Anthropogenic Climate Change: A Scientific Defense of Concern

Matthew Pasquini
Harvard University
December 13, 2014

This paper serves to provide a basic scientific argument to defend an international concern over the effects of
greenhouse gas emission on global average surface temperature. The issue is seen by many contemporaries as
political in nature, and this unfortunate outcome must be transcended to address the issue at hand. Rather
than political rhetoric, a scientific analysis is the only appropriate tool to accurately determine the likelihood
of human activity as a principal force in global climate change. What follows is an objective presentation of
basic models which correlate large-scale human carbon emission with a concerning increase in global average
temperatures.

Introduction

instance, yearly weather cycles, nor does it predict

weather by region (as seen in later sections, this is
Scientists have observed a particularly striking rise due to the one-dimensional nature of the model). Its
in the global mean temperature of the Earths sur- use is focused on the firm establishment of climate
face, rising over one degree Celsius between during change, namely an increase in global average temperthe course of the past century. Whats more, this is ature on a long time scale (where variabilities average
strongly correlated with a rise in atmospheric carbon to this trend).
dioxide (CO2 ) concentration by a factor of approximately four-thirds.
The model is also limited to long-term temperature
changes at the surface, and not in the upper atmosphere. This is because the model will make the assumption of a single thin layer of atmosphere, however the extent of the atmosphere mandates multilayered models which would more accurately predict
upper atmosphere temperatures. Since this paper is
focused on global mean surface temperature analysis (the only relevant region in terms of impact on
life), the single-layer model will suffice. [University
of Texas]

Global Energy Balance

Before greenhouse gas models can be prescribed, a basic model that determines average global temperature
must be established. This can be done through the
assumption of global energy balance, that the Earth
emits all energy absorbed by the Sun back into space.
Satellite measurement has confirmed this is a highly
accurate assumption [Haar and Suomi ]. Combined
with an understanding of energy emission from the
Stephan-Boltzmann law (where emitted radiation is
proportional to absolute temperature to the fourth
power), the Earths average surface global temperature, not considering atmospheric components, is

[NCDC ]

This correlation alone does not describe a causal relationship between carbon dioxide and global mean
temperatures. However, simple models enable an
investigation to show that global average temperatures are in large part influenced by atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases, with a particular
emphasis on carbon dioxide.
The model discussed in this paper is limited, however,
to global mean temperatures. It does not predict, for
1

determined to be approximately 18 degrees Celsius

(See Appendix 7.1 for calculations). [Kuang]

30

()

20

This is far lower than the true observed value of about

14 degrees Celsius [Kivner ]. Therefore, the effect of
the atmosphere must be taken into account.

10

20

40

60

80

100

(%)

-10

The Greenhouse Effect

-20

As aforementioned, the model will adopt a single

layer simplification of the atmosphere to address the
issue of surface temperature. Incoming radiation
from the Sun (after reflection from albedo effects see Appendix 7.1), in the form of ultraviolet rays,
easily penetrates the chemical components of the atmosphere to reach the surface of the Earth. When
the Earth re-radiates this energy at much lower temperatures, the energy takes the form of infrared radiation, which does not directly penetrate certain components of the atmosphere. Rather, the energy is reabsorbed and remitted in all directions, with approximately half returning to the Earth and half escaping
to space.

Given this plot, an observed surface temperature of

14 degrees Celsius would be associated with an absorptivity of about 74 percent. In other words, the
atmosphere absorbs approximately three fourths of
the energy radiated from the Earth, and reradiates it
towards the surface. The question then arises as to
the extent by which human activity has altered this
number.

The Carbon Impact

One way to determine the relative impact of gases in

the atmosphere is through spectra analysis of radiation leaving the Earth, obtainable via satellite. Below is Earths spectrum as a function of wavenumber
(wavelength).

[Encyclopedia Britannica]

If the fraction of energy captured and reemitted by

the atmosphere (called the absorptivity) is allowed to
vary from zero to one, the resultant effect on global
mean surface temperature ranges from no effect to
a multiplication by about 1.19, considering the temperatures distance from absolute zero (see Appendix
7.2 for a detailed derivation). Below is a plot which
shows this relationship and its effect on global surface
temperature.

[Kuang]
The central gap in the spectrum represents the absorption contribution of carbon dioxide, which occupies a range of wave number of between around 550
to 750 cm1 [NIST ]. This region, by geometric observation of the spectrum, makes up approximately
12 percent of the total area of the spectrum. This is
2

a rough approximation, but it will suffice for the pur- The greenhouse model (see Appendix 7.2) then prepose of this paper, since the goal is determining the dicts a difference in temperature of about 1.96 degrees
relative size of human influence, not the exact impact. Celsius. This calculation does not take into account
optical overlap of carbon dioxide particles (or interIt is now important to observe that carbon dioxide actions with other gases) and is therefore an upper
levels in the atmosphere have risen from 280 to 400 bound. To achieve a proper lower bound on the isoparts per million over the past 200 years, measur- lated case of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse model is
able through ice core samples and direct atmospheric again applied but with the assumption that humanmeasurements [University of Michigan]. This is far generated carbon dioxide is the only greenhouse gas
faster a change than any natural geologic structure present (possible optical overlap in this estimation
could produce, and the exponential increase is starkly is offset by the concave-upward curve in the plot of
and visibly corresponding with human industrializa- temperature v. absorptivity). With this assumption,
tion in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is also true a temperature difference of 1.13 degrees Celsius is
for other, less influential greenhouse gases, as seen determined (see Appendix 7.2). An even safer lower
bound could be determined by lowering the influence
below.
from 3.5% to 2.5% to account for the presence of
other gases affecting the spectrum in question (there
are other dips in the spectrum, at 1000 cm1 for
example). This produces an impact of 0.80 degrees
Celsius.
To summarize, the human carbon impact is determined to occupy an impact roughly between 0.80
and 2.00 degrees Celsius. Since the effects of optical
overlap are likely nontrivial, the value is probably
closer to around one degree. Looking back to Section
1 (and converting from Fahrenheit), this rough estimate is fairly accurate.
Importantly, this is the impact to date. It does not
take into account further development of carbon dioxide concentration from current human contributions.
For example, if the carbon dioxide concentration were
to increase to 500 parts per million (the earlier figure
shows how likely this is), the calculations can be repeated to show an effect of 1.4 to 2.9 degrees Celsius.
[University of Michigan]

These trends determine with remarkable confidence

that there is an anthropogenic forcing of greenhouse
gas accumulation in the atmosphere. That human
influence has, conservatively, increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentration by a factor of 1.4 means
1
that a fraction 1 1.4
0.29 of the absorptivity impact due to carbon dioxide is anthropogenic. With
0.29 12% 3.5%, human influence can be said
to generate about 3.5% of the present atmospheric
absorptivity.

Addressing Counter-Theories

Much of the rhetoric dismissing anthropogenic climate change incorporates arguments that there other
factors scientists havent taken into account, or that
recent cold weather events stand in the face of climate change even occurring.
To address the first issue, perhaps the most
commonly-used counterargument against the human
influence of climate change is that solar activity is
difficult to predict and or determine. While the Sun
plays an extremely powerful role in our climate, close
observation of solar cycles have determined a rela-

With atmospheric absorptivity found earlier to be

74%, without human influence this would be 70.5%.
3

Conclusion
tively stable value of the solar radiation incident upon 6
the Earth, with periodic cycles determined by solar
The argument for anthropogenic climate change
spot/flare activity.
through carbon dioxide emission has a clear foundation even in basic scientific modeling. Trends in
global average surface temperature have to date,
demonstrated an alarming increase of at least one
degree Celsius so far. Simultaneously, human activity in the past two centuries has increased the carbon
dioxide content of the atmosphere by a factor of 1.4.
Models successfully connect the correlated rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to a rise in
average surface temperature through a mathematical
analysis of the global energy balance, taking into account the influence of atmospheric absorptivity. The
model presented in this paper proposes such a reasonable and simple approach to find an adjustment
[Kuang]
of global mean surface temperature on the order of
one degree Celsius, with a possible range of about 0.8
The generally flat trend is in complete disagreement to 2 degrees (additional work could be undergone to
with global surface temperature observations. Addi- account more accurately for optical overlap of carbon
tionally, even if the period cycle were to impact global dioxide particles, which would further constrain the
2
temperatures, the variability of (at most) 1 W/m range of possible temperature variation). This is in
translates to a temperature variability of 0.10 degrees strong agreement with current observation, backing
Celsius (see Appendix 7.1), a much lower change than the well-accepted theory of anthropogenic climate
observed. Therefore, solar activity cannot be the forcing. Additionally, arguments against it such as
cause of global warming. Anthropogenic greenhouse solar activity and winter severity are easily debunked
gas forcing remains the proper culprit.
through additional analysis.
The other common rhetorical argument against
anthropogenic forcing comes with the fact that
seasonal, monthly, and even weekly variability in
weather events demonstrates the possibility for excessively cold temperatures, prompting the question
of whether climate change is even occurring. This is
flawed in the sense that models such as those presented in this paper determine temperature changes
on a global, time-averaged sense. It is impossible for
any model to determine all weather-related temperature fluctuations.

Even with this simple approach, the rise of carbon dioxide present in the Earths atmosphere is
not merely correlated with a coincidental or natural warming of the Earths surface, but is, with great
confidence, the cause thereof. This issue therefore
ought no longer remain a political debate, but one
which the rhetoric of the political stage accepts as
scientific coherence and objectivity.

Additionally, increase severity of winters does not

diminish the presence of a general warming trend.
Warmer global temperatures, especially near the
poles, have the capacity to decrease gradients in temperatures with respect to latitude. This reduces driving forces for aloft winds, reducing their resistance to
stalling in the jet stream. As a result, blocking
events in which the jet stream adopts a long-lasting
bend promotes the development of more extreme seasonal temperature differences, both warm and cold.
[Kuang]
4

Appendices

7.2

The greenhouse effect

If the incoming solar radiation is assumed to be S0 /4,

where S0 is the solar constant, an amount (1)S0 /4
Define L0 as solar luminosity (energy emitted from will reach the surface without reflecting, and be abthe sun per unit time), such that the strength of this sorbed. Some amount S will emit from the surface
radiation spread out across a spherical region in space towards the atmosphere, which will allow a fraction
is L0 /4d2 , where d is the distance from the Sun. De- (1 ) into space, where  is the absorptivity of the
fine as the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth, where atmosphere. The remaining fraction will be reemita fraction of energy 1 reaches the surface. There- ted equal parts A each into space and towards the
fore, the energy received by the Earths surface per surface.
unit time is

7.1

Global energy balance

Ein =

L0
R2 (1 )
4d2

(1)

where R is the radius of the Earth. By the StefanBoltzmann Law, the energy released per unit time
per unit surface area by a radiating body is T 4
where T is absolute temperature and is the StefanBoltzmann constant. Therefore, the energy emitted
by the Earth is

To maintain radiative balance at the surface (such

that incoming and outgoing energies equate), the fol4
2
Eout = T 4R
(2) lowing must be true:
S0
S0
+A=
+S
(9)
Global energy balance requires that Eout = Ein .
4
4
A similar balance must occur at the top of the atmoL0
2
4
2
sphere, where the following must hold:

(1

)
=
T

4R
(3)
4d2
S0
S0
+ (1 )S + A =
(10)
This solves for T , the global average surface temper4
4
ature.
This provides a system of equations to solve for A
and S, enabling the determination that:

1/4
L0 (1 )
T =
(4)
(1 )S0
(1 )S0
16d2
A=
S=
(11)
4(2 )
2(2 )
The quantity L0 /4d2 is often redefined as the Solar Reapplying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law from Apconstant S0 , a number defining the energy reception pendix 7.1, one can find the surface temperature Ts .
from the Sun. Global average surface temperature
S = Ts4
(12)
can be rewritten as

1/4 
1/4
1/4

(1 )S0
1
S0 (1 )
(13)
=
T
=
s
(5)
T =
1 /2
4
4
In comparison to equation to Eq (5), there exists a
Replacing the appropriate quantities yields
pre-factor 1/(1 /2)1/4 . For  ranging from 0 to 1,
this factor ranges from 1 to about 1.19. A plot in
!1/4
2
Section 3 shows this converted into values in degrees
(1362 W/m )(1 0.29)
T
(6) Celsius.
4
8
2
4(5.67 10 W/m K )
255.5 K
17.5 C

(7) Note that this model is not appropriate for calcu(8) lations of upper level atmospheric temperatures, as
discussed in Section 1.

[Kuang]
5

References
Later in the paper, the following function is adapted 8
to calculate global surface temperature as a function
Encyclopedia Britannica, The Greenhouse Effect,
of atmospheric absorptivity .
2014
1/4

1
255.5 K
(14) Haar, Thomas H. Vander and Verner E. Suomi,
Ts () =
1 /2
Measurements of the Earths Radiation Budget from
The value is then converted to Celsius in the paper. Satellites During a Five-Year Period, 1971 (Journal
The factor of 255.5 K is taken from the  = 0 case. of the Atmospheric Sciences)
The relevant calculations are shown below.
Kivner, Mark, Global average temperature may hit
Ts (0.74) Ts (0.705) 1.96 K
(15) record level in 2010, 2009 (British Broadcasting ComTs (0.035) Ts (0.00) 1.13 K
(16) pany)
Ts (0.025) Ts (0.00) 0.80 K

(17)

Kuang, Zhiming, Notes from The Physics of Climate,

2014 (Harvard University)

[Kuang]

National Climate Data Center, 2014 (National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Carbon Dioxide, 2011, (US Department of Commerce)
University of Texas at Austin, The Global Energy
Balance