Warming at both the Earth's poles has, for the first time, been directly attributed to humans, according to a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience. "[Y]ou see a clear human fingerprint in the observed data," said researcher Peter Stott. "We really can't claim anymore that it's natural variations that are driving these very large changes that we are seeing in the climate system."
Hey, Look, We're Uppin' the Poles
Polar warming directly attributed to humans, study says 13
-
Posted 7:00 AM on 31 Oct 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 2:54 am
31 Oct 2008
Wow, "geoscience" is certainly an internecine business. Only here can things be "proven" not by experiment, but by agreeing with models -- or, making models agree with each other!
The research team took the temperature changes over the polar regions of the Earth and compared them with two sets of climate models.
One set assumed that there had been no human influence the other set assumed there had.
The best fit was with models that assumed that human activities including the burning of fossil fuels and depletion of ozone had played a part.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7700387.stm
Permalink
GoodCheer Posted 5:24 am
31 Oct 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:46 pm
31 Oct 2008
I would never do such an experiment because as a Questioner I do not believe in AGW. I would rather research theories such as the electric nature of the Universe or cosmoclimatology.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:06 am
01 Nov 2008
You'd need to actually go to college first to do that, ya realize?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:44 pm
01 Nov 2008
You'd need to actually go to college first to do that
I went to Princeton University.
Where did you go?
And did you have to draw a cat's face to get in?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:54 pm
01 Nov 2008
Even if these findings found a cooling for BOTH East and West Antarctica, and that there were NO warming effects from human activity anywhere South of Argentina, it still wouldn't refute the central thesis of AGW. There is too much additional evidence to make it very likely.
But in this case, the area of West Antarctica DOES corroborate other AGW findings and backs up the entire understanding.
And besides all of this, the ice core and coral records of the past 650,000 years give me much more confidence than your "questionable" protests.
Its OK to set policy on just a "strong likelihood", Jabailo. You know, with only an understanding of past evidence, models, and a likelihood assessment, I feel comfortable saying New Orleans levees will not likely survive a category 5 hurricane and should be beefed up. These are sane and rational modes of thinking.
Of course questioning is good. Duh. But don't be suicidal or irrational in the name of it.
-Christopher
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:41 am
02 Nov 2008
There is too much additional evidence to make it very likely.
Funny, but AGW theory reminds me of the old joke about business.
We lose a little bit on each sale.
How do you stay in business?
Volume!
So, everytime a single point is defeated, the AGW zombie says "oh yeah, but what about all the other evidence"?
Yeah, but that evidence is just as skakey and refutable as the current diatribe!
So there is no preponderance of evidence, because each individual point is completely farcical!
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:29 am
02 Nov 2008
Aren't you a peer? Where is your dialog with the poor misguided scientists? In this case, you would need to speak with teams from UK, US, and Japan, who have been studying and refining the process of observing for years. So much so that even a former critic of their methodology complimented them this time around. http://tinyurl.com/68dbbc
You can start by telling them what you tell us every single god-damned day: That your back yard is fine, so you know better.
Being a contrarian has its helpful and unhelpful points. Why not spend your time helping in the areas of less confidence (like hurricanes) than in the center of a fairly well understood theory?
Otherwise it seems you are wasting your time and spinning your wheels here.
And if policy influencing has been your goal then you lost that battle when both McCain and Obama became the front runners. And that was a while ago now. There is a 100% chance carbon will be heavily regulated. As sure as the sun comes up tomorrow. So you could have no influence upon that at this point.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:20 am
02 Nov 2008
Okay, now let me ask this...did you actually graduate Princeton?
And if so, what was your field/major?
And in what way would it qualify you as an expert in global climate change?
Permalink
jchret Posted 10:07 am
02 Nov 2008
My money is on Biology.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:47 pm
02 Nov 2008
Jabailo, you really should publish your well researched counterpoints to the many, many peer reviewed papers out there.
That's the big joke about AGW -- there aren't any! After scouring through all the recommended "scientific" papers, I find all of them lacking. And even what I am told is the "best of the best" is based not on real world experimental work, but on designing computer models that forever have to be updated to match reality.
There is a 100% chance carbon will be heavily regulated. As sure as the sun comes up tomorrow.
Well, that's it isn't it -- whenever the real argument falls apart, as it has, the AGW Guard says how it's inevitable that the result will be ever more tyrannical government oppression of the individual.
Or, people will wake up from the subterfuge of Al Gore's lies and fight it intellectually and throw off the yoke of Green Oppression.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:40 am
03 Nov 2008
So I'm guessin' he didn't graduate, and he doesn't have any experience in the natural, ecological, or earth sciences whatsoever.
I'm thinkin' he may have went in as business or undecided and then failed to go all the way.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:02 pm
03 Nov 2008
Jabailo isn't in a dialog. He's being a contrarian for its own sake.
And here we are wasting time with him again like its Groundhog Day.
I'm splittin'. I've got to go vote and do something productive.
Permalink