Humankind's role in climate change

The conclusion of the IPCC is frightening enough

One cannot help but be surprised by the degree of polemics still encountered in mass media and politics on the origin of climate change. This is due in part to the over-simplification by the media of credible scientific findings. There is a distressing tendency to leave out the nuances of scientific method and probabilities.

The article by William B. Gail in IEEE Spectrum online on ‘Climate Control’ (blog post coming soon) is one of the few exceptions. In his description of the problem of global warming, Gail sticks to the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) without simplifying the case, or using vague and often meaningless expressions such as ‘scientifically proven’. After all, when is something ever really scientifically proven?

Gail explains that there have always been naturally-caused climate changes on earth. However, ‘The warming since 1950 defies explanation by any known natural cause. Yet it fits quite closely with what we would expect from the well-documented human contribution to increased carbon dioxide. Among the strongest evidence is that the climate is changing with a geographic and altitude-specific pattern consistent with explanations based on greenhouse gases but not with other possible explanations — including such oft-suggested alternatives as variations in the sun’s brightness and in the intensity of cosmic rays.’

And, though a careful reader will understand from this that we are still far from a final conclusion on this subject, currently available preliminary results are frightening enough to demand immediate and radical action.