PDA

View Full Version : New study concludes there is 99.999% certainty humans are driving climate change



Godfather
09-05-2014, 03:12 AM
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, our new research shows.

Published in the journal Climate Risk Management today, our research is the first to quantify the probability of historical changes in global temperatures and examines the links to greenhouse gas emissions using rigorous statistical techniques.

Our new CSIRO work provides an objective assessment linking global temperature increases to human activity, which points to a close to certain probability exceeding 99.999%.

Our work extends existing approaches undertaken internationally to detect climate change and attribute it to human or natural causes. The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report provided an expert consensus that:

It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Decades of extraordinary temperatures

July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center.

This means that anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month.

We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niņo, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions.

Our analysis showed that 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 do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results.
Detecting and measuring human influence

Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence.

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.

There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions.

CSIRO scientists Dr Steve Rintoul, Dr John Church and Dr Pep Canadell explain how and why the Earth’s climate is warming.

The problem and the solution

Why is this research important? For a start, it might help put to rest some common misunderstandings about there being no link between human activity and the observed, long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.

Our analysis – as well as the work of many others – shows beyond reasonable doubt that humans are contributing to significant changes in our climate.

Good risk management is all about identifying the most likely causes of a problem, and then acting to reduce those risks. Some of the projected impacts of climate change can be avoided, reduced or delayed by effective reduction in global net greenhouse gas emissions and by effective adaptation to the changing climate.

Ignoring the problem is no longer an option. If we are thinking about action to respond to climate change or doing nothing, with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn’t be taking the chance of doing nothing.

http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911

Godfather
09-05-2014, 03:15 AM
Granted the title here makes me cringe because that's a figure I'm not comfortable even quoting but.... The actual study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163) does in fact contain the 99.999% figure after 100,000 models were ran with and without the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions:


"The results of our statistical analysis would suggest that it is highly likely (99.999 percent) that the 304 consecutive months of anomalously warm global temperatures to June 2010 is directly attributable to the accumulation of global greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The corollary is that it is extremely unlikely (0.001 percent) that the observed anomalous warming is not associated with anthropogenic GHG emissions. Solar radiation was found to be an insignificant contributor to global warming over the last century, which is consistent with the earlier findings of Allen et al. (2000)."

Information of those conducting the study:
Philip Kokic (http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Computational-Informatics/CCI-People/PhilipKokic.aspx)
Steven Crimp (http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Ecosystem-Sciences/StevenCrimp.aspx)
Mark Howden (http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Ecosystem-Sciences/MarkHowden.aspx)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Or ganisation

Still... sadly I believe that you could have a scientific study which showed several forms of completely 100% irrefutable evidence and still there would be people who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. We just need to stop letting scientifically illiterate people get elected.

Hal-9000
09-06-2014, 05:38 PM
I've always thought this was a straight forward observation. You have an environment that has a shifting balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide and then you introduce a creature that removes oxygen creating life forms, while adding carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. This is of course a simplified model of what we really do to our environment.

Back in the 70's science understood that dumping massive amounts of chemicals into rivers and oceans upset the water ecosphere, therefore affecting the air and land systems as well.

You add in population growth, more varieties and greater volumes of pollutants, deforestation... and the simple fact we're paving over more acres of greespace than we're replanting....



the earth can adapt to catastrophic events like meteor showers and ice ages....I don't think it will survive man. We ask too much of the planet and I believe that we will suffer for our actions.

RBP
09-06-2014, 05:50 PM
the earth can adapt to catastrophic events like meteor showers and ice ages....I don't think it will survive man. We ask too much of the planet and I believe that we will suffer for our actions.

Hogwash. Regardless of what position people take on this, the worst case scenario is some measured impact on the current inhabitants. The planet existed long before humans and will exist long after. I find it extremely narcissistic to believe we have the power to destroy the planet.

Hal-9000
09-06-2014, 06:15 PM
I don't think it's hogwash. There's been no precedent of our impact on the planet. Is it narcissistic to take 200 years of our actions, a very small drop of time in the bucket comparatively, and then identify and prove the negative effects, and then extrapolate that further actions may destroy the biosphere? I think it's realistic.

We would have to take two identical models. Two earths, one without man and one containing man to determine how the planet fares after thousands of years of habitation.

Underground nukes, mining, fouling water supplies, man obliterating species within the food chain, all occurring on an entity with finite resources that do not renew.


Does removing millions of acres of trees, removing oil and gas from under the earth's surface impact the planet negatively in a way that we're not aware of yet?

I find it extremely narcissistic to believe that our actions won't or will never damage the planet to a point where it can't recover. We've never had exponential population growth topping 7 billion people existing on earth before now.

RBP
09-06-2014, 06:21 PM
Okay.

Hal-9000
09-06-2014, 06:36 PM
You are correct RBP, I don't have proof that Mother Earth won't be able to fend off man's advances forever...(check out that metaphor baby..)


It's been a very personal fear of mine for years. That we'll reach a tipping point when the planet won't be able to recover from our actions. Whether it's the water, the air, diminishing food supplies...there will be an event where the nature or biological portion of the program says - Ok, I'm done, look elsewhere please.

I sincerely hope that I'm wrong. That earth will find a way to adapt to our presence and continue being the great home we've come to love and rely upon. Unfortunately the pessimist in me says that every living thing has a breaking point, and we may see a point in history where we will have to make some unpopular choices (?) to ensure our continued existence.

Godfather
09-06-2014, 10:14 PM
Hogwash. Regardless of what position people take on this, the worst case scenario is some measured impact on the current inhabitants. The planet existed long before humans and will exist long after. I find it extremely narcissistic to believe we have the power to destroy the planet.

I think life on earth will survive too... I just think the reign of humans might come to an end. We've now pillaged most of the easily accessible non-renewable resources that an start-up civilization needs, and rely on very sophisticated technology to suck them deep from the planet, the oil sands, etc. If our current civilization falls and the 'survivors' try to reboot, I don't believe they'll have the same easy access to copper, iron, oil, and other minerals needed to get a society up and running. The could scavenge all the crap we've wasted but that's it. We may never get back to our current level of comfort if we fuck this up, regardless of how/why society goes back a thousand or ten thousand years. That being said, life might reboot and thrive... but in a different direction.

DemonGeminiX
09-07-2014, 12:15 AM
The Earth will survive us. Even if we pollute it to the point of our own demise, the planet will still survive. The survival of the planet is far more dependent on the location in orbit with respect to the sun and its rotation about its axis, stuff we can't affect, rather than the actions of the petty little ants that exist on its surface. The Earth was a living hell that we would never have been able to survive on long before the first animal species showed up on or under its surface. It evolved into what it is now. If we destroy ourselves, the Earth will keep existing after we're gone and eventually it will filter out our pollutants naturally and return to its natural state after a time of us not being able to belch anything into its grounds, skies, or waters. And then a new life will come about, just as we came about after the demise of the life that existed on it before us. This Earth will exist up until the day the Sun dies, or until a huge asteroid collides head on with it and rips it into pieces.

Watch the "Life After People" series to get an idea of the prevailing scientific thought regarding what happens to the ecosystem after we're gone.

Hal-9000
09-07-2014, 07:38 PM
I should have clarified....yes the earth will survive us, but as a large slag heap of rock like Mars. :tup:

DemonGeminiX
09-07-2014, 08:28 PM
No, that's not right. The problem with Mars is that it doesn't have an atmosphere, nor a magnetic field... at least not comparable to Earth. That's why I'm so dead set against colonization of Mars at this point: we don't have the tech to combat the problems that our atmosphere and magnetic field takes care of naturally. Earth has both of those, and there really isn't anything that we can do to permanently remove them. Like I said, we can kill ourselves, but the Earth will recover and life will reemerge in some form or another.