Memorandum
To:
Rick Schuhmann
CC:
Ryan Whittington
From:
Lindsay Hagemann, Jonathan Rumbaugh, Scott Stiles
Date:
2/6/2016
Re:
Global Climate Change: Fact or Fiction
Background on Climate Change
“Imagine our planet suddenly stripped of its atmosphere – a barren hunk of rock floating in
space. If this were the case, then earths near ground temperature would soar by day but
plummet by night. The average would be something close to bone chilling -18 degrees
Celsius. In reality though, Earth’s surface temperature averages a much more pleasant 14.4
C. Clearly, there’s something in the air that keeps things tolerably warm for humans and
other living things.” (Henson, 2008)
Air and Sunlight
First, it is important to understand the consistency of air and the process of sunlight reaching
the Earth’s surface. Air is mainly composed of nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (20%). Both of
these gases do not absorb radiation well due to their linear diatomic structure.
As for sunlight, the sun emits ultraviolet
radiation down to the Earth’s surface. Some
of the sunlight is absorbed by the clouds,
atmosphere, water vapor, and the Earth’s
surface, while some is reflected back to
space. The sunlight that was absorbed by
the Earth’s surface is emitted back into the
atmosphere as infrared radiation. To
understand the differences in the Ultraviolet
and Infrared wavelengths, please see Figure
1 to the right.
Figure 1 - Approximate Wavelengths
(The Nature of Radiation, 2009)
Greenhouse Gases
On the contrary to air, gases that capture energy very well are those that are composed of
more than two atoms. These gases are known as greenhouse gases and they are what make
our Earth inhabitable. Some examples of greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane,
and water vapor.
GLOBAL WARMING
1
February 6, 2016
Greenhouse gases act like a blanket for Earth. They trap the reflected radiation from the
Earth’s surface, as previously described, and prevent the energy from entering into space.
The more greenhouse gases added into the atmosphere, the more the planet warms. This
warming phenomenon is known as Global Warming. Figure 2 on the following page
illustrates the process of the Greenhouse Effect.
Figure 2 - The Greenhouse Effect (Henson, 2008)
GLOBAL WARMING
2
February 6, 2016
Fossil Carbon Emissions and Accumulation of Greenhouse Gases in the
Atmosphere Causing Global Warming: A Result of Human Activity
The purpose of the following quotations and information is to prove that fossil carbon
emissions and accumulation of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is causing Global
Warming. Further, a rise in such emissions is the result of human activity.
“In the 1930s, Guy Stewart Callendar developed the first sustained argument that burning
fossil fuels was changing the chemistry of the Earth’s atmosphere in ways that could have
and perhaps already were having consequences for the global climate. (Oreskes, Conway, &
Shindell, 2008)
“It also reached the Johnson White House….“This generation has altered the composition of
the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the
burning of fossil fuels.” (Oreskes, Conway, & Shindell, 2008)
“A plethora of studies from diverse sources indicates a consensus that climate changes will
result from man’s combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use.” (Oreskes, Conway,
& Shindell, 2008)
“At the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Frank Press, Science
Advisor to President Carter, asked the National Academy of Sciences for a second opinion.
An Academy committee, headed by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney, affirmed the JASON
conclusion: “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that
climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.’”
(Oreskes, Conway, & Shindell, 2008)
“‘Plausible projections of future carbon dioxide concentrations suggest several-fold
increases by the middle of the next century; experiments with models of the earth’s climate
system suggest major associated climate changes that might become evident in our own
century.” Even if the effects were far off, pollution released now would induce climate
effects later, so one still might need to act now to prevent those effects.” (Oreskes, Conway,
& Shindell, 2008)
“Echoing Revelle and Suess, he [John Perry] noted that burning fossil fuel “returns to the
atmosphere carbon that was extracted by ancient plants many millions of years ago.”
(Oreskes, Conway, & Shindell, 2008)
“If we have good reason to believe that a 100 percent increase in carbon dioxide will
produce significant impacts on climate, then we must have equally good reason to suspect
that even the small increase we have already produced may have subtly altered our climate.”
So he concluded, “[c]limate change is not a matter for the next century; we are most
probably doing it right now.” (Oreskes, Conway, & Shindell, 2008)
“Gordon MacDonald: 250-page book, published by Harper and Row, gave detailed
treatments of the sources of CO2, how it gets distributed in the environment, how that
affects climate, and how serious the future effects of increased CO2 might be.” (Oreskes,
Conway, & Shindell, 2008)
GLOBAL WARMING
3
February 6, 2016
Figure 3 - Chart illustrating changes in key global climate parameters since 1973
compared with IPCC scenarios (shaded portion). (Glikson, 2008)
On the extreme end of things…“Ever since humans gained control over the use of fire,
before 100 ka and possibly as far back as 700 ka, their impact over the natural environment
has been increasing, perhaps justifying a redefinition of the species as Homo prometheus.
The biological and philosophical questions of the underlying rationale for this
phenomenon—major climate change and mass extinction triggered by a mammal species—
defy understanding. Metaphorically perhaps, having reached the pinnacle of intelligence
and consciousness in the animal kingdom, the human species is now paying the price for
forbidden insights into the secrets of nature—subatomic matter, the universe, time and
space. While the present may be the key to the past, the past may also be giving us a
warning about the future.” (Henson, 2008)
As evident by the numerous quotations from credible sources, there is a definite link
between carbon emissions and the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Moreover, there is further support stating that the combination of these gases plus the
involvement of humans has led to global warming at an alarming rate.
Global Warming: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
After a careful and unbiased consideration of all the evidence we find that there is proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is warming because of manmade problems.
Anthropogenic global warming is a problem that is important to our own affairs and we
must act upon it without hesitation. Our reasoning comes from reports that have gone
through multiple rounds of expert peer review and represent the best available global-scale
approximations of the scientific consensus on climate change.
The potential of the atmosphere to trap solar radiation was proposed in 1827 by a
mathematician and physicist Joseph Fourier. This system is called the greenhouse effect
GLOBAL WARMING
4
February 6, 2016
and was coined by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. They argued that the changes in the level of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could have a significant effect on surface temperature
(Mastrandrea, 2008). More than 100 years later this still holds true.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents an extensive assessment
report every five to six years. In the IPCC’s fourth report it clearly states “Most of the
observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to the observed increase in anthropogenic green house gas emission concentrations.”
(Team, Pachauri, & Reisinger, 2007).
Even with all the scientific evidence pointing to humans’ effect on global warming, there
still are skeptics out there. Some of their arguments that we found were: The atmosphere
isn’t warming, the warming is due to natural variation, the amount of warming is
insignificant, the benefits will outweigh the problems, technology will come to the rescue,
and we shouldn’t wreck the economy. All of these argument however were found using
Google and none of the articles were peer reviewed or had any other credibility to them.
After using Web of science we found articles that were peer reviewed and credible that
disputed all of these arguments and we did not find any articles that were skeptical of global
warming. Michael Mastrandrea of Stanford University wrote a resource letter for the
American Association of Physics teachers that provided a guide to credible literature on
human-induced climate change. In her letter she talks about dealing with uncertainty in
science. “Normal scientific practice is to strive to reduce uncertainty through standard
science data collection, modeling, simulation, model-data comparison, and so forth.”
(Mastrandrea, 2008) We believe that this has been done and is proof that beyond a
reasonable doubt that global warming is due impart by human activity.
Judgment
The IPCC and other scientific organizations study the cost and benefits associated with
proposed climate policies, but as a scientific body they are not the ones who will make the
final decision. There are two general sources of uncertainty in projecting future climate
change: the future trajectory of human-induced greenhouse-gas emissions and how the
natural climate system will respond to those emissions. Policy decisions can strongly
influence the first source of uncertainty future emissions, but will have little influence on the
second source climate response to emissions (Mastrandrea, 2008). In the United States a
small group of global warming skeptics have had a large influence on the way people think
and understand global warming. Their voices have been backed up in many cases by
massive amounts of money by the oil, coal and auto industries. The climate skeptics active
in research work with conservative think tanks and lobby groups who use their research to
convince legislators that climate change science is full of unknowns. In 1983 physicist
William A. Nierenberg arguable launched the climate change debate and shortly after Bush
took office Nierenberg presented him with the idea that global warming was not a problem
and no policy action was necessary. While Nierenberg clearly saw climate as a fertile area
for scientific research and institutional growth, he equally clearly rejected his colleagues’
emerging consensus about it (Oreskes, Conway, & Shindell, 2008). Nierenberg’s opinions
of global warming and opinions from other skeptical scientists have expanded over time and
have been adopted by Governmental officials of today. “In recent years, particularly in the
GLOBAL WARMING
5
February 6, 2016
United States, challenges to scientific knowledge claims have become commonplace as a
strategy in political and social disputes, disputes that open large windows into broader
questions of science and culture.” Myanna Lahsen is noted in Oreskes – From Chicken
Little to Dr. Pangloss for saying, “In the recent history of climate science, many claims to
expert knowledge have come from inside the scientific community, although not necessarily
in ways one might expect. It is common to find scientists working on the same or closely
related topics to disagree about methods, data, and interpretations. This is the very definition
of scientific debate. But in the climate arena, much of the “debate” was triggered by
individuals who, although they were prominent scientists, were not climate scientists and
were not actually doing climate research,” (Oreskes, Conway, & Shindell, 2008). This is
why the judgment process of governmental officials must be considered.
38% of elected representatives in Washington do not think it’s been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems. Senator Inhofe
claims that the basic link between carbon emissions, accumulation of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, and the phenomenon of climate change and in fact whether human activities
are responsible for global warming is vigorously disputed in the scientific community. On
January 4, 2005 Sen. James Inhofe released a statement and said, "Much of the debate over
global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. I called the threat of catastrophic
global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, a statement that,
to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist
organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same
environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of
dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns,” (Inhofe, 2005).
Inhofe also talks about a book where he got a lot of his information and he recommends it to
the American public. The book was written by a medical doctor. Inhofe says “Dr. Crichton's
book is designed to bring some sanity to the global warming debate. Dr. Crichton states that,
"Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon,"
and, "Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be man-made." And for those
who see impending disaster in the coming century, Dr. Crichton urges calm: "I suspect that
people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller
global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to
worry about them."(Inhofe, 2005). We believe that this is poor judgment by Sen. Inhofe. He
is gathering information about global warming from a medical doctor and calling it credible.
We did not come across any scientific evidence that supports his claims.
Our Final Thoughts
The ability to analyze problems systematically, organize information, identify key factors
and underlying concerns and generate solutions is just the broadest definition of what many
would define the analytical thinking and judgment process. The issue that our team had
while researching endless amounts of reports, journals, and articles was how often we found
that the member, or members, of the team behind the piece had skewed, or altogether
skipped, the above process. The problem with this is compounded when it reappears over
and over which leads us to the situation at hand. How do we know who, or what to believe?
Global warming is hardly unknown by the vast majority of the world, however, it is a topic
that can be thought of as knowing a little about a lot, which sometimes leads to a report
drawn up by a person, or persons, that really have no business, or professional relevance, to
GLOBAL WARMING
6
February 6, 2016
the topic. This report is then disputed by another, which is then disputed by another leading
into a vicious cycle which we believe we are now at the heart of.
We observed this cycle when reading Oreskes’s piece, and it began with the committee’s
charge to update the Charney report. Two studies had claimed that the effect of increased
CO2 on surface temperatures would be “much less than estimated by the majority of the
scientific community” (pg 21). One report was drafted by Sherwood Idso, a soil scientist,
and the other by R.E. Newell and T.G. Dopplick, both MIT meteorologists. Both reports
made essentially the same points which were later challenged by the Smagorinsky group (pg
21). This group found similar results to the Charney report but employed a rather simple
model. To no surprise, Idso and Newell and Dopplick disputed these conclusions. This time
they practiced a ‘static radiative flux’ model which yielded similar results to their original
reports. This trend continued and attracted others to voice their solutions while
simultaneously refuting others. Whether it was the Smagorinsky group claiming that Idso
and Newell and Dopplick had left out various known parameters, Richard Lindzen voicing
others lacks of cloud consideration, or Idso doubting others knowledge of the first law of
thermodynamics, the judgments made by these various representatives were constantly
called into question.
The hardest part we felt was determining whether one judgment was better than the next.
We all believed that proper judgment combines the ability to draw on one’s experience and
knowledge, but it is unrealistic for us to make informed conclusions in this area. Knowing
this, we took what was said by each in the ongoing argument and thought about what we
thought should have been done. For example, When Richard Lindzen claimed that clouds
would reduce the effects of global warming; he failed to provide any concrete evidence to
support such a claim. We are in no way doubting his intelligence on the matter, but we
concluded that his approach was not one that met the proper benchmarks of the judgment
process. By providing no evidence on a topic that calls for nothing less, he immediately lost
credibility. Another thought we had involved Newell and Dopplick supposedly omitting
many known parameters as a means to ‘simplify’ the model to allow for easier results.
Whether or not this claim was true, which is a whole other argument; we felt that it showed
bad practice. If the overall goal is to achieve the best and most accurate of results to prove
the danger we face down the road with global warming, then leaving information out of the
solution process puts simplicity over all else and thus renders your model insufficient in this
matter.
In the end, our advice for policy makers would be to listen to organizations like the IPCC
who do not conduct any science of its own. Their role is to evaluate studies carried out by
thousands of researchers around the world and then synthesize the results in a form that
helps policy makers decide how to respond to climate change.
GLOBAL WARMING
7
February 6, 2016
Bibliography
Glikson, A. Y. (2008). Milestones in the Evolution of the Atmosphere with Reference to
Climate Change. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences , 55 (2), 125-139.
Henson, R. (2008). Climate Change. New York: Rough Guides Ltd.
Inhofe, J. M. (2005, January 4). Floor Speeches. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from James
M. Inhofe - U.S. Senator - Oklahoma:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climateupdate.htm
Mastrandrea, M. D. (2008). Resource Letter GW-2: Global Warming. American Association
of Physics Teachers , 608-12.
Oreskes, N., Conway, E. M., & Shindell, M. (2008). From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss:
William Nierenberg, Global Warming, and the Social Deconstruction of Scientific
Knowledge. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences , 109-152.
Team, T. C., Pachauri, R. K., & Reisinger, A. (Eds.). (2007). 2007: Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment , 4
, 4. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).
The Nature of Radiation. (2009, July 21). Retrieved October 15, 2009, from Physical
Geography: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6f.html
GLOBAL WARMING
8