New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

U.S. Government Report Says Climate Change Is Real, and Humans Are to Blame

Conclusions of climate-change science analysis are at odds with U.S. President Donald Trump's policies

A flooded street is seen in Hoboken, N.J., on October 30, 2012, following Hurricane Sandy.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

From warmer temperatures to more extreme weather, melting glaciers and rising sea levels, humanity is fundamentally changing the planet by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, US government scientists said on 3 November in their latest assessment of climate science.

The average global temperature has increased by 1 °C since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the 600-page report says — adding that the last 115 years comprise “the warmest period in the history of modern civilization”. The analysis warns that temperatures could increase another 4°C by the end of the century, with dramatic consequences for humans and natural ecosystems.

The findings are at odds with the policies of US President Donald Trump, who has questioned well-established tenets of climate science and vowed to protect and promote the US fossil-fuel industry. Trump's stances led many scientists to worry that his administration would try to block or tamper with the climate-change assessment, but several scientists who helped to write the document reported no problems.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“We weren’t interfered with, and we ended up producing something that I think is of tremendous value,” says David Fahey, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, and a coordinating lead author of the analysis.

The climate-science report is the first volume of the fourth National Climate Assessment, a legally mandated analysis of the causes and impacts of global warming that is due in 2018. The other two parts of the forthcoming assessment were released today in draft form, for public comment. One analysis focuses on how climate change is affecting life in the United States, from crop yields to property damage from extreme weather. The other summarizes the latest findings on the global carbon cycle. Both of those documents will undergo a formal review by the US National Academy of Sciences.

“The science speaks for itself,” says Don Wuebbles, a a climate scientist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and co-chair of the climate-science report. “It’s hard to counteract the basic observations and the truth of the science with any kind of political playing around.”

The trio of documents paints a dramatic picture of how global warming is affecting people and communities across the United States. Tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 coastal cities along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Large forest fires have become more frequent in the western part of the country, while warmer spring temperatures and shrinking mountain snowpack are combining to reduce the amount of water available to the region's cities and farms. As a result, the draft climate-impacts report warns, “chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is increasingly possible before the end of the century”.

The report comes just days before the latest United Nations climate talks kick off in Bonn, Germany. It will also be the first major summit since Trump vowed to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate pact.

Few observers expect US government's latest set of climate-change analyses to affect how the Trump administation approaches energy and environmental issues. In August, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disbanded an advisory committee that was intended to help the nation prepare for a warmer climate, by translating the findings of the coming climate assessment into guidance for cities, states and industry.

Nor is it clear whether senior Trump administration officials will accept the reports' core scientific conclusions. As recently as March, US Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt said he did not believe that carbon dioxide is major driver of global warming.

Nonetheless, many scientists and environmentalists lauded the new reports for bolstering the case for more-aggressive action against climate change.

“The full assessment, when it gets published, is going to show that there are palpable impacts that are going to hit every part of the country,” says Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, an environmental think-tank in Washington DC. “It’s the responsibility of leaders to take note of that and act accordingly.”

Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22958

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe