unusual hurricanes (for instance Katrina). Nobody was not prepared for floods in the midwest. Southeastern states were not prepared to deal with water crisis. They put up the woods to secure their homes and full-stocked foods/emergency resources before facing the Hurricane Katrinia. Those unusual incidents I speak of, those unusual storms did not take in the places in the recorded history. Things shifted quickly, they predicted the typical storms coming ended up whole things upside down in those recent years. Why surge in the natural causes? What caused El Nino and La Nina behaving weird?

By the way, are we supposed to have superstorms coming up and the superstorms are not existed in the past. Superstorms are more likely to be created. If El Nino and La Nina are good to us, we can handle the hurricanes and storms well. But superstorms are not existed before... what could cause the superstorms to be soon-to-born. Scientists have predicted it as it's possible and they are preparing for possible superstorms. Your responses?? The answers were not provided in this link. (link to this site, Superstorms, Climate Change and Superstorm Seasons)

I checked your link to the pictures, I don't see After and Before pictures according to their photo's data. Yeah, those photos are beautiful and cute!
 
I really wish that I could find a nice video with c.c. to explain how the nature phenomenon start to destroy and why.

I just don't believe in what the government says about so called " global warmin' " -- it is just that it really bugs me into believin' in their lies when the " cover-up " is necessary to blind people and not know anythin' about it. I mean, come on -- how come some people don't see the light at the end of it ? I know why it ( nature phenomenon ) destroys and the need of it is necessary.
 
Natural Phenomenon

Here is the scientific opinions on Climate Change were submitted from almost every organization in the world: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This would support my claims on human activities. (Comments on human culling - it's hilarious remark!)

More facts coming out from the link: ABD - Climate Change Truths

Interesting... your argument can be supported by this article: Climate Change vs Mother Nature: Scientists reveal that bears have stopped hibernating - Nature, Environment - The Independent "We cannot prove that non-hibernation is caused by global warming, but everything points in that direction." I could be on your side however, everything points in that direction as it said in this article. Things are getting freak and people are agreeing that everything points in that direction.

Natural phenomenon usually happens once in a while. It's like one-time passing by, just like this one: 7 Incredible Natural Phenomena you've never seen. There are some cool pictures and these did not happen again. One of those phenomenon in Brazil has nothing to with climate changes. It's known. This has nothing related to climate changes. Climate Changes refer to increasing warm temperature in the air and water.

One person explained better than me on greenhouse gas. The Ill Effects Of Climate Change. One more link: Introduction to Climate Change

Tanpanama Research Center » Climate Change: Natural Phenomenon or Human Factor? Is it a natural phenomenon or human factor? It is basically pointing to the temperature increasing. They are focusing and trying to see an association between global warming and natural phenomenon. They said it failed to see an association between both.

I can agree with you on the natural phenomenon topics. I have read on those articles. The natural phenomenon happened thousands times in the past since the biblical recorded history. I am with you on this. What is more, the global warming was not existed in those recorded history, even in the biblical recorded history. Global warming came out somewhen in the 1940's and 1950's. Many things happened unusually and actually freaking out. The temperatures had increased. I believe that global warming wasn't there with the natural phenomenon in the recorded history and I believe that human consumption through human activities were pretty fair much lower in those times.

Now, global warming is here. I can believe you on the natural phenomenon because everything is pointing in that direction.

The reasons that leads me to believe it's the opportunity to adopt new lifestyle, alter the resources, and so on.
 
A response to your Post #110 -

Looks like you failed to understand my post. Apparently I'll have to spell it out in a few words as possible for you to understand.

1. I did not deny the existence of Global Warming.
2. Bush Administration is an idiot to deny the existence of global warming.
3. The links you provided us PROVED that the global warming is real. But they DID NOT prove the direct cause of global warming is due to men's activity.
4. Your Post #5 - Humans cause global warming - I have a problem about that. You still have not shown me any conclusive proof that it said that.
5. Yes human activity CONTRIBUTED to global warming but it is NOT a major cause of global warming. Human's contribution to global warming is MINUSCULE.
6. I said Al Gore's presentation is good but MISLEADING. Why did I say misleading? First of all -
  • He showed the TRUTH and PROOF that global warming is REAL.
  • His presentation wants to show us the possible worst case scenarios.
  • His presentation showed us what MAY have contributed to it and what should we do to make it better.
  • His presentation was MISLEADING because he had people thought the men's activity is the MAJOR CAUSE of global warming even though there is NOT A SINGLE scientific proof that supports this linkage.

This whole thing going on right now is called ADAPTATION. We are adapting to our current situation. Expect to see disasters and horrors first before we adapt for good. That's why it's called adaptation.

I am not patronizing you to go to college because Internet can be confusing and overwhelming for people with no basic foundation. I can create a website that denied all this and Bush Administration could have hired somebody to create THOUSAND of websites that says it's a fake. Hell - Greenpeace Party could create thousand of misleading sites to blame certain agency. Green Companies (companies manufacturing green-friendly products such as solar power, etc.) which are owned by Oil Companies could create hundred of websites to scare people into buying green-friendly products. Who knows? :dunno: It's crucially important to be EDUCATED to have a basic foundation before you go out there to research it for yourself.

If Internet is so rich and abundant with information, then why would these scientists go to colleges?


Again - understand this very carefully because you keep repeating the same song. The websites created by government and environmental agencies PROVED that the global warming is real but DID NOT prove your theory - "Humans cause global warming."
 
Endy said:
Here is the scientific opinions on Climate Change were submitted from almost every organization in the world: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This would support my claims on human activities. (Comments on human culling - it's hilarious remark!)

More facts coming out from the link: ABD - Climate Change Truths

Interesting... your argument can be supported by this article: Climate Change vs Mother Nature: Scientists reveal that bears have stopped hibernating - Nature, Environment - The Independent "We cannot prove that non-hibernation is caused by global warming, but everything points in that direction." I could be on your side however, everything points in that direction as it said in this article. Things are getting freak and people are agreeing that everything points in that direction.

Natural phenomenon usually happens once in a while. It's like one-time passing by, just like this one: 7 Incredible Natural Phenomena you've never seen. There are some cool pictures and these did not happen again. One of those phenomenon in Brazil has nothing to with climate changes. It's known. This has nothing related to climate changes. Climate Changes refer to increasing warm temperature in the air and water.

One person explained better than me on greenhouse gas. The Ill Effects Of Climate Change. One more link: Introduction to Climate Change

Tanpanama Research Center » Climate Change: Natural Phenomenon or Human Factor? Is it a natural phenomenon or human factor? It is basically pointing to the temperature increasing. They are focusing and trying to see an association between global warming and natural phenomenon. They said it failed to see an association between both.

I can agree with you on the natural phenomenon topics. I have read on those articles. The natural phenomenon happened thousands times in the past since the biblical recorded history. I am with you on this. What is more, the global warming was not existed in those recorded history, even in the biblical recorded history. Global warming came out somewhen in the 1940's and 1950's. Many things happened unusually and actually freaking out. The temperatures had increased. I believe that global warming wasn't there with the natural phenomenon in the recorded history and I believe that human consumption through human activities were pretty fair much lower in those times.

Now, global warming is here. I can believe you on the natural phenomenon because everything is pointing in that direction.

The reasons that leads me to believe it's the opportunity to adopt new lifestyle, alter the resources, and so on.
Click to expand...

so..... you finally concede that I am right? is that what you're saying?
 
Next decade 'may see no warming'

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say. Other climate scientists have welcomed the research, saying it may help societies plan better for the future.

The key to the new prediction is the natural cycle of ocean temperatures called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is closely related to the warm currents that bring heat from the tropics to the shores of Europe.

The cause of the oscillation is not well understood, but the cycle appears to come round about every 60 to 70 years.

Imagine the payoff of knowing with some certainty what the next 10 years hold in terms of temperature and precipitation
Professor Michael Schlesinger

It may partly explain why temperatures rose in the early years of the last century before beginning to cool in the 1940s.

"One message from our study is that in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.

His group's projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.

"In the long term, radiative forcing (the Earth's energy balance) dominates. But it's important for policymakers to realise the pattern," he told BBC News.

Deep patterns

Modelling of climatic events in the oceans is difficult, simply because there is relatively little data on some of the key processes, such as the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) - sometimes erroneously known as the Gulf Stream - which carries heat northwards in the Atlantic.

Only within the last few years have researchers begun systematically deploying mobile floats and tethered buoys that will, in time, tell us how this circulation is changing.

As a substitute for direct measurements of the MOC, the Kiel team used data going back 50 years from the Labrador Sea, where warm water gives up its heat to the atmosphere and sinks, before returning southward lower in the ocean.

Combining this ocean data with established models of global warming, they were able to generate a stream of model results that mimicked well temperatures observed in the recent past over the north Atlantic, western Europe and North America.

Looking forward, the model projects a weakening of the MOC and a resulting cooling of north Atlantic waters, which will act to keep temperatures in check around the world, much as the warming and cooling associated with El Nino and La Nina in the Pacific bring global consequences.

"We have to take into account that there are uncertainties in our model; but it does suggest a plateauing of temperatures, and then a continued rise," said Dr Keenlyside.

'No distraction'

The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.

"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.

"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."

Dr Wood cautions that this kind of modelling is in its infancy; and once data can be brought directly from the Atlantic depths, that may change the view of how the AMO works and what it means for the global climate.

As with the unusually cold weather seen recently in much of the northern hemisphere - linked to La Nina conditions - he emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.

Michael Schlesinger, the US scientist who characterised the AMO in 1994, described the new model as "very exciting".

"No doubt we need to have more data from the deep ocean, and we don't have that at present," the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign researcher told BBC News.

"But imagine the payoff of knowing with some certainty what the next 10 years hold in terms of temperature and precipitation - the economic impacts of that would be significant."
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top