Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

FAQ Send Feedback Sign Up Login

Climatology Global Warming Science Topic Index

Add Expert Opinion Edit Question Edit Implications History

Are the causes of climate change well understood?

The equilibrium of Earth's climate is a balancing act between the heating effect of the sun countered by the cooling effect of radiation from earth sent back into space. Earth's rich atmosphere and diverse surface complicates this equation with effects such as the greenhouse effect (the trapping of heat), and it's this complexity that climatologists study. The IPCC believe they understand this system well enough to predict it, at least in terms of global averages over decadal time periods.

Implications to Other Questions

Is global warming caused primarily by humans?

+

If you believe B then presumably you believe A

Will IPCC climate models make accurate predictions?

+

If you believe A then possibly you believe B

Is it possible to accurately predict climate?

Have climate models made good predictions so far?

Experts and Influencers

Suggest Expert Quote (click to expand, no login required)

Agree

Experts In Climatology

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Scientific Body formed by U.N.

Mostly Agree

It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm [which] is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.

Edit Pitches

03 Apr 2008 Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Will IPCC climate models make accurate predictions?
Agree

Julia Slingo Climatology Professor

Mostly Agree

[Yes, in terms of predicting global averages, but for local predictions] we've reached the end of the road of being able to improve models significantly so we can provide the sort of information that policymakers and business require.

Edit Pitches

06 May 2008 Source

Experts In Politics

Rajendra Pachauri IPCC Chairman

Agree

What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with.

The Overwhelming Evidence Pitch

Edit Pitches

09 Dec 2008 Source

Disagree

Experts In Politics

Don Aitkin Politics Professor

Disagree

Despite all the hype and the models and the catastrophic predictions, it seems to me that we human beings barely understand climate. It is too vast a domain. ... we still know little about the oceans, one of the crucial elements in climate processes, not much more about the atmosphere, another such element, a little about solar energy and the effect of the sun's magnetic field on Earth, and only a little about the land. The Earth is a big place.

The Common Sense Pitch

Edit Pitches

09 Apr 2008 Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Is it possible to accurately predict climate?
Mostly Disagree

Neutral

Experts In Climatology

Kyle Swanson Climatology Professor

Neutral

This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950. Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one. ... When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming. Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.

Edit Pitches

02 Mar 2009 Source

Ambiguous or Flip-Flop

Experts In Science

S. Fred Singer Head of NIPCC, Astrophysics Professor

Mostly Agree

It is therefore highly likely that the Sun is also a major cause of twentieth century warming, with anthropogenic GH gases making only a minor contribution.

Edit Pitches

02 Mar 2008 Source

S. Fred Singer Head of NIPCC, Astrophysics Professor

Disagree

Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled.

Edit Pitches

02 Mar 2008 Source

Sub-Arguments Of This Expert:
Have climate models made good predictions so far?
Disagree
Is it possible to accurately predict climate?
Disagree

Comments

Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)

0 Points Benja 30 Jun 2010 Stance on Question: Mostly Agree

Regarding the skeptics, some skeptics want to say that nobody really understands the causes of climate change, while other skeptics want to say that humans are not the cause. They can't both be right. And the fact many leading skeptics try to woo their audiences with both positions is absurd.

If S. Fred Singer and the NIPCC (Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change) genuinely believe that the causes of climate change are largely unknown, they shouldn't title their summary document Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate but rather "Nobody Knows What Rules the Climate". Furthermore, they complain - in that very document - about the IPCC being biased in terms of having a predetermined conclusion. At least the IPCC's summary document does not state its conclusion in the title!

0 Points Oluseun Idowu 09 Mar 2009 Stance on Question: Mostly Agree

In my own opinion, causes of climate change are well understood by climate scientists, at least to a reasonably large extent such that we could make useful projections about the future climate change scenarios. However, further studies are necessary to help improve our understanding of the critical drivers of climate change. Complete understanding of the positive and negative feedback chains also require more studies. For instance, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) projected that during 1961-2003, sea level would rise by about 1.2mm/year but in actual fact when this projection was compared with observed data, up to 2006, it was found that the sea level had actually risen 50% faster than projected by the models used in the report.

The point here is that, even when scientific results from models are not exactly representative of the extent of the anticipated change, they have been able to suggest to decision makers the critical pointers to the consequences of our changing climate. These scientific results have also been very useful in helping to spread the climate change awareness campaigns that led to the institution of adequate adaptation structures and strategies. Therefore, the extent of our scientific understanding of the causes of climate change, especially as contained in the IPCC reports are very useful, though skeptics are still arguing in the contrary.

0 Points Benja 10 Mar 2009 General Comment

Thanks for your comments Oluseun. You've obviously got some background in this area, so your opinion is most appreciated.

As a skeptical person, it's difficult for me to fully embrace the IPCC's assessments when the error margins are as large as 50%. I also feel suspicious - maybe my feelings are unfounded - as to the degree to which the IPCC is willing to make their models testable. If one year doesn't match their predictions, they will say it's an anomaly. Perhaps this is fair enough - these are long term models, which are also intrinsically imprecise due to the somewhat heuristic nature of the domain. But what about 3 years? Or a whole decade? What prediction are the IPCC willing to make, which must come true for them to claim their models are correct?

What I'd looking for - and I think great scientific theories have this - are some predictions that would be highly improbable to guess.

Guessing a change in sea level and being off by 50% is not an impressive validation of the theory, even if it turns out that the general basis for the theory is correct.

I say all of this with caution. I'm equally skeptical of the skeptics when they have all-too-easy dismissals of a very serious issue.

0 Points Clive 29 Jul 2009 General Comment

Hiya Ben,

I think I'd have to agree with you here. These models are so complex and I just don't think we've got a good grasp of them yet. We've only in the last few years begun collecting data on the CO2 absorption in the oceans and the effects it's having on both the acidity of the oceans and global warming. Then there are other factors like soot which also have an effect on global warming.

It seems like scientists are studying many different area's developing various models and I'd argue that we still don't have a good grasp of how all these different factors effect each other.

On a closing note I would say that most studies I've heard of do point towards global warming and it does seem just a question of how bad is it and will it spiral out of control.

0 Points Oluseun Idowu 10 Mar 2009 General Comment

Thank you for your response Benja. Obviously, there are many instances where scientific results are subject to questions, most especially when it comes to atmospheric predictions. As we all know, the atmosphere and its systems are dynamic in nature and its been and it would continue to be difficult to give a very precise predictions about it. Again, we know that many components of climate models are parameterized, and what this means is that, parameterizations in climate models are used to the extent we understand what happens in the atmosphere and how they could be scientifically represented. What about the sub-grid scale limitations in climate models. I can go on and on to mention why you'll not get exactly the true representation of future climate scenarios from climate models. In fact, that is why probability statistics are being factored into climate predictions.

The point we are making, to the best of my knowledge is that results from available climate models as presented by IPCC have clearly pointed to us that the global climate is changing. To what extent is this change could be a subject of debate. The interesting part in all of these is that many nations, regions, cities and even individuals now appreciate why we should conserve and preserve our rapidly changing environment. This should be credited to climate results and findings.

-1 Point Tyler 04 May 2009 General Comment

I totally agree with you Oluseun. I truly believe climate models are of great assistance to us in increasing our understanding of climate change. By continuing to do research, such as the use of climate models, will give us more information about global climate changes and the impacts that follow.