what is global warming?

Answer 1

The latest environmental craze. In the 1970's it was global cooling. The people who want an end of modern life, and control over other human beings have come up with a scary theory to justify such measures. This theory is: if we don't do what they say, we will all die.

Answer 2

Global warming is not a misnomer. The correct term for what is happening in th environment is "global warming" or better yet "man made global warming". The term "climate change" was popularized by the right by Frank Luntz while working in the interests of the oil companies and Republican party.
I'd wonder if Bob G has any sources for the information he presents here.

Answer 3

A misnomer. Climate change is the correct term. Historically the climate has been changing for 4 billion years or so. Recently there has been a widely pushed theory that humans are causing the globe to warm more rapidly. Despite a lack of solid scientific proof this theory has been widely pushed and panic has ensued. Recent evidence seems to indicate that the globe is actually cooler than average. However, the people pushing the global warming theory are unwilling to recognize any fact that contradicts their excuse for employment and have not added that data into their claims.

Answer 4

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 ° Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 ° Fahrenheit) in the 20th century.[1]

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".[2] The largest contributing source of greenhouse gas is the burning of fossil fuels.[2] Greenhouse gases are gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. This effect was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and was first investigated quantitatively in 1896 by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.[3]

An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause other changes, such as a rising sea level due to thermal expansion of the ocean in addition to melting of land ice. Changes are also expected in the amount and pattern of precipitation. The total annual power of hurricanes has increased markedly since the mid-1970's because their average intensity and duration have increased (in addition, there has been a high correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature)[1][4]. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may also increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of other extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and tornadoes. Other consequences may include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years.[5]

World net carbon-emission rates would need to be reduced approximately 60%–80% by 2050 to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 1°C above present. A 1°C rise would likely raise sea levels by no more than approximately 5 meters (16 feet) over the next 200 to 2000 years, whereas a 3°C rise would likely raise sea levels by 25 ± 10 meters (82 ± 33 feet)[2] ([3]Section 6.1.1).

Only a small minority of climate scientists disagree that humanity's actions have played a major role in recent warming. There is more significant uncertainty regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future. There is a hotly contested political and public debate regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be done cost-effectively to reduce or reverse future warming or to deal with the expected consequences. Options include renewable energy, energy conservation, carbon offsets, voluntary population stabilization, and carbon capture and storage.

Rent out "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore.

Answer 5

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 ° Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 ° Fahrenheit) in the 20th century.[1]

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".[2] The largest contributing source of greenhouse gas is the burning of fossil fuels.[2] Greenhouse gases are gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. This effect was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and was first investigated quantitatively in 1896 by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.[3]

An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause rising sea levels due to thermal expansion of the ocean in addition to melting of land ice. Changes are also expected in the amount and pattern of precipitation. The total annual power of hurricanes has increased markedly since the mid-1970's because their average intensity and duration have increased (in addition, there has been a high correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature)[1][4]. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns are likely to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of other extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and tornadoes. Other consequences may include higher or lower agricultural yields, further glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years.[5]

World net carbon-emission rates would need to be reduced approximately 60%–80% by 2050 to keep global temperatures within 1°C above present[2] [3]. A 1°C rise would likely raise sea levels by no more than approximately 5 meters (16 feet) over the next 200 to 2000 years. A projection of current trends—as represented by IPPC scenarios A1B or A2—gives temperatures 3°C above present by the year 2100 or soon afterwards[6]. A 3°C rise would likely raise sea levels by 25 ± 10 meters (82 ± 33 feet) ([4]Section 6.1.1).

Only a small minority of climate scientists disagree that humanity's actions have played a major role in recent warming. There is more significant uncertainty regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future. There is a hotly contested political and public debate regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be done cost-effectively to reduce or reverse future warming or to deal with the expected consequences. Options include renewable energy, energy conservation, carbon offsets, voluntary population stabilization, and carbon capture and storage.

You could get more information from the link below...

Answer 6

Every few thousand years, Atlas takes a break and smokes a cig. The smoke gets trapped on earth and the heat from the cigarette stays on earth instead of dissipating to the great byond. Because of this the world gets hotter, my house in Atlanta becomes beach front property and we all get to swim in December.

Answer 7

The cockles of my heart.

Answer 8

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 ° Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 ° Fahrenheit) in the 20th century.[1]

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".[2] The largest contributing source of greenhouse gas is the burning of fossil fuels.[2] Greenhouse gases are gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. This effect was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and was first investigated quantitatively in 1896 by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.[3]

An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause other changes, such as a rising sea level due to thermal expansion of the ocean in addition to melting of land ice. Changes are also expected in the amount and pattern of precipitation. The total annual power of hurricanes has increased markedly since the mid-1970's because their average intensity and duration have increased (in addition, there has been a high correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature)[1][4]. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may also increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of other extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and tornadoes. Other consequences may include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years.[5]

World net carbon-emission rates would need to be reduced approximately 60%–80% by 2050 to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 1°C above present. A 1°C rise would likely raise sea levels by no more than approximately 5 meters (16 feet) over the next 200 to 2000 years, whereas a 3°C rise would likely raise sea levels by 25 ± 10 meters (82 ± 33 feet)[2] ([3]Section 6.1.1).

Only a small minority of climate scientists disagree that humanity's actions have played a major role in recent warming. There is more significant uncertainty regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future. There is a hotly contested political and public debate regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be done cost-effectively to reduce or reverse future warming or to deal with the expected consequences. Options include renewable energy, energy conservation, carbon offsets, voluntary population stabilization, and carbon capture and storage.
Terminology
The term "global warming" is a specific case of the more general term "climate change" (which can also refer to "global cooling," such as occurs during ice ages). In principle, "global warming" is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage, "global warming" generally implies a human influence. However, the UNFCCC uses "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.[6] Some organizations use the term "anthropogenic climate change" for human-induced changes. Also, "global warming" may refer to both the observed and the predicted warming.


Historical warming of the Earth
See also: Temperature record of the past 1000 years

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The unsmoothed, annual value for 2004 is also plotted for reference.Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade (Smith, 2005). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Over the one or two thousand years before 1850, world temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the UK Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was still only the second warmest year, behind 1998.[7][8]

Depending on the time frame, a number of temperature records are available based on different data sets. The longest perspective is available from various proxy records for recent millennia; see temperature record of the past 1000 years for a discussion of these records and their differences. An approximately global instrumental record of temperature near the earth's surface begins in about 1860. Global observations of the atmosphere well above the earth's surface using data from radiosondes began shortly after World War II. Satellite temperature measurements of the tropospheric temperature date from 1979. The attribution of recent climate change is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available.


Causes
Main articles: Attribution of recent climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change

Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year ice age cycle.The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including solar activity, volcanic emissions, and greenhouse gases. Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently. The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. Outside of the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial.

Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors.

One example of an important feedback process is ice-albedo feedback. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface and leads to melting of ice near the poles. As the ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are less reflective than ice, and so absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and the cycle continues.

Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed by increased greenhouse gases. Climate commitment studies indicate that, even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C (0.9–1.8 °F) would still occur.


Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Plots of atmospheric Carbon dioxide and global temperature during the last 650,000 years.Greenhouse gases are transparent to shortwave radiation from the sun, the main source of heat on the Earth. However, they absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, thereby reducing radiational cooling and hence raising the temperature of the Earth. How much they warm the world by is shown in their global warming potential.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that carbon dioxide values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation.[9]

The longest continuous instrumental measurement of carbon dioxide mixing ratios began in 1958 at Mauna Loa. Since then, the annually averaged value has increased monotonically by approximately 21% from the initial reading of 315 ppmv, as shown by the Keeling curve, to over 380 ppmv in 2006.[10][11] The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the northern hemisphere's late spring and declines during the northern hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.

Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, enters the atmosphere both from biological production and leaks from natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Some biological sources are natural, such as termites or forests,[12][13][14] but others have been increased or created by agricultural activities such as the cultivation of rice paddies.[15] Recent evidence indicates that methane concentrations have begun to stabilize, perhaps due to reductions in leakage from fuel transmission and storage facilities.[16]

Future carbon dioxide levels are expected to continue rising due to ongoing fossil fuel usage, though the actual trajectory will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future carbon dioxide scenarios,[17] ranging from 541 to 970 parts per million by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100, if coal and tar sands are extensively used.

Carbon sink ecosystems (forests and oceans[18]) are being degraded by pollutants.[19] Degradation of major carbon sinks results in higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.


Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases broken down by sector for the year 2000.Globally, the majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions arise from fuel combustion. The remainder is accounted for largely by "fugitive fuel" (fuel consumed in the production and transport of fuel), emissions from industrial processes (excluding fuel combustion), and agriculture: these contributed 5.8%, 5.2% and 3.3% respectively in 1990. Current figures are broadly comparable.[20] Around 17% of emissions are accounted for by the combustion of fuel for the generation of electricity. A small percentage of emissions come from natural and anthropogenic biological sources, with approximately 6.3% derived from agriculturally produced methane and nitrous oxide.

Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium response to increased GHGs and other anthropogenic and natural climate forcings. It is found by observational[21] and model studies. This sensitivity is usually expressed in terms of the temperature response expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, which, according to the 2001 IPCC report, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) (with a statistical likelihood of 66-90%).[22] This should not be confused with the expected temperature change by a given date, which also includes a dependence on the future GHG emissions and a delayed response due to thermal lag, principally from the oceans. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using a range of SRES scenarios, project that global temperatures will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.

Positive feedback effects, such as the expected release of methane from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes), may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions.[23] Note that the anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—exert a cooling effect; this partially accounts for the plateau/cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[24] though this may also be due to intervening natural cycles.


Other hypotheses
The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[4]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change". This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view — the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis. [5] [6]

Contrasting with the consensus view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures. Some of these hypotheses (listed here without comment on their validity or lack thereof) include:

The warming is within the range of natural variation.
The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age.
The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar irradiance, possibly via modulation of cloud cover [7]. It is similar in concept to the operating principles of the Wilson cloud chamber, but on a global scale where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber and the cosmic rays catalyze the production of cloud condensation nuclei.
The observed warming actually reflects the Urban Heat Island, as most readings are done in heavily populated areas which are expanding with growing population [8].

The solar variation theory

30 years of solar variability.Main article: Solar variation theory
Modeling studies reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) did not find that changes in solar forcing were needed in order to explain the climate record for the last four or five decades [9]. These studies found that volcanic and solar forcings may account for half of the temperature variations prior to 1950, but the net effect of such natural forcings has been roughly neutral since then [10]. In particular, the change in climate forcing from greenhouse gases since 1750 was estimated to be eight times larger than the change in forcing due to increasing solar activity over the same period [11].

Since the TAR, some studies (Lean et al., 2002, Wang et al., 2005) have suggested that changes in irradiance since pre-industrial times are less by a factor of 3 to 4 than in the reconstructions used in the TAR (e.g. Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, Lean, 2000.). Other researchers (e.g. Stott et al. 2003 [12]) believe that the effect of solar forcing is being underestimated and propose that solar forcing accounts for 16% or 36% of recent greenhouse warming. Others (e.g. Marsh and Svensmark 2000 [13]) have proposed that feedback from clouds or other processes enhance the direct effect of solar variation, which if true would also suggest that the effect of solar variability was being underestimated. In general the level of scientific understanding of the contribution of variations in solar irradiance to historical climate changes is "very low" [14].

The present level of solar activity is historically high. Solanki et al. (2004) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years [15]. Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. In addition, researchers at Duke University (2005) have found that 10–30% of the warming over the last two decades may be due to increased solar output [16]. In a review of existing literature, Foukal et al. (2006) determined both that the variations in solar output were too small to have contributed appreciably to global warming since the mid-1970s and that there was no evidence of a net increase in brightness during this period. [17]


Expected effects
Main article: Effects of global warming
The expected effects of global warming are many and various, both for the environment and for human life. These effects include sea level rise, repercussions to agriculture, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and the spread of disease. In some cases, the effects may already be manifest, although it is difficult to attribute specific incidents of natural phenomena to long-term global warming. Since the mid-1970s, the total annual power of hurricanes has increased markedly because their average intensity and duration have increased; in addition, there has been a high correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature[18][25]. In spite of such strong evidence, the relationship between global warming and hurricanes is still being debated. [19][20] A draft statement by the World Meteorological Organization acknowledges the differing viewpoints on this issue [21].

The extent and probability of these consequences is a matter of considerable uncertainty. A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report of the IPCC Working Group II [22]. Some scientists have concluded global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heat waves and other extreme weather events. (Reuters, February 9, 2006; archived)


Effects on ecosystems
Both primary and secondary effects of global warming — such as higher temperatures, lessened snow cover, rising sea levels and weather changes — may influence not only human activities, but also ecosystems. Some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish. Similarly, changes in timing of life patterns, such as annual migration dates, may alter regional predator-prey balance. The effect of advanced spring arrival dates in Scandinavia on birds that over winter in sub-Saharan Africa has been ascribed to evolutionary adaptation of the species to climatic warming [23].

Ocean pH is lowering as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels. Lowering of ocean pH, along with changing water temperature and ocean depth will have a damaging effect on coral reefs.

Another suggested mechanism whereby a warming trend may be amplified involves the thawing of tundra, which can release significant amounts of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, which is trapped in permafrost and ice clathrate compounds [24].

There are also ecological effects of melting polar ice: for example, polar bears use sea ice to reach their prey and they must swim to another ice floe when one breaks up. Ice is now becoming further separated and dead polar bears have been found in the water, believed to have drowned[25]. More recently, some scientists have suggested that the observed cannibalistic behavior in polar bears may be the result of food shortages brought on by global warming (Amstrup et al. 2006).


Effect on glaciers

Global glacial mass balance in the last fifty years, reported to the WGMS and the NSIDC. The increased downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.Global warming has led to negative glacier mass balance, causing glacier retreat around the world. Oerlemans (2005) showed a net decline in 142 of the 144 mountain glaciers with records from 1900 to 1980. Since 1980 global glacier retreat has increased significantly. Similarly, Dyurgerov and Meier (2005) averaged glacier data across large-scale regions (e.g. Europe) and found that every region had a net decline from 1960 to 2002, though a few local regions (e.g. Scandinavia) have shown increases. Some glaciers that are in disequilibrium with present climate have already disappeared [26] and increasing temperatures are expected to cause continued retreat in the majority of alpine glaciers around the world. Upwards of 90% of glaciers reported to the World Glacier Monitoring Service have retreated since 1995 [27].

Of particular concern is the potential for failure of the Hindu Kush and Himalayan glacial melts. The melt of these glaciers is a large and reliable source of water for China, India, and much of Asia, and these waters form a principal dry-season water source. Increased melting would cause greater flow for several decades, after which "some areas of the most populated region on Earth are likely to 'run out of water'" (T. P. Barnett, J. C. Adam and D. P. Lettenmaier 2005) [28]


Miniature rock glaciers
Rock glaciers — caches of ice under boulders — are among other water signs such as drying meadows and warming lakes that scientists are studying in the Sierras in the western United States [29]. Connie Millar searches for the rock glaciers in the Yosemite area of the Sierra crest. She hypothesizes that rock glaciers will be predictors of how ecosystems change with rising temperatures. Millar is leading an effort (the Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains [30]) to co-ordinate the work of many scientists to see how the pieces of the Global Warming puzzle may fit.


Destabilization of ocean currents
Main article: Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
There is also some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift.


Sea level rise and environmental refugees

The termini of the glaciers in the Bhutan-Himalaya. Glacial lakes have been rapidly forming on the surface of the debris-covered glaciers in this region during the last few decades. According to USGS researchers, glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces. The researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacier retreat.Rising global temperatures will melt glaciers and expand the water of the seas through the mechanism of thermal expansion, leading to sea level rise. Even a relatively small rise in sea level would make some densely settled coastal plains uninhabitable and create a significant refugee problem. If the sea level were to rise in excess of 4 meters (13 ft) almost every coastal city in the world would be severely affected, with the potential for major damage to world-wide trade and economy. Presently, the IPCC predicts sea level rise is most probable to be just short of half a metre, and at least between 9 and 88 cm through 2100 [31] - but they also warn that global warming during that time may lead to irreversible changes in the Earth's glacial system and ultimately melt enough ice to raise sea level many meters over the next millennia. It is estimated that around 200 million people could be affected by sea level rise, especially in Vietnam, Bangladesh, China, India, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria and Egypt.

An example of the ambiguity of the concept of environmental refugees is the emigration from the island nation of Tuvalu, which has an average elevation of approximately one meter above sea level. Tuvalu already has an ad hoc agreement with New Zealand to allow phased relocation [32] and many residents have been leaving the islands. However, it is far from clear that rising sea levels from global warming are a substantial factor - best estimates are that sea level has been rising there at approximately 1–2 millimeters per year (~1/16th in/yr), but that shorter timescale factors—ENSO, or tides—have far larger temporary effects [33] [34] [35] [36].


Spread of disease
One of the largest known outbreaks of Vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis has been attributed to generally rising ocean temperature where infected oysters were harvested in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 2005. Before this, the northernmost reported risk of such infection was in British Columbia, 1000 km to the south (McLaughlin JB, et al.).

Global warming may extend the range of vectors conveying infectious diseases such as malaria. A warmer environment boosts the reproduction rate of mosquitoes and the number of blood meals they take, prolongs their breeding season, and shortens the maturation period for the microbes they disperse [37]. Global warming has been implicated in the recent spread to the north Mediterranean region of bluetongue disease in domesticated ruminants associated with mite bites (Purse, 2005). Hantavirus infection, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, tularemia and rabies increased in wide areas of Russia during 2004–2005. This was associated with a population explosion of rodents and their predators but may be partially blamed on breakdowns in governmental vaccination and rodent control programs.[38] Similarly, despite the disappearance of malaria in most temperate regions, the indigenous mosquitoes that transmitted it were never eliminated and remain common in some areas. Thus, although temperature is important in the transmission dynamics of malaria, many other factors are influential [39].


Financial effects
Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study (UNEP summary) that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade. These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, taxpayers, and industry alike.

According to the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. According to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%.

The United Nations' Environmental Program recently announced that severe weather around the world has made 2005 the most costly year on record [40]. Although there is "no way to prove that [a given hurricane] either was, or was not, affected by global warming" [41], global warming is thought to increase the probability of hurricanes emerging. Preliminary estimates presented by the German insurance foundation Munich Re put the economic losses at more than US$200 billion, with insured losses running at more than US$70 billion.

Nicholas Stern in the Stern Review has warned that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP [42]. Stern’s report[26] suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The report has had significant political effects: Australia reported two days after the report was released that they would allott AU$60 million to projects to help cut greenhouse gas emissions[43]. Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous"[44].


Biomass production
The creation of biomass by plants is influenced by the availability of water, nutrients, and carbon dioxide. Part of this biomass is used (directly or indirectly) as the energy source for nearly all other life forms, including feed-stock for domestic animals, and fruits and grains for human consumption. It also includes timber for construction purposes.

While it's thought that an increase in carbon dioxide levels should speed up plant growth, which would slow down the effects of global warming, a new study has found the opposite to be true. Scientists at Stanford have found that "elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil." [45]. A rising temperature can also increase the growing season in colder regions. It is sometimes argued that these effects can create a greener, richer planet, with more available biomass. However, there are many other factors involved, and it is currently unclear if plants really benefit from global warming. Plant growth can be limited by a number of factors, including soil fertility, water, temperature, and carbon dioxide concentration. Ocean plants (phytoplankton) are actually harmed by global warming, presumably with negative impact on ocean ecosystems [46].

IPCC models currently predict a possible modest increase in plant productivity. However, there are several negative ramifications: decreases in productivity may occur at above-optimal temperatures; greater variation in temperature is likely to decrease wheat yields; in experiments, grain and forage quality declines if CO2 and temperature are increased; and the reductions in soil moisture in summer, which are likely to occur, would have a negative effect on productivity. [47]

Satellite data show that the productivity of the northern hemisphere did indeed increase from 1982 to 1991 [48]. However, more recent studies [49][50] found that from 1991 to 2002, widespread droughts had actually caused a decrease in summer photosynthesis in the mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere.


NOAA projects that by the 2050s, there will only be 54% of the volume of sea ice there was in the 1950s.
Opening up of the Northwest Passage in summer
Melting Arctic ice may open the Northwest Passage in summer in approximately ten years, which would cut 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km) from shipping routes between Europe and Asia. This would be of particular relevance for supertankers that are too big to fit through the Suez Canal and currently have to go around the southern tip of Africa. According to the Canadian Ice Service, the amount of ice in Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago decreased by 15% between 1969 and 2004 [51][52]. A similar opening is possible in the Arctic north of Siberia, allowing much faster East Asian to Europe transport.

Adverse effects of the melting of ice include a potential increase in the rate of global warming, since ice reflects 90% of solar heat, while open water absorbs 90% [53].


The Greenlandic ice-cap has shrunk noticeably since 1978.
Further global warming (positive feedback)
Some effects of global warming themselves contribute directly to further global warming, in a vicious circle, the nature of which may be difficult to predict in advance.

Wikinews has news related to:
Scientists warn thawing Siberia may trigger global meltdownThe melting of permafrost and ice caps appears to be causing the release of large amounts of additional carbon dioxide or methane from decaying vegetation trapped beneath [54] [55] [56]. In addition, methane clathrate deposits on the ocean floor might release more methane (the clathrate gun hypothesis).
There have been predictions, and some evidence, that global warming might cause loss of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems, leading to an increase of atmospheric CO2 levels [57] [58]
Melting could also lead to increased heat absorption because ice reflects more solar radiation (i.e., it has higher albedo) than land or water. Because sea ice and seasonal snow cover are more reflective than the underlying sea, any meltback may lead to further warming.
Warmer temperatures in the oceans reduce the productivity (growth) of ocean phytoplankton (algae). This is expected to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide taken up by photosynthesis in the ocean [59][60], which would again increase the effects of anthropogenic CO2 releases on the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence increase the greenhouse effect. This is a concern because ocean photosynthesis is as large a part of the planet's overall carbon balance as land photosynthesis.

Mitigation
Main articles: Mitigation of global warming and adaptation to global warming

The Energy Information Administration predicts world energy and fossil fuel usage will rise in the next decades.The likelihood that global temperatures will continue to significantly increase has led to proposals to mitigate global warming. Mitigation covers all actions aimed at reducing the negative effects or the likelihood of global warming.

There are five categories of actions that can be taken to mitigate global warming:

Reduction of energy use (conservation)
Shifting from carbon-based fossil fuels to alternative energy sources
Carbon capture and storage
Carbon sequestration
Planetary engineering to cool the earth, including screening out sunlight and increasing the reflectivity of the earth.
Strategies for mitigation of global warming include development of new technologies; carbon offsets; renewable energy such as biodiesel, wind power, and solar power; nuclear power; electric or hybrid automobiles; fuel cells; energy conservation; carbon taxes; enhancing natural carbon dioxide sinks; population control; and carbon capture and storage. Many environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often aimed at the consumer, and there has been business action on climate change.

The world's primary international agreement on combating climate change is the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

Although the governments of 163 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol, (notably excluding the United States and Australia), there is a growing debate about how effective the Kyoto protocol has been. Some politicians, including President of the United States George W. Bush [61], Prime Minister of Australia John Howard [62] had argued that the cost of mitigating global warming via the Kyoto protocol is too large to be practical. This view may be proving correct, as the signatories of the Kyoto protocol are currently struggling to meet their targets [63], including Europe and Japan. After only five years, Canada has given up entirely. Also, of the 163 countries that have signed and ratified Kyoto, only 31 are actually required to lower greenhouse emissions.

Some segments of the business community have accepted global warming and its attribution to anthropogenic causes as valid, as well as a need for actions such as carbon emissions trading and carbon taxes.

Adaptation strategies accept some warming as a foregone conclusion and focus on preventing or reducing undesirable consequences. Examples of such strategies include defense against rising sea levels or ensuring food security.


Climate models

Calculations of global warming from a range of climate models under the SRES A2 emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions.
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)Main article: Global climate model
Scientists have studied global warming with computer models of the climate (see below). Before the scientific community accepts a climate model, it has to be validated against observed climate variations. As of 2006, sufficiently high-resolution models successfully simulate summer/winter differences, the North Atlantic Oscillation[citation needed], and El Niño [64]. All validated current models predict that the net effect of adding greenhouse gases will be a warmer climate in the future. However, the amount of predicted warming varies by model, and there still remains a considerable range of climate sensitivity predicted by the models which survive these tests; one of the most important sources of this uncertainty is believed to be different ways of handling clouds. Part of the technical summary of the IPCC TAR includes a recognition of the need to quantify this uncertainty: "In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible. Rather the focus must be on the probability distribution of the system's possible future states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions." (See [65], page 78.) An example of a study which aims to do this is the Climateprediction.net project; their methodology is to investigate the range of climate sensitivities predicted for the 21st century by those models which are first shown to give a reasonable simulation of late 20th century climate change.

As noted above, climate models have been used by the IPCC to anticipate a warming of 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C (2.5 °F–10.4 °F) between 1990 and 2100 [66]. They have also been used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models predict from various natural and human derived forcing factors. In addition to having their own characteristic climate sensitivity, models have also been used to derive independent assessments of climate sensitivity.

Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century [67]. These models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Adding simulation of the carbon cycle to the models generally shows a positive feedback, though this response is uncertain (under the A2 SRES scenario, responses vary between an extra 20 and 200 ppm of CO2). Some observational studies also show a positive feedback [68].

Uncertainties in the representation of clouds are a dominant source of uncertainty in existing models, despite clear progress in modeling of clouds [69]. There is also an ongoing discussion as to whether climate models are neglecting important indirect and feedback effects of solar variability. Further, all such models are limited by available computational power, so that they may overlook changes related to small-scale processes and weather (e.g. storm systems, hurricanes). However, despite these and other limitations, the IPCC considered climate models "to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates" [70].

In December, 2005 Bellouin et al. suggested in Nature that the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked. If supported by further studies, this would imply that existing models under-predict future global warming. [71]


Defining dangerous global warming
Although global warming has been seen as potentially dangerous for some time, the first international attempt to define what constitutes a 'dangerous' level occurred at the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change scientific conference in February 2005. This took place in Exeter, United Kingdom under the UK presidency of the G8 [72].

At the conference it was said that increasing damage was forecast if the globe warms to about 1 to 3 °Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 °Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. It was concluded that the stabilization of greenhouse gases at the equivalent of 450 ppmv CO2 would provide a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to the average figure of 2 °C (3.6 °F). Stabilization below 400 ppm would give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2 °C, while stabilization at 550 ppm would mean it was likely that 2 °C would be exceeded.

It was stated that unless 'urgent and strenuous mitigation actions' were taken in the next 20 years, it was almost certain that by 2050 global temperatures will have risen to between 0.5 and 2 °C (0.9 and 3.6°F) above current levels. With carbon dioxide levels currently around 381 ppm and rising by 2ppm per year, without such action greenhouse gasses are likely to reach 400ppm by 2016, 450ppm by 2041, and 550ppm by around 2091.


Other related issues

Ocean acidification
Main article: Ocean acidification
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. This ameliorates the greenhouse effect by removing the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid. The net effect, even accounting for warming of the oceans, is an observed and accelerating ocean acidification. Since biosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH this is a very serious concern directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2 and not global warming. Ocean acidification would not be created by any other postulated climate change mechanisms. In fact, the result of these other forcings would be to decrease the acidity of the oceans as the sea temperature warmed. This is exactly contrary to what has been observed. Roger Revelle and Hans Suess first described the chemistry of the process.


Relationship to ozone depletion
Main article: Ozone depletion
Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong. There are five areas of linkage:

The same carbon dioxide radiative forcing that produces near-surface global warming is expected (perhaps somewhat surprisingly) to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.

Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sourcesConversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposed effects: 1) reduced ozone allows more solar radiation to penetrate, thus warming the troposphere instead of the stratosphere. 2) The resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation down to the troposphere, thus having a cooling effect. Overall, the cooling dominates: the IPCC concludes that observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system [73] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 W/m² [74].
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect theory is that the stratosphere will cool. Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling. However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that above 20 km, the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling. [75]
Ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gases, representing 0.34 ±0.03 W/m², or about 14% of the total radiative forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases [76].
Decreased ozone leads to an increase in ultraviolet levels. Ultraviolet radiation may be responsible for the death of ocean algae, which operate as a carbon dioxide sink in the ocean. Increased UV, therefore, may lead to a decrease in carbon dioxide uptake, thereby raising global carbon dioxide levels. [77]

Relationship to global dimming
Main article: Global dimming
Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming (the reduction in sunlight reaching the surface of the planet, possibly due to aerosols) may have masked some of the effect of global warming. If this is so, the indirect aerosol effect is stronger than previously believed, which would imply that the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is also stronger. Concerns about the effect of aerosol on the global climate were first researched as part of concerns over global cooling in the 1970s.


Pre-human global warming
The Earth has experienced natural global warming and cooling many times in the past, and can offer useful insights into present processes. It is thought by some geologists that a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to experience global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University published in Geology (32: 157–160, 2004 [78]) indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, carbon dioxide levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.

Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis) have been hypothesized as a cause for other past global warming events, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last glacial period is thought not to be due to methane release [79]. Instead, natural variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation.

The greenhouse effect is also invoked to explain how the Earth made it out of the Snowball Earth period 600 million years ago. During this period all silicate rocks were covered by ice, thereby preventing them from combining with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level gradually increased until it reached a level that could have been as much as 350 times the current level. At this point temperatures were raised enough to melt the ice, even though the reflective ice surfaces had been reflecting most sunlight back into space. Increased amounts of rainfall would quickly wash the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and thick layers of abiotic carbonate sediment have been found on top of the glacial rocks from this period.

Using paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years Veizer et al. (2000, Nature 408, pp. 698–701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly related to carbon dioxide variations. Most paleoclimatologists believe this is because other factors, such as continental drift and mountain building have larger effects in determining very long term climate. However, Shaviv and Veizer (2003, [80]) proposed that the biggest long-term influence on temperature is actually the solar system's motion around the galaxy, and the ways in which this influences the atmosphere by altering the flux of cosmic rays received by the Earth. Afterwards, they argued that over geologic times a change in carbon dioxide concentrations comparable to doubling pre-industrial levels, only results in about 0.75 °C (1.3 °F) warming rather than the usual 1.5–4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) reported by climate models [81]. They acknowledge (Shaviv and Veizer 2004) however that this conclusion may only be valid on multi-million year time scales when glacial and geological feedback have had a chance to establish themselves. Rahmstorf et al. 2004 [82] argue that Shaviv and Veizer arbitrarily tuned their data, and that their conclusions are unreliable.


Pre-industrial global warming
Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued (e.g., Scientific American, March 2005) that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation. He contends that forest clearing explains the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the current interglacial that started 8,000 years ago, contrasting with the decline in carbon dioxide levels seen in the previous three interglacials. He further contends that the spread of rice irrigation explains the breakdown in the last 5,000 years of the correlation between the Northern Hemisphere solar radiation and global methane levels, which had been maintained over at least the last 11 22,000-year cycles. Ruddiman argues that without these effects, the Earth would be nearly 2 °C cooler and "well on the way" to a new ice age. Ruddimann's interpretation of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been disputed

Answer 9

global warming

ADVERTISEMENT


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 chlorofluorocarbons and other 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 past century, the atmospheric temperature has risen 1.1°F (0.6°C), and sea level has risen 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 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.

Improved automobile mileage, reforestation projects, energy efficiency in construction, and national support for mass transit are among relatively simpler adjustments that could significantly lower U.S. production of greenhouse gases. More aggressive adjustments include a gradual worldwide shift away from the use of fossil fuels, the elimination of chlorofluorocarbons, and the slowing of deforestation by restructuring the economies of developing nations. In 2002 the Bush administration proposed several voluntary measures for slowing the increase in, instead of reducing, emissions of greenhouses gases
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 ° Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 ° Fahrenheit) in the 20th century.[1]

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".[2] The largest contributing source of greenhouse gas is the burning of fossil fuels.[2] Greenhouse gases are gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. This effect was first described by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and was first investigated quantitatively in 1896 by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.[3]

An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause other changes, such as a rising sea level due to thermal expansion of the ocean in addition to melting of land ice. Changes are also expected in the amount and pattern of precipitation. The total annual power of hurricanes has increased markedly since the mid-1970's because their average intensity and duration have increased (in addition, there has been a high correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature)[1][4]. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may also increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of other extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and tornadoes. Other consequences may include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer stream flows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Although warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events, it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years.[5]

World net carbon-emission rates would need to be reduced approximately 60%–80% by 2050 to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 1°C above present. A 1°C rise would likely raise sea levels by no more than approximately 5 meters (16 feet) over the next 200 to 2000 years, whereas a 3°C rise would likely raise sea levels by 25 ± 10 meters (82 ± 33 feet)[2] ([3]Section 6.1.1).

Only a small minority of climate scientists disagree that humanity's actions have played a major role in recent warming. There is more significant uncertainty regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future. There is a hotly contested political and public debate regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be done cost-effectively to reduce or reverse future warming or to deal with the expected consequences. Options include renewable energy, energy conservation, carbon offsets, voluntary population stabilization, and carbon capture and storage.

Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Historical warming of the Earth
3 Causes
3.1 Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
3.2 Other hypotheses
3.2.1 The solar variation theory
4 Expected effects
4.1 Effects on ecosystems
4.2 Effect on glaciers
4.3 Miniature rock glaciers
4.4 Destabilization of ocean currents
4.5 Sea level rise and environmental refugees
4.6 Spread of disease
4.7 Financial effects
4.8 Biomass production
4.9 Opening up of the Northwest Passage in summer
4.10 Further global warming (positive feedback)
5 Mitigation
6 Climate models
7 Defining dangerous global warming
8 Other related issues
8.1 Ocean acidification
8.2 Relationship to ozone depletion
8.3 Relationship to global dimming
8.4 Pre-human global warming
8.5 Pre-industrial global warming
9 References
10 See also
11 External links
11.1 Scientific
11.2 Polar ice-related links
11.3 Other



Terminology
The term "global warming" is a specific case of the more general term "climate change" (which can also refer to "global cooling," such as occurs during ice ages). In principle, "global warming" is neutral as to the causes, but in common usage, "global warming" generally implies a human influence. However, the UNFCCC uses "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.[6] Some organizations use the term "anthropogenic climate change" for human-induced changes. Also, "global warming" may refer to both the observed and the predicted warming.


Historical warming of the Earth
See also: Temperature record of the past 1000 years

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The unsmoothed, annual value for 2004 is also plotted for reference.Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade (Smith, 2005). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Over the one or two thousand years before 1850, world temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological Organization and the UK Climatic Research Unit concluded that 2005 was still only the second warmest year, behind 1998.[7][8]

Depending on the time frame, a number of temperature records are available based on different data sets. The longest perspective is available from various proxy records for recent millennia; see temperature record of the past 1000 years for a discussion of these records and their differences. An approximately global instrumental record of temperature near the earth's surface begins in about 1860. Global observations of the atmosphere well above the earth's surface using data from radiosondes began shortly after World War II. Satellite temperature measurements of the tropospheric temperature date from 1979. The attribution of recent climate change is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available.


Causes
Main articles: Attribution of recent climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change

Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year ice age cycle.The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including solar activity, volcanic emissions, and greenhouse gases. Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently. The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. Outside of the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial.

Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors.

One example of an important feedback process is ice-albedo feedback. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface and leads to melting of ice near the poles. As the ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are less reflective than ice, and so absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and the cycle continues.

Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed by increased greenhouse gases. Climate commitment studies indicate that, even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C (0.9–1.8 °F) would still occur.


Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Plots of atmospheric Carbon dioxide and global temperature during the last 650,000 years.Greenhouse gases are transparent to shortwave radiation from the sun, the main source of heat on the Earth. However, they absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted by the Earth, thereby reducing radiational cooling and hence raising the temperature of the Earth. How much they warm the world by is shown in their global warming potential.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that carbon dioxide values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation.[9]

The longest continuous instrumental measurement of carbon dioxide mixing ratios began in 1958 at Mauna Loa. Since then, the annually averaged value has increased monotonically by approximately 21% from the initial reading of 315 ppmv, as shown by the Keeling curve, to over 380 ppmv in 2006.[10][11] The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the northern hemisphere's late spring and declines during the northern hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.

Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, enters the atmosphere both from biological production and leaks from natural gas pipelines and other infrastructure. Some biological sources are natural, such as termites or forests,[12][13][14] but others have been increased or created by agricultural activities such as the cultivation of rice paddies.[15] Recent evidence indicates that methane concentrations have begun to stabilize, perhaps due to reductions in leakage from fuel transmission and storage facilities.[16]

Future carbon dioxide levels are expected to continue rising due to ongoing fossil fuel usage, though the actual trajectory will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future carbon dioxide scenarios,[17] ranging from 541 to 970 parts per million by the year 2100. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach this level and continue emissions past 2100, if coal and tar sands are extensively used.

Carbon sink ecosystems (forests and oceans[18]) are being degraded by pollutants.[19] Degradation of major carbon sinks results in higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.


Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases broken down by sector for the year 2000.Globally, the majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions arise from fuel combustion. The remainder is accounted for largely by "fugitive fuel" (fuel consumed in the production and transport of fuel), emissions from industrial processes (excluding fuel combustion), and agriculture: these contributed 5.8%, 5.2% and 3.3% respectively in 1990. Current figures are broadly comparable.[20] Around 17% of emissions are accounted for by the combustion of fuel for the generation of electricity. A small percentage of emissions come from natural and anthropogenic biological sources, with approximately 6.3% derived from agriculturally produced methane and nitrous oxide.

Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium response to increased GHGs and other anthropogenic and natural climate forcings. It is found by observational[21] and model studies. This sensitivity is usually expressed in terms of the temperature response expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, which, according to the 2001 IPCC report, is estimated to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) (with a statistical likelihood of 66-90%).[22] This should not be confused with the expected temperature change by a given date, which also includes a dependence on the future GHG emissions and a delayed response due to thermal lag, principally from the oceans. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), using a range of SRES scenarios, project that global temperatures will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.

Positive feedback effects, such as the expected release of methane from the melting of permafrost peat bogs in Siberia (possibly up to 70,000 million tonnes), may lead to significant additional sources of greenhouse gas emissions.[23] Note that the anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—exert a cooling effect; this partially accounts for the plateau/cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[24] though this may also be due to intervening natural cycles.


Other hypotheses
The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[4]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change". This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view — the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis. [5] [6]

Contrasting with the consensus view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures. Some of these hypotheses (listed here without comment on their validity or lack thereof) include:

The warming is within the range of natural variation.
The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age.
The warming is primarily a result of variances in solar irradiance, possibly via modulation of cloud cover [7]. It is similar in concept to the operating principles of the Wilson cloud chamber, but on a global scale where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber and the cosmic rays catalyze the production of cloud condensation nuclei.
The observed warming actually reflects the Urban Heat Island, as most readings are done in heavily populated areas which are expanding with growing population [8].

The solar variation theory

30 years of solar variability.Main article: Solar variation theory
Modeling studies reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) did not find that changes in solar forcing were needed in order to explain the climate record for the last four or five decades [9]. These studies found that volcanic and solar forcings may account for half of the temperature variations prior to 1950, but the net effect of such natural forcings has been roughly neutral since then [10]. In particular, the change in climate forcing from greenhouse gases since 1750 was estimated to be eight times larger than the change in forcing due to increasing solar activity over the same period [11].

Since the TAR, some studies (Lean et al., 2002, Wang et al., 2005) have suggested that changes in irradiance since pre-industrial times are less by a factor of 3 to 4 than in the reconstructions used in the TAR (e.g. Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, Lean, 2000.). Other researchers (e.g. Stott et al. 2003 [12]) believe that the effect of solar forcing is being underestimated and propose that solar forcing accounts for 16% or 36% of recent greenhouse warming. Others (e.g. Marsh and Svensmark 2000 [13]) have proposed that feedback from clouds or other processes enhance the direct effect of solar variation, which if true would also suggest that the effect of solar variability was being underestimated. In general the level of scientific understanding of the contribution of variations in solar irradiance to historical climate changes is "very low" [14].

The present level of solar activity is historically high. Solanki et al. (2004) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years [15]. Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. In addition, researchers at Duke University (2005) have found that 10–30% of the warming over the last two decades may be due to increased solar output [16]. In a review of existing literature, Foukal et al. (2006) determined both that the variations in solar output were too small to have contributed appreciably to global warming since the mid-1970s and that there was no evidence of a net increase in brightness during this period. [17]


Expected effects
Main article: Effects of global warming
The expected effects of global warming are many and various, both for the environment and for human life. These effects include sea level rise, repercussions to agriculture, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and the spread of disease. In some cases, the effects may already be manifest, although it is difficult to attribute specific incidents of natural phenomena to long-term global warming. Since the mid-1970s, the total annual power of hurricanes has increased markedly because their average intensity and duration have increased; in addition, there has been a high correlation of hurricane power with tropical sea-surface temperature[18][25]. In spite of such strong evidence, the relationship between global warming and hurricanes is still being debated. [19][20] A draft statement by the World Meteorological Organization acknowledges the differing viewpoints on this issue [21].

The extent and probability of these consequences is a matter of considerable uncertainty. A summary of probable effects and recent understanding can be found in the report of the IPCC Working Group II [22]. Some scientists have concluded global warming is already causing death and disease across the world through flooding, environmental destruction, heat waves and other extreme weather events. (Reuters, February 9, 2006; archived)


Effects on ecosystems
Both primary and secondary effects of global warming — such as higher temperatures, lessened snow cover, rising sea levels and weather changes — may influence not only human activities, but also ecosystems. Some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may flourish. Similarly, changes in timing of life patterns, such as annual migration dates, may alter regional predator-prey balance. The effect of advanced spring arrival dates in Scandinavia on birds that over winter in sub-Saharan Africa has been ascribed to evolutionary adaptation of the species to climatic warming [23].

Ocean pH is lowering as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels. Lowering of ocean pH, along with changing water temperature and ocean depth will have a damaging effect on coral reefs.

Another suggested mechanism whereby a warming trend may be amplified involves the thawing of tundra, which can release significant amounts of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, which is trapped in permafrost and ice clathrate compounds [24].

There are also ecological effects of melting polar ice: for example, polar bears use sea ice to reach their prey and they must swim to another ice floe when one breaks up. Ice is now becoming further separated and dead polar bears have been found in the water, believed to have drowned[25]. More recently, some scientists have suggested that the observed cannibalistic behavior in polar bears may be the result of food shortages brought on by global warming (Amstrup et al. 2006).


Effect on glaciers

Global glacial mass balance in the last fifty years, reported to the WGMS and the NSIDC. The increased downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.Global warming has led to negative glacier mass balance, causing glacier retreat around the world. Oerlemans (2005) showed a net decline in 142 of the 144 mountain glaciers with records from 1900 to 1980. Since 1980 global glacier retreat has increased significantly. Similarly, Dyurgerov and Meier (2005) averaged glacier data across large-scale regions (e.g. Europe) and found that every region had a net decline from 1960 to 2002, though a few local regions (e.g. Scandinavia) have shown increases. Some glaciers that are in disequilibrium with present climate have already disappeared [26] and increasing temperatures are expected to cause continued retreat in the majority of alpine glaciers around the world. Upwards of 90% of glaciers reported to the World Glacier Monitoring Service have retreated since 1995 [27].

Of particular concern is the potential for failure of the Hindu Kush and Himalayan glacial melts. The melt of these glaciers is a large and reliable source of water for China, India, and much of Asia, and these waters form a principal dry-season water source. Increased melting would cause greater flow for several decades, after which "some areas of the most populated region on Earth are likely to 'run out of water'" (T. P. Barnett, J. C. Adam and D. P. Lettenmaier 2005) [28]


Miniature rock glaciers
Rock glaciers — caches of ice under boulders — are among other water signs such as drying meadows and warming lakes that scientists are studying in the Sierras in the western United States [29]. Connie Millar searches for the rock glaciers in the Yosemite area of the Sierra crest. She hypothesizes that rock glaciers will be predictors of how ecosystems change with rising temperatures. Millar is leading an effort (the Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains [30]) to co-ordinate the work of many scientists to see how the pieces of the Global Warming puzzle may fit.


Destabilization of ocean currents
Main article: Shutdown of thermohaline circulation
There is also some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift.


Sea level rise and environmental refugees

The termini of the glaciers in the Bhutan-Himalaya. Glacial lakes have been rapidly forming on the surface of the debris-covered glaciers in this region during the last few decades. According to USGS researchers, glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces. The researchers have found a strong correlation between increasing temperatures and glacier retreat.Rising global temperatures will melt glaciers and expand the water of the seas through the mechanism of thermal expansion, leading to sea level rise. Even a relatively small rise in sea level would make some densely settled coastal plains uninhabitable and create a significant refugee problem. If the sea level were to rise in excess of 4 meters (13 ft) almost every coastal city in the world would be severely affected, with the potential for major damage to world-wide trade and economy. Presently, the IPCC predicts sea level rise is most probable to be just short of half a metre, and at least between 9 and 88 cm through 2100 [31] - but they also warn that global warming during that time may lead to irreversible changes in the Earth's glacial system and ultimately melt enough ice to raise sea level many meters over the next millennia. It is estimated that around 200 million people could be affected by sea level rise, especially in Vietnam, Bangladesh, China, India, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria and Egypt.

An example of the ambiguity of the concept of environmental refugees is the emigration from the island nation of Tuvalu, which has an average elevation of approximately one meter above sea level. Tuvalu already has an ad hoc agreement with New Zealand to allow phased relocation [32] and many residents have been leaving the islands. However, it is far from clear that rising sea levels from global warming are a substantial factor - best estimates are that sea level has been rising there at approximately 1–2 millimeters per year (~1/16th in/yr), but that shorter timescale factors—ENSO, or tides—have far larger temporary effects [33] [34] [35] [36].


Spread of disease
One of the largest known outbreaks of Vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis has been attributed to generally rising ocean temperature where infected oysters were harvested in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 2005. Before this, the northernmost reported risk of such infection was in British Columbia, 1000 km to the south (McLaughlin JB, et al.).

Global warming may extend the range of vectors conveying infectious diseases such as malaria. A warmer environment boosts the reproduction rate of mosquitoes and the number of blood meals they take, prolongs their breeding season, and shortens the maturation period for the microbes they disperse [37]. Global warming has been implicated in the recent spread to the north Mediterranean region of bluetongue disease in domesticated ruminants associated with mite bites (Purse, 2005). Hantavirus infection, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, tularemia and rabies increased in wide areas of Russia during 2004–2005. This was associated with a population explosion of rodents and their predators but may be partially blamed on breakdowns in governmental vaccination and rodent control programs.[38] Similarly, despite the disappearance of malaria in most temperate regions, the indigenous mosquitoes that transmitted it were never eliminated and remain common in some areas. Thus, although temperature is important in the transmission dynamics of malaria, many other factors are influential [39].


Financial effects
Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study (UNEP summary) that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade. These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, taxpayers, and industry alike.

According to the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s. According to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%.

The United Nations' Environmental Program recently announced that severe weather around the world has made 2005 the most costly year on record [40]. Although there is "no way to prove that [a given hurricane] either was, or was not, affected by global warming" [41], global warming is thought to increase the probability of hurricanes emerging. Preliminary estimates presented by the German insurance foundation Munich Re put the economic losses at more than US$200 billion, with insured losses running at more than US$70 billion.

Nicholas Stern in the Stern Review has warned that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP [42]. Stern’s report[26] suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The report has had significant political effects: Australia reported two days after the report was released that they would allott AU$60 million to projects to help cut greenhouse gas emissions[43]. Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous"[44].


Biomass production
The creation of biomass by plants is influenced by the availability of water, nutrients, and carbon dioxide. Part of this biomass is used (directly or indirectly) as the energy source for nearly all other life forms, including feed-stock for domestic animals, and fruits and grains for human consumption. It also includes timber for construction purposes.

While it's thought that an increase in carbon dioxide levels should speed up plant growth, which would slow down the effects of global warming, a new study has found the opposite to be true. Scientists at Stanford have found that "elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil." [45]. A rising temperature can also increase the growing season in colder regions. It is sometimes argued that these effects can create a greener, richer planet, with more available biomass. However, there are many other factors involved, and it is currently unclear if plants really benefit from global warming. Plant growth can be limited by a number of factors, including soil fertility, water, temperature, and carbon dioxide concentration. Ocean plants (phytoplankton) are actually harmed by global warming, presumably with negative impact on ocean ecosystems [46].

IPCC models currently predict a possible modest increase in plant productivity. However, there are several negative ramifications: decreases in productivity may occur at above-optimal temperatures; greater variation in temperature is likely to decrease wheat yields; in experiments, grain and forage quality declines if CO2 and temperature are increased; and the reductions in soil moisture in summer, which are likely to occur, would have a negative effect on productivity. [47]

Satellite data show that the productivity of the northern hemisphere did indeed increase from 1982 to 1991 [48]. However, more recent studies [49][50] found that from 1991 to 2002, widespread droughts had actually caused a decrease in summer photosynthesis in the mid and high latitudes of the northern hemisphere.


NOAA projects that by the 2050s, there will only be 54% of the volume of sea ice there was in the 1950s.
Opening up of the Northwest Passage in summer
Melting Arctic ice may open the Northwest Passage in summer in approximately ten years, which would cut 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km) from shipping routes between Europe and Asia. This would be of particular relevance for supertankers that are too big to fit through the Suez Canal and currently have to go around the southern tip of Africa. According to the Canadian Ice Service, the amount of ice in Canada's eastern Arctic Archipelago decreased by 15% between 1969 and 2004 [51][52]. A similar opening is possible in the Arctic north of Siberia, allowing much faster East Asian to Europe transport.

Adverse effects of the melting of ice include a potential increase in the rate of global warming, since ice reflects 90% of solar heat, while open water absorbs 90% [53].


The Greenlandic ice-cap has shrunk noticeably since 1978.
Further global warming (positive feedback)
Some effects of global warming themselves contribute directly to further global warming, in a vicious circle, the nature of which may be difficult to predict in advance.

Wikinews has news related to:
Scientists warn thawing Siberia may trigger global meltdownThe melting of permafrost and ice caps appears to be causing the release of large amounts of additional carbon dioxide or methane from decaying vegetation trapped beneath [54] [55] [56]. In addition, methane clathrate deposits on the ocean floor might release more methane (the clathrate gun hypothesis).
There have been predictions, and some evidence, that global warming might cause loss of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems, leading to an increase of atmospheric CO2 levels [57] [58]
Melting could also lead to increased heat absorption because ice reflects more solar radiation (i.e., it has higher albedo) than land or water. Because sea ice and seasonal snow cover are more reflective than the underlying sea, any meltback may lead to further warming.
Warmer temperatures in the oceans reduce the productivity (growth) of ocean phytoplankton (algae). This is expected to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide taken up by photosynthesis in the ocean [59][60], which would again increase the effects of anthropogenic CO2 releases on the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence increase the greenhouse effect. This is a concern because ocean photosynthesis is as large a part of the planet's overall carbon balance as land photosynthesis.

Mitigation
Main articles: Mitigation of global warming and adaptation to global warming

The Energy Information Administration predicts world energy and fossil fuel usage will rise in the next decades.The likelihood that global temperatures will continue to significantly increase has led to proposals to mitigate global warming. Mitigation covers all actions aimed at reducing the negative effects or the likelihood of global warming.

There are five categories of actions that can be taken to mitigate global warming:

Reduction of energy use (conservation)
Shifting from carbon-based fossil fuels to alternative energy sources
Carbon capture and storage
Carbon sequestration
Planetary engineering to cool the earth, including screening out sunlight and increasing the reflectivity of the earth.
Strategies for mitigation of global warming include development of new technologies; carbon offsets; renewable energy such as biodiesel, wind power, and solar power; nuclear power; electric or hybrid automobiles; fuel cells; energy conservation; carbon taxes; enhancing natural carbon dioxide sinks; population control; and carbon capture and storage. Many environmental groups encourage individual action against global warming, often aimed at the consumer, and there has been business action on climate change.

The world's primary international agreement on combating climate change is the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

Although the governments of 163 countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol, (notably excluding the United States and Australia), there is a growing debate about how effective the Kyoto protocol has been. Some politicians, including President of the United States George W. Bush [61], Prime Minister of Australia John Howard [62] had argued that the cost of mitigating global warming via the Kyoto protocol is too large to be practical. This view may be proving correct, as the signatories of the Kyoto protocol are currently struggling to meet their targets [63], including Europe and Japan. After only five years, Canada has given up entirely. Also, of the 163 countries that have signed and ratified Kyoto, only 31 are actually required to lower greenhouse emissions.

Some segments of the business community have accepted global warming and its attribution to anthropogenic causes as valid, as well as a need for actions such as carbon emissions trading and carbon taxes.

Adaptation strategies accept some warming as a foregone conclusion and focus on preventing or reducing undesirable consequences. Examples of such strategies include defense against rising sea levels or ensuring food security.


Climate models

Calculations of global warming from a range of climate models under the SRES A2 emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions.
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)Main article: Global climate model
Scientists have studied global warming with computer models of the climate (see below). Before the scientific community accepts a climate model, it has to be validated against observed climate variations. As of 2006, sufficiently high-resolution models successfully simulate summer/winter differences, the North Atlantic Oscillation[citation needed], and El Niño [64]. All validated current models predict that the net effect of adding greenhouse gases will be a warmer climate in the future. However, the amount of predicted warming varies by model, and there still remains a considerable range of climate sensitivity predicted by the models which survive these tests; one of the most important sources of this uncertainty is believed to be different ways of handling clouds. Part of the technical summary of the IPCC TAR includes a recognition of the need to quantify this uncertainty: "In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible. Rather the focus must be on the probability distribution of the system's possible future states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions." (See [65], page 78.) An example of a study which aims to do this is the Climateprediction.net project; their methodology is to investigate the range of climate sensitivities predicted for the 21st century by those models which are first shown to give a reasonable simulation of late 20th century climate change.

As noted above, climate models have been used by the IPCC to anticipate a warming of 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C (2.5 °F–10.4 °F) between 1990 and 2100 [66]. They have also been used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing the observed changes to those that the models predict from various natural and human derived forcing factors. In addition to having their own characteristic climate sensitivity, models have also been used to derive independent assessments of climate sensitivity.

Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century [67]. These models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects; however, they suggest that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Adding simulation of the carbon cycle to the models generally shows a positive feedback, though this response is uncertain (under the A2 SRES scenario, responses vary between an extra 20 and 200 ppm of CO2). Some observational studies also show a positive feedback [68].

Uncertainties in the representation of clouds are a dominant source of uncertainty in existing models, despite clear progress in modeling of clouds [69]. There is also an ongoing discussion as to whether climate models are neglecting important indirect and feedback effects of solar variability. Further, all such models are limited by available computational power, so that they may overlook changes related to small-scale processes and weather (e.g. storm systems, hurricanes). However, despite these and other limitations, the IPCC considered climate models "to be suitable tools to provide useful projections of future climates" [70].

In December, 2005 Bellouin et al. suggested in Nature that the reflectivity effect of airborne pollutants was about double that previously expected, and that therefore some global warming was being masked. If supported by further studies, this would imply that existing models under-predict future global warming. [71]


Defining dangerous global warming
Although global warming has been seen as potentially dangerous for some time, the first international attempt to define what constitutes a 'dangerous' level occurred at the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change scientific conference in February 2005. This took place in Exeter, United Kingdom under the UK presidency of the G8 [72].

At the conference it was said that increasing damage was forecast if the globe warms to about 1 to 3 °Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 °Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. It was concluded that the stabilization of greenhouse gases at the equivalent of 450 ppmv CO2 would provide a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to the average figure of 2 °C (3.6 °F). Stabilization below 400 ppm would give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2 °C, while stabilization at 550 ppm would mean it was likely that 2 °C would be exceeded.

It was stated that unless 'urgent and strenuous mitigation actions' were taken in the next 20 years, it was almost certain that by 2050 global temperatures will have risen to between 0.5 and 2 °C (0.9 and 3.6°F) above current levels. With carbon dioxide levels currently around 381 ppm and rising by 2ppm per year, without such action greenhouse gasses are likely to reach 400ppm by 2016, 450ppm by 2041, and 550ppm by around 2091.


Other related issues

Ocean acidification
Main article: Ocean acidification
Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. This ameliorates the greenhouse effect by removing the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid. The net effect, even accounting for warming of the oceans, is an observed and accelerating ocean acidification. Since biosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH this is a very serious concern directly driven by increased atmospheric CO2 and not global warming. Ocean acidification would not be created by any other postulated climate change mechanisms. In fact, the result of these other forcings would be to decrease the acidity of the oceans as the sea temperature warmed. This is exactly contrary to what has been observed. Roger Revelle and Hans Suess first described the chemistry of the process.


Relationship to ozone depletion
Main article: Ozone depletion
Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong. There are five areas of linkage:

The same carbon dioxide radiative forcing that produces near-surface global warming is expected (perhaps somewhat surprisingly) to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.

Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sourcesConversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposed effects: 1) reduced ozone allows more solar radiation to penetrate, thus warming the troposphere instead of the stratosphere. 2) The resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation down to the troposphere, thus having a cooling effect. Overall, the cooling dominates: the IPCC concludes that observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system [73] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 W/m² [74].
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect theory is that the stratosphere will cool. Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling. However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that above 20 km, the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling. [75]
Ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gases, representing 0.34 ±0.03 W/m², or about 14% of the total radiative forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases [76].
Decreased ozone leads to an increase in ultraviolet levels. Ultraviolet radiation may be responsible for the death of ocean algae, which operate as a carbon dioxide sink in the ocean. Increased UV, therefore, may lead to a decrease in carbon dioxide uptake, thereby raising global carbon dioxide levels. [77]

Relationship to global dimming
Main article: Global dimming
Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming (the reduction in sunlight reaching the surface of the planet, possibly due to aerosols) may have masked some of the effect of global warming. If this is so, the indirect aerosol effect is stronger than previously believed, which would imply that the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is also stronger. Concerns about the effect of aerosol on the global climate were first researched as part of concerns over global cooling in the 1970s.


Pre-human global warming
The Earth has experienced natural global warming and cooling many times in the past, and can offer useful insights into present processes. It is thought by some geologists that a rapid buildup of greenhouse gases caused the Earth to experience global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5 °C (9.0 °F). Research by the Open University published in Geology (32: 157–160, 2004 [78]) indicates that this caused the rate of rock weathering to increase by 400%. As such weathering locks away carbon in calcite and dolomite, carbon dioxide levels dropped back to normal over roughly the next 150,000 years.

Sudden releases of methane from clathrate compounds (the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis) have been hypothesized as a cause for other past global warming events, including the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. However, warming at the end of the last glacial period is thought not to be due to methane release [79]. Instead, natural variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are believed to have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation.

The greenhouse effect is also invoked to explain how the Earth made it out of the Snowball Earth period 600 million years ago. During this period all silicate rocks were covered by ice, thereby preventing them from combining with atmospheric carbon dioxide. The atmospheric carbon dioxide level gradually increased until it reached a level that could have been as much as 350 times the current level. At this point temperatures were raised enough to melt the ice, even though the reflective ice surfaces had been reflecting most sunlight back into space. Increased amounts of rainfall would quickly wash the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and thick layers of abiotic carbonate sediment have been found on top of the glacial rocks from this period.

Using paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years Veizer et al. (2000, Nature 408, pp. 698–701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly related to carbon dioxide variations. Most paleoclimatologists believe this is because other factors, such as continental drift and mountain building have larger effects in determining very long term climate. However, Shaviv and Veizer (2003, [80]) proposed that the biggest long-term influence on temperature is actually the solar system's motion around the galaxy, and the ways in which this influences the atmosphere by altering the flux of cosmic rays received by the Earth. Afterwards, they argued that over geologic times a change in carbon dioxide concentrations comparable to doubling pre-industrial levels, only results in about 0.75 °C (1.3 °F) warming rather than the usual 1.5–4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F) reported by climate models [81]. They acknowledge (Shaviv and Veizer 2004) however that this conclusion may only be valid on multi-million year time scales when glacial and geological feedback have had a chance to establish themselves. Rahmstorf et al. 2004 [82] argue that Shaviv and Veizer arbitrarily tuned their data, and that their conclusions are unreliable.


Pre-industrial global warming
Paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has argued (e.g., Scientific American, March 2005) that human influence on the global climate began around 8,000 years ago with the start of forest clearing to provide land for agriculture and 5,000 years ago with the start of Asian rice irrigation. He contends that forest clearing explains the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the current interglacial that started 8,000 years ago, contrasting with the decline in carbon dioxide levels seen in the previous three interglacials. He further contends that the spread of rice irrigation explains the breakdown in the last 5,000 years of the correlation between the Northern Hemisphere solar radiation and global methane levels, which had been maintained over at least the last 11 22,000-year cycles. Ruddiman argues that without these effects, the Earth would be nearly 2 °C cooler and "well on the way" to a new ice age. Ruddimann's interpretation of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been disputed.[83]





References
^ Summary. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-01.
^ a b Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-01.
^ Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276 (1896)
^ Nature: 2005 Aug 4;436(7051):686-8.
^ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Non-CO2 Gases Economic Analysis and Inventory, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes (Years)
^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I
^ Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
^ Real Climate, 2005 temperatures
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Part 6
^ Earth System Research Laboratory, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
^ Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division
^ Global warming - the blame is not with the plants
^ RealClimate, "Scientists baffled!"
^ BBC News, "Plants revealed as methane source"
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, "Estimates of the global methane budget (in Tg(CH4)/yr) from different sources compared with the values adopted for this report (TAR)."
^ Physorg.com, "Level of important greenhouse gas has stopped growing"
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, 3.7.3.3 SRES scenarios and their implications for future CO2 concentration
^ OceanOutfall Community Website, Information
^ OceanOutfall Community Website, Los Angeles Times: Ocean Report
^ UNFCC, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data
^ Journal of Climate, Vol. 15, No. 22
^ The Scientific Basis, Footnotes for Summary for Policymakers
^ ZNet, Warming Hits 'Tipping Point'
^ Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Chapter 12
^ Nature: 2005 Aug 4;436(7051):686-8.
^ Nicholas Stern (30 October 2006). "Stern Review executive summary". New Economics Foundation.
Amstrup, Steven; Ian Stirling, Tom Smith, Craig Perham, and Gregory Thiemann (2006). "Recent observations of intraspecific predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea". DOI:10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5.
Association of British Insurers Financial Risks of Climate Change, June 2005, (PDF) Accessed 7 January 2006
Barnett, T. P., Adam, J. C., and Lettenmaier, D. P. (2005). "Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions". Nature 438: 303–309. [84]
Behrenfeld, M.J., O'Malley, R.T., Siegel, D.A., McClain, C.R., Sarmiento, J. L., Feldman, G. C., Milligan, A.G., Falkowski, P. G., Letelier, R. M., and Boss, E.S. (2006). "Climate-driven trends in contemporary ocean productivity". Nature 444: 752–755.. [85]
Choi, O. and A. Fisher (2003) "The Impacts of Socioeconomic Development and Climate Change on Severe Weather Catastrophe Losses: Mid-Atlantic Region (MAR) and the U.S." Climate Change, vol. 58 pp. 149 [86]
Dyurgerov, Mark B; Mark F. Meier (2005). Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: a 2004 Snapshot. Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Occasional Paper #58. [87]
Ealert Global warming - the blame is not with the plants
Emanuel, K.A. (2005) "Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years." Nature 436, pp. 686–688. ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Larissa Nazarenko, Makiko Sato, Josh Willis, Anthony DelGenio, Dorothy Koch, Andrew Lacis, Ken Lo, Surabi Menon, Tica Novakov, Judith Perlwitz, Gary Russell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Nicholas Tausnev (2005). "Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications". Science. DOI:10.1126/science.1110252.
Hinrichs K.U., Hmelo L. & Sylva S. (2003). "Molecular Fossil Record of Elevated Methane Levels in Late Pleistocene Coastal Waters". Science 299 (5610): 1214–1217. DOI:10.1126/science.1079601.
Hirsch, Tim. "Plants revealed as methane source", BBC, 11 January 2006.
Hoyt, D.V., and K.H. Schatten (1993). "A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700–1992". J. Geophys. Res. 98: 18895–18906. [88]
Kennett J. P., Cannariato K. G., Hendy I. L. & Behl R. J.American Geophysical Union, Special Publication, Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis. 54, (2003). Questions about Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (source of information)
Lean, J.L., Y.M. Wang, and N.R. Sheeley (2002). "The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate". Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (24): 2224. DOI:10.1029/2002GL015880.(online version requires registration)
McLaughlin, Joseph B.; Angelo DePaola, Cheryl A. Bopp, et al. (October 6, 2005). "Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis associated with Alaskan oysters". New England Journal of Medicine 353 (14): 1463–1470. Retrieved on [[July 18, 2006]].(online version requires registration)
Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller and Ian Snowball (2005). "Climate: How unusual is today's solar activity?". Nature 436: E3-E4. DOI:10.1038/nature04045.
Oerlemans, J (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308 (5722): 675–677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046.
Naomi Oreskes, 2004 Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - The author discussed her survey of 928 peer-reviewed scientific abstracts on climate change. Retrieved December 8, 2004. Also available as a 1 page PDF file
Purse, Bethan V.; Mellor, Philip S.; Rogers, David J.; Samuel, Alan R.; Mertens, Peter P. C.; and Baylis, Matthew (February 2005). "Climate change and the recent emergence of bluetongue in Europe". Nature Reviews Microbiology 3 (2): 171–181. DOI:10.1038/nrmicro1090. Retrieved on 2006-07-26.
RealClimate Scientists Baffled
Revkin, Andrew C (2005). "Rise in Gases Unmatched by a History in Ancient Ice". New York Times. "Shafts of ancient ice pulled from Antarctica's frozen depths show that for at least 650,000 years three important heat-trapping greenhouse gases never reached recent atmospheric levels caused by human activities, scientists are reporting today." (November 25, 2005) [89]
Ruddiman, William F. (2001). Earth's Climate Past and Future. New York: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-7167-3741-8. [90]
Ruddiman, William F. (2005). Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12164-8.
Shaviv and Veizer (2004). "Forum: Comment". Eos 85 (48): 510–511. [91]
Smith, T.M. and R.W. Reynolds, 2005: A global merged land and sea surface temperature reconstruction based on historical observations (1880–1997). J. Climate, 18, 2021–2036.
S.K. Solanki, I.G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler, J. Beer (2004). "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years.". Nature 431: 1084–1087. DOI:10.1038/nature02995.
S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler and J. Beer (2005). "Climate: How unusual is today's solar activity? (Reply)". Nature 436: E4-E5. DOI:10.1038/nature04046.
Sowers T. (2006). "Late Quaternary Atmospheric CH4 Isotope Record Suggests Marine Clathrates Are Stable". Science 311 (5762): 838–840. DOI:10.1126/science.1121235.
Svensmark, Henrik; Jens Olaf P. Pedersen, Nigel D. Marsh, Martin B. Enghoff, and Ulrik I. Uuggerhøj (2006). "Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions". Proceedings of the Royal Society A 462. DOI:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773.(online version requires registration)
UNEP summary (2002) Climate risk to global economy, Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry, United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatives Executive Briefing Paper (UNEP FI) (PDF) Accessed 7 January 2006
K. M. Walter, S. A. Zimov, J. P. Chanton, D. Verbyla and F. S. Chapin (2006). "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming". Nature 443: 71-75. DOI:10.1038/nature05040.
Wang, Y.M., J.L. Lean, and N.R. Sheeley (2005). "Modeling the sun's magnetic field and irradiance since 1713". Astrophysical Journal 625

Bob and Jane Miller from Nashville, Illinois want to know more about global warming:

Dear Steve,

What is going on with global warming? Is it still happening and are we doing anything about it? Is global warming even still a concern?

Well Bob and Jane, There’s a good reason why global warming is a hot topic, but there is also a good reason why it seems there is nothing being done to prevent global warming. Actually, there is a lot being done, but nothing that is interesting enough to make the Ten o'clock news. This web page will concern itself with just why there is no massive global or national effort to curb global warming.

However, if you would like to familiarize yourself with the topic of global warming more in depth, visit the WeatherSavvy Issue On Global Warming. This site details the processes of the greenhouse effect, what greenhouse gases are, and the arguments concerning global warming.

Let’s talk about the facts first...

The facts:

- Global warming is happening.

- Global Warming has occurred over the past 120 years, and has been especially rapid in the last 20 years. We know this from surface temperature observations.

- Carbon Dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases cause a warming in the atmosphere.

- Carbon Dioxide has increased dramatically in the last 120 years, and is at its highest level taking into consideration ice core samples, which include a 400,000 year period.

- Humans are overwhelmingly responsible for the dramatic increase in Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They’re emitted from our consumption of common fuel sources for energy, like fossil fuels.

Ok, it seems pretty simple…humans put stuff in the air that warms the air, and voila! Global warming! Nothing is that simple, especially when it concerns such complex systems as the Earth and its atmosphere.

So the reason why it seems nothing is being done about global warming is because we are still trying to answer some vital questions. And this is the big reason why it seems there is nothing being done about the issue, because there is a lot we still don't understand.

There are two main questions that must be conclusively answered before we can even truly understand how to approach the global warming issue. So let's talk about those two questions...



1) What portion of global warming can be attributed to increased greenhouse gases due to human activities?

It’s uncertain. Greenhouse gases have dramatically increased in the past 120 years, and most definitely due to human activities. But how this impacts a climate system we know so little about is uncertain. For example, couldn’t this warming be natural? Global temperatures are thought to have differed over ice ages by as much as 18 degrees F, so 1.5 degrees F could very well be mostly a natural process. Because of the natural variability in our climate system and our inability to piece together a "climate timeline"over centuries with no weather records, we can't make a quantitative assertion as to the portion of global warming attributed to anthropogenic contributions or to the natural variability of Earth's climate.

This is a key question to answer, because it might mean that humans are the main cause. Although it is uncertain at the moment, many scientists hypothesize that humans ARE the main cause. If this is the case, then I'd like to think that with science and research, we can find a way to mitigate or all together end the portion of global warming from human activities. If the answers is that humans have very little impact on global warming, well then there might not be a lot for us to do except let the natural evolution of the Earth take place and try to adapt.

Bottom line: Too uncertain to give you anything better than an educates guess. I'll take an educated guess on a $1.00 bet if it will rain tomorrow, but I don't think an educated guess is good enough when the consequences impact a global market like natural gas extraction and fossil fuel plants. Just remember that a changeover to an alternative fuel source will not be as easy as switching from VHS to DVD.

Another question....

2) If computer models predicting the impact of accelerated global warming indicates a future of intense storms, drought in some areas, melting ice caps, rising sea level etc…shouldn’t we do something?

Yes we should do something, first of all we should calm down. I have seen many misleading documentaries and news reports that warn the end of the world due to global warming and then, inconclusively, link global warming to human activity.

Let’s look at the source of the predications. Computer models. Let’s take out the word computer, because it makes me think that no person is involved. So we are down to models. Models are equations created by humans that try to simulate our climate. If we can’t simulate our daily weather accurately past say three days, how can we accurately predict global temperatures in 100, 1000, 10,000 years? Once again, we come up with uncertainties.

A major contributing factor (about 60%) to the predictions is something called "feedback". Feedback, in our case, is basically how other variables change as the concentration of greenhouse gases change. If you warm the air, you increase evaporation. Thus, you change relative humidity and you change type and amount of cloud cover. How will this change affect the warming? Will the cloud cover block out more solar radiation thus cooling earth? Our understanding of the climate system is not advanced enough to know all of the feedback possibilities.

What does this leave us with? Uncertainty in the model predications. One other significant uncertainty is how will greenhouse gas concentrations change in the future? Changes due both from natural processes and by possible human reduction in emissions? Uncertain, but a big player in the model predictions.

In my opinion, the only thing that is certain, is uncertainty itself, at least when it comes to model predictions. In fact, if you could sum up THE issue in the science concerning global warming in one word it would be: uncertainty.

If you still aren't sure why it seems nothing is being about global warming, put yourself in the shoes of the President or any policymaker. Your cabinet members summarize the issues for you below...

Facts That Are 100% True

- Global warming is happening.

- Greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere has increased in the past 120 years.

- Humans are the cause for most of the increase greenhouse gas concentrations in our atmosphere in the past 120 years.

- Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere.




Uncertainties

- Why is global warming happening? Not 100% sure.

- What will happen if global warming continues? We don’t know.

- When will global warming end, or will it speed up? Can’t say for sure.

- Can we stop global warming if we wanted to? Not 100% sure on that one either.





And now I ask you…"What’s your policy on global warming?" What would you say?



When questioned by reporters about global warming, here is what President George W. Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, had to say.

"The President has always said global warming is a serious problem, it is a serious priority. That's widely acknowledged. The President concurs. But the National Academy Report that came out last month also indicated that there are areas of uncertainty. There are some things that are known, but there are other things that aren't certain..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010713-5.html





Actually, a lot is being done, but you can' find a solution until you know what is causing the problem. So a lot is being done to investigate what is causing global warming and how will it truly affect our planet?

This means for a lot of research into perfecting our models, perfecting our understanding of the atmosphere, the climate system, the sensitivities of the climate system, and perfecting our observation and data gathering methods. This stuff is pretty boring and that's why it's not on the Ten
What is global warming?

Global warming is gases that get stuck in the atmosphere. Those gases let all the sunlight in and only some out.

What kinds of things do scientists think cause global warming? (Greenhouse effect)

Human factors:
When humans burn fossil fuels it releases carbon dioxide, one of the gases that cause global warming.

Other things humans do release gases such as: using fertilizers, growing rice, raising cattle, coal mines, building gas pipelines, landfills and destruction of forests.

Non-human factors:
Volcanic Activity and changes in Earth’s orbit.
Is global warming really happening? If not, what else could explain the data?

Some say "yes", but some say "no".

Why is global warming a concern? What’s the big deal?

(Weather changes. El Nino - is it related to global warming?)

(Sea level changes? Ice caps melting?)

Global warming does not cause El Ninos, however, global warming makes them be more frequent. The sea level has been rising at an average of 1 to 2 mm per year for the past 100 years, which is more than the 900 years before that.

Why isn’t everybody on the same side of the issue? What are the issues that cause people to be opposed to global warming prevention?

Because it is sometimes difficult to prove the effects of global warming and many of the solutions to the problem involve the possibility of limiting industrial development and changing the way people do things.

What can people do to help prevent global warming

Don’t use the dishwasher unless it is full. Don’t use heat during the drying cycle.

Don’t wash clothes in hot water (use cold water instead).

Turn your water thermostat down.

Don’t make rooms too hot or too cold.

Clean air conditioner filters as needed.

What can countries/governments do to help prevent global warming?

Make campaigns and commercials to encourage people to do things to stop the gases from reaching the atmosphere.

What is already being done?

Some people are walking, biking, or carpooling.

People are not cutting down as many trees.

Factory owners are installing equipment that cleans the smoke that they release.

Where can I get more information on global warming
Is Global Warming real?
Earth's climate is changing. The result so far:

Global temperatures have risen 5° C

Glaciers have melted and retreated dramatically

Ecosystems around the world are being altered



This is not new news. These changes started 18,000 thousand years ago, as the earth emerged from the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when ice-covered mammoths and mastodons roamed the earth.

Geologists know great ice sheets once covered large portions of the continents. These glaciers have alternately retreated and advanced as the earth has warmed and cooled, in cycles spanning hundreds, thousands, and millions of years.

Historical data from ocean sediments and ice cores indicate warm interglacial periods of 15,000 - 20,000 years separate each major ice age. We currently are in an interglacial period, and are due ( some say overdue ) for the next 100,000- year Ice Age.



Earth's Icehouse History
Beginning about 18,000 years ago the Earth started warming up, halting at least temporarily a 100,000-year-long Ice Age, during which the upper latitudes of almost all the continents lay buried under thick sheets of glacial ice.

The Earth was a much colder and drier place then. Deserts were more extensive, summers were short, and winters brutal. Approximately 1/5 of the forests on the planet were obliterated by the great ice sheets. Over 1/2 of the continent of North America was a desolate wasteland of ice.

At the peak of glaciation, oceans were 300 feet lower than they are today, allowing animals and men to walk from Siberia to Alaska across the Aleutian Land Bridge, causing changes to the ecosystem of North America. It wasn't until about 15,000 years ago that global warming caused the great glaciers to retreat, allowing establishment of our accustomed environment. Average global temperatures have risen about 5° C since the last Ice Age.



The Role of the Greenhouse Effect
From an historical perspective, global warming has saved us, at least temporarily, from an Icehouse Climate, although humans can hardly take the credit.

Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:

1) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
2) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
3) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
4) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.

Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Dioxide from all coal burning worldwide comprises only 0.013% of the greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Ready... fire... aim?
In Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore agreed to commit the United States to significant future reductions of carbon dioxide emissions, principally by cutting the use of fossil fuels by as much as 30% over the next 10 years. It is assumed that these drastic proposed measures will have a real effect on protecting Earth's climate-- an assertion that many climate experts are reluctant to support.

While scientists are currently searching for proof that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are warming the planet, there exists no solid proof at this time.

The strongest evidence for a problematic greenhouse effect is data generated from computer models which predict about 1.5° C of warming in the next 50 years unless something is done to change the rate of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.

While computer climate models may eventually be able to predict future climate change, so far the ones we have are very unreliable-- unable even to accurately predict current climate conditions using current climate data.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Right now I do not have confidence that changes in sea ice and clouds are done correctly in climate models. The annual cycle is not correct in many models, so why should it be correct in climate change [projections]?"

Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ( in an interview for the Washington Post, May 1998 ).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It will be some time before computer models will be able to reliably predict future climate change. Meanwhile, policy-makers like the United Nations and the Clinton/Gore Administration contend that we do not have time to wait.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Economists fear putting the United States on a strict carbon diet could stall a booming U.S. economy and reignite inflation.

Prominent climatologists like Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia contend that we would do well to carefully consider what the greater body of scientific evidence has to say on the matter of global warming before taking drastic measures. Their concerns are shared by other scientists who are troubled that the issue of global warming seems driven more by politics than by sound science.

Geologic history clearly shows that Earth's climate is dynamic and ever-changing. While carbon dioxide as a constituent of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution, it has been similarly increasing since the earth started warming 18,000 years ago. Clearly, there are natural forces at work.

All sides agree the subject of climate change is a complex one. Prudent science maintains that in our pursuit to understand our climate future we must also understand Earth's climate past. Toward this objective the next page explores Earth's climate history over the last 750,000 years-- essential reading if you are concerned about or interested in the issue of global warming