Review of related literature of global warming

Ation and ture review on climate change impacts on urban city ations and ture review on climate change impacts on urban city study has undertaken a review of the literature on studies of climate change on cities. The literature review has also collated the key issues and the state of evidence by sector/theme for cities. Change impacts on urban pollution, cultural heritage, energy, literature review, methodology, phic site uses use cookies to record some preference settings and to analyse how visitors use our web site. See also our privacy ® open source cms/buted under al ation and ture review on climate change impacts on urban city ations and ture review on climate change impacts on urban city study has undertaken a review of the literature on studies of climate change on cities. See also our privacy ® open source cms/buted under works best with javascript graphic pages to at internet ture review on the greenhouse effect and global warming /. Current page in ific names on this d by global /shift+click pages to select for you are generating a pdf of a journal article or book chapter, please feel free to enter the title and author information. Co2 cuts could allow some cool-water corals to adapt to global do jellyfish teach us about climate change? Sks weekly climate change & global warming news roundup # research, october 23-29, people around the world fear climate change more than americans ouse gas concentrations surge to new f13 files, part 4 - dealing with data gives hope for meeting the paris climate targets.

Review of literature of global warming project

Sks weekly climate change & global warming news roundup # research, october 9-15, f13 files, part 2 - the content – a new way to talk about climate f13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste war on coal is over. Comprehensive review of the causes of global on 20 january 2012 by dana1981at skeptical science, we have examined several recent studies which have used a number of diverse approaches to tease out the contributions of various natural and human effects to global warming. Here we will review the results of these various studies, and a few others which we have not previously examined, to see what the scientific literature and data have to say about exactly what is causing global of these studies, using a wide range of independent methods, provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past century, and especially over the past 50 to 65 years (figure 1). 1: net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to tett et al. Quick look at the various effects on global of the studies discussed below looked at the same few influences on global temperature, because they are the dominant we know, human greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions warm the planet by increasing the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus increasing the greenhouse activity also warms or cools the planet by increasing or decreasing the amount of radiation reaching the earth's atmosphere and ic activity generally cools the planet over short timeframes by releasing sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, which block sunlight and reduce the amout of solar radiation reaching the surface. El niño tends to shift heat from the oceans to the air, causing surface warming (but ocean cooling), whereas la niña acts in the opposite manner. As we'll see, a few studies have begun examining whether enso has had a long-term impact on global surface temperatures. Because it's a cycle/oscillation, it tends to have little impact on long-term temperature changes, with the effects of la niña cancelling out those of el niñ are other effects, but ghgs and so2 are the two largest human influences, and solar and volcanic activity and enso are the dominant natural influences on global temperature.

Now let's see what the scientific literature has to say about the relative influences of each et al. 2000) used an "optimal detection methodology" with global climate model simulations to try and match the observational data. Their best estimate matched the overall global warming during this period very well; however, it underestimated the warming from 1897 to 1947, and overestimated the warming from 1947 to 1997. For this reason, during the most recent 50 year period in their study (shown in dark blue in figure 1), the sum of their natural and human global warming contributions is larger than 100%, since their model shows more warming than observed over that period. Estimated that natural factors have had a slight net cooling effect, and thus human factors have caused more than 100% of the observed global et al. Running global climate model simulations using various combinations of the different main factors which influence global temperatures (ghgs, solar activity, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and ozone), and comparing the results to the temperature data from 1890 to 2000. They found that natural factors could account for most of the warming from 1910 to 1940, but simply could not account for the global warming we've experienced since the mid-20th et al. Over the past 25 years, nearly 100% of the warming is due to humans, in their et al.

These simulations utilized measurements of ghgs, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and solar activity from 1940 to 2005, similar to the tett and meehl studies discussed above, and then used projected future emissions from the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) to project future global warming. Estimated that humans caused close to 100% of the observed warming, and the natural factors had a net negative effect. Estimated that humans and natural effects had each contributed to approximately half of the observed warming. Greenhouse gases contributed to 100% of the observed warming, but half of that effect was offset by the cooling effect of human aerosol emissions. They estimated that solar and volcanic activity were responsible for 37% and 13% of the warming, and rind 2008 used more of a statistical approach than these previous studies, using a multiple linear regression analysis. Analyzing what is left over after summing the various contributions shows whether the most significant contributions are being 08 did this over various timeframes, and found that from 1889 to 2006, humans caused nearly 80% of the observed warming, versus approximately 12% from natural effects. As with the previous studies discussed, this doesn't add up to exactly 100% because the statistical fit is not perfect, and not every effect on global temperature was taken into consideration. S10 calculated regression coefficients for greenhouse gases, other human effects (dominated by aerosols), and natural effects (solar and volcanic), and estimated how much warming each caused over the 20th century.

The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural et al. Also corrobarated their results by looking not only at global, but also regional climate changes by reviewing the body of scientific literature. And knutti 2011 implemented a very interesting approach in their study, utilizing the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget to quantify the various contributions to the observed global warming from 1850 and 1950 to the 2000s. Huber and knutti took the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculated how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. More than 85% of the global heat uptake has gone into the oceans, so by including this data, their study is particularly and knutti estimate that since 1850 and 1950, approximately 75% and 100% of the observed global warming is due to human influences, and rahmstorf (2011). They also limited their analysis to the three main natural influences on global temperatures - solar and volcanic activity, and enso. For our purposes, we will classify this remainder as the human contribution, since fr11 removed the three largest natural the temperature data from the british hadley centre (which was used by lr08, and is the most frequently-used temperature data set in these studies), fr11 found that the three natural effects in their analysis exerted a small net cooling effect from 1979 to 2010, and therefore the leftover influence, which is predominantly due to human effects, is responsible for more than 100% of the oberved global warming over that key aspect of this type of study is that it makes no assumptions about various possible solar effects on global temperatures. Both lean and rind and foster and rahmstorf found that solar activity has played a very small role in the observed global t et al.

For their attributions over the most recent 50 years, we took the average of the latter two, and used their 'other' category as an estimate for the influence of human aerosol emissions (which will result in somewhat of an underestimate, since most 'other' effects are in the warming direction). Estimated that over both timeframes, humans are responsible for greater than 100% of the observed -caused global warming agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (figure 2). In every study over every timeframe examined, the two largest factors influencing global temperatures were human-caused: (1) ghgs, followed by (2) human aerosol emissions. This is a dangerous situation because as we clean our air and reduce our so2 emissions, their cooling effect will dissipate, revealing more of the underlying ghg-caused global warming trend. Only examining 'natural' and not solar or volcanic effects individually), which is the reason some bars appear to be missing from figures 2 to 2: percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to tett et al. 3: percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to tett et al. 4: percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 25-30 years according to meehl et al.

Was a period of warming between 1910 and 1940 which was predominantly caused by increasing solar activity and an extended period of low volcanic activity, with some contribution by human effects. However, since mid-century, solar activity has been flat, there has been moderate volcanic activity, and enso has had little net impact on global temperatures. All the while ghgs kept increasing, and became the dominant effect on global temperature changes, as figures 3 and 4 illustrate. Wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years. This robust scientitic evidence is why there is a consensus amongst scientific experts that humans are the dominant cause of global : this post has been incorporated into the rebuttals to it's not us (advanced), increasing co2 has little to no effect (advanced), it's the sun (intermediate and advanced), and a drop in volcanic activity caused warming. 34 am on 20 january, emerges from this literature review and from the data presented in the figures, is that even given the inherent uncertainties, there is a convergence towards a relatively narrow range of values from multiple independent research papers showing that humans most contributed between 75% and 90% of the warming over the last 100-150 years, and that "over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%". Patrick michaels who repeatedly to try and mislead congress and the american people by trying and demonstrate that the majority of the observed warming is not attributable to the ghgs that we humans have been adding to the was dr. 58 am on 20 january, a note related to albatross @7, although the "skeptics" often put forth alternative hypotheses (i.

Has contributed more to global warming than we think), i did not find any attribution studies which attributed less than the vast majority of the recent warming to human 's all well and good to say "maybe it's the sun", but as far as i could find, the 'skeptics' have been unable to back up their "it's not us" assertions with a robust physical and/or statistical analysis like those discussed in this post. Would it be worthwhile to try to turn it into an actual paper and publish it in the peer reviewed scientific literature? This kind of reviews are the kind of thing we need, for the hard work! 18 am on 21 january, y shahan at planetsave reposted dana's article with the following introduction:“in another wonderful post on global warming, skeptical science conducts a comprehensive review of scientific studies on the causes of global warming. One produces claims with 100% certainty in any warming is a prediction (or a result) based on known physics:Energy in - energy out = energy gain -> increasing was shown to be scientifically valid many years ago. You will see infrared absorption by the co2 in your experiment doesn't show ghg are exculsively to blame for warming - but it is startlingly difficult to show they are not a significant contributor. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. The developed model is considered sufficiently accurate and reliable to predict air temperature and relative humidity at multiple locations in the headspace of a grain storage to expect when one claims to see what the scientific literature and data have to say about exactly what is causing global warming.

After reviewing these conflicting views on the nature of science and its method, we will finish with some careful reflections on whether science can reliably attain the truth about uctory reading:Alan f. See if you can find fundamental reasons why richard alley's agu presentation on co2 as the key 'control knob' on climate is fundamentally physics of human-caused global warming and more broadly of the greenhouse effect is not a theory on its own, but a consequence of the theories governing atmospheric physics, and absorption/emission of radiation by materials at specific wavelengths see spencer weart's excellent history of the co2 greenhouse effect. There are many posts here explaining all the intricate details behind these figure shows clearly that we cannot account for current warming without anthropogenic factors (ghgs). The practical appeal of the radiative forcing concept is due, in the main, to the assumption that there exists a general relationship between the global mean forcing and the global mean equilibrium surface temperature response (i. The global mean climate sensitivity parameter, λ) which is similar for all the different types of forcings. I suggest you review the following pages of chapter 6 on radiative forcing, where the research is thoroughly consider chapter 2 section 2. If you want absolute proof that atmospheric co2 provides additional warming to the troposphere, surface, and ocean, too bad. If you're truly concerned and not simply trolling like an overexcited philosophy major, read spencer weart's the discovery of global warming.

Created in 1988 by the world meteorological organization and the united nations environmental programme, ipcc's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. The report explicitly asks whether the ipcc assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "the ipcc's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. E-mail: noreskes@n the author describes a number of scientific papers regarding global warming whose contents, calculations or conclusions were invalid and later retracted or debunked ad, r. 27, 2973-2976, editors suggest the following related resources on science sites: in science magazine letters consensus about climate change? Wilby (2006) progress in physical geography 30, logged intalkcontributionscreate accountlog pagecontentsfeatured contentcurrent eventsrandom articledonate to wikipediawikipedia out wikipediacommunity portalrecent changescontact links hererelated changesupload filespecial pagespermanent linkpage a bookdownload as pdfprintable page was last edited on 26 march 2014, at 20: is available under the creative commons attribution-sharealike license;.