Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fresh Evidence Global Warming Is Man-Made
Climate scientists hit back at the sceptics today with new research they say has uncovered the "fingerprint" of man-made global warming.
Cooling towers and smoke stacks are seen at the Vresova coal gasification plant near the city of Sokolov, February 3, 2010. (REUTERS/Petr Josek) Researchers working like detectives investigating a crime compared real observational evidence with data from computer simulations to see how they matched up.
They concluded there was an "increasingly remote possibility" of human behaviour not being the chief driver of climate change.
The clues were unravelled using a forensic technique called "optimal detection" in which different factors - natural and human - were given equal consideration.
They covered a wide range of trends affecting land and sea temperature, the saltiness of the oceans, humidity, rainfall and Arctic sea ice.
Also included was warming in the Antarctic, which has more recently been attributed to human influence.
Dr Peter Stott, from the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, who co-led the study, said: "What we've shown in this paper is that the fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of climate change.
"We've seen it in temperature and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes ... we've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns.
"What we see here are observations consistent with a warming world. This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."
Publication of the research in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change comes amid controversy over the reliability of climate-change science.
Scientists have found themselves under pressure to provide fresh evidence after the University of East Anglia (UEA) e-mails scandal and criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Two inquiries are now being held into accusations based on leaked e-mails that UEA scientists manipulated and suppressed climate change data.
In a separate set-back for the scientists, the IPCC - whose researchers influence global government policy - admitted it had issued flawed information about the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were melting.
The new research involved drawing together evidence from more than 100 climate change studies, many of which were conducted since the last major IPCC report in 2007.
It showed that, on a global scale, predictions made about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions match actual trends seen over the past 50 years.
Since 1980, average global temperature has increased by about 0.5˚C. Currently, the Earth is getting warmer at the rate of about 0.16˚C per decade.
The study found natural forces such as volcanic eruptions and cyclical changes in the brightness of the Sun could not explain what was happening to the world's climate, said Dr Stott.
For example, solar heating would have warmed both upper and lower layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and troposphere. However, what was seen was that while the stratosphere had cooled, the troposphere had warmed.
Asked if the new research would help silence those who question man-made climate change, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people will make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence."
- Posted in
80 Comments so far
Show AllEven the corporate NPR reported that huge releases of seabed methane are occurring off of Siberia due to warming arctic seas. Even the most pessimistic AGW projections did not consider this feedback; the release of just 1% of these methane stores will be catastrophic. I think we really need to get over this "sounding alarmist" stuff and simply point out the real possibillty that our economic syatem, and the powerful who benefit, may have already, irreversably, triggered the end of life on this planet.
agreed, and there is an article today on bbc.co.uk (online) that claims climate change human link 'stonger'................
Several Canadian environmental scientists agree the new Jason satellite indicates at least a 23-year cycle of global cooling ahead.
This oceanographic satellite shows a much larger than normal persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Cooler PDO phases usually last 21 to 25 years, so we could be quite chilly as a planet until at least 2030, maybe longer.
However, based on long-term climatic cycles, there is another cycle of intense global warming, due by 2031 to 2038, when many of our weather cycles "collide in chaos."
These alternating natural climatic cycles defy the so-called climate consensus that human-emitted carbon dioxide was completely responsible for the recent cycle of global warming that began in the late 1970s and peaked in 1998.
[Several Canadian environmental scientists agree the new Jason satellite indicates at least a 23-year cycle of global cooling ahead.]
Who were they? In which peer reviewed scientific journal did they publish this claim?
I found a reference to it on the Spokesman Review, a newspaper that comes out of Spokane Washington. But surely that's not your only source for such information, is it?
Where did you read about these 'cycles of intense global warming'?
By the way, if global warming peaked in 1998. Why is it that the warmest winters Alberta (and the rest of the world) has ever seen have happened in the first decade of the 21st century?
(Google or Bing "SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING" for more reports on finding. Mostly just rehash, word for word, the press release.)
IF (and that is a big if) the Jason report bears out -- and it seems a preliminary one -- then we get a breathing spell and THAT IS ALL, for after the cooling cycle the pollution present -- if we continue on our course as we have to date done to cut GH gases -- by 2030 all that junk in the atmosphere will probably in a short period of time cause rapid tipping over into a runaway heating cycle. So don't toot this report as disproving climate change -- it does the opposite -- just a natural cause as well as a human one. With real luck any cooling cycle will give us time to get the greenhouse gases down in time. So I hope they are right. We'll see.
But I am afraid that explanation will further (as it obviously has) give the AGW critics another arrow for their bow, and confuses the issue, so unless we rise up and strangle the polluting corporations in our possible temporary parole from the peak event, then we are still toast.
Gary
“All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power.”
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
It is very rare these days to find blogs that provide information someone is looking for. I am glad to see that your blog share valued information that can help to many readers. Thanks and keep writing.
http://www.autosales.com
Used Autos
Quite, especially since we're doing literally nothing, yet, to reverse any of these trends. Athanasiou yesterday pointed out that there were many positive results from Copenhagen, but sadly none of them include taking any actual physical action to stop what we're doing to cause the extinction of life. It was mostly about furthering awareness and organizational potential. None of the major contributors, the US, China or Europe, are willing to do anything substantial, since that might mean cutting into short term profits of multinational corporations, and the whole world will do ANYTHING to avoid that. For world leaders, that spells the end of the world, not acting decisively against AGW.
"...triggered the end of life on this planet"
No way that life will end. The worst that can possibly happen is that archaebacteria will become the dominant life form, at least for a geological while.
Yes, I am also aware of this report, but if you read it through you will find that the claims by the two Russian scientist is that it ( MAY ) have a cause and effect, with no clear substantiated or theoretical proof that what they are saying is can be supported by data and peer review.
A leading Canadian permafrost scientist, Chris Burns of Carleton University, states that the findings are important but sees no need for alarm.
Who has been monitoring permafrost in the North West since 1982.
While 7 million tonnes of methane a year is a lot in a marine region, it is tiny fraction compared to the estimated 440 million tonnes of methane that wafts into the atmosphere each year.
Perhaps I'm just not 'getting it' but, I don't see why it's important if global warming is man-made or not. I want us to fix it, regardless of how or who or what the cause is. This harping on 'man-made' seems like a terrible distraction from the real task of turning it around. And it's pretty clear what we need to do in order to do that.
If the climate change is the result of natural causes, there's not much we can do. After all it's quite impossible to hold back the ocean's tide, or to stop winter, or to prevent a hurricane, tornado or a volcanic eruption.
If, as is quite likely, we are the cause of climate change then there are many things we can do.
Thanks for that reply, Saturnalia.
I guess I believe in this case on erring on the side of caution. Proof that it's man-made to some arbitrary level may never come, but I am certain that we do know enough to stop the harmful actions we are doing right now. I think there is plenty we can do to reduce and even eliminate the CO2 emissions that at the very least are contributing to the problem. Why isn't that enough to get people to act, now?
I'm sorry, but I really meant that I don't get it. Here's how I see it: There's a good chance that if you put that match to the curtain it is going to catch on fire and burn the house down. I have never seen it happen before so I can only rely on the those who say they are in a position to know but they might be lying or just wrong. I should let you go ahead and put the match to the curtain because we don't know for sure. Are they kidding?
The match analogy is quite good, but to the deniers the risk of losing their investments in the coal/oil/natural gas power system is far more dire than the risk of merely losing their homes. Heck, most of them are refusing to think about the possibility that we might be past the point of 'peak oil'. A good number of the people who dislike the idea of climate change are also people who think 'evolution' is a conspiracy of Satanists and Atheists who are trying to lead people away from worshiping god; a god who's promised to destroy the earth anyhow in order for JayZeus to rule over a godly theocracy on a new earth for a thousand years.
Some of the extreme arguments that the environmentalists use are also not helpful, there is no way that climate change would result in the loss of all life on earth. Not going to happen. Life will go on. Whether or not humanity goes on is not certain, I don't think we'll be killed off by the change myself. The planet might not be as pleasant to live on in the next few decades or centuries, but I'm pretty sure humans could adapt to the change. If we can prevent it from happening than that would be much better (goes without saying, but needs to be said...).
"The planet might not be as pleasant to live on in the next few decades or centuries, but I'm pretty sure humans could adapt to the change. "
Isn't there is a very real possibility that the warming could tip into an irreversible upward spiral, which would result in what happened on Venus? Not much life possible there.
Maybe, but not that likely to happen within the lifetimes of our great great grandchildren. The Earth is much further from the sun, we rotate faster than Venus does, the movement of the earths 'plates' also has an impact (from my very limited reading).
If the planet warms enough, the growing season will be extended for the whole planet, and more co2 will be turned back into biomass. But more CH4 (methane) would be released leading to a still warmer world...
Meh, even if the climate change makes it impossible for most surface dwellers to survive, (which has happened in the geologic history of the planet) there will be some form of life that would continue. Even if that life is only bacterial. But hey, maybe the next intelligent lifeform could evolve and thrive... They'd have about 4.5 billion years before the sun turns into a Red Giant and swallows the earth. Now that'll be a real cooker of a global warming event.
So by the time depleted uranium has it's first half-life, we get swallowed by the sun.
That's nice!
I think your position is equivalent to what has been called the precautionary principle. If we take steps to prevent warming, and it is not happening, all we lose is some money. But if we do nothing and it is happening, we lose quite a lot.
A sensible person does something, based on the evidence on hand. Of course, the dinosaurs such as Senator Imhofe will not understand this logic.
All this BS about the "RATE" of the melting. Hahahahah.
The fact is - All the ice is melting, everywhere. The Arctic, the Antarctic, continental glaciers - it is all melting.
Time to make changes in how we live.
"I just hope people will make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence."
Yeah, like that'll happen.
You mean that there's still people (but not scientists) who question the idea of 'evolution' or something like that? (grin)
Yeah, dincha know, the earth is only 6000 years old. And I saw picsures o human futprinz inside dinosawer futprinz. An the moon is made o cheezwhiz.
oops, a dupe...
"Asked if the new research would help silence those who question man-made climate change, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people will make up their minds informed by the scientific evidence."
Not until the dinosaurs such as Senator James Inhofe et al. die off and all the Religious Right Wingers get snatched up into their RAPTURE and all those Bubbas down South and in all the Bible Belts in the country pass the science courses to get their GEDs, and Corporate CEOs and their minions decide that Pollyanna behavior is now the IN-thing and the RIGHT-course for people, animals and the environment, I wouldn't hold my breath, Dr. Stott.
/cm
Typical left liberal approach to a complex problem. If I can not debate the subject matter, I will start with the ad hominem attacks. Very convenient. If you my friend see that a trace gas such as CO 2 which the warmist are using to determine arguments of global warming, now relabeled as climate change, since the UN IPCC's data will not support scientific data and their hypothesis. Medical science has determined that the average human being expels approx 900 gm's (2 lbs) of CO 2 daily. With 6 billion people on this planet, you do the math ? I would strongly suggest for those who believe and adhere to the environmental kooks, please hold your breath so you can save the planet!
Anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) is a hypothesis, not a theory. In the absence of evidence any hypothesis is equally valid. There is no evidence for AGW; none, not any of any kind. Hence, AGW is a superstition of exactly the same kind as astrology. It has no supporting evidence but many people believe it and think it can tell the future. Perhaps it can, but it is very risky to act on that belief. There is a severe risk in preparing for warming and not cooling. And there is most risk in preparing for neither but trying to control the climate of the planet instead.
No evidence exists that humans have burnt any coal at all for the last two hundred years on any scale at all, eh? What the heck do you think happens when we burn coal, oil and natural gas? I do believe that the amount of coal burnt has produced quite a bit of CO2 over the centuries...
When the scientists are talking about man made climate change, they're not talking about the CO2 that's produced by peoples breathing.
On edit;
In 2006 6,743,786,000 short tons of coal was mined and burned. That's a wee bit more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere than all the CO2 that all humans have ever exhaled. But go ahead, you do the math and figure out how much CO2 that much C produced when it was burned in 2006.
>>AGW is a superstition of exactly the same kind as astrology.<<
Of all the silly things I've read in these postings (and there have been some dozies) this has to rank with the silliest. This is what is called a Big Lie. A statement "so preposterous" that surely no one would say it if it wasn't true. I know, that sounds illogical, but the human brain is not a logical organ.
This fact is clearly shown in the words of henkbos. They make no sense, are not logical, nor are they reasonable. They are just foolishness.
Move on, don't poke sticks at the inmates. It's cruel.
Gary
“I thought it was great. I hope this sparked some interest in the environment.”
-- Rachel Davis
Who's using the ad homs? Claiming that all Global Warming believers are on the intellectual order of astrologers. Claiming that all the evidence proves nothing? You don't even have the courtesy to provide data of your own. Total troll.
From what I understand people's (emotionally charged) beliefs trump scientific evidences ("facts")-for example, the long standing conflict between creationism and evolution.
There are so many fronts on which the human "footprint" is altering,perhaps irreversibly, different ecosystems. We are confronted with the potential of a 33% increase in the world's population (to 8 billion). Who can truly comprehend the needs, demands, and consequences of 8 billion or 10 billion people? Whoever (singularly or collectively) proclaim that we our impact on this planet is negligible have one part of their anatomy up another part of it.
It seems as if the denial of climate change is either motivated for monetary reasons (insatiable greed combined with a short life span: "I'll be dead when the shit hits the fan) combined with deep seated contempt of the people exploited and affected or a ditzy belief that this is all part of whoever's God plan for Armageddon and who are we to interfere with it?
PERILS OF GLOBAL WARMING NEGLECT
The misinformation campaigns waged by Fox News, and other disciples of the energy cartels to disprove the perils of global warming, and undercut its mitigation efforts, typify their contempt for our planet.
The dedicated and non-political international scientific community has concluded that global warming concerns are as close to certain as science can be. These villians attack their credibility by hiring pundits to pick through the reams of scientific data for some inconsequential innaccuracies. The e-mail thefts to undermine progress at Copenhagen is only one example,
Their dismissal of positive indicators such as unprecedented melting of the glaciers, Arctic ice, and Northwest Passage--while asserting that the recent unseasonable snow storms disprove warming, when they actually support it-- typify the fallacies of their claims.
Often overlooked is the fact that the measures required to mitigate carbon polution should be undertaken to curtail other crucial problems--even if warming were no issue. These include poisoning of our air, waters, & lands; and our dangerous trade deficits & dependance on foreign oil-- all of which will worsen if we continue these abuses to our planet.
If those who impede mitigation of carbon pollution had to suffer as much from it as the billions who live on marginal means, the world outlook would change..
Can the world join New Orleans in their class action lawsuit against CO2 emmitters?
It's pretty clear this can is going to get kicked down the road by business and government until it escalates into a crisis that threatens trans-national quarterly profits in a major way. At that point a bunch of last-ditch geo-engineering hacks will be flung desperately at the problem.
These are likely to prove inadequate or to have severe downsides so yeah, it's a stupid species expiring in a stupid way. Maybe homo sapiens should be renamed "new dodos".
I do think James Lovelock's prediction of "a few breeding pairs" (of humans) surviving at the poles by 2100 sounds plausible. Of course, these will be people on the order of the Bush family - those ruthless and monied enough to actually get there, set up a store of supplies and kill anyone who follows. From there it's that filth interbreeding, so whatever form of humanity arrives in the wake of the end of this one may well be stupider, uglier, greedier and more violent even than the current crop.
The future? It's where you go to die.
I tend to think that the survivors of the hot Earth will not be the wealthy elite. As things deteriorate, money will become worthless. Any stockpile of supplies will eventually run out. No, the survivors will be drawn from those who have intelligence and adaptability, who can withstand food shortage and hardship for extended periods, and who can understand the balance between human requirements and the natural order. Doesn't sound like the Bush family. The ones left will be the best of our species, as Darwin would predict.
In short, those who survived the last Iceage---Amazonians, Native Americans, Neanderthals, Africans, etc., all in animal skins, with sticks, arrows and sharp stones...
Funny thing ... ~23 years ago I became aware of the actual 'fingerprints' of all fossil fuel hydrocarbons in water, permafrost, ice, soil, air from substantial numbers of samples from throughout the world. The presence of fossil fuel hydrocarbons within the molecular structures of water, permafrost, ice, soil and air changes their normal functioning. Surprise, surprise. How does this happen? Man!
Let's see, who stands to benefit the greatest from the melting of the icecaps, right now, it's the shipping industry. Shortly after comes the freshwater industry. Soon comes the mining and oil extraction industry. Behind that it'll be the real estate industry. Then...get the drift? There's alot to be gained by the melting of the icecaps.
well... since this latest study didnt include ALL the man-made factors in their model, such as Chemtrails & weather modification technology like HAARP, and ignores other nature based factors like solar activity effecting other planets as well... this is just another myopic study to reinforce a pre-existing belief structure... like tobacco science... while ignoring taboo subjects that have become ridiculed as conspiracy theories to keep the "scientific consensus" myth alive...
remember the dialectic process of problem reacton solution, where the globalist banksters play both sides in order to control the issue... They have hijacked the environmental movement by getting environmentalists to act like chicken little, thinking that the sky is falling, which takesthe focus away from tangible issues like deforestation, GMO's. over-fishing, and other toxic legacies, by focusing on carbon dioxide emissions instead of heavy metal poisoning and depleted uranium & other menaces that will be around alot longer than the 10,000 year ice age cycle that we are on the cusp of going through...
Your first sentence is almost a non-sequitor.
Surely you cannot be serious about HAARP! This was a very tiny scientific experiment monitoring only the ionosphere. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/index.html
They themselves report no connection to the effect described in this article whatsoever, consequently the only "effect" is likely to come from the denier camp who filter all data through rose coloured glasses and then play whack-a-mole with it.
As for solar activity affecting other planets? What other planets are we talking about and I would be VERY curious to see their lower atmosphere temperature data extending to prior to the industrial revolution. And then...if you actually got that data, I'd like to know how it was collected given that no one even believed that the planets orbited the sun until the 1600's anyway.
"scientific consensus" is no myth. It certainly exists. It is based on evidence. It is not a system of absolutes, which is where press reports fall short, but it is certainly getting stronger in favour of human induced climate change.
This will be as relentless as the force of gravity because it is physics and the continuing use of our atmosphere as a sewer that drives it...NOT a consensus. And that is why you will find over the next decade that you will be ever so completely wrong.
As for the "sky is falling" scenarios...well no, that is NOT what climate scientists claim, that is what some in the press and the activist organizations claim. But if you look at the predictions there are some worrisome consequences to a 4 degree C rise in global temperature...for example, the hotest days in New York City in august will rise to 52 deg. C.
Of course, Canada and Siberia become the bread-basket of the world...do you want to depend upon the Russians for the food you eat?
I'll tell you what i find most astonishing about the deniers though. They defend the big oil! Who pay Bin laden and various other states that sponsor the kinds of terrorists that actually did 911! They want us to ignore global warming and just keep burning all that oil...oh yes, lets continue financing the states that support radical Islam and other terrorist interests!
My point with that last rant is that there are plenty of good reasons wholly unrelated to climate change (as if that alone isn't reason enough) to agree that we should work to reduce our dependence on oil...but these yahoos are content to continue to support terrorism!
Just how thick can you be?
I am not sure why you brought terrorism into the discussion... Osama BinLaden (Tim Osman) & Al Qaeda are/were CIA assets funded & trained by the CIA... & 9-11 was an inside job carried out by MI6, Mossad, & CIA... there is plenty of evidence to suport this if you would look into the issue, which makes your analogy to be silly at best...
Also, it would be worth your time to do more research into the military applications of HAARP beyond what the public & congress is told as its purpose, like weather modification & psychotronics... Just like general Electric makes more than light bulbs, and as a defense contractor they can hide their true intentions behind the veil of national security...
I am no fan of Big Oil, however, they have become the convienient target of blame for the Climate activists to explain away inconvenient truths... including the corporate funding of the Copenhagen Climate conference...
Understanding the cozy relationship between the CIA, Bush Crime syndicate, & Saudi Arabia also helps to explain why the Whabbists were brought to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the first place...
I do not deny that climate change exists, I am merely stating that there is more to the picture than this...
secondly, there were many civilizations that believed in a heliocentric system that predated the power-hungry Catholic Church (who committed mass murder against anyone who challenged their authority, not just Galileo & other Enlightenment astronomers... This includes the Greek, Egyptian, & mesopotamian cultures...
Solar activity effects ALL of the planets, so no need to pick & choose...
There are over 30,000 scientists who have sued Al Gore & other AGW theorists who do not subscribe to the scientific consensus...
"well... since this latest study didnt include ALL the man-made factors in their model,"
They also didn't correlate the aging human population with the level of methane output. I guess there's some limit on the number of human factors that can be simultaneously assessed and old farts don't quite make the grade.
It's really a hard sell to people who have seen record lows and snowfall the past year; and yeah, yeah, I know the COLD really is a result of HOT, but still.... We saw no summer at all in northwest Wyoming 2009; will it be the same? But if Yellowstone blows, we'll have an nuclear winter and the global warming is blown out of the water too. I have an idea, sacrifice your own carbon footprint, however small you think it is and have you reproduced too?
One of the most interesting things I've been reading about is the Younger Dyas. And actually earlier periods of quick warming too.
There seems to be a feedback mechanizm in the earth that when the Earth warms quickly something kicks in and plunges it into an ice age within a few hundred years after the warm period.
The current speculation is that this is the gulf stream...when all the fresh water from the melting of Greenland hits the north atlantic it shuts the gulf stream off. And this causes cold summers in the northern hemisphere...which is what you need to start an ice age.
My understanding of the current climate models though is that our levels of C02...being higher than they have been in at least the last 800,000 years...will be so high that this normal negative feedback mechanism will not be enough. But the scientists I've read are highly speculative on this point.
Personally I hope they are right because Britain will not be a pleasant place if this warming phase ends up triggering the next ice age!
"The current speculation is that this is the gulf stream...when all the fresh water from the melting of Greenland hits the north atlantic it shuts the gulf stream off."
I learned recently of a speculation that the loss of the ocean conveyor system could lead to an anoxic deep ocean that would allow archaebacteria to flourish and and eventually lead to an anoxic atmosphere through hydrogen sulphide production.
http://oneocean.cbc.ca/series/episodes/1-birth-of-an-ocean
The skeptics would say to that. "Breathe Schmeathe!" (no offense to Yiddish)
Oh great, now everything will smell like rotten eggs -- fine thing to read after supper...
Gary
“The impact of vehicle maintenance on the environment is often an overlooked aspect of responsible vehicle ownership.”
-- Bill Howell
Climate change, man made or not, is inevitable. Chicago is normally under three miles of ice but we are enjoying one of the few (5 or 6) warming periods. I would prefer that humans not be the cause of the next ice age but either way, sooner or later, with or without our help, it's coming.
It's the "sooner or later" part that we need to be worried about.
What I find bizarre about this rationale, is that most of the regulations proposed to help mitigate the effects of warming, would make sense in so many other ways, economically, environmentally (meaning human health), and morally as it pertains to not leaving a steaming garbage dump for future generations.
So what you're saying is that AGW might not be real, but let's have the government make the regulations anyway. After all, more government power and less personal freedom is a good thing. Tell you what-- YOU do what you want to do to save the environment, and let me do I want to do to protect the environment, and do me the courtesy of not assuming that your way is better than mine, and therefore enlisting the government to FORCE me to accept yours.
Well, the problem is that you're a denier. You aren't going to take any action. Which is one major problem with Libertarians, they want complete freedom of action. If you wanted to build a breeder reactor next door and refine bomb grade U-235, I would be quite justified calling health authorities or even military forces to prevent you from making a nuke. Similarly, if you want to cause a climate meltdown, I'm justified in taking concerted efforts to stop you. By concerted I mean the authorities. Or do you argue that private posession of nuclear weapons is desirable? Your blanket assertion that personal liberty is always good and government intervention always bad is a kneejerk response that as in my illustration of private nuclear weapons shows is not always true.