Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans
October 30, 2008New research by the University of East Anglia (UEA) has demonstrated for the first time that human activity is responsible for significant warming in both polar regions.
The findings by a team of scientists led by UEA's Climatic Research Unit will be published online by the Nature Geoscience this week.
Previous studies have observed rises in both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures over recent decades but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence due to poor observation data and large natural variability. Moreover, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had concluded that Antarctica was the only continent where human-induced temperature changes had yet to be detected.
Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence.
The results demonstrate that human activity has already caused significant warming, with impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.
"This is an important work indeed," said Dr Alexey Karpechko of UEA's Climatic Research Unit.
"Arctic warming has previously been emphasized in several publications, although not formally attributed to human activity. However in Antarctica, such detection was so far precluded by insufficient data available. Moreover circulation changes caused by stratospheric ozone depletion opposed warming over most of Antarctica and made the detection even more difficult.
"Since the ozone layer is expected to recover in the future we may expect amplifying Antarctic warming in the coming years."
Citation: 'Attribution of polar warming to human influence' by Nathan Gillett (UEA/Environment Canada), Phil Jones (UEA), Alexey Karpechko (UEA), Daithi Stone (University of Oxford/Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research), Peter Scott (Met Office Hadley Centre), Toru Nozawa (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan), Gabriele Hegerl (University of Edinburgh), and Michael Wehner (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California) is published by Nature Geoscience on Thursday October 30.
Source: University of East Anglia
Nov 05, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
So lets draw a conclusion from nothing and attribute it to ourselves. Maybe humans are responsible, maybe we're not. A computer simulation where you assume natural climate variability or human induction with no other possible causes does not prove humans are inducing warming nor is it anywhere near "conclusive".
Not that I don't think humans are having an effect, but this study says nothing about it.
What more junk science?
If you can fit a million earths into the sun....then it is obvious a minute change in the sun's output levels on cosmic time, can have huge changes on earth's climate over centuries.
We just think we are mighty and can change climate globally. All the carbon and other chemicals we put in the atmosphere since the industrial rev is so tiny its not even funny. People don't understand the atmosphere is a huge volume of space, and I mean huge.
Local pollution is far different than global warming that the media loves to blur the line.
That said: the deniers who've responded above are simply unable to comprehend that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere is a cause of global warming. That's not a question, it's a fact.
THERE IS NO OTHER THEORETICAL EXPLANATION BEING OFFERED for the climate changes, animal extinctions, glacial melting going on worldwide. Deconstructive critics are simply leading people to distrust their senses and reason, while providing no other cogent explanation. This is not only intellectually dishonest, it is dangerous.
Finally: this is a news article about a forthcoming article. It's impossible to adequately criticize a work you haven't seen yet.
For example, I do not "know" for that humans cause global warming, or even that the earth is warming, because I cannot "personally" observe such trends and their causes. But alot of people who claim they can say they do "know", and thus I will plan for the worst and hope for the best... I attempt to minimize my own carbon footprint within reason (I drive a reasonably fuel efficient car, minimize my electricity use etc), but that doesn't mean I believe in MMGW... think of it like wearing a seatbelt: you wear your seatbelt not because you believe you are going to crash, but rather in case you happen to crash this time... even though you probably wont.
This is because I remain skeptical of anyone who claims to know the truth on any subject, and also of those who claim to know they are wrong.
Nobody knows squat at the end of the day!
That said, humans are the second largest single force acting on this planet (the sun being the greatest). We move more dirt around than any other natural force (ie vulcanism, erosion, etc), so the impact of humanity on the climate can not simply be dismissed out of hand. Unfortunately, real scientific analysis of the situation is next to impossible, simply because there is only one data point, Earth. At the very least we need a control, although I personally wouldn't be satisfied with any less than three controls and three "Earths". Each would have to orbit the sun at the same distance, be the same size, etc. Lacking that, all we can do is observe and TRY to make predictions. Once we find that we can constantly make accurate predictions under a wide variety of circumstances, then we can say that we have a good model and we KNOW what's going on, at least to a first approximation. As it stands, we can't even predict the weather a month in advance, you think we can really tell what effect human activity has on the climate as a whole? I don't think so.
That, coupled with compelling evidence that the amount of energy reaching the earths surface is related to solar activity (not necessarily changes in the solar "constant") and other effects is why I am not convinced AGW is real. The only thing that IS real is global change, up or down.
The only thing conclusive with this article is that they researchers want more money to study further.
That's not correct. There are a number of species that out number humans on a total mass basis. Between ants and cockroaches I would think a lot of material is moved around even when compared to humans. And the amount of material moved by natural (read weather and earthquakes)can't be a small number either.
Intriguing indeed :D
http://www.junksc...l-m.html
Well, thank you for that particular bit of junk science. The solar output, both in terms of power output and solar wind has indeed been observed and is not consistent with the current warming.
[edit: Although you're right about the re-verse junk science bit.]
MMGW is assumed because of the measurable cooling effect on the northern hemisphere made by air craft.
MMGW is assumed because of the Cooling effect caused by pollution over the Indian Ocean traced back to Industry in India.
But is it real?
One thing I am sure of though the article above provides zero supporting evidence to back up the title headline.
Why is that?
I am one who normally gives you a 1 when you quote the AGW religion dogma,but some of your comments today are valid,so as I try to be objective,I gave you a 3 and a 5 (thats why your average is not 1,there are bigots on both sides). I try to do the same with people I disagree with who argue from common sense. Unfortunatly some people quote from REALLY biased "climate experts" like James Hanson who has been shown to doctor data to his own ends. He is so far up the food chain in NASA he is untouchable and anyone who does not check,believes.
So the article says that by measureing abnormally or deceptivly cold temperatures in the antearctic regions they have conclusivly proven AGW? Ok, By observing the absurdly low number in my bank account I've just realized, I'm rich... just not in the financial sense... This isn't junk science, it's just junk. Crap like this leads to people over reacting.
Telling people that the ozone layer, which by the way has NEVER been observed over the polar regions (Find one source of it's observation, they deduced it's existance by it's absence whatever the hell that means), The effects of any attempt to control such a phenomena will likely localize around the tropical regions just by following the jetstreams.
Mesafina That might be the smartest thing said on this board yet, but I'd venture to say it doesn't only apply to people, everything will cope, or die. For the existance of earth life has found a way, we aren't going to stop it, probably can't. We can change it, but so can killer bees, coyotes, tsunamis, volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes, techtonic motion, droughts, early/late frost, the moon, solar shifts, manufactuing of tea in China, butterfly in Central Park, etc.
Of course the poster will come back quickly with a statement like "good money if one can get it", which again is exactly what we would expect.
The problem with this debate now is I don't trust the cred's of any posters here anymore, so I'm out. Have fun.
Problem is, 'big ecology' spends even more money.
When the system is sufficiently complex, all they do is reinforce the researcher bias.
Kind of like a pathetic 8th grade science fair. "We set out to show XXX, and lo and behold, we have conclude XXX". Stupid clucking chicken little science.
I'd be somewhat surprised if that were the case given the fact that I can't imagine where "big ecology" would be getting money on the scale of "big energy". Energy companies make up some of the worlds largest economies. Could you link to some information that might clear this matter up, as while I believe there is manipulation going on by both sides atm, your statement struck me as seeming irrational, but I want to give you a chance to back it up before I dismiss it. If it is true, that would be interesting indeed.
Actually, I wonder if it would be possible to do a comparison of the funding energy companies provide to scientific think tanks vs the money government spends on climate change research. It might be tricky though... I don't know how much of that information is public. I'd be more then happy to help if you want to try and find some data online, as I am genuinely curious to find out whether or not this is true.
I appreciate that you were willing to make that post to clear this up. Truth is, I am not a proponent of MMGW, even though some people on this forum see my neutral views as being the same as those who do believe it. I have no opinion on the matter at all in fact, except to approach the issue with caution, and with skepticism of anyone who claims to know what's really going on (from either side of the argument).
I have been working to remove myself from the grid (I'm planning to install a windmill and solar-panels in the near future) but this has more to do with self-sufficiency and reducing obscene energy costs atm then any naive notion that I'm somehow helping to "stop global warming" ;D
As I said, climate will change, and when it does life will adapt... and hopefully people will too (some undoubtedly will, others will find themselves unprepared as usual). The climate WILL change... whether or not humans cause it. It's the way it's always been so far as we can tell.
Might as well plan for the inevitable... the key to surviving anything is adapting, because we can't predict everything... sometimes you just get caught with your pants down!
That's simply an assumption on your part. I would not respond that way, in fact I think that anyone using money to try and cover up the truth is despicable, no matter who they are or what they are trying to hide.
However, regardless of who's covering up what... the fact is that there really is a lack of information atm, or rather an insurmountable surplus of conflicting reports from conflicting "experts". The average person cannot be expected to be able to figure out who's telling the truth on this matter, because they are not in a place to experiment themselves on the issue. As such, taking an opinion one way or another at this point would be naive at best... the equivalent of arbitrarily picking a side and then only accepting information from their cheerleaders.
And that is why I pick no sides. People can argue all they want about things they have no control over. I'll continue to improve my own life and those of my friends and family. If everyone would do the same and stop bickering over issues they can't control I'd guess the world would be a much more pleasant place.
For an explanation find a copy of Time magazine from 1977(?) November issue. Big spread on how man made emissions are causing a new ice age.
It's not easy. They don't put them under nice labels like: "Political contributions to support AGW" or "Monies to scientists and thinktanks to support AGW". I wish they would 8)
Here's a few pointers:
Listing of 4 environmental groups political funding:
http://epw.senate...les.View&FileStore_id=142d595f-411a-4057-b495-029a095fe25f
Here's the 8 'scientific' organizations stumping for $9Billion in federal funds:
http://icecap.us/...lion_to/
Here's Dr. James Hansen receiving money to speak out for AGW:
http://icecap.us/...c_trust/
Or maybe former UN Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong:
http://online.wsj...679.html
Or maybe the $300Million fund set up by Al Gore to convince everybody about AGW?
http://www.americ...bal.html
Or the $600Million California will be spending:
http://www.moonba...o_f.html
NRDC spent ~$59Million on environmental activity including "Scientific"
http://www.nrdc.o...nces.asp
Just nuke USA and we get rid of 25% of the global emissions while only killing 5% of the total population.
And watch China and India immediately double their energy expenditure.
The US is an energy hungry place, and we bank a lot of our imports and exports. Getting rid of us will just make the supply more available to be gobbled up by other less efficient users.
"earth warming as a consequence
of human activities" , yet I must
admit that computer simulations
really prove nothing; they must
not be taken as proof. Yes, they
can be helpful but no, they are
proof of nothing other than that
one can program a result. Please
dont misunderstand me! I am not
saying that this represents any
sort of improper science .. The
devil is in the interpretations,
however innocently one can
mislead oneself.
But this article makes it seem like the global warming crowd didn't have solid evidence before now. So why were the advocates so arrogant in their standing?
This is why you will never win me over.
That's rather inflammatory, especially considering the percentage that we're actually culpable for. Sum total percent of human contribution to GHG's is under 1%. That's all man made sources, cattle ranching, industry, transportation, etc. I'm guessing you didn't know that and assumed it was closer to 25% maybe even 50%. Human impact is so small and so over exaggerated that it's rather sickening to hear people explode out in anger at people jsut affirming their information.
Let's see some relevant information, otherwise we're jsut going to see your posts as more zealotry. It takes information to sway the minds of those who are interested in truth. Not a lack of faith in human beings, or an undying faith in the AGW movement despite it's lack of evidence and predictive shortcommings.
http://i134.photo...rica.png
I'm pretty sure the people who can't afford computers aren't interested in spending more of their money on saving the planet. They're probably interested in using that money for actual good rather than falsified claims of good as proposed by your ilk.
Considering the percentage that we're actually culpable for. Sum total percent of human contribution to GHG's is under 1%. That's all man made sources, cattle ranching, industry, transportation, etc.
Human impact is so small and so over exaggerated that it's rather sickening to hear people explode out in anger at people just affirming their information.
We are a speck when it comes to global impact...its local impact where we do the most damage..but globally...I don't think we are even close to manipulating weather on a global scale, directly or indirectly.
But on the other hand what if it is us that is causing the global warming "DUE TO INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE" as all yall naysayers are saying.. that would suggest that IT COULD BE US. Now shut up and let the fact the it couldbe us better our technology and shut yer yaps.
How is better technology gonna screw ya?
Isn`t it surprising how the HIV virus being so small as it is, it actually is very detrimental to human health to the point of death. It does not kill you dirrectly as it affects other functions of the body, and THEN you die.
Keep speculating all you want but let cleaner technology take its place among us. Better to cost a little now than to have nothing later
I think that is the majority of points raised in response to this article. Can humans cause changes in climate? I think the answer is YES. I have seen evidence that tropical temperatures over large areas have been consistently up 0.5 to 1.0 degrees cooler in areas covered by pollution caused cloud cover.
I have seen evidence that the average temperature over large cities that are not heavily polluted is up to degree warmer and dryer than the surrounding countryside.
I have seen evidence that high flying aircraft trails criss-crossing parts of the northern hemisphere have contributed to increased cloud cover a lowering of temperature in those areas more heavily trafficked.
Does this mean that you can write an article that says you have proved something without any proof? No it does not. I am not for or against many things except that I am for the scientific method in a big way and the scientific method does not prove anything by shouting.
Can man affect the planet? Of course he can man is not so insignificant when he covers the ground like a carpet from pole to pole. True we are not as bad as that but it sure looks like we are working on it.
I am saddened when I think that all the mega-fauna on the planet is doomed because we just cannot seem to make room for other creatures. When a tiger or a lion kills a man, what do we want to do? We kill it. When an elephant runs amok and destroys a village we kill it. When we want to grow a thousand acres of cotton or wheat we put up a fence to keep the animals out. When we want to run a 1,000 acres of cattle up goes another fence. When we want to enlarge a city we put in more roads and houses or rather the people just accumulate and these things just happen naturally.
When we can afford a few luxuries like toilet paper of a roof or a walls then we get them. Maybe we enjoy eating three meals a day instead of eating when we can.
Perhaps we would rather healthy lives and not suffer from parasites. All very reasonable. Are we causing global warming? Does it matter? There is a lot of things we probably need to do to make our lives both comfortable and sustainable and the global warming seems to be the only thing so far that has got people moving in the right direction.
Truth be told, I think it is probably this, more than anything else that has got so many scientists on board. Do we need to prove Global warming is man made before we do anything about it? Maybe we should, because if it is not caused by man then nothing we do will have any impact on it. But there ARE a lot of things caused by man that we could have a big impact on and nobody is game to have a go at these problems Yet.
We should face the reality: if people can change the whether on per week basis, how Nature can avoid the consequences of human activity from long term period?
http://www.greend...an-made/
It means, this claim is of the same relevancy, like the claim of yours. You simply have no arguments/explanations, why AWT should be "controversial", a "very controversial" the less.
To make things perfectly clear, this is just a bold statement of yours, no less, no more - the fact, you're believing in it firmly doesn't make it more relevant - face it. I'd accept whatever argument of yours, but you simply have none. Whole controversy of AWT is based on the fact, everyone is parroting this controversy claim in the hope, someone else has some evidence for it. But in fact, no such evidence exists, just a widespread belief.
And this is a serious problem: why the intelligent people like you are putting such bold claims without single evidence? It leads to religious behavior of the rest.
By Popper methodology every theory should be considered invalid, until no evidence is given. But such approach is completelly symmetrical: by predicate logic each negation of theory is another theory and as such it should be handled with the very same caution.
By such way, Poppers methodology itself supplies no relevant clue, which approach is correct or not. For example, the MM experiment is generally believed as a refusal of Aether theory. But such conclusion is just an intepretation of the orginal experiment - until now nobody realized aparently, such interpretation can be as wrong as well - it's a just another theory, which should be tested and confirmed independently.
Because we invented tools? ...is THAT why what we are never considered "natural"?
Certainly, I want to see us be "wise stewards", but the hype against mankind smacks of hatred. Are we aliens to the planet? Did we invade and kill off the prehistoric creatures that are the REAL earthlings?
If you believe in evolution, you can believe we will adapt, along with most of the other species on this planet. I don't want to live like a stuffed animal in a museum. Life is dynamic and so is the environment.
Lets get beyond this "hate mongering" and "blame assigning" and start a movement to engineer a better environment for our FUTURE.
Yes man is another animal on the planet. Yes man has more brains. It is not that I would say lest get rid of man.
The problem stems from too many mans. When the rabbit plagues hit Australia the outcry was to cut their numbers.
When the eastern half of Australia was covered in Prickly Pair the outcry was to get rid of it.
We will find it much more difficult to cut Human population in half and even then I think that is way too many people to make a sustainable and pleasant standard of living, without impacting detrimentally on the rest of the planet.
I may be a bit more extreme than most but I think the planet was overpopulated sometime early in the last century or maybe the one before that.
Again I point out that I want to live with a few modern conveniences, I am just not so selfish that I think nobody else should have them too.
So if everybody on the planet has modern conveniences is there enough stuff to go around?
And don't forget I would like to see room left over for some uninhabited rain forest, desert and samples of every other type of terrain as well.
If you really believe there are too many people on Earth, perhaps you and your family could lead the way by removing yourselves from our tiny domicile.
Not only that, but I've also found a second interesting corrolation, when I assumed that AGW studies caused AGW to worsen,I found the more money spent on Global Warming research the worse the situation gets... so clearly AGW studies are bad.
You can't argue with the results, but if you want to be a denier, I'll just have to get an AGW grant and spend a couple million to make the results more coincidental so the AGW crowd will buy into it. Maybe I need a computer model to help demonstrate.
I see your points and by virtue of your argument you have 3 options.
1) leave the planet by any means possible.
This suits your opinion that there are too many people.
2) give up all your worldly possessions to others as this suits the second part of your argument. Socialist dispursal or resources.
or 3) come back with more facts and fewer opinions. This planet could probably support 50 billion people if we spent less time working on making new systems and instead spent our time and energy refining the current systems we have.
#1 cause of oil and natural gas use is transportation. If we reduce our need to transport items our economy would be fine as it would shift from global to local, and far less oil and natural gas would be consumed. Problem with this, human health would greatly decline as now foreign resources that are used for health, foods for balanced diets, even clean water would be unobtainable in some areas.
So if you look at the 3 points above you really leave yourself with 3 options.
1) change your argument
2) lead by example and off yourself
or the better of the 3
3) come up with an actual solution, not rhetoric stating that 1/2 the populace should die so you can maintain your quality of life and enjoy the planet. You have to make a sacrifice to achieve your goals. Pick a sacrifice and make it, otherwise you're wasting our time.
CHANGE
There has never for one microsecond since the earth had an atmosphere that that atmosphere has not been changing. For 99.99999% of that time humankind has had ZERO impact. Even if there was all out Global Thermonuclear War the earth would survive past us... it might take 10,000 years for the biosphere to recover but recover it would. Global warming, in whatever percent it is being influenced by man's activity is 1) no big deal in the geological time scale and 2) not going to cause the worldwide extinction of all life. No matter how much you global warming hysterics want to believe it WE cannot make Earth into Venus or Mars...
Can you forward me the XXX pictures of Chicken little? :)
I guess an X rated version of armageddon would be appropriate to popularize the asteroid extinction problem otherwise nonbody will give a fuck.
you forgot the part where you try to pimp your research and product company, Neil.