Weather: Hi 4°C / Lo 2°C
Scientists prove climate change IS man-made
Human activity has left its mark on the Arctic and Antarctic
Friday, 31 October 2008
Print
Email
Changes to the climate due to human activity can now be detected on every continent, following a study showing that temperature rises in the Antarctic as well as the Arctic are the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
It is the first time scientists have been able to prove the link between the temperature changes in both polar regions are down to human activity and it also undermines climate sceptics who believe the warming trend seen in the Arctic in recent decades is part of the climate's natural variability.
The findings contradict the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said that Antarctica was the only continent where the human impact on the climate had not been observed.
The new study shows that Antarctica has been caught up in the changes to the global climate over the past 60 years and that this warming cannot be attributed to natural variations.
Using four computer models and data from dozens of weather stations sited around both the North and South Poles, the study conclusively shows that humans are responsible for the significant increases in temperatures observed in the Arctic and the Antarctic over the past half century.
"We're able for the first time to directly attribute warming in both the Arctic and the Antarctic to human influences on the climate," said Nathan Gillett of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who led the study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
The analysis has also shown there is a significant change to the Antarctic climate caused by human activity.
Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre, who took part in the modelling analysis, said: "In both polar regions the observed warming can only be reproduced in our models by including human influences – natural forcings [increases] alone are not enough.
"For a long time, climate scientists have known that Arctic areas would be expected to warm most strongly because of feedback mechanisms, but the results from this work demonstrate the part man has already played in the significant warming that we've observed in both polar regions.
"There was a clear detection in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a human influence on the climate. We had shown we had detected the human fingerprint in both regions."
In the Arctic, the most visible effect of warmer temperatures has been the disappearance of the sea ice which floats on the Arctic Ocean. In 2007, the sea ice reached an all-time summer minimum, which was nearly reached again this year.
In the Antarctic, global warming has had the greatest impact on coastal areas and the Antarctic Peninsula, which has seen the greatest increases in average temperatures in the region, leading to the disintegration of ice shelves and the speeding up of the flow of glaciers to the sea.
The picture in the Antarctic has also been obscured by the effect of ozone depletion, which has tended to lower temperatures and so counteract the effect of global warming within the region. However, with the recovery of the ozone layer, scientists are expecting to see even greater increases in Antarctic temperatures in future.
Andrew Monaghan of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said the study clarifies human impact on two regions that are notoriously variable in terms of climate. "The polar regions exhibit the largest climatic variability on Earth, so detecting and attributing climate changes has been more difficult than elsewhere," Dr Monaghan explained. "The study is important because it formally demonstrates the human contribution for the first time."
Thank You for your comment
Your comment has been submitted.Please note that we cannot guarantee that all comments will be published and may be removed without explanation. All complaints will be reviewed within 24 hours.
Comments
42 Comments
This is bogus P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A story.
The world has had enough of the endless trying of the IPCC, shonky bogus models, paid off unexperienced scientists.
I thought people of Belfast knew better.
Posted by Jimmy Dancer | 02.02.09, 12:29 GMT
in response to soarer:
no one is suggesting a government conspiracy. You are confusing a government conspiracy, an action carried out by a few politicians to manipulate public opinion, with a political bias, or a pervasive political incentive.
Anyone referencing a scientific consensus to win an argument against a scientist is clearly mistaken, because it's the nature of science that a consensus is not reached. Instead it is the nature of entities subject to political influence to use words in publications without regard to their literal meanings. I use this rule of thumb:
If an source uses the term "scientific consensus" in publication, it means that the source is subject to political influence and so is no longer a trusted scientific source.
Posted by outskut | 02.01.09, 20:45 GMT
In response to Martin:
The Arctic sea ice has not increased in 2008. The thickness has actually reduced over the years and the yearly average coverage has not increased. What has happened is that the winter ice has returned after the summer low. This happens every year and will continue to happen as the average yearly coverage reduces. Ultimately the average coverage is likely to come down to zero Arctic sea ice.
Posted by Paul | 02.01.09, 10:24 GMT
what sort of imbecile are you Dave202? I think no one can dispute the temperature on the surface of the earth is warming up. You can see that by the north pole melting and southern spain becoming a desert over the last decade. It is too easy to not blame ones actions on the planet and brush it aside as conspiracy theory. Its too easy for companies with shareholders and pockets to line to fund studies disputing man made climate change. Yes the earth has over the billions of years had many temperature changes often caused by significant volcanic activity. However the difference now is we are here, and instead of megavolcanoes pouring chemicals into our atmosphere it is us who are doing it. These warming and cooling periods have always resulted in mass extinction. Still, it wont happen in our lifetime, may only effect our grand kids, so lets just not bother cleaning our planet up and crack open another beer...
Posted by soarer | 02.01.09, 09:30 GMT
The questions I would ask are:
Did the models include the influence on climate caused by variable solar activity? And,
If the models did account for variable solar activity, did they include a constant so severe that doubled insolation would be rendered insignificant?
Why do I ask? Because the climate prediction models of the IPCC leave solar variability completely out of consideration. In other words, the energy source that drives Earth's climate is insignificant compared to CO2, which amounts to 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere.
Posted by Arninetyes | 01.01.09, 21:14 GMT
I'm sick of all these scientists proving that men are causing global warming. They should stop their work and listen to Rush Limbaugh! No need to worry about global warming!
Posted by AJ Simkatu | 01.01.09, 20:49 GMT
Try google, guys.
The commenting software won't allow me to post a link, so here is what I googled:
Nathan Gillett Climate Research Unit Nature Geoscience
The original article is at the top of the results.
Posted by Carol | 01.01.09, 20:10 GMT
The word "prove" in the title of this article is incorrect. A more acceptable title would be "Some Scientists Claim that Climate Change is Man-Made." The bias of the author is clear simply by his arrogant capitalization of IS. Until this paper has been thoroughly reviewed by scientific peers, no one can claim these results as irrefutable, especially those journalists who can claim nothing more that ignorance of the issue.
Posted by LarryW | 01.01.09, 19:17 GMT
Results from models are not evidence! Period.
This is total nonsense.
Posted by rlund | 01.01.09, 18:58 GMT
They proved this with computer models? What a crock! If they ran their models into the past, their models would not predict the weather we know we already had. That's a demonstrable fact. Why should we trust computer models as proof of the future when they can't even substantiate the known past?
Posted by abclarke | 01.01.09, 18:37 GMT
Next time you wish to "prove" a theory, simply repeat the preferred result over and over.
No need to do anything else apparently.
Posted by Mark | 01.01.09, 18:21 GMT
Models have been wrong all along on manmade global warming. A good model can be used for predictions; this has not been the case with any predictions by these "scientists' and movie stars.
Posted by stu | 01.01.09, 18:20 GMT
I suspect that had the researchers input the right parameters for invisible flatulent Martians they could have "proved" that they were responsible for climate warming.
Posted by John | 01.01.09, 16:21 GMT
Computer models are not proof. I can program your computer to tell you that you're an idiot, are you going to believe it? If you would, then you're likely to believe in all this.
Global overpopulation might be worth looking into though.
Posted by PathOfWar | 01.01.09, 16:05 GMT
Once again, "researchers" are using short-term data and a computer model to "verify" that man has significantly affected our World climate. Not a single climate-change computer model has been able to predict past long-term weather occurences, why should this one be different? The results of such a study must remain inconclusive until the peer-review process has run its' course. However, lacking such review, the self-serving politicians and the arrogant, ignorant media will trumpet the words of any charlatan in support of their own ends.
The following link provides proof that a scientific consensus on the climate change issue has most assuredly not been reached, and that more climate scientists are officially declaring their "denial status."
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.WelcomeMessage
As stated by U.S. senator Jim Inhofe, “The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day."
Posted by LarryW | 01.01.09, 15:15 GMT
Proof? where is the proof?
Posted by Lazlo Freem | 01.01.09, 14:55 GMT
Although I do not "believe" in man-made global warming, I am always open to evidence. Did not see any here, nor was there any mention made of how the models account for recent cooling trends.
Posted by Kathy (currently freezing on Cape Cod) | 01.01.09, 14:48 GMT
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!
Agh!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Posted by Theredstateguy | 01.01.09, 14:30 GMT
The sky is falling! I have proof! But I won't tell you what it is, so there!
Posted by Silver | 01.01.09, 14:10 GMT
Mr. Napier.
If your want to find the research then simply use Google and the references to the people, publications and organisations. I assume you are intelligent enough to find the information.
The article even mentions the journal that the study was published in. If you were really serious and unbiased about your opinion you would have no difficulty in finding it.
If you have problems finding it then i suggest signing up for a basic internet course at your local college.
BTW it took my about 30 seconds to find the article at the Nature Geoscience web site.
Posted by paul | 01.01.09, 13:49 GMT
42 Comments