GLOBAL

WARMING
Increase in the global average surface temperature resulting
from enhancement of the greenhouse effect, primarily by
air pollution. In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change forecasted that by 2100 global average
surface temperatures would increase 3.2 – 7.2 °F (1.8 – 4.0
°C), depending on a range of scenarios for greenhouse gas
emissions, and stated that it was now 90 percent certain that
most of the warming observed over the previous half
century could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions
produced by human activities (i.e., industrial processes and
transportation). Many scientists predict that such an
increase in temperature would cause polar ice caps and
mountain glaciers to melt rapidly, significantly raising the
levels of coastal waters, and would produce new patterns
and extremes of drought and rainfall, seriously disrupting
food production in certain regions. Other scientists
maintain that such predictions are overstated. The 1992
Earth Summit and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
attempted to address the issue of global warming, but in
both cases the efforts were hindered by conflicting national
economic agendas and disputes between developed and
developing nations over the cost and consequences of
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
A phenomenon (otherwise known as ‘climate change’ or
‘the greenhouse effect’) whereby solar radiation that has
reflected back off the surface of the earth remains trapped
at atmospheric levels, due to the build-up of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases, rather than being emitted back into
space. The effect of this is a warming of the global
atmosphere.

Climate change is a long-standing phenomenon, as the mix

of the various gases that make up the earth's atmosphere
have changed over long periods of time, so average global
temperatures have fluctuated. What is alleged to be
different about the current spell of global warming is that it
is taken to be (1) caused by human action and (2) occurring
at an unprecedented rate. The consequences of global
warming remain uncertain, but climate change models
predict deforestation, desertification, a poleward shift of
vegetation and animal populations, rising sea levels, and
decreased precipitation.

Global warming has received increasing political attention

over the past thirty years, having constituted one of the key
themes in the rise of green politics over the same period.
This increasing political salience resulted in an
intergovernmental meeting in Kyoto in 1997, at which 38
industrialized countries signed up to the Kyoto Protocol.
The terms of this agreement were that these nations would
reduce their atmospheric emissions of CO2 by an average of
5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. This is well below
the 60 per cent target that scientists working on climate
change claim is necessary to present further global
warming, but the agreement was seen by many
campaigners as a useful first step that established the
framework necessary for further cuts in the future. The
Kyoto Protocol will not, however, become effective until it
has been ratified by 55 per cent of the signatory nations,
and only then if these nations contribute 55 per cent or
more of global carbon emissions.

There have been three crucial intergovernmental meetings

in the attempt to transform the original protocol into a
ratified treaty with legal powers of enforcement. The first
of these was at The Hague in November 2000. This
meeting broke down over disagreements between the
European Union (EU) and the United States—in particular
over American proposals to count forests and other
vegetation as ‘carbon sinks’, against which their fossil fuel
emissions could be set. The EU feared that this would
create significant loopholes in the agreement, as the carbon
storage capacity of vegetation is uncertain, temporary, and
unstable. Following the election of George W. Bush the
United States unilaterally withdrew from the Kyoto
Protocol, claiming that it would inflict disproportionate
damage on the US economy. Given that the US produces
24 per cent of global CO2 emissions, its non-participation
in any binding agreement remains a serious handicap.

Further climate change negotiations took place in Bonn in

July 2001, involving 186 nations, where the Kyoto
protocols were successfully translated into an international
treaty. In order to achieve agreement the EU nations had to
make concessions to Canada, Australia, Japan, and Russia
over the extent to which forests could count as ‘carbon
sinks’, and over the mechanisms by which any agreement
could be enforced. By some estimates this cut the effective
size of emission reductions from the proposed 5.2 per cent
on 1990 levels to between 1.8 and 3 per cent.
Since the late nineteenth century, atmospheric scientists in
the United States and overseas have known that significant
changes in the chemical composition of atmospheric gases
might cause climate change on a global scale. In 1824, the
French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier described how the
earth's atmosphere functioned like the glass of a
greenhouse, trapping heat and maintaining the stable
climate that sustained life. By the 1890s, some scientists,
including the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius and the
American geologist Thomas Chamberlain, had discerned
that carbon dioxide had played a central role historically in
regulating global temperatures.
In 1896, Arrhenius provided the first quantitative analysis
of how changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide could alter
surface temperatures and ultimately lead to climatic change
on a scale comparable with the ice ages. In 1899,
Chamberlain similarly linked glacial periods to changes in
atmospheric carbon dioxide and posited that water vapor
might provide crucial positive feedback to changes in
carbon dioxide. In the first decade of the twentieth century,
Arrhenius further noted that industrial combustion of coal
and other fossil fuels could introduce enough carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere to change the temperature of
the planet over the course of a few centuries. However, he
predicted that warming would be delayed because the
oceans would absorb most of the carbon dioxide. Arrhenius
further posited various societal benefits from this planetary
warming.
Over the course of the twentieth century, scientists con-
firmed these early predictions as they probed further into
the functioning of the earth's atmospheric system. Early in
the century, dozens of scientists around the world
contributed to an internationally burgeoning understanding
of atmospheric science. By the century's close, thousands
of scientists collaborated to refine global models of climate
change and regional analyses of how rising temperatures
might alter weather patterns, ecosystem dynamics,
agriculture, oceans and ice cover, and human health and
disease.
While no one scientific breakthrough revolutionized
climate change science or popular understanding of the
phenomenon, several key events stand out to chart
developing scientific understanding of global warming. In
1938, Guy S. Callendar provided an early calculation of
warming due to human-introduced carbon dioxide and
contended that this warming was evident already in the
temperature record. Obscured by the onset of World War II
and by a short-term cooling trend that began in the 1940s,
Callendar's analysis received short shrift. Interest in global
warming increased in the 1950s with new techniques for
studying climate, including analysis of ancient pollens,
ocean shells, and new computer models. Using computer
models, in 1956, Gilbert N. Plass attracted greater attention
to the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. The
following year, Roger Revelle and Hans Suess showed that
oceanic absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide would
not be sufficient to delay global warming. They stressed the
magnitude of the phenomenon:
Human beings are now carrying out a large scale
geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have
happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.
Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere
and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in
sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years.
(Cristianson, Greenhouse, pp. 155–156)
At the same time, Charles Keeling began to measure the
precise year-by-year rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide
from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. In 1965, the
President's Scientific Advisory Committee issued the first
U.S. government report that summarized recent climate
research and outlined potential future changes resulting
from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the
melting of the Antarctic ice cap, the rise of sea level, and
the warming of oceans.
By the late 1970s, atmospheric scientists had grown
increasingly confident that the buildup of carbon dioxide,
methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and related gases in the
atmosphere would have a significant, lasting impact on
global climate. Several jointly written government reports
issued during President Jimmy Carter's administration
presented early consensus estimates of global climate
change. These estimates would prove consistent with more
sophisticated models refined in the two decades following.
A 1979 National Research Council report by Jule G.
Charney, Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific
Assessment, declared that "we now have incontrovertible
evidence that the atmosphere is indeed changing and that
we ourselves contribute to that change. Atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide are steadily increasing,
and these changes are linked with man's use of fossil fuels
and exploitation of the land" (p. vii). The Charney report
estimated a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations would probably result in a roughly 3-degree
Celsius rise in temperature, plus or minus 1.5 degrees.
As climate science grew more conclusive, global warming
became an increasingly challenging political problem. In
January 1981, in the closing days of the Carter
administration, the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) published Global Energy Futures and the Carbon
Dioxide Problem. The CEQ report described climate
change as the "ultimate environmental dilemma," which
required collective judgments to be made, either by
decision or default, "largely on the basis of scientific
models that have severe limitations and that few can
understand." The report reviewed available climate models
and predicted that carbon dioxide–related global warming
"should be observable now or sometime within the next
two decades"global warming, the gradual increase of the temperature of the earth's
lower atmosphere as a result of the increase in greenhouse
gases since the Industrial Revolution.
The temperature of the atmosphere near the earth's surface
is warmed through a natural process called the greenhouse
effect. Visible, shortwave light comes from the sun to the
earth, passing unimpeded through a blanket of thermal, or
greenhouse, gases composed largely of water vapor, carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Infrared
radiation reflects off the planet's surface toward space but
does not easily pass through the thermal blanket. Some of it
is trapped and reflected downward, keeping the planet at an
average temperature suitable to life, about 60°F (16°C).
Growth in industry, agriculture, and transportation since the
Industrial Revolution has produced additional quantities of
the natural greenhouse gases plus smaller quantities of
chlorofluorocarbons and other more potent greenhouse
gases, augmenting the thermal blanket. It is generally
accepted that this increase in the quantity of greenhouse
gases is trapping more heat and increasing global
temperatures, making a process that has been beneficial to
life potentially disruptive and harmful. During the 20th
cent., the atmospheric temperature rose 1.1°F (0.6°C), and
sea level rose several inches. Some projected, longer-term
results of global warming include melting of polar ice, with
a resulting rise in sea level and coastal flooding; disruption
of drinking water supplies dependent on snow melts;
profound changes in agriculture due to climate change;
extinction of species as ecological niches disappear; more
frequent tropical storms; and an increased incidence of
tropical diseases.
Among factors that may be contributing to global warming
are the burning of coal and petroleum products (sources of
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone);
deforestation, which increases the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere; methane gas released in animal
waste; and increased cattle production, which contributes to
deforestation, methane production, and use of fossil fuels.
Much of the debate surrounding global warming has
centered on the accuracy of scientific predictions
concerning future warming. To predict global climatic
trends, climatologists accumulate large historical databases
and use them to create computerized models that simulate
the earth's climate. The validity of these models has been a
subject of controversy. Skeptics say that the climate is too
complicated to be accurately modeled, and that there are
too many unknowns. Some also question whether the
observed climate changes might simply represent normal
fluctuations in global temperature. Nonetheless, for some
time there has been general agreement that at least part of
the observed warming is the result of human activity, and
that the problem needs to be addressed. In 1992, at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, over 150 nations signed a binding
declaration on the need to reduce global warming.
In 1994, however, a UN scientific advisory panel, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, concluded
that reductions beyond those envisioned by the treaty
would be needed to avoid global warming. The following
year, the advisory panel forecast a rise in global
temperature of from 1.44 to 6.3°F (0.8-3.5°C) by 2100 if no
action is taken to cut down on the production of greenhouse
gases, and a rise of from 1 to 3.6°F (0.5-2°C) even if action
is taken (because of already released gases that will persist
in the atmosphere). A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, based on a three-year study,
termed global warming "unequivocal" and said that most of
the change was most likely due to human activities.
A UN Conference on Climate Change, held in Kyoto,
Japan, in 1997 resulted in an international agreement to
fight global warming, which called for reductions in
emissions of greenhouse gases by industrialized nations.
Not all industrial countries, however, immediately signed
or ratified the accord. In 2001 the G. W. Bush
administration announced it would abandon the Kyoto
Protocol; because the United States produces about one
quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, this was regarded
as a severe blow to the effort to slow global warming.
Despite the American move, most other nations agreed
later in the year (in Bonn, Germany, and in Marrakech,
Morocco) on the details necessary to convert the agreement
into a binding international treaty, which came into force in
2005 after ratification by more than 125 nations.
In 2002 the Bush administration proposed several voluntary
measures for slowing the increase in, instead of reducing,
emissions of greenhouses gases. The United States,
Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea established
(2005) an agreement outside the Kyoto Protocal that
proposed to reduce emissions through the development and
implementation of new technologies. The Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, as it is
called, involves no commitments on the part of its
members; it held its first meeting in 2006. Also in 2006,
California enacted legislation that called for cutting carbon
dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020; the state is responsible
for nearly 7% of all such emissions in the United States.
In 2007 President George W. Bush called for the world's
major polluting nations to set global and national goals for
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but the
nonbinding nature of the proposed goals provoked
skepticism from nations that favored stronger measures.
The 15th UN Conference on Climate Change, held in
Copenhagen, Denmark, in Dec., 2009, failed to lead to a
legally binding treaty on reducing global greenhouse-gas
emissions. It had been hoped that the meeting would result
in a new protocol that would replace that agreed to at
Kyoto

(p. v). With atmospheric carbon dioxide increasing rapidly,

the CEQ report noted that the world was already
"performing a great planetary experiment" (p. 52).
By the early 1980s, the scientific models of global warming
had established the basic contours of this atmospheric
phenomenon. Federal environmental agencies and scientific
advisory boards had urged action to curb carbon dioxide
emissions dramatically, yet little state, federal, or
international policymaking ensued. Decades-old federal
and state subsidies for fossil fuel production and
consumption remained firmly in place. The federal
government lessened its active public support for energy
efficiency initiatives and alternative energy development.
Falling oil and natural gas prices throughout the decade
further undermined political support for a national energy
policy that would address the problem of global warming.
A complicated intersection of climate science and policy
further hindered effective lawmaking. Scientists urged
political action, but spoke in a measured language that
emphasized probability and uncertainty. Many scientists
resisted entering the political arena, and expressed
skepticism about their colleagues who did. This skepticism
came to a head in reaction to the government scientist
James Hansen's efforts to focus national attention on global
warming during the drought-filled summer of 1988. As
more than 400,000 acres of Yellowstone National Park
burned in a raging fire, Hansen testified to Congress that he
was 99 percent certain that the earth was getting warmer
because of the greenhouse effect. While the testimony
brought significant new political attention in the United
States to the global warming problem, many of Hansen's
scientific colleagues were dismayed by his definitive
assertions. Meanwhile, a small number of skeptical
scientists who emphasized the un-certainty of global
warming and the need to delay policy initiatives fueled
opposition to political action.
In 1988, delegates from nearly fifty nations met in Toronto
and Geneva to address the climate change problem. The
delegates formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), consisting of more than two thousand
scientists from around the world, to assess systematically
global warming science and policy options. The IPCC
issued its first report in 1990, followed by second and third
assessments in 1995 and 2001. Each IPCC report provided
increasingly precise predictions of future warming and the
regional impacts of climate change. Meanwhile, books like
Bill McKibben's The End of Nature (1989) and Senator
Albert Gore Jr.'s Earth in the Balance (1992) focused
popular attention in the United States on global warming.
Yet these developments did not prompt U.S. government
action. With its major industries highly dependent on fossil
fuel consumption, the United States instead helped block
steps to combat climate change at several international
conferences in the late 1980s and 1990s. At the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in
Rio de Janeiro in 1992, U.S. negotiators successfully
thwarted a treaty with mandatory limits on greenhouse gas
emissions. As a result, the Rio conference adopted only
voluntary limits. In 1993, the new administration of Bill
Clinton and Albert Gore Jr. committed itself to returning
United States emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
The administration also attempted to adjust incentives for
energy consumption in its 1993 energy tax bill. Defeated on
the tax bill and cowed when Republicans gained control of
Congress in 1994, however, the Clinton administration
backed away from significant new energy and climate
initiatives.
At the highly charged 1997 United Nations Conference on
Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan, more than 160 countries
approved a protocol that would reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and three
chlorofluorocarbon substitutes. In the United States,
powerful industry opponents to the Kyoto Protocol,
represented by the Global Climate Coalition (an industry
association including Exxon, Mobil, Shell Oil, Ford, and
General Motors, as well as other automobile, mining, steel,
and chemical companies), denounced the protocol's
"unrealistic targets and timetables" and argued instead for
voluntary action and further research. Along with other
opponents, the coalition spent millions of dollars on
television ads criticizing the agreement, focusing on
possible emissions exemptions for developing nations.
Although the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto
Protocol, strong Senate opposition to the agreement
prevented ratification. In 2001, President George W. Bush
withdrew his executive support for the protocol.
Growing Signals of Global Warming

By the end of the 1990s, climate science had grown

increasingly precise and achieved virtual worldwide
scientific consensus on climate change. The 2001 report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded
that global average surface temperature had increased by
0.6 degrees Celsius during the twentieth century, largely
due to greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide
concentrations in the atmosphere had increased by
approximately 30 percent since the late nineteenth century,
rising from 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume to 367
ppm in 1998.
By 2001, signs of global warming were increasingly
widespread. With glaciers around the world melting,
average sea levels rising, and average precipitation
increasing, the 1990s registered as the hottest decade on
record in the past thousand years. Regional models
predicted widespread shifting of ecosystems in the United
States, with alpine ecosystems expected largely to
disappear in the lower forty-eight states while savannas or
grasslands replace desert ecosystems in the Southwest. The
IPCC 2001 report estimated an increase of between 1.4 and
5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, a projected increase in global
temperature very likely "without precedent during at least
the last 10,000 years." Evidence for warming of the climate
system includes observed increases in global average air
and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and
ice, and rising global average sea level.[11][12][13][14][15] The
most common measure of global warming is the trend in
globally averaged temperature near the Earth's surface.
Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by
0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of
warming over the last half of that period was almost double
that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade,
versus 0.07 °C ± 0.02 °C per decade). The urban heat
island effect is estimated to account for about 0.002 °C of
warming per decade since 1900.[16] Temperatures in the
lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and
0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according
to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is
believed to have been relatively stable over the one or two
thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying
fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age.[17]
Estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(GISS) and the National Climatic Data Center show that
2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread
instrumental measurements became available in the late
1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few
hundredths of a degree.[18][19] Estimates prepared by the
World Meteorological Organization and the Climatic
Research Unit show 2005 as the second warmest year,
behind 1998.[20][21] Temperatures in 1998 were unusually
warm because the strongest El Niño in the past century
occurred during that year.[22] Global temperature is subject
to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and
can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in
temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an
episode.[23][24]
Temperature changes vary over the globe. Since 1979, land
temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean
temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per
decade).[25] Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than
land temperatures because of the larger effective heat
capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more
heat by evaporation.[26] The Northern Hemisphere warms
faster than the Southern Hemisphere because it has more
land and because it has extensive areas of seasonal snow
and sea-ice cover subject to ice-albedo feedback. Although
more greenhouse gases are emitted in the Northern than
Southern Hemisphere this does not contribute to the
difference in warming because the major greenhouse gases
persist long enough to mix between hemispheres.[27]
The thermal inertia of the oceans and slow responses of
other indirect effects mean that climate can take centuries
or longer to adjust to changes in forcing. Climate
commitment studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases
were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further warming of about
0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.[28]
External forcings
External forcing refers to processes external to the climate
system (though not necessarily external to Earth) that
influence climate. Climate responds to several types of
external forcing, such as radiative forcing due to changes in
atmospheric composition (mainly greenhouse gas
concentrations), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic
eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.[29]
Attribution of recent climate change focuses on the first
three types of forcing. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens
of thousands of years and thus are too gradual to have
caused the temperature changes observed in the past
century.
External forcings
External forcing refers to processes external to the climate
system (though not necessarily external to Earth) that
influence climate. Climate responds to several types of
external forcing, such as radiative forcing due to changes in
atmospheric composition (mainly greenhouse gas
concentrations), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic
eruptions, and variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.[29]
Attribution of recent climate change focuses on the first
three types of forcing. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens
of thousands of years and thus are too gradual to have
caused the temperature changes observed in the past
century. Main articles: Greenhouse effect, Radiative
forcing, and Atmospheric CO2

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows

between space, the atmosphere, and earth's surface. Energy
exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).

Recent atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases.

Monthly CO2 measurements display seasonal oscillations in
overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum occurs during
the Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during
its growing season as plants remove some atmospheric
CO2.
The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption
and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the
atmosphere are purported to warm a planet's lower
atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier
in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante
Arrhenius in 1896.[30] The question in terms of global
warming is how the strength of the presumed greenhouse
effect changes when human activity increases the
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean
warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[31][C] The major
greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–
70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2),
which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes
4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[32]
[33][34]
Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are
composed of liquid water or ice and so have different
effects on radiation from water vapor.
Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has
increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from
CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide.
The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by
36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[35] These levels are
much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years,
the period for which reliable data has been extracted from
ice cores.[36][37][38] Less direct geological evidence indicates
that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20
million years ago.[39] Fossil fuel burning has produced about
three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity
over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use
change, particularly deforestation.[40]
CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of
fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] Estimates of changes
in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been
made, and are called "emissions scenarios." The future
level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic,
sociological, technological, and natural developments.[43] In
most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century,
while in a few, emissions are reduced.[44][45] These emission
scenarios, combined with carbon cycle modelling, have
been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the
future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios,
models suggest that by the year 2100, the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970
ppm.[46] This is an increase of 90-250% above the
concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are
sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past
2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively
exploited.[47]
The destruction of stratospheric ozone by
chlorofluorocarbons is sometimes mentioned in relation to
global warming. Although there are a few areas of linkage,
the relationship between the two is not strong. Reduction of
stratospheric ozone has a cooling influence, but substantial
ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.[48] Ozone
in the troposphere (the lowest part of the Earth's
atmosphere) does contribute to surface warming.[49]
Aerosols and soot

Ship tracks over the Atlantic Ocean on the east coast of the
United States. The climatic impacts from aerosol forcing
could have a large effect on climate through the indirect
effect.
Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of
global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, has partially
counteracted global warming from 1960 to the present.[50]
The main cause of this dimming is aerosols produced by
volcanoes and pollutants. These aerosols exert a cooling
effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight.
The effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2
and aerosols—have largely offset one another in recent
decades, so that net warming has been due to the increase
in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane.[51]
In addition to their direct effect by scattering and absorbing
solar radiation, aerosols have indirect effects on the
radiation budget.[52] Sulfate aerosols act as cloud
condensation nuclei and thus lead to clouds that have more
and smaller cloud droplets. These clouds reflect solar
radiation more efficiently than clouds with fewer and larger
droplets.[53] This effect also causes droplets to be of more
uniform size, which reduces growth of raindrops and makes
the cloud more reflective to incoming sunlight.[54] Indirect
effects are most noticeable in marine stratiform clouds, and
have very little radiative effect on convective clouds.
Soot may cool or warm the surface, depending on whether
it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols
directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere
and cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot
production, such as rural India, as much as 50% of surface
warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by
atmospheric brown clouds.[55] Atmospheric soot always
contributes additional warming to the climate system.
When deposited, especially on glaciers or on ice in arctic
regions, the lower surface albedo can also directly heat the
surface.[56] The influences of aerosols, including black
carbon, are most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics,
particularly in Asia, while the effects of greenhouse gases
are dominant in the extratropics and southern hemisphere.
[57]

Solar variation
Main article: Solar variation
Solar variation over the last thirty years.
Variations in solar output have been the cause of past
climate changes.[58] The consensus among climate scientists
is that changes in solar forcing probably had a slight
cooling effect in recent decades. This result is less certain
than some others, with a few papers suggesting a warming
effect.[29][59][60][61]
Greenhouse gases and solar forcing affect temperatures in
different ways. While both increased solar activity and
increased greenhouse gases are expected to warm the
troposphere, an increase in solar activity should warm the
stratosphere while an increase in greenhouse gases should
cool the stratosphere.[29] Observations show that
temperatures in the stratosphere have been cooling since
1979, when satellite measurements became available.
Radiosonde (weather balloon) data from the pre-satellite
era show cooling since 1958, though there is greater
uncertainty in the early radiosonde record.[62]
A related hypothesis, proposed by Henrik Svensmark, is
that magnetic activity of the sun deflects cosmic rays that
may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei
and thereby affect the climate.[63] Other research has found
no relation between warming in recent decades and cosmic
rays.[64][65] A recent study concluded that the influence of
cosmic rays on cloud cover is about a factor of 100 lower
than needed to explain the observed changes in clouds or to
be a significant contributor to present-day climate change.[66]

Feedback is a process in which changing one quantity

changes a second quantity, and the change in the second
quantity in turn changes the first. Positive feedback
amplifies the change in the first quantity while negative
feedback reduces it. Feedback is important in the study of
global warming because it may amplify or diminish the
effect of a particular process. The main positive feedback in
global warming is the tendency of warming to increase the
amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, a significant
greenhouse gas. The main negative feedback is radiative
cooling, which increases as the fourth power of
temperature; the amount of heat radiated from the Earth
into space increases with the temperature of Earth's surface
and atmosphere. Imperfect understanding of feedbacks is a
major cause of uncertainty and concern about global
warming.
Climate models
Main article: Global climate model

Calculations of global warming prepared in or before 2001

from a range of climate models under the SRES A2
emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to
reduce emissions and regionally divided economic
development.
The geographic distribution of surface warming during the
21st century calculated by the HadCM3 climate model if a
business as usual scenario is assumed for economic growth
and greenhouse gas emissions. In this figure, the globally
averaged warming corresponds to 3.0 °C (5.4 °F).
The main tools for projecting future climate changes are
mathematical models based on physical principles
including fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and radiative
transfer. Although they attempt to include as many
processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate
system are inevitable because of the constraints of available
computer power and limitations in knowledge of the
climate system. All modern climate models are in fact
combinations of models for different parts of the Earth.
These include an atmospheric model for air movement,
temperature, clouds, and other atmospheric properties; an
ocean model that predicts temperature, salt content, and
circulation of ocean waters; models for ice cover on land
and sea; and a model of heat and moisture transfer from
soil and vegetation to the atmosphere. Some models also
include treatments of chemical and biological processes.[67]
Warming due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases is
not an assumption of the models; rather, it is an end result
from the interaction of greenhouse gases with radiative
transfer and other physical processes.[68] Although much of
the variation in model outcomes depends on the greenhouse
gas emissions used as inputs, the temperature effect of a
specific greenhouse gas concentration (climate sensitivity)
varies depending on the model used. The representation of
clouds is one of the main sources of uncertainty in present-
generation models.[69]
Global climate model projections of future climate most
often have used estimates of greenhouse gas emissions
from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
(SRES). In addition to human-caused emissions, some
models also include a simulation of the carbon cycle; this
generally shows a positive feedback, though this response
is uncertain. Some observational studies also show a
positive feedback.[70][71][72] Including uncertainties in future
greenhouse gas concentrations and climate sensitivity, the
IPCC anticipates a warming of 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to
11.5 °F) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980–
1999.[2]
Models are also used to help investigate the causes of
recent climate change by comparing the observed changes
to those that the models project from various natural and
human-derived causes. Although these models do not
unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from
approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or
human effects, they do indicate that the warming since
1970 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
[29]
The physical realism of models is tested by examining their
ability to simulate current or past climates.[73] Current
climate models produce a good match to observations of
global temperature changes over the last century, but do not
simulate all aspects of climate.[40] Not all effects of global
warming are accurately predicted by the climate models
used by the IPCC. For example, observed Arctic shrinkage
has been faster than that predicted.[74]
Attributed and expected effects
Main articles: Effects of global warming and Regional
effects of global warming
Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or
social systems as a change having statistical significance.[75]
Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human
activities, is the next step following detection.[76]
Natural systems

Sparse records indicate that glaciers have been retreating

since the early 1800s. In the 1950s measurements began
that allow the monitoring of glacial mass balance, reported
to the WGMS and the NSIDC.
Global warming has been detected in a number of systems.
Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental
temperature record, have been described in the section on
temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed
decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with
warming.[15] Most of the increase in global average
temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high
probability,[D] atttributable to human-induced changes in
greenhouse gas concentrations.[77]
Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global
emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the
coming decades.[78] Over the course of the 21st century,
increases in emissions at or above their current rate would
very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than
those observed in the 20th century.
In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of
future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea
level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-
2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m.
These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due
to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper
bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries
to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea
level rise of 4–6 m or more.[79]
Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater
warming over land, with most warming at high northern
latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and
parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.[78] Snow cover area and
sea ice extent are expected to decrease. The frequency of
hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will very
likely increase.
Ecological systems

In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events,

and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges,
have been linked with high confidence to recent warming.
[15]
Future climate change is expected to particularly affect
certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral
reefs.[78] It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected
by higher atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher
global temperatures.[80] Overall, it is expected that climate
change will result in the extinction of many species and
reduced diversity of ecosystems.[81]
Social systems

There is some evidence of regional climate change

affecting systems related to human activities, including
agricultural and forestry management activities at higher
latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.[15] Future climate
change is expected to particularly affect some sectors and
systems related to human activities.[78] Water resources may
be stressed in some dry regions at mid-latitudes, the dry
tropics, and areas that depend on snow and ice melt.
Reduced water availability may affect agriculture in low
latitudes. Low-lying coastal systems are vulnerable to sea
level rise and storm surge. Human health in populations
with limited capacity to adapt to climate change. It is
expected that some regions will be particularly affected by
climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands,
and Asian and African megadeltas. Some people, such as
the poor, young children, and the elderly, are particularly at
risk, even in high-income areas.
Responses to global warming

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to

mitigation. Emissions may be sequestered from fossil fuel
power plants, or removed during processing in hydrogen
production. When used on plants, it is known as bio-energy
with carbon capture and storage.
Reducing the amount of future climate change is called
mitigation of climate change. The IPCC defines mitigation
as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs
from the atmosphere.[82] Many countries, both developing
and developed, are aiming to use cleaner, less polluting,
technologies.[83] Use of these technologies aids mitigation
and could result in substantial reductions in CO2 emissions.
Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased
use of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency.
Studies indicate substantial potential for future reductions
in emissions.[84]
Other policy responses include adaptation to climate
change. Adaptation to climate change may be planned, e.g.,
by local or national government, or spontaneous, i.e., done
privately without government intervention.[85] The ability to
adapt (called "adaptive capacity") is closely linked to social
and economic development.[84] Even societies with high
capacities to adapt are still vulnerable to climate change.
Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis.
The barriers, limits, and costs of future adaptation are not
fully understood.
Another policy response is engineering of the climate
(geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes
grouped together with mitigation.[86] Geoengineering is
largely unproven, and reliable cost estimates for it have not
yet been published.[87]
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[88]
The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent
"dangerous" human interference of the climate system.[89]
As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHGs are
stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems
can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is
not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a
sustainable fashion.
The UNFCCC recognizes differences among countries in
their responsibility to act on climate change.[90] In the
Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, most developed countries
(listed in Annex I of the treaty) took on legally binding
commitments to reduce their emissions.[91] Policy measures
taken in response to these commitments have reduced
emissions.[92] For many developing (non-Annex I)
countries, reducing poverty is their overriding aim.[93]
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in
2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced
the Copenhagen Accord.[94] Parties agreeing with the
Accord aim to limit the future increase in global mean
temperature to below 2 °C.[95]
Views on global warming
Main articles: Global warming controversy and Politics of
global warming
See also: Scientific opinion on climate change, Climate
change consensus, and Climate change controversy

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, including

land-use change.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, including land-use

change.
There are different views over what the appropriate policy
response to climate change should be.[96][97] These
competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions
of greenhouse gases against the costs. In general, it seems
likely that climate change will impose greater damages and
risks in poorer regions.[98]

Developing and developed countries have made different

arguments over who should bear the burden of costs for
cutting emissions. Developing countries often concentrate
on per capita emissions, that is, the total emissions of a
country divided by its population.[99] Per capita emissions in
the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten
times the average in developing countries.[100] This is used
to make the argument that the real problem of climate
change is due to the profligate and unsustainable lifestyles
of those living in rich countries.[99] On the other hand,
commentators from developed countries more often point
out that it is total emissions that matter.[99] In 2008,
developing countries made up around half of the world's
total emissions of CO2 from cement production and fossil
fuel use.[101]
The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets
legally binding emission limitations for most developed
countries.[91] Developing countries are not subject to
limitations. This exemption led the U.S. (under President
George W. Bush) and a previous Australian Government to
decide not to ratify the treaty.[102][103] At the time, almost all
world leaders expressed their disappointment over
President Bush's decision.[103] Australia has since ratified
the Kyoto protocol.[104]
In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a
third of the world's population was unaware of global
warming, with people in developing countries less aware
than those in developed, and those in Africa the least
aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that
temperature changes are a result of human activities while
Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few
countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the
opposite belief.[105] In the Western world, opinions over the
concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick
Pidgeon of Cardiff University finds that "results show the
different stages of engagement[clarification needed] about global
warming on each side of the Atlantic"; where Europe
debates the appropriate responses while the United States
debates whether climate change is happening.[106][107][vague]
[dubious – discuss]

Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to

observed climate change.[41][108] National science academies
have called on world leaders for policies to cut global
emissions.[109] There are, however, some scientists and non-
scientists who question aspects of climate change science.
[110][111]

Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive

Enterprise Institute, conservative commentators, and
companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC
climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree
with the scientific consensus, and provided their own
projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[112][113]
[114][115]
Environmental organizations and public figures have
emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks
they entail, while promoting adaptation to changes in
infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[116] Some
fossil fuel companies have scaled back their efforts in
recent years,[117] or called for policies to reduce global