A response to the sceptics

“Those who question the need to take action are the flat-earth brigade of the
modern era. The scientific evidence from across the world shows we need to
act.” - Ed Miliband (2009).

What the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree upon:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping
gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this
fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last
century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and
deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are
now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at
speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-
level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of
carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal
communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater
ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Claim: Response:
Global This is a classic case of cherry picking data.
temperatures Actually, the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest since records
haven’t warmed began. The decade 1990-9 is the second warmest, and 1980-9
since 1998. In fact, the third warmest on record. 1998 is the warmest year on
hasn’t the world record but every year since then (in fact every single year for
cooled since 1998? the past three decades) has been significantly warmer than the
temperatures you’d expect if there was no warming.

It is just that these years have not been quite as warm as 1998.
This is because the human-forced warming trend is taking place
on top of natural variations. These natural variations made 1998
particularly warm (because there was a very strong El Nino
event). Year-to-year, we will always see fluctuations, but to see
climate change we need to rely on long-term trends of 30 years
or more.

In fact, 2010 is currently tied as the warmest year on record

(NOAA 2010)

How can we trust Hundreds of independent measurements of the Earth’s

just one set of temperatures all agree.
temperature Separate datasets from all over the world all point towards a
recordings? rapid warming: not just the Earth’s surface temperatures, but
 also the temperatures in the lower atmosphere (troposphere),
and oceanic surface temperatures have all risen sharply since
the industrial revolution.

Even scientists The overwhelming majority of leading climate scientists agree

can’t agree on the fundamentals – that climate change is happening and
has recently been caused by increased greenhouse gases from
human activities.
There are some people who argue that climate change is not
happening, or that it is not caused by human activity. While
some of these individuals have scientific backgrounds, these
opinions are very rare indeed amongst scientists working on the
science of the Earth’s climate.
Climate scientists There is no evidence for any conspiracy. Three independent
are engaged in a investigations found no scientific misconduct in emails stolen
conspiracy; from the UEA’s Climate Research Unit.
global warming is The IPCC reports are the result of combined work from many
just a big hoax. thousands of scientists, and the IPCC process has been designed
to have the highest levels of international transparency; their
summary texts are agreed by every country in the world. One
error in referencing (not content) does not undermine the 3000
page report, or support a conspiracy to misrepresent climate
research.
Climate models The latest IPCC report show very good agreement between the
are inaccurate and models and observations, not only temperature trend, but also
therefore cannot spatial properties – over the different continents, and as a
provide evidence function of altitude.
of climate change,
or reliable Climate models are based on fundamental physical laws and are
projections of rigorously tested to ensure their reliability. They do not depend
future climate on observational data trends, such as the CRU analysis, to make
trends their projections.

We don’t rely on models for our understanding of the effect of

greenhouse gases on climate. Theory (i.e. the simple physics of
the greenhouse effect, first discovered in 1850, demonstrable in
the most simple experiments and taught to every British 12-
year-old in school), and observations are the foundations of our
ability to understand climate change.

Models are unable to reproduce past warming if they don’t

include human caused emissions. They unanimously predict
warming with rising greenhouse gas concentrations.
If we can’t The weather is a fundamentally chaotic system. Modelling the
predict the climate is different – it involves representing the long term
weather next balances/changes in the system. These are slowly varying and
week, how can we easier to predict over long timescales.
predict the future
climate? The analogy of the sea can be used. Climate is like the sea
level; weather would be the waves. Even though we can predict
to high accuracy expected sea level changes, so many factors
affect individual waves it’s impossible to predict them with any
certainty.
Of all the hundreds of climate models that have been created,
It’s natural. and that include all known natural factors, not a single one has
been able to reproduce/explain past patterns of warming if
human emissions are not also considered.
Natural events can’t explain the observed temperature changes.

Temperatures are warming faster than they ever have in the

past. The last time the earth experienced warming at anything
like the pace we now expect was about 55 million years ago,
when temperatures rose by about 11 degrees Farenheight over
the course of 20,000 years (which is much slower than the
current pace of warming.

The Medieval This may be the case, but it isn’t possible to say with any
Warm Period was certainty, because records are few and far between, and their
just as warm as coverage is spotty. There is also no evidence that it was global;
today, or warmer just observed in parts of the northern hemisphere, especially
Europe.
We do know that the climate has varied in the past, but this
doesn’t challenge the case for human-caused climate change
today. These past changes also occurred at a much slower rate.

Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide levels may have been higher, but they’ve never
levels have been risen at a rate anywhere near the rate that they’re rising now.
higher in the Air bubbles trapped in ice show CO2 concentrations over the
past; therefore it last 800,000 years; levels rose and fell gradually between 180
is natural and 280 ppm. They have shot to a current 387 ppm since the
industrial revolution began – a rate of change faster than ever
seen in the geological record
Isn't climate Despite the recent decline in the sun’s brightness, the long-term
variability shown trend of global temperatures continues to rise.
to correlate with
solar Sunspots have been observed since the invention of telescopes
variability in 1610, and although climate predictions from sunspots have
/sunspots? long been attempted, the predictions have not held up.

The Sun’s natural variability on the climate is very small;

according to the last IPCC statement, around 10% of the
influence of human greenhouse gases.
Aren’t glaciers Globally, this is not the case. While some glaciers are growing,
growing rather overall the trend is for an accelerating rate of mass loss. This
than melting? evidence comes from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in
the US, and the World Glacier Monitoring Service.
The CO2 trend Firstly, warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect lags
over the past behind changes in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), due to
century doesn't inertia in the climate system. It takes time for the changes to
match the trend in take effect. Secondly, greenhouse gases are not the only
global warming. determinant of temperature. Aerosols, which are also emitted
How can it be a from human activities, are also important and can be shown to
driver? explain much of the cooling seen in the middle of the 20th
century. Without them, warming would most likely have been
greater. Volcanic eruptions and small changes in solar output
also complicate the picture.

Models have been used that take into account all these factors.
 These have been able to simulate the historic changes in global
and regional temperatures and have shown that most the
warming over the past half century has been caused by the rise
in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Human emissions
of carbon dioxide While human emissions are relatively small compared to natural
are tiny in relation emissions, e.g. from terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans,
to natural flows these natural emissions are generally in balance: the amount
of carbon emitted is then reabsorbed. Human emissions have tipped the
dioxide, for balance leading to an accumulation of gases in the atmosphere.
example, the
biosphere, the
oceans and
volcanoes. How
then can humans
be responsible for
global warming?
Could water While water vapour is an important greenhouse gas, it is only
vapour be when humans have added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
responsible for the that the balance of this warming has started to shift. The effects
atmospheric of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are magnified by
warming? Are the feedback loops which allow more water vapour to be held in the
amounts of carbon atmosphere. This exacerbates the warming.
dioxide being
added really
making a
difference?
Isn't global Variations in cosmic rays over the past few decades cannot
warming caused by explain the long-term global warming trend. Some laboratory
Cosmic Rays? experiments have indicated their possible importance, but these
have not been validated in the real world.
Isn't the apparent No. Scientists have conducted rigorous tests to determine the
warming just due effects of urbanisation on temperatures trends and found this to
to increased be negligible. The IPCC recently concluded that urban heat
urbanisation island effects have a negligible influence on the global scale,
around weather contributing less than 0.006°C per decade (<1%) to observed
stations? trends over land and zero over the oceans.

Won’t climate No. Climate change will bring serious impacts for the UK,
change actually including increased flood risk, heat waves and increased water
improve the stress. Only by limiting our emissions can we keep these
situation in the impacts to a minimum.
UK?
Are we not better We know that some climate change is unavoidable, so it is
off just adapting to absolutely right that we research and fund adaptation strategies
climate change? such as flood defences and better fresh water management.
However, the science shows strongly that the more our
emissions grow, the more severe the impacts of climate change
will be.

Human societies Past climate changes have often been accompanied by

and natural migration, war, disease, and mass extinction.
systems have It will not be possible to adapt to all the potential impacts of
adapted to climate change, especially if unrestrained. Only by applying our
climate change ingenuity to cutting emissions can we have hope of keeping the
in the past impacts of climate change to a manageable level.
Won’t increased Studies have shown that initially, plant growth is stimulated and
CO2 stimulate plants take up more CO2. However, after a short period of time,
plant growth, plants adapt to increased levels so don’t take up any more CO2.
improve Altered growing conditions will also counteract any increased
agricultural yield yield.
and absorb more
CO2 from the
atmosphere?
Why think about If we delay action, we risk more damage to the earth, our
how climate prosperity and security: the costs of doing nothing to tackle
change will affect climate change would be equivalent to between 5 and 20% of
us now, when its global GDP, per year, far outweighing the costs of taking action
effects won’t be (Stern 2007).
felt for many
years? And our call for ambition to act is not solely focused on
managing risks; it is about seizing opportunities. Moving to a
low carbon economy offers enormous economic and social
benefits and is a necessary precondition for a successful,
competitive British economy. It will also reduce reliance on
imported fossil fuels and increase energy security.
It is not cost- We cannot afford to wait for new technologies before tackling
effective to act climate change. We know a 2-degree future relies on emissions
now; technologies cuts being made soon. We also do not need to wait: we know
to cut emissions that we can make significant emissions cuts by applying today’s
will have improved green technologies. We can all play our part too - 40% of
in the future. emissions are traced back to our individual choices, so we don’t
need to wait to take action on those either.