Number 420 July 2002

A Global Warming Primer

Introduction Replacement of fossil and nuclear plants in the

developed world with alternative energy sources,
while not impossible, would require massive
The purpose of this primer is to help the reader social, economic, and demographic change.
determine whether our understanding of the If, on the other hand, the conclusions of the
Earth’s climate is adequate to predict the long term IPCC are based on an over-confident assessment of
effects of carbon dioxide released as a result of the the validity of climate models, then the Kyoto
continued burning of fossil fuels. The answer is Protocol should be rejected because it lacks a
not without consequence. If our understanding is sound scientific basis. Such over-confidence is not
adequate, and the conclusions of the rare in science. One need only point to cold
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fusion, polywater, the fifth force and other fiascoes
(IPCC) are valid, then the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that are less well known. As this primer will show,
should be accepted, strengthened, and the predictions of existing climate models do not
implemented. form a sound basis for public policy decisions.
Long term curtailment of carbon dioxide With continued research and data collection, this
emissions will have an enormous impact on assessment could change in the future.
everyone, but especially on the developing world Nevertheless, there may be very good reasons
where most of the Earth’s population resides. If to curtail our burning of fossil fuels, and, in
carbon dioxide emissions are harmful, particular, the burning of coal to produce
development along the Western model should be electricity. Coal is an environmental disaster. A
actively discouraged, if not prevented. More than single 1,000-megawatt plant burns more than two
two billion additional people using energy derived million tons of coal per year.1 It is estimated that
from fossil fuels at current Western levels of air pollution alone from coal-fired electric plants
consumption would release unacceptable quantities results in thousands of deaths each year.2 This is
of carbon dioxide. because of the toxicity of the emissions and the
Developed countries, if they are to retain scale of operations. Although the radiation levels
anywhere near their current per capita energy are not dangerous to the public, coal plants also
consumption, must dramatically increase the use of discharge greater quantities of radioactive
nuclear power for electricity production. materials into the atmosphere than nuclear plants
Alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind, — even when more than 95% of the fly ash is
etc. simply do not have the potential to allow precipitated, and vastly more if it is not.3 To be
consumption of energy at the current rate. That is sure, oil and natural gas are far cleaner than coal,
why proponents of these energy sources couple but both — unless very much larger reserves are
their advocacy with energy conservation. found at a reasonable price — will be too valuable
in the future as sources of energy for transportation wrote that “There is no agreement on whether the
and heating to be used for electricity generation. Earth is cooling. There is not unanimous
This primer is organized in terms of answers to agreement on whether it has cooled, or one
a series of fundamental questions about global hemisphere has cooled and the other warmed. One
warming — questions such as: How much would think that there might be consensus about
warming has there been over the last century, and what data there is — but there is not. There is no
how does this warming compare to past climate agreement on the causes of climatic change, or
variations? One of the principal sources of data is even why it should not change among those who so
the final report4 of Working Group 1 of the IPCC, maintain. There is certainly no agreement about
jointly sponsored by the World Meteorological what the climate will do in the next century,
Organization and the United Nations Environment though there is a majority opinion that it will
Program, first published in 1990. While additional change, more or less, one way or the other. Of that
work has been done by the IPCC since this report majority, a majority believe that the longer trend
was published, the 1990 document is the one that will be downward.” It was, nevertheless, clear
formed much of the basis for negotiation of the from other scientific literature of the period that we
1997 Kyoto Protocol. Other sources used in this were sliding into a new ice age.
primer include the primary scientific literature,
including research published since 1990, as well as
the midterm synthesis of the Joint Global Ocean How much warming has there been over the last
Flux Study,5 a multi-disciplinary program that century, and how does this compare to natural
addresses the biology, chemistry, and physics of variations in climate over the last 10,000 years
the transport and transformation of carbon within since the last ice age?
the ocean and across its boundaries to the
atmosphere and land. During the ice ages of the last million years
The principal tool for studying global warming global temperatures varied by about 10-12˚C, and
is large scale numerical computer models that until about 10,000 years ago global temperatures
simulate the coupling between the ocean and the averaged over the ice ages were perhaps 4˚C lower
atmosphere. These coupled ocean-atmosphere than at the beginning of the 20th century. Global
general circulation models are used to predict the temperatures were higher than at the beginning of
effects on climate of the rising level of carbon the 20th century by about 1.3˚C during the
dioxide in the atmosphere. This rise is usually Holocene Maximum, which extended from
assumed to result from changing land use and the somewhat over 7,000 years ago to about four
burning of fossil fuels. The impact of changing thousand years ago. Since then variations are
atmospheric concentrations of water vapor (the thought to have been within a 2˚C range; i.e.,
principal greenhouse gas) is treated as a feedback within a degree of the temperature at the beginning
in climate models. of the 20th century.
First, however, it may be useful to put the issue The most recent variations of significance have
of climate change in historical perspective. In been the Medieval warm period from 1000 AD to
1976, when carbon dioxide concentrations in the 1400 AD, which was about 0.6-0.7˚C warmer than
atmosphere had increased by almost 20% the beginning of the twentieth century, and the
compared to their pre-industrial values, Lowell cooling between 1400 AD and 1900 AD. This
Ponte wrote in The Cooling6 that “Our planet’s cooling period included the Little Ice Age from
climate has been cooling for the past three 1500 AD to 1700 AD when temperatures were 0.6-
decades... Some monitoring stations inside the 0.7˚C cooler. From 1700 AD to 1900 AD global
Arctic Circle report that temperature has been temperatures were about 0.3˚C lower than at the
falling by more than 2˚C per decade for the past beginning of the twentieth century, with a rapid
thirty years.” In the preface to the book, Reid A. rise after the turn of the century. So since 1000 AD
Bryson, director of the Institute for Environmental temperatures have varied over a range of about
Studies at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, 1.5˚C, and over almost the last 10,000 years they
2
have varied within a range of 2˚C. This can be stronger warming trend for the mid-troposphere
considered the “natural” variation over these than for the surface of the Earth.9
periods. The reader should note at this point that
the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere Summary: Variations in global temperatures over
is believed to have been relatively constant before the last 10,000 years have been in the range of
1770, and has risen steadily since then. Therefore, ±1˚C. Because the carbon dioxide concentration in
none of the natural variation before 1770 was due the atmosphere over this time is believed to have
to changes in carbon dioxide concentration. remained relatively constant, the range of 2˚C is
Relative to the average of 1951-1980, global due to other causes and can be considered the
temperature variations over the last century “natural” range of temperature variations for the
(actually between 1860 and 1990) were as period. Between 1920 and 1940 temperature rose
follows7: 0.3˚C; from 1940 to 1975 global temperature
decreased slightly while carbon dioxide
• 1860-1920 — Global temperature was concentration continued to rise; and temperature
about 0.3˚C cooler than the average. rose from 1975 to the present. The total rise in
global temperature since 1860 has been about
• 1920-1940 — Global temperature rose 0.6˚C, more than three times smaller than natural
by about 0.35˚C to slightly above the variations over the last 10,000 years.
average.

• 1940-1975 — Global temperature shows What is the greenhouse effect?

a gradual cooling of perhaps 0.1˚C.
Disregard for a moment the exact definition of
• 1975-1990 — Global temperature rose the greenhouse effect. Without this effect, the
above the average by about 0.3˚C. average temperature of the lower atmosphere
would be about -18˚C; with it, the temperature is
The total range of variation since 1860 is +15˚C, a difference of 33˚C. The key question is:
about 0.6˚C. This is more than three times smaller What gases in the atmosphere cause the
than the natural range of about 2˚C. The most greenhouse effect? The answer is, principally
recent report of the IPCC puts the global warming water vapor and carbon dioxide. How much
over the 20th century at 0.6˚C ±0.2˚C. The range of heating is due to each? As will be seen below,
uncertainty is now pegged at the 95% confidence answers vary widely but water vapor is responsible
level, making it “very likely” that the Earth has for most of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide
actually warmed.8 is a minor greenhouse gas, but nevertheless an
Coupled ocean-atmosphere, general- important one.
circulation models must then be able to duplicate The layer of the Earth’s atmosphere from the
the temperature variations since 1860 and, if the ground up to an altitude of a few miles is called the
rise of 0.6˚C over this period is due to human troposphere, and the boundary between it and the
activities, must prove that these changes are a rest of the atmosphere above is called the
result of land use changes and fossil fuel burning. tropopause. The tropopause is about 11 miles high
It should also be kept in mind that the error in at the equator and only about five miles high at the
global temperature measurements over the last poles. The troposphere is the part of the
century is at least ±0.1˚C. atmosphere that is responsible for the greenhouse
It should also be noted that there are effect, since it contains essentially all of the
discrepancies between temperature measurements greenhouse gases. Because the troposphere and
made at the surface of the Earth — which show a the Earth’s surface and boundary layer are closely
warming trend since 1979 — and from satellites, coupled by air motions, they are considered to be a
which show essentially no tropospheric trend. single thermodynamic system. It is for this reason
Climate models, contrary to the data, predict a that changes in radiative flux at the tropopause are
3
used to express changes to the climate system. The oceans dominate the Earth and its
This is discussed in greater detail below. radiation into space. With this understanding, the
The energy to warm the Earth comes from the greenhouse effect,
Sun, and its flux is usually measured in watts per
square meter (w/m2). The value of this flux at the G, is defined as (the units are again w/m2)
Earth’s distance from the Sun is 1360 w/m2 and is
called the “solar constant.” We are interested in G= Thermal radiation emitted by the
how much of this is ultimately absorbed, and how oceans — Upward thermal radiation from
it affects the Earth’s climate. the tropopause
Determining how much solar radiation is
absorbed by the Earth involves some geometry. As That is, the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is
seen from space, the Earth looks like a disk of area assumed to be bounded by the surface of the ocean
πre2, where re is the radius of the Earth; so when below and the tropopause above. The greenhouse
averaged over the whole Earth, which has a surface effect is then the difference in long wavelength
area of 4πre2, the amount of radiation incident on infrared radiation emitted by the surface of the
the Earth is ocean and that radiated into space from the top of
the troposphere. It is the amount of radiation
π re2 × 1367 w = 342 w . absorbed by the troposphere between the ocean’s
surface and the tropopause.
4πre2 m2 m2 The value of the global mean greenhouse
effect G is about 146 w/m2. This value is for a
Of this amount, the Earth reflects about 100 w/ clear sky. Average cloud cover adds another 33 w/
m2 back into space (variations depend on cloud m2 for a total of about 179 w/m2.10 This trapping
cover as well as atmospheric aerosol of radiation is what causes the troposphere to be
concentrations), so the net amount absorbed by the 33˚C warmer than it would be without the
Earth is 242 w/m2 — averaged over the whole greenhouse effect. How the greenhouse effect
Earth. For the Earth to be in what is known as affects surface temperature is discussed below.
radiative equilibrium, it must also radiate this How much of the greenhouse effect is due to
amount into space. different contributions from water vapor, carbon
Radiative equilibrium can only exist as a long- dioxide and other gases is difficult to determine.
term global average, since changes in solar Section two of the IPCC report states that:
radiation, aerosols introduced into the upper
atmosphere by large volcanic eruptions, etc., cause “Of the atmospheric gases, the
short-term fluctuations in the balance, and could dominant greenhouse gas is water
result in a changed equilibrium temperature. vapour. If H2O was the only
The major constituents of the atmosphere, greenhouse gas present, then the
including both water vapor and carbon dioxide, are greenhouse effect of a clear-sky
transparent to visible light. Since sunlight peaks in mid-latitude atmosphere, as
the visible part of the spectrum, the atmosphere is measured by the difference
essentially transparent to incoming radiation from between the emitted thermal
the Sun. The radiation from the Earth, on the other infrared flux at the surface and the
hand, is thermal radiation (long-wavelength top of the atmosphere, would be
infrared) — the spectral region where carbon about 60-70% of the value with all
dioxide and water vapor absorb radiation. Carbon gases included; by contrast, if CO2
dioxide absorbs radiation primarily in a very alone was present, the
narrow frequency band, while water vapor absorbs corresponding value would be
over a much larger spectral range. The details of about 25%.”
carbon dioxide absorption are discussed shortly.

4
 Notice that estimates are given for a clear sky, could not cause a rise in the Earth’s temperature.
thereby neglecting the contribution from the water However, additional carbon dioxide does have an
vapor in clouds. As noted above, clouds add 33 w/ influence at the edges of the 14.99 micron band.
m2 to the clear-sky greenhouse effect of 146 w/m2, Because of this marginal effect, the change in
a 23% increase. forcing due to a change in carbon dioxide
Estimates in the literature vary widely. Barry concentration is proportional to the natural
and Chorley11 maintain that water vapor accounts logarithm of the fractional change in concentration
for 64% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide of this gas. Specifically, the IPCC gives
21%, ozone 6% and other trace gases 9%. If the
64% is for a clear sky (consistent with the IPCC ∆F = 6.3 ln (C/C0) w/m2
estimate), it would not seem to be possible to add
the contribution from water vapor in clouds since where ∆F is the change in forcing, and C0 and C
the percentages given by Barry and Chorley add up are the initial and final carbon dioxide
to 100%. Jacobson12 states that water vapor is concentrations. This approximation breaks down
responsible for 90% of the greenhouse effect, for very low concentrations and for concentrations
leaving 10% for carbon dioxide and the other greater than 1,000 ppmv, but is valid in the range
greenhouse gases. of practical interest. The Earth’s temperature is
Radiative forcing is defined as the change in therefore relatively insensitive to changes in
net downward radiative flux at the tropopause carbon dioxide concentrations, a doubling leading
resulting from any process that acts as an external to a ∆F of only 4.4 w/m2.
agent to the climate system; it is generally The reader should not leave this section
measured in w/m2. Examples are variations in the thinking that the greenhouse effect is really
amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth and understood. In fact, simple, basic questions have
changes in the concentrations of infrared-absorbing not yet been answered. Consider what happens if
gases in the atmosphere. the temperature of the Earth rises: this would lead
Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which traps
atmosphere by, for example, a factor of two does more outgoing thermal radiation, which raises the
not double the amount of infrared radiation temperature of the Earth, which leads to more
absorbed by this gas. The reason for this is as water vapor in the atmosphere, which... This is
follows: Carbon dioxide has three absorption known as the runaway or super greenhouse effect.
bands at wavelengths of 4.26, 7.52, and 14.99 Worse yet, the greenhouse effect increases much
micrometers (microns).13 The Earth’s emission faster than linearly with increasing temperature, as
spectrum, treated as a black body (no atmospheric will be discussed below. Since the Earth shows no
absorption), peaks at between 15 and 20 microns, runaway or super greenhouse effect, there must be
and falls off rapidly with decreasing wavelength. some negative feedback mechanism in operation.
As a result, the carbon dioxide absorption bands at Although there have been many studies of this
4.26 and 7.52 microns contribute little to the phenomenon, none has yielded conclusive
absorption of thermal radiation compared to the results.14
band at 14.99 microns. The runaway greenhouse effect is often
Natural concentrations of carbon dioxide are associated with the planet Venus, which has a
great enough that the atmosphere is opaque even surface temperature of some 477˚C. For the Earth,
over short distances in the center of the 14.99 the average global greenhouse effect G is about
micron band. As a result, at this wavelength, the 179 w/m2 and the absorbed solar radiation is 242
radiation reaching the tropopause from above and w/m2. Note that the greenhouse effect is less than
below the tropopause is such that the net flux is the absorbed solar radiation. Venus, although it is
close to zero. closer to the Sun and receives twice as much solar
If this were the whole story, adding more radiation as the Earth at the top of its atmosphere,
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would contribute actually absorbs less solar radiation than the Earth
nothing to the greenhouse effect and consequently (only about 150 w/m2). This is due to its high
5
albedo: Venus reflects some 80% of incoming that varies linearly with temperature — at least up
radiation compared with about 30% for the Earth. to a sea surface temperature of 25˚C, as will be
Venus’ high surface temperature is not a result of discussed further below. Here G is the greenhouse
absorbing more energy from the Sun than the Earth effect defined above, TS is the absolute surface
does, but rather is due to an enormous greenhouse temperature, and σ is Stefan-Boltzmann constant.16
effect, estimated to be 17,000 w/m2. The emission of thermal radiation by the surface of
Could human activities that produce carbon the Earth (and hence the trapping of this radiation
dioxide force the Earth into a runaway greenhouse in the troposphere) varies as the fourth power of
effect that could lead to a situation similar to that the surface temperature. This dependence on
found on Venus? No. The Earth and Venus have temperature is true of any object that radiates as a
many differences, even though they are often “black body.” Dividing G by the fourth power of
referred to as sister planets. The lower atmosphere the temperature “normalizes” G by eliminating this
of the Earth is simply not massive enough to dependence.
sustain a large greenhouse effect.15 The If one plots the normalized greenhouse effect
atmosphere of Venus is 96% carbon dioxide, the (for either a clear or a cloudy sky) as a function of
rest being nitrogen and trace gases. It is 90 times temperature, the relationship is seen to be linear up
as massive as that of the Earth, resulting in a to a surface temperature of about 25˚C.17 Above
surface pressure that is also ninety times that of this value, there is a rapid, non-linear increase in
Earth, comparable to the pressure found at a depth the normalized greenhouse effect.
of one kilometer in the Earth’s oceans. The length Ramanathan and Collins18 observed during the
of one day on Venus is 243 Earth days, although 1987 El Niño, when the equatorial Pacific warmed
the cloud tops on Venus rotate some sixty times as by as much as 3˚C, that the total greenhouse effect
fast. Unlike the Earth, almost all of the absorption (defined as the clear-sky atmospheric portion of
of incident solar radiation on Venus takes place at the effect plus the enhancement due to clouds)
an altitude of about 60 kilometers — in the upper increased with surface temperature at a rate that
regions of the clouds. There are no lessons to be exceeded the rate of increase of radiation emitted
learned from Venus about human activities on the from the ocean’s surface. At a sea-surface
Earth. temperature of 27˚C, the greenhouse effect was
Return now to Earth, and in particular to the measured to be about 184 w/m2. As the sea-
tropics, where absorbed solar radiation exceeds surface temperature increased by 3˚C to 30˚C, the
that lost from the Earth-atmosphere system. Heat greenhouse effect rapidly rose by 100 w/m2. They
is transported from the tropics to regions poleward attributed this large increase to optically thick
of about 40˚ N and 40˚ S latitude, where more cirrus clouds in the upper troposphere. In response
radiation is lost to the Earth than gained. This is to this runaway greenhouse effect it was proposed
achieved by a complex set of atmospheric motions that these cirrus clouds limit sea surface
driven by the heating differences between the temperatures to less than 32˚C by shielding the
tropics and other parts of the Earth, as well as the ocean from solar radiation.
Earth’s rotation. While radiative equilibrium exists Ramanathan and Collins measured two
as a global average, not every region of the Earth parameters CS and Cl known as the cloud short and
need be in radiative equilibrium. long wavelength forcings. CS measures the
To understand the greenhouse effect in the increase in albedo due to an increase in cloud
tropics it is important to realize that the effect does cover and Cl the increase in absorption of long
not vary linearly with temperature. Rather, it is the wavelength radiation by the clouds. Remarkably,
normalized greenhouse effect, defined as in the tropics these generally are equal and
opposite so that they cancel.
During normal periods Ramanathan and
g = G ,
σT s4 Collins found that CS = -0.951Cl, so that the
clouds had a slight warming effect. However,
during the 1987 El Niño they found using data
6
taken during the event that CS = -1.20Cl, yielding a Has the solar “constant” varied over the last
slight cooling, in support of their proposal. They few centuries, and if so by how much? What
go on to note that in the tropics “It would take fraction of the observed surface temperature
more than an order-of-magnitude increase in rise could be due to a brighter Sun? How well
atmospheric CO2 to increase the maximum SST do variations in solar output and surface
[Sea Surface Temperature] by a few degrees, in temperature of the Earth track?
spite of a significant warming outside the
equatorial regions. In this regard, the present The nominal radiation density (irradiance)
hypothesis departs considerably from modern from the Sun (1367 w/m2) is called the solar
general circulation models.” constant. The actual irradiance from the Sun has
R. T. Pierrehumbert,19 assuming that CS =-Cl, been monitored by spacecraft since 1978, covering
showed that cirrus clouds cannot prevent the thus far two of the Sun’s eleven year cycles.
runaway greenhouse effect in the tropics. This During that period, the solar output varied over a
would not be the case if there is a substantial range of 0.15%. Between the twelfth century
departure from the observed cancellation between Medieval Maximum and the Maunder Minimum20
cloud greenhouse and cloud albedo effects (so that of 1645-1715 (the time of the Little Ice Age) the
CS ≠ -Cl). He also points out that: “The physical brightness of the Sun is estimated to have
basis of the cancellation is so far unexplained, and decreased by 0.5%.21 Solar-type stars have also
the circumstances under which the cancellation been found to have variations of 0.1% to 0.4%.22
will continue to hold in perturbed climates are These values seem innocuous, but in fact they have
unknown.” While Pierrehumbert claims that the a disproportionately large impact on climate.
proposed mechanism of Ramanathan and Collins As is seen in a later section of this primer,
cannot stabilize the greenhouse effect in the proper treatment of clouds is an important factor in
tropics, he does note that “...the cloud longwave determining the accuracy of climate models.
and shortwave forcing do not cancel exactly but Clouds are composed of condensed water in the
instead sum up to a small cooling in the course of form of ice crystals and water droplets, which form
El Niño fluctuations. Though the residual is small, around ions in the atmosphere. The principal
it is nonetheless comparable to other small source of such ions is cosmic rays, and the
forcings driving climate, such as the radiative intensity of cosmic rays is strongly suppressed by
perturbation due to doubling CO2 [emphasis solar activity23 (measured by the number of
added].” sunspots). Cosmic rays are suppressed during
active periods because the changed interplanetary
Summary: The greenhouse effect keeps the lower magnetic field and solar wind flow shield the
atmosphere of the Earth about 33˚C warmer than Earth. Thus, a more active Sun not only increases
would otherwise be the case. Water vapour is the the solar “constant,” but increases the amount of
principal greenhouse gas and is responsible for as sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth by
much as 90% of the greenhouse effect. Although decreasing cloud formation. The predictions of
carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, it is an climate models generally do not include variations
important one. However, adding carbon dioxide to in the solar constant or its effect on the formation
the atmosphere increases the trapping of heat from of clouds. However, recent simulations —
the Earth only very slowly; the forcing increasing discussed below — have attempted to include
only with the logarithm of the fractional change in changes in the solar constant.
carbon dioxide concentration. Particularly in the A considerable amount of work has now been
tropics, the greenhouse effect has aspects that are done on the connection between solar variability
not yet fully understood. It would not be possible and climate. Cliver, et al.24 have estimated that
through human activity to produce a runaway from 50-100% of the net global warming of 0.7-
greenhouse effect that could lead to conditions 1.5˚C over the last 350 years (since the Maunder
similar to those found on Venus. Minimum) was due to an increase in solar
irradiance. Crowley and Kim25 found that solar
7
variability may explain as much as 30% to 55% of temperatures from 1610 to 1800, and 56% of the
climate variance over time scales of decades to variance from 1800 to the present.
centuries. Reid26 estimates that the change in solar Climate models do not capture the cooling
output from 1969-70 to 1979-80 was about 4 w/m2, between 1940 and 1975 (an exception is discussed
or 0.3% of the total output. Just as was done below). On the other hand, global temperature
earlier, when discussing the greenhouse effect, to records closely follow the reconstruction of the
convert the change in solar output to a change in Sun’s brightness not only from 1940 to 1975 but
radiative forcing, one must take into account both also over the past 400 years.29 It should be kept in
the geometry of the earth relative to the sun and mind that during the cooling of 1940 to 1975
how much radiation is reflected by the earth back carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere
into space. If the change in radiative forcing is ∆F, continued to increase monotonically —
and the change in solar irradiance ∆I, then temperature does not simply follow increases in
carbon dioxide concentration.
There is evidence that the Sun has variations in
∆F = ∆ I πr (1 − 0.31) = 0.1725 ∆I,
2
output with periodicities of ~70-90 years, ~200
4πr 2 years, and ~2500 years. These solar variations
may enter the climate system by affecting the
where 0.31 corresponds to the 31% of solar radiation Quasi-biennial Oscillation and the El Niño
reflected back into space. So a change in solar Southern Oscillation.30 When the historical record
irradiance of 4 w/m2, corresponds to a change in of El Niño events is compared to the record of
radiative forcing of 0.7 w/m2. sunspot numbers, El Niño events are found to be
From 1890-1984 Friis-Christensen and Lassen two to three times more frequent when sunspot
found the change in solar output to be about 1 activity and solar irradiance are low — as during
percent,27 or more than 13 w/m2 (corresponding to the Maunder minimum.31
a radiative forcing of 2.2 w/m2). Notice that this is
double the estimate given above for the change in Summary: The solar “constant” is not constant. A
solar output between the Mediaeval Maximum and very significant portion of the global warming over
the Maunder Minimum, although the transition the last century — at least half — has probably
then was from a warm to a cool period in contrast been due to an increase in solar output. Other
to 1890-1984. The IPCC estimates that the change effects of increased solar activity, such as the
in radiative forcing due to the increase irradiance impact on cloud formation and El Niño events, are
from the Sun between 1850 and 1990 was only 0.3 not yet well understood.
w/m2 at the top of the atmosphere (Cliver, et al.), a
value far smaller than found by the authors cited
above. The value of 0.3 w/m2 is also used in the How much do climate models predict that the
2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (Shanghai surface temperature of the Earth would change
Draft 21-01-2001) for changes in radiative forcing as a result of doubling the concentration of
due to increasing solar irradiance since 1750. carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Using a somewhat different methodology to
determine solar irradiance, Lean, et al.28 find that The IPCC maintains that an instantaneous
changes in solar output account for only about half doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to the Earth
the surface warming since 1860 and one-third of absorbing 4 w/m2 more than it emits (globally), so
the warming since 1970. They also found a strong that the temperature would have to rise to maintain
correlation of surface temperature with solar radiative equilibrium. This was understood, and
irradiance from 1610 to 1800, “suggesting a the value of 4 w/m2 determined, as early as the
predominant solar influence during this pre- nineteenth century.
industrial period.” Put another way, they found As for errors, the IPCC states that, “climate
that changes in solar irradiance account for 74% of models disagreed with detailed calculations by up
the variance in northern hemisphere surface to 25% for the flux change at the tropopause on
8
doubling CO2.” It is not clear if the “detailed as 3.3 w/m2 per ˚C; so for a radiative forcing of 4
calculations” refer to radiative transfer calculations w/m2 we have
although they also note that radiative transfer
models have uncertainties of about ±10%. In fact, −1 2o
there is a significant difference between ∆Ts = ∆F ∆Q = 1 m C × 4 watts = 1.2 o C.
∆T s 3.3 watts m2
measurements of energy absorption by water vapor
and that predicted by the radiation transfer models
Now ∆F/ ∆TS is the change in the upward
used in climate modeling. As a result, “many
radiation at the top of the atmosphere for a change
climate models substantially underestimate the
∆TS in surface temperature. If water vapor is
globally averaged short-wavelength absorption
present the IPCC claims this flow change is
compared to atmospheric observations, by as much
reduced from 3.3 w/m2 per ˚C to 2.3 w/m2 per ˚C.
as 30% of the total atmospheric absorption in the
In addition, since water vapor is now present, ∆S is
case of clear skies.”32
not really zero and the IPCC gives the value of ∆S/
Calculation of the temperature rise at the
∆TS as 0.2 w/m2 per ˚C. With these corrections, the
surface of the Earth uses the following quantities:
change
CO 2
becomes
in surface temperature for a doubling of
F = Global mean infrared radiation leaving
the Earth from the top of the atmosphere ∆Ts = 1.9 o C.

S = Net downward solar radiation at the This is comparable to the change of 1.5˚C between
top of the atmosphere the Medieval warm period and the beginning of the
20th century. It does not, however, include the
The Earth’s radiation budget is then S - effect of additional cloud cover, which is discussed
F. ∆F, ∆S, ∆TS, and ∆Q are, respectively, changes below.
in F, S, the global mean surface temperature of the One cannot ask the question that heads this
Earth and the radiative forcing of the surface- section without considering water vapor, as we
atmosphere system (4 w/m2 for a doubling of C02). have done above. But there is another form of
The radiative forcing, ∆Q, is actually defined water that has a major impact on the response of
as the net downward radiative flux at the the climate system to a change in carbon dioxide
tropopause. For this to be the same as the radiative concentration, and this is clouds. Clouds not only
forcing at the top of the atmosphere, the response contribute to greenhouse warming by absorbing
time of the stratosphere must be small compared outgoing thermal radiation, but also contribute to
with that of the surface-troposphere climate cooling by reflecting incoming sunlight and
system. It is assumed here that this is the case. reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed (as
The formula for the change in global mean is discussed earlier when considering the runaway
surface temperature of the Earth is then greenhouse effect).
The IPCC estimates the amount of outward
bound thermal radiation absorbed globally by
−1
∆Ts = ∆F − ∆S ∆Q. clouds as 31 w/m2 and the amount of short-
∆T s ∆T s wavelength solar radiation reflected as 44 w/m2.
This means that clouds cause a net cooling of the
annual global climate system of -13 w/m2 (the
We consider now the simplest case where the minus sign designates a cooling). Harries33 gives
warming due to a doubling of CO2 causes no the net global, time-averaged cooling as -20 w/m2,
change in the climate system other than with a range of –140w/m2 to +50 w/m2. Other
temperature (in particular, no increase in the models give values in the range of 0 w/m2 to –30
amount of water vapor). For this case, there is no w/m2. The question is: If the amount of carbon
additional downward flux from the tropopause so dioxide in the atmosphere is doubled, how much
that ∆S = 0. The IPCC gives the value of ∆F/ ∆TS
9
will this cooling (the -13 w/m2) change due to the responsibility to Milankovich orbital cycles which
consequent change in cloud cover? Remember, the vary the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, the
radiative forcing due to an instantaneous doubling distance of the Earth from the Sun and the angle of
of carbon dioxide is estimated to be 4 w/m2, so the the Earth’s tilt with respect to the plane of the
effect of altered cloud cover must be known to ecliptic (obliquity). The axis of rotation of the
much better than this value. Earth also precesses, thereby changing its direction
In fact, not even the sign of the change is in space. The Milankovich cycles have
known! This is not the only problem. Even the periodicities of 100,000 and 400,000 years for the
basic physics of clouds is not understood. Climate eccentricity, 40,000 years for variation of the tilt
models generally assume that clouds reflect some between 22˚ and 24.5˚ and 22,000 years for the
incident solar radiation but absorb no more than a precession of the Earth’s axis of rotation. The
clear sky would. Recent measurements show that IPCC does acknowledge that geological and
clouds absorb more solar radiation than calculated astronomical mechanisms may be the ultimate
by the models used to simulate the Earth’s cause of the transitions from glacial to interglacial
climate.34 The difference is about 22 w/m2, more conditions. They note that the Milankovich orbital
than five times larger than 4 w/m2. The point is, variations “appear to be correlated with the glacial-
there are very large uncertainties in current interglacial cycle since glacials arise when solar
knowledge of the effect that a doubling of carbon radiation is least in the extratropical Northern
dioxide would have on cloud cover, and in turn on Hemisphere summer.” In fact, it has been
climate. commonly accepted that subtle changes in the
As Harries, referred to above, puts it: “High seasonal distribution of solar radiation resulting
ice clouds almost certainly have a very significant from Milankovich orbital variations, with virtually
effect on the cooling of the Earth to space. no change in net radiation, was sufficient to initiate
However, at present, we are almost completely the climate cycles of the Pleistocene.36 Rare
unaware of the true magnitude of this effect, and orbital congruences involving obliquity and
especially of whether or not climate models eccentricity correspond to major transient
correctly predict how this emission might change glaciations.37
as a result of global warming.” The orbits of the planets are known to be
inherently chaotic — meaning that they depend
Summary: If the concentration of carbon dioxide in sensitively (exponentially) on differences in initial
the atmosphere is doubled the global surface conditions. As a result, over tens of millions of
temperature, including the feedback effect of water years it is not possible to predict the exact
vapor, is expected to rise by about 1.9˚C. locations of the planets. In particular, the tilt of the
However, the uncertainties having to do with Earth with respect to its orbital plane is expected to
clouds are so great as to render this figure increase in the distant future and could increase to
meaningless. as much as 90˚, with drastic effects on climate.
Other planets in the solar system also display such
behavior. For example, the tilt of Mars varies
chaotically by ± 13.6˚ around its average of 24˚
Over geological time scales that include the ice over millions of years.38
ages, is there a causal relationship between The IPCC also recognizes that rapid changes
increased carbon dioxide concentration in the in climate can occur on time scales of a century,
atmosphere and temperature rise? which cannot be related to changes in the Earth’s
orbit or atmospheric concentration of carbon
Carbon dioxide concentrations in the dioxide. The Younger Dryas event of about 10,500
atmosphere are taken by most climatologists to be years ago (where the temperature dropped some
the cause of changes from glacial to interglacial 4˚C) was the last global event of this type, and it
periods in the Earth’s history.35 But some do not lasted 500 years before ending very suddenly. The
believe this is the case, and give primary Younger Dryas event is not understood, although
10
there is speculation that changes in the North of the rise known?
Atlantic currents could have been a factor.
Recent research by other climatologists has The position of the IPCC on the buildup of
cast a great deal of doubt on the causal relation carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that, “For
between climate swings over the last 550 million thousands of years prior to the industrial
years and the concentration of carbon dioxide in revolution, abundances of the greenhouse gases
the atmosphere. Veizer, et al.39 have shown that were relatively constant. However, as the world’s
climate changes over this period were global in population increased, as the world became more
nature, but their results also show that carbon industrialized and as agriculture developed, the
dioxide concentrations were probably not the abundances of greenhouse gases increased
principal driver. Consistent with this, Indermuhle, markedly.”
et al.40 have found that over the last 11,000 years However, Indermuhle, et al. (referred to under
most of the variability in atmospheric carbon the last question) found that the global carbon
dioxide concentration was caused by changes in cycle has not been in a steady state during the past
the amount of land biomass and sea surface 11,000 years. There has been a steady rise in the
temperatures. These changes are driven by concentration of carbon dioxide from about 260
geological and astronomical mechanisms. The parts per million by volume (ppmv) 8,000 years
relationship between sea surface temperatures and ago to about 285 ppmv in 1900 (other sources give
the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the 290 ppmv for 1900). Interestingly enough, there
atmosphere is exponential,41 meaning that the was a dip in carbon dioxide concentration from
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere about 285 ppmv to 275 ppmv during the Little Ice
increases much faster than linearly with increasing Age.43 Although the transitions are not sharply
sea surface temperature (we will see below that the defined, it can be said that the level of carbon
ocean is the principal reservoir of carbon dioxide). dioxide fell after the initiation of the Little Ice Age
Data from the last 250,000 years, covering the and rose again after its termination. The fall
last three glacial terminations, show that carbon occurred between about 1600 AD and 1700 AD
dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased while the rise began in about 1800 AD and has
some 400 to 1,000 years after the termination of an continued until today. The fall and rise time of
ice age,42 a time lag that is on the order of the about 100 years is the time it takes for the
ocean mixing time (the time needed to mix surface atmosphere to respond to a change in sea surface
and deeper waters of the ocean). This implies that temperatures.44 If changes in sea surface
the carbon dioxide was put into the atmosphere by temperatures were indeed responsible for the 10
a warming ocean, and was not the cause of the ppmv dip in carbon dioxide concentration during
warming. the Little Ice Age, that would correspond to a
reduction in sea surface temperatures of about
Summary: Transitions from glacial to interglacial 0.8˚C. Variation in carbon dioxide concentration
periods in the Earth’s history are not driven by over the last 1,000 years (up to 1900 AD) has been
increases in carbon dioxide concentration in the between 275 ppmv and 287 ppmv — about 12
atmosphere. Rather, carbon dioxide levels increase ppmv, or 4.3%.
some 400 to 1,000 years after the transition, Since the mid-19th century, a time that
consistent with releases from warming oceans. corresponds to the average carbon dioxide
Major temperature changes in the relatively recent concentration in the atmosphere over the last 1,000
past are not understood: one such is the Younger years, the concentration of this gas has risen from
Dryas event of 10,500 years ago, which had a about 280 ppmv to about 350 ppmv, or about 25%.
temperature drop of 4˚C and lasted for 500 years. This is a very large increase, comparable to
changes that occurred during the ice ages. Sea
surface temperature changes alone cannot be
How much has the concentration of carbon responsible for this increase — they would have
dioxide in the atmosphere risen, and is the cause had to increase by roughly 5.5˚C since the end of
11
the 18th century. While sea surface temperatures Although changes in land use and the burning
have indeed increased over this period, they have of fossil fuels are generally thought to be
only gone up at most some 0.5˚C. The rise in sea responsible for the exponential increase in
surface temperatures has not been gradual; most of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in order to prove this
it occurred from 1910 to 1940, and after 1975. one must understand the global carbon cycle to an
Between 1940 and 1975 sea surface temperatures accuracy better than the fraction of carbon dioxide
were relatively constant, and globally the Earth produced by these activities.47
experienced a slight cooling. Climate simulations The oceans contain about 50-65 times as much
do not show this cooling. An exception is the carbon dioxide as the atmosphere, while soils and
recent work of Stott, et al.,45 who included changes land plants contain about three times as much.
in solar irradiance (from Lean, et al.) as well as the Carbon fluxes are measured in gigatons of carbon
effects of aerosols in their simulations. They (GtC), where 1 Gt = 109 metric tons = 1012 kg.
conclude that although there are significant One ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
uncertainties, natural forcings (solar changes, etc.) corresponds to 2.23 GtC or 8.2 Gt of carbon
were relatively more important in the warming of dioxide.
the early 20th century, and anthropogenic forcing The IPCC estimates that the ocean surface
(carbon dioxide production) the dominant factor in absorbs 92 GtC per year and releases 90 GtC.
recent decades. Both plants and soils are estimated to release about
Because the results of Stott, et al. are 100 GtC per year while plants absorb some 102
reproduced in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment GtC per year. These figures lead to a net
Report (Shanghai Draft 21-01-2001), it is sequestering of 4 GtC per year. The flux is then
important to describe this work in a little more roughly 200 GtC released per year and slightly
detail. These authors used estimates of various more absorbed. Now fossil fuel burning is
forcings in a coupled ocean-atmosphere general- estimated to release 5 GtC per year and
circulation model to simulate the changes in deforestation another 2 GtC per year for a total of
annual-mean global surface temperatures. These 7 GtC per year. So, in order to show that the
forcings, such as solar irradiance variations, buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due
increases in carbon dioxide and changes in sulfate to these sources, one must understand the carbon
aerosols (which reflect incoming solar radiation), cycle (or at least the net fluxes of carbon dioxide
correspond to the influence of different factors between the ocean, land, and atmosphere) to an
altering the balance of incoming and outgoing accuracy better than 7 GtC/200 GtC = 3.5%.
radiation in the Earth-atmosphere system. By In comparison with actual measurements,
adjusting these factors, the authors were able to atmospheric models overestimate the increase in
match 30-year observed surface temperature trends atmospheric carbon dioxide due to emissions from
starting in 1910, 1940 and 1970. the burning of fossil fuels, cement production, and
Stott, et al. were, however, careful to caveat deforestation. Post, et al. state that, “Since the
their results: “Given the uncertainties in historical ranges of predicted and observed increases in
forcing, climate sensitivity, and the rate of heat atmospheric carbon do not even overlap, many
uptake by the ocean, the good agreement between scientists remain skeptical that we can analyze the
model simulation and observations could be due in impact of fossil-fuel burning on the global carbon
part to a cancellation of errors... Hence, our result cycle.”
does not remove the need to reduce uncertainty in The following estimates (in GtC per year)
these factors, particularly as these might not cancel were given by the IPCC for the decade 1980-1989:
in the future.” North46 is far stronger in his
reservations about climate models: “There are so Emissions
many adjustables in the models, and there is a Fossil fuel burning 5.4 ± 0.5
limited amount of observational data, so we can Deforestation and land use 1.6 ± 1.0
always bring the models into agreement with the Total emissions of CO2 7.0 ± 1.1
data.”
12
Reservoir Uptake dioxide and high oxygen concentrations in the air
Total accumulation of CO2 spaces within their leaves.
in the atmosphere 3.4 ± 0.2 Optimal carbon dioxide uptake from the
Uptake of CO2 by the ocean48 2.0 ± 0.8 atmosphere per unit of leaf weight takes place in
Total uptake of CO2 5.4 ± 0.8 C4 plants like maize (corn) — which originated in
the tropics — in the range of atmospheric carbon
Except for disturbances such as deforestation, the dioxide concentration of 200 ppmv to 800 ppmv
exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and (The uptake of carbon dioxide is essentially
terrestrial ecosystems is assumed to be in balance constant over this range of concentration). C3
over the time scale of several years. For this plants reach their optimum carbon dioxide uptake
reason the uptake of land plants is not included in for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of
the above table. The difference or net imbalance 500 ppmv to 800 ppmv (a range over which the
of 1.6 ± 1.4 GtC corresponds to a lack of uptake is again constant). However, the efficiency
understanding of the disposition of 1.6/7 = 23% of of C3 plants (the amount of carbon dioxide taken
the carbon. Similarly, from 1850-1986 the total up per unit of light energy absorbed) is greater than
carbon released by these processes is estimated to that of C4 plants up to a leaf temperature of a little
be 312 ± 40 GtC, while for the same period the less than 30˚C. The efficiency of C4 plants is
increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 60 constant over the temperature range of 10˚C to
ppmv or 127 GtC, which is only 41% of the 40˚C, and greater than that of C3 plants above
estimated release. The missing carbon sink (where 30˚C.
the excess carbon dioxide goes) corresponds to an In summary, C4 plants cannot be expected to
enormous error in the net flux of carbon dioxide increase their uptake of carbon dioxide with rising
between the ocean, land, biosphere and the atmospheric concentrations of this gas. C3 plants,
atmosphere. which have the advantage in temperate climates,
According to Post et al., the inability to will increase carbon dioxide uptake up to a
balance the carbon fluxes over the period from concentration of about 500 ppmv.
1800 to the present may be due to overlooking In the case of the ocean, it is known that
dynamic responses from land plants and the ocean. climate change will affect marine ecosystems, but
Increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere there is inadequate data to predict how these
may stimulate land plants and phytoplankton ecosystems will respond. The response of marine
(small ocean plants) to take up additional carbon ecosystems is important not only from the
dioxide. perspective of global warming: it is the plants in
The response of land plants is complex, but the ocean that produce essentially all of the oxygen
some 95% of the Earth’s plants show an increase in in the Earth’s atmosphere. There is, however,
biomass when exposed to elevated carbon dioxide some understanding of how carbon dioxide is
levels. The IPCC noted that “Net primary absorbed by the ocean. Phytoplankton are
production could be enhanced by increased CO2 in extremely important in this process, since
a variety of ways,” although they listed a number photosynthesis by these plants is what reduces
of caveats. carbon dioxide (releasing oxygen) in a shallow
Plants fall into two broad categories known as surface layer of the ocean. The amount of carbon
C3 plants or C4 plants, depending on whether one dioxide in this layer is dependent on the
of the main early products of photosynthesis is one relationship between wind speed and the value of
of the three-carbon intermediates — what is called the gas transfer coefficient, which is
phosphoglyceraldehyde — of the Calvin cycle only known to ±30%. Biologically produced
(used by all plants for the synthesis of debris (containing carbon) from these surface
carbohydrates) or a four-carbon compound instead. layers sinks into the deep ocean where it is
C4 plants have the advantage over C3 plants under decomposed (oxidized) by microbes. This process
conditions of high temperature and intense light, is known as the biological pump.
when stomatal closure results in low carbon The biological pump is important because it
13
allows the removal of far more carbon dioxide conditions in the ocean’s surface layer, it is
from the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. generally assumed to have remained in essentially
It maintains the carbon profile of the ocean, where a steady state during the buildup of carbon dioxide
deep ocean water (below about 500 m) is in the atmosphere over the last century. This
supersaturated with carbon dioxide compared to assumption is presumably built into the climate
atmospheric carbon dioxide (if this deep water models used to predict the response of the Earth to
were warmed to the mean surface temperature of rising carbon dioxide concentration.
18˚C it would result in an atmospheric partial The biological pump is estimated to be
pressure of carbon dioxide two to three times its responsible for the uptake of about 5 GtC per year,
present value). The surface layers of the oceans of which 1 GtC per year, or 20%, is at the
are generally within ±40% of saturation with continental margins, which are the most
atmospheric carbon dioxide; i.e., within susceptible to changes resulting from human
±40% of that concentration the surface layers activity. The 5 GtC per year should be compared
would have dissolved in them if they were in to the 7 GtC per year estimated to be produced by
equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide. the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes.51
For every carbon atom fixed by
photosynthesis, a molecule of carbon dioxide (the Summary: The carbon cycle is not well understood
source of the carbon atom) is removed from the and current estimates of carbon fluxes have very
ocean surface layer. Call the amount removed this large errors. Dynamic responses of the ocean and
way Corganic. On the other hand, for every carbon land plants are generally not included in coupled
atom fixed into the calcium carbonate of sea ocean-atmosphere general-circulation models.
creatures (mostly coccoliths, foraminifera and Although the buildup of carbon dioxide in the
pteropods), one molecule of carbon dioxide is atmosphere may be due to increased burning of
released into the surface layer.49 Call the amount fossil fuels and changes in land use, it is difficult to
released this way Ccarbonate. The ratio Corganic : determine how much of this buildup may be due to
Ccarbonate is known as the ‘rain ratio.’ This ratio changes in the performance of the biological pump
represents the net carbon dioxide removed from for reasons that may be unrelated to the burning of
the surface layer of the ocean: if it is 1:1, the fossil fuels.
biological pump releases as much carbon dioxide
to the surface layer through calcium carbonate
How good are the predictions of coupled ocean-
formation as it removes through the formation of
atmosphere climate models?
organic molecules containing carbon. The rain
ratio is generally around 4:1, but varies over a very At this point in this series of questions, readers
wide range of perhaps just over one to 20. may judge for themselves the answer to this
The point to be emphasized is that without the question.52 Perhaps the most contentious summary
biological pump, the partial pressure of carbon of the status of climate models has been given by
dioxide in the surface layer of the ocean would be the preeminent physicist Freeman Dyson in a talk
much greater than it is, and atmospheric to the American Physical Society in March of
concentrations would consequently also be much 1999.53
greater. Various simulations starting with the pre- After discussing a Department of Energy
industrial atmospheric concentration of carbon program known as ARM (for Atmospheric
dioxide of 280 ppmv indicate that if the biological Radiation Measurements), and pointing out that
pump were able to utilize all available surface measured carbon dioxide uptake by some mature
nitrate it would have resulted in a current value of forests was far higher than expected (or modeled),
160 ppmv (compared to the actual value of about Dyson summarized his findings as follows:
350 ppmv); if the biological pump did not exist,
the result would be 450 ppmv.50 Despite the wide “The bad news is that the climate models
potential variation in the performance of the on which so much effort is expended are
biological pump in response to changing unreliable. The models are unreliable
14
because they still use fudge-factors rather understand and to predict. Until then, we
than physics to represent processes must continue to warn the politicians and
occurring on scales smaller than the grid- the public, don’t believe the numbers just
size. Besides the general prevalence of because they come out of a
fudge-factors, the climate models have supercomputer.”
other more specific defects that make them
unreliable. First, with one exception, they The well known solar physicist Eugene Parker
do not predict the existence of El Niño. (referred to above) summarized our general state of
Since El Niño is a major and important knowledge as follows: “The inescapable
feature of the observed climate, any model conclusion is that we will have to know a lot more
that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. about the Sun and the terrestrial atmosphere before
Second, the models fail to predict the we can understand the nature of the contemporary
marine stratus clouds that often cover large changes in climate. We expect that burning fossil
areas of ocean. Marine stratus clouds have fuel at the extravagant rate to which we have
a large effect on climate in the oceans and become accustomed is a contributing factor, but so
in coastal regions on their eastern margins. are the increased solar brightness and the increased
Third, the climate models do not take into sea water temperatures. In our present state of
account the anomalous absorption of ignorance it is not possible to assess the
radiation revealed by the ARM importance of individual factors. The biggest
measurements. This is not a small error. mistake that we could make would be to think that
If the ARM measurements are correct, the we know the answers when we do not.”54
error in the atmospheric absorption of As put by Ahilleas Maurellis of the Space
sunlight calculated by the climate models Research Organization Netherlands in the February
is about 28 watts per square meter, 2001 issue of Physics World, “Ultimately, it is too
averaged over the whole Earth, day and simplistic to blame global warming on a particular
night, summer and winter. The entire gas or process... Perhaps the real villain is not
effect of doubling the present abundance carbon dioxide or even water vapour, but simply a
of carbon dioxide is calculated to be about mixture of inertia, hysteria and misinformation.
four watts per square meter. So the error Until we understand the full picture, perhaps the
in the models is much larger than the best reaction to global warming is for everybody to
global warming effect that the models are just keep their cool.”
supposed to predict. Until the ARM
measurements were done, the error was
not detected, because it was compensated Conclusion
by fudge-factors that forced the models to
agree with the existing climate. Other Perhaps the most important indicator that
equally large errors may still be hiding in human activities could be affecting the global
the models, concealed by other fudge- environment is the 25% rise in atmospheric carbon
factors. Until the fudge-factors are dioxide concentration since the end of the
eliminated and the computer programs are eighteenth century. However, our understanding of
solidly based on local observations and on the carbon cycle is such that it cannot be said with
the laws of physics, we have no good certainty that this buildup is due to human activity,
reason to believe the predictions of the and in particular to the burning of fossil fuels and
models. [This does not mean that climate deforestation, although such activity (which, on a
models are worthless, but] they are not yet yearly basis, comprises some 3.5% of the two-way
adequate tools for predicting climate. If exchange of carbon between the Earth and its
we persevere patiently with observing the atmosphere) must certainly contribute to the
real world and improving the models, the increased concentration of this gas. A 25%
time will come when we are able both to increase may appear large, but because carbon
15
dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, and increased The IPCC, based on the predictions of climate
carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere models, estimates that doubling the concentration
does not proportionately increase its greenhouse of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to
effect, this has had only a minimal impact on the a rise in global surface temperature, including the
Earth’s temperature. feedback effect of water vapor, of about 1.9˚C.
Using the methodology of the IPCC to find the However, the uncertainties having to do with
increase in radiative forcing due to the 25% clouds are so great as to render this figure
increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide meaningless.
concentrations, as well as the formula given earlier Over longer periods of the Earth’s history, the
for determining the rise in the Earth’s average record shows that transitions from glacial to
surface temperature (including the effects of water interglacial periods are not driven by increases in
vapor), this increase corresponds to a 0.6˚C carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.
temperature rise. This number is the same as the Rather, carbon dioxide levels increase some 400 to
global temperature increase over the last century 1,000 years after the transition, consistent with
and a half — a striking correspondence. However, releases from warming oceans. Thus, it is difficult
it is three times smaller than the 2˚C variations one to maintain that the role of carbon dioxide in
could consider to be natural. The correspondence climate change is really understood.
becomes even less striking if one considers other Given the uncertainties described above, and
factors affecting the Earth’s temperature. the current state of coupled ocean-atmosphere
Solar output varies by at least 0.1% to 0.4% (or general-circulation models, the predictions of these
1.4 w/m2 to 5.5 w/m2, corresponding to a radiative models cannot and do not form a sound basis for
forcing of 0.2 w/m2 to 1 w/m2). The radiative public policy decisions.
forcing due to the 25% rise in carbon dioxide What should be done? Perhaps the most
concentration is 1.4 w/m2 (including the water important single action would be to de-politicize
vapor feedback). Solar variation since 1978 alone the issue of climate change. Funding should be
has been measured to be in the range of 0.15% or 2 maintained for continued research, modeling, and
w/m2 (corresponding to a change in radiative data collection. In time it may be possible to
forcing of 0.4 w/m2). Many researchers now develop an understanding of the Earth’s climate
believe that a very significant portion of the global that is good enough to contribute meaningfully to
warming over the last century—at least half—has policy decisions.
probably been due to an increase in solar output.
Other effects of increased solar activity, such as the by Gerald E. Marsh
impact on cloud formation and El Niño events, are Physicist
not yet well understood, and are not factored into National Advisory Board
the predictions of climate change. The National Center for Public Policy Research

Gerald Marsh is a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory. Opinions expressed in the Primer are his
own. Mr. Marsh can be reached at [email protected].

This paper is an update of National Policy Analysis #361: A Global Warming Primer by Gerald Marsh,
published by The National Center for Public Policy Research in September 2001

16
1
H. Inhaber, Science 203, 718 (1979); A. P. Hull, Nuclear Safety 12, 185 (1971); J. R. Buchanan, Nuclear Safety 10, 119 (1969).
2
C. Starr,
Nuclear Safety 5, 325 (1964).
3
M. Eisenbud and H. G. Petrow,
Science 144, 288 (1964); J. P. McBride, et al., Science 202, 1045 (1978).
4
J. T. Houghton, et al., eds.,
Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991. In addition to the IPCC,
assessments have been published by the National Research Council.
5
R. B. Hanson, et al., eds., The Changing Ocean Carbon Cycle: A Midterm Synthesis of the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
6
L. Ponte,
The Cooling, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1976.
7
J. T. Houghton, et al., eds., p. 213 [Fig. 7.10 (c)].
8
R. A. Kerr, Science 292, 192 (2001).
9
S. F. Singer, Nature 409, 281 (2001).
10
A. Ravel and V. Ramanathan, Nature 342, 758 (1989).
11
R. G. Barry and R. J. Chorley, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate, Routledge, London, 1992, sixth edition.
12
M. Z. Jacobson, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
13
G. R. Bigg, The Ocean and Climate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
14
J. E. Harries, Contemporary Physics 41, 309 (2000).
15
G. Schubert and C. Covey, “The Atmosphere of Venus,” Scientific American (July 1991).
16
−8 w
σ = 5.67 × 10
m 2 K4
17
A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, Nature 342 758 (1989).
18
V. Ramanathan and W. Collins, Nature 351, 27 (1991).
19
R. T. Pierrehumbert, J. Atmos. Sci.. 52, 1784 (1995).
20
J. A. Eddy, Science 192, 1189 (1976).
21
E. N. Parker, Nature 399, 416 (1999).
22
S. Baliunas and R. Jastrow, Nature 348, 520 (1990).
23
H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys. 59, 1225 (1997), see also G. Wagner, et al., J. Geophys. Res. 106,
3381 (2001).
24
E. W. Cliver, et al., Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 1035 (1998).
25
T. J. Crowley and K. Y. Kim,
Geophys. Res. Lett.
23, 359 (1996).
26
G. C. Reid, J. Geophys. Res. 96, 2835 (1990).
27
E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Science 254, 698 (1991).
28
J. Lean, et al.,Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 3195 (1995).
29
R. A. Kerr, Science 271, 1360 (1996) as well as references to Lean and E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen above.
30
J. Lean and D. Rind, Science 292, 234 (2001).
31
R. Y. Anderson, “Solar Variability Captured in Climatic and High-Resolution Paleoclimatic Records: A Geologic Perspective,” in C.
P. Sonett, et al. (Eds.), The Sun in Time (University of Arizona Press, Tucson 1991), p. 543.
32
D. Belmiloud, et al., Geophysical Res. Lett. 27, 3703 (2000); Physics World, February 2001, p. 22. The databases most often used
by the radiation transfer models, and those studied in this reference, are HITRAN 1996 and HITRAN96-cor.
33
J. E. Harries, Contemporary Physics 41, 309 (2000).
34
R. D. Cess, et al., Science 267, 496 (1995); V. Ramanathan, et al., Science 267, 499 (1995); P. Pilewskie and F. P. J. Valero, Science
267, 1626 (1995); see also Physics Today, May 1995, p. 21.
35
L. A. Frakes, J. E. Francis, and J. I. Syktus, Climate Modes of the Phanerozoic, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992.
36
R. Y. Anderson, “Solar Variability Captured in Climatic and High-Resolution Paleoclimatic Records: A Geologic Perspective,” in C.
P. Sonett, et al., eds., The Sun in Time, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon 1991.
37
J. C. Zuchos, et al.,
Science 292, 274 (2001).
38
N. Murray and M. Holman, Nature 410, 773 (2001).
39
J. Veizer, et al., Nature 408, 698 (2000).
40
A. Indermuhle, et al., Nature 398, 121 (1999).
41
T. Takahashi, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7, 843 (1993).
42
H. Fischer, et al., Science 283, 1712 (1999).
43
Recent evidence from ice core data shows that the Little Ice Age may have ended in as little as ten years. See P. F. Schuster, et al.,
J. Geophys. Res. 105, 4657 (2000).
44
R. B. Bacastow, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10, 319 (1996).

17
45
P. A. Stott, et al., Science 290, 2133 (2000).
46
R. A. Kerr, Science 292, 192 (2001).
47
W. M. Post, et al., “The Global Carbon Cycle,” American Scientist 78, 310 (1990) is an excellent introduction to the subject.
48
More recent work shows that this number may be in error by about a factor of two, and could be as great as 3.9 GtC per year. See
H. Thomas, et al.,
Geophysical Res. Lett.
28, 547 (2001). See also D. Bakker and A. Watson, Nature 410, 765 (2001).
49
Carbon dioxide has a high solubility in water through the reactions:
CO2(gas) + H2O (↔H2CO3) ↔ H+ + HCO−3 ↔ 2H+ + CO2− 3 which, because of the relative reaction rates, can be
summerized as CO2(gas) + H2O + CO2− 2− 2−
3 ↔ 2HCO3 . The bicarbonate ions (2HCO3 ) can then interact via the calcification

equation Ca
2+
+ 2HCO−3 → CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O to release carbon dioxide.
50
R.B. Hanson, et al, eds.
51
K. K. Liu, et al., “Continental Margin Carbon Fluxes,” in R. B. Hanson, et al., eds.
52
The reader may also be interested in the article by Gerald Westbrook, titled “Global Warming: Are Society’s Attitudes and Actions
Based on an Over-Simplistic View of a Highly Complex System,” in the December, 1997 Dialogue published by the United States
Association for Energy Economics.
53
Freeman J. Dyson, The Science and Politics of Climate, talk given at the American Physical Society Centennial Meeting in Atlanta,
GA, March 25, 1999.
54
E. N. Parker, Nature 399, 416 (1999).

18