GLOBAL WARMING - BASIC FACTS and a Call for Consensus
by DAVID L RUSSELL, PE, ASP
I’ll separate some facts from fiction about Global Warming. It’s done without an attempt at taking sides one way or the other, and with some assistance only in gathering data from AI.
A scientist named Savante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was the first to argue that minor variations in trace elements in the atmosphere could influence the earth’s atmospheric heat budget. Studies by NASA of Mercury and spectrophotometric analysis of its’ atmosphere have led to significant concerns about the role of CO2 and other GHGs with regard to global warming.
The most significant GHG is the one we can control the least—water vapor. The relative warming effect of different greenhouse gases is measured using the Global Warming Potential (GWP). The GWP compares how much heat a given mass of gas traps in the atmosphere over a specific period (typically 100 years) relative to the same mass of dioxide.[i] By definition, Carbon Dioxide has a GWP of 1. This highlights the crucial distinction between the natural greenhouse effect and anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change.
Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas overall, but is not counted because we cannot control it. Here is a ranking and quantification of greenhouse gases, relative to water vapor’s role:
Ranking by Contribution to the Total Greenhouse Effect
This ranking reflects how much each gas contributes to the current, total warming of the planet, which keeps Earth habitable (the Greenhouse Effect).
| Rank | Gas | Approximate Contribution to Total Greenhouse Effect | Role in Climate System |
| 1 | Water Vapor (H2O) | 41% to 67% | Dominant Natural Agent |
| 2 | Carbon Dioxide (CO2) | 18% to 25% | Primary Anthropogenic Driver |
| 3 | Clouds | 25% to 31% | Feedback/Warming & Cooling |
| 4 | Methane (CH4) & Nitrous Oxide (NO2) | 6% to 8% | Secondary Anthropogenic Drivers |
| 5 | Other Gases (Ozone, F-gases, etc.) | 7% to 9% | Minor Anthropogenic/Natural |
Water vapor causes clouds that affect the albido of the earth by reflecting sunlight and cause Global Cooling. The the effect of clouds is estimated at 50 Watts/Meter.
Here is a list of the approximate GHG contributions of the other gases.
| Greenhouse Gas | Primary Human Sources | Approximate Global Contribution* |
| Carbon Dioxide CO2 | Burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) for energy/heat, transportation, manufacturing, and deforestation. | 72% |
| Methane CH4 | Agriculture (livestock digestion, rice cultivation), fossil fuel production (fugitive emissions/leaks from oil and gas), and waste decomposition (landfills). | 19% |
| Nitrous Oxide NOx | Agricultural soil practices (use of nitrogen fertilizers), burning fossil fuels, and industrial processes. | 6% |
| Fluorinated Gases | Industrial processes, refrigeration, and aerosol propellants (e.g., HFCs, PFCs, ). | 3% |
The largest greenhouse gas emitters by Country are:
| China - 29.2% | US - 11.2% | India - 7.3% |
| EU - 6.0% | Russia - .8% |
The World’s Oceans act as a massive carbon sink, they reduce the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. The oceans reduce the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
Quantification of Ocean Absorption vs. Anthropogenic Emissions
The oceans have absorbed a huge amount of the excess CO2 released by human activities, preventing atmospheric concentrations from rising even faster.
GHGE-Components
| Component | Annual Contribution(+) or Uptake(-) (Gigatonnes of Carbon per year, GtC/yr) |
| Total Anthropogenic Emissions (Fossil fuels, cement, land use) | +10 |
| Ocean Sink (Net uptake by oceans) | -2.5 |
| Land Sink (Net uptake by vegetation/soil) | -3.2 |
| Atmospheric Increase (remaining in the atmosphere) | +4.3 |
Note: Estimates are based on the Global Carbon Budget for the last decade (e.g., 2013-2022 average) and are constantly refined.
The Key Takeaway: The ocean has absorbed roughly one-quarter of all human-caused emissions over the past decade, acting as a crucial buffer against climate change.
Ocean’s Role in GHG Dynamics the Ocean Carbon Sink (Absorption)
The ocean’s ability to absorb GHGs is primarily governed by the partial pressure difference between the atmosphere and the surface seawater, trying to absorbs the gas and restore equilibrium.
CO2 : dissolves into seawater, reacting with water to form carbonic acid. (H2CO3) which disassociates into an acid by shedding one H atom. The absorption leads directly to Ocean Acidification. The ocean naturally exchanges approximately 90% of the carbon with the atmosphere. Before the industrial era, this exchange was nearly balanced, resulting in a stable atmospheric concentration. It is not possible to quantify the ocean’s uptake by country in the same way that emissions are counted.
The ocean sink is a global, physical, and chemical process that operates based on large-scale ocean circulation and thermodynamics, not on national boundaries. Here are the most important carbon sinks
The countries with the largest adjacent ocean areas (e.g., Canada, Russia, US, Australia) have no special “claim” on the absorbed carbon, as the global currents rapidly mix and redistribute the absorbed across the globe
The also helps regulate atmospheric temperature by absorbing and storing excess heat. Some scientists estimate that the ocean has absorbed over 90% of the excess heat accumulated in the Earth’s climate system since the 1970s.
By comparison atmospheric and land masses have absorbed less than 5% of this heat. The ocean’s heat absorption is not uniform. Upper layers warm faster than the deeper ocean (D>700 M). As the water warms, it expands, contributing to ocean level rise.
Since 1850 the pH of the ocean has decreased from 8.17 to 8.07 which impacts the availability of Calcium Carbonate being available to shell building marine life such as Oysters and shellfish.
There are many challenges to developing an accurate estimate of the effects of GHG and Global Warming.
First, the available data have a problem with scarcity and geographic bias: The climate system is immense, yet the observational records are unevenly distributed, creating data scarcity in crucial areas.
Historical climate records are much denser and longer in North America and Europe than in remote, under-resourced regions like Africa, the deep ocean, and the polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic). This is geographical selection bias that affects the reliability of the projection models.
Obtaining long-term, high-quality data from the deep ocean is extremely challenging due to technical and cost constraints which affects the model parameters related to ocean heat uptake and circulation.
We only have access to reliable, truly global data (primarily from satellites) since the late 1970s or early 1980s. The length of the record is too short to accurately predict the future, and the models must be validated against a much longer history of natural variability.
The nature of the collected data often limits the model’s ability to resolve important physical processes. Observational data sets often suffer from measurement bias and inconsistency over time. Early sea surface temperature measurements were taken using buckets, less accurate than modern buoys or satellite measurements. Changes in instruments and data processing algorithms over decades make it difficult to establish a single, reliable long-term trend needed for model validation.
Climate models operate by dividing the atmosphere and ocean into 3D grid cells, but many vital processes—like the formation of individual clouds, turbulent mixing, or the specific behavior of vegetation—occur at scales much smaller than these grid cells. The models must use parameterizations -simplified mathematical approximations) based on larger-scale variables. The accuracy of the parameterizations is directly constrained by the availability of representative, small-scale observational data: errors in cloud parameterization are a major source of uncertainty in Global Cooling projections.
Even if perfect data existed, current computing power limits how the existing data can be used. Achieving the resolution needed to reduce the reliance on parameterization the computational cost becomes astronomical, and the desire for higher spatial resolution with the need to run simulations over long time periods and across numerous scenarios forces necessary tradeoffs.
Climate models are validated by running them backward to see if they can replicate historical observations. If the observational data used for validation is sparse or biased the scientists’ ability to make accurate estimates and determine the range of uncertainty in future projections is impaired.
The data special limitations, combine with the computational limits to create fundamental uncertainty in climate models creating a wide range of plausible climate outcomes based on to slightly different initial conditions, assumptions, and parameterizations.
Summary:
There is a lot of misinformation and scare tactics over the long-term impacts of air emissions on the environment. Some of the predictions of the IPCC may come to pass. Others may not.
One of the points that need to be made is that Governments and Political Parties tend to support and fund those projects that produce results favorable to their objectives and goals. Without casting aspersions at the scientists and researchers who have worked hard to prepare the IPCC reports, the global warming phenomenon is real, and that we have observed changes. The conclusions of the IPCC Panel should be viewed with a slightly skeptical bias for the reasons cited immediately above. Our measurement system is less than total with large gaps in both the record and the areas where measurements can be or are made. Despite the best efforts of the scientists, the model inaccuracies may be significant.
Any extreme measures taken in limiting GHG emissions may have adverse effects on the US and World economies. Extreme, life changing mandates to reduce GHGs may have marginal impact on its overall emissions. Changes in GHG Emissions cannot be successfully mandated or imposed by executive fiat. Real change comes about successfully by implementation of consensus.
Each country has its own agenda and interests both military and political, there is not much one country can do to achieve significant impact on Global Warming. That does not mean that we should not be disinterested or give up all hope, but we need to push for research to find economical methods of reducing and controlling GHG, or and we also need to consider alternative energy sources, and the development of clean burning fuels.
[i] NOTE: The definition of Anthropogenic GHG significance is based on what we may be able to control, and deliberately excluded water vapor from the definition, creating a potential bias in the reporting and analysis.