'Unequivocal' evidence that global warming is man-made

Oct 11, 2013
'Unequivocal' evidence that global warming is man-made
Fossilised and live coral offer vital information on the effect of climate change on organisms.

(Phys.org) —A report from a panel of global scientists has offered the strongest evidence yet that climate change is a direct result of human behaviour.

More than 600 scientists worldwide contributed to the Fifth Assessment Report published last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which comes under the auspices of the United Nations.

The panel will further report on the biological consequences of global temperature rise, change in weather patterns and the rising temperature of oceans early next year.

Museum climate change research group

Scientists throughout the Museum continue to research the effects of on the natural world in projects involving specimens as wide ranging as orchids, corals, salmon and trout, fossil shark teeth, seaweed, midges and butterflies.

In addition, an informal group of Museum meet regularly to discuss climate change in general and to identify samples and specimens stored in the Museum collection that could be valuable to future climate change research.

Museum invertebrates researcher Dr Kenneth Johnson, who specialises in corals, said that even though we can't physically measure the past climate, specimens such as fossils and shells act as proxies, or representatives of a time and place.

Data trapped by shells

'Shells contain elements trapped within them that can be extracted and used as indicators as to what was happening at a certain time in our past.

'When we then compare that information with modern specimens, it shows us, for example, that as the seawater temperature increases, so do levels of magnesium.

Giant clams act like sections of tree trunk by holding information on seasonal changes in their shells.

'We have a 50-year-old giant clam that, rather like the rings of a tree trunk, is particularly good at revealing seasonality and how things responded to climate change.'

Museum botanist Dr Mark Spencer, who specialises in orchids, said that because most scientific research focuses on the physics of climate change, it's vital to work further on understanding its affect on biodiversity.

'There are big gaps in our knowledge, which impacts on vital issues such as food security, sustainability of ecosystems in terms of human wellbeing and biodiversity,' he said.

Another important aspect of the Museum collection is that new techniques are now available to study specimens.

'It's often the bits that have been left behind in drawers and not out on display that are the most interesting,' Dr Johnson said. 'Because they weren't rare when they were found, they weren't considered interesting.

'But common species are now proving vital to research because it allows us to chart minute changes.'

Explore further: US top court to review power plant emissions rules

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Toolkit for ocean health

51 minutes ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

Tool kit for ocean health

3 hours ago

The ocean is undergoing global changes at a remarkable pace and we must change with it to attain our best possible future ocean, warns the head of The University of Western Australia's Oceans Institute.

Researcher studies interactions between land and water

4 hours ago

Early one morning last January, MIT undergraduate Theresa Oehmke was eating breakfast at the Kilauea Military Camp on Hawaii's Big Island when a colleague burst into the room, yelling, "Oh my god, the plume, ...

Geoengineering our climate is not a 'quick fix'

5 hours ago

The deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system is not a "quick fix" for global warming, according to the findings of the UK's first publicly funded studies on geoengineering.

US to propose stricter smog standard

7 hours ago

Coming full circle on a campaign promise, the Obama administration will propose Wednesday to reduce the amount of smog-forming pollution allowed in the air, which has been linked to asthma, lung damage and ...

User comments : 37

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mememine69
1.7 / 5 (29) Oct 11, 2013
I'm a denier now because I've seen for myself that the consensus the scientists had was just that it "could be" not "WILL be" a crisis and it's been 30 years of "maybe" so it's safe to say it "won't be" a crisis. I need a real warning for a real crisis in order to condemn my own kids.
The question is; why did we say a crisis WILL happen when science agreed on nothing beyond "could be"?
Consensus: "Climate change is real and is happening and could lead to a climate crisis of unstoppable warming." They have never agreed on anything beyond "could be" and have never agreed or said any crisis was; "Inevitable" or "eventual" or "unavoidable" etc. Prove me wrong.
TheHealthPhysicist
2.8 / 5 (25) Oct 11, 2013
You are playing word games with the word "crisis". Adding additional heat to the globe will cause certain effects. Whether or not you define those effects as a crisis is a matter of definition of the word.
tadchem
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
Given that the global climate models in current vogue cannot even accurately represent clouds, their development, or their effects, I find it difficult to accept that any specified degree of 'change' can be attributed specifically to the presence of anthropogenic gases rather than other 'natural' influences, the quantitative effects of which are currently hotly debated.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (26) Oct 11, 2013
mememine69 regurgitated:
I'm a denier now because I've seen for myself that the consensus the scientists had was just that it "could be" not "WILL be" a crisis and it's been 30 years of "maybe" so it's safe to say it "won't be" a crisis. I need a real warning for a real crisis in order to condemn my own kids.
The question is; why did we say a crisis WILL happen when science agreed on nothing beyond "could be"?
Consensus: "Climate change is real and is happening and could lead to a climate crisis of unstoppable warming." They have never agreed on anything beyond "could be" and have never agreed or said any crisis was; "Inevitable" or "eventual" or "unavoidable" etc. Prove me wrong.

Actually, you're a denier because no matter how many times your silly word games and hyperbolic smearing (comparing climate scientists to war criminals and abusive priests) is exposed you repeat the same garbage almost verbatim on other threads and other sites.
Sean_W
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 11, 2013
Someone who doesn't understand what "unequivocal" means while using it in a headline should not be evaluating the science behind anything.
full_disclosure
1.3 / 5 (24) Oct 11, 2013
From Nonsense...

Actually, you're a denier because no matter how many times your silly word games and hyperbolic smearing (comparing climate scientists to war criminals and abusive priests) is exposed you repeat the same garbage almost verbatim on other threads and other sites.

Time to change your diaper....idiot....
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) Oct 11, 2013
Someone who doesn't understand what "unequivocal" means while using it in a headline should not be evaluating the science behind anything.

Somebody who doesn't understand that the people who make the headlines at phys.org are NOT the professionals who evaluate the science behind it should not be commenting on anything.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) Oct 11, 2013
@full_disclosure:
From Nonsense...

Actually, you're a denier because no matter how many times your silly word games and hyperbolic smearing (comparing climate scientists to war criminals and abusive priests) is exposed you repeat the same garbage almost verbatim on other threads and other sites.

Time to change your diaper....idiot....

"Time to change your diaper....idiot...." The full distemper troll account is active again. Expect to be smeared, down-voted and bombarded with bu11sh*t. That's about the extent of his/her/its ability to engage in honest intellectual discussion.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
@full_disclosure:
From Nonsense...

Actually, you're a denier because no matter how many times your silly word games and hyperbolic smearing (comparing climate scientists to war criminals and abusive priests) is exposed you repeat the same garbage almost verbatim on other threads and other sites.

Time to change your diaper....idiot....

"Time to change your diaper....idiot...." The full distemper troll account is active again. Expect to be smeared, down-voted and bombarded with bu11sh*t. That's about the extent of his/her/its ability to engage in honest intellectual discussion.

Some of us can offer more than insults and uninformed, reflexive opinion, something called 'evidence'. It's easy to see the repetitive denialist trolling of mememine69, etc. for yourself: https://www.googl...2Bcrisis
VENDItardE
1 / 5 (22) Oct 11, 2013
Some of us can offer more than insults and uninformed, reflexive opinion, something called 'evidence'

True but unfortunately you are not one of them.........
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (23) Oct 11, 2013
Some of us can offer more than insults and uninformed, reflexive opinion, something called 'evidence'

True but unfortunately you are not one of them.........

In your attempt at wit, you illustrate my point by interjecting while selectively quoting from my comment and omitting the supporting link. Furthermore, your very user name contains an insult directed at another user. You are too stubborn and/or stupid to see the irony.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
'Unequivocal' evidence that global warming is man-made October 11, 2013, 9:07 am 3 deatopmg | Sean_W | runrig | thermodynamics | Sinister1811 | Neinsense99 | full_disclosure | VENDItardE |
Known anti-science trolls.sockpuppets systematically down-voting old and new posts, as well as climate science/green tech stories: deatopmg, Sean_W, full_disclosure, VENDItardE. That's how mememine69's zombie talking point can temporarily get a rating above 1.
210
2 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
I'm a denier now because I've seen for myself that the consensus the scientists had was just that it "could be" not "WILL be" a crisis and it's been 30 years of "maybe" so it's safe to say it "won't be" a crisis. I need a real warning for a real crisis in order to condemn my own kids.

Wha??.....hey.....guys....? Could, will, perhaps can, someone explain why this guy's kids are on DEATH ROW?????!!!!!....what happened to this guy's kids....this subject never, EVER, has a meaningful or COGENT debate....so...just tell me about his kids, ok...?
word-
210
2.1 / 5 (22) Oct 11, 2013
'Unequivocal' evidence that global warming is man-made October 11, 2013, 9:07 am 3 deatopmg | Sean_W | runrig | thermodynamics | Sinister1811 | Neinsense99 | full_disclosure | VENDItardE |
Known anti-science trolls.sockpuppets systematically down-voting old and new posts, as well as climate science/green tech stories: deatopmg, Sean_W, full_disclosure, VENDItardE. That's how mememine69's zombie talking point can temporarily get a rating above 1.

DAYYUM! Got em all figured out hey slick?!...Ok...I feel better now that I know...keep an eye on all these guys for me and oh...I am going to Tim Hortons.....
PS: DID you want some Tim-bits or something from Tims?
word-
mtnthc
4.8 / 5 (15) Oct 11, 2013
I'm a denier now because I've seen for myself that the consensus the scientists had was just that it "could be" not "WILL be" a crisis and it's been 30 years of "maybe" so it's safe to say it "won't be" a crisis. I need a real warning for a real crisis in order to condemn my own kids.


Its pretty apparent you don't really understand the nature of science at all, you never find a scientist who is "100%" sure about anything.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2013
blah blah blah...rather than other 'natural' influences....blah blah blah


What "natural" influences?
julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (23) Oct 11, 2013
The pattern continues with claims of compelling evidence or 95% certainty that climate change is man made, but that "evidence" or "proof" is never provided! And many if not most climate change adherents don't even reflect on this failing! For that matter, not many deniers seem to, either. What is the "proof"? Just the fact that conditions change doesn't prove man did it. You need a pathway from action to result.
In fact, man did cause climate change, but through chemtrails, the government project of doping the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals from high flying jets. It began around 1950, when jets began to be used worldwide, the atmosphere became saturated with chemical around 1997. It cause the number of tornadoes per year to skyrocket, the loss of Arctic sea ice, the forming of weather anomalies, and the development of strange clouds.
VENDItardE
1.2 / 5 (23) Oct 11, 2013
Its pretty apparent you don't really understand the nature of science at all, you never find a scientist who is "100%" sure about anything.

that is exactly the point, all the evidence that the alarmists put forth they believe 100 %, even when the facts disagree.
Neinsense99
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2013
Its pretty apparent you don't really understand the nature of science at all, you never find a scientist who is "100%" sure about anything.

that is exactly the point, all the evidence that the alarmists put forth they believe 100 %, even when the facts disagree.

Utter rubbish. You and your denial mates have been asked for credible evidence to the contrary many times, and you have repeatedly failed to provide any credible evidence, let alone 'facts'.
Neinsense99
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 12, 2013
From Nonsense...

Actually, you're a denier because no matter how many times your silly word games and hyperbolic smearing (comparing climate scientists to war criminals and abusive priests) is exposed you repeat the same garbage almost verbatim on other threads and other sites.

Time to change your diaper....idiot....

Study: Internet Trolls Are Drunk With Power
http://www.techsp...wer.html
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2013
The pattern continues with claims of compelling evidence or 95% certainty that climate change is man made, but that "evidence" or "proof" is never provided! And many if not most climate change adherents don't even reflect on this failing! For that matter, not many deniers seem to, either. What is the "proof"?


There can be no "proof" because that implies a certainty - which can NEVER be asserted.
But overwhelming evidence lies in the known (~150yrs) GHG properties of CO2. The known power of the Sun (to within 0.2%): The known orbital parameters of the Earth: The warming behaviour of the Atmosphere - vis warming below and cooling aloft (if was the sun then there would be warming throughout). It can only be the Sun or albedo changes - NOT the Sun: Albedo not sig (arctic ice reduction +ve feedback). etc.

I'm sorry but you'll carry no credibility if you persist in your "chemtrail" bollocks. - that smacks of a weird internet conspiracist.
runrig
4.9 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2013
Its pretty apparent you don't really understand the nature of science at all, you never find a scientist who is "100%" sure about anything.

that is exactly the point, all the evidence that the alarmists put forth they believe 100 %, even when the facts disagree.


You see - there is this basic inability to understand probability. Statistically there is NO difference between 100% and 95%.

If a pilot told you that the plane that you were about to board had only a 5% chance of NOT crashing. Would you board? Really?

If you are prepared to live your life down to that level of certainty then be my guest, But you don't get to have a say over my life (or Humankind) with that sort of stupidity. That is what scientists have determined, you know, scientifically - honed by peer-review and not cherry-picking the bits of the science that they like (read as you do) and throwing out the rest.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (22) Oct 12, 2013
runrig says "there can be no 'proof' because that implies certainty", but the very use of the term "incontrovertible" means it is impossible, literally, that there can be any other explanation. The fact is, all that runrig has done, if the numbers can be trusted, is to suggest that, conventionally, "natural" influences normally described as associated with climate change aren't involved. But that doesn't mean, necessarily, that it must be human influence. And even if it is human influence, the evidence is not "incontrovertible" that the human influence must be fossil fuels. In fact, the evidence points more to chemtrails. A century of carbon dioxide buildup, but the number of tornadoes remained roughly constant. Jets started to be used in the early 1950's and immediately, tornado numbers start to increase. There was no massive presence of non dissipating vapor trails in the sky even in 1991, 1992, 1993, up to 1996. It began precisely in 1997.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2013
"but the very use of the term "incontrovertible" means it is impossible" - JulianTard

You are the only person to have used that word in this thread, TardieBoy.

By Gawad, you are an idiot.

How do you manage to muster enough brain power to lift a spoon to your mouth?

Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2013
"but the very use of the term "incontrovertible" means it is impossible" - JulianTard

You are the only person to have used that word in this thread, TardieBoy.

By Gawad, you are an idiot.

How do you manage to muster enough brain power to lift a spoon to your mouth?


"Now open wide, Julian, here comes the choochoo train..." Nah, can't be...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (19) Oct 12, 2013
@mememine69
Thou art hoping for sudden catastophic change?
What are you expectations for climatic change?
Surely not "The Day After Tomorrow?" "Science."

Yet the climate has changed.
It is preposterous to measure this with temperature. Add heat to the Earth, and temperature may spike, but it returns to an equilibrium. It would require a tremendous amount of heat released over a long time to affect temperature.
It is preposterous to measure this with CO2, as the holy element Water by far dominates the "greenhouse gas" phenomenon.
Is it preposterous to measure it by clams? I've read the article and still have no idea.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2013
"Teaching Science Violates Rights Of Christians; Courts Must Block Science Curriculum"

"John Calvert of the Intelligent Design Network, an attorney involved in the lawsuit, told conservative talk radio host Janet Mefferd today that lessons on evolution are "religious education" in violation of the rights of parents, children and taxpayers. Mefferd replied that it is "crazy" to think that public schools could teach evolution to Christian students"

T-Taaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddd
alfie_null
5 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2013
. . . chemtrails . . .

Don't see much support for that view here. There are a lot of bright, inquisitive people here. People who put a lot of effort into discerning truth. In that light, just curious how you rationalize that no one else here shares your views? Have the rest of us all been fooled? Are we less smart, less perceptive, than you? Or are we all in collusion, a conspiracy against you?

Have you ever entertained the alternate possibility that your perception, your thought process, might be defective? Consider: how would you know if that were the case?
Moebius
3 / 5 (22) Oct 13, 2013
The deniers look more stupid every day, you would think they would notice.
Egleton
1 / 5 (17) Oct 13, 2013
Of cause we could be misunderstanding everything. It would not be the first time. I am having a look at the Electric Universe ideas. I have not made much progress yet because there is too much cognitive dissonance.
Our Left brain thinks that the model IS reality and it also houses the Ego and the language abilities. It is unaware of the presence of the Right because of the one-way gate keeping of the corpus collusum.
Hence the effectiveness of Trolling. The Ego is protecting its fragile existance.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 13, 2013
'Unequivocal' evidence that global warming is man-made
Consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Global temperatures: http://www.woodfo....6/trend

So then, don't they actually mean man must be unequivocally responsible for the CESSATION of global warming?

katesisco
1.2 / 5 (21) Oct 14, 2013
I consider the man made co2 an accelerant, not the prime mover.
Our planet s/b named Ice, not Earth. We are 20,000 y late for our ice according to Greenland cores. Do we know why we began our Ice Ages? Wouldn't it be significant to find this out?

EnricM
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 14, 2013

Consensus: "Climate change is real and is happening and could lead to a climate crisis of unstoppable warming." They have never agreed on anything beyond "could be" and have never agreed or said any crisis was; "Inevitable" or "eventual" or "unavoidable" etc. Prove me wrong.


Who has never agreed on anything beyond "could be"? And in what exactly do you whish me to proof you wrong?

(1) Only Gods can be always right
(2) You are not a God
-------------------------------------------
(3) You have been wrong at least one time

See, it's easy ;)

anti zionist
1 / 5 (18) Oct 14, 2013
Fool, keep falling for the Zionist scheme why don't you question everything! It is the only way to fight against them! DONT ever STOP questioning everything DONT BE A SHEEP be a SHARK.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2013
"Do we know why we began our Ice Ages? - Katesisco

Yes. It is primarily the result of lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The origin of individual ice ages is determined by changes in the earths rotational and orbital parametrs.

The trigger for the onset or exit of any particular glacial cycle is determined more or less by random events with increasing probability once the orbital/rotational parameters have changed enough for ice to predominate.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2013
And yet again we see chronic liar UbVontard resorting to a cherry picked time period using HadCrut3 - an outdated temperature chronology that underestimates the warming at the poles, where the warming has been the greatest.

Changing to HadCrut4 - a more modern data set with fewer omissions and better coverage of the polar regions, we see the exact opposite of his dishonest claim.

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

Lying is what UbVonTard does
Lying is his mission
Lying is his life.
Lying is how he defines himself.
Lying is the Conservative way.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Oct 20, 2013
Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. It's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 only, outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than a dozen years:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL. Even when they TRIED to eliminate the pause, they just couldn't!

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is how it defines itself.
Lying is the chatterbot way.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.