BBC article, interesting for a couple of reasons [modified]
-
Its a departure from the Beebs normal line and secondly, this isnt new research. Herschel noted a correlation between sunspots and the price of grain in 1812 or somesuch. The UK and continental Europe could be gripped by more frequent cold winters in the future as a result of low solar activity, say researchers.[^] It goes on to say that is only Europe effected by this, but also says its what happened in the little ice age. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt the little ice age effect the whole northern hemisphere? --edit-- Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[6] [^] Yes, it did affect the whole NH. So, how does the article justify stating todays efect is a europe only affair, while the same effect during the LIA was a NH affair? Well, clearly to get past the censors. If theye were to state that solar activity could affect half the planets weather the article wouldnt be published because ot would be too far against the accepted truth that man made CO2 is responsible for climate variation. But its a start. We should be thankful that finally the discussion and debate is opening up. Small acceptances can lead to larger ones untill finally we can divest ourselves of this ludicrous perverted science that AGW is.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of
-
Its a departure from the Beebs normal line and secondly, this isnt new research. Herschel noted a correlation between sunspots and the price of grain in 1812 or somesuch. The UK and continental Europe could be gripped by more frequent cold winters in the future as a result of low solar activity, say researchers.[^] It goes on to say that is only Europe effected by this, but also says its what happened in the little ice age. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt the little ice age effect the whole northern hemisphere? --edit-- Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[6] [^] Yes, it did affect the whole NH. So, how does the article justify stating todays efect is a europe only affair, while the same effect during the LIA was a NH affair? Well, clearly to get past the censors. If theye were to state that solar activity could affect half the planets weather the article wouldnt be published because ot would be too far against the accepted truth that man made CO2 is responsible for climate variation. But its a start. We should be thankful that finally the discussion and debate is opening up. Small acceptances can lead to larger ones untill finally we can divest ourselves of this ludicrous perverted science that AGW is.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of
The Little Ice Age is a term used by nobody today. It is merely a period of minima after the mediaeval warm period of the current ice age in which we exist.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
The Little Ice Age is a term used by nobody today. It is merely a period of minima after the mediaeval warm period of the current ice age in which we exist.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
While what you say is technically true, that we are still in an ice age, the maunder minimum or little ice age are terms commonly used. Interesting, as I pointed out recently, if the last week in november anbd the first in december are considered together the cold record was recently beaten on the UK. Which is quite something. To beat a record going back to the English Civil War!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
While what you say is technically true, that we are still in an ice age, the maunder minimum or little ice age are terms commonly used. Interesting, as I pointed out recently, if the last week in november anbd the first in december are considered together the cold record was recently beaten on the UK. Which is quite something. To beat a record going back to the English Civil War!
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Maunder minimum, sure, it is a scientific term. But Little Ice Age is as Scientific as Richter Scale, ie not at all, at least never used by Scientists.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
Maunder minimum, sure, it is a scientific term. But Little Ice Age is as Scientific as Richter Scale, ie not at all, at least never used by Scientists.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
But Little Ice Age is as Scientific as Richter Scale, ie not at all, at least never used by Scientists.
Hey, I aint a scientist, so I'll use it! :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
But Little Ice Age is as Scientific as Richter Scale, ie not at all, at least never used by Scientists.
Hey, I aint a scientist, so I'll use it! :laugh:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Its a departure from the Beebs normal line and secondly, this isnt new research. Herschel noted a correlation between sunspots and the price of grain in 1812 or somesuch. The UK and continental Europe could be gripped by more frequent cold winters in the future as a result of low solar activity, say researchers.[^] It goes on to say that is only Europe effected by this, but also says its what happened in the little ice age. Correct me if I am wrong, but didnt the little ice age effect the whole northern hemisphere? --edit-- Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[6] [^] Yes, it did affect the whole NH. So, how does the article justify stating todays efect is a europe only affair, while the same effect during the LIA was a NH affair? Well, clearly to get past the censors. If theye were to state that solar activity could affect half the planets weather the article wouldnt be published because ot would be too far against the accepted truth that man made CO2 is responsible for climate variation. But its a start. We should be thankful that finally the discussion and debate is opening up. Small acceptances can lead to larger ones untill finally we can divest ourselves of this ludicrous perverted science that AGW is.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of
fat_boy wrote:
[Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.
I.E., although the 'Little Ice Age' may have been severe in Europe, it produced merely a "modest cooling" hemispherically.
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, it did affect the whole NH.
Modestly.
fat_boy wrote:
So, how does the article justify stating todays efect is a europe only affair, while the same effect during the LIA was a NH affair?
Geography. BBC article: "You don't quite have the same combination of circumstances anywhere else in the world that gives you such strong blocking." So, Europe gets extreme low temperatures, but these have a "modest cooling" effect to the NH as a whole.
fat_boy wrote:
Well, clearly to get past the censors. If theye were to state that solar activity could affect half the planets weather the article wouldnt be published because ot would be too far against the accepted truth that man made CO2 is responsible for climate variation.
Well, clearly not, as it provides an explanation of why we can experience long periods of lower temperatures during AGW. A Godsend, I should think, beats "Weather is not Climate".
-
fat_boy wrote:
[Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.
I.E., although the 'Little Ice Age' may have been severe in Europe, it produced merely a "modest cooling" hemispherically.
fat_boy wrote:
Yes, it did affect the whole NH.
Modestly.
fat_boy wrote:
So, how does the article justify stating todays efect is a europe only affair, while the same effect during the LIA was a NH affair?
Geography. BBC article: "You don't quite have the same combination of circumstances anywhere else in the world that gives you such strong blocking." So, Europe gets extreme low temperatures, but these have a "modest cooling" effect to the NH as a whole.
fat_boy wrote:
Well, clearly to get past the censors. If theye were to state that solar activity could affect half the planets weather the article wouldnt be published because ot would be too far against the accepted truth that man made CO2 is responsible for climate variation.
Well, clearly not, as it provides an explanation of why we can experience long periods of lower temperatures during AGW. A Godsend, I should think, beats "Weather is not Climate".
ict558 wrote:
"modest cooling"
ict558 wrote:
"modest cooling"
Are these substantialy the same? (Not forgetting that you have describes both the LIA and the 'europe only' thing as both cause "modest cooling".
ict558 wrote:
Well, clearly not, as it provides an explanation of why we can experience long periods of lower temperatures during AGW.
Which t th eleast demonstrates that CO2 is not the principle climate driver. In fact, read the sig. Its affect cant be determined against naturalvariability.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
"modest cooling"
ict558 wrote:
"modest cooling"
Are these substantialy the same? (Not forgetting that you have describes both the LIA and the 'europe only' thing as both cause "modest cooling".
ict558 wrote:
Well, clearly not, as it provides an explanation of why we can experience long periods of lower temperatures during AGW.
Which t th eleast demonstrates that CO2 is not the principle climate driver. In fact, read the sig. Its affect cant be determined against naturalvariability.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Are these substantialy the same? (Not forgetting that you have describes both the LIA and the 'europe only' thing as both cause "modest cooling".
The Wikipedia article stated "[Viewed] hemispherically, the 'Little Ice Age' can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period" The BBC article stated "A prolonged 'blocking' during the most recent winter was responsible for the long spell of freezing conditions that gripped Europe." If the 'Little Ice Age' and the recent winter conditions were both due to the 'blocking' effect, then it would be reasonable to assume that the effect of the latter event would also contribute only modest cooling, hemispherically.
fat_boy wrote:
Which t th eleast demonstrates that CO2 is not the principle climate driver.
If the hypothesis is supported by ongoing research, then the degree to which solar activity contributes to warming/cooling may begin to be ascertained.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Are these substantialy the same? (Not forgetting that you have describes both the LIA and the 'europe only' thing as both cause "modest cooling".
The Wikipedia article stated "[Viewed] hemispherically, the 'Little Ice Age' can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period" The BBC article stated "A prolonged 'blocking' during the most recent winter was responsible for the long spell of freezing conditions that gripped Europe." If the 'Little Ice Age' and the recent winter conditions were both due to the 'blocking' effect, then it would be reasonable to assume that the effect of the latter event would also contribute only modest cooling, hemispherically.
fat_boy wrote:
Which t th eleast demonstrates that CO2 is not the principle climate driver.
If the hypothesis is supported by ongoing research, then the degree to which solar activity contributes to warming/cooling may begin to be ascertained.
ict558 wrote:
If the 'Little Ice Age' and the recent winter conditions were both due to the 'blocking' effect,
Which is what the article stated. So again, how can the article, which states that the cause is the same, the results the same, state that one is europe only and the other HN only? Its inconsistent. Obviously they dont want to raise the flag too high too quickly. To do so will get themselves alerted. So they run it half way up, come out with some 'modest' statement, and the research gets published.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
If the 'Little Ice Age' and the recent winter conditions were both due to the 'blocking' effect,
Which is what the article stated. So again, how can the article, which states that the cause is the same, the results the same, state that one is europe only and the other HN only? Its inconsistent. Obviously they dont want to raise the flag too high too quickly. To do so will get themselves alerted. So they run it half way up, come out with some 'modest' statement, and the research gets published.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
O.K. Shopping, decorations, et al - completed. Now, where was I?
I wrote:
If the 'Little Ice Age' and the recent winter conditions were both due to the 'blocking' effect, then it would be reasonable to assume that the effect of the latter event would also contribute only modest cooling, hemispherically.
Ooops, that should have been: If the 'Little Ice Age' winters and ...
fat_boy wrote:
So again, how can the article, which states that the cause is the same, the results the same, state that one is europe only and the other HN only? Its inconsistent.
Where does the article claim that low solar activity caused the Little Ice Age? The claim is that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause, and that this has a local, rather than global affect.
-
O.K. Shopping, decorations, et al - completed. Now, where was I?
I wrote:
If the 'Little Ice Age' and the recent winter conditions were both due to the 'blocking' effect, then it would be reasonable to assume that the effect of the latter event would also contribute only modest cooling, hemispherically.
Ooops, that should have been: If the 'Little Ice Age' winters and ...
fat_boy wrote:
So again, how can the article, which states that the cause is the same, the results the same, state that one is europe only and the other HN only? Its inconsistent.
Where does the article claim that low solar activity caused the Little Ice Age? The claim is that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause, and that this has a local, rather than global affect.
ict558 wrote:
Where does the article claim that low solar activity caused the Little Ice Age?
Right here: "To examine whether there was a link, Professor Lockwood and his co-authors compared past levels of solar activity with the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which is the world's longest continuous instrumental record of such data. The researchers used the 351-year CET record because it provided data that went back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, a prolonged period of very low activity on the Sun that lasted about half a century. Europe is particularly susceptible because it lies underneath the jet stream Professor Mike Lockwood The Maunder Minimum occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century - a period when Europe experienced a series of harsh winters, which has been dubbed by some as the Little Ice Age. Following this, there was a gradual increase in solar activity that lasted 300 years. Professor Lockwood explained that studies of activity on the Sun, which provides data stretching back over 9,000 years, showed that it tended to "ramp up quite slowly over about a 300-year period, then drop quite quickly over about a 100-year period". He said the present decline started in 1985 and was currently about "half way back to a Maunder Minimum condition". This allowed the team to compare recent years with what happened in the late 1600s. "We found that you could accommodate both the Maunder Minimum and the last few years into the same framework," "
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
ict558 wrote:
Where does the article claim that low solar activity caused the Little Ice Age?
Right here: "To examine whether there was a link, Professor Lockwood and his co-authors compared past levels of solar activity with the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which is the world's longest continuous instrumental record of such data. The researchers used the 351-year CET record because it provided data that went back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, a prolonged period of very low activity on the Sun that lasted about half a century. Europe is particularly susceptible because it lies underneath the jet stream Professor Mike Lockwood The Maunder Minimum occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century - a period when Europe experienced a series of harsh winters, which has been dubbed by some as the Little Ice Age. Following this, there was a gradual increase in solar activity that lasted 300 years. Professor Lockwood explained that studies of activity on the Sun, which provides data stretching back over 9,000 years, showed that it tended to "ramp up quite slowly over about a 300-year period, then drop quite quickly over about a 100-year period". He said the present decline started in 1985 and was currently about "half way back to a Maunder Minimum condition". This allowed the team to compare recent years with what happened in the late 1600s. "We found that you could accommodate both the Maunder Minimum and the last few years into the same framework," "
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Hi, hope you have recovered from the seasonal bloat.
fat_boy wrote:
It goes on to say that is only Europe effected by this, but also says its what happened in the little ice age.
"The Maunder Minimum occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century - a period when Europe experienced a series of harsh winters, which has been dubbed by some as the Little Ice Age." This merely states that the Maunder Minimum occurred in a period called (sorry, 'dubbed') the 'Little Ice Age', during which Europe experienced harsh winters. The study claims that the histories of Central England Temperatures and Solar Activity strongly suggest that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause, and that this has a local, rather than global affect. There is no suggestion that this mechanism also caused the 'Little Ice Age', indeed there is no mention of the LIA in the study, other than in the titles of two referenced papers: Mann M E 2002 Little ice age Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change vol 1 (Re: the Sun remaining virtually free of sunspots for almost 50 years during the Maunder Minimum.) Yiou P and Masson-Delmotte V 2005 Trends in sub-annual climate variability since the Little Ice Age in western Europe C. R. Geosci. 337 (Re: the link between the incidence of long-lived winter blocking events in the Eastern Atlantic at low solar activity and the increased frequency of easterly winds influencing the UK temperatures.) It is a shame that the Mr. Kinver saw fit to introduce the LIA (and 'dubbed' :) ) into his article, and to phrase his sentences so as to give rise to a suggestion of inconsistency that does not exist.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Hi, hope you have recovered from the seasonal bloat.
fat_boy wrote:
It goes on to say that is only Europe effected by this, but also says its what happened in the little ice age.
"The Maunder Minimum occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century - a period when Europe experienced a series of harsh winters, which has been dubbed by some as the Little Ice Age." This merely states that the Maunder Minimum occurred in a period called (sorry, 'dubbed') the 'Little Ice Age', during which Europe experienced harsh winters. The study claims that the histories of Central England Temperatures and Solar Activity strongly suggest that low solar activity has caused colder European winters, that jet-stream 'blocking' is the probable cause, and that this has a local, rather than global affect. There is no suggestion that this mechanism also caused the 'Little Ice Age', indeed there is no mention of the LIA in the study, other than in the titles of two referenced papers: Mann M E 2002 Little ice age Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change vol 1 (Re: the Sun remaining virtually free of sunspots for almost 50 years during the Maunder Minimum.) Yiou P and Masson-Delmotte V 2005 Trends in sub-annual climate variability since the Little Ice Age in western Europe C. R. Geosci. 337 (Re: the link between the incidence of long-lived winter blocking events in the Eastern Atlantic at low solar activity and the increased frequency of easterly winds influencing the UK temperatures.) It is a shame that the Mr. Kinver saw fit to introduce the LIA (and 'dubbed' :) ) into his article, and to phrase his sentences so as to give rise to a suggestion of inconsistency that does not exist.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
Terminology aside, the cause is stated as being the same, yet the outcome different. Thats the question, and the answer is to ensure publishing.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
-
Terminology aside, the cause is stated as being the same, yet the outcome different. Thats the question, and the answer is to ensure publishing.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
fat_boy wrote:
Terminology aside
Terminology? No, your inability to parse an English sentence.
fat_boy wrote:
the cause is stated as being the same
No. The 'blocking' effect is the cause of the extremely cold European Winters, and the evidence strongly supports Solar Activity as being the cause of the 'blocking'. The effect was local, not global. Nothing about the Little Ice Age.
fat_boy wrote:
yet the outcome different
No. The BBC journalist introduced the phrase Little Ice Age. You introduced the hemispheric/global nature of the Little Ice Age. The lowest NH temperature anomaly for the LIA is ~ -0.8C. Which (to me) suggests that the extremely cold European winters contributed but "modestly" to the NH temperatures. Which (to me) supports the claim that the low temperatures caused by the 'blocking' effect were likely to have been largely local.
fat_boy wrote:
Thats the question
And the answer is that there is no inconsistency, other than that of your own invention.
fat_boy wrote:
and the answer is to ensure publishing.
I respect your right to believe any twaddle you wish.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
fat_boy wrote:
Terminology aside
Terminology? No, your inability to parse an English sentence.
fat_boy wrote:
the cause is stated as being the same
No. The 'blocking' effect is the cause of the extremely cold European Winters, and the evidence strongly supports Solar Activity as being the cause of the 'blocking'. The effect was local, not global. Nothing about the Little Ice Age.
fat_boy wrote:
yet the outcome different
No. The BBC journalist introduced the phrase Little Ice Age. You introduced the hemispheric/global nature of the Little Ice Age. The lowest NH temperature anomaly for the LIA is ~ -0.8C. Which (to me) suggests that the extremely cold European winters contributed but "modestly" to the NH temperatures. Which (to me) supports the claim that the low temperatures caused by the 'blocking' effect were likely to have been largely local.
fat_boy wrote:
Thats the question
And the answer is that there is no inconsistency, other than that of your own invention.
fat_boy wrote:
and the answer is to ensure publishing.
I respect your right to believe any twaddle you wish.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
:zzz:
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville