You can think of energy in the Earth’s climate in a way that is similar to the materials entering and leaving the car factory. Almost all the energy for the Earth system comes from the Sun. About 30% of this is reflected from clouds and the land surface, and the other 70% is absorbed and heats the Earth. (The reflected fraction is called the “albedo”, so we say that the Earth’s albedo is about 30%. We don’t worry much about the heat coming up from the deep Earth because it is almost 4000 times smaller than the absorbed heat from the sun.)energy

You know that when the sun rises in the morning, the temperature in the air can go up a lot, quickly. If all of the Sun’s energy stayed on Earth, everyone would be dead from overheating in much less than a year.

But, warmer things lose energy to colder things. Suppose you turn on an electric stove. As the temperature of the heating element (the “burner”) rises, it begins to heat the pot of water on top to boil the water for your spaghetti. If there isn’t a pot of water on top, you can see the burner begin to glow, radiating energy.

This stove burner is actually reddish, but looks purple because of a fancy easy-to-clean stove top

Credit: Richard B. Alley @ Penn State is licensed under CC-BY-NC-4.0

The burner is “glowing” even before you can see the glow, as you could prove to yourself if you watched it while wearing special glasses that can “see” in the infrared, which is a longer wavelength of energy than visible light. As the burner gets hotter, it radiates more energy. And, while it continues to radiate long wavelengths such as the infrared you can’t see, a hotter burner shifts more of its energy to shorter wavelengths you can see, going to red and then orange and yellow as it warms up.

If you keep giving the burner the same amount of energy, its temperature will increase until the outgoing and incoming energy are equal, and then the temperature will stabilize. If you then supply energy more rapidly, the burner will warm to a new level that radiates the extra energy. Always, the burner tends to that temperature at which incoming and outgoing energy are equal, a balance like the stuff going into and out of the factory. But, electricity comes in, and electromagnetic radiation goes out, much the way car parts go in and cars come out of the factory.

For the Earth, energy from the very hot Sun comes in, mostly in the short wavelengths of light we can see, and we send back infrared radiation at longer wavelengths. But on average, the total amount of energy going out is just about the same as the total coming in. At the present time, this incoming and outgoing energy is not exactly equal — a bit less is leaving, which means that the Earth is warming.

When a car drives out of the factory, there may be tiny cracks in the pavement that the tires roll over easily. And, the road may go down into a small valley and up the other side, again causing no trouble for the car tires. But, if there is a pothole of the wrong size in the way, the tire may drop in, bending the rim, blowing the tire and getting the car stuck. Going really slowly might allow the car to ease through the pothole without damage, and going really fast might jump the pothole, but a car at the wrong speed in the wrong place can fall into the pothole and get into trouble.

Dr. Alley was careful putting his bike tire into this pothole for a picture, but real potholes really do break tires sometimes.

Credit: Richard B. Alley @ Penn State is lincensed under CC-BY-NC-4.0

We are all familiar with such situations, in which interactions happen when the size or energy is “right”, but otherwise there is almost no interaction. This is very common in the air. The shortwave radiation from the sun does interact with clouds, and the very shortwave (ultraviolet) interacts with ozone (which helps protect us from skin cancer caused by the high-energy radiation), but otherwise most of the light from the sun passes easily through the air. However, the infrared radiation going back up from the Earth does interact with certain gases in the air, which are often called greenhouse gases. Radiation tends to be absorbed if it is at or near those wavelengths with the right energy to make a particular molecule wiggle or spin in a particular way.

A molecule that is wiggling or spinning because it absorbed radiation has extra energy—it is hotter than it was. It usually will quit wiggling or spinning by colliding with a neighboring molecule and passing the extra energy along; occasionally, the extra energy will be sent out as radiation instead. Most of the energy absorbed by molecules in the air was going up from the surface, and if they “re-radiate” the energy it goes in a random direction, which has the effect of reducing the radiation going to space and sending some back to Earth. In the more common case of collisions, even a rare greenhouse gas can heat the atmosphere by repeatedly absorbing energy and then colliding with non-greenhouse molecules.

Without greenhouse gases, the Earth's average surface temperature would be well below freezing —about 18°C or -0.4°F.

Want to learn more?
Read over Enrichment titled The Simplest Climate Model to learn more about this.

The greenhouse gases now in the air do keep the Earth’s surface warmer than it otherwise would be, and adding more greenhouse gases will cause more warming. There is nothing new, surprising, or honestly controversial in any of this. With a calculation something like the one in The Simplest Climate Model (read more about it in the enrichments), the French scientist Jean Fourier discovered in 1824 that something was keeping the Earth’s surface anomalously warm, and among the hypotheses he considered was that the atmosphere is acting something like glass holding heat in a container (perhaps the origin of the comparison to a greenhouse; see The Discovery of Global Warming). The British physicist John Tyndall showed in 1859 that gases in the air, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, were contributing to the greenhouse effect. And, in 1896, the Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius did a fairly good job of calculating the global warming from the carbon dioxide released by the human burning of fossil fuels. (Through history, scientists have actually been better at calculating the effects of greenhouse gases than at realizing just how incredibly skillful fossil-fuel companies would become at supplying large quantities.)

The science of the greenhouse effect thus is not some new discovery but has a long history compared to such “recent” science as relativity (Albert Einstein, 1905) or quantum mechanics (Max Planck, 1900). The pioneers who explored radiation in climate science were giants of physics, chemistry, and mathematics, who saw the strong interactions between laboratory studies and application to the atmosphere.

Much of the work on the details of the interaction between radiation and gases in the air was done by the US Air Force just after World War II and applied to topics such as sensors on heat-seeking missiles, as told in the introduction to this chapter. A missile uses a sensor to “see” the infrared radiation from a hot engine, but greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapor block the view in some wavelengths by absorbing that radiation. Because the gases interact with radiation traveling in any direction, and there is much more energy in those wavelengths going up from the sun-warmed Earth than coming down from military bombers, the warming influence of the greenhouse gases is unavoidable.

Because warmer things begin to radiate more energy very quickly, the Earth’s climate is very strongly stabilized, as noted in The Simplest Climate Model. Other processes may stabilize the Earth system by reducing changes or destabilize by amplifying changes.

Some stabilizers can be very important but tend to be very slow. We saw in the last chapter that warming reduces oxygen in the ocean, which makes the burial of organic matter easier. And, because the organic matter grew from carbon dioxide in the air, burying rather than burning the dead bugs lowers atmospheric carbon dioxide. Thus, if something such as a brighter Sun causes warming, fossil-fuel formation reduces the size of the warming. However, we also saw that fossil-fuel formation is a slow process because most plants are still “burned” by bacteria or living things; fossil-fuel formation can be very important over a few hundred thousand years or longer, but not over a few thousand years.

Some carbon dioxide is also picked up from the air by rain, forming a weak acid that breaks down rocks in a process called “weathering” because the weather is involved. The chemicals released from the rocks are used to make shells, some of which contain carbon dioxide. (A coral reef or a clamshell is calcium carbonate, usually written as CaCO₃, but sometimes written as CaO•CO₂, showing more clearly that it contains carbon dioxide.) Chemists use Bunsen burners in their labs for good reasons; warming almost always makes chemical reactions go faster. So, if the temperature goes up, chemistry removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere more rapidly. If something such as a brighter sun raises the Earth’s temperature, this “rock weathering feedback” can remove enough carbon dioxide to cool the climate back close to the starting temperature in approximately ½ million years.

The Earth's climate is a complex system, and like most other complex systems, it is, partially controlled by many feedbacks. Feedbacks can affect many things. If we think about temperature, if a warming or cooling affects other processes that in turn change the temperature, those other processes are called feedbacks. A feedback that works against the initial temperature change to reduce its size is said to be stabilizing or negative; a feedback that increases the size of the initial change is amplifying or positive. The most important stabilizing feedbacks for Earth’s temperature are the almost instantaneous increase in radiation leaving the planet when the temperature rises, and the faster removal of carbon dioxide from warmer air to form shells and fossil fuels over hundreds of thousands of years.

At the in-between times, however, the most important feedbacks are positive. As a result, climate changes over years to millennia can be almost as large as changes over much longer times.

The most important of these positive feedbacks is warmer air picking up more water vapor from the ocean and plants, and carrying that vapor along, thus strengthening the greenhouse effect (or, colder air picking up less water vapor…).

Want to know more?
Read the Enrichment titled Carbon Dioxide is more Important than Water Vapor as a Greenhouse Gas.

The air doesn’t know why it is warm, so anything that warms the air—brighter sun, or more greenhouse gas, or alien ray guns—will increase evaporation from the ocean, amplifying the warming.

Note that this does NOT mean that the warming “runs away” and the Earth burns up, but just that the total warming is made larger by the feedback. Suppose the sun becomes enough brighter to warm the planet by 1 degree, based on the simplest climate model in the Enrichment, which doesn’t include the water-vapor feedback. Including the effects of the extra water vapor would increase warming to almost 2 degrees.

Another important feedback is linked to snow and ice. Most surfaces (forests, grasslands, cities, oceans, even deserts) absorb most of the sunshine that reaches them, but snow and ice reflect most of the sunshine reaching them. Warming melts snow and ice, causing the Earth to absorb more sunshine, which causes more warming. This ice-albedo feedback is not nearly as strong as the water vapor feedback under modern Earth conditions because most of the snow and ice occur in places and at times without a lot of sunshine (mostly in the winter, near the poles, and often under clouds that already are reflecting the sunshine; note that this feedback would be much more important if the temperature were cold enough for the ice to extend near the equator).

But, the water-vapor and ice-albedo feedbacks interact with each other. If the sun becomes brighter or carbon dioxide is increased by fossil-fuel burning, the resulting warming melts snow and ice and picks up more water vapor. Each of these causes more warming. But, the warming from the extra water vapor also melts some snow and ice, and the warming from loss of snow causes more water vapor to be picked up. Under modern Earth conditions, this still doesn’t “run away”, but it amplifies the warming still more. (The warming did “run away” on Venus, evaporating the oceans and causing the surface today to be hot enough to melt the metal lead, and such a fate awaits Earth most of a billion years in the future as the sun slowly brightens, although if we hang around and keep learning, we could “geoengineer” our way out of the problem, perhaps using techniques that will be discussed later in the course.)

The best current estimate is that, including changes in vegetation and clouds as well as snow and water vapor, doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air and letting the climate come into balance will cause a warming of roughly 3°C, with fairly high confidence that the number is not less than 1.5°C or more than 4.5°C (or, a most-likely warming of 5.4°F, with the range of possibilities primarily between 2.7°F to 8.1°F). This number is usually called climate sensitivity and is widely discussed in climate science. Of the roughly 3°C warming from doubled CO₂, the direct effect of the carbon dioxide on Earth’s radiation is just over 1°C (roughly 2°F), with the rest coming from the positive feedbacks. The stabilizing effect of warmer bodies radiating more energy is included here. Some additional amplifiers are omitted (melting of seasonal snow and sea ice are included, but not melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, for example), so over many centuries or millennia, the warming may be somewhat larger than 3°C. The very slow stabilizers are also omitted, but they do not become important until even further into the future. Despite hopes that the climate sensitivity might be low, the most recent studies have made it less and less likely that sensitivity is as low as 1.5-2°C (2.7-3.6°F), with a value close to 3oC (5.4°F) looking fairly likely.

First, let’s start with Figure SPM-1 from the Fourth Assessment of the IPCC, showing the history of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases over the last 10,000 years. Ice-core data from multiple cores and labs cover most of the history shown, and overlap with the recent instrumental record, all with very close agreement. The recent rise is unprecedented in the 10,000 years shown. Based on additional ice-core records not shown, the greenhouse-gas levels are now above anything seen in the last 800,000 years. And, data from other sources indicate that carbon dioxide has not been this high for millions of years. (Note that much further back in history, nature did cause higher CO₂ levels, a topic to which we will return later.)

The figure shows “radiative forcing” as well as atmospheric concentration. The Earth absorbs 240 W/m² from the sun. The extra warming from rising CO₂ is somewhat similar, although not identical, to the warming from a brighter sun, so the effect of the CO₂ can be discussed in W/m^2. CBy January of 2017, atmospheric CO₂ was at a concentration of 405 ppm, up from 280 ppm before the industrial revolution, with the extra CO₂ giving a radiative forcing of roughly 2 W/m², equivalent to the sun getting almost 1% brighter. The contributions from methane (from rice paddies, cow guts, and other sources) and nitrous oxide (especially produced by processes in soil stimulated by nitrogen fertilizers and animal waste) are significant but smaller.

The amount of extra CO₂ now in the air, and moving into the ocean to make it more acidic, closely matches the CO₂ we know has been produced from fossil-fuel burning. The human source is roughly 100 times as large as the natural volcanic source, and volcanoes have not done anything bizarre recently, so cannot be blamed for the recent rise. CO₂ is moving into the ocean rather than coming out, so oceans cannot be responsible for the rise.

Furthermore, the atmosphere confirms that humans are responsible, as discussed in the ETOM film clip below and the Enrichment linked below.

Want to learn more?
Read the Enrichment titles Humans are Primarily Responsible for the Rise in CO₂..

So, yes, humans are increasing the greenhouse effect, primarily by producing CO₂ by burning fossil fuels, with very little uncertainty.

Video: SPM2 (2:20)

Natural and Anthropogenic Warming (launch image in a new window)

Greenhouse gases are not the only things that affect climate. But, climate changes have causes; there are no magical “cycles” that somehow change the climate without letting us know why. (There are cycles that affect climate, but they have causes, such as features of Earth’s orbit, that we understand; they are NOT magical!) So, we can assess what things are affecting the climate.

More than a century ago, the Earth was a little on the cold side in what is sometimes called the “Little Ice Age” because the sun was a bit dim and volcanic eruptions were putting up dust that blocked the sun. The sun brightened early in the 20th century, contributing to warming, as shown by the little red bar extending to the right for natural solar irradiance down near the bottom of the figure. But, over the last 30 years when satellites have given us the best data, the sun seems to have dimmed just a bit. We humans have cut dark forests and replaced them with more-reflective grasslands, cooling the Earth a little, and we have put up a lot of particles to block the sun, with notable cooling influence (you can find blue bars for these, extending to the left, in the figure).

You may meet someone who agrees that the Earth is warming, but argues that much of the change is natural. This is wrong; over the last few decades, warming has occurred despite nature pushing a little toward cooling, and human particles and land-use changes pushing more strongly toward cooling. The most likely answer for how much of the warming has been caused by our greenhouse gases is “More than all of it”, because of warming despite these other cooling influences.

Video: SPM 3 (1:07)

Temperatures, Sea Level and Snow Cover (launch image in a new window)

The temperature is going up. The figure shows a few of the indicators, but many more are known. Consider the next figure, for example.

Video: Surface Temperatures (1:38)

Decadal Land-Surface Average Temperature (launch image in a new window)

The Berkeley Earth project is an interesting attempt by a group, involving a lot of physicists who were not primarily climate scientists through much of their careers, to use private as well as public funding to re-calculate the temperature record from thermometers. The Berkeley work follows efforts by NOAA and by NASA in the US, and by a British group at the Hadley Center and the University of East Anglia, and other efforts by others, to calculate global temperature changes from thermometer records. You can see clearly in the figure that over recent decades when the data are best, the different groups get the same answer despite having different funding sources and different techniques. The temperature is going up.

Furthermore, if you throw away the records from thermometers in and near the cities and just look in the country, you see warming. Thermometers in boreholes in the ground show warming. Thermometers taken aloft by balloons (radiosondes), and thermometers looking down from satellites and analyzed in different ways, show warming. So do thermometers in the ocean.

The temperature-sensitive snow and ice also show warming. You would not go searching for this effect in the coldest places; if you start off at -40 and warm by a couple of degrees, the snow and ice won’t melt yet. But, the effects of warming are seen in loss around the edges, in space and time, of seasonal snow cover, river, and lake ice, seasonally and perennially frozen ground, mountain glaciers and more. The melting of land ice and the expansion of ocean water as it warms are driving the rise in global sea level. And, the great majority of significant changes in where plants and animals live, and when they do things during the year, are in the direction of warming. So, warming is occurring, despite natural and human pushes toward cooling over recent decades.

Want to learn more? Read the Enrichment titled Global Warming Did Not Stop Recently.

Better Climate Models and Weather Forecasts End, but Climate Forecasts Continue

The energy from the sun that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is sometimes labeled S, in units such as Watts per square meter (W/m²⁾, and is approximately S=1370 W/m². Most of the energy leaving the sun misses the Earth and goes streaming off into space, but we intercept a little of it. This total energy reaching the whole Earth is just the Earth’s cross-sectional area multiplied by S, or $\pi r^{2}S$, where r is the radius of the Earth.

But, because the Earth is a sphere rotating under the Sun, this energy must be spread around the whole surface area of the planet, including the side facing away from the Sun, with a total area of $4\pi r^2$. Hence, the energy available per square meter of Earth’s surface is $\pi r^{2}S/4\pi r^2=S/4$.

However, recall that some of this energy is reflected back to space without warming the planet. We call the reflected part the albedo, and for the whole Earth it is roughly 30%, or A=0.3. The absorbed energy is 1-A=0.7. The average energy going to warm the planet is then S(1-A)/4.

The Earth radiates energy back to space, and this can be approximated by “black-body” physics. In this approximation, the outgoing radiation increases with the fourth power of the absolute temperature T (which is how many degrees you are above absolute zero), so outgoing radiation is $\sigma T^4$, where the constant σ, which is often called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, has a particular numerical value = $5.67\ast {10}^{-8}W/m^2/K^4$ (that is, 5.67 times 10 to the negative eighth power), with temperature in Kelvins (K).(Some people like to write “degrees Kelvin” or “^oK”, and the same for “degrees Fahrenheit or ^oF” or “degrees Celsius or ^oC”, but it is OK to just use K, F or C.)

Incoming and outgoing energy come into balance, so we have the equation $S(1-A)/4=\sigma T^4$. You can substitute the numbers given just above for S, A, and σ, and then calculate T, the average surface temperature of the Earth. This will give you about 255 K, or -18 C or 0 F, which is well below freezing; the actual average surface temperature is close to 288 K, or 15 C, or 59 F. Our very simple model omitted the greenhouse effect, which keeps the Earth’s average surface temperature above freezing.

Because radiation increases as the fourth power of absolute temperature, the climate is very strongly stabilized. A 1% increase in average temperature causes approximately a 4% increase in radiated power, which means that even a relatively large change in the brightness of the sun, or in other factors affecting the climate, will have a moderately small effect on the temperature. Without this strongly stabilizing effect giving us the climate we have, we might not even be here!

Better Climate Models

Climate models may be the part of the science that most people know the least about. Be very clear-scientists do not tell their computers to produce global warming, and then get excited when global warming comes out of the computer!

The simplest climate model we just discussed shows you a tiny bit of what goes into a real climate model. The starting point is physics. This includes the rules that mass and energy are not created or destroyed but just changed around. The physics also includes interactions between mass and energy-how much energy is needed to evaporate an inch of water per week, for example, or to warm the atmosphere by a degree. Interactions of radiation and greenhouse gases are specified from the fundamental physics worked out by the US Air Force after World War II, and other such studies.

The model also must “know” about the Earth-how much sunshine we get, how big the planet is and how fast it rotates, where the land and oceans are, how much air we have and what it is made of. (Climate models are applied to other planets, and very clearly give different answers because of the differences between the planets.)

All of this information is written down in equations, translated into computer language, and then the computer is turned on. What happens next is remarkable-the computer simulates a climate that looks like the real one. Air rises and rains in the tropics, then sinks and dries over the Sahara and Kalahari. Storms scream out of the west riding the jet stream, and snow grows and shrinks with the seasons across the high-latitude lands.

The model will not be perfect, of course. Suppose you are interested in wind speed. You know from personal experience that you can hide behind a windbreak for relief on a windy day. A forest can serve as a windbreak, giving weaker winds than on a prairie. So, the model must be “told” about the distribution of forests and grasslands (or else must calculate where they grow), and about the “roughness” of the forest and the grass. Scientists have conducted studies on the effects of forests and grasslands on winds, but all studies include some uncertainty. So, the modelers know that the surface roughness in this region must be about this much, but could be a little less or a little more within the range allowed by the data.

The modeler (or more typically, the modeling team) can now “tune” the model. If the winds in the model are a little stronger in some places than in the real world, the modeler may increase the roughness a little, although without going outside the uncertainties. To avoid any biases, different groups in different countries with different funding sources build different models, and tune them in different ways; when all of them agree closely, it is evident that the tuning hasn’t controlled the answer.

Some of the models are used for weather forecasting and for climate studies, and work fine for both. There are differences between weather and climate (see Weather Forecasts End, But Climate Forecasts Continue) - many climate models are simulating changes in vegetation, for example, but if you’re worried about the weather for next week, you don’t really care whether global warming endangers the Amazonian rainforest over the coming decades.

As a general rule, in talking to the public or policymakers, climate modelers rely especially on those results that:

• are exhibited by a range of models from simple to complex run by different scientific groups;
• are understood based on the physics;
• are observed in the history of climate; and
• are confirmed by recent instrumental observations.

No one has succeeded in forecasting the weather more than a week or two into the future, and we’re confident that such forecasts are impossible because of “chaos”. But, this difficulty does not interfere with the ability to project climate changes much, much further into the future.

For weather forecasting, you need to start with the current state of the atmosphere. If there is a cold front sweeping eastward across North Dakota in the US, areas just to the east in Minnesota are likely to experience the effects of that cold front soon. However, if the cold front has already passed across Minnesota, a different forecast will be more accurate.

This difficulty arises from the fact that no one can ever perfectly know the current state of the atmosphere everywhere (nor can we calculate perfectly, but let’s focus on the data here). If you give a good forecasting model the best available data, the model will produce a forecast that is demonstrably skillful for the next week or two, but the further you look into the future, the lower the skill, until the model is not able to predict the details of the weather. The model still produces “reasonable” forecasts—for summer in North Dakota, it will produce summertime conditions, not wintertime ones—but there is no skill for forecasting whether a cold front is coming in 26 days, or 27.

Suppose you now take your best data, and “tweak” them within the known uncertainties in the original measurements and the interpolations between the measurement stations. If the temperature in Fargo at noon on June 23, 2012 was 87.1 F, you don’t really know whether that was 87.100 or 87.102 or 87.009, nor do you know the exact temperature in all of the suburbs of Fargo that lack thermometers. So, take the 87.1 and try replacing it with the possible value 87.102, fully consistent with the available data. Make similar tweaks to other stations. Then, run the model again. What happens?

For the first few days, the forecast is almost unaffected. But, as you look further into the future, the forecast becomes more and more different from the original one. If you do this again, with different tweaks to the data (say, 87.009 rather than 87.100), you again will get almost the same forecast for a few days, but further out the forecast will differ from both of the prior ones. Do this a lot of times, and the odds are good that one of the runs will end up being close to what happens in the future, and that the average of the runs will be similar to the average behavior of the weather over a few decades (unless climate is changing rapidly!). But, you won’t know which individual run is the right one. This “sensitivity to initial conditions” is often called “chaos” in public discussions, and it means that weather forecasts can’t be accurate too far into the future. In the same way, you cannot predict the outcome of the roll of dice in a game until the dice have almost stopped moving.

Note that you can predict the average outcome of many rolls of dice, and you can predict the average behavior of weather over many years, which is climate. You may have met someone who argued that failure of a weather forecast casts doubt on climate-change projections, but that is like using one roll of dice to argue that if you keep gambling you’ll beat the casino. People who make that mistake at casinos are usually known as “poor” or “broke”.

Video: Chaos and Phil the Groundhog (PSUrockvideo) (3:50)

This may seem strange. If you track what happens to the radiation leaving the Earth's surface, some is absorbed on the way, and some goes straight out to space. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and clouds dominate the absorption, with all the others (methane, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, etc.) also enough to be important if taken together. (Clouds also have a slightly more important role in blocking the sun, with the net effect of clouds being slight cooling under modern conditions.) Because some radiation is blocked almost entirely by only one gas type, but other wavelengths may interact with both water vapor and carbon dioxide, there is a bit of uncertainty in the bookkeeping of the exact importance of a single type of greenhouse gas. Overall, though, it is fairly accurate to say that water vapor supplies close to half of the total greenhouse effect, clouds and carbon dioxide each a little under a quarter, and all others just under a tenth.

But, the amount of water vapor in the air is equal to the amount of rain that falls on the Earth in just over a week. As water vapor rains out very rapidly, it is replaced by evaporation of more water. Any extra water vapor we put in the air from burning of fossil fuels or irrigating crops just doesn't stay up there very long. And, because the natural source of water vapor is so huge (evaporation from a giant ocean and a lot of plants that together cover almost the entire Earth), the human source is actually tiny in comparison. The only practical way we know of to greatly change water vapor in the air is to change the temperature. A hair dryer has a heater for good reasons, and warming the air will allow it to pick up and carry along more water vapor, whether the warming is caused by carbon dioxide, or a brighter sun, or some sort of heat ray from space aliens, or anything else.

Some research has looked at what would happen if carbon dioxide were removed from the atmosphere. Loss of the carbon dioxide cools the planet, but that condenses some of the water vapor, which cools the planet more, and the Earth turns into an ice-covered snowball. If water vapor is removed, a lot more evaporates quickly before the Earth can freeze.

So, yes, water vapor is blocking more energy than carbon dioxide today. But, carbon dioxide is much more important for changing the climate than is water vapor. Carbon dioxide can be a forcing—add it to the air, and you force the climate to change. Carbon dioxide also can be a feedback—change something else (such as reducing oxygen in the ocean to allow more fossil-fuel formation), and that changes carbon dioxide in the air, which in turn changes the temperature. But, water vapor is almost entirely a feedback because there aren't any natural or human processes other than changing the temperature that can put water vapor up fast enough to make a big difference to climate.

Bookkeeping by itself shows that humans are responsible. We produce roughly 100 times more CO₂ than volcanoes do (maybe only 50 times, maybe closer to 200 times, if you include the uncertainties, but something like 100). Nature was producing its CO₂ for a long time, but humans have increased from being a very small source to being much more important than volcanoes.

Furthermore, several tracers in the atmosphere confirm the bookkeeping. These include:

• Dropping oxygen. The level of oxygen in the air is dropping as CO₂ rises. You'll still be able to breathe with no trouble, but this shows that the rise in CO₂ is caused by fire, which uses oxygen, and not by melting beneath a volcano or CO₂coming out of the ocean, which don't use oxygen.
• Falling carbon-13. Plants preferentially use CO₂ containing the lighter and faster-diffusing carbon-12 rather than the heavier carbon-13, so CO₂ formed by burning living plants or fossil fuels is more enriched in carbon-12 than is CO₂emitted by volcanoes or coming from chemicals dissolved in the ocean. The CO₂ in the air is becoming more enriched in carbon-12 and less enriched in carbon-13, which shows that the extra CO₂ comes from living or dead plants.
• Falling carbon-14. Carbon-14 is made in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, then taken quickly into living plants, but decays radioactively over about 50,000 years. (Half of the carbon-14 decays in just about 5730 years, half of the remainder in the next 5730 years, and by 50,000 years or so almost none remains.) Thus, living plants contain carbon-14, but fossil fuels don't. Carbon-14 is becoming less common in the atmospheric CO₂, much more rapidly than can be explained by radioactive decay, showing that the extra CO₂ in the air is coming from plants that have been dead a long time.

Taken together, bookkeeping says that the rise in atmospheric CO₂ is coming from human burning of fossil fuels. And, the atmosphere says that the rise in CO₂ is coming from burning of plants that have been dead a long time. The agreement is beautiful, confirming that we are responsible for what is occurring.

There is a bit more complexity to this, linked to our burning of forests, but also letting some forests grow back and fertilizing others, and linked to us releasing some CO₂ while making cement. But overall, the biggest source of CO₂ is our fossil fuels, and this will become more and more important in the future if we continue on our present path.

The main text presented some of the evidence that temperature is rising. But, the climate is influenced by the 11-year sunspot cycle, the occasional sun-blocking influence of particles from big volcanic eruptions, and also by the sloshing of water in the tropical Pacific Ocean associated with El Nino and La Nina-when the hot waters spread along the equator in an El Nino event, some heat moves from the ocean to the air, and when the cold waters of La Nina follow, heat flows back into the ocean. An extra El Nino, or an extra-strong one, in a decade can make global warming look very fast, whereas an extra La Nina can temporarily slow the upward march of temperature from the rising CO₂. This sort of sloshing cannot ultimately change the warming of the planet, but can make it appear more variable, and control whether the air warms fast and the ocean much slower, or whether faster warming of the ocean slows the atmospheric warming a bit.

Think for a minute about a neighbor taking a very active dog for a walk. Watch the person, and you can see steady progress down the street. Watch the dog, and you may have to study carefully for a while to even know which way they are going. You may find it useful to think of the year-to-year temperature changes as the dog, and the average behavior as the person. Please click the image below to watch the animation.

Animated gif demonstrating trends.

Click here for a text description of the Global mean temp Celsius vs year graph.

Frame 1 (Early 1960s to 1970s)

• The graph initially shows data only from the 1960s to late 1970s.
• The red temperature line fluctuates, but appears to decline slightly.
• A black trend line slopes downward, suggesting cooling.
• Text displayed: "Dr. Alley was born in 1957, at the start of cooling?"

Frame 2 (Extending into the 1980s)

• The graph expands, now including temperature data up to the early 1980s.
• The red line still fluctuates, but some warmer years start appearing.
• The black trend line slightly flattens, though cooling is still implied.
• Text changes to: "Oh wait... we forgot some data."

Frame 3 (More 1980s Data Appears)

• Additional data from the mid-to-late 1980s appears.
• The red temperature line rises more visibly.
• The black trend line flattens further, reducing the cooling trend.
• Text now reads: "Oops... forgot some more data."

Frame 4 (1990s Data Added)

• The timeline now extends through the 1990s<.
• The red temperature line shows a noticeable warming trend.
• The black trend line is nearly flat.
• Text changes again to: "Hmmm... looks like it's getting warmer."

Frame 5 (Early 2000s Data Appears)

• Data from the early 2000s appears, reinforcing warming.
• The red temperature line climbs further, surpassing earlier fluctuations.
• The black trend line now slopes slightly upward.
• Text now reads: "Maybe the cooling was just a fluke?"

Frame 6 (Late 2000s Data Added)

• The graph extends into the late 2000s.
• The red temperature line is now clearly trending upward, confirming warming.
• The black trend line now visibly slopes upward.
• Text changes to: "Yeah, definitely a fluke."

Frame 7 (Final Frame - Full Data to 2010)

• The graph completes the dataset, extending into 2010.
• The red temperature line reaches its highest points, solidifying the warming trend.
• The black trend line fully reverses, now clearly showing long-term warming.
• Final text displayed: "Never mind!

Credit: Richard B. Alley @ Penn State is licensed by CC-BY-NC-4.0

Next, take a look at the figures, which highlight events from Dr. Alley’s career. In each case, the jagged red line connects the temperatures from year to year, using data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the smoother black line is the best fit to the data over the interval selected. You will see that in each case, Dr. Alley has carefully picked the end points so that the best-fit line slopes downward, indicating a cooling trend. For the last 20 years, Dr. Alley has met important people in Washington, DC who declared that global warming stopped. It is very easy to do so; be quiet during a year with strong warming, and then the next year go back to claiming that global warming stopped.

Over a century ago, the Guinness brewery in Ireland hired an Oxford mathematician, W.S. Gosset, to develop ways to separate actual trends from short-term variability. The techniques were published with a pseudonym (A. Student), presumably to help people without telling competitors how valuable it was for a business to avoid self-delusion. If you apply techniques derived from that research, global warming has not stopped; all time intervals long enough to show a statistically significant trend do show warming.

By 2016, the temperature had risen enough that it barely fit in the chart above, aided by the ongoing human warming and by a strong El Nino event. This strong El Nino was warmer than the previous one, which was warmer than earlier ones, mostly because of human CO2. But, temperature was dropping a bit in late 2016 as the El Nino faded. And, some inaccurate voices were already, again, declaring that global warming had stopped.

Some Better Climate Models

Climate models may be the part of the science that most people know the least about. Be very clear — scientists do not tell their computers to produce global warming, and then get excited when global warming comes out of the computer!

The simplest climate model we just discussed shows you a tiny bit of what goes into a real climate model. The starting point is physics. This includes the rules that mass and energy are not created or destroyed, but just changed around. The physics also includes interactions between mass and energy — how much energy is needed to evaporate an inch of water per week, for example, or to warm the atmosphere by a degree. Interactions of radiation and greenhouse gases are specified from the fundamental physics worked out by the US Air Force after World War II, and other such studies.

The model also must “know” about the Earth-how much sunshine we get, how big the planet is and how fast it rotates, where the land and oceans are, how much air we have and what it is made of. (Climate models are applied to other planets, and very clearly give different answers because of the differences between the planets.)

All of this information is written down in equations, translated into computer language, and then the computer is turned on. What happens next is remarkable — the computer simulates a climate that looks like the real one. Air rises and rains in the tropics, then sinks and dries over the Sahara and Kalahari. Storms scream out of the west riding the jet stream, and snow grows and shrinks with the seasons across the high-latitude lands.

The model will not be perfect, of course. Suppose you are interested in wind speed. You know from personal experience that you can hide behind a windbreak for relief on a windy day. A forest can serve as a windbreak, giving weaker winds than on a prairie. So, the model must be “told” about the distribution of forests and grasslands (or else must calculate where they grow), and about the “roughness” of the forest and the grass. Scientists have conducted studies on the effects of forests and grasslands on winds, but all studies include some uncertainty. So, the modelers know that the surface roughness in this region must be about this much, but could be a little less or a little more within the range allowed by the data.

The modeler (or more typically, the modeling team) can now “tune” the model. If the winds in the model are a little stronger in some places than in the real world, the modeler may increase the roughness a little, although without going outside the uncertainties. To avoid any biases, different groups in different countries with different funding sources build different models, and tune them in different ways; when all of them agree closely, it is evident that the tuning hasn’t controlled the answer.

Some of the models are used for weather forecasting and for climate studies, and work fine for both. There are differences between weather and climate (see Weather Forecasts End, But Climate Forecasts Continue) - many climate models are simulating changes in vegetation, for example, but if you’re worried about the weather for next week, you don’t really care whether global warming endangers the Amazonian rainforest over the coming decades.

As a general rule, in talking to the public or policymakers, climate modelers rely especially on those results that:

• are exhibited by a range of models from simple to complex run by different scientific groups;
• are understood based on the physics;
• are observed in the history of climate; and
• are confirmed by recent instrumental observations.