Extensive historical data shows recent extreme warming is unprecedented in past 2,000 years
@donald please note.
What's your point, and what is the Guardian's point?
Seems clear enough to me?‘The Guardian said:This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London
Indeed. So it's a matter of "what proportion of the recently observed warming is anthropogenic".I am one of the people that believe humans are contributing to global warming. But if that 99% believe that ALL global warming is man made then that means at least 99% of those contributing to the scientific consensus are idiots. So I presume they don't believe that.
So, basically, the situation has changed from the first few IPCC reports, in which the underlying arithmetic was showing it to be ~25%?Indeed. So it's a matter of "what proportion of the recently observed warming is anthropogenic".
Where "recently" is roughly the last 150 years.
And the answer to that appears to be "almost all of it". Especially so if you mainly look at the last 100 years.
Volcanoes. We need to pray for more eruptions.Pray tell, what caused the minor glaciation in the 17th century and what reversed it? Was it all the extra horses we were feeding on hay?
Good explanation for what caused it, I am sure.
That's not peer reviewed. It's not published in any journal.
The paper makes no such claim. They hypothesise that galactic cosmic rays may have an important role in climate change, but make no assertions about the relative importance of this compared to other forcing factors.and suggested that the Sun might be the main contributory factor.
No it's not....A sort of 'peer review' from Kobe. Leading to a doubt about the no doubt claim.
A Finnish study has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results have been slammed by critics in the science community.www.rt.com
1 Study that hypothesises that galactic cosmic rays during geomagnetic reversal may have a role to play during winter monsoons.Two studies that say its the Sun wot did it. So some 'doubt' introduced into the blanket claim that its all my fault.
The Kobe paper isn't shunned, it just doesn't say what you think it says.I find it to be quite strange that when any research disputes the 'consensus' they are immediately labelled as heretics and must be shunned by all humanity. Very little energy is spent in explaining why the research is flawed - and in what way. It must be ignored.
If the author made any effort to submit it for peer review, I think he'd find lots of feedback forthcoming.I find it to be quite strange that when any research disputes the 'consensus' they are immediately labelled as heretics and must be shunned by all humanity. Very little energy is spent in explaining why the research is flawed - and in what way. It must be ignored.