Essay on GLOBAL WARMING – Fact

or Fiction
June 26, 2010 CSS and PMS

Introduction to Global Warming:

Greenhouse warming has existed for quite some time, arguably since
Earth was first formed. Greenhouse gases, or gases conducive to the
greenhouse effect, act like a blanket or the panes of glass in a
greenhouse’s walls; they reflect the heat the earth would radiate into
space back down towards the earth, holding it in. You see, the balance
of heat on earth is maintained by different processes. Solar radiation
approaches the earth, and clouds and the atmosphere reflect some of it
back into space.
More radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, clouds, and the surface
of the earth. Then the earth radiates the heat back as infrared
radiation. To maintain a certain, constant temperature, the rate that
Earth emits energy into space must equal the rate it absorbs the sun’s
energy. The greenhouse effect’s refusal to allow a certain amount of
this terrestrial radiation to pass keeps the Earth’s average surface
temperature at about 60°F (15°C). If there were no greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, most of the heat radiated by the Earth’s surface
would be lost directly to outer space, and the planet’s temperature
would be 0°F (-18°C), too cold for most forms of life (Greenhouse).

There are several atmospheric gases that act as greenhouse gases

(GHGs). The most infamous is carbon dioxide, which is emitted
through the respiration of humans and animals, the burning of fossil
fuel, deforestation, and other changes in land use. Carbon dioxide is
the main focus of many greenhouse gas sanctions, since it is the
greenhouse gas that has most been released into the atmosphere.
However, some other gases may have a greater effect upon climate
than CO2. If one examines research into the possible warming effect of
other GHGs relative to CO2, one finds that over a 100-year period,
there are gases present in far smaller amounts that have a much more
concentrated effect. Methane, a gas produced by livestock (flatulence),
oil and gas production, coal mining, solid waste, and wet rice
agriculture, has 11 times more warming potential per volume than
CO2 (Science), or 25 times more per molecule (Clarkson). Nitrous
oxide, produced mainly in connection with current agricultural
practices, has 270 times more warming potential per volume over this
period than CO2 (Science). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the gases
used as refrigerants and in aerosol spray dispensers that were banned
some time back due to their ozone depletion potential, have 3400-
7100 times more warming potential per volume than CO2 (Science).
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
the CFC substitutes, have a slightly smaller warming potential at 1200-
1600 times larger per volume than CO2 (Science).

And so, as one might infer, studies are showing that additions of
GHGs may cause the earth to get warmer than it naturally would. This
is what is referred to as anthropogenic (human-caused) global
warming. Many times, the terms global warming and climate change
are used interchangeably. (We will do the same, for continuity’s sake.)
But, this is not correct and the concepts are different. Climate change
includes precipitation, wind patterns, and temperature. It also refers
to the whole climate, not just weather conditions of one place. Global
warming is an indication of climate change. It is an example of a
climate change that has the atmosphere’s average temperature
increase. Earth has experienced much warming and much cooling
throughout its history. There is a great deal of debate as to whether or
not the earth is experiencing a globally warming climate change and, if
it is, whether the underlying causes are man-made or natural.
Different research has given different results.

However, even when greenhouse gases were arguably at a stable level,

before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate tended to
fluctuate widely. A period from 5,000 to 3,000 BC (when civilization
began) is called the Climatic Optimum and another period from 900 –
1200 AD is called the Little Climatic Optimum or the Medieval
Climatic Optimum, both so named for their unusually warm
temperatures. Likewise, a period from 1550 to 1850 is known as the
Little Ice Age for its unusually cold temperatures (Pidwirny). At this
time, glaciers in southern Norway reached their greatest extent in
9000 years (Keigwin). With such large variations possible, it is
difficult to know where the next natural fluctuation could take us.
Perhaps those who find that global climate is warming are simply
measuring a natural fluctuation. Or perhaps a natural fluctuation is
masking the real effect of GHGs on the globe.

Global Warming: Big Questions, Big Research

As mentioned previously, there is a great debate over whether or not

humans are causing global warming. Some activists and researchers
have resorted to name-calling or accusing the opposing side of having
“sold out” to one special interest or another. As mentioned previously,
we have attempted to cut away the personal attacks between the
opposing sides, search for the kernel of truth (or logic, where truth
cannot be discerned), and get down to the heart of the matter.
In order to properly read any of the reports or research on global
climate change, one must keep in mind that nothing (or almost
nothing) is certain. Everything has a certain degree of uncertainty, a
certain flavor of the unknown. There really is no conclusive evidence
of global warming, and many scientists in favor of the global warming
hypothesis say that it will be a decade or more before it is possible to
develop any substantial evidence. As an anonymous senior climate
modeler has said about global warming, “The more you learn, the
more you understand that you don’t understand very much” (Kerr –
Greenhouse Forecasting). Global climate is by nature always
fluctuating, and that only adds to the confusion about anthropogenic
global warming. If there were an anthropogenic global warming, we
couldn’t be sure what temperature we were supposed to be at, as
climate shifts are a natural part of life on Earth. Compounding that
confusion is natural variability, which is always working to confuse
researchers just as they come close to attributing a perceived change in
average temperature to some external factor, such as atmospheric
composition (GHGs) or solar variation. One reason for this variability
is the long adjustment time of the oceans’ heat storage and current
systems. It is estimated to take several hundred years for water to
circulate from the deepest portions of the oceans back to the surface.
This means that if, for example, a pool of extra cold water is singled
out and stored in the depths by some freak mechanism, it could stay
there a century or two before resurfacing and producing a local, cool
climate change (Clarkson, North, and Schmandt).

Since no one can create another Earth (let alone one that behaves
exactly like ours) and perform atmosphere-altering experiments on it,
we are left with the alternative of theorizing based on observations. In
other words, the only way we can purport to know anything about
what might be changing in our climate is by playing with data, such as
records of temperature, borehole measurements, etc., and seeing what
scenarios the data will agree with.

Most of the body of global warming theory is based on computerized

climate models called global circulation models or GCMs, for they are
almost the only tools global warming researchers have. GCMs are
difficult to make as making them properly involves a deep-rooted
understanding of the way the atmosphere works and how its actions
are interconnected with other planetary bodies, such as the oceans or
the terrestrial biosphere. But our understanding of the inner workings
of the atmosphere and the ways it relates to other planetary bodies is
not very good. Renowned NASA climate modeler James Hansen, the
man whose summer 1988 congressional testimony kicked off the
climate change debate, states in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences: “The forcings [outside factors] that drive long-
term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to
define future climate changes.” One of the fundamental illustrations of
chaos, the butterfly effect, displays the interconnectedness of the
atmosphere system when it states that a butterfly fluttering through
the air in China could cause rain in New York the following spring.

GCMs are made by formulating mathematical descriptions of the

interrelationships between the
atmosphere/ocean/biosphere/cryosphere system and conducting
numerical experiments. They certainly are unable to form a
mathematical description based on the kind of interconnections, or
feedbacks, that the butterfly effect would suggest. Indeed, Michael
Schlesinger, modeler at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
tells us that “in the climate system, there are 14 orders of magnitude,
from the planetary scale–which is 40 million meters–down to the
scale of one of the little aerosol particles on which water vapor can
change phase to a liquid [cloud particle]–which is a fraction of a
millionth of a millimeter.” Of these 14 orders of magnitude, only the
two largest (the planetary scale and the scale of weather disturbances)
can currently be included in models. Schlesinger notes that, to include
the third order of magnitude (the scale of thunderstorms, at about 50
km resolution) a computer a thousand times faster would be
necessary, “a teraflops machine that maybe we’ll have in 5 years.”
Including all orders of magnitude would require 1036-1037 times
more computing power (Kerr – Greenhouse Forecasting).

Because GCMs are so hard to make, often they account for the same
processes differently; two models may have two different
mathematical descriptions of what effect clouds have on warming, for
example. Processes with a resolution smaller than a few hundred
kilometers cannot be represented directly in the models, but instead
must be parameterized, or expressed in terms of the larger scale
motions, since the models do not have the resolution necessary to
properly represent the actions of important weather systems such as
tropical and extratropical cyclones. To offset this downfall, a few
parameterizations (such as horizontal eddy viscosity, large-scale
precipitation cumulus convection, gravity wave drag, etc.) are
calibrated. Added to these parameterizations are adjustments
commonly referred to as flux corrections, and they are an important
“fudge factor” for the GCMs. These factors keep the models from
floating off into nowhere. As Kerr (Model) stated, “Climate modelers
have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
Through these parameterizations, GCMs attempt to represent certain
climate features reasonably well, but it is possible that they may be
getting the right numbers but have the wrong underlying reason for
them. As a result, such models’ ability to simulate climate change
properly would be negatively impacted.

Lately, a model has been designed and tested at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research to eliminate the flux corrections. This
model better incorporates the effects of ocean eddies, not by shrinking
the scale, but by parameterization, passing the effects of these invisible
eddies onto larger model scales using a more realistic means of mixing
hear through the ocean that any earlier model did. This model doesn’t
drift off into chaos even after 300 years of running. This model gives a
2oC rise in temperature due to a CO2 doubling. (Some of the more
popular GCMs assume that the concentration of CO2 will double in 70
years or quadruple in 140 years and use the assumption to try to
predict what the climate will be like in decades or even centuries based
on that doubling or quadrupling.) This figure is on the low side of
estimates and puts the model’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases near
the low end of current model estimates (Kerr – Model).

GCMs are very sensitive to the representations of the effects of clouds

and oceans, as their effects are complex and not understood well.
While some GCMs are being specially made to simulate water
behavior in clouds, limited vertical resolution (i.e., they don’t go up far
enough) and coarse horizontal resolution (i.e., the cloud activity of
large areas of the Earth is averaged together and this average is used
for the entire area) prevent even these models from accurately
covering thin clouds and some cloud formation processes. Most early
simulations were run with fixed cloud distributions based on observed
cloud cover data, but these fixed levels didn’t allow any feedback
between cloud distributions and changing atmospheric/oceanic
temperatures and motions. Problems in cloud feedback are seen as the
Achilles heel of GCMs. Likewise, ocean representations were initially
crude; in some early models, a swamp (stagnant, heat-absorbing, heat
and water vapor-releasing body of water) was used as the oceanic
model. Later models had a 50 meter thick slab of ocean that allowed
summertime heat storage and wintertime heat release. While not
including ocean currents (caused by the movement of heat to colder
areas of ocean), these models attempted to represent seasonal
responses to temperature in the upper ocean, but the lack of currents
resulted in tropical oceans being too hot and polar regions too cold.
Even today’s most sophisticated, computationally-intense climate
models are still just numerically experimental approximations of the
exceedingly complex atmosphere/ocean/biosphere/cryosphere
system. And yet, these GCMs are the basis of global warming theory, if
for no other reason than the near-impossibility of conducting physical
experiments at the global level (Cotton & Pielke).

The main means of testing these mathematical models of the climate

involves taking climate data from previous years, running the
programs, and seeing if the computer results are close to the actual
present climatic data. The problem there is that the data are not
exactly accurate. When the predicted global warming ranges from .5oC
to 4oC, data accuracy is important, to say the least. Satellite data (view
some) is called insubstantial by some researchers for the short length
of its records, but Phil Jones states that the shortness even of global-
scale surface temperature records (about 100 years) aids the
uncertainty in the field. Interestingly enough, current surface
temperature measurements have shown a .5oC warming over the past
century, but satellite measurements for the past fifteen years (satellite
data has only been available for nineteen years) shows a slight
downward trend. Satellite trends in temperature vary smoothly, while
in some surface data, one region will appear to be warming while those
regions around it appear to cool. According to Dr. Roy Spencer, a
NASA scientist, “We see major excursions [from the trend] due to
volcanic eruptions like [Mount] Pinatubo and ocean current
phenomena like El Niño, but overall the trend is about 0.05 degrees
Celsius per decade cooling” (Horack and Spencer). Earlier this year, it
was realized that the satellite data needed correction for orbital decay,
or “downward drift,” in the satellites that cause erroneous cooling to
show in the data. However, even after a careful readjustment the trend
is still 0.01oC per decade of cooling, while weather balloons show -
0.02 and -0.07oC per decade in Britain and America respectively, and
British surface data show a warming of 0.15oC per decade. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate model
predictions estimate surface warming to be 0.18oC per decade and
warming in the deep layer measured by satellites and weather balloons
to be about 30% faster, or +0.23oC per decade. None of the satellites
or weather balloons show values anywhere near this, not even when
the adjusted satellite record is updated through July 1998 to show a
trend of +0.04oC per decade, which is still only 1/6 of the IPCC-
predicted rate (Spencer).

Even while the satellites may need adjustments in their data for
changes in orbit, this data is still more accurate than surface data.
Satellites do not have anything in their surroundings to skew the data.
On the other hand, many sources of error exist here on Earth. Things
as seemingly minuscule as variation in the color and type of paint used
for the instrument shelters can skew data slightly, for different types
and colors of paint absorb small but differing amounts of solar
radiation. As another example, the urban heat island effect is known to
make cities warmer at night and milder during the day. The growth of
urban areas during this century has resulted in a 0.4oC bias in the US
climate record, making the amount of warming appear larger than it
was (Cotton and Pielke). Thomas Karl, climatologist at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), demonstrated in a
1989 paper that, if surface temperatures are corrected for the urban
heat island effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest, with
readings since then showing a downward trend (Crandall). If this bias
exists in the global climate data set, its use to represent a wider
geographic record for climate change studies will be misleading.

Another largely-ignored factor affecting temperature data is solar

variation, or periodic changes in the brightness of the sun based on
sunspots and the like. Some climate modelers say that the Sun only
varies with an 11-year cycle, and this period is too fast for the climate
system to respond to. Hoyt points out that explosive volcanic
eruptions have a one to two year long radiative forcing which does
appear to affect climate, and so solar variance should have a
substantial impact on climate. James Hansen, the famed NASA
modeler, put it this way: “Anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs),
which are well-measured, cause a strong positive (warming) forcing.
But other, poorly measured, anthropogenic forcings, especally changes
of atmospheric aerosols, clouds, and other land-use patterns, cause a
negative forcing that tends to offset greenhouse warming. One
consequence of this partial balance is that the natural forcing due to
solar irradiance changes may play a larger role in long-term climate
change than inferred from GHGs alone” (NASA’s). Current research by
Daniel Cayan and Warren White of the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography gives evidence that “the waxing and waning of the sun”
may be behind current climate change. They studied North Pacific sea
surface temperatures for the past 50 years and noticed that their
pattern looked remarkably like that of satellite records of solar
irradiance (Kerr – New). Based on this, it would seem logical to
include these effects in GCMs, but few researchers do.

Moreover, any calculated warming would be reduced by this cooling

effect of volcanoes. Even though we cannot predict the occurrence of a
volcanic eruption, we have sufficient statistical information about past
eruptions to estimate their average cooling effect; yet this is one of
several factors not specifically considered by the IPCC (Singer –
Scientific) and many other models.

If these models are wrong in their assumptions about climate, then

everything that is thought to be known because of them is wrong. If,
however, their assumptions are right, but essential factors or effects
within the global system are being omitted from study, then GCMs
thought to be wrong may actually need only an enlightened tweaking.
Unfortunately, enlightenment is difficult to come by in this field.
Many, many things are still unknown.

Effects of Global Warming on Our Everyday Lives

Another area where uncertainty rears its head is in the realm of the
“real life” effects of global warming. The possible effects of global
warming have been played out in the media: hurricanes, plagues, a
great increase in sea level, etc. Some scientists refute these claims. But,
again, since the climate models can tell us little with much certainty,
we can not know for certain if a global warming would have these
effects or not.
Some researchers, such as those involved with the IPCC, claim that
global warming will lead to an increase in violent storms such as
hurricanes and typhoons. But, as S. Fred Singer points out (Scientific),
warming should actually lead to a reduction in these storms as the
equator-to-pole temperature differences diminish, for it is this
atmospheric temperature heterogeneity that drives storms and makes
them strong.

Record-breaking temperatures are given by others as a consequence of

global warming. But they actually are the consequence of having
records to break; on an average day, 2 million square miles (the
equivalent of an area 1400 miles by 1400 miles) of the Earth are
experiencing weather which breaks 100-year-old records. Indeed, the
probability of breaking a weather record is equal to 1/n, where n is the
number of years for which records exist (Hoyt).

Some, such as virologist Robert Shope, do say that warming could

cause the mosquito carrying dengue fever and yellow fever to migrate
northward, causing epidemics in North America. Cholera (which is
known to live in sea-borne plankton), he says, could become epidemic
in America as changes in marine ecology favor the growth and
transmission of the pathogen. Rita Colwell, Paul Epstein, and Timothy
Ford, another group of researchers, went a step further and blamed an
El Niño warming of the Pacific at least partially for a 1991 Latin
American cholera epidemic affecting 500,000 and killing almost
5,000. But cholera is known to spread from humans to other humans
through food, water, and feces; this is why cholera epidemics appear
when public health and sanitation break down. CDC medical
epidemiologist Fred Angulo stated that “We had a powder keg ready to
explode, an entire continent in which the sanitation and public water
supplies and everything was primed for transmission of this organism
once it was introduced,” possibly by ships emptying bilge water near
fishing areas. He adds that cholera has been introduced into the US
several times in the past few years; it didn’t spread “because we have a
public health and sanitation infrastructure that prevents it.”

As for the mosquito-borne diseases, epidemiologist Mark L. Wilson of

the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor says that the predictions suffer
from many levels of uncertainty. No one disputes that weather
patterns have an impact: “There’s reason to believe that if it’s an
extremely rainy spring, summer mosquito populations will increase,”
but he and his colleagues point out that no one knows just how
patterns of temperature and rainfall will change in a warmer world, or
how these changes will affect the biology of diseases. Paul Epstein has
attributed Latin American dengue epidemics in 1994 and 1995 to El
Niño and global warming, but experts on dengue at the Pan American
Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention say these epidemics resulted from a breakdown in
programs to eradicate the specific species of mosquito responsible and
its subsequent return. The epidemics once caused by mosquitoes in
the US have vanished due to mosquito control, eradication programs,
piped-water systems, and lifestyle changes (we have good housing, air
conditioning, and television to keep us inside, and screens to keep the
mosquitoes outside). They note as an example 1995’s Mexican dengue
pandemic that stopped at the Rio Grande, with over 2000 confirmed
cases in Reynosa, Mexico, but only 7 across the river in Texas. And so
it is a bit early to say, as the IPCC did, that “climate change is likely to
have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with
significant loss of life” (Taubes).
It is interesting that there does appear to be an increase in sea level
along the coastlines. According to Robert T. Watson, IPCC chairman,
“We’ll see sea level rise that could displace tens of millions of
people…and whole islands…could be significantly inundated. The
shorelines of America could be severely attacked.” But Dr. David
Aubrey, oceanographer and senior scientist with the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts, states that “I have seen no
convincing evidence that recent sea level rises are caused by human
effects or global warming” (Hoyt). And even global warming
proponents’ estimates have been steadily falling; initially, it was
projected by the EPA that an atmospheric CO2 doubling would cause
80-120 inches of rise, but by 1990 the estimate was a quarter of that.
In 1996, a UN science advisory panel, predicted a rise of only 15-22
inches by 2100. Even these smaller estimates are quite uncertain, for
sea level changes are terribly difficult to measure. Historical data are
based on tide gauges, which are mainly from Northern Europe and
North America. Long-term trends can be found only after the data is
adjusted for waves, storm surges, and tidal variations (Singer – Sky).
In addition, the land itself may be rising or falling. The Mid-Atlantic
US coast, for example, is falling as a bulge formed by Ice Age glaciers
slowly settles, according to the Detroit News in 1996 (Hoyt). The
global sea level record as reconstructed and adjusted shows an
interesting trend: levels have been rising at about 7 inches per century
for several centuries over which much fluctuation of global climate has
occurred. It is now believed that slow tectonic changes have caused the
steady rise, not the melting glaciers some global warming theorists
propose. Incidentally, the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich
determined that between 1926 and 1960, when the planet was
supposedly cooler than today, 70% of US and European glaciers
retreated. Since 1980, however, 55% of those same glaciers have
advanced (Carlisle). This would not support the theory that global
warming is happening now, it is melting glaciers, and that water is
causing a rise in sea level. While global warming may cause
mountainous glaciers to melt and a thermal expansion of water,
accelerating the natural rise, it also may cause more water to
evaporate from the surface of warmer oceans, leading to greater
rainfall and a thickening of polar icecaps. Data from the period of
warming from 1900-1940 shows a sea level drop, while the subsequent
cooler period showed a rise in sea level (Singer – Sky).

Other areas of life global warming has an effect upon are those
affected by attempts to stop global warming. Some people (Clark, Kerr
– Greenhouse Report) suggest that small changes, such as using high-
efficiency compact fluorescent lights, using self-powered or public
transportation more often, etc., could make a big impact on the global
warming problem (assuming it exists). This would go along with the
idea expressed by some scientists that the only actions that should be
taken until there is more certainty are those that would (or should) be
taken anyway . But will people do these things if they don’t have to?
Some other scientists are more pessimistic.

Greater measures are suggested by these people. As Cotton and Pielke

state in Human Impacts on Weather and Climate, “Clearly, reductions
in CO2 emissions in these countries [the US, China, and the former
Soviet Union] will have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions
and reduce the chance that human activity will have a significant
impact on weather and climate.” In working with such an uncertain
issue, one can only weigh one’s risks, look at the costs and benefits of
all alternatives, and take one’s most competent guess at what the best
course of action is. In the face of all this uncertainty, I would propose a
sort of Climatologists’ Wager (a variation of Pascal’s Wager to this
issue). Let’s assume for a moment that there is a global warming
occurring. If this is anthropogenic global warming and it will have a
negative impact on climate and life, then we must take action. If this is
not anthropogenic global warming and warming will have a negative
effect on climate and life, nothing can be done. If there is no
anthropogenic global warming and the warming will not have a
negative effect on climate and life, nothing need be done. Likewise, if
humans have caused the global warming but it will not have a negative
impact on climate and life, no action is necessary.

But there is one other dimension to choosing what to do: assuming

that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and it will negatively
impact climate and life, one must weigh the costs and benefits of
maintaining that risk against the costs and benefits of action. Let us
take the Kyoto Protocol as an example. President Clinton signed it on
November 12, 1998, but he is waiting to give it to the Senate. This
agreement, if ratified by the Senate, would force the US to cut GHG
emissions (mostly of CO2) to 7% below the 1990 levels within the next
10 to 14 years. The costs of this mandatory decrease in emissions are
substantial. Compliance would cost the US $3.3 trillion from 2001 to
2020, or $30,000 per household. Gas prices are expected to increase
by 65 cents a gallon or more. Residents of Michigan are expected to
have to pay 77.3% more for home heating oil, 73.5% more for natural
gas, and 64.2% more for electricity. Industries and businesses will
suffer. It is thought that some of the hardest hit sectors will include
energy-intensive manufacturing (such as automobiles, cement, iron,
steel, chemicals, aluminum, etc.), transportation, telecommunications,
paper and allied products, petroleum refining, and utilities. Wages and
salaries would fall, while food, housing, and medical costs rose. The
state of Michigan would lose 96,500 jobs (49,800 in manufacturing),
$9.3 billion in output, and $3.4 billion in tax revenues, decreasing the
ability of the state to provide even more greatly needed social services.
It is expected that the jobless rate would reach 5.5% and 1.1 million US
jobs would be lost (Novak, Littmann).

This would be a grim picture if these changes were known to be

necessary for survival. But a far grimmer picture is one of going
through all this economic hardship for an unproven theory, and then
potentially discovering that these costly changes really had a negligible
effect upon climate and life as a whole. There is no scientific
understanding of what GHG level is “dangerous.” How can we, then,
regulate what the level should be, not knowing if the danger is above
or below the standard we would set? For that matter, how can the
1992 Global Climate Treaty say that its purpose is to “achieve
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system” (Singer – Scientific)? It also seems a bit funny that
only a fast-growing, prosperous society would best be able to afford
the extra technology to make itself cleaner, healthier, and safer, but
this treaty would certainly not have that effect upon the US economy.
In not sanctioning developing countries, Kyoto almost encourages
industry to move from the reasonably efficient and well-regulated
developed countries to the developing countries, which have few (if
any) regulations on pollution. S. Fred Singer has an interesting
thought in “Dangers From the Global Climate Treaty”: “This [the
Kyoto Protocol] has been rightly labeled a transfer of money from the
poor in the rich countries to the rich in the poor countries.”
Meanwhile, climate scientists who support the anthropogenic global
warming theory say that it is unlikely that the Kyoto Protocol will even
temporarily slow the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. Jerry
Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at
Princeton, states that “it might take another 30 Kyotos over the next
century” to cut global warming down to size (Malakoff).

Fact and Fiction:

FICTION: Even if the Earth is warming, we can’t be sure how much, if

any, of the warming is caused by human activities.

FACT: There is international scientific consensus that most of the

warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, not natural
causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were
compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more
than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this
storehouse of carbon to supply energy.

Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use – billions of tons of carbon (in
the form of carbon dioxide), methane, and other greenhouse gases –
form a blanket around the Earth, trapping heat from the sun,
unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing
our climate.

The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in

temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier
rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting,
Spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are
dying.

FICTION: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts

an increase in the global average temperature of only 1.4°C to 5.8°C
over the coming century.
This small change, less than the current daily temperature range for
most major cities, is hardly cause for concern.

FACT: Global average temperature is calculated from temperature

readings around the Earth. While temperature does vary considerably
at a daily level in any one place, global average temperature is
remarkably constant. According to analyses of ice cores, tree rings,
pollen and other “climate proxies,” the average temperature of the
Northern Hemisphere had varied up or down by only a few tenths of a
degree Celsius between 1000 AD and about 1900, when a rapid
warming began.

A global average temperature change ranging from 1.4°C to 5.8°C

would translate into climate-related impacts that are much larger and
faster than any that have occurred during the 10 000-year history of
civilization.

From scientific analyses of past ages, we know that even small global
average temperature changes can lead to large climate shifts. For
example, the average global temperature difference between the end of
the last ice age (when much of the Northern Hemisphere was buried
under thousands of feet of ice) and today’s interglacial climate is only
about 5°C .

FICTION: Warming cannot be due to greenhouse gases, since changes

in temperature and changes in greenhouse gas emissions over the past
century did not occur simultaneously.
FACT: The slow heating of the oceans creates a significant time lag
between when carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted
into the atmosphere and when changes in temperature occur.

This is one of the main reasons why we don’t see changes in

temperature at the same time as changes in greenhouse gas emissions.
You can see the same process occur in miniature when you heat up a
pot of water on the stove: there is a time lag between the time you turn
on the flame and when the water starts to boil.

In addition, there are many other factors that affect year-to-year

variation in the Earth’s temperature. For example, volcanic eruptions,
El Niсo, and small changes in the output of the sun can all affect the
global climate on a yearly basis.
Therefore, you would not expect the build-up of greenhouse gases to
exactly match trends in global climate. Still, scientific evidence points
clearly to anthropogenic (or human-made) greenhouse gases as the
main culprit for climate change.

FICTION: Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere fairly

quickly, so if global warming turns out to be a problem, we can wait to
take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions until after we start to
see the impacts of warming.

FACT: Carbon dioxide, a gas created by the burning of fossil fuels (like
gasoline and coal), is the most important human-made greenhouse
gas.
Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use is produced in huge quantities and
can persist in our atmosphere for as long as 200 years.
This means that if emissions of carbon dioxide were halted today, it
would take centuries for the amount of carbon dioxide now in the
atmosphere to come down to what it was in pre-industrial times. Thus
we need to act now if we want to avoid the increasingly dangerous
consequences of climate change in the future.

FICTION: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon

dioxide emissions, an amount too small to have a significant effect on
climate, particularly since the oceans absorb most of the extra carbon
dioxide emissions.

FACT: Before human activities began to dramatically increase carbon

dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted from natural sources closely matched the amount that was
stored or absorbed through natural processes.
For example, as forests grow, they absorb carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere through photosynthesis; this carbon is then sequestered
in wood, leaves, roots and soil. Some carbon is later released back to
the atmosphere when leaves, roots and wood die and decay.

Carbon dioxide also cycles through the ocean Plankton living at the
ocean’s surface absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The
plankton and animals that eat the plankton then die and fall to the
bottom of the ocean. As they decay, carbon dioxide is released into the
water and returns to the surface via ocean currents. As a result of these
natural cycles, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air had changed
very little for 10,000 years. But that balance has been upset by man.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal
and oil has put about twice as much carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere than is naturally removed by the oceans and forests. This
has resulted in carbon dioxide levels building up in the atmosphere.

Today, carbon dioxide levels are 30% higher than pre-industrial levels,
higher than they have been in the last 420,000 years and are probably
at the highest levels in the past 20 million years. Studies of the Earth’s
climate history have shown that even small, natural changes in carbon
dioxide levels were generally accompanied by significant shifts in the
global average temperature.

We have already experienced a 1°F increase in global temperature in

the past century, and we can expect significant warming in the next
century if we fail to act to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

FICTION: The Earth has warmed rapidly in the past without dire
consequences, so society and ecosystems can adapt readily to any
foreseeable warming.

FACT: The Earth experienced rapid warming in some places at the end
of the last glacial period, but for the last 10,000 years our global
climate has been relatively stable. During this period, as agriculture
and civilization developed, the world’s population has grown
tremendously. Now, many heavily populated areas, such as urban
centers in low-lying coastal zones, are highly vulnerable to climate
shifts.

In addition, many ecosystems and species that are already threatened

by existing pressures (such as pollution, habitat conversion and
degradation) may be further pressured to the point of extinction by a
changing climate.
FICTION: The buildup of carbon dioxide will lead to a “greening” of
the Earth because plants can utilize the extra carbon dioxide to speed
their growth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide has been shown to act as a fertilizer for some
plant species under some conditions. In addition, a longer growing
season (due to warmer temperatures) could increase productivity in
some regions.

However, there is also evidence that plants can acclimatize to higher

carbon dioxide levels – that means plants may grow faster for only a
short time before returning to previous levels of growth.

Another problem is that many of the studies in which plant growth

increased due to carbon dioxide fertilization were done in greenhouses
where other nutrients, which plants need to survive, were adequately
supplied.

In nature, plant nutrients like nitrogen as well as water are often in

short supply. Thus, even if plants have extra carbon dioxide available,
their growth might be limited by a lack of water and nutrients. Finally,
climate change itself could lead to decreased plant growth in many
areas because of increased drought, flooding and heat waves.

Whatever benefit carbon dioxide fertilization may bring, it is unlikely

to be anywhere near enough to counteract the adverse impacts of a
rapidly changing climate.

FICTION: If Earth has warmed since pre-industrial times, it is because

the intensity of the sun has increased.

FACT: The sun’s intensity does vary. In the late 1970’s, sophisticated
technology was developed that can directly measure the sun’s
intensity. Measurements from these instruments show that in the past
20 years the sun’s variations have been very small.

Indirect measures of changes in sun’s intensity since the beginning of

the industrial revolution in 1750 show that variations in the sun’s
intensity do not account for all the warming that occurred in the 20th
century and that the majority of the warming was caused by an
increase in human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

FICTION: It is hard enough to predict the weather a few days in

advance. How can we have any confidence in projections of climate a
hundred years from now?

FACT: Climate and weather are different. Weather refers to

temperatures, precipitation and storms on a given day at a particular
place. Climate reflects a long-term average, sometimes over a very
large area, such as a continent or even the entire Earth.

Averages over large areas and periods of time are easier to estimate
than the specific characteristics of weather.
For example, although it is notoriously difficult to predict if it will rain
or the exact temperature of any particular day at a specific location, we
can predict with relative certainty that on average, in the Northeastern
United States, it will be colder in December than in July.

In addition, climate models are now sophisticated enough to be able to

recreate past climates, including climate change over the last hundred
years. This adds to our confidence that projections of future climates
are accurate.

Finally, when we report climate projections, we use a range of results

from climate models that represent the boundaries of our projections
(what’s the least global average temperature could change to what’s
the most global average temperature could change) and our degree of
certainty of the projections.

FICTION: The science of global climate change cannot tell us the

amount by which man-made emissions of greenhouse gases should be
reduced in order to slow global warming.

FACT: The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change states that

emissions of greenhouse gases should be reduced to avoid “dangerous
interference with the climate system.” Scientists have subsequently
attempted to define what constitutes “dangerous interference.”
One study (O’Neill and Oppenheimer, 2002) supplies three criteria
that could be used:

1) risk to threatened ecosystems such as coral reefs

2) large-scale disruptions caused by changes in the climate system,

such as sea-level rise caused by the break-up of the Antarctic Ice Sheet
and

3) large-scale disruptions of the climate system itself, such as the

shutdown of the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic Ocean (the
Gulf stream), which would result in a severe drop in temperature to
Europe.

This study projects that if C02 concentrations are capped at 450 parts
per million (ppm), major disruptions to climate systems may be
avoided, although some damage (such as that to coral reefs) may be
unavoidable.

Current estimates of atmospheric CO2 concentrations likely to be

reached without aggressive action to limit greenhouse gas emissions
are far higher – from 550 ppm to as much as 1000 ppm in the next
hundred years.

FICTION: Because of the uncertainty of climate models, it is extremely

difficult to predict exactly what regional impacts will result from
global climate change.

FACT: According to the IPCC, certain climate trends are highly likely
to occur if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate or
increase: sea level will rise; droughts will increase in some areas,
flooding in others; temperatures will rise, leading to heat waves
becoming more common and glaciers likely to melt at a more rapid
rate.

Regional impacts are very likely to occur, but exactly when and what
they will be is harder to predict.

This is because:

1) regional climate models are more computer intensive than global

climate models – they take longer to run and are more difficult to
calibrate, and

2) many non-climate factors contribute to impacts at regional levels.

For example, the risk of mosquito-borne illnesses like Dengue fever
and malaria may rise due to increased temperatures, but the actual
likelihood of infection will depend greatly on the effectiveness of
public health measures in place.

A Better World Climate: How Do We Get There From Here?

As has been stated previously, there are a great many unanswered

questions about global warming. We wonder whether or not there
really is an anthropogenic global warming or the threat of one because
we don’t have the perfect climate model to tell us so. And we don’t
have this model because we don’t understand what is going on; we
don’t understand how the atmospheric system interacts with the
oceans, the terrestrial biosphere, the cryosphere, or any of its other
contributing factors. Therefore, the research that should be first and
foremost in our minds is that to better understand the rich
interrelationships between these bodies as well as the various features
of each that may not be well understood. The effects of clouds, for
example, on warming and vice versa are not understood very well. Do
they simply cool by reflecting heat back to space, or are their role more
complex than that? What effect does each shape and size of cloud
have? What outside factors have an effect upon cloud formation? And,
most importantly, how can we best relate these effects into GCMs?

Likewise, aerosols are in need of study. Do they simply cause cooling

by reflecting solar radiation back out into space, or, as one researcher
stated, is that effect canceled out by heating through reflection of
terrestrial radiation back to earth and give their real cooling effect by
fortifying clouds with water droplets, giving them a higher albedo?

Are variations in solar radiation and sunspot cycles behind part or all
of the perceived global warming? Could there be changes in the sun’s
energy output that would cause warming such as some have
observed?

How does the tropical ocean interact with global atmospheric

circulation, given that tropical cyclones (hurricanes) form there? Are
there any special processes at work there that would affect the global
warming theory? Likewise, how do the atmosphere, the ocean, and sea
ice interact at high latitudes?

What, exactly, is the terrestrial biosphere’s place in the carbon cycle?

How much CO2 does different types of vegetation, soil, or rock
absorb? If CO2 is shown to be a substantial problem, would there be
any way to make parts of the terrestrial biosphere take on more CO2?
What effect would that have on the various ecosystems involved?

And on and on the potential questions go. As can be seen above, there
are a lot of different directions global warming research can go in and
is going in. All of these would be helpful in trying to better determine
the climatic direction we as a planet are headed in. But there is one
other dimension to this attempt to better understand global warming:
the modeling. Currently, even the most sophisticated and
encompassing of the GCMs is incredibly crude and oversimplified
compared to the actual atmospheric system and its feedbacks. And so,
given new findings in research related to above topics and others, we
must continue to update the models. We must keep working on the
models, improving them, until flux corrections or “fudge factors,” as
they are called, are unnecessary to make them properly predict today’s
conditions. As computer technologies continually become smaller and
faster and more capable of complex systems, we must keep shrinking
the scale of the models and bringing in more variables to account for
or better, more detailed understanding of the existing variables. To
have a perfect model, every variable, every ocean eddy and sulfate
particle would have to be accounted for. While this is improbable as a
state of modeling, we can continue to try to better explain what is
going on and how things are connected and interrelated by bringing
bigger and better understandings of atmospheric intricacies to the
modeling table.

Unfortunately for these global climate change researchers, the

computer industry is not moving nearly fast enough for this research.
In many ways, climatologists are waiting on the computer industry to
build more powerful supercomputers so they can make more complex
models to take advantage of that computing power. And yet, there is at
least a small advantage to waiting: many valuable studies being
conducted with innovative, legitimate methods simply haven’t been
collecting data long enough to be as useful as possible. Satellite data is
a good example of this. If we wait, the data will be better.

And so, we can see that the science behind global warming is far from
settled. Much is not known and conflicting theories abound, as they
often do in scientific forums. New ideas and new studies keep the
science of global climate change going, keep it second guessing itself,
keep it looking for newer, better ways to explain what’s going on. In
the end, global climate change may be a way for science to prove it can
work well even under the most uncertain of circumstances.