Yes, Humans Are Causing Warming. No, We Don’t Know What That Means
show comments
  • rheddles

    “We still don’t understand the ins and outs of our climate and the various feedback loops contained therein.”


    “Scientists are ’95 percent’ sure that humans are the main cause of recent global warming (up from 90 percent in 2007)”.

    Can’t decide whether to cry or laugh.

  • phineasfahrquar

    Best thing to do with the IPCC is a) ignore it and b) disband it. It’s been a hotbed of politicized science, such that even Lysenko would blush.

  • Andrew Allison

    If, “You can’t write an equation for a tree”, how in heck can you write one for an entire planet?

    Anybody who is interested in what’s really been going on with global temperature is invited to go to and examine the data for the periods 1880-1944, 1944-1976 and 1976-1997. Alternatively, you could take my word for it that the NASA anomaly trend was +0.0045 degrees for the first period, -0.0016 for the second and +0.0148 for the third. CO2, of course, has been rising at an accelerating pace throughout. tells us that the average anomaly from 1850 to 1880 (which NASA conveniently chooses to ignore) was -0.032 degrees, and that the rapid increase starting in 1976 came to an abrupt halt in 1997.
    Specifically, despite a 35% increase in anthropomorphic emissions since 1997 and the record hot years of 2005 and 2010, five-year and decadally smoothed global averages peaked in 2005 and have been declining ever since, which means that they have been declining for more than the 15 years which NOAA set as a change signal threshold in 2008 when it became clear that the historically-used 5-year average was declining! Now, apparently overlooking the fact that the rapid heating which came to an abrupt halt in 1997 lasted only 20 years, the AGW crowd want 30 years to establish a trend.
    Meanwhile, despite the record-high temperatures since 1997, there’s been no change in tropical storm frequency or intensity, etc. over the past century (the alarmists misrepresent the cost of damage caused due to increased infrastructure as a result of intensity).
    Bottom line: to decimate fossil-fuel based economies on the basis of a, not merely unproven but proven false, theory would be crazy.

  • Mark Michael

    Ah, ha! Perhaps I’ve found the fly in the ointment of the thinking of ViaMeadia. This quote tells why:

    “The greenhouse gas effect is fairly simple to wrap one’s head around: certain gases trap the sun’s heat, and the main culprit, carbon dioxide, is something humans are responsible for emitting in vast quantities in recent decades.”

    Most very pro-AGW climatologists go to great lengths to shield the following simple facts about greenhouse gases from the average person. The biggest contributor to the GHG effect is water vapor at about 85% – 90%. CO2 is a distant 2nd at about 10%. Methane gas (CH4) is less than 1%. Various Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are trace GHGs. The total greenhouse effect is estimated (crudely, I’ve learned – they’ve really done very little serious no-kidding research on this very important topic) at 33 degrees C or 59.4 degrees F. CO2 adds approx. 3.3 degrees C. to the total global average temperature even yet today.

    The big scientific arguments between the “lukewarmists” and the “alarmists” do NOT center on the above GHG allotments to the 33 degrees C. GHG contribution to the avg. global temps. It is something called “climate sensitivity” or what an electrical engineer like me calls feedback: Is the feedback negative (-) or positive (+) in nature? If it’s (+), then when more CO2 raises the temperature which both sides agree causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, will that extra water vapor create certain types of CLOUDS which COOL the earth MORE than the water vapor (a gaseous form of water vs. ionized particles comprising clouds) RAISE its global avg. temp? (There are a whole bunch of other – and + feedback factors involved, but CLOUDS are the really big, key one easy to understand IMO.)

    My bias: nearly all practical evidence says it’s weakly negative feedback primarily to due to those certain type of cloud mentioned above. They can reflect as much as 60% of the sun’s visible light back into space during the daytime. (The greenhouse gas effect mostly is relevant for night-time when infrared energy is reflected back into outerspace by the earth.) The sunlight is approx. 95% visible light and above (ultraviolet) of the frequency spectrum.

    Serious research to resolve this scientific question centers on empirically measuring the feedback effect of each major CO2 emitter and absorber for the atmosphere. Little vigorous research has directly tackled this problem – admittedly, very difficult to do.

  • Corlyss

    “Scientists are “95 percent” sure that humans are the main cause of recent global warming (up from 90 percent in 2007), but they’re much less confident about what the effects of that warming will be.”
    “Scientists” who make such an unwarranted and unsubstantiated claim should be stripped of their degrees and sent to work as burger-flippers. So much of the so-called “settled science” about alleged AGW/climate change relies on legions of scientists who 1) are not climatologists and 2) have been compelled by their organizations to sign on to the climate change hysteria under threat of sanctions (in the form of reduced funding for their projects). It’s like the loyalty oaths once extracted from people to retain their standing and credibility, if not their lives and livelihoods, with totalitarian states. But now that AGW is part of the Liberal/Progressive orthodoxy, it will be very difficult to right the science ship.

  • OdinsAcolyte

    This is an untrue statement. There is no such thing as an environmental expert and such a thing as ‘climate’ is even more difficult to evaluate. Anyone who claims to be an expert in this field is a liar. Those who report and believe such findings are even more misguided and uneducated about our environment which includes climate.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    So the same fraudsters, caught red handed cherry picking data to support their bogus hypothesis and “hide the decline”, that wrote the previous 4 reports AR’s 1-4, whose models are not predictive and therefore scientifically wrong, who engage in incestuous peer reviews to cover each other’s a__, and who should have been tarred, feathered, and disbarred forever from calling themselves Scientists, are now writing AR5.
    Why in the world would any reasonable person give any credibility to these liars? In a just world they would all now be in prison doing hard time for defrauding the taxpayers.

  • Corlyss

    “Once the IPCC releases AR5, scientists will hand off the baton to the policymakers.”

    This is just one of the several places where everything went into a cocked hat to begin with! The policymakers have an agenda that has little or nothing to do with science and they don’t give a darn if the science and the scientists don’t support it. Policymakers the world over are completely unreliable when it comes to admitting they made a mistake. I take that back. They are totally reliable: they will lie, cook the books, bury the results, deny the facts, punish truth-tellers, dig in and double down on their bad predictions and their worse policies until they are lying amid the rubble and chaos of their own making.

    “if this sneak preview is an accurate representation of what’s to come in the next IPCC report, they could be getting a much-needed opportunity to hit the reset button.”

    Forget about it. See above.

  • lukelea

    re: We have got quite a bit more certain that climate change…is largely manmade,” said Reto Knutti, a professor at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. “We’re less certain than many would hope about the local impacts.”

    They are also less certain how big the change will be. CO2 by itself will cause a relatively modest increase in temperature, around one degree centigrade. Alarmists claim (or fear) that there is a “positive feedback” mechanism which will amplify that amount of warming by a factor of two or three. This issue of climate sensitivity, as it is called, is far from settled however. Skeptics point out that a positive feedback of that magnitude seems inherently unlikely for the simple reason that it implies climate instability. A negative feedback mechanism (which would dampen external shocks to the environment) seems more plausible in light of the relative stability (homeostasis) of the earth’s climate over the eons of time during which life evolved on this planet.

  • qet

    Allow me to offer a substitute for the hallowed word “consensus” so often incanted nowadays. Herd. The demand by soi-disant spokesmen for the consenus is that we all follow the herd. Well, what if this consensus is itself merely an instance of scientists following the herd? Are we to believe that scientists, unlike all the rest of us, are incapable of such behavior? That each and every “scientist” whose opinion counts in the tally has independently, without influence by other scientists’ opinions, reviewed all of the data, run all of the models, performed all of the math, by himself, in isolation, and arrived at the exact same conclusion as each other scientist working in the same isolation? Is it not possible that the same social pressures that affect the rest of us in our adoption of a view on something–pressure from our peers, families, employers, and our innate desires to interpret phenomena in a way that conforms to our politics and world-views–are at work even among The Scientists themselves in the generation of this famed Consensus? Or are they, by virtue of being Scientists, beyond such common weakness?

  • SLEcoman

    The first clue you shouldn’t have relied on this leaked report is that the IPCC has said it is misleading. The second clue is that the 95% confidence is for the period from 1955 to present. As one can see from the GISS temperature anomaly

    1955 was an unusually cold year, providing a low starting point. Moreover, by starting with 1955, the IPCC can avoid having to discuss the inconvenient period of 1940-1955 when global temperatures declined. Third, Chapter 7 of WG1’s SOD of AR5 says, ““Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [Galactic
    Cosmic Radiation] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the
    climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz,
    1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem
    to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying
    mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed
    relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.”

    You would think warning bells should be ringing loud at Mead Manor when the IPCC’s own Chapter 7 explicitly undercuts the leaked report of the 95% confidence in man’s activities causing global warming since 1955.

  • Kavanna

    Here are two fine talks by two of the best on the absurdity of “climate change” and how much damage the fake crusade has already done:

    And a fine example of how hard the science is — this is how science is really done:

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.