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”

  3. Nick,

    “Squeeky, That idiot has IGNORE written all over him. Door Matt is his new name!”

    Why are you so driven to attempt to control interactions on this bog?

  4. Squeeky,

    “And exactly what part of my comment did you find particularly stupid???”

    I’m not referring to a singular comment of yours, I’m referring to all of your comments. You epitomize the bluster of frivolousness.

  5. @MaxCat06

    Thank you! I believe the same about you, and will try in the future not to make broadly disparaging comments about certain people in the northeastern part of our country.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. @Squeeky

      Actually, I’m in Georgia! However, I am originally from the Northeast. You are being unfairly maligned tonight, and the ghouls are out way before Halloween.
      You have more gumption than I.

  6. Squeeky, That idiot has IGNORE written all over him. Door Matt is his new name!

  7. @Matt Harrison

    “The race to the bottom of human intellect is most aptly summed up by Spin and Schulte, and personified by Squeeky.”

    And exactly what part of my comment did you find particularly stupid??? Enquiring minds want to know.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. @Squeeky

      Well, at least it’s not 24-hours of birther crap. Henceforth it will be just free-floating crap. Now you know why I took a long break from here. Still I find this site interesting, and was drawn back. However, it takes a strong stomach at times.
      “Race to the bottom of human intellect”? I may be at odds with you at times, but that’s one charge I’d never level.

  11. Cow bell… Need more cow bell…
    H2O = water
    Is it settled science or is it open to debate?

    1. Max-1 – H2O does not equal water. It is only the chemical formula for water.

  12. Meteorologists are not considered “climate scientists” in large part because many meteorologists haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid and don’t buy the “settled science.” Virtually all meteorologists cringe when there is a hot spell, hurricane, tornado outbreak, etc. and the chicken little Goreists start screaming “Global Warming, Global Warming,” because meteorologists KNOW that’s a lie.

  13. Spinelli’s limited cranial prowess is all so apparent with his post of:

    “Doctors are scientists.”

    Not at all, Spin. Doctors make use of science; most do not do fundamental research, but instead rely on consensus of experience in their field over time. This is not to say that some doctors are scientists, but most general practitioners, or even specialists, are not.

    Schulte’s brilliant observation of, “consensus is never a good way to decide science. In fact, consensus is anti-scientific thinking,” exposes his ignorance of the day-to-day assimilation of data presented by science that others make use of: to test, verify, question, refute, etc., — people like doctors.

    The race to the bottom of human intellect is most aptly summed up by Spin and Schulte, and personified by Squeeky.

    1. Matt Harrison – I am currently reading “Brilliant Blunders” which covers the scientific blunders by 5 of the most famous ‘scientists’ of the last 200 years. Each had consensus for their blunder. Call me what you like, what I said was correct.

  16. Science models put a man on the moon and three rovers on Mars… Real or not real… Debate.

    Silliness to suggest backstage lots…

    1. @Nick Spinelli
      They may be scientists, but they’re not climate scientists. I don’t think Al Gore is either, to be fair to both sides.

      @Max-1
      Yeah, but there’s always the Arizona desert!!
      Remember, chemtrails….

  17. It is mostly caused by human gas emissions. If you want to slow it down then outlaw beans. Then only outlaws will have beans.

  19. == To C2012: I am largely in agreement with your statements. Scientists are human and can see where the funding $$$s are concentrated. It is not surprising that many scientists are tempted by criteria other than pure scientific practices. I fail to see anything that convinces me science has a handle on climate change.
    == To Jim22 I like your style
    == About trolls ….. the term “troll” has become meaningless…. it is used frequently and recklessly … similar to the term “terrorist”
    == Over-population ….. regardless of anyone’s stance on the environment and climate change ….. it is undeniable that each new human ( baby ) creates a long term burden on the existing standard of living. Nearly everyone strives to live like Brad Pitt and Angelina …. the internet delivers lifestyle news to nearly all of the 7+ billion people on the planet. And they are increasingly interested in having all the goodies.
    == About the Tea Party …… it has an umbrella as big as the Republicans or the Democrats or …… It makes no sense to pretend that there are any guaranteed traits attached to everyone who claims membership in one of these groups. Describing Tea Party members as having warped views and then rushing further to link this to incorrect views of government and society is indulgent and sloppy reasoning.
    == Compromise , being civil , being adult are overrated concepts. Spin-doctors and Orwellian politicians have guaranteed that wolves can lurk in sheep’s clothing and sheep can lurk in wolve’s clothing.
    == Sadly most people seem to think that real game is to grab goodies from others while maintaining the fiction that is some kind of social contract. And most people think revenge and retribution is a part of justice. There is lots of amygdala-driven philosophy in the world. A lot of people dream of when they can be POTUS ( or SCOTUS or a policman or …. ) and correct other people’s behaviour …. good and hard.
    == If one does not know how something works …. it does not make sense that “ doing something” is better than waiting. And quoting Apple Pie and clean air without sufficient knowledge is simply jingoism. Knowing that “things are bad” does not obviously lead to knowing what to do to “make things better”. There is a downside to doing something …. it is called “opportunity cost”.
    == Nothing is “ridiculously obviously harmful” ….. There will always be reasoned positions on both sides of an issue.
    == When the lights start to flicker, or there is no power for AC on a hot day, many will put their “ideals” on hold until “later”.

  20. Daniel:

    “Rather than arguing which side is right, why not tell them to f*ck off? Why can’t we see that the way we are doing things now is not sustainable? Why not find ways that allows us to power our planet without destroying it? Why can’t we find a mix of renewable and nonrenewable power to keep us going until something better is developed, ironically enough, by science and energy companies?”

    I agree, and it’s a very reasonable position.

    What is not reasonable is all the cap & trade/carbon taxes, that do zero to help the environment, and are just another tax to waste. Here in CA, Gov Brown raided the Cap & Trade fund for his pet pork union project, High Speed Rail, a vacation train to San Francisco. That money was required to be used to reduce pollution, but the vacation train will actually cause a net increase in pollution. Meanwhile, as he wastes $65 billion on this stupid train, he has no money to fix the grid locked, potholed streets. And when they do build more roads, they make them toll roads, so our taxes are used to build roads we have to pay to use.

    So, that’s the problem. They did not content themselves with reasonable efforts to continually make the environment cleaner. They got a great new tax revenue source, and meanwhile they ignore serious pollution like mercury contamination.

Comments are closed.