Academia, Environment, International, Politics, Science

Report: There is a 99.999% Certainty That Humans Driving Global Warming

earth-screensaver_largeThere is a new report on global climate change this week that addresses many of the claims being raised against the theory by critics. Despite the overwhelming agreement of the scientific community, people continue to cite anecdotal observations of cool temperatures to refute predictions. The new report crunches the climate numbers and concludes that there is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

The research published in Climate Risk Management by Philip Kokica, Steven Crimpc, and Mark Howdend is reportedly the first to quantify the probability of historical changes in global temperatures. They directly address the arguments promulgated by climate change critics:

December 2013 was the 346th consecutive month where global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th century monthly average, with February 1985 the last time mean temperature fell below this value. Even given these and other extraordinary statistics, public acceptance of human induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007. The degree of uncertainty as to whether observed climate changes are due to human activity or are part of natural systems fluctuations remains a major stumbling block to effective adaptation action and risk management. Previous approaches to attribute change include qualitative expert-assessment approaches such as used in IPCC reports and use of ‘fingerprinting’ methods based on global climate models. Here we develop an alternative approach which provides a rigorous probabilistic statistical assessment of the link between observed climate changes and human activities in a way that can inform formal climate risk assessment. We construct and validate a time series model of anomalous global temperatures to June 2010, using rates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as other causal factors including solar radiation, volcanic forcing and the El Niño Southern Oscillation. When the effect of GHGs is removed, bootstrap simulation of the model reveals that there is less than a one in one hundred thousand chance of observing an unbroken sequence of 304 months (our analysis extends to June 2010) with mean surface temperature exceeding the 20th century average. We also show that one would expect a far greater number of short periods of falling global temperatures (as observed since 1998) if climate change was not occurring. This approach to assessing probabilities of human influence on global temperature could be transferred to other climate variables and extremes allowing enhanced formal risk assessment of climate change.

They note that July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. Notably, anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month. Their analysis put the probability of getting the same run of “warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000.”

We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.

Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.

It is an interesting paper that I recommend to you. I am obviously already sold on the concept of climate change and strongly disagree with those fighting efforts to control the pollution linked to the change. However, we can have a civil discourse on the subject and I believe that this is a credible report worthy of inclusion in that ongoing debate.

363 thoughts on “Report: There is a 99.999% Certainty That Humans Driving Global Warming”

  1. Jim22: fracking has become politicized

    Fracking has become politicized because the process is stealing or otherwise depriving citizens of their drinking water. Citizens turn to their elected officials for some measure of protection or relief from oppressive and destructive corporate behavior in the form of regulations and restrictions.

    BTW, Dick Cheney was the first to politicize fracking when he snuck virtual immunity for the fracking industry by an unsuspecting public.

  3. A few points here, which will, I’m certain, be jumped upon, depending on the, yes, political slant:
    1. Michael Mann’s emails were finally combed through. Although clumsy, they weren’t the bombshells people were expecting, nor did he influence the IPCC findings.
    2. Michael Crichton, besides not being a scientist, is a liar. In the novel where he claimed to prove the non-existence of human caused climate change, he took James Hansen’s (ex-NASA) graphs, of which there were three overlapping lines, only used one, and extrapolated information from that.
    3. India may be polluting and sending CO2 into the atmosphere like mad. However, China is actually ahead of the U.S. on solar. I don’t know that it’s because they are great stewards of the planet, or more that they have realized that one cannot breathe in Beijing.
    4. If one were to only cite Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, the IPCC or any other single source, I would find fault as well. It does seem odd, however, when, say, even the Pentagon cites climate change as one of the biggest threats facing us.
    5. Species are going extinct. Scientists (and no, offhand I can’t cite sources. I read the articles and go on) have, possibly with great hyperbole, called this the beginning of the “sixth extinction”.
    After all this, I’m not suggesting we will, or should, go off of coal or oil tomorrow. For what it’s worth, I drive a 2001 Volvo station wagon that, on good days, gets 18 mpg. I’d love a more efficient car, but my wagon is long paid for, and only has under 60.000 miles on it. At present, I can’t afford a new one. I agree with whoever above (I believe it was Nick) said that you do what is reasonable; cloth bags, recycling and the like. Where I depart is that I do believe in the science, and am continually trying to find more things I can do. I combine trips, I bicycle, I now compost. I’ve changed all of my light bulbs. I’m also 63 years old, and thrilled that I never had a child who would have to live out the next 50+ years. Those of you who do have children might worry.

    BTW, and I know this was Nick…I loved your McCarthy reference.

  4. Squeaky: It’s like when we try to have a discussion about religion/morality and somebody brings up Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn.

    When the topic of religion comes up, you’ll have to point that out.

  5. ray, Fracking has the chicken little folks pooping their pants. This country could be completely energy efficient, telling the crazy Middle East to go shit in their hats. That’s why the religious Goreists are getting frantic.

  7. don’t worry about fossil fuels. there aren’t any left. during the 1970’s oil shortages most experts said the world would run out of oil in thirty years

    1. squeeky – it depends whose apartment you are at as to who skedaddles. 😉 Women are more comfortable using theirs, so men are usually the one to leave first.

  9. Professor Turley: If you are interested in a dissenting statistical view, a new paper was published in the “Open Journal of Statistics” which claims that, statistically, the surface temperature has been trendless for 19 years and the temperature of the lower troposphere has been trendless for either 16 or 26 years (depending on which dataset for the tropospheric temperature is used).

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=49307

    I am not competent to evaluate the methodology, but the researcher claims the methodology he used insulates him from charges of heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation, and selectively “cherry-picking” the endpoints.

    So, the scientific study you like claims 353 consecutive months in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average, and the study I’ve linked to says global average temperatures have been trendless for around two decades.

    Is it any wonder the public can’t agree?

  10. “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

    Thou shalt not bear false witness.
    People have a natural tendency to clean up a mess.
    Let’s not make cleaning up a mess political.
    Environmentalism is the new communism, rallying the citizens by presenting a new enemy. “Onward Christian Soldiers!”

    There is a 100% certainty that climate change began when the earth was formed 4 billion years ago. Suddenly the earth had a climate where there was none.

    There is a 100% certainty that 14K years ago there was global flooding from the melting of polar ice caps from climate change.

    There is a 100% certainty that volcanoes, under water vents and impacts on earth by objects from space produce deleterious materials and conditions.

    Multiple other forces of nature have unknown deleterious effects on earth.

    All of this is effected by nature not man.

  11. Paul,

    I just made some contingency plans. I’m going join up with this Amazon Indian tribe.
    They were discovered in 2013. Peru’s Mashco Piro tribe. I’ll put my clothes up for auction on Ebay. Clothes aren’t needed down there. Bye bye, cruel world!

    1. Glen – I have fewer years ahead of me than behind me so I am banking on it not erupting until after I am dead. However, pack a year’s supply of food. If it goes, nothing will grow for at least a year.

  12. I certainly do enjoy the boisterous debate over the efficacy of the H2O model.
    We need more cowbell on why the science isn’t settled and that wet doesn’t necessarily equal water, people!

    p.s.
    CO2 is life…
    … Just wear the plastic bag over your head and preach it to your choirs!

  14. I do not have the scientific background to determine truth from fiction in this debate. That being said, it’s obvious at the micro level that mankind does have an impact on the environment in positive and negative ways. In my opinion, I seriously doubt anyone in this debate is taking the position we should not be concerned with the health of the planet; after all, it’s the only home we have. So if my assumption is correct then what should we reasonably do to sustain it? The answer to that question should always be driven by what outcome we can reasonably expect to effect; by outcome I mean at the micro (individual) and macro (global) levels.

    Forget the environmental science for a moment and consider the political science. Is there any evidence to suggest we will get 100% global support? The answer is of course no; heck, it’s difficult to get micro-support from our own households and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further we get away from the micro. How many of you live in a 100% environmentally responsible neighborhood? City? County? State? How would we even measure that in a way that would achieve consensus?

    So if it is a virtual impossibility to get all nations to align on this initiative in any measurably beneficial way then you have to ask what are the other possible motivations driving this initiative? Is it possible the only predictable result of this initiative centers on money and power? In my opinion, those that say no to that are the true deniers in the climate change debate. Even if every person on the planet could miraculously agree on the man-made climate science, we will never change our human nature for the preservation of self over the preservation of a global collective.

  16. DBQ, The positive changes made to clean the LA Basin were desperately needed. I am on record here on other posts applauding that effort. Here again is a macro take. Zealots on both the left and right love to “BAN” stuff. We libertarians are always leery of banning. That is not to say some things shouldn’t be banned but that should be a last resort. Here’s an example. I like the way Sprouts, Ralph’s and other grocery stores give you a 5 cent credit for every reusable grocery bag you use. I would do it anyway, but it is a POSITIVE step. I see the insane California legislature wants to BAN plastic bags. I don’t abide that. Give more incentives to use reusable bags. Even charge for plastic bags. But banning is horseshit.

  17. Max, I can just hear it blaring from megaphones on trucks with the Koch logo and smiling happy faces painted on the side, roaming city neighborhoods… “There is no need for concern, we are here for your well being.”

  19. Swarth and Annie:

    I do not underestimate the power of ANY entity with enough power or money to undermine the rule of law. But the point here is, if they are doing it, then it is no longer a standard you can cite as legitimate.
    The robber barons of yesteryear were able to make monopolies and accumulate their power only by cooperation and favors of the government.
    If you are claiming that such a system would exist and still be libertarian then you are wrong, because the two are mutually exclusive.

    If it goes that way then so be it, but it is not libertarian law. The way you would have it is comparable though, with other entities standing in for the evil corporations you vilify. Except I believe they simply WOULD be the government, then again with no recourse, since the government is the beginning and end all of what is legally acceptable.

Comments are closed.