Anthropogenic influence in polar warming "formally recognised"

[Skybird]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...df/ngeo338.pdf

summary:

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow1, 2. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades2, 3, 4, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability5, 6. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica7, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage8. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures9, 10 and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities2, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level11

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo338.html

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I'll remember to quote that so I can fart without paying an environmental tax

[SteamWake]

Huh Imagine that "Nature.com" agreeing with the gorbal warming crowd.

[Skybird]

Answer the following question (if you can): what sets their approach in meta-analysis apart from earlier meta analysis of that kind?

If you really have read and understood what they wrote, you can answer that in just two or three sentences. so what is more convincing here: your ideologic view, or their methodology? :hmm: