 Q&A

cumulative emissions since 1875.

Based just on the established physics of the amount of heat CO 2 absorbs

and emits, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-
industrial levels (up to about 560 ppm) would by itself, without
amplification by any other effects, cause a global average temperature
increase of about 1 °C (1.8 °F). However, the total amount of warming
from a given amount of emissions depends on chains of effects
(feedbacks) that can individually either amplify or diminish the initial
warming.

The most important amplifying feedback is caused by water vapour, which

is a potent greenhouse gas. As CO2 increases and warms the atmosphere,
the warmer air can hold more moisture and trap more heat in the lower
atmosphere. Also, as Arctic sea ice and glaciers melt, more sunlight is
FIGURE 8. If emissions continue absorbed into the darker underlying land and ocean surfaces, causing
on their present trajectory, without
either technological or regulatory further warming and further melting of ice and snow. The biggest
abatement, then the best estimate uncertainty in our understanding of feedbacks relates to clouds (which can
is that global average temperature
will warm a further 2.6 to 4.8 oC have both positive and negative feedbacks), and how the properties of
(4.7 TO 8.6 oF) by the end of the clouds will change in response to climate change.
century (right). Land areas are
projected to warm more than
ocean areas and hence more than Other important feedbacks involve the carbon cycle. Currently the land
the global mean. The figure on the
left shows projected warming with and oceans together absorb about half of the CO 2 emitted from human
very aggressive emissions reduc- activities, but the capacities of land and ocean to store additional warming,
tions. The figures represent multi-
model estimates of temperature leading to faster increases in atmospheric CO2 and faster warming. Models
averages for 2081-2100 compared vary in their projections of how much additional warming to expect, but
to 1986-2005. Source: IPCC AR5 all such
models agree
that the
overall net
effect of
feed-backs is
to amplify
the warming.

EVIDENCE & CAUSES 2020 21

 Q&A

ARE CLIMATE CHANGES OF A FEW DEGREES A CAUSE FOR

17
CONCERN?
Yes. Even though an increase of a few degrees in global average
temperature does not sound like much, global average temperature
during the last ice age was only about 4 to 5 oC (7 to 9 oF) colder than
now. Global warming of just a few degrees will be associated with
widespread changes in regional and local temperature and precipitation
as well as with increases in some types of extreme weather events.
These and other changes (such as sea level rise and storm surge) will
have serious impacts on human societies and the natural world.

Both theory and direct observations have confirmed that global warming is
associated with greater warming over land than oceans, moistening of the
atmosphere, shifts in regional precipitation patterns, increases in extreme
weather events, ocean acidification, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels
(which increases the risk of coastal inundation and storm surge). Already,
record high temperatures are on average significantly outpacing record
low temperatures, wet areas are becoming wetter as dry areas are
becoming drier, heavy rainstorms have become heavier, and snowpacks
(an important source of freshwater for many regions) are decreasing.

These impacts are expected to increase with greater warming and will
threaten food production, freshwater supplies, coastal infrastructure, and
especially the welfare of the huge population currently living in low-lying
areas. Even though certain regions may realise some local benefit from the
warming, the long-term consequences overall will be disruptive.

It is not only an increase of a few degrees in global average temperature

that is cause for concern—the pace at which this warming occurs is also
important (see Question 6). Rapid human-caused climate changes mean
that less time is available to allow for adaptation measures to be put in
place or for ecosystems to adapt, posing greater risks in areas vulnerable
to more intense extreme weather events and rising sea levels.

WHAT ARE SCIENTISTS DOING TO ADDRESS KEY UNCER-

18 TAINTIES IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLIMATE SYS-

TEM.
Science is a continual process is a continual process of observation,
understanding, modelling, testing and prediction. The prediction of a
long-term trend in global warming from increasing greenhouse gases is
robust and has been confirmed by a growing body of evidence.
Nevertheless, understanding of certain aspects of climate change remains
incomplete. Examples include natural climate variations on decadal-to-
centennial timescales and regional-to-local spatial scales and cloud
responses to climate change, which are all areas of active research.

22 CLIMATE CHANGE
 3 BASIC OF CLIMATE CHANGE

B6 CLIMATE CHANGE 3
  Q&A

Why are computer models used to stu- experiments to isolate specific causes of
dy climate change? climate change and to explore the
consequences of different scenarios of
The future evolution of Earth’s climate as future greenhouse gas emissions and other
it responds to the present rapid rate of influences on climate.
increasing atmospheric CO2 has no precise
analogues in the past, nor can it be Comparison of model predictions observ-
properly understood through laboratory ations identify what is well-understood
experiments. As we are also unable to and understanding. This helps to set
carry out deliberate controlled experi- priorities for new research. Vigilant
ments on Earth itself, computer models monitoring of the entire climate system—
are among the most important tools used the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice—is
to study Earth’s climate system. therefore critical, as the climate system
may be full of surprises.
Climate models are based on mathe-
matical equations that represent the best Together, field and laboratory data and
understanding of the basic laws of theoretical understanding are used to
physics, chemistry, and biology that advance models of Earth’s climate system
govern the behaviour of the atmosphere, and to improve representation of key
ocean, land surface, ice, and other parts of processes in them, especially those asso-
the climate system, as well as the ciated with clouds, aerosols, and transport
interactions among them. The most of heat into the oceans. This is critical for
comprehensive climate models, Earth- accurately simulating climate change and
System Models, are de-signed to simulate associated changes in severe weather,
Earth’s climate system with as much especially at the regional and local scales
detail as is permitted by our understanding important for policy decisions.
and by available super-computers.
Simulating how clouds will change with
The capability of climate models has warming and in turn may affect warming
improved steadily since the 1960s. Using remains one of the major challenges for
physics-based equations, the models can global climate models, in part because
be tested and are successful in simulating different cloud types have different
a broad range of weather and climate impacts on climate, and the many cloud
variations, for example from individual processes occur on scales smaller than
storms, jet stream meanders, El Niño most current models can resolve. Greater
events, and the climate of the last century. computer power is already allowing for
Their projections of the most some of these processes to be resolved in
prominent features of the new generation of models.
the long-term human-
induced climate change Dozens of groups and research institutions
signal have remained work on climate models, and scientists are
robust, as generations of now able to analyse results from essen-
increasingly complex tially all of the world’s major Earth-
models yield richer continued
details of the change. They
are also used to perform

EVIDENCE & CAUSES 2020 23

 Q&A

System Models and compare them with each other and with observations.
Such opportunities are of tremendous benefit in bringing out the strengths
and weaknesses of various models and diagnosing the causes of
differences among models, so that research can focus on the relevant
processes. Differences among models allow estimates to be made of the
uncertainties in projections of future climate change. Additionally, large
archives of results from many different models help scientists to identify
aspects of climate change projections that are robust and that can be
interpreted in terms of known physical mechanisms.

Studying how climate responded to major changes in the past is another

way of checking that we understand how different processes work and that
models are capable of performing reliably under a wide range of
conditions.

ARE DISASTER SCENARIOS ABOUT TIPPING POINTS LIKE

19 “TURNING OFF THE GULF STREAM” AND RELEASE OF

METHANE FROM THE ARCTIC A CAUSE FOR CONCERNS?
Results from the best available climate models do not predict an abrupt
change in (or collapse of) the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circu-
lation, which includes the Gulf Stream, in the near future. However,
this and other potential high-risk abrupt changes, like the release of
methane and carbon dioxide from thawing permafrost, remain active
areas of scientific research. Some abrupt changes are already underway,
such as the decrease in Arctic sea ice extent (see Question 12), and as
warming increases, the possibility of other major abrupt changes cannot
be ruled out.

The composition of the atmosphere is changing towards conditions

that have not been experienced for millions of years, so we are headed for
unknown territory, and uncertainty is large. The climate system involves
many competing processes that could switch the climate into a different
state once a threshold has been exceeded.

A well-known example is the south-north ocean overturning circulation,

which is maintained by cold salty water sinking in the North Atlantic and
involves the transport of extra heat to the North Atlantic via the Gulf
Stream. During the last ice age, pulses of freshwater from the melting ice
sheet over North America led to slowing down of this overturning
circulation. This in turn caused widespread changes in climate around the
Northern Hemisphere. Freshening of the North Atlantic from the melting
of the Greenland ice sheet is gradual, however, and hence is not expected
to cause abrupt changes.
continued

24 CLIMATE CHANGE
  Q&A

Another concern relates to the Arctic, where substantial warming could

destabilise methane (a greenhouse gas) trapped in ocean sediments and
permafrost, potentially leading to a rapid release of a large amount of
methane. If such a rapid release occurred, then major, fast climate changes
would ensue. Such high-risk changes are considered unlikely in this
century, but are by definition hard to predict. Scientists are therefore
continuing to study the possibility of exceeding such tipping points,
beyond which we risk large and abrupt changes.

In addition to abrupt changes in the climate system itself, steady climate

change can cross thresholds that trigger abrupt changes in other systems.
In human systems, for example, infrastructure has typically been built to
accommodate the climate variability at the time of construction. Gradual
climate changes can cause abrupt changes in the utility of the infra-
structure-such as when rising sea levels suddenly surpass sea walls, or
when thawing permafrost causes the sudden collapse of pipelines,
buildings, or roads. In natural systems, as air and water temperatures rise,
some species-such as the mountain pika and many ocean corals-will no
longer be able to survive in their current habitats and will be forced to
relocate (if possible) or rapidly adapt. Other species may fare better in the
new conditions, causing abrupt shifts in the balance of ecosystems; for
example, warmer temperatures have allowed more bark beetles to survive
over winter in some regions, where beetle outbreaks have destroyed
forests.

IF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES WERE STOPPED,

20 WOULD THE CLIMATE RETURN TO THE CONDITIONS OF 200

YEARS AGO?
No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop,
Earth’s surface temperature would require thousands of years to cool
and return to the level in the pre-industrial era.

If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would

take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-
industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate
burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at
least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due
to past and current emissions. Sea level would likely continue to rise for
many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing [FIGURE 9].
Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and
the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The
current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible
on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend
almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits.
continued

EVIDENCE & CAUSES 2020 25

 Q&A

Scenarios of future climate change increasingly assume the use of

technologies that can remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. In
such “negative emissions” scenarios, it assumed that at some point in
future, widespread effort will
FIGURE 9. If global
be undertaken that utilises
emissions were to stop, it
would take a long time for such technolo-gies to remove
surface air temperatures and CO2 from the atmosphere
the ocean to begin to cool and lo-wer its atmospheric
because the excess CO2 in
the atmosphere would re- concent-ration, there by
main there for a long time starting to reverse CO2-
and would continue to exert driven warming on longer
a warming effect. Model
projections show how atmo-
timescales. De-ployment of
spheric CO2 concentration such technolo-gies at scale
(a), surface air temperature would re-quire large
(b), and ocean thermal ex-
pansion (c) would respond
decreases in their costs. Even
following a scenario of busi-if such technological fixes were
ness-as-usual emissions cea- practical, sub-stantial re-
sing in 2300 (red), a scenario
ductions in CO2 emis-sions
of aggressive emissions re-
ductions, falling close to zero would still be essential.
50 years from now (orange),
and two interme-diate
emissions scenarios (green
and blue). The small
downward tick in tempera-
ture at 2300 is caused by the
elimination of emissions of
short-lived greenhouse ga-
ses, including methane.
Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013.

26 CLIMATE CHANGE
CONCLUSION

This document explains that there are well-

understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of
greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the
concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still
increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent
change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by
human activities. Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse
gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those
that have occurred so far. There remains a range of estimates of the
magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the
extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and
human activities and infrastructure are expected.

Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture
of those options) in response to this information: they can change their
pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of
greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can
wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage, and suffering that
arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible;
or they can seek as yet unproven “geoengineering” solutions to counteract
some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur. Each of these
options has risks, attractions and costs, and what is actually done may be a
mixture of these different options. Different nations and communities will
vary in their vulnerability and their capacity to adapt. There is an
important debate to be had about choices among these options, to decide
what is best for each group or nation, and most importantly for the global
population as a whole. The options have to be discussed at a global scale
because in many cases those communities that are most vulnerable control
few of the emissions, either past or future. Our description of the science
of climate change, with both its facts and its uncertainties, is offered as a
basis to inform that policy debate.

EVIDENCE & CAUSES 2020 27

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors

The following individuals served as the primary writing team for the 2014
and 2020 editions of this document:

 Eric Wolff FRS, (UK lead),  John Shepherd FRS, Uni-

University of Cambridge versity of Southampton

 Inez Fung (Nas, US Lead),  Keith Shine FRS, Univer-

University of California, sity of Reading.
Berkeley
 Susan Solomon (NAS),
 Brian Hoskins FRS, Grant- Massachusetts Institute of
ham Institute for Climate Technology
Change
 Kevin Trenberth, National
 John F.B. Mitchell FRS, UK Center for Atmospheric Re-
Met Office search

 Tim Palmer FRS, Univer-  John Walsh, University of

sity of Oxford Alaska, Fairbank

 Benjamin Santer (NAS),  Don Wuebbles, University

Lawrence Livermore Nati- of Illinois
onal Laboratory
Staff support for the 2020 revision was provided by Richard Walker,
Amanda Purcell, Nancy Huddleston, and Michael Hudson. We offer
special thanks to Rebecca Lindsey and NOAA Climate.gov for providing
data and figure updates.

Reviewers

The following individuals served as reviewers of the 2014 document in

accordance with procedures approved by the Royal Society and the
National Academy of Sciences:
 Richard Alley (NAS), Dep-  Jerry Meehl, Senior Scien-
artment of Geosciences, tist, National Center for
Pennsylvania State Univer- Atmospheric Research
sity
 John Pendry FRS, Imperial
 Alec Broers FRS, Former College London
President of the Royal Aca-
demy of Engineering Continued

28 CLIMATE CHANGE
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 Harry Elderfield FRS, Dep-  John Pyle FRS, Depart-

artment of Earth Sciences, ment of Chemistry, Uni-
University of Cambridge versity of Cambridge

 Joanna Haigh FRS, Profes-  Gavin Schmidt, NASA

sor of Atmospheric Physics, Goddard Space Flight
Imperial College London Center

 Isaac Held (NAS), NOAA  Emily Shuckburgh, British

Geophysical Fluid Dyna- Antarctic Survey
mics Laboratory
 Gabrille Walker, Journalist
 John Kutzbach (NAS),
Center for Climatic Re-  Andrew Watson FRS, Uni-
search, University of Wis- versity of East Anglia
consin

Support

The support for the 2014 Edition was provided by NAS Endowment
Funds. We offer sincere thanks to the Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone
Endowment for NAS Missions for supporting the production of this 2020
Edition.

EVIDENCE & CAUSES 2020 29