Global warming: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner
imported>Gareth Leng
(→‎Skepticism about global: remove opinionizing)
Line 87: Line 87:
Although all national science academies that have issued statements on the matter accept the IPCC's conclusion that future man-made climate change is likely,<ref name="academies"/> a minority of skeptical scientists and others believe that the present climate change, if it exists at all, is not man-made and is unavoidable. The skeptics dispute any immediate danger and any need for large reductions of man-made CO<sub>2</sub>  emissions. The skepticism is based on the complex problems associated with the underlying science and the uncertainty of the available climate data. The latter has been acknowledged and accounted for by the IPCC as much as possible.  
Although all national science academies that have issued statements on the matter accept the IPCC's conclusion that future man-made climate change is likely,<ref name="academies"/> a minority of skeptical scientists and others believe that the present climate change, if it exists at all, is not man-made and is unavoidable. The skeptics dispute any immediate danger and any need for large reductions of man-made CO<sub>2</sub>  emissions. The skepticism is based on the complex problems associated with the underlying science and the uncertainty of the available climate data. The latter has been acknowledged and accounted for by the IPCC as much as possible.  


There is a tendency to downplay the number of skeptical scientists or to ignore them. For example, when an FPS ([[Forum on Physics & Society]]) editor of the APS ([[American Physical Society]]) wrote: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the [[Industrial  Revolution]]",<ref>[http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm Editor's Comment, Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society, July 2008]</ref> the FPS Executive Committee hastened to declare that his statement does not represent their views.<ref>[http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/ Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society, July 2008].</ref><ref>The APS's 2007 statement on Climate Change, in which the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, is given [http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm here].</ref> Clearly, any suggestion of a "considerable presence" of scientists disagreeing with the IPCC is politically undesirable.
There is a tendency to downplay the number of skeptical scientists or to ignore them. For example, when an FPS ([[Forum on Physics & Society]]) editor of the APS ([[American Physical Society]]) wrote: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the [[Industrial  Revolution]]",<ref>[http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm Editor's Comment, Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society, July 2008]</ref> the FPS Executive Committee hastened to declare that his statement does not represent their views.<ref>[http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/ Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society, July 2008].</ref><ref>The APS's 2007 statement on Climate Change, in which the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, is given [http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm here].</ref>  
None-the-less, a statement purported to be on behalf of 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries, was entered before a [[U.S. Senate]] committee in 2007, voicing objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. Some of those scientists were participants in the IPCC.<ref>
None-the-less, a statement purported to be on behalf of 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries, was entered before a [[U.S. Senate]] committee in 2007, voicing objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. Some of those scientists were participants in the IPCC.<ref>
[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=bba2ebce-6d03-48e4-b83c-44fe321a34fa U. S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007]</ref>. A number of individuals on the list objected to their inclusion and declared that the statement did not reflect their views. In June 2009 a  book defending the skeptical view was published by the [[Heartland Institute]],<ref>S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso, ''Climate Change Reconsidered'',  Heartland Institute, June 2009,  ISBN-13 – 978-1-934791-28-8</ref> an institute that takes a partisan position against what they call "myths of global warming". The 745 page book is available  on the Web.<ref>[http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html Climate Change Reconsidered (8Mb pdf)]</ref>  
[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=bba2ebce-6d03-48e4-b83c-44fe321a34fa U. S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007]</ref>. A number of individuals on the list objected to their inclusion and declared that the statement did not reflect their views. In June 2009 a  book defending the skeptical view was published by the [[Heartland Institute]],<ref>S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso, ''Climate Change Reconsidered'',  Heartland Institute, June 2009,  ISBN-13 – 978-1-934791-28-8</ref> an institute that takes a partisan position against what they call "myths of global warming". The 745 page book is available  on the Web.<ref>[http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html Climate Change Reconsidered (8Mb pdf)]</ref>  

Revision as of 07:32, 7 October 2010

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Video [?]
 
This editable, developed Main Article is subject to a disclaimer.
Annual average global warming by the year 2060 simulated and plotted as color differences using EdGCM

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) from 1906 to 2005. The prevailing scientific view,[1] as represented by the science academies of the major industrialized nations[2] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),[3] it is very likely that most of the temperature increase since the mid-20th century has been caused by increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations produced by human activity.

Climate models project that average global surface temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) by the end of the century, relative to 1980–1999.[3] The range of values reflects the use of differing assumptions of future greenhouse gas emissions and results of models that differ in their sensitivity to increases in greenhouse gases.[3]

Scientists have not yet quantitatively assessed the potential self-accelerating effects of global-warming itself, either on threshold or rate. Melting of permafrost, for example, causes increased production and atmospheric release of such newly produced as well as anciently stored methane gas, which reportedly “….packs a far greater warming punch than its oxidized sibling [carbon dioxide],”[4] possibly as much as 25 times that of carbon dioxide per unit mass.[5] We cannot rule out other effects of global warming that may initiate self-acceleration.

An increase in global temperatures will in turn cause sea level rise, glacier retreat, melting of sea ice, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There may also be changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, though it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. These changes to the climate will produce a range of practical effects, such as changes in agricultural yields and impacts on human health.[6]

Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. There is ongoing political and public debate regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce future warming or to adapt to its consequences. The Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was adopted by 169 nations.

Terminology

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.[7] The terms "anthropogenic global warming" and "anthropogenic climate change" are sometimes used when focusing on human-induced changes.

Causes

The climate system varies both through internal processes and in response to external forcing. External forcing includes solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in Earth's orbit , and atmospheric composition. The scientific consensus[8] is that most of the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activity. Some other hypotheses have been offered to explain most of the observed increase in global temperatures but these are not broadly supported in the scientific community. Among these are that the warming is caused by natural fluctuations in the climate, that warming is mainly a result of variations in solar radiation,[9] or that warming is caused by changes in cloud cover due to variations in galactic cosmic rays.[10]

The effects of forcing are not instantaneous. Due to the thermal inertia of the oceans and the slow responses of some feedback processes, Earth's climate is never in perfect equilibrium with the imposed forcing. Climate commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels there would be a further warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) as the climate continued to adjust toward equilibrium.[11]

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Existence of the greenhouse effect itself is not disputed. It is the process by which emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's atmosphere and surface. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases warm the Earth by about 33 °C (59 °F). Without this natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature of Earth would be about -18 °C (0 °F) making the planet uninhabitable.[12] The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%.[13]

The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 383 parts per million (ppm) by volume.[14] From geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago.[15] About three-fourths of man-made CO2 emissions over the past 20 years have come from the burning of fossil fuels. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, mainly deforestation.[16] Measured trends in atmospheric composition and isotope ratios (namely the simultaneous depletion of 13C, 14C, and O2) confirm that the increased atmospheric CO2 mainly comes from fossil fuels and not from other sources such as volcanoes or the oceans.[17]

Future CO2 concentrations will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100.[18] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100, if coal, tar sands, or methane clathrates are extensively used.[19] Positive feedback effects such as the release of methane from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes) may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions[20] not included in climate models cited by the IPCC.[3]

The warming due to atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels releases methane from the Arctic surface in at least three ways: (1) by forming lakes of melted ice whose waters melts the underlying permafrost, allowing methane-producing microbes to increase methane production by exposing thawing vegetative and animal matter for them to consume; (2) by opening channels in the attenuated permafrost cap for release into the atmosphere of old trapped methane hydrates; (3) by thawing offshore layers of permafrost capping methane hydrates.[5]

Feedbacks

The effects of forcing agents on the climate are modified by feedback processes. One of the most important feedbacks is caused by the evaporation of water. Increased greenhouse gases from human activity cause a warming of the Earth's atmosphere and surface. The increased warmth in turn increases the evaporation of water into the atmosphere. Since water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, this causes still more warming; the warming causes more water vapor to be evaporated, and so on. Eventually a new dynamic equilibrium concentration of water vapor is reached at a slight increase in humidity and with a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone.[21]

The radiative effects of clouds are a major source of uncertainty in climate projections. Seen from below, clouds emit infrared radiation to the surface, and so have a warming effect. Seen from above, clouds reflect sunlight and emit infrared radiation to space, and so have a cooling effect. The cloud feedback effect is influenced not only by the amount of clouds but also by their distribution; for example, high clouds are at colder temperatures than low clouds, and thus radiate less energy to space. Increased global water vapor content may or may not cause an increase in global or regional cloud cover, since cloud cover is affected by relative humidity rather than the absolute concentration of water vapor. Cloud feedback is second only to water vapor feedback and has been found to have a net warming effect in all the models that contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.[21]

Another important process is ice-albedo feedback.[22] Warming of the Earth's surface leads to melting of ice near the poles. As the ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are on average less reflective than ice, and thus absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and the cycle continues.

The ocean's ability to sequester carbon is expected to decline as it warms, because the resulting low nutrient levels of the mesopelagic zone limits the growth of diatoms in favor of smaller phytoplankton that are poorer biological pumps of carbon.[23]

Solar variation

It has been hypothesized that variations in solar output, possibly amplified by cloud feedbacks, may have been a secondary contributor to recent warming.[24] Natural phenomena, such as solar variation and volcanoes, probably had a net warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect since 1950.[25] Some research indicate that the Sun's contribution may have been underestimated. These results suggest that the Sun may have contributed about 40–50% of the global surface warming between 1900 and 2000 and about 25–35% of the warming between 1980 and 2000.[26] Stott and coauthors suggest that climate models overestimate the relative effect of greenhouse gases compared to solar forcing; they also suggest that the cooling effects of volcanic dust and sulfate aerosols have been underestimated.[27] Nevertheless, they conclude that even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming during the latest decades is attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases.

Climate change since the Industrial Revolution

According to the instrumental temperature record, mean global temperatures (both land and sea) have increased by 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900. This measured temperature increase is not significantly affected by the urban heat island effect.[28][29][30] Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade).[31] Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[32] Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was the second warmest year, behind 1998.[33][34] Global temperatures in 1998 were exceptionally warm because the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record occurred in that year.[35]

Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[36] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability.

Climate models

Scientists have created computer models of the climate. These models are based on physical principles of fluid dynamics, radiative transfer, and other processes, with some simplifications being necessary because of limitations in computer power. These models predict that the net effect of adding greenhouse gases is to produce a warmer climate. However, even when the same assumptions of fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emission are used, the amount of projected warming varies between models and there is a considerable range of climate sensitivity. Including uncertainties in future greenhouse gas concentrations and climate modeling, the IPCC report projects global surface temperatures averaged over 2090-2099 are likely to be 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) hotter than the average temperatures from 1980-1999.[3]

Models have also been used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models project from various natural and human derived causes. Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century, but cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate.[37] These models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Global climate model projections of future climate are forced by imposed greenhouse gas scenarios, generally one from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Less commonly, models may also include a simulation of the carbon cycle; this generally shows a positive feedback, though this response is uncertain (under the A2 SRES scenario, responses vary between an extra 20 and 200 ppm of CO2). Some observational studies also show a positive feedback.[38][39][40]

The representation of clouds is one of the main sources of uncertainty in present-generation models, though progress is being made on this problem.[41] There is also an ongoing discussion as to whether climate models are neglecting important indirect and feedback effects of solar variability.

Attributed and expected effects

Some effects on both the natural environment and human life are, at least in part, already being attributed to global warming. A 2001 report by the IPCC suggests that glacier retreat, ice shelf disruption such as the Larsen Ice Shelf, sea level rise, changes in rainfall patterns, and increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, are being attributed in part to global warming.[42] While changes are expected for overall patterns, intensity, and frequencies, it is difficult to attribute specific events to global warming. Other expected effects as a result of warmer temperatures include water scarcity in some regions and increased precipitation in others, changes in mountain snowpack, and adverse health effects.

Increasing deaths, displacements, and economic losses projected due to extreme weather attributed to global warming may be exacerbated by growing population densities in affected areas, although temperate regions are projected to experience some minor benefits, such as fewer deaths due to cold exposure.[43] A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report made for the IPCC Third Assessment Report by Working Group II.[42] The newer IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summary reports that there is observational evidence for an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic Ocean since about 1970, in correlation with the increase in sea surface temperature, but that the detection of long-term trends is complicated by the quality of records prior to routine satellite observations. The summary also states that there is no clear trend in the annual worldwide number of tropical cyclones.[3]

Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 millimeters (0.36 to 2.5 ft) between 1990 and 2100,[44] repercussions to agriculture, possible slowing of the thermohaline circulation, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and extreme weather events, lowering of ocean pH, and the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. One study predicts 18% to 35% of a sample of 1,103 animal and plant species would be extinct by 2050, based on future climate projections.[45] McLaughlin et al. have documented two populations of Bay checkerspot butterfly being threatened by precipitation change, though they state few mechanistic studies have documented extinctions due to recent climate change.[46]

If global warming impacts sufficiently negatively on human health and fecundity, a decline in the rate of population growth, or even a decline in population, may provide an offsetting effect on the increase in global warming, by reducing anthropogenic carbon dioxide generation. If a sufficiently large offset occurs before Earth becomes uninhabitable for human life, humanity might escape the extinction now occurring in other species and projected for more.[46]

Mitigation and adaptation

The broad agreement among climate scientists that global temperatures will continue to increase has led nations, states, corporations, and individuals to implement actions to try to curtail global warming or adjust to it. Many environmental groups encourage action against global warming, often by the consumer, but also by community and regional organizations. There has been business action on climate change, including efforts at increased energy efficiency and (still limited) moves to alternative fuels. One innovation has been the development of greenhouse gas emissions trading through which companies, in conjunction with government, agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those below their allowances.

The world's primary international agreement on combating global warming is the Kyoto Protocol, an amendment to the UNFCCC, negotiated in 1997. The Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.[47] The United States and Kazakhstan have not ratified the treaty. China and India, two other large emitters, have ratified the treaty but, as developing countries, are exempt from its provisions. This treaty expires in 2012, and international talks began in May 2007 on a future treaty to succeed the current one.[48]

The world's primary body for crafting a response is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN-sponsored activity which holds periodic meetings between national delegations on the problems of global warming, and issues working papers and assessments on the current status of the science of climate change, impacts, and mitigation. It convenes four different working groups examining various specific issues.

Related climatic issues

A variety of issues are often raised in relation to global warming. One is ocean acidification. Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans.[49] CO2 dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid resulting in acidification. Ocean surface pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14 since the beginning of the industrial era,[50] and it is estimated that it will drop by a further 0.14 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the ocean absorbs more CO2.[3][51] Since organisms and ecosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH, this raises extinction concerns, directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2, that could disrupt food webs and impact human societies that depend on marine ecosystem services.[52]

Another related issue that may have partially mitigated global warming in the late twentieth century is global dimming, the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface. From 1960 to 1990, human-caused aerosols likely precipitated this effect. Scientists have stated with 66–90% confidence that the effects of human-caused aerosols, along with volcanic activity, have offset some of global warming, and that greenhouse gases would have resulted in more warming than observed if not for these dimming agents.[3]

Skepticism about global climate change and its anthropogenic origin

Although all national science academies that have issued statements on the matter accept the IPCC's conclusion that future man-made climate change is likely,[2] a minority of skeptical scientists and others believe that the present climate change, if it exists at all, is not man-made and is unavoidable. The skeptics dispute any immediate danger and any need for large reductions of man-made CO2 emissions. The skepticism is based on the complex problems associated with the underlying science and the uncertainty of the available climate data. The latter has been acknowledged and accounted for by the IPCC as much as possible.

There is a tendency to downplay the number of skeptical scientists or to ignore them. For example, when an FPS (Forum on Physics & Society) editor of the APS (American Physical Society) wrote: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution",[53] the FPS Executive Committee hastened to declare that his statement does not represent their views.[54][55] None-the-less, a statement purported to be on behalf of 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries, was entered before a U.S. Senate committee in 2007, voicing objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. Some of those scientists were participants in the IPCC.[56]. A number of individuals on the list objected to their inclusion and declared that the statement did not reflect their views. In June 2009 a book defending the skeptical view was published by the Heartland Institute,[57] an institute that takes a partisan position against what they call "myths of global warming". The 745 page book is available on the Web.[58]

A 2010 assessment of the IPCC report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency found no significant errors, but its authors reported that they had been unable to find the provenance of some of its conclusions, and noted that the report had not taken account of the positive effects of climate change and that there was a tendency to highlight the upper ends of uncertainty ranges. [59].

The complexities and problems of climate change science

All participants in the dispute, between those who agree with the IPPC's conclusions and those who do not agree, recognize that climate change science involves difficult problems. Some of the skeptical scientists believe that many of those problems are too difficult to be solvable. In the first place, it is an observational science (like astronomy), meaning that experiments cannot be performed to verify or disprove certain hypotheses.

In the second place, the Earth's climate is an extremely complex system, much more complex than physical scientists usually tackle. Most of the physical sciences is based on a reductionistic approach, in which systems are reduced to smaller ones that are easier to understand but still possess their essential characteristics. In climate science, such an approach is impossible because the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land masses are tightly coupled subsystems and consequently the energy and mass exchanges between those three major subsystems of the Earth must be studied simultaneously and cannot be reduced to separate smaller systems. Further, the electromagnetic radiation balance (i.e., insolation of solar irradiation) between energy absorption and back radiation by the Earth plays a crucial role and cannot be omitted, which means that the Earth's climate system itself is not a isolated system.

Third, there exists no encompassing theory that predicts the characteristics of the climate and which is accepted by all climatologists. Theories are ad-hoc and taken from many different areas of applied physics: turbulent and dissipative systems, convective and radiative transport phenomena, non-linear (chaotic) systems and their inherent sensitivity to initial conditions, and so on. Further, there is not enough reliable data to evaluate the existing climate models. Hence, even models trying to explain the present world climate are based on subjective choices open to criticism. The problems are compounded for predictions of world-wide climate changes. Thus, many climate scientists do not have much faith in the ability of climate models to predict the future.[60][61] The validity of computer models predicting the climate a few decades ahead is questioned by those who refer to the inability of current computer models to predict the weather for more than 10 days in advance, though this neglects the difference between development of specific events (weather) and evolution of changes in statistical distributions (climate).

Another problem is the use of proxy data (i.e., indirect data such as tree rings and the isotopic content of arctic and antarctic ice) used to determine past temperatures of the Earth. Proxy data are used to construct historical temperature profiles, yielding, for instance, the hockey stick shaped graph.[62] Some scientists question the reliability of temperature profiles based on proxy data and doubt that the present global warming is unique. They argue that the Earth, without human intervention, has had warm periods before and they refer to the discovery of Greenland by the Vikings around the year 1000 when Greenland was green, and the era of the dinosaurs when the Earth was green.

There is also concern about the lack of transparency of analyses purporting global warming and inaccessibility to data to allow independent analyses.[63][64][65] Specifically, skeptics have requested access to data from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Penn State Department of Meteorology. The CRU reports that 95% of their data is available for the public at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/.[66] The RealClimate blog also maintains a list of data sources at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/. There are examples of a peer reviewed publication in a scientific journal by researchers at Penn State supporting global warming[67] and a conflicting interpretation posted at the Climate Audit blog[68] of the same data.

The majority of skeptical scientists admit a definite increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the growing use of fossil fuels, but doubt that the increase in CO2 concentration will lead to a world-wide catastrophe.

Open letter to the UN Secretary-General from skeptical scientists

During the United Nations Climate Conference on the Indonesian island of Bali in December 2007, more than 100 scientists (climatologists, physicists, biologists, meteorologists, statisticians, and others) wrote an open letter to Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations.[69] The letter expressed their opinion that "the 2007 UN climate conference [is] taking the World in entirely the wrong direction". They recognized that a climate change is occurring but they state that it is a natural phenomenon which is impossible to stop and express their doubts that "it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."

The open letter casts doubt on the procedure of writing the IPCC Assessment Reports of 2001 and 2007. The letter stated that "the reports are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government representatives". It further states that "the great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts".

Climate sensitivity

For more information, see: Climate sensitivity.

The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere at the beginning of the Industrial Age (1750) was about 278 ppm. It is currently (2008) about 385 ppm. The concept of climate sensitivity arose when the IPCC members asked themselves how much the temperature on Earth would change by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. To answer that question, the IPCC adopted this definition:

Climate sensitivity is the equilibrium temperature change, , in the surface temperature, TS, caused by the doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration.

More simply put, the IPCC defined climate sensitivity as the temperature change, in the Earth's surface temperature, , that would be caused by doubling the pre-1750 atmospheric CO2 concentration of 278 ppm to 556 ppm which is currently expected to incur later in this century.

The IPCC estimated the climate sensitivity to be 3.26 °C. In other words, when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 reaches 556 ppm (expected later this century), the IPCC predicts that the Earth's surface temperature will be 3.26 °C higher than it was more than 250 years ago (1750).

In a contribution to the American Physical Society (APS) Forum on Physics & Society of July 2008, entitled "Climate sensitivity reconsidered",[70] Christopher Monckton, a known critic of anthropogenic causes of global warming, takes issue with the 2007 IPCC report. Monckton is a British journalist and he acknowledges that he was assisted in various ways during the preparation of his APS Forum contribution by physicists, meteorologists and others at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (both in Cambridge, Massachusetts), Imperial College (London, England), St. Andrews University (Scotland) and other universities.

The major point made in Monckton's contribution in the APS Forum on Physics & Society is that the IPCC's estimated climate sensitivity of 3.26 °C is much too high. Using the same methodology and the same physical effect parameters as did the IPCC, but estimating his own values of those parameters, Monckton obtains a climate sensitivity of 0.58 °C. In other words, Monckton predicts that when the atmospheric CO2 concentration reaches 556 ppm (expected later this century), the Earth's surface temperature will be only 0.58 °C higher than it was in 1750.

Monckton documents and references his calculations in much detail. Although Monckton is a journalist, and his calculations include numerous arbitrary assumptions (such as reducing widely accepted values of certain parameters by an assumed factor of three), his work should not be discounted simply because it appeared only in the APS's Forum (that is not peer-reviewed). Monckton's short article summarizes ideas current among the climate skeptics.

References

  1. See Doran (2009) for information on a poll of research-active climate scientists, other researchers and the public regarding the scientific consensus on global warming. Eos 90(3): 21-22.
  2. 2.0 2.1 http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-02-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02.
  4. Walker G. (2007) Climate Change 2007: A world melting from the top down. Nature 446, 718-221 (12 April 2007)
  5. 5.0 5.1 Simpson (2009) "The Peril Below the Ice". Scientific American Earth 3.0, June 2009, pp. 30-37.
  6. Schneider et al. (2007). Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. In M.L. Parry et al. (eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.779-810.
  7. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-15.
  8. Joint science academies' statement: The science of climate change (ASP). Royal Society (2001-05-17). Retrieved on 2007-04-01. “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science”
  9. Bard, Edouard; Frank, Martin (2006-06-09). "Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun?". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 248 (1-2): 1-14. Retrieved on 2007-09-17.
  10. Svensmark, Henrik (July 2000). "Cosmic Rays and Earth's Climate" (PDF). Space Science Reviews 93 (1-2): 175-185. Retrieved on 2007-09-17.
  11. Meehl, Gerald A.; et al. (2005-03-18). "How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise". Science 307 (5716): 1769–1772. DOI:10.1126/science.1106663. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. Research Blogging.
  12. (December 2002). Living with Climate Change – An Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts on Australia. Summary and Outlook (PDF). Australian Greenhouse Office. Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
  13. Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197-208. Retrieved on 2006-05-01.
  14. Tans, Pieter. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Loa. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.
  15. Pearson, Paul N.; Palmer, Martin R. (2000-08-17). "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years". Nature 406 (6797): 695–699. DOI:10.1038/35021000. Research Blogging.
  16. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-01-20). Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
  17. [1]
  18. Prentice, I. Colin; et al. (2001-01-20). 3.7.3.3 SRES scenarios and their implications for future CO2 concentration. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.
  19. 4.4.6. Resource Availability. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-04-28.
  20. Sample, Ian. Warming Hits 'Tipping Point', The Guardian, 2005-08-11. Retrieved on 2007-01-18.
  21. 21.0 21.1 Soden, Brian J.; Held, Isacc M. (2005-11-01). "An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models" (PDF). Journal of Climate 19 (14). Retrieved on 2007-04-21. “Interestingly, the true feedback is consistently weaker than the constant relative humidity value, implying a small but robust reduction in relative humidity in all models on average" "clouds appear to provide a positive feedback in all models”
  22. Stocker, Thomas F.; et al. (2001-01-20). 7.5.2 Sea Ice. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-02-11.
  23. Buesseler, K.O., C.H. Lamborg, P.W. Boyd, P.J. Lam, T.W. Trull, R.R. Bidigare, J.K.B. Bishop, K.L. Casciotti, F. Dehairs, M. Elskens, M. Honda, D.M. Karl, D.A. Siegel, M.W. Silver, D.K. Steinberg, J. Valdes, B. Van Mooy, S. Wilson. (2007) "Revisiting carbon flux through the ocean's twilight zone." Science 316: 567-570.
  24. Marsh, Nigel; Henrik, Svensmark (November 2000). "Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate" (PDF). Space Science Reviews 94: 215–230. DOI:10.1023/A:1026723423896. Retrieved on 2007-04-17. Research Blogging.
  25. Hegerl, Gabriele C.; et al. (2007-05-07). Understanding and Attributing Climate Change (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 690. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-05-20.
  26. Scafetta, Nicola; West, Bruce J. (2006-03-09). "Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming" (PDF). Geophysical Research Letters 33 (5). DOI:10.1029/2005GL025539. L05708. Retrieved on 2007-05-08. Research Blogging.
  27. Stott, Peter A.; et al. (2003-12-03). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?". Journal of Climate 16 (24): 4079–4093. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C4079:DMUTSC%3E2.0.CO;2. Retrieved on 2007-04-16. Research Blogging.
  28. David E. Parker (2004). "Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban". Nature 432: 290. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/432290a.html
  29. David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895. [2](online)]
  30. Thomas C. Peterson (2003). "Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: no difference found". Journal of Climate 16: 2941–2959. (PDF)
  31. Smith, Thomas M.; Reynolds, Richard W. (2005-05-15). "A Global Merged Land–Air–Sea Surface Temperature Reconstruction Based on Historical Observations (1880–1997)" (PDF). Journal of Climate 18 (12): 2021–2036. Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
  32. Hansen, James E.; et al. (2006-01-12). Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Retrieved on 2007-01-17.
  33. Global Temperature for 2005: second warmest year on record (PDF). Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (2005-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-04-13.
  34. WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 2005 (PDF). World Meteorological Organization (2005-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-04-13.
  35. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
  36. Mitchell, J. F. B.; et al. (2001-01-20). 12.4.3.3 Space-time studies. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-04.
  37. Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-01-20). Retrieved on 2007-04-28.
  38. Torn, Margaret; Harte, John (2006-05-26). "Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming". Geophysical Research Letters 33 (10). L10703. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
  39. Harte, John; et al. (2006-10-30). "Shifts in plant dominance control carbon-cycle responses to experimental warming and widespread drought". Environmental Research Letters 1 (1). 014001. Retrieved on 2007-05-02.
  40. Scheffer, Marten; et al. (2006-05-26). "Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change.". Geophysical Research Letters 33. DOI:10.1029/2005gl025044. Retrieved on 2007-05-04. Research Blogging.
  41. Stocker, Thomas F.; et al. (2001-01-20). 7.2.2 Cloud Processes and Feedbacks. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
  42. 42.0 42.1 Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-02-16). Retrieved on 2007-03-14.
  43. Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-04-13). Retrieved on 2007-04-28.
  44. Church, John A.; et al. (2001-01-20). Executive Summary of Chapter 11. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2005-12-19.
  45. Thomas, Chris D.; et al. (2004-01-08). "Extinction risk from climate change" (PDF). Nature 427 (6970): 145-138. DOI:10.1038/nature02121. Retrieved on 2007-03-18. Research Blogging.
  46. 46.0 46.1 >McLaughlin, John F.; et al. (2002-04-30). "Climate change hastens population extinctions". PNAS 99 (9): 6070–6074. DOI:10.1073/pnas.052131199. Retrieved on 2010-05-31. Research Blogging.
  47. Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification (PDF). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2006-07-10). Retrieved on 2007-04-27.
  48. Climate talks face international hurdles, by Arthur Max, Associated press, 5/14/07.
  49. The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle. NASA (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2007-03-04.
  50. Jacobson, Mark Z. (2005-04-02). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (D7). DOI:10.1029/2004JD005220. D07302. Retrieved on 2007-04-28. Research Blogging.
  51. Caldeira, Ken; Wickett, Michael E. (2005-09-21). "Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean". Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (C09S04): 1–12. Retrieved on 2006-02-14.
  52. Raven, John A.; et al. (2005-06-30). Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (ASP). Royal Society. Retrieved on 2007-05-04.
  53. Editor's Comment, Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society, July 2008
  54. Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society, July 2008.
  55. The APS's 2007 statement on Climate Change, in which the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, is given here.
  56. U. S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
  57. S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso, Climate Change Reconsidered, Heartland Institute, June 2009, ISBN-13 – 978-1-934791-28-8
  58. Climate Change Reconsidered (8Mb pdf)
  59. Assessing an IPCC assessment. An analysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report', Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2010
  60. Climate Scientists’ Perceptions of Climate Change Science Interviews among 558 scientists working in the field of climate change (mainly climatologist and meteorologists) by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch
  61. Issues in the Current State of Climate Science The Center for Science and Public Policy, Washington, DC, March 2006 (from the website of the Florida Gulf Coast University)
  62. M. E. Mann et al. (1998), Nature, vol. 392, pp. 779-787. A famous plot of mean temperature over the last 1,000 years which is flat on average from the years 1000 to 1900. The flat part forms the hockey stick's shaft. After 1900, and especially after 1980, temperatures appear to shoot up, forming the hockey stick's blade.
  63. Revkin AC. (November 27, 2009) A Climate Scientist Who Engages Skeptics The New York Times
  64. Curry J. (November 27, 2009) An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research from Dr. Judith Curry regarding hacked CRU emails. Climate Progress
  65. McIntyre, Steve. Climate Audit
  66. Anonymous. (November 24, 2009) CRU climate data already ‘over 95%’ available (28 November). University of East Anglia - Communications Office
  67. Mann, Michael E.; Zhihua Zhang, Scott Rutherford, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Drew Shindell, Caspar Ammann, Greg Faluvegi, Fenbiao Ni (2009-11-27). "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly". Science 326 (5957): 1256-1260. DOI:10.1126/science.1177303. Retrieved on 2009-11-29. Research Blogging.
  68. S. Jean. (November 27, 2009) Yet another Upside Down Mann out Climate Audit
  69. Letter to Ban Ki-Moon
  70. Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Forum on Physics & Society of the American Physical Society, July 2008