Scientific uncertainties

Uncertainty, scepticism, debate and independent verification are fundamental components of the scientific
process. In science, it is important to be sceptical of a controversial or unusual theory or claim, especially
when the ramifications of that theory, if true, are potentially grave. For this reason, scientists are sceptical of
many of the claims put forward about climate change. Evidence, and continual re-assessment in the light of
new evidence, is always required. Scientists rely on maintaining a healthy level of scepticism to allow them to
objectively assess theories, and to minimise bias in the collection and interpretation of the evidence. It is
true that publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal does not guarantee that a theory or interpretation
is correct and complete. However, subsequent independent studies that may be based on the same evidence
but use an alternative perspective or, as is often the case, incorporate new evidence, provide a process of
assessment and verification of prior work. Often, one team's work will be replicated by another group, just
to be sure. In this way, science is inherently self-correcting. Incorrect or incomplete theories tend to be
weeded out or clarified through this process of incremental knowledge accumulation, with the majority of
self-correction occurring within only a few years.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) suggests that these basic attributes of the scientific process can
be used to assess contrasting claims about climate change. If any of the following questions cannot be
answered in the positive, then less credence should be given to the claim until it can be further tested and
independently verified:

 Can the statement under consideration, in principle, be proven false?

 Has it been rigorously tested?
 Did it appear in the peer-reviewed literature?
 Did it build on the existing research record where appropriate?
The majority of well-informed scientists and non-scientists familiar with the scientific process, or those with
relevant expertise, accept that climate change is occurring and is mostly a result of human activities. In
many cases, the arguments put forward by people who are disinclined to agree with the mainstream science
rely on opinions or work that has not undergone rigorous scientific review. Such work is also often authored
by non-scientists or scientists with no relevant expertise. In such cases the above questions cannot all be
answered in the affirmative, and the argument cannot be given the same credence as arguments that draw
on work that has been subject to scientific review. These claims may be classed as 'non-scientific', and are
addressed in our pages dealing with common misconceptions and unscientific arguments.
Since scepticism is an integral part of science, we do not use the term 'sceptic' here to refer to those who
challenge the reality of climate change or human influence on the climate. Instead, those individuals are
referred to as 'doubters'. The information presented on this page, however, addresses both genuine
uncertainties in climate change science as well as interpretations of the science that oppose the mainstream
view.

As a general strategy, climate change doubters often tend to focus on individual scientific studies or
publications that present evidence to challenge one or more aspects of the more generally accepted view.
This is a selective way of viewing the information (often referred to as 'cherry picking'). This evidence often
contradicts the doubters' own arguments in other ways, or sometimes the studies referred to are mutually
contradictory. One should bear in mind that apparently contradictory evidence within scientific research is
not in itself an unusual situation—ultimately, the scientific process relies on the accumulation of sufficient
such evidence to allow the most likely explanation or 'truth' to emerge. For this to happen, one must view all
the evidence and not just selected pieces of it.

Such a process, for example, was undertaken by the more than 500 lead authors and 2000 expert reviewers
of the IPCC AR4 and the governments of more than 100 participating nations who agreed to its content word
by word. The report examined the full body of work on past and present climate to determine whether
climate change is occurring and if so, what the causes are (it found that global warming is certainly
 occurring and most of it is very likely due to human activities). Climate change doubters' apparent
preference to focus on particular aspects of individual studies bypasses this more powerful synthesis path to
understanding.

It should be acknowledged that the study of climate change is a particularly difficult discipline within
science. This is because, in many relevant areas, there is no 'control' case available for comparison. There is
no duplicate earth to observe in which humans have had no influence. Climate change is effectively the
biggest manipulative experiment ever undertaken, but the experiment is unplanned and lacks the usual
replicates and controls that scientists like to use for statistical assessment of the effect of the manipulative
treatments. As well, there are elements of chaos in the climate system and this chaos, by definition, defies
analysis and prediction. However, this does not invalidate the process of science because we can use other
means to validate our observations and conclusions. For example, data from other planets; data from
different time periods; the use of validated models; and experimentation on isolated components of the
system, whilst being mindful of the fact that a whole system may behave differently.

ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS

Below, we address the following specific issues or arguments that are used to challenge the mainstream
interpretation of the evidence of climate change:

 There is so much uncertainty and disagreement among climate models that they cannot be believed.
 The observed temperature increase is due to spurious data or faulty reconstructions of past temperature.
 Current global temperature is no warmer than the medieval warm period.
 Recent global warming is due to natural causes.
 Glacial transitions show that warming causes CO2 increase, not vice versa.
 Global warming has ceased in the last decade.
 The climate system is self-stabilising, and feedback mechanisms will counteract the effects of greenhouse
gases.
Why is there so much uncertainty and disagreement among climate models?
A variety of factors contribute to uncertainties and bias in climate change modelling. These may arise from,
for example, incomplete knowledge of the processes being simulated; insufficient representation of these
processes, e.g. over-simplification to accommodate limitations in computing resources; uncertainty in
assumptions about future socioeconomic scenarios and emission trajectories; inherent limitations to the
representation of many of these processes due to their stochastic nature, e.g. the chaotic nature of the
climate system and indeterminacy of human behaviour; errors in observations due to instrumental
limitations; or errors in observations due to insufficient sampling.

The climate system is complex. Mass and energy exchange and transport processes occur over a wide range
of space and time scales and through a variety of mechanisms that are constantly interacting and
responding to changing conditions. Climate models have undergone a dramatic evolution in recent years,
with ever-increasing sophistication (inclusion of more processes and feedback mechanisms), higher
resolution in both space and time, and increasing length of simulations. This has been facilitated by an
increase in supercomputing processing speeds of a factor of about a million over the past three decades.

Many of the processes driving the climate system are not easily characterised or discerned through
observations, and they must be formulated in models through use of laws of physics, fluid dynamics and
thermodynamics. For example, how fast does air within the atmosphere circulate between the tropics and
the poles? Or between the lower and upper atmosphere? How does the amount of water vapour in the air
change with changes in ocean temperature, and how does this affect cloud formation and rainfall
distribution? To what extent do aerosols or small particles in the atmosphere encourage the condensation of
water vapour and formation of clouds, and the size of water droplets within clouds?

There do exist, however, measurable quantities within the climate system that change in response to
processes such as these, which can be used to indirectly observe their effect. Such quantities include, for
example, the distribution in time and space of concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases, wind
speeds, temperature, rainfall, and cloud cover. These data may be used at the outset for model calibration,
to adjust parameters within the model that define the relative strength or influence of various mechanisms
contributing to the state of the climate system at a given point in time and space. Observations may also be
used for model validation—the accuracy of process formulation can be assessed by comparing model
simulations of measurable quantities with observations.

Climate models developed by different scientists and different institutes do not all produce the same model
results. Due to the complex nature of the climate system, the limited coverage of observational data
available, and the inherent error associated with such data, it is impossible to fine-tune the process
formulations within any model such that all observations are perfectly simulated at all times. Therefore
climate modellers must make informed judgements about matters such as the quality of different kinds of
data and the relative importance and strength of various processes, and sacrifice model-observation
agreement in some areas to better simulate others. Furthermore, when models are run outside the range of
the observations (e.g. for future projections), the assumptions underlying the evolution of interacting
mechanisms are no longer verifiable and thus become rather speculative, with the level of uncertainty
increasing the further the simulations stray from the range of experience.

Other than testing models through their ability to reproduce historical and current observations, another
valuable means of quantifying model uncertainty is through model intercomparisons. A range of alternative
interpretations of the science have been realised in the development of a range of well-established and
rigorously reviewed climate models. These models may also be based on different mathematical frameworks,
which affect the treatment of input data and estimation of model parameters. Comparison of simulations
from these models allows an assessment of the range of plausible responses of the climate system to
various forcings (for example human influences such as increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, or
natural factors such as changes in solar output or volcanic eruptions). Several such model intercomparisons
have been undertaken to establish the level of confidence that we can attribute to our simulation of various
components of the climate system and its response to these externally imposed changes. Furthermore, each
individual model produces a range of results depending on the assumptions put in to the model, for
example corresponding to different emissions scenarios.

The climate change projections presented by the IPCC AR4 are not single specific projections of temperature
increases or sea level rise for a given time in the future. Rather, they represent an estimate of the range of
possible temperature increases or sea level rise that result from different greenhouse gas emissions
scenarios corresponding, for example, to different assumptions about the rate of substitution of fossil fuels
with renewable energy sources. Furthermore, the report gives a confidence in the projections by providing a
'likely range' for each scenario, including a 'best estimate' as well as a 'low' and 'high' estimate. These
confidence ranges embody the range and variability of estimates from the suite of climate models
synthesised in the report, which incorporate various different assumptions about the relevant processes and
feedbacks. In this manner, the IPCC Report presents the best possible estimate of climate change projections
based on the current state of knowledge, and assigns a level of confidence in those projections. The models
that are incorporated into these projections and confidence estimates have all undergone testing and review
through the scientific process.

It is possible, even likely, that future observations and advances in understanding will reveal processes or
assumptions that are poorly represented or faulty in some of the models currently in use, or even
throughout the whole suite of models. This may significantly change model simulations of the evolution of
the climate system under external forcing and hence projections of climate change impacts. However, this
should not prevent us from accepting the current best estimate of the likely range of projections as the basis
on which we should make our policy decisions at this time. Our response to climate change will necessarily
need to be able to adapt to ongoing analysis and assessment not just from evolving scientific knowledge,
but also changes and feedbacks in our social and economic systems.
Are the data and methods that provide evidence of global warming valid?
A small number of sites demonstrate a clear urban heat island (UHI) effect. Dark tarmac absorbs sunlight
and radiates heat in the immediate vicinity; windows and bright concrete surfaces of buildings reflect
sunlight towards the ground; and industrial and urban effluent from external air conditioning units,
generators and vehicles send hot air flow into the surrounds. Influences such as these can cause the
temperature within parts or all of a city or urban area to be significantly higher than would otherwise occur
in that geographic location. Studies that look at hemispheric and global temperature trends, however,
conclude that any UHI trend is less than one tenth smaller than decadal and longer term trends that are
evident in the data. In addition, other studies have corrected for this effect and demonstrated that the
warming trend is still clearly evident.

There has been much debate over the 'hockey stick' graph of increasing northern hemisphere temperature
anomalies (departures from the long-term mean) that was published in the IPCC Third Assessment Report in
2001, which showed a significant sudden rise in temperature from the 1950s. The dispute centred on the
methodology and data used to construct the graph, with other scientists being unable to reproduce the
results. It was demonstrated that this was due to differences in the way that the methodology was
implemented, but there remained criticisms of the methodology and selection of data that led to the hockey
stick graph. However, regardless of the controversy over that graph, several independent studies have since
confirmed the incontrovertible existence of a substantial rise in global surface temperature over the past few
decades compared to the historical average. The authors of the original hockey stick graph recently
published a new analysis utilising a greatly expanded data set, which demonstrated that recent warming is
unusual in the context of the record over the past 1300 years, with no previous periods in this timeframe
being as warm as the current conditions. If tree-ring data are included as a proxy measure of temperature
(the accuracy of which had been questioned), the conclusion can be extended to the past 1700 years. These
results are consistent with other studies presented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Is the current warming unusual compared to historical warm periods?

It has been suggested that global scale historical climate irregularities have occurred in the past, and the
current situation is not unusual. Various authors throughout the 20th century compiled anecdotal and
environmental evidence pointing to a 'MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD' at around 900–1200 A.D. Most of this
evidence, which includes the northern extent of cultivable land in Iceland and Greenland and ice-free ocean
routes, comes from Western Europe. Analysis of tree stumps in lakes also reveals that parts of the western
United States experienced severe and prolonged drought during this period. More recent studies
demonstrate that the medieval climate probably varied heterogeneously in different regions. The evidence
suggests that on the whole the Northern Hemisphere probably experienced temperatures warmer than
average in a 2000-year context, and certainly warmer than the subsequent 'LITTLE ICE AGE' from
~1500 to ~1850 A.D. However, while some regions may have experienced warmer conditions than those that
have prevailed in recent decades, the evidence does not point to a warming as pronounced or as spatially
extensive as the global warming we are currently experiencing.
Is the current global warming caused by natural factors?
Natural factors such as changes in solar output, volcanic activity, and variations in the earth's orbit are
thought to significantly influence the earth's climate. While the extent of these influences is not known with
great certainty, scientists are confident that these natural factors cannot account for the observed warming
in recent decades. The figure below demonstrates that when climate models incorporate only these natural
factors, they are able to reproduce the general pattern of global temperature up until about 1960, but not
the pronounced rise in temperature observed since then (see bottom panel). Note that the high variability in
observed temperature from year to year is not well simulated, because this arises from stochastic processes
in the climate system that cannot be effectively modelled (see model uncertainties above). The models are
more concerned with accurate simulation of the trend in temperature over several years. As shown in the
figure (see top panel), in order to reproduce the warming of the past several decades, anthropogenic forcing
(the change in radiative balance due to greenhouse gas emissions from human activities) must be included.
This result presents some of the most convincing evidence that human activities are causing global
warming—there are no known natural processes that can account for the observed warming, and the
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities is necessary and sufficient to explain the
observations.

Comparison between global mean surface temperature anomalies (°C) from observations (black) and AOGCM
simulations forced with (a) both anthropogenic and natural forcings and (b) natural forcings only. All data
are shown as global mean temperature anomalies relative to the period 1901 to 1950, as observed (black,
Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set (HadCRUT3); Brohan et al., 2006)
and, in (a) as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 models with both anthropogenic and natural
forcings.

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report, Climate change 2007—the physical science basis, Chapter 9 Understanding and
attributing climate change, Figure 9.5, p. 684.
Does CO2 cause warming, or vice versa?
Bubbles of air trapped in deep layers of ice in the thick ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica reveal the
composition of the atmosphere over the last several hundred thousand years, including the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Furthermore, proxy measures of temperature can be obtained at the
same time, using the isotopic composition of the ice itself (the amount of deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, in
the ice, which varies with temperature). The data show that carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature
both increase fairly rapidly and dramatically in interglacial (warm) periods, and both decline more slowly in
glacial (cold) periods. The underling cause of these glacial-interglacial transitions is thought to be changes
in the earth's orbit, which change the amount of solar energy arriving at the surface and in different regions
of the planet.

The transitions between glacial and interglacial periods are enhanced by feedbacks in the earth-climate
system. The extent and timing of various mechanisms contributing to these transitions is uncertain, but it is
thought that the changes in orbit at glacial 'termination' trigger an initial warming of the oceans. This in turn
releases carbon dioxide (because CO2 is less soluble in warm water) and the extra carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere causes further warming. Decrease in albedo (reflectivity) resulting from melting of ice also acts
to increase warming. These mechanisms amount to a positive feedback that magnifies the initial tendency
and leads to the warm interglacial periods. Concurrent changes in ocean biogeochemistry and in wetlands
causing changes in the amount of methane released to the atmosphere may also play a role in the
glacial/interglacial transitions.

High-resolution ice core data during deglaciation indicate that Antarctic temperature starts to rise several
hundred years before CO2. However, the evidence suggests that a range of interacting mechanisms are at
play in glacial-interglacial transition periods, and the enhancement of the greenhouse effect as CO2
concentrations increase is one of the most important.

The issue of whether warming during past glacial terminations led or lagged CO2 increases is not relevant to
the current situation. There is no question that the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations since 1850 is a
direct result of human activities (mainly burning of coal and oil). We also know that CO2 and other
greenhouse gases change the energy balance of the planet and cause the surface temperature to be warmer
than it would be in the absence of those gases. The evidence surrounding the warming we have observed
over recent decades indicates that most of this warming is very likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere due to human activities.

Does the apparent slowing or halting of global warming over the last decade mean that climate change has
stopped?
Globally, 12 of the last 13 years are the hottest years on record. Natural climate variability causes variations
in temperature from year to year, particularly in response to the El Niño cycle whereby atmospheric and
ocean circulation patterns change and cause regional climates to change for up to several years at a time.
The year of 1998 experienced a strong El Niño event, which underpinned very warm conditions on average
over the earth. In addition, solar sunspots affect the brightness of the sun on an 11-year cycle and may also
change global temperatures by a few tenths of a degree. The effect of warming and cooling on the earth lags
peaks and troughs in the cycle. The sunspot cycle is currently at a minimum, which may be contributing a
slight cooling effect. The Hadley Centre data show that no year since 1998 has been as hot as that year, but
most have been much hotter than the long-term average.

It has recently been suggested that we may be entering a period of up to two decades of global temperature
stasis or even slight cooling caused by reduced solar activity, though there is dispute over whether such a
mechanism could reverse the warming effect of anthropogenic emissions. The current apparent slowing in
the rate of global warming will no doubt continue to generate debate, and the next several years will see the
issue evolve subject to inputs of new data and modelling studies and scrutiny of the scientific process, from
which a more complete understanding should emerge. It is clear, however, that the current global surface
temperature is unprecedented in recorded history. Though natural processes may moderate the rate of
warming over timescales of a few years, the evidence suggests that human-induced warming will continue
over the next several decades at a rate that can only effectively be reduced by substantial cuts in emissions.

To what extent is the climate system self-stabilising, and will feedback mechanisms counteract the effects
of greenhouse gases?
The IPCC has reviewed all published data and research, and its projections account for all known feedbacks
to the climate system. However, feedbacks to the climate system are difficult to predict and there are
conflicting results from a number of modelling studies. Clouds and their interactions with aerosols in
particular are one of the most difficult aspects of the climate system to assess and predict, and this issue is
addressed in more detail here.

The IPCC AR4 notes that cloud feedbacks are the largest source of uncertainty in model predictions of
climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions, and the models do not even simulate present-climate
clouds well. Depending on their altitude, thickness and droplet size, clouds can either have a net warming
effect on the earth or a net cooling effect, with research suggesting that overall the cooling effect outweighs
the warming effect.

It is hypothesised that aerosols (small particles suspended in the atmosphere, e.g. dust and urban and
industrial pollutants) increase the depth and lifetime of clouds, as well as their brightness. They also make
the atmosphere more reflective in the absence of clouds. These influences all increase the amount of solar
radiation that is reflected back into space, thereby reducing the radiation reaching the earth's surface and
providing a cooling effect. Since human industry emits aerosols to the atmosphere alongside greenhouse
gases, this provides a possible negative feedback mechanism to alleviate the global warming that would
otherwise occur. However, aerosols can also trap heat within the atmosphere, and it is difficult to determine
where the balance between the competing and interacting mechanisms lies.

Two papers based on the latest satellite data claim to show that the aerosol/cloud feedback effects on the
climate system are more negative than was previously thought—that is, they counteract the warming effect.
The authors state that the models on which the IPCC AR4's conclusions were based underestimate these
effects, and overestimate the greenhouse warming effect. If true, this could have profound implications for
our interpretation of climate change, because the observed rate of warming is larger than the rate that he
calculates should occur from the greenhouse effect, implying that this warming must be mostly due to
natural effects rather than human activities. Other recent independent research aligns with these findings. A
NASA news release in December 2007 states that new data from the Aqua satellite shows the first global
evidence that pollution of clouds by aerosols is making clouds brighter and more reflective, thus increasing
the cooling effect of clouds. The research, currently in press, supports the idea that clouds present a more
negative feedback than previously thought.

However, other scientists have challenged the validity of the model assumptions in the papers, and point out
that the modelling has not been subject to the same scrutiny as those that underpin the IPCC's conclusions.
Furthermore, the models that best replicate current conditions lead to the opposite conclusion, that the
negative feedbacks are perhaps overestimated. Scientists at the Hadley Centre (UK) analysed new satellite
data and found that current models may overestimate the extent to which anthropogenic aerosols increase
cloud reflectivity. The researchers note, however, that the uncertainty in their estimates of the influence of
aerosols is larger than the influence itself, i.e. they cannot say with certainty whether it is a warming or
cooling influence.

These various results and interpretations indicate the high level of uncertainty surrounding the influence of
feedbacks on the climate system and how they might respond as the climate warms further. However, the
IPCC Assessment Reports review all the published literature to assess the state of knowledge, to try to
reconcile contrasting evidence and document uncertainties. The uncertainty about the influence of aerosols
on the climate system and the strength or sign of the feedback has been acknowledged and addressed for
several years and the recent publications utilising the latest satellite data (that have been published after the
latest IPCC report) add data to the debate but do not resolve it at this time. Based on the evidence currently
available, there is no reason to suppose that the IPCC interpretations and projections are erroneous.

Further reading:
Climate change 2007—The physical science basis, Working Group I contribution to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
H. H. Lamb, 'The early medieval warm epoch and its sequel', Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, 1: 13–37, 1965.
R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes and H. F. Diaz, 'Climate in Medieval time', Science, 302: 404–5, 2003.
T. J. Osborn and K. R. Briffa, 'The spatial extent of 20th century warmth in the context of the past
1200 years', Science, 311: 841–4, 2006.
R. W. Spencer, W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy and J. Hnilo, 'Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with
tropical intraseasonal oscillations', Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698,
2007.
R. W. Spencer and W. D. Braswell, 'Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observational data—a simple
model demonstration',Journal of Climate, 21, p. 5624, 2008.
'NASA satellites help lift cloud of uncertainty on climate change', NASA media release, 12 December 2007.
M. Lebsock,, G. L. Stephens and C. Kummerow, 'Multi-sensor satellite observations of aerosol effects on
warm clouds', Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D15205, doi:10.1029/2008JD009876, 2008.
N. Bellouin, A. Jones, J. Haywood and S. A. Christopher, 'Updated estimate of aerosol direct radiative forcing
from satellite observations and comparison against the Hadley model', Journal of Geophysical Research, 113,
D10205, doi:10.1029/2007JD009385, 2008.
J. Quaas, O. Boucher, N. Bellouin and S. Kinne, 'Satellite-based estimate of the direct and indirect aerosol
climate forcing', Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D05204, doi:10.1029/2007JD008962, 2008.
M. E. Mann et al, 'Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations
over the past two millennia',Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 105, pp. 13252–7, 2008.

Uncertainty and scepticism

Uncertainty in the climate change field can carry a range of meanings. In the scientific context it could refer,
for example, to areas where our knowledge is incomplete, or to the fact that measurements and models
carry their own inherent lack of precision. Some uncertainty also exists over how effective any suggested or
implemented measures will be in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases or augmenting greenhouse gas
‘sinks’. Complicating the scientific picture is uncertainty over the nature and extent of international policy
responses, and how these might change in years to come.

It is, of course, normal for science to operate in an atmosphere (pardon the pun) of uncertainty. We can
never have all the information, or perceive the whole of reality. The future is always unclear, especially when
dealing with a system as complex as Earth’s climate. Part of the process of science involves verification of
others’ work and, often, disagreement; this may be over the observations, or over the explanation proposed
to account for them. Theories are always subject to amendment as new evidence comes in. This is how
science works.

The pages in this section of the web site briefly cover, in simplified terms, some of the main scientific
uncertainties and areas of disagreement. This section also deals with some of the common misconceptions
among the public about the science of human-induced climate change.
Although there are areas of dispute, climate change scientists agree on much more than they disagree on.
The overwhelming consensus is that human actions have been responsible for much if not all of the recent
climate change observed across the planet.

Despite this, there are individuals who do not accept either the accumulated observations or the theoretical
framework that underpins our understanding of anthropogenic climate change. They offer a range of very
different ideas – which may be contentious or, in some cases, completely unscientific. Nevertheless, these
views are sometimes promulgated enthusiastically, and we include a page that briefly covers some of the
more widely publicized objections to the scientific consensus.