INTRODUCTION

The theory of climate change that most people are familiar with is commonly called anthropogenic
(man-made) global warming, or AGW for short. That theory holds that man-made greenhouse gases,
primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), are the predominant cause of the global warming that occurred
during the past 50 years. In the past few years, confidence in the AGW theory has declined
dramatically. New research points to natural causes of the modern warming, and stabilizing (by some
measures, falling) global temperatures have called attention to long-recognized shortcomings of the
AGW theory. Tens of thousands of scientists have signed petitions expressing their dissent from the
so-called “consensus” in favour of AGW. Opinion polls show a majority of the public in the U.S. and
in other countries no longer believes human activity is causing global warming. Evidence of the
decline of the AGW theory is presented in the postscript to this booklet. The demise of the AGW
theory makes this a good time to look at other theories of climate change put forward by prominent
scientists but overlooked in the rush to judgment. This booklet identifies seven theories – AGW plus
six others that do not claim man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change. Each theory is
plausible and sheds light on some aspects of climate change that were hidden or obscured by too great
a focus on the AGW theory. In some respects these theories are not mutually exclusive: solar
variability could be the sustaining force behind what I have called the “cloud formation and albedo”
and “ocean currents” theories as well as being its own theory, though the mechanisms in each case
differ slightly. Most physicists don’t study biology or chemistry and so don’t pay much attention to
biological and chemical feedbacks. If they did, they would probably recognize that such processes
play a bigger role in controlling climate than previously believed. Deeper analysis also reveals that
these theories are not all trying to answer the same questions or necessarily achieve predictive power.
Trying to discern a human effect on climate is not the primary objective of biologists studying the
effect of higher levels of CO2 on plants or of physicists measuring the amount of energy leaving
Earth’s atmosphere. While they are “experts” on climate change, they are not part of the search for a
“human fingerprint” on Earth’s climate. Nor are they qualified to make predictions based on their
narrow expertise, as Kesten Green at the University of South Australia and J. Scott Armstrong at the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania have tried to explain. The six theories of climate
change that do not involve man-made greenhouse gas emissions are incompatible, though, with the
AGW theory. If evidence exists that negative feedbacks offset whatever warming is caused by man-
made greenhouse gases, then the warming during the past 50 years could not be due to the burning of
fossil fuels. Similarly, if solar variability explains most or all of the variation in temperatures in
prehistoric as well as modern times, then there is no room for speculation about a large role for man-
made CO2. Over time, the science of climatology will become somewhat more exact, based on
examination of the historical record and newly assessed empirical evidence. It probably will not be
illuminated much by mathematical models that cannot generate reliable forecasts of a system that
even proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory admit is naturally chaotic. We cannot
adequately measure the enormous quantity of data necessary to feed the models, and we are not even
sure which variables should be included. The uncertainty that pervades climate science today, as
climate scientist Mike Hulme has written, is a function of the limits of science itself. The object of
this essay is not to say which of these seven theories is right or “best,” but only to present them to the
reader in a format that allows reflection and balanced consideration. Such dispassionate interest in the
subject has been lacking in recent years, and the scientific debate has suffered for it.
 History of climate change science

The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice
ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect
was first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of
greenhouse gas could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced,
involving forces from volcanic to solar variation. In the 1960s, the evidence for the warming effect of
carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human
activities that generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well.
During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favoured the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a
result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch
theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most
climate changes and human-caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming. Since the
1990s, scientific research on climate change has included multiple disciplines and has expanded.
Research has expanded our understanding of causal relations, links with historic data and ability to
model climate change numerically. Research during this period has been summarized in the
Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate change, broadly interpreted, is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of
weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in
average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions (such as
more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic
processes (such as oceanic circulation), biotic processes (e.g., plants), variations in solar radiation
received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruption, and human-induced alterations of the natural
world. This last effect is currently causing global warming, and "climate change" is often used to
describe human-specific impacts.

WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE?

Climate change is a change in the usual weather patterns in a region. In the last couple of decades,
temperatures have risen in the Earth’s climate. This change is impacting local climates all around the
world.
Changes in weather happen all time. But weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is the
day to day change in temperature and precipitation in a place. You can describe the weather in your
community by looking outside. If it’s snowy right now, that’s today’s weather. Climate, on the other
hand, is the usual weather in a place over a long period of time. It is possible for weather to change
quickly. For example, it might be sunny in the morning and rainy in the afternoon. Climate changes
much more slowly. Earth’s climate has been about the same for 9000 years.

HOW DO WE KNOW THE WORLD’S CLIMATE CHANGING?

The world’s average temperature has changed throughout history. Sometimes the world’s
temperature has been warmer and sometimes it has been colder. Glacial periods happen when the
Earth experiences colder temperatures. Factors like ocean currents and volcanic eruptions caused
these shifts. These changes are part of a natural cycle of heating and cooling. This usually happens
over tens of thousands of years. But now Earth’s climate is changing faster than it ever has during
human history. Earth’s average temperature has increased by 1 °C over the past 100 years. In
fact, 2015 to 2020 were the hottest on record. 

Global warming refers to this trend of rising global temperatures. Global warming is one of the ways
that Earth’s climate is changing. Global warming is one aspect of climate change. Climate change
also involves changing global weather patterns, ocean currents, and other systems.
We are already experiencing these impacts. Scientists have observed many changes. These
include rising sea levels, melting ice and increasing extreme weather events. These changes affect
each region differently. For example, snow and ice are melting so quickly that the Arctic could have
no summer sea ice by 2035. Coastal areas are experiencing more flooding. These are all evidence of
climate change.

WHY IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING?

These changes to Earth’s climate are not natural shifts. Scientists are confident that human activities
are leading to climate change. Human activities release gases that change the makeup of Earth’s
atmosphere. These gases are making our atmosphere better at trapping the Sun's heat. We call this
the greenhouse effect... The greenhouse effect is the main cause of rising temperatures.
So what is the greenhouse effect? Plants can grow better in a greenhouse because it stays warmer than
the outside air. This is because heat from the Sun is able to enter the clear glass or plastic. The heat
warms the air inside. The heat from the trapped air keeps the greenhouse warm.
Earth’s atmosphere also acts like a greenhouse. Sunlight reaches our planet and warms it. Some of the
heat is reflected back into space. Some of the heat is trapped by gases in Earth’s atmosphere.
These greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour, methane, and nitrous oxide.
The greenhouse gases in our atmosphere help keep our planet warm enough for us to survive. Too
little greenhouse gas would make the Earth too cold for humans. But, too much greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere makes the Earth too warm. Over the past century, humans have added a lot of greenhouse
gases to our atmosphere.

AEROSOLS AND CLOUDS

Air pollution, in the form of aerosols, not only puts a large burden on human health, but also affects
the climate on a large scale. From 1961 to 1990, a gradual reduction in the amount of sunlight
reaching the Earth's surface was observed, a phenomenon popularly known as global dimming,
typically attributed to aerosols from biofuel and fossil fuel burning. Aerosol removal by precipitation
gives tropospheric aerosols an atmospheric lifetime of only about a week, while stratospheric aerosols
can remain in the atmosphere for a few years. Globally, aerosols have been declining since 1990,
meaning that they no longer mask greenhouse gas warming as much.
In addition to their direct effects (scattering and absorbing solar radiation), aerosols have indirect
effects on the Earth's radiation budget. Sulphate aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei and thus
lead to clouds that have more and smaller cloud droplets. These clouds reflect solar radiation more
efficiently than clouds with fewer and larger droplets. This effect also causes droplets to be more
uniform in size, which reduces the growth of raindrops and makes clouds more reflective to incoming
sunlight. Indirect effects of aerosols are the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing.
While aerosols typically limit global warming by reflecting sunlight, black carbon in soot that falls on
snow or ice can contribute to global warming. Not only does this increase the absorption of sunlight,
it also increases melting and sea-level rise. Limiting new black carbon deposits in the Arctic could
reduce global warming by 0.2 °C (0.36 °F) by 2050.

CHANGE OF LAND SURFACE

Humans change the Earth's surface mainly to create more agricultural land. Today, agriculture takes
up 34% of Earth's land area, while 26% is forests, and 30% is uninhabitable (glaciers, deserts, etc.).
The amount of forested land continues to decrease, largely due to conversion to cropland in the
tropics. This deforestation is the most significant aspect of land surface change affecting global
warming. The main causes of deforestation are: permanent land-use change from forest to agricultural
land producing products such as beef and palm oil (27%), logging to produce forestry/forest products
(26%), short term shifting cultivation (24%), and wildfires (23%).
In addition to affecting greenhouse gas concentrations, land-use changes affect global warming
through a variety of other chemical and physical mechanisms. Changing the type of vegetation in a
region affects the local temperature, by changing how much of the sunlight gets reflected back into
space (albedo), and how much heat is lost by evaporation. For instance, the change from a dark forest
to grassland makes the surface lighter, causing it to reflect more sunlight. Deforestation can also
contribute to changing temperatures by affecting the release of aerosols and other chemical
compounds that influence clouds, and by changing wind patterns. In tropic and temperate areas the net
effect is to produce significant warming, while at latitudes closer to the poles a gain of albedo (as
forest is replaced by snow cover) leads to an overall cooling effect. Globally, these effects are
estimated to have led to a slight cooling, dominated by an increase in surface albedo.

SOLAR AND VOLCANIC ACTIVITY

Physical climate models are unable to reproduce the rapid warming observed in recent decades when
taking into account only variations in solar output and volcanic activity. As the Sun is the Earth's
primary energy source, changes in incoming sunlight directly affect the climate system. Solar has
been measured directly by satellites, and indirect measurements are available from the early 1600s.
There has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun's energy reaching the Earth. Further
evidence for greenhouse gases being the cause of recent climate change come from measurements
showing the warming of the lower atmosphere (the troposphere), coupled with the cooling of the
upper atmosphere (the stratosphere). If solar variations were responsible for the observed warming,
warming of both the troposphere and the stratosphere would be expected, but that has not been the
case.
Explosive volcanic eruptions represent the largest natural forcing over the industrial era. When the
eruption is sufficiently strong (with sulphur dioxide reaching the stratosphere) sunlight can be
partially blocked for a couple of years, with a temperature signal lasting about twice as long. In the
industrial era, volcanic activity has had negligible impacts on global temperature trends. Present-day
volcanic CO2 emissions are equivalent to less than 1% of current anthropogenic CO 2 emissions.

IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGES

1. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The environmental effects of climate change are broad and far-reaching, affecting oceans, ice, and
weather. Changes may occur gradually or rapidly. Evidence for these effects comes from studying
climate change in the past, from modelling, and from modern observations. Since the 1950s,
droughts and heat waves have appeared simultaneously with increasing frequency. Extremely wet or
dry events within the monsoon period have increased in India and East Asia. The rainfall rate and
intensity of hurricanes and typhoons is likely increasing. Frequency of tropical cyclones has not
increased as a result of climate change.
Global sea level is rising as a consequence of glacial melt, melt of the ice sheets in Greenland and
Antarctica, and thermal expansion. Between 1993 and 2020, the rise increased over time, averaging
3.3 ± 0.3 mm per year. Over the 21st century, the IPCC projects that in a very high emissions
scenario the sea level could rise by 61–110 cm. Increased ocean warmth is undermining and
threatening to unplug Antarctic glacier outlets, risking a large melt of the ice sheet and the
possibility of a 2-meter sea level rise by 2100 under high emissions.
Climate change has led to decades of shrinking and thinning of the Arctic sea ice, making it
vulnerable to atmospheric anomalies. While ice-free summers are expected to be rare at 1.5 °C
(2.7 °F) degrees of warming, they are set to occur once every three to ten years at a warming level of
2.0 °C (3.6 °F).Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations have led to changes in ocean chemistry. An
increase in dissolved CO2 is causing oceans to acidify. In addition, oxygen levels are decreasing as
oxygen is less soluble in warmer water, with hypoxic dead zones expanding as a result of algal
blooms stimulated by higher temperatures, higher CO2 levels, ocean deoxygenation, and
eutrophication.

2. NATURE AND WILDLIFE

Recent warming has driven many terrestrial and freshwater species poleward and towards higher
altitudes. Higher atmospheric CO2 levels and an extended growing season have resulted in global
greening, whereas heatwaves and drought have reduced ecosystem productivity in some regions. The
future balance of these opposing effects is unclear. Climate change has contributed to the expansion
of drier climate zones, such as the expansion of deserts in the subtropics. The size and speed of global
warming is making abrupt changes in ecosystems more likely. Overall, it is expected that climate
change will result in the extinction of many species.
The oceans have heated more slowly than the land, but plants and animals in the ocean have migrated
towards the colder poles faster than species on land. Just as on land, heat waves in the ocean occur
more frequently due to climate change, with harmful effects found on a wide range of organisms such
as corals, kelp, and seabirds. Ocean acidification is impacting organisms who produce shells and
skeletons, such as mussels and barnacles, and coral reefs; coral reefs have seen extensive bleaching
after heat waves. Harmful algae bloom enhanced by climate change and eutrophication cause anoxia,
disruption of food webs and massive large-scale mortality of marine life. Coastal ecosystems are
under particular stress, with almost half of wetlands having disappeared as a consequence of climate
change and other human impacts.
3. HUMANS

The effects of climate change on humans, mostly due to warming and shifts in precipitation, have
been detected worldwide. Regional impacts of climate change are now observable on all continents
and across ocean regions, with low-latitude, less developed areas facing the greatest risk. Continued
emission of greenhouse gases will lead to further warming and long-lasting changes in the climate
system, with potentially “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts” for both people and
ecosystems. Climate change risks are unevenly distributed, but are generally greater for
disadvantaged people in developing and developed countries.

4. FOOD AND HEALTH

Health impacts include both the direct effects of extreme weather, leading to injury and loss of life, as
well as indirect effects, such as undernutrition brought on by crop failures. Various infectious diseases
are more easily transmitted in a warmer climate, such as dengue fever, which affects children most
severely, and malaria. Young children are the most vulnerable to food shortages, and together with
older people, to extreme heat. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between
2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year
from heat exposure in elderly people, increases in diarrheal disease, malaria, dengue, coastal flooding,
and childhood undernutrition. Over 500,000 additional adult deaths are projected yearly by 2050 due
to reductions in food availability and quality. Other major health risks associated with climate change
include air and water quality. The WHO has classified human impacts from climate change as the
greatest threat to global health in the 21st century.

5. Climate change is affecting food security and has caused reduction in global mean yields of
maize, wheat, and soybeans between 1981 and 2010. Future warming could further reduce
global yields of major crops. Crop production will probably be negatively affected in low-
latitude countries, while effects at northern latitudes may be positive or negative. Up to an
additional 183 million people worldwide, particularly those with lower incomes, are at risk of
 hunger as a consequence of these impacts. The effects of warming on the oceans impact fish
stocks, with a global decline in the maximum catch potential. Only polar stocks are showing
an increased potential. Regions dependent on glacier water, regions that are already dry, and
small islands are at increased risk of water stress due to climate change.
6. LIVELIHOODS

Economic damages due to climate change have been underestimated, and may be severe, with the
probability of disastrous tail-risk events being nontrivial. Climate change has likely already increased
global economic inequality, and is projected to continue doing so. Most of the severe impacts are
expected in sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia, where existing poverty is already exacerbated.
The World Bank estimates that climate change could drive over 120 million people into poverty by
2030. Current inequalities between men and women, between rich and poor, and between different
ethnicities have been observed to worsen as a consequence of climate variability and climate change.
An expert elicitation concluded that the role of climate change in armed conflict has been small
compared to factors such as socio-economic inequality and state capabilities, but that future warming
will bring increasing risks. Low-lying islands and coastal communities are threatened through
hazards posed by sea level rise, such as flooding and permanent submergence. This could lead to
statelessness for populations in island nations, such as the Maldives and Tuvalu. In some regions, rise
in temperature and humidity may be too severe for humans to adapt to. With worst-case climate
change, models project that almost one-third of humanity might live in extremely hot and
uninhabitable climates, similar to the current climate found mainly in the Sahara. These factors, plus
weather extremes, can drive environmental migration, both within and between countries.
Displacement of people is expected to increase as a consequence of more frequent extreme weather,
sea level rise, and conflict arising from increased competition over natural resources. Climate change
may also increase vulnerabilities, leading to "trapped populations" in some areas who are not able to
move due to a lack of resources.

MITIGATION

Climate change impacts can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and by enhancing
sinks that absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. In order to limit global warming to less than
1.5 °C with a high likelihood of success, global greenhouse gas emissions needs to be net-zero by
2050, or by 2070 with a 2 °C target. This requires far-reaching, systemic changes on an
unprecedented scale in energy, land, cities, transport, buildings, and industry. Scenarios that limit
global warming to 1.5 °C often describe reaching net negative emissions at some point. To make
progress towards a goal of limiting warming to 2 °C, the United Nations Environment Programme
estimates that, within the next decade, countries need to triple the amount of reductions they have
committed to in their current Paris Agreements; an even greater level of reduction is required to meet
the 1.5 °C goal.
Although there is no single pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 °C (2.7 or 3.6 °F),most
scenarios and strategies see a major increase in the use of renewable energy in combination with
increased energy efficiency measures to generate the needed greenhouse gas reductions. To reduce
pressures on ecosystems and enhance their carbon sequestration capabilities, changes would also be
necessary in agriculture and forestry, such as restoring natural ecosystems by reforestation.
Other approaches to mitigating climate change entail a higher level of risk. Scenarios that limit global
warming to 1.5 °C typically project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the
21st century. There are concerns, though, about over-reliance on these technologies, as well as
possible environmental impacts. Solar radiation management (SRM) methods have also been explored
as a possible supplement to deep reductions in emissions. However, SRM would raise significant
ethical and legal issues, and the risks are poorly understood.

a) CLEAN ENERGY
 Long-term decarbonisation scenarios point to rapid and significant investment in renewable
energy, which includes solar and wind power, bioenergy, geothermal energy, and hydropower.
Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of the world's energy in 2018, while the remaining share was split
between nuclear power and renewables; that mix is projected to change significantly over the next
30 years. Solar and wind have seen substantial growth and progress over the last few years;
photovoltaic solar and onshore wind are the cheapest forms of adding new power generation
capacity in most countries. Renewables represented 75% of all new electricity generation installed
in 2019, with solar and wind constituting nearly all of that amount. Meanwhile, nuclear power
costs are increasing amidst stagnant power share, so that nuclear power generation is now several
times more expensive per megawatt-hour than wind and solar.
To achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, renewable energy would become the dominant form of
electricity generation, rising to 85% or more by 2050 in some scenarios. The use of electricity for
other needs, such as heating, would rise to the point where electricity becomes the largest form of
overall energy supply. Investment in coal would be eliminated and coal use nearly phased out by
2050.
In transport, scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles, and low
carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping. Building heating would be
increasingly decarbonized with the use of technologies like heat pumps.
There are obstacles to the continued rapid development of renewables. For solar and wind power,
a key challenge is their intermittency and seasonal variability. Traditionally, hydro dams with
reservoirs and conventional power plants have been used when variable energy production is low.
Intermittency can further be countered by demand flexibility, and by expanding battery storage
and long-distance transmission to smooth variability of renewable output across wider geographic
areas. Some environmental and land use concerns have been associated with large solar and wind
projects, while bioenergy is often not carbon neutral and may have negative consequences for
food security. Hydropower growth has been slowing and is set to decline further due to concerns
about social and environmental impacts.
Low-carbon energy improves human health by minimizing climate change and has the near-term
benefit of reducing air pollution deaths, which were estimated at 7 million annually in
2016.Meeting the Paris Agreement goals that limit warming to a 2 °C increase could save about a
million of those lives per year by 2050, whereas limiting global warming to 1.5 °C could save
millions and simultaneously increase energy security and reduce poverty.

b) ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Reducing energy demand is another major feature of decarbonisation scenarios and plans. In addition
to directly reducing emissions, energy demand reduction measures provide more flexibility for low
carbon energy development, aid in the management of the electricity grid, and minimise carbon-
intensive infrastructure development. Over the next few decades, major increases in energy efficiency
investment will be required to achieve these reductions, comparable to the expected level of
investment in renewable energy. However, several COVID-19 related changes in energy use patterns,
energy efficiency investments, and funding have made forecasts for this decade more difficult and
uncertain.
Efficiency strategies to reduce energy demand vary by sector. In transport, gains can be made by
switching passengers and freight to more efficient travel modes, such as buses and trains, and
increasing the use of electric vehicles. Industrial strategies to reduce energy demand include
increasing the energy efficiency of heating systems and motors, designing less energy-intensive
products, and increasing product lifetimes. In the building sector the focus is on better design of new
buildings, and incorporating higher levels of energy efficiency in retrofitting techniques for existing
structures. In addition to decarbonizing energy use, the use of technologies like heat pumps can also
increase building energy efficiency.
 c) AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY

Agriculture and forestry face a triple challenge of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, preventing the
further conversion of forests to agricultural land, and meeting increases in world food demand. A suite
of actions could reduce agriculture and forestry-based greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds from
2010 levels by reducing growth in demand for food and other agricultural products, increasing land
productivity, protecting and restoring forests, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
agricultural production.
In addition to the industrial demand reduction measures mentioned earlier, steel and cement
production, which together are responsible for about 13% of industrial CO2 emissions, present
particular challenges. In these industries, carbon-intensive materials such as coke and lime play an
integral role in the production process, so that reducing CO2 emissions requires research-driven
efforts aimed at decarbonising the chemistry of these processes.

d) CARBON SEQUESTRATION

Natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO2 beyond
naturally occurring levels. Reforestation and tree planting on non-forest lands are among the most
mature sequestration techniques, although the latter raises food security concerns. Soil carbon
sequestration and coastal carbon sequestration are less understood options. The feasibility of land-
based negative emissions methods for mitigation are uncertain in models; the IPCC has described
mitigation strategies based on them as risky.
Where energy production or CO2-intensive heavy industries continue to produce waste CO2, the gas
can be captured and stored instead of being released to the atmosphere. Although its current use is
limited in scale and expensive, carbon capture and storage (CCS) may be able to play a significant
role in limiting CO2 emissions by mid-century. This technique, in combination with bio-energy
production (BECCS) can result in net-negative emissions, where the amount of greenhouse gasses
that are released into the atmosphere are less than the sequestered, or stored, amount in the bio-energy
fuel being grown. It remains highly uncertain whether carbon dioxide removal techniques, such as
BECCS, will be able to play a large role in limiting warming to 1.5 °C, and policy decisions based on
reliance on carbon dioxide removal increases the risk of global warming increasing beyond
international goals.

e) ADAPTATION

Adaptation is "the process of adjustment to current or expected changes in climate and its effects”.
Without additional mitigation, adaptation cannot avert the risk of "severe, widespread and
irreversible" impacts. More severe climate change requires more transformative adaptation, which can
be prohibitively expensive. The capacity and potential for humans to adapt, called adaptive capacity,
is unevenly distributed across different regions and populations, and developing countries generally
have less. The first two decades of the 21st century saw an increase in adaptive capacity in most low-
and middle-income countries with improved access to basic sanitation and electricity, but progress is
slow. Many countries have implemented adaptation policies. However, there is a considerable gap
between necessary and available finance.
Adaptation to sea level rise consists of avoiding at-risk areas, learning to live with increased flooding,
protection and, if needed, the more transformative option of managed retreat. There are economic
barriers for moderation of dangerous heat impact: avoiding strenuous work or employing private air
conditioning is not possible for everybody. In agriculture, adaptation options include a switch to more
sustainable diets, diversification, erosion control and genetic improvements for increased tolerance to
a changing climate. Insurance allows for risk-sharing, but is often difficult to obtain for people on
lower incomes. Education, migration and early warning systems can reduce climate vulnerability.
Ecosystems adapt to climate change, a process that can be supported by human intervention. Possible
responses include increasing connectivity between ecosystems, allowing species to migrate to more
favourable climate conditions and species relocation. Protection and restoration of natural and semi-
natural areas helps build resilience, making it easier for ecosystems to adapt. Many of the actions that
promote adaptation in ecosystems, also help humans adapt via ecosystem-based adaptation. For
instance, restoration of natural fire regimes makes catastrophic fires less likely, and reduces human
exposure. Giving rivers more space allows for more water storage in the natural system, reducing
flood risk. Restored forest act as a carbon sink, but planting trees in unsuitable regions can exacerbate
climate impacts.
There are some synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation measures
often offer short-term benefits, whereas mitigation has longer-term benefits. Increased use of air
conditioning allows people to better cope with heat, but increases energy demand. Compact urban
development may lead to reduced emissions from transport and construction. Simultaneously, it may
increase the urban heat island effect, leading to higher temperatures and increased exposure. Increased
food productivity has large benefits for both adaptation and mitigation.

f) POLITICS

Countries that are most vulnerable to climate change have typically been responsible for a small share
of global emissions, which raises questions about justice and fairness. Climate change is strongly
linked to sustainable development, along with the use of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse
gases. Limiting global warming makes it easier to achieve sustainable development goals, such as
eradicating poverty and reducing inequalities. The connection between the two is recognised in the
Sustainable Development Goal 13 which is to "Take urgent action to combat climate change and its
impacts". The goals on food, clean water and ecosystem protections have synergies with climate
mitigation. The geopolitics of climate change is complex and has often been framed as a free-rider
problem, in which all countries benefit from mitigation done by other countries, but individual
countries would lose from investing in a transition to a low-carbon economy themselves. This framing
has been challenged. For instance, the benefits in terms of public health and local environmental
improvements of coal phase-out exceed the costs in almost all regions. Another argument against this
framing is that net importers of fossil fuels win economically from transitioning, causing net exporters
to face stranded assets: fossil fuels they cannot sell.

i. PUBLIC AWARENESS

Climate change came to international public attention in the late 1980s. Due to confusing media
coverage in the early 1990s, understanding was often confounded by conflation with other
environmental issues like ozone depletion. In popular culture, the first movie to reach a mass public
on the topic was The Day After Tomorrow in 2004, followed a few years later by the AL Gore
documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Books, stories and films about climate change fall under the
genre of climate fiction. Significant regional, gender, age and political differences exist in both public
concern for, and understanding of, climate change. More highly educated people, and in some
countries, women and younger people, were more likely to see climate change as a serious threat.
Partisan gaps also exist in many countries, and countries with high CO2 emissions tend to be less
concerned. Views on causes of climate change vary widely; with significant differences in the extent
to which residents of various countries and territories see the cause as being human activities
compared to natural changes. Concern over climate change has increased over time, to the point
where a majority of citizens in many countries now express a high level of worry about climate
change, or view it as a global emergency. Higher levels of worry, in particular, are associated with
stronger public support for policies that address climate change.
 THEORIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
i. ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING
The first theory of climate change contends that human emissions of greenhouse gases, principally
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide, are causing a catastrophic rise in global
temperatures. The mechanism whereby this happens is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. We
call this theory “anthropogenic global warming,” or AGW for short. Energy from the sun travels
through space and reaches Earth. Earth’s atmosphere is mostly transparent to the incoming sunlight,
allowing it to reach the planet’s surface where some of it is absorbed and some is reflected back as
heat out into the atmosphere. Certain gases in the atmosphere, called “greenhouse gases,” absorb
the outgoing reflected or internal thermal radiation, resulting in Earth’s atmosphere becoming
warmer than it otherwise might be. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas, responsible for
about 36 to 90 percent of the greenhouse effect, followed by CO2 methane (4 to 9 percent), and
ozone (3 to 7 percent). (These estimates are the subject of much dispute, hence their wide ranges.)
During the past century, human activities such as burning wood and fossil fuels and cutting down or
burning forests are thought to have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by
approximately 50 percent. Continued burning of fossil fuels and deforestation could double the
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during the next 100 years, assuming natural “sinks” don’t grow in
pace with emissions. Earth’s climate also responds to several other types of external influences, such
as variation in solar radiation and in the planet’s orbit, but these “forcings,” according to the
proponents of AGW, cannot explain the rise in Earth’s temperature over the past three decades. The
forcing caused directly by man-made greenhouse gases is also small, but the AGW theory posits that
positive feedbacks increase the effects of these gases between two- and four-fold. A small increase
in temperature causes more evaporation, which places more water vapour in the atmosphere, which
causes more warming. Global warming may also lead to less ice and snow cover, which would lead
to more exposed ground and open water, which on average are less reflective than snow and ice and
thus absorb more solar radiation, which would cause more warming. Warming also might trigger the
release of methane from frozen peat bogs and CO2 from the oceans. Backers of the AGW theory
contend the ~0.7°C warming of the past century-and-a-half and ~0.5°C of the past 30 years is mostly
or entirely attributable to man-made greenhouse gases. They dispute or disregard claims that some
or perhaps all of that rise could be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800).
They use computer models based on physical principles, theories, and assumptions to predict that a
doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause Earth’s temperature to rise an additional 3.0°C
(5.4°F) by 2100. When these climate models are run “backwards” they tend to predict more
warming than has actually occurred, but this, the theory’s backers argue, is due to the cooling effects
of aerosols and soot, which are also products of fossil fuel combustion. The models also predict
more warming of a layer of the atmosphere (the troposphere) in the tropics than has been observed
by satellite and radiosonde measurements, but AGW believers dispute the data showing that
disparity. Proponents of the AGW theory believe man-made CO2 is responsible for floods, droughts,
severe weather, crop failures, species extinctions, spread of diseases, ocean coral bleaching,
famines, and literally hundreds of other catastrophes. All these disasters will become more frequent
and more severe as temperatures continue to rise, they say. Nothing less than large and rapid
reductions in human emissions will save the planet from these catastrophic events

ii. THEORY OF BIO-THERMOSTAT

The second theory of climate change holds that negative feedbacks from biological and chemical
processes entirely or almost entirely offset whatever positive feedbacks might be caused by rising
CO2. These processes act as a “global bio-thermostat” keeping temperatures in equilibrium. The
scientific literature contains evidence of at least eight such feedbacks, not counting cloud formation,
which is treated as a separate theory in the next section of this booklet. A. Carbon Sequestration
Increased carbon sequestration by plants is perhaps the best-known consequence of the rise in
atmospheric CO2. The productivity of most plants is enhanced because CO2 is the primary raw
material utilized by plants to construct their tissues. The more CO2 there is in the air, the better
plants grow and the more CO2 they remove from the air and store in their leaves, branches, trunks,
and roots, as well as in the soil beneath the plants – a suite of processes called “sequestration.”
Higher temperatures also tend to increase carbon sequestration rates. Sequestration offsets some of
the temperature-increasing power of higher levels of CO2. How powerful is this negative feedback?
The answer depends on the size, growth rate, and duration of the “sinks” in which carbon is stored.
These variables in turn depend on constraints to plant growth (such as lack of water or nutrients in
soil), the rate at which plant material decomposes, and even how higher CO2 levels affect
earthworms. The latest research, by Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at Bristol
University in England, indicates that sinks are growing in pace with man-made emissions, “having
risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now,” contradicting the
assumptions made by the computer models used by advocates of the AGW theory. In addition, all
carbon sinks have yet to be identified and new ones are being discovered every few years

B.} Carbonyl Sulphide Carbonyl sulphide (COS) is a biologically produced sulphur gas emitted from
soils. COS eventually makes its way into the stratosphere where it is transformed into sulphate
aerosol particles, which reflect solar radiation back into space, producing a cooling effect on Earth’s
climate. The rate at which COS is emitted increases as vegetation responds to the ongoing rise in the
air’s CO2 content, meaning it is another negative feedback. The latest research indicates that the
COS-induced cooling mechanism also operates at sea, as higher CO2 and temperatures increase
surface-water chlorophyll concentrations. Ice core samples reveal that tropospheric COS
concentration has risen approximately 30 percent since the 1600s, from a mean value of 373 parts
per trillion (ppt) over the period 1616-1694 to about 485 ppt today. This is a sizeable increase, and
only about one-fourth of it can be attributed to anthropogenic sources. While we need to learn more
about this process, even state-of-the-art climate models neglect the possible effect of the COS cycle
on climate. Until they take COS into account, these models are likely to forecast too much warming
due to increases in CO2. C. Diffuse Light a third negative feedback phenomenon is diffuse light. As
higher levels of CO2 promote greater plant productivity, plants emit greater amounts of gases
converted into aerosols called “biosols.” Biosols in turn act as cloud condensation nuclei, helping to
create new clouds that reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space, thereby cooling the
planet. More than that, they diffuse solar radiation close to the ground, reducing shade under plant
canopies and thereby enhancing photosynthesis, which increases the amount of CO2 plants absorb
from the air and can sequester. How significant is this negative feedback? A 2004 study published in
Geophysical Research Letters found diffuse light increased “net CO2 assimilation” by a broadleaf
deciduous forest by between 30 percent and 50 percent. Once again, these effects are not
adequately included in any computer model of Earth’s climate system. D. Iodocompounds Iodinated
compounds, or iodocompounds, are particles formed in sea air from iodine-containing vapours
emitted by marine algae. These compounds, like the biosols previously discussed, help create clouds,
which reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. Also like bio sols, the creation of
iodocompounds is stimulated by rising CO2 levels and warmer temperatures. According to a study
published in Nature in 2002, emissions of iodocompounds from marine biota “can increase by up to
five times as a result of changes in environmental conditions associated with global change.” A
change of this magnitude “can lead to an increase in global radiative forcing similar in magnitude,
but opposite in sign, to the forcing induced by greenhouse gases.” In other words, this one biological
process could offset all of the warming caused by rising CO2 levels. E. Dimethyl Sulfide The amount
of biologic dimethyl sulphide (DMS) emitted by the world’s oceans is closely related to sea surface
temperature: the higher the sea surface temperature, the greater the sea-to-air flux of DMS. DMS is
a major source of cloud condensation nuclei, which generate clouds with greater cloud albedo. The
greater the cloud albedo, the more incoming solar radiation gets blocked and reflected out to space.
How strong is this negative feedback? A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in
2000 found that a sea surface temperature increase of only 1°C was sufficient to increase the
atmospheric DMS concentration by 50 percent. The warming typically predicted to accompany a
doubling of the air’s CO2 content would increase the atmosphere’s DMS concentration by a factor of
three or more, providing what the study’s authors call a “very important” negative feedback that
could potentially offset the original impetus for warming. The effects of this process are not
incorporated into today’s state-of-the-art climate models. F. Other Aerosols There are many other
kinds of aerosols, which scientists classify as marine biological, terrestrial biological, anthropogenic
non-biological, and natural non-biological. Many of them are created, distributed, or destroyed in
biological and chemical processes that tend to be counter-cyclical to the forcing of CO2. In other
words, when CO2 is plentiful or when temperatures rise, these aerosols tend to increase in presence
and reflect more solar radiation away from the planet’s surface, causing it to cool. The IPCC gives
short shrift to the extensive scientific literature on aerosols, estimating their net effect to be just a
small fraction of that of CO2. However, a literature survey conducted by Idso and Singer in 2009
indicates the IPCC’s estimate is far too low. Many studies suggest the cumulative negative forcing of
aerosols is large enough to completely offset the positive forcing due to rising atmospheric CO2.
Some of these individual negative feedbacks may be sufficiently large to counter much of the effect
of higher levels of CO2 on global temperatures. Together, it is highly likely they constitute a “bio-
thermostat” keeping Earth’s temperature relatively stable. This would mean rising CO2 would not
cause catastrophic global warming

iii. THEORY OF CLOUD FORMATION AND ALBEDO

A third theory of climate change postulates that changes in the formation and albedo of clouds
create negative feedbacks that cancel out all or nearly all of the warming effect of higher levels of
CO2 . This theory is based largely on observational data reported by a series of researchers, rather
than computer models as in the case of the AGW theory. In 1999, Yogesh Sud, a NASA scientist, and
his colleagues found that changes in cloud coverage in the tropics acted as a natural thermostat to
keep sea surface temperature (SST) between approximately 28°C and 30°C. Their analysis suggested
that as SSTs rise, air at the base of the clouds is charged with the moist static energy needed for
clouds to reach the upper troposphere, at which point the cloud cover reduces the amount of solar
radiation received at the surface of the sea and cool and dry downdrafts promote ocean surface
cooling. This “thermostat-like control,” as Sud et al. described it, tends “to ventilate the tropical
ocean efficiently and help contain the SST between 28°- 30°C.” The phenomenon also would be
expected to prevent SSTs from rising any higher in response to enhanced CO2 -induced radiative
forcing. In 2001, Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), and colleagues examined upper level cloudiness data and SST data and discovered
a strong inverse relationship between upper-level cloud area and the mean SST of cloudy regions of
the eastern part of the western Pacific. The area of cirrus cloud coverage decreased about 22
percent for each 1°C increase in SST. Lindzen et al. wrote, “The cloudy-moist region appears to act as
an infrared adaptive iris that opens up and closes down the regions free of upper-level clouds, which
more effectively permit infrared cooling, in such a manner as to resist changes in tropical surface
temperature.” The sensitivity of this negative feedback was calculated by Lindzen et al. to be so
substantial that it would “more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current
climate models.”

In 2008, climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer and colleagues used new satellite data
to support Lindzen’s “adaptive iris” thesis, finding “the net ... radiative effect of clouds during the
evolution of the composite ISO [tropical intra-seasonal oscillations] is to cool the ocean-atmosphere
system during its tropospheric warm phase, and to warm it during its cool phase.” In 2009, Lindzen
and co-author Yong-Sang Choi found “for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes
increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behaviour of radiation
fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is
the opposite of the behaviour of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.” In 2010, Lindzen
and Choi responded to critics with a new study accounting for orbital drift by ERBE satellites and
other data issues. They once again found negative feedback by clouds in the tropics, which “implies
that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.” If they are right, clouds act as a negative
feedback to the warming that would otherwise be caused by manmade CO2 emissions, eliminating
any net warming

iv. THEORY OF HUMAN FORCING’S BESIDES GREENHOUSE GASES

A fourth theory of climate change holds that mankind’s greatest influence on climate is not its
greenhouse gas emissions, but its transformation of Earth’s surface by clearing forests, irrigating
deserts, and building cities. Roger Pielke, Sr., a climatologist at the University of Colorado – Boulder,
phrases the theory as follows: Although the natural causes of climate variations and changes are
undoubtedly important, the human influences are significant and involve a diverse range of first-
order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Short
descriptions of some of these “human forcings” other than greenhouse gases (not all of them
reported by Pielke) follow. Urban Heat Islands Cities tend to be warmer than suburbs, and suburbs
warmer than rural areas, because they have greater concentrations of energy-producing machines
and vehicles and large amounts of concrete, asphalt, and other building and road materials that
absorb solar energy and then re-emit thermal energy. These “urban heat island” effects have been
documented by many authors. De Laat et al., in a 2004 study published in Geophysical Research
Letters, concluded that “the ‘real’ global mean surface temperature trend is very likely to be
considerably smaller than the temperature trend in the CRU [Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit]
data.” Advocates of the AGW theory falsely attribute higher temperatures caused by urban heat
islands to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

Aerosols and ozone anthropogenic aerosols and ozone have shorter lifetimes than greenhouse
gases, and therefore their concentrations are higher in source regions and downwind. Pielke and
colleagues estimate the effect of human aerosols on the gradient of radiative heating on regional
scales “is on the order of 60 times that of the well-mixed greenhouse gases.” With many surface-
based temperature stations located in urban or near-urban areas, it is likely they are registering the
warming effects of these aerosols and ozone, not CO2. Deforestation Removing trees by burning, a
common practice in developing countries, releases CO2 into the atmosphere and prevents forests
from sequestering carbon in the future. The pasture or crop land that replaces the forest lacks the
shade created by a forest canopy and tends to be warmer. The IPCC has estimated that between
one-quarter and one-third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are due to deforestation, not the
burning of fossil fuels, though this estimate has been challenged as being too high. Coastal
development Anthropogenic activities in coastal areas such as logging, agriculture, construction,
mining, drilling, dredging, and tourism all can increase or (more rarely) decrease surface
temperatures of nearby bodies of water. For example, storm runoff from city streets following heavy
rains can result in seawater dilution and temperature increases. Development can produce sediment
that reduces streamflow and damages coral reefs by reducing the penetration of sunlight or by
direct deposit on the coral, causing damage mistakenly attributed to global warming. Jet contrails
anyone living in or near a large city knows that jets often leave trails behind them, called contrails
(short for “condensation trails”). Composed of water vapour, they precipitate the creation of low
clouds that have a net warming effect. According to a 2006 study published in the International
Journal of Climatology, contrails in the U.S. “may cause a net warming of the surface rivalling that of
greenhouse gases” and “in certain regions, contrails already may contribute as much as the present
anthropogenic CO2 forcing on climate Several of these “human forcings” have local and regional
effects on climate equal to or even exceeding that of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This
leaves little or no warming left to be explained by the AGW theory. Unfortunately, as Roger Pielke
concludes, the IPCC in 2007 “did not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of these other human
climate forcings in altering regional and global climate and their effects on predictability at the
regional scale. It also placed too much emphasis on average global forcing from a limited set of
human climate forcing.”

v. THEORY OF OCEAN CURRENTS

The fifth theory of climate change contends that global temperature variations over the past
century-and-a-half, and particularly the past 30 years, were due to the slow-down of the ocean’s
Thermohaline Circulation (THC). William “Bill” Gray, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at
Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at the university’s
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, is the leading proponent of this theory. The following
summary is based on several of his papers and presentations. Ocean water is constantly transferred
from the surface mixed layer to the interior ocean through a process called ventilation. The ocean
fully ventilates itself every 1,000 to 2,000 years through a polar region (Atlantic and Antarctic) deep
ocean subsidence of cold-saline water and a compensating upwelling of warmer less saline water in
the tropics. This deep ocean circulation, called the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC), has
two parts, the primary Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) and the secondary Surrounding
Antarctica Subsidence (SAS). Paleo-proxy data and meteorological observations show there have
been decadal to multi-century scale variations in the strength of the THC over the past thousand
years. When the THC circulation is stronger than normal the earth-system experiences a slightly
higher level of evaporation–precipitation (~2 percent). When the THC is weaker than normal, as it is
about half the time, global rainfall and surface evaporation are reduced about 2 percent. It requires
extra energy (29 W/m2) from the ocean surface to evaporate or turn 1 mm of liquid water into
water vapour. This energy depletion during periods of high Atlantic THC conditions acts together
with the enhancement of the upwelling of deep ocean cold water into the tropical ocean upper level
mixed region to bring about additional upper-level ocean energy depletion and finally, with a lag of 5
to 10 years, reduced ocean surface temperatures. When the THC is relatively weak (as it was during
the periods 1910- 1940 and 1970-1994), the earth-system typically has less net evaporation cooling
and less deep ocean upwelling of cold water. At these times, energy accumulates in the ocean’s
upper mixed layer and over a period of a decade or two the global ocean begins to warm. The
average strength of the Atlantic THC varies about one to two Sverdrups (a unit of measure of volume
transport, about 264 million U.S. gallons per second) from its long-term average of about 14
Sverdrups. The average THC appears to continuously deplete energy from the ocean at a rate of
about 3 W/m2. This long-period energy loss is balanced by a near-constant extra solar energy gain.
When the THC is stronger than average, this upwelling of colder deeper water into the tropical
mixed layer brings a general energy depletion of the upper 50 to 100 meters of mixed tropical ocean
upper layer of about 4 W/ m2 . When the THC is weaker than average, the energy depletion drops to
about 2 W/m2. These ocean energy depletions/accumulations acting over periods of 20-30 years can
lead to significant sea surface temperature differences. Besides this deep ocean global THC
circulation, there are also upand-down-welling ocean areas that are a product of the ocean’s
horizontal surface wind configurations. These “Ekman” patterns can also contribute to local and
global temperature change depending on where they occur. These combined THC and Ekman
changes have no known association with anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. A slowdown of
the global THC circulation occurs due to Atlantic Ocean salinity decreases. This typically brings about
a few decades of reduction in Antarctic deep-water formation. How powerful is the effect on climate
of these natural changes in ocean currents compared to estimates of the effect of man-made
greenhouse gases? According to Gray, pre-industrial amounts of CO2 have been estimated at 290
ppm. The energy gain from a doubling of CO2 to 580 ppm with all other processes held fixed has
been calculated to be 3.7 W/m2. Mauna Loa Observatory measurements of CO2 in ppm were about
390 in 2010. The change in CO2 energy forcing from pre-industrial conditions of 290 ppm to today’s
value of about 390 gives an idealized outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) blocking of energy to space
of 100/290 x 3.7 = 1.3 W/m2 . This is less than the 2 W/m2 energy alteration that occurs from the
ordinary alteration of the thermohaline circulation. According to Gray, changes of the Meridional
Overturning Circulation (MOC) since 1995 led to the cessation of global warming since the 1998-
2001 period and triggered the beginning of a weak global cooling trend since 2001. Gray projects this
weak cooling to continue for the next couple of decades. “I expect to live to see the start of a global
cooling pattern and the discrediting of most of the anthropogenic warming arguments,” he wrote in
2009. “The world has more serious problems to worry about.”

vi. THEORY OF PLANETARY MOTION

The sixth theory of climate change contends that most or all of the warming of the latter part of the
twentieth century can be explained by natural gravitational and magnetic oscillations of the solar
system induced by the planet’s movement through space. These oscillations modulate solar
variations and/or other extra-terrestrial influences of Earth, which then drive climate change. An
extra-terrestrial influence on climate on a multi-millennial timescale associated with planetary
motion was first suggested by a Serbian astrophysicist, Milutin Milankovitch, and published in 1941.
More recent discoveries have enabled scientists to accurately measure these effects on climate.
Earth’s orbit around the sun takes the form of an ellipse, not a circle, with the planet passing farther
away from the sun at one end of the orbit than at the other end. The closest approach of the planet
to the sun is called “perihelion” and the farthest is called “aphelion.” Perihelion now occurs in
January, making northern hemisphere winters slightly milder. The change in timing of perihelion is
known as the precession of the equinoxes, and it occurs every 22,000 years. The shape or
“eccentricity” of Earth’s orbit also varies on cycles of 100,000 and 400,000 years due to the tug of
other planets, specifically Jupiter and Saturn, on Earth. It shifts from a short broad ellipse that keeps
Earth closer to the sun, to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move farther from the sun and back
again. Earth also spins around an axis that tilts lower and then higher during a 41,000-year cycle.
More “tilt” roughly means warmer northern hemisphere summers and colder winters; less “tilt”
means cooler summers and milder winters. The coincidence of these cycles is known to lead, with
the help of positive climatic feedbacks such as water vapour, to the cooling and warming periods we
recognize from historical data as Ice Ages and Interglacial Periods. Scientists now know that the
precession of Earth’s orbit means that about 11,000 years from now, the northern midwinter will fall
in July instead of January, and the continental glaciers may return. Could variation in the planet’s
movement through space account for climate change on a decadal scale as well as a millennial scale?
Nicola Scafetta, a physicist at Duke University, suggests two possible mechanisms may be at work:
1) The varying tidal gravitational and magnetic forces of the planets on the sun, in particular of
Jupiter and Saturn, modulate solar activity and then solar variations modulate the terrestrial climate;
and

2) The varying gravitational and magnetic fields generated by the movement of Jupiter and Saturn
modulate some terrestrial orbital parameters, for example the spinning of Earth better known as the
“length of the day” (LOD), which then drives the ocean oscillations and, consequently, the climate.
Scafetta tested this theory using the sun’s movement relative to the centre of mass of the solar
system (called the “barycentre”) as a proxy for all the known and unknown cycles involving natural
oscillations of the solar system. He found “all alternating periods of warming and cooling since 1860
are very well reconstructed by the model.” He goes on to use the model to predict future climate
change: The forecasts indicate that climate may cool until the 2030s. At the end of the 21st century
relative to today’s temperature the climate may warm at most by 1°C if the quadratic fit forecast
holds. The model suggests that climate is modulated by large 60, 30, 20 and 10 year natural cycles
that combined have a max-min amplitude of about 0.3-0.4°C on the 60 year cycle. This explains most
of the 1910-1945 warming of about 0.40-0.45°C and implies that about 60-70% of the observed
warming from 1975 to 2002 was part of this natural climate cycle during its warm phase. The climate
models used by proponents of the AGW theory are notoriously unable to recreate past temperature
variation without extensive “tweaking” of the models to fit the data. Scafetta’s model, without any
similar trickery, explains most of the warming of the twentieth century. The difference between
Scafetta’s climate forecast and the IPCC’s could not be more striking: Scafetta forecasts cooling for
the next two decades, while the IPCC forecasts catastrophic warming.

vii. THEORY SOLAR VARIABILITY

The seventh theory of climate change is that solar variability accounts for most or all of the warming
in the late twentieth century and will dominate climate in the twenty-first century regardless of
man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Changes in the brightness of the sun are caused by sunspots –
bursts of energetic particles and radiation – that vary in frequency in cycles of roughly 11, 87, and
210 years. These cycles cause changes in the amount of electromagnetic radiation – also called
“solar wind” – that reaches Earth and its atmosphere, which in turn affects Earth’s climate. Most
proponents of the theory that solar variability drives changes in Earth’s climate believe positive
feedback occurs either by a process involving the influence of the solar wind on cosmic rays, which
affects cloud formation, or on the oceans’ thermohaline circulation (THC), which affects sea surface
temperatures and wind patterns. Evidence of a Solar Effect According to the IPCC, “changes in solar
irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W/ m2 ,”
which is an order of magnitude smaller than the IPCC’s estimated net anthropogenic forcing of +1.66
W/m2 from CO2 over the same time period. However, many scientists believe the IPCC got it
backwards, that proxy data from ice cores, drift ice debris, and other sources reveal that the sun’s
influence was ten times as important as CO2 in influencing global temperatures in the past. Paleo-
oceanographer Gerard Bond and colleagues at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, in research published in Science in 2001, found changes in global temperatures
occurred in cycles of roughly 1,500 years over the past 12,000 years, with virtually every cooling
period coinciding with a solar minimum. Four years later, writing in Nature, a team of researchers
from the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences, the University of Heidelberg, the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research, and the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
demonstrated that the known 210-year and 87-year cycles of the sun could combine to form a
1,470-year cycle. Craig Loehle, principal scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, in 2004 used a pair of 3,000-year proxy climate records to demonstrate a similar
connection. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, and
Nicola Scafetta, a physicist at Duke University, have similarly documented close correlations using
different temperature records and measures of solar radiation. Correlation, even repeatedly
demonstrated, doesn’t prove causation. Around 2000, several scientists working independently
made discoveries that demonstrated plausible mechanisms linking variation in solar radiation to
decadal changes in global temperature. Solar Wind Modulation of Cosmic Rays Henrik Svensmark
and Eigil Friis-Christensen, astrophysicists at the Danish National Space Centre, in a seminal scientific
paper published in 1997, proposed that electrons released to the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays
stimulate the formation of ultra-small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules that constitute
the building blocks of cloud condensation nuclei. During periods of greater solar magnetic activity,
the stronger solar wind blocks some of the cosmic rays from penetrating the lower atmosphere,
resulting in fewer cloud condensation nuclei being produced. The result is the creation of fewer and
less reflective low-level clouds, resulting in increasing near-surface air temperatures and global
warming. How powerful is this solar wind-cosmic ray interaction? A 2002 study published in Science
found the intensity of cosmic rays varies by about 15 percent over a solar cycle, which in turn is
associated with variation in low cloud amount over a solar cycle by about 1.7 percent. This change in
cloud cover corresponds to a change in the planet’s radiation budget of about one watt per square
meter (1 W/m2). This change, the authors wrote, “is highly significant when compared ... with the
estimated radiative forcing of 1.4 W/m2 from anthropogenic CO2 emissions.” Two other scientists,
Jan Veizer, Distinguished University Professor (emeritus) of Earth Sciences at the University of
Ottawa, and Nir J. Shaviv of the Racah Institute of Physics at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Found in 2003 that between two-thirds and three-fourths of the variance in Earth’s temperature
over the past 500 million years may be attributable to cosmic ray flux. Once this is taken into
account, they say, a doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration could account for only about a 0.5°C
increase in global temperature, about the same increase found by many other scientists who dispute
the AGW theory. Solar-Arctic Connection A second group of scientists believes small changes in solar
radiation entering Earth’s atmosphere are amplified by positive feedbacks involving the transfer of
energy between equator and Arctic via wind patterns and oceans. Bond et al. envisioned solar
variability provoking changes in North Atlantic deep water formation that alter the thermohaline
circulation of the global ocean. A new paper by Soon demonstrates the plausibility of a three-part
mechanism whereby variation in total solar irradiance (TSI) affects Arctic temperatures by
modulating the thermohaline circulation (THC), the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) rain belt
and tropical Atlantic ocean conditions, and the intensity of the wind-driven subtropical and subpolar
gyre circulation, the ring-like system of ocean currents rotating clockwise in the Northern
Hemisphere and counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. Soon tested this “TSI-Arctic
thermal-salinity-cryospheric coupling mechanism” by showing the predicted 5-to-20-year delayed
effects of TSI variability on the peak Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) flow rate centred
near 30°-35°N, and sea surface temperature (SST) for the tropical Atlantic. He found very close fits
on multidecadal to centennial timescales. Soon concludes, “The proposed solar-Arctic connection
chains ... have good empirical support, and this mechanism appears to explain the operation of
coupled air-ocean-ice responses over broad areas connecting the Arctic and North Atlantic to other
locations on multidecadal to centennial timescales.” He cautions, though, that his theory “should be
viewed as a step forward in the long quest” to understand how the full weather-climate continuum
operates and the role of solar irradiance forcing.
CONCLUSION
Scientists have long known that many factors influence Earth’s climate,
including variations in the sun’s brightness and magnetic field strength and the
planet’s orbit, the planet’s movement through the galaxy, and changes in land
use. Why have these and other natural explanations of climate change been
ignored while one theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), has been
treated as the only credible theory? Beginning in the 1970s, the rising
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere began to catch the
attention of scientists and the general public. At that time, some scientists
thought industrial activities that cause rising levels of CO2 and aerosol particles
explained the cooling trend that had begun in the 1940s. Later, some of those
same scientists would blame CO2 for the global warming period that began in
the 1980s and ended around 2000.
REFRENCE
Bond, G., et al., “Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the
Holocene,” Science 294: 2130-2136 (2001).
Braun, H., et al., “Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle
demonstrated in a coupled model,” Nature 438: 208-211, doi: 10.1038/
nature04121.208-11 (2005).
Carslaw, K.S., Harrizon, R.G., and Kirkby, J., “Cosmic rays, clouds, and climate,”
Science 298: 1732-1737 (2002).
Green, K.C. and Armstrong, J.S., “Global warming forecasts by scientists versus
scientific forecasts,” Energy and Environment 18: 997-1021 (2007).
Loehle, C., “Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-
term geologic data,” Ecological Modelling 171: 433-450 (2004).
Shaviv, N. and Veizer, J., “Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?” GSA Today
13: 7, 4-10 (2003).
Soon, W. W.-H., “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal
variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130
years,” Geophysical Research Letters 32: 10.1029/2005GL023429 (2005).
Soon, W. W.-H., “Solar arctic-mediated climate variation on multidecadal to
centennial timescales: Empirical evidence, mechanistic explanation, and
testable consequences,” Physical Geography 30: 2, 144-148 (2009).
Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E., “Variation of cosmic ray flux and
global cloud coverage – A missing link in solar-climate relationships,” Journal of
0Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 59: 1225-1232 (1997).