Climate: Why CO2 Is the “Control Knob” for Global Climate Change

Not to use an overly technical term here, but there’s a neat paper in this week’s Science that explains clearly why carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main agent behind changes in the Earth’s climate—now and in the geologic past. First a bit of background: one argument you might hear from skeptics of manmade climate change is that CO2 is much less important as an atmospheric warming agent than water vapor. Here’s how historical climatologist and skeptic Tim Ball summarizes the case for water vapor:

Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there’s cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it’s -3.6°C. It’s caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas.

Makes sense—and in a sense, he’s right. Water vapor is the most important agent behind the greenhouse effect—it has more than twice the warming effect that CO2 does, and water vapor and clouds account for about 75% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, with CO2 accounting for 20% and the other greenhouse gases and aerosol particulates accounting for the remaining 5%. But despite that, it is changes in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that is responsible for changing the climate—in other words, as the research team led by the physicist Andrew Lacis makes clear in the Science paper, CO2 is the principal “control knob” governing the Earth’s temperature.

Lacis and his colleagues note that water vapor, while much more common in the atmosphere than CO2, has a short atmospheric lifespan, eventually condensing and falling as precipitation as it responds to changes in temperature and air pressure. CO2, however, is a well-mixed gas that just builds up in the atmosphere over time, which is part of the reason why carbon dioxide emitted today can have a warming effect that lingers for hundreds of years. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature—the warmer it gets, the more water will evaporate and the more water the atmosphere can hold. And water vapor does have a warming effect, and it can act as a positive feedback—the warmer it gets, the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere, which makes it warmer, and so on.

But as the Science authors point out, it’s CO2 that provides the stable temperature structure for the climate, the skeleton on which climate is built. Here’s how they know: Lacis and his colleagues created a simple climate experiment where they removed all CO2, aerosols and other greenhouse gases from the model atmosphere, but left in the water vapor. They let the climate model run forward in time, and the results were startling. In just one year without any carbon, global annual mean temperature fell by 4.6 C. After 50 years, the global average temperature had fallen to -21 C, 34.8 C less than it is today. As the average global temperature fell, so did the water vapor in the atmosphere, while global sea ice cover increased from 4.6% to 46.7%, further increasing the planetary albedo effect and freezing the planet further. Without carbon and other greenhouse gases, we’d be living on Planet Hoth.

As the Science authors point out, there’s also ample evidence in our own geologic history that changes in CO2 levels in atmosphere—chiefly due to volcanic eruptions—have been a main driver in changes in Earth’s climate. Water vapor levels may amplify the effect of CO2, but it’s CO2 that is the main control knob—and as Lacis and his colleagues write, we’re turning that knob up to 11 thanks to rising manmade carbon emissions:

The anthropogenic radiative forcings that fuel the growing terrestrial greenhouse effect continue unabated. The continuing high rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is particularly worrisome, because the present CO2 level of 390 ppm is far in excess of the 280 ppm that is more typical for the interglacial maximum, and still the atmospheric CO2 control knob is now being turned faster than at any time in the geological record (20). The concern is that we are well past even the 300- to 350-ppm target level for atmospheric CO2, beyond which dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system would exceed the 25% risk tolerance for impending degradation of land and ocean ecosystems, sea-level rise, and inevitable disruption of socioeconomic and foodproducing infrastructure (21, 22). Furthermore, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceedingly long, being measured in thousands of years (23). This makes the reduction and control of atmospheric CO2 a serious and pressing issue, worthy of real-time attention.

It’s important to note that while CO2 may be climate’s control knob, the metaphor only goes so far. CO2 isn’t the only knob on the climate controls (alterations in land use and deforestation can change the climate as well), and our understanding of exactly how different levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations will change the climate in the future is still developing. But CO2 is the main show.

Related Topics: atmospheric science, climate change, climate science, climate skepticism, CO2, geologic history, Science, Climate Science
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Alexander Demianchuk / Reuters

    Global Warming: An Exclusive Look at James Hansen’s Scary New Math

    A new analysis by the NASA climatologist for the first time ties specific weather events to human-induced climate change

    Victor Fraile / Getty Images

    By Sea, Land and Air: Hong Kong Inventor Leads Charge in War Against Pollution

    One Hong Kong engineer puts the city’s surf and turf to work toward a cleaner future

    Paul Souders

    Can Polar Bears Keep Their Heads Above Water in a Warming World?

    Polar bears are classified as marine mammals, like a seal or a walrus, which might come as a surprise given that they’re usually pictured on land. But polar bears spend a lot of their time in the waters of the Arctic, fishing or swimming among the sea ice. They may look awkward in the water, but no creature with paws is a better swimmer.

  • http://8020vision.com jaykimball

    Thanks Bryan. Excellent article.

    The persistence of CO2 is something that a lot of people don’t appreciate. If we stop emitting CO2 today, we still must live with the long half-life of CO2 already in the upper atmosphere. It’s time to get busy.

    For folks that have done their homework and arrived at a concern for climate change and want to make sure they are part of a solution, and not part of the problem, this is a tremendous time to make a difference. This sort of problem will just get exponentially more expensive to resolve over the course of time.

    Also, as the world warms, insurers are trying to cover their exposure. See Lloyds view of climate and energy security at:
    http://8020vision.com/2010/07/12/sustainable-energy-security-strategic-risks-and-opportunities-for-business/

  • canuckdriver

    It is most interesting to see the lack of critical thinking that passes for journalism in “Time”. Perhaps Bryan Walsh should read the article at: http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

    This article, “Royal Society Humiliated by Global Warming Basic Math Error”, might have saved him some embarrassment.

    Here is poor Bryan Walsh pounding the Anthropogenic Global Warming drum — and it is all based on profound basic mathematical errors, errors in observation, deliberate errors in interpretation of data and fictitious data. Oh dear…

    The man-made component of carbon dioxide in the theoretical and unproven Greenhouse Gas Effect is just 0.0117%. To help put that in perspective, imagine just five people in Yankee Stadium during the World Series….

    Water vapor, on the other hand, comprises 95.000% of the Greenhouse Gas Effect — but 99.999% of that is naturally occurring. (US DOE figures).

    According to the high priest of AGW himself, Dr. Phil Jones of the CRU at East Anglia University, “There has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years.”

  • hearle

    Is there no editorial control at Time? Is accuracy of information not the basis of journalism any more. Perhaps this article indicates the level of scepticism that we should have for all Time articles. Time the propaganda press of the AGW movement? As CANUCKDRIVER points out the real CO2 issue is quite different.

  • alistairmcd

    It’s a stupid experiment because the lowest CO2 level in glacial periods is 180 ppm.

    PS all the climate models are wrong because the equation used to calculate cloud albedo and indirect effects like the cooling effect of aerosol pollution on that albedo, without which the predictions of high CO2-AGW are grossly exaggerated, ignores a key part of the optical physics of clouds.

  • http://8020vision.com jaykimball

    Though the media plays up the extreme ends of the issue, and the casual reader can come away with a sense that things are not resolved, business and government leaders have understood the problem well enough and are taking action.

    Readers should do their homework, and many are. An excellent review of Climate Science can be found at Stanford University. They do a good job of taking the wind out of the climate skeptics arguments, see:
    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html#TheDayAfterTomorrow

  • http://8020vision.com jaykimball

    And the world is getting warmer. For more on that, see “State of the Climate: Hottest Decade on Record” and related articles at:
    http://8020vision.com/category/global-challenges/climate-change/

    Though the media licks to play the skeptics and the climate scientists off against each other, for the causal reader, the important thing to know is that there is no government in the world that thinks the world is getting cooler (a common myth), and that isn’t preparing for the consequences of global warming. And the consequences are real – impact on food production, storm related damage, etc.

    Also, the trend is clear – many businesses now understand that an unhealthy planet is bad for business. Business leaders are preparing for climate change and looking for ways to become part of the solution, not part of the problem. See the link above for Lloyds insurance company for an example of a business that sees the risks and costs to business of climate change.

  • http://8020vision.com jaykimball

    Small amounts of carbon are like small amounts of mercury. You can drink water all day, but put a little mercury in and you do great harm to the brain. Small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, accumulating…

    For more, readers would do well to check out the excellent collection of articles at realclimate.com.

  • alistairmcd

    The ‘experiment’ was flawed because it took away two important factors in the atmosphere: ‘permanent [=unfreezable] greenhouse gases AND aerosols. The latter meant there were no clouds.

    Yet it’s reported as apparently ‘proving’ the dominant effect of CO2.. This is science used as unashamed propaganda: Goebbels at his best.

    And having gone through the literature with a fine tooth comb, guess who apparently first adapted an equation developed originally by Carl Sagan [so he was wrong too, it happens in science] wrongly to predict cloud albedo in climate modelling? Yup. the lead author of this ‘Science’ paper and one James Hansen, in 1974.

    You couldn’t make it up: this part of the subject has been wrong for 43 years and we’ve got dumb politicians come demagogues betting our farm and creating their wealth on it.

  • http://davidftarthur.wordpress.com davidftarthur

    Gday canuckdriver, you reckon Phil Jones said: “There has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years.”

    WRONG. Here’s the excerpt from the BBC interview on which the misquote you repeat (I’ve seen it from other Denialists) is based:

    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
    ——–

    What Dr Jones is actually saying is that, given the large magnitude of just normal temperature fluctuations relative to the rate of AGW-driven warming, it is difficult to detect the latter small steady increase against the backdrop of the former large fluctuations.

    The linear trend is that of warming. However, the temperature record is very noisy with lots of short term variability. The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the warming trend is almost as large as the actual trend. Hence it’s considered statistically insignificant. Over longer time periods, the uncertainty is less and the trend is more statistically significant.

  • http://davidftarthur.wordpress.com davidftarthur

    Here’s another canuckdriver furphy: “Water vapor, on the other hand, comprises 95.000% of the Greenhouse Gas Effect — but 99.999% of that is naturally occurring. (US DOE figures).”

    No, water vapour constitutes ~75% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 ~80% of the other ~25%, or ~20% overall, BUT (and this is the bit you don’t understasnd, so read carefully), if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, then it would be a bit colder, and less water would evaporate into the air. And if less water vapour was present in the atmosphere, it would be a whole lot colder.

    In other words, water vapour is a “force magnifier” for the primary greenhouse gas, CO2.

  • http://davidnutzuki.wordpress.com mememine69

    Are WE not the new neocons when we condemn our kids to a CO2 death, just to get them to turn the lights off more often?
    Climate change has done to us what Bush did to the neocon’s reputation.
    System Change, not Climate Change.
    Environmentalism is strong, successful and progressive. Just remove the CO2 mistake from the equation and let’s all just carry on. Why does it seem like we WANT this crisis to happen? I can’t do this anymore.
    I’m liberal. I’m progressive and a New Green Denier.
    I’m ahead of the curve because this can’t continue without alienating the rest of the voters who don’t believe this “promise of unstoppable warming” to happen to the planet Earth.

  • http://davidnutzuki.wordpress.com mememine69

    Don’t forget to trust what you see because the Internet is an open sewer of untreated information. Yours to scare my kids or be a real environmentalist.

  • http://8020vision.com jaykimball

    Hi MeMeMine69.

    Most of the kids I know are not afraid, they are energized, and part of the solution. They give me hope.

    Think back to the 70s, when it was kids that helped their parents realize the importance and opportunity of recycling.

    One of my heros is Iris Parker Pavitt. Iris served as a teen delegate to the UN commission on sustainable development, and is a coordinator for FEAST (farm Education And Sustainability for Teens), and the Farm to Cafeteria Program, to bring healthy organic foods to school food programs.

    Here’s a great interview with Iris:

    I am happy to have her in our community, and I assure you, there are kids like Iris all over the world.

    Take heart!

blog comments powered by Disqus