Last Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its fifth assessment report—its first comprehensive overview of the latest research on the global climate since 2007. This is exciting because it is not just some press release by another think tank or activist group with an agenda. It is an extremely detailed monograph by a body of climate scientists that was established in 1988 by the U.N. and supported by the governments of 195 countries. Its work is vital in compiling the latest thinking about the role of human actions in global climate change.
As expected, the latest report contains distressing confirmations that our current direction is not sustainable. Highlights include predictions of average temperature increases of 2.5 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, compared to the average temperature from 1850 to 1900, and estimates rising sea levels of .85 feet to 3.22 feet by the end of the century, which would be ruinous for places such as New York City. The report carefully notes that multiple models are used, so I have given the lowest and greatest estimates for changes in sea levels and temperature.
The cautiousness of the IPCC in giving a range of estimates with the appropriate disclaimers is not enough to win respect from all quarters. Even before the report was released, a Sept. 20 Fox News article declared “Climategate II” upon the release of emails from some of the scientists involved. With that (oh so promising) beginning, it proceeded to suggest that they were scrambling desperately to explain why the rate of global warming has slowed in the past 15 years, despite increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.
As you may remember, Climategate I, as we may call it, was a 2009 media-driven “controversy” in which private communications from four climate scientists in England at the University of East Anglia (of all places) were portrayed as indicating manipulation of data. The fact that anyone is still generalizing from this one instance about the methods and ethics of thousands of hard-working, highly trained climate scientists is pitiful and dishonest.
The piece does mention that there are a number of possible explanations for the decreased rate, and it discusses them fairly even-handedly. For instance, it is possible that some of the heat in the air is being absorbed into the ocean, or that changes in volcanic activity, solar flares and variability in natural cycles have played a role. The almost balanced content of the article is belied by the sensationalist title.
The IPCC’s own graphs in the latest report show an increasing warming trend, with times when the temperature dips rather than increases. To think they are predicting an unbroken increase is to misunderstand the meaning of an average. More to the point, a slight decrease in the rate of increase for 15 years is not the same as a decrease in global warming, nor a sign that long-term trends are not what we thought they were. The IPCC’s latest report is a valuable contribution to our awareness of climate change and it can be read at climatechange2013.org.
Zach Wilson is a senior studying philosophy. What are your opinions on how global warming is handled in the media? You can tell him at cw299210@ohiou.edu.
