re: #423 dry_heavz_4_alla

This paper was published less than 6 months ago. To what extent has it been peer reviewed? Who did the peer reviews? It seems to me they would be managing quite a feat just to have shown definitive evidence of climate change in the arctic regions (esp. given the variability), but to also declare that it’s “directly attributable to human influence” seem a bit much, on the surface.

I agree with Zombie. Working in an industry that churns out a lot of research papers, I’ve become increasinglymore skeptical of those with vested interests in large research grants, corporations, ideologies, religions, or “we’ll save the world with wealth/resource redistribution” schemes.

Did you notice that it was published in NATURE GEOSCIENCE? It was fully peer reviewd.

Here are the credentials of the authors.
1. Univ E Anglia, Sch Environm Sci, Climat Res Unit, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk England
2. Univ Oxford, Dept Phys, Clarendon Lab, Oxford OX1 3PU, England
3. Univ Oxford, Environm Change Inst, Tyndall Ctr Climate Change Res, Oxford OX1 3QY, England
4. Met Off Hadley Ctr, Exeter EX1 3PB, Devon England
5. Natl Inst Environm Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058506 Japan
6. Univ Edinburgh, Sch Geosci, Grant Inst, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, Midlothian Scotland
7. Univ Calif Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA