Back to Table of Contents

Global Warming FAQ

What is Global Warming?
Global Warming is the increase of Earth's average surface temperature due to eff
ect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fu
els or from deforestation, which trap heat that would otherwise escape from Eart
h. This is a type of greenhouse effect.
Is global warming, caused by human activity, even remotely plausible?
Earth's climate is mostly influenced by the first 6 miles or so of the atmospher
e which contains most of the matter making up the atmosphere. This is really a v
ery thin layer if you think about it. In the book The End of Nature, author Bill
McKibbin tells of walking three miles to from his cabin in the Adirondack's to
buy food. Afterwards, he realized that on this short journey he had traveled a d
istance equal to that of the layer of the atmosphere where almost all the action
of our climate is contained. In fact, if you were to view Earth from space, the
principle part of the atmosphere would only be about as thick as the skin on an
onion! Realizing this makes it more plausible to suppose that human beings can
change the climate. A look at the amount of greenhouse gases we are spewing into
the atmosphere (see below), makes it even more plausible.
What are the Greenhouse Gases?
The
ced
in
in

most significant greenhouse gas is actually water vapor, not something produ
directly by humankind in significant amounts. However, even slight increases
atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) can cause a substantial increase
temperature.

Why is this? There are two reasons: First, although the concentrations of these
gases are not nearly as large as that of oxygen and nitrogen (the main constitue
nts of the atmosphere), neither oxygen or nitrogen are greenhouse gases. This is
because neither has more than two atoms per molecule (i.e. their molecular form
s are O2 and N2, respectively), and so they lack the internal vibrational modes
that molecules with more than two atoms have. Both water and CO2, for example, h
ave these "internal vibrational modes", and these vibrational modes can absorb a
nd reradiate infrared radiation, which causes the greenhouse effect.
Secondly, CO2 tends to remain in the atmosphere for a very long time (time scal
es in the hundreds of years). Water vapor, on the other hand, can easily condens
e or evaporate, depending on local conditions. Water vapor levels therefore tend
to adjust quickly to the prevailing conditions, such that the energy flows from
the Sun and re-radiation from the Earth achieve a balance. CO2 tends to remain
fairly constant and therefore behave as a controlling factor, rather than a reac
ting factor. More CO2 means that the balance occurs at higher temperatures and w
ater vapor levels.
How much have we increased the Atmosphere's CO2 Concentration?
Human beings have increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about thi
rty percent, which is an extremely significant increase, even on inter-glacial t
imescales. It is believed that human beings are responsible for this because th
e increase is almost perfectly correlated with increases in fossil fuel combusti
on, and also due other evidence, such as changes in the ratios of different carb
on isotopes in atmospheric CO2 that are consistent with "anthropogenic" (human c
aused) emissions. The simple fact is, that under "business as usual" conditions,
we'll soon reach carbon dioxide concentrations that haven't been seen on Earth

in the last 50 million years.

Combustion of Fossil Fuels, for electricity generation, transportation, and heat
ing, and also the manufacture of cement, all result in the total worldwide emiss
ion of about 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. Abou
t a third of this comes from electricity generation, and another third from tran
sportation, and a third from all other sources.
This enormous input of CO2 is causing the atmospheric levels of CO2 to rise dram
atically. The following graph shows the CO2 levels over the past 160 thousand y
ears (the upper curve, with units indicated on the right hand side of the graph)
. The current level, and projected increase over the next hundred years if we do
not curb emissions, are also shown (the part of the curve which goes way up hig
h, to the right of the current level, is the projected CO2 rise). The projected
increase in CO2 is very startling and disturbing. Changes in the Earth's average
surface temperature are also shown (the lower curve, with units on the left). N
ote that it parallels the CO2 level curve very well.

Is the Temperature Really Changing?

Yes! As everyone has heard from the media, recent years have consistently been t
he warmest in hundreds and possibly thousands of years. But that might be a temp
orary fluctuation, right? To see that it probably isn't, the next graph shows th
e average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere as determined from many sources
, carefully combined, such as tree rings, corals, human records, etc.

These graphs show a very discernable warming trend, starting in about 1900. It m
ight seem a bit surprising that warming started as early as 1900. How is this po
ssible? The reason is that the increase in carbon dioxide actually began in 1800
, following the deforestation of much of Northeastern American and other foreste
d parts of the world. The sharp upswing in emissions during the industrial revol
ution further added to this, leading to a significantly increased carbon dioxide
level even by 1900.
Thus, we see that Global Warming is not something far off in the future - in fac
t it predates almost every living human being today.
How do we know if the temperature increase is caused by anthropogenic emissions?
Computer models strongly suggest that this is the case. The following graphs sho
w that 1) If only natural fluctuations are included in the models (such as the s
light increase in solar output that occurred in the first half of the 20th centu
ry), then the large warming in the 20th century is not reproduced. 2) If only an
thropogenic carbon emissions are included, then the large warming is reproduced,
but some of the variations, such as the cooling period in the 1950s, is not rep
roduced (this cooling trend was thought to be caused by sulfur dioxide emissions
from dirty power plants). 3) When both natural and anthropogenic emissions of a
ll types are included, then the temperature evolution of the 20th century is wel
l reproduced.

Is there a connection between the recent drought and climate change?

Yes. A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gives
strong evidence that global warming was a major factor. Click here for more det

ails.
Who studies global warming, and who believes in it?
Most of the scientific community, represented especially by the Intergovernmenta
l Panel on Climate Change (IPCC - www.ipcc.ch), now believes that the global war
ming effect is real, and many corporations, even including Ford Motor Company, a
lso acknowledge its likelihood.
Who are the IPCC?
In 1998, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), in recognition of the threat that global warming presents to t
he world.
The IPCC is open to all members of the UNEP and WMO and consists of several thou
sand of the most authoritative scientists in the world on climate change. The ro
le of the IPCC is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic informa
tion relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.
It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate related data. It
bases its assessment mainly on published and peer reviewed scientific technical
literature.
The IPCC has completed two assessment reports, developed methodology guidelines
for national greenhouse gas inventories, special reports and technical papers.
Results of the first assessment (1990--1994): confirmed scientific basis for glo
bal warming but concluded that ``nothing to be said for certain yet''. The seco
nd assessment (1995), concluded that `` ...the balance suggests a discernable hu
man influence on global climate'', and concluded that, as predicted by climate m
odels, global temperature will likely rise by about 1-3.5 Celsius by the year 21
00. The next report, in 2000, suggested, that the climate might warm by as much
as 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years, which would bring us back to a
climate not seen since the age of the dinosaurs. The most recent report, in 200
1, concluded that "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming o
bserved over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
Due to these assessments, debate has now shifted away from whether or not global
warming is going to occur to, instead, how much, how soon, and with what impact
s.
Global Warming Impacts
Many of the following "harbingers" and "fingerprints" are now well under way:
Rising Seas--- inundation of fresh water marshlands (the everglades), low-lying
cities, and islands with seawater.
Changes in rainfall patterns --- droughts and fires in some areas, flooding in o
ther areas. See the section above on the recent droughts, for example!
Increased likelihood of extreme events--- such as flooding, hurricanes, etc.
Melting of the ice caps --- loss of habitat near the poles. Polar bears are now
thought to be greatly endangered by the shortening of their feeding season due t
o dwindling ice packs.
Melting glaciers - significant melting of old glaciers is already observed.
Widespread vanishing of animal populations --- following widespread habitat loss
.
Spread of disease --- migration of diseases such as malaria to new, now warmer,
regions.
Bleaching of Coral Reefs due to warming seas and acidification due to carbonic a
cid formation --- One third of coral reefs now appear to have been severely dama

ged by warming seas.

Loss of Plankton due to warming seas --- The enormous (900 mile long) Aleution i
sland ecosystems of orcas (killer whales), sea lions, sea otters, sea urchins, k
elp beds, and fish populations, appears to have collapsed due to loss of plankto
n, leading to loss of sea lions, leading orcas to eat too many sea otters, leadi
ng to urchin explosions, leading to loss of kelp beds and their associated fish
populations.
Where do we need to reduce emissions?
In reality, we will need to work on all fronts - 10% here, 5% here, etc, and wor
k to phase in new technologies, such as hydrogen technology, as quickly as possi
ble. To satisfy the Kyoto protocol, developed countries would be required to cut
back their emissions by a total of 5.2 % between 2008 and 2012 from 1990 levels
. Specifically, the US would have to reduce its presently projected 2010 annual
emissions by 400 million tons of CO2 . One should keep in mind though, that even
Kyoto would only go a little ways towards solving the problem. In reality, much
more needs to be done.
The most promising sector for near term reductions is widely thought to be coalfired electricity. Wind power, for example, can make substantial cuts in these e
missions in the near term, as can energy efficiency, and also the increased use
of high efficiency natural gas generation.
The potential impact of efficiency should not be underestimated: A 1991 report t
o Congress by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Gree
nhouse Warming, found that the U.S. could reduce current emissions by 50 percent
at zero cost to the economy as a result of full use of cost-effective efficienc
y improvements.
Discussing Global Climate Change:
Here is a useful list of facts and ideas:
Given the strong scientific consensus, the onus should now be on the producers o
f CO2 emissions to show that there is not a problem, if they still even attempt
to make that claim. Its time to acknowledge that we are, at very least, conducti
ng a very dangerous experiment with Earth's climate.
A direct look at the data itself is very convincing and hard to argue with. Ask
a skeptical person to look at the data above. The implications are obvious. The
best source of data is probably the IPCC reports themselves, which are available
at www.ipcc.ch (see, for example, the summaries for policy makers).
The recent, record-breaking warm years are unprecedented and statistically signi
ficant. It is a fact that they are very statistically unlikely to be a fluctuati
on (and now we can point to specific side effects from those warm temperatures t
hat appear to have induced recent worldwide drought).
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, whether or not you believe in global warmi
ng per se, the fact remains that the carbon dioxide levels are rising dramatical
ly --- there is no debate about this. If we continue to use fossil fuels in the
way we presently do, then the amount of carbon we will release will soon exceed
the amount of carbon in the living biosphere. This is bound to have very serious
, very negative effects, some of which, such as lowering the pH of the ocean suc
h that coral cannot grow, are already well known.
Response of Government: Develop "Carbon Sequestration" Technology
Many government agencies around the world are very interested in maintaining fos
sil fuel use, especially coal. It should be noted that US energy use, which is e
normous, is increasing, not decreasing. Furthermore, we are not going to run out
of coal in the near term (oil may begin to run low sometime after 2010). Method
s for reducing carbon emission levels while still burning coal are now investiga

tion by government and industry, as we now discuss.

We believe that a major increase in renewable energy use should be achieved to h
elp offset global warming. While there are some US government programs aimed in
this direction, there is simply not enough money being spent yet to achieve this
goal in a timely manner. A primary goal of many new programs is not to increase
renewables, but rather, is to find ways to capture the extra CO2 from electrici
ty generation plants and "sequester" it in the ground, the ocean, or by having p
lants and soil organisms absorb more of it from the air.
Possible Problems with Carbon "Sequestration"
One of the Carbon sequestration approaches under investigation is the possibilit
y of depositing CO2 extracted from emission streams in large pools on the Ocean
bottom. It is possible that such pools will not be stable, and may either erupt
to the surface, or diffuse into the ocean and alter the oceans pH.
Another scheme under investigation is the idea of stimulating phytoplankton grow
th on the ocean surface by dusting the surface with iron (the limiting nutrient)
. This will cause an increased uptake of carbon by the plankton, part of which w
ill find its way to the ocean bottom. Fishing companies are considering using th
is to increase fish harvests while simultaneously getting credit for carbon sequ
estration. Serious ecological disruptions could occur, however, especially if th
is approach is conducted on a sufficiently large scale.
Another idea is to stimulate Earth's terrestrial ecosystems to take up more carb
on dioxide. While the impacts here are more difficult to ascertain, an important
point to note is that these systems are not thought to be able to completely ab
sorb all the extra CO2 . At best, they may be sufficient to help the US stabiliz
e carbon emission rates for a few decades, but even if this is achieved, stabili
zation of rates are not likely to return the Earth to pre-industrial carbon leve
ls. Worse, biological feedbacks to global warming, such as forest fires, drying
soils, rotting permafrost, etc, may actually greatly accelerate carbon emissions
, i.e. we may experience massive carbon de-sequestration.
Another major approach under consideration is to pump CO2 into old oil and gas w
ells. While seemingly attractive, it must be kept in mind that for this to be tr
uly effective, it would have to be done on a world wide scale, include many sour
ces of CO2 , including many sources which are presently small and widely distrib
uted (such as car emissions, and not just coal plant emissions). All of this CO2
would need to be captured, transported, injected into old wells, and then the w
ells would need to be sealed and monitored. It is not clear that this would be a
ffordable at all, and that there would be adequate capacity or assurance that CO
2 would not leak out in massive quantities.
In the worst case scenario, carbon sequestration efforts may simply fail, but al
so end up being a political tool that is used to seriously delay a transition to
renewable energy sources, and also possibly create many new environmental probl
ems problems while prolonging old ones.
In the best case scenario, given the truly enormous amount of CO2 we are present
ly emitting, some sequestration approaches may serve as a useful bridge to curbi
ng emissions while the transition to renewables is being made.
Some Global Warming Related Websites
IPCC site: http://www.ipcc.ch : Try the Summaries for Policy Makers for starters
. These are concise, well written documents that also contain some of the best a
nd latest data.

US Global Change Research Program: www.usgcrp.gov

Weathervane: an online forum designed to provide the news
media, legislators, opinion leaders, and the interested public with
analysis and commentary on U.S. and global policy initiatives related to climate
change. http://www.weathervane.rff.org/
The global warming primer and discussion at website of the Institute of Geophysi
cs and Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory: http://www.igpp.lanl
.gov
Back to Table of Contents