Dr. Carter on Global Warming, Climate Change, Kyoto, etc

Fall 2001, updated February 2007

There are many dimensions to the consideration of climate change and global warming.  I am writing this so that my colleagues will know my thinking on the subject.  It is rather lengthy statement because there is no simple answer as to what is happening and why.

Climate change is real.  Only 18 thousand years ago the central part of the U.S. was covered with glaciers.  Obviously, a major change in climate has taken place since then, and most of the change has been a global warming.  But, the continental glaciers retreated to approximately present location some 8 thousand years ago.  Since then we know there have been smaller changes in climate around the world.  There have been some extended warm periods and some cold periods.  In the historic past we have the ‘Little Ice Age’ that hit Europe and North America from about the 1300’s to the 1800’s.  Since that time climates have been warming, but not at a constant or consistent rate.

The Greenhouse Effect is real and we should be thankful that our atmosphere works this way.  Recall how this works.  Because the Sun is so hot it radiates in the short wave  part of the spectrum.  The gases of the atmosphere are transparent to this short wave solar radiation (sunlight).  Much of the short wave solar radiation passes through the gases of the atmosphere and warms the Earth’s surface.  The much cooler Earth radiates in the longwave part of the spectrum.  Some of the gases of the atmosphere are NOT transparent to the longwave radiation.  We call these gases the Greenhouse Gases, or GHG’s.  As the GHG’S absorb the longwave radiation they are warmed.  This so-called Greenhouse Effect keeps the lower levels of the atmosphere warm.  Without the Greenhouse Effect it would be far colder at night when we do not receive sunlight.

With the growth of our industrial society we have seen a continuous increase in the concentration of the greenhouse gases, particularly Carbon Dioxide.  Thus, we are enhancing the Greenhouse Effect by increasing the concentration of those gases.

The big questions are:

1 - Will this human produced enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect lead to global warming?

2 - So what if the climates of the world get warmer?

3 - What should we do about it?  What can we do about it if we care?

Is the Earth warming?  I think we can now say definitely yes, but not everyone is in total agreement as to how fast we are warming or how consistently.  We can look at past temperature records but these exist mostly in cities and only on the land in the developed areas of the world.  Recently scientists have created a temperature record for the Northern Hemisphere for the past millennium based on what are called proxy data.  I have become convinced that this record is basically correct.  This is the so-called 'hockey stick' curve because for about 850 years the line is flat and then in the mid 1800's the line bends up--showing a long handle and the blade.  The shape of that curve shows that human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution have had an impact on global warming.  (I have another page discussing global warming as an unintended consequence of our life since the Industrial Revolution.)

To me the best evidence of warming is the fact that around the world glaciers are shrinking or are staying stable in size.  Glacier National Park is in western Montana.  If you want to see glaciers there you better plan to go soon, because the glaciers are retreating rapidly.  When I visited Columbia Glacier in Canada a few years ago there were markers showing how far the glacier has retreated since people have been visiting that site for more than a century.  In only a very few places around the world does it appear that any glaciers are growing, but in many places around the world glaciers are retreating quite rapidly.  That to me is the most telling evidence of a global warming.  And, there have been credible reports that the thickness of ice over the Arctic Ocean has been systematically thinning.

Is this warming caused by human enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect?  I certainly believe much of it is.  The best argument for this are the results of the many Global Climate Models, GCMs.  Some very good climatologists have dedicated themselves to answering this question over many years.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, recently issued the Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers.  In that document they show that the GCMs are quite convincingly demonstrating that the GHGs are a significant factor in the global warming we are observing.

Do we know all we need to know about this?  No!  We are continuing to address these questions and thankfully many persons are now doing good climate science.  We want to know more about variations in the solar energy but we know that is not the primary reason for our recent warming.  And, as we add GHG’s to the atmosphere we add other pollutants.  It appears that the sulfates we add to the atmosphere may be contributing to some cooling of the atmosphere.  We do not know enough about the role of oceans in storing heat.  There is some reason to suspect that the oceans have been getting warmer at depth and that for many years the oceans were warming but this warming was not reflected in the atmosphere.  We have much to learn about the role of the oceans in this energy balance equation and we should remember that oceans make up over 70% of the Earth's surface.  What goes on over the oceans is probably far more important than what happens over land--even on America. 

So what if the Earth is getting warmer?

If the Earth were to warm by 10° F or 6° C over the next century there would still be humans, animals, plants, continents and oceans.  So, the world will not come to an end.  But, if such warming were to occur sea level would rise, many species of plants and animals would probably disappear and there would be many changes in human societies around the world.

Of course, in another century there will be many changes in human societies.  A century ago there were no airplanes, televisions, computers, refrigeration, etc.  In the past century we have seen the birth and decline of Communism.  Today we see a world that is interconnected and growing rapidly.  We cannot imagine some of the more dramatic things that are likely to occur over the next century.  When I wrote this in the spring of 2001 none of us anticipated that terrorism would strike the U.S. dramatically in a few months.  There have been many changes in the world since spring of 2001 and we are only 7% into this new Century.  Indeed, there will be many changes in the next 93 years.

We know that we are more likely to be able to control future directions if our physical environment does not change significantly.  You do not want to have to fight invasions of new diseases that can move into the area because it is now warmer.  You do not want to have more intense droughts when you already have problems getting fresh water for the growing population.  If you live along the coast in such cities as Miami, New Orleans, New York, Amsterdam, London or Tokyo you do not want to have to deal with a rising ocean.  (Hurricane Katrina in 2005 reminded us that living below sea level or close to the coast has its disadvantages, but few people seem to be paying attention.)

If you are an insurer, you want to be able to predict the risk of your policy holders.  You want to be able to charge enough for policies to cover the risk.  You do not want to see an increased risk of tornadoes or hurricanes.  If you insure ski resorts then you do not want to see less snowfall and warmer winters.

Most people do not want to see a change in climate.  We want things to remain as they are.  We do not want to see any species disappear, at least not the charismatic megafauna such as lions, tigers or elephants.  We do not want to see the coral reefs disappear.  Nor do we want our glaciers to retreat and disappear.  Of course there are some species we do want to disappear—those viruses and pathogens that bring us colds, malaria, tuberculoses, etc.  No one is predicting that these will disappear with global warming.  Quite the opposite, these nasty organisms are likely to flourish in a warmer world.  Therefore, for many reasons we want things to stay as they are.

There is another aspect to climate change.  It is one thing for climate to change naturally, we can live with that.  But, many people are troubled by the fact that we humans are changing the nature of our Earth as a consequence of our greed and wasteful ways. 

I and many others contend we have an obligation to be stewards of Earth.  We argue that we do not have the right to decide which species should survive and which should die out simply because we want our own way.  The ethic of stewardship is common to most cultures and religions.  It is interesting how dramatically some religious communities have come around in the last couple of years to recognizing a concern with global warming and its relationship to human activities. 

In addition to stewardship, there is the question of sustainability.  There is no way we can continue to grow forever in population numbers, continue to use great quantities of oil and gas, continue to add pollutants to the air, continue to cut down forests, etc.  Such behavior is not sustainable.  We know we must move toward a more sustainable way of life.

How do we move toward more sustainability?  What roles do governments have in moving us there, or in moving away from unsustainable behavior?  This is where there is great difference in ways of thinking.

Many people contend the current U.S. government programs subsidize our unsustainable ways of life.  We subsidize cutting down forests.  We subsidize pumping oil and mining on government lands.  We subsidize activities that lead to increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  We subsidize buying every larger houses and converting farmland into subdivisions.  Of course, not everyone sees such activities as subsidies.

Others contend we should subsidize activities that will lead us to a more sustainable way of life.  Some would like to see no subsidies, but that will never happen.  Subsidies come in the way of tax policies and government programs.  Lobbyists throw money at politicians to get subsidies or keep subsidies.  In a democracy we will have lobbyists and influence peddling.  Subsidies are built into our system, I am sorry to say.

What should we do about Global Warming?

Many of the peoples of the world are convinced that human activities are doing things that are contributing to a global warming.  Not everyone is there yet but even President Bush talks about a need to address the question of global warming.  

It is my observation that the leaders of the world are more concerned with such environmental issues than is the average person.  Most people do not want to change their behavior to help the environment.  Putting an aluminum can in a recycle bin is one small step.  Not jumping in the car for a quick run to the store is another possibility.  Sharing a ride is still another possibility, etc.  I know you are perfect—it is all those other people who do not practice more sustainable behavior.

There has been an on-going effort to address many of the big issues.  In the early 1990’s the nations of the world met to discuss ways of lessening our impact on climate change and global warming.  There are continuing meetings of world leaders on what we should do.  In 1997 at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan, the countries of the world agreed that the more developed countries should lower their output of carbon dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases.  This agreement is known as the Kyoto Protocol.

There has been organized opposition to the efforts to address global warming.  There are a few scientists who question the power of the GHGs to produce as much global warming as we seem to be experiencing.  Those who oppose efforts to combat global warming love these scientists and hang on their every word.   However, in the last couple of years leaders in many industries have stepped forward to recognize that global warming is a real concern and that we need to address the issue.

The Kyoto Protocol itself has become a political issue.  Many people hate the idea of the U.S. coming under standards imposed by other countries.  As originally formulated, the Kyoto Protocol was targeted only at the developed countries, and thus China and India were exempted.  But, now these countries seem to be booming economically and are our competitors for jobs and markets.  Many argue that we should not join the Kyoto Protocol if China and India are not made to follow the same rules.

Others think that if we do not adopt the Kyoto standards the world will come to an end.  Many feel that we have an obligation work with other countries because they are our allies.

It is recognized that lowering GHG levels to the Kyoto standards will not bring an end to global warming.  We will have to reduce levels of GHG emissions by far more than this to reduce any warming caused by an increase in the concentration of GHG’s.

But, by adopting the Kyoto standards many feel we would be moving in the right direction.  By not doing anything we are pretending that the problem does not exist.  Most people think we should do something. 

When President Bush announced in March 2001 that the U.S. would not support the Kyoto Protocol it was interpreted by many as saying ‘we do not believe in the problem and don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. What is most important is the U.S. economy.’  This idea is still prevalent in 2007, although more persons believe there is a global warming problem.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for meeting reduced levels of CO2 output by the year 2010.  Every year representatives of the developed countries of the world meet on the Kyoto Protocol. 

In late 2004 this group met again in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and further advanced the Protocol.  Earlier in the fall, Russia agreed to sign the Protocol and with the inclusion of Russia, the Protocol could be implemented.  And, again, the U.S. was there but did not sign the Protocol. 

Recently UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) released some data showing how the countries of the world are adding GHG to the atmosphere and are moving toward the Kyoto standards.  Below is the map showing per capita production of CO2 as of 1998.  The link to the map gives one the data for 2002 and projected emissions for 2010.  On this map one can see that the U.S., Canada and Australia have the highest production of CO2.  This is not something to be proud of, but it does show the strength of our industrial economies.  Note that for much of the world we do not have data sufficient to include them on the map.  Thus, we are ignorant of China, India, Indonesia, and all of South America and Africa.

James R. Carter, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Geography

Geography / Geology Department

Illinois State University

Normal, IL, USA 61790-4400

jrcarter@ilstu.edu