Global warming' More doubts
Published: Saturday, March 21, 2009,
New studies suggest that "global warming" -- no matter if its origins are proffered as man-made or part of a natural cycle -- might soon require a new name. Can you say "global stasis" or "global cooling"?
Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee applied a math formula to climate data for the past 100 years. They found Earth's air and ocean systems now are showing signs of synchronizing with each other.
That might explain why the researchers found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and that the planet's temperatures have leveled off since 2001. And that might help explain why there seem to be fewer bad storms.
A study of global tropical cyclone activity by Ryan N. Maue, a doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University, suggests global warming might be greatly overblown.
Alarmists long have claimed that global warming causes an increase in storm intensity. But Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s. These are more reminders for every Chicken Little global warming squawker that climatology has barely scratched the surface about Earth's ideal temperature. So much, once again, for "consensus" and "settled science."
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.