A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and

emits radiant energy within the thermal infrared

range. Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse
effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in
Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.
Without greenhouse gases, the average
temperature of Earth's surface would be about
−18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average
of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5] The atmospheres of
Venus, Mars and Titan also contain greenhouse
gases.
Human activities since the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have
produced a 45% increase in the atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide (CO
2), from 280 ppm in 1750 to 406 ppm in early
2017. This increase has occurred despite the
uptake of more than half of the emissions by
various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon
cycle.[6][7] The vast majority of anthropogenic
carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., emissions
produced by human activities) come from
combustion of fossil fuels, principally coal, oil,
and natural gas, with additional contributions
coming from deforestation, changes in land use,
soil erosion and agriculture (including
livestock).[8][9]
Should greenhouse gas emissions continue at
their rate in 2017, global warming could cause
Earth's surface temperature to exceed historical
values as early as 2047, with potentially harmful
effects on ecosystems, biodiversity and human
livelihoods.[10] At current emission rates
temperatures could increase by 2 °C, which the
United Nations' IPCC designated as the upper
limit to avoid "dangerous" levels, by 2036.[11]
The contribution of each gas to the greenhouse
effect is determined by the characteristics of that
gas, its abundance, and any indirect effects it
may cause. For example, the direct radiative
effect of a mass of methane is about 84 times
stronger than the same mass of carbon dioxide
over a 20-year time frame[21] but it is present in
much smaller concentrations so that its total
direct radiative effect is smaller, in part due to
its shorter atmospheric lifetime. On the other
hand, in addition to its direct radiative impact,
methane has a large, indirect radiative effect
because it contributes to ozone formation.
Shindell et al. (2005)[22] argue that the
contribution to climate change from methane is
at least double previous estimates as a result of
this effect.[23]
When ranked by their direct contribution to the
greenhouse effect, the most important are:[17][not
in citation given]

Concentratio
Compoun Formul Contributio
n in
d a n
atmosphere[2
4] (%)
(ppm)
Water
H
vapor and 10–50,000(A) 36–72%
2O
clouds
Carbon CO
~400 9–26%
dioxide 2
 CH
Methane ~1.8 4–9%
4
O
Ozone 2–8(B) 3–7%
3

notes:
(A)
Water vapor strongly varies locally[25]
(B)
The concentration in stratosphere. About
90% of the ozone in Earth's atmosphere is
contained in the stratosphere.
In addition to the main greenhouse gases listed
above, other greenhouse gases include sulfur
hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and
perfluorocarbons (see IPCC list of greenhouse
gases). Some greenhouse gases are not often
listed. For example, nitrogen trifluoride has a
high global warming potential (GWP) but is
only present in very small quantities.[26]
Proportion of direct effects at a given
moment
It is not possible to state that a certain gas
causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse
effect. This is because some of the gases absorb
and emit radiation at the same frequencies as
others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not
simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The
higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each
gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps
with the other gases.[17][18] In addition, some
gases, such as methane, are known to have large
indirect effects that are still being quantified.[27]
Atmospheric lifetime
Aside from water vapor, which has a residence
time of about nine days,[28] major greenhouse
gases are well mixed and take many years to
leave the atmosphere.[29] Although it is not easy
to know with precision how long it takes
greenhouse gases to leave the atmosphere, there
are estimates for the principal greenhouse gases.
Jacob (1999)[30] defines the lifetime of an
atmospheric species X in a one-box model as
the average time that a molecule of X remains in
the box. Mathematically can be defined as the
ratio of the mass (in kg) of X in the box to its
removal rate, which is the sum of the flow of X
out of the box ( ), chemical loss of X ( ), and
deposition of X ( ) (all in kg/s): .[30] If
output of this gas into the box ceased, then after
time , its concentration would decrease by
about 63%.
The atmospheric lifetime of a species therefore
measures the time required to restore
equilibrium following a sudden increase or
decrease in its concentration in the atmosphere.
Individual atoms or molecules may be lost or
deposited to sinks such as the soil, the oceans
and other waters, or vegetation and other
biological systems, reducing the excess to
background concentrations. The average time
taken to achieve this is the mean lifetime.
Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric
lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely.[31]
The atmospheric lifetime of CO
2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.[32]
This figure accounts for CO
2 molecules being removed from the
atmosphere by mixing into the ocean,
photosynthesis, and other processes. However,
this excludes the balancing fluxes of CO
2 into the atmosphere from the geological
reservoirs, which have slower characteristic
rates.[33] Although more than half of the CO
2 emitted is removed from the atmosphere
within a century, some fraction (about 20%) of
emitted CO
2 remains in the atmosphere for many thousands
of years.[34] [35] [36] Similar issues apply to other
greenhouse gases, many of which have longer
mean lifetimes than CO
2, e.g. N2O has a mean atmospheric lifetime of
121 years.[21]
Radiative forcing
Earth absorbs some of the radiant energy
received from the sun, reflects some of it as
light and reflects or radiates the rest back to
space as heat.[37] Earth's surface temperature
depends on this balance between incoming and
outgoing energy.[37] If this energy balance is
shifted, Earth's surface becomes warmer or
cooler, leading to a variety of changes in global
climate.[37]
A number of natural and man-made mechanisms
can affect the global energy balance and force
changes in Earth's climate.[37] Greenhouse gases
are one such mechanism.[37] Greenhouse gases
absorb and emit some of the outgoing energy
radiated from Earth's surface, causing that heat
to be retained in the lower atmosphere.[37] As
explained above, some greenhouse gases remain
in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries,
and therefore can affect Earth's energy balance
over a long period.[37] Radiative forcing
quantifies the effect of factors that influence
Earth's energy balance, including changes in the
concentrations of greenhouse gases.[37] Positive
radiative forcing leads to warming by increasing
the net incoming energy, whereas negative
radiative forcing leads to cooling.[37]
Global warming potential
The global warming potential (GWP) depends
on both the efficiency of the molecule as a
greenhouse gas and its atmospheric lifetime.
GWP is measured relative to the same mass of
CO
2 and evaluated for a specific timescale. Thus, if
a gas has a high (positive) radiative forcing but
also a short lifetime, it will have a large GWP
on a 20-year scale but a small one on a 100-year
scale. Conversely, if a molecule has a longer
atmospheric lifetime than CO
2 its GWP will increase when the timescale is
considered. Carbon dioxide is defined to have a
GWP of 1 over all time periods.
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3
years. The 2007 IPCC report lists the GWP as
72 over a time scale of 20 years, 25 over 100
years and 7.6 over 500 years.[38] A 2014
analysis, however, states that although
methane's initial impact is about 100 times
greater than that of CO
2, because of the shorter atmospheric lifetime,
after six or seven decades, the impact of the two
gases is about equal, and from then on
methane's relative role continues to decline.[39]
The decrease in GWP at longer times is because
methane is degraded to water and CO
2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Examples of the atmospheric lifetime and GWP
relative to CO
2 for several greenhouse gases are given in the
following table:
Atmospheric lifetime and GWP relative to CO
2 at different time horizon for various
greenhouse gases
Global
Chemi Lifeti warming
cal me potential
Gas name
formul (years) (GWP) for
[21]
a given time
horizon
 100 500
20-
[2 - -
yr [2 [3
1] yr yr
1] 8]

CO
Carbon dioxide 30–95 1 1 1
2
CH
Methane 12 84 28 7.6
4
N
Nitrous oxide 121 264 265 153
2O
CCl
10 10 5
CFC-12 2F 100
800 200 200
2
CHClF 5 1
HCFC-22 12 549
2 280 760
Tetrafluorometha CF 4 6 11
50 000
ne 4 880 630 200
C
8 11 18
Hexafluoroethane 2F 10 000
210 100 200
6
Sulfur SF 17 23 32
3 200
hexafluoride 6 500 500 600
Nitrogen NF 12 16 20
500
trifluoride 3 800 100 700
The use of CFC-12 (except some essential uses)
has been phased out due to its ozone depleting
properties.[40] The phasing-out of less active
HCFC-compounds will be completed in 2030
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases
See also: Climate change and ecosystems

This graph shows changes in the annual

greenhouse gas index (AGGI) between 1979
and 2011. [79] The AGGI measures the levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere based on
their ability to cause changes in Earth's
climate.[79]
This bar graph shows global greenhouse gas
emissions by sector from 1990 to 2005,
measured in carbon dioxide equivalents.[80]

Modern global CO2 emissions from the burning

of fossil fuels.
Since about 1750 human activity has increased
the concentration of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. Measured atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently
100 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels.[81]
Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than
20 times greater than sources due to human
activity,[82] but over periods longer than a few
years natural sources are closely balanced by
natural sinks, mainly photosynthesis of carbon
compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a
result of this balance, the atmospheric mole
fraction of carbon dioxide remained between
260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000
years between the end of the last glacial
maximum and the start of the industrial era.[83]
It is likely that anthropogenic (i.e., human-
induced) warming, such as that due to elevated
greenhouse gas levels, has had a discernible
influence on many physical and biological
systems.[84] Future warming is projected to have
a range of impacts, including sea level rise,[85]
increased frequencies and severities of some
extreme weather events,[85] loss of
biodiversity,[86] and regional changes in
agricultural productivity.[86]
The main sources of greenhouse gases due to
human activity are:
 burning of fossil fuels and deforestation
leading to higher carbon dioxide
concentrations in the air. Land use change
(mainly deforestation in the tropics)
 account for up to one third of total
anthropogenic CO
2 emissions.[83]
 livestock enteric fermentation and manure
management,[87] paddy rice farming, land
use and wetland changes, man-made
lakes,[88] pipeline losses, and covered
vented landfill emissions leading to higher
methane atmospheric concentrations.
Many of the newer style fully vented septic
systems that enhance and target the
fermentation process also are sources of
atmospheric methane.
 use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in
refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and
halons in fire suppression systems and
manufacturing processes.
 agricultural activities, including the use of
fertilizers, that lead to higher nitrous oxide
(N
2O) concentrations.
The seven sources of CO
2 from fossil fuel combustion are (with
percentage contributions for 2000–2004):[89]
Seven main fossil fuel Contribution
combustion sources (%)
Liquid fuels (e.g., gasoline, fuel
36%
oil)
Solid fuels (e.g., coal) 35%
Gaseous fuels (e.g., natural gas) 20%
Cement production 3%
Flaring gas industrially and at
< 1%
wells
Non-fuel hydrocarbons < 1%
"International bunker fuels" of
transport
4%
not included in national
inventories[90]
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (N
2O) and three groups of fluorinated gases (sulfur
hexafluoride (SF
6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs)) are the major
anthropogenic greenhouse gases,[91]:147[92] and
are regulated under the Kyoto Protocol
international treaty, which came into force in
2005.[93] Emissions limitations specified in the
Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012.[93] The Cancún
agreement, agreed on in 2010, includes
voluntary pledges made by 76 countries to
control emissions.[94] At the time of the
agreement, these 76 countries were collectively
responsible for 85% of annual global
emissions.[94]
Although CFCs are greenhouse gases, they are
regulated by the Montreal Protocol, which was
motivated by CFCs' contribution to ozone
depletion rather than by their contribution to
global warming. Note that ozone depletion has
only a minor role in greenhouse warming,
though the two processes often are confused in
the media. On 15 October 2016, negotiators
from over 170 nations meeting at the summit of
the United Nations Environment Programme
reached a legally binding accord to phase out
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in an amendment to
the Montreal Protocol.[95][96][97]
Effects of greenhouse
Environment
Polar ice sheets melting faster than ever

The polar ice caps have melted faster in last 20

years than in the last 10,000. A comprehensive
satellite study confirms that the melting ice caps
are raising sea levels at an accelerating rate.

Greenland Ice Melt

The polar regions are important drivers of the
world's climate. When the "everlasting ice"
melts at an increasing rate, the rest of the world
is affected. Global sea levels are rising, dark
meltwater pools absorb warmth from the sun
which white ice would reflect back into space.
Fresh water flows into the sea, changing ocean
currents and the living conditions for marine
organisms.
For 20 years satellites have been monitoring
earth's biggest ice shields on Greenland and in
the Antarctic, using different technologies from
radar to gravity measurements. In the past, the
uncoordinated publication of individual one-off
measurements led to confusion, especially with
regard to the state of the Antarctic ice. A new
study, supported by NASA and European Space
Agency ESA combines the data from different
satellite missions.
The Antartic is difficult terrain for scientists to
access
"It's the first time all the people who have
estimated changes in the size of the Antarctic
and Greenland ice sheets using satellites over
the past 20 years have got together to produce a
single result," Andrew Shepherd from the
University of Leeds in the UK explained in an
interview with DW.
Satellite monitoring ends confusion
"Thanks to the accuracy of our data set, we are
now able to say with confidence that Antarctica
has lost ice for the whole of the past 20 years. In
addition to the relative proportions of ice that
have been lost in the northern and southern
hemispheres, we can also see there's been a
definitive acceleration of ice loss in last 20
years. So together Antarctica and Greenland are
now contributing three times as much ice to sea
levels as they were 20 years ago," says the
Professor of Earth Observation.
According to the study, melting ice from both
poles has been responsible for a fifth of the
global rise in sea levels since 1992, 11
millimeters in all. The rest was caused by the
thermal expansion of the warming ocean, the
melting of mountain glaciers, small Arctic ice
caps and groundwater mining. The share of the
polar ice melt, however, is rising.
Greenland is melting fastest

Satellite photos track ice loss, as shown in these

images of Greenland
The pattern of change differs considerably
between the Arctic and the Antarctic. Two
thirds of the ice loss is happening in Greenland.
"The rate of ice loss from Greenland has
increased almost five-fold since the mid-1990s",
says Erik Ivins, who coordinated the project for
NASA.
Although the Greenland ice sheet is only about
one tenth the size of Antarctica, today it is
contributing twice as much ice to sea levels,
according to Shepherd: "It's certainly the larger
player, probably just because it is at a more
equatorial latitude, further from the North pole
than Antarctica from the South pole." The ice on
Greenland is also melting on the surface,
because of increasing air temperatures.
Different conditions within the Antarctic
In the Antarctic, the situation is a more complex
one. Scientists distinguish between the West and
East, which are being affected differently by
climate change. West Antarctica is losing ice at
an accelerating rate. Many of the region's
glaciers are by the sea, which is warming. It is
only to be expected that the ice is melting faster
here, says Shepherd.

Scientists examine the condition of the ice at

Antarctic stations like Belgium's Princess
Elisabeth Antarctica
In the huge area of East Antartica, the ice is
mostly above sea level, Shepherd explains. The
air temperature is also much lower, and the
experts do not expect the ice to melt on account
of rising temperatures. In this part of Antarctica,
the ice sheet is actually growing as a
consequence of increased snowfall. This has led
some critics to question the global warming
theory. However for Shepherd and his
colleagues, the changes are all consistent with
patterns of climate warming, which leads to
more evaporation from the oceans and in turn
more precipitation, which falls as snow on the
ice sheets.
20 years of satellites – too short to tell?
If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt
completely, sea levels could rise by seven
meters
"20 years is a very short time-scale to draw
conclusions about climate change. "We are just
beginning an observational record for ice," said
co-author of the study Ian Joughlin, a
glaciologist at the University of Washington.
"This creates a new long-term data set that will
increase as new measurements are made."
But the scientists are convinced the relatively
new technology is the best way to keep track of
climate change in inaccessible polar regions.
Earth observation expert Shepherd is sure global
warming is the only possible explanation for the
accelerating polar ice melt. He sees especially
the rapid melt in West Antarctica as a signal and
a result of direct changes in the local balance
between the ice sheet, the ocean and the
atmosphere.
If the west Antarctic ice sheet should become
unstable, it could trigger abrupt changes
globally. Joughlin sees the recent ice activity in
the region as a reason to pay attention, but not to
panic.
Key data for the IPCC
In the last report by the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
the development of the ice sheets was regarded
as the major unknown factor with regard to
predicting future sea level rises. "The results of
this study will be invaluable in informing the
IPCC as it completes the writing of its Fifth
Assessment Report next year," according to
Tom Wagner, NASA's cryosphere program
manager in Washington.
The question of how the satellite data will
influence predictions of sea level rise is not easy
to answer, says Andrew Shepherd: Any model is
only as reliable as its data. He hopes the more
accurate satellite measurements will help
improve the models. He does, however, have
one reservation. The main uncertainty in climate
projections is not to do with the physics or
processes, the scientist says. It is the uncertainty
as to what emissions scenarios nations will
adopt in the future.

Climate change occurs when changes in Earth's

climate system result in new weather patterns
that last for at least a few decades, and maybe
for millions of years. The climate system is
comprised of five interacting parts, the
atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water),
cryosphere (ice and permafrost), biosphere
(living things), and lithosphere (earth's crust and
upper mantle). The climate system receives
nearly all of its energy from the sun, with a
relatively tiny amount from earth's interior. The
climate system also gives off energy to outer
space. The balance of incoming and outgoing
energy, and the passage of the energy through
the climate system, determines Earth's energy
budget. When the incoming energy is greater
than the outgoing energy, earth's energy budget
is positive and the climate system is warming. If
more energy goes out, the energy budget is
negative and earth experiences cooling.
As this energy moves through Earth's climate
system, it creates Earth's weather and long-term
averages of weather are called "climate".
Changes in the long term average are called
"climate change". Such changes can be the
result of "internal variability", when natural
processes inherent to the various parts of the
climate system alter Earth's energy budget.
Examples include cyclical ocean patterns such
as the well-known El Niño–Southern Oscillation
and less familiar Pacific decadal oscillation and
Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Climate
change can also result from "external forcing",
when events outside of the climate system's five
parts nonetheless produce changes within the
system. Examples include changes in solar
output and volcanism.
Human activities can also change earth's
climate, and are presently driving climate
change through global warming.[1] There is no
general agreement in scientific, media or policy
documents as to the precise term to be used to
refer to anthropogenic forced change; either
"global warming" or "climate change" may be
used.[2] The first describes the average effect on
a global scale, whilst the second describes how
different geographical regions are affected
differently.
The field of climatology incorporates many
disparate fields of research. For ancient periods
of climate change, researchers rely on evidence
preserved in climate proxies, such as ice cores,[3]
ancient tree rings, geologic records of changes
in sea level, and glacial geology. Physical
evidence of current climate change covers many
independent lines of evidence, a few of which
are temperature records, the disappearance of
ice, and extreme weather events.

Causes
Causes
See also: Attribution of recent climate change

On the broadest scale, the rate at which energy is received from the Sun and the rate at which it
is lost to space determine the equilibrium temperature and climate of Earth. This energy is
distributed around the globe by winds, ocean currents,[9][10] and other mechanisms to affect the
climates of different regions.[11]

Factors that can shape climate are called climate forcings or "forcing mechanisms".[12] These
include processes such as variations in solar radiation, variations in the Earth's orbit, variations in
the albedo or reflectivity of the continents, atmosphere, and oceans, mountain-building and
continental drift and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. There are a variety of climate
change feedbacks that can either amplify or diminish the initial forcing. Some parts of the
climate system, such as the oceans and ice caps, respond more slowly in reaction to climate
forcings, while others respond more quickly. There are also key threshold factors which when
exceeded can produce rapid change.

Forcing mechanisms can be either "internal" or "external". Internal forcing mechanisms are
natural processes within the climate system itself (e.g., the thermohaline circulation). External
forcing mechanisms can be either anthropogenic (e.g. increased emissions of greenhouse gases
and dust) or natural (e.g., changes in solar output, the earth's orbit, volcano eruptions).

Whether the initial forcing mechanism is internal or external, the response of the climate system
might be fast (e.g., a sudden cooling due to airborne volcanic ash reflecting sunlight), slow (e.g.
thermal expansion of warming ocean water), or a combination (e.g., sudden loss of albedo in the
Arctic Ocean as sea ice melts, followed by more gradual thermal expansion of the water).
Therefore, the climate system can respond abruptly, but the full response to forcing mechanisms
might not be fully developed for centuries or even longer.

Climate variability

Scientists generally define the five components of earth's climate system to include atmosphere,
hydrosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere (restricted to the surface soils, rocks, and sediments), and
biosphere.[13] Natural changes in the climate system result in internal "climate variability".[14]
Examples include the type and distribution of species, and changes in ocean-atmosphere
circulations.

Ocean-atmosphere variability
Main article: Thermohaline circulation

See also: Climate inertia

Pacific decadal oscillation 1925 to 2010

The ocean and atmosphere can work together to spontaneously generate internal climate
variability that can persist for years to decades at a time.[15][16] Examples of this type of
variability include the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, the Pacific decadal oscillation, and the
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. These variations can affect global average surface temperature
by redistributing heat between the deep ocean and the atmosphere[17][18] and/or by altering the
cloud/water vapor/sea ice distribution which can affect the total energy budget of the earth.[19][20]

The oceanic aspects of these circulations can generate variability on centennial timescales due to
the ocean having hundreds of times more mass than in the atmosphere, and thus very high
thermal inertia. For example, alterations to ocean processes such as thermohaline circulation play
a key role in redistributing heat in the world's oceans. Due to the long timescales of this
circulation, ocean temperature at depth is still adjusting to effects of the Little Ice Age[21] which
occurred between the 1600 and 1800s.

A schematic of modern thermohaline circulation. Tens of millions of years ago, continental-plate

movement formed a land-free gap around Antarctica, allowing the formation of the ACC, which keeps
warm waters away from Antarctica.

Life

Life affects climate through its role in the carbon and water cycles and through such mechanisms
as albedo, evapotranspiration, cloud formation, and weathering.[22][23][24] Examples of how life
may have affected past climate include:
  glaciation 2.3 billion years ago triggered by the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, which
depleted the atmosphere of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and introduced free
oxygen.[25][26]
 another glaciation 300 million years ago ushered in by long-term burial of decomposition-
resistant detritus of vascular land-plants (creating a carbon sink and forming coal)[27][28]
 termination of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago by flourishing
marine phytoplankton[29][30]
 reversal of global warming 49 million years ago by 800,000 years of arctic azolla blooms[31][32]
 global cooling over the past 40 million years driven by the expansion of grass-grazer
ecosystems[33][34]

External forcing mechanisms

Milankovitch cycles from 800,000 years ago in the past to 800,000 years in the future.

Variations in CO2, temperature and dust from the Vostok ice core over the last 450,000 years
Human influences

Increase in atmospheric CO
2 levels

Main article: Global warming

In the context of climate variation, anthropogenic factors are human activities which affect the
climate. The scientific consensus on climate change is "that climate is changing and that these
changes are in large part caused by human activities",[35] and it "is largely irreversible".[36]

... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting
that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities.
While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses
have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and
careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

— United States National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change

Of most concern in these anthropogenic factors is the increase in CO2 levels. This is due to
emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the
atmosphere), and the CO2 released by cement manufacture.[37] Other factors, including land use,
ozone depletion, animal husbandry (ruminant animals such as cattle produce methane,[38] as do
termites), and deforestation, are also of concern in the roles they play—both separately and in
conjunction with other factors—in affecting climate, microclimate, and measures of climate
variables.[39]

Orbital variations
Main article: Milankovitch cycles

Slight variations in Earth's motion lead to changes in the seasonal distribution of sunlight
reaching the Earth's surface and how it is distributed across the globe. There is very little change
to the area-averaged annually averaged sunshine; but there can be strong changes in the
geographical and seasonal distribution. The three types of kinematic change are variations in
Earth's eccentricity, changes in the tilt angle of Earth's axis of rotation, and precession of Earth's
axis. Combined together, these produce Milankovitch cycles which affect climate and are notable
for their correlation to glacial and interglacial periods,[40] their correlation with the advance and
retreat of the Sahara,[40] and for their appearance in the stratigraphic record.[41][42]

The IPCC notes that Milankovitch cycles drove the ice age cycles, CO2 followed temperature
change "with a lag of some hundreds of years", and that as a feedback amplified temperature
change.[43] The depths of the ocean have a lag time in changing temperature (thermal inertia on
such scale). Upon seawater temperature change, the solubility of CO2 in the oceans changed, as
well as other factors affecting air-sea CO2 exchange.[44]

Solar output
Main article: Solar variation

Further information: Cosmic ray § Postulated role in climate change

Variations in solar activity during the last several centuries based on observations of sunspots and
beryllium isotopes. The period of extraordinarily few sunspots in the late 17th century was the Maunder
minimum.

The Sun is the predominant source of energy input to the Earth. Other sources include
geothermal energy from the Earth's core, tidal energy from the Moon and heat from the decay of
radioactive compounds. Both long- and short-term variations in solar intensity are known to
affect global climate.

Three to four billion years ago, the Sun emitted only 75% as much power as it does today.[45] If
the atmospheric composition had been the same as today, liquid water should not have existed on
Earth. However, there is evidence for the presence of water on the early Earth, in the
Hadean[46][47] and Archean[48][46] eons, leading to what is known as the faint young Sun
paradox.[49] Hypothesized solutions to this paradox include a vastly different atmosphere, with
much higher concentrations of greenhouse gases than currently exist.[50] Over the following
approximately 4 billion years, the energy output of the Sun increased and atmospheric
composition changed. The Great Oxygenation Event—oxygenation of the atmosphere around 2.4
billion years ago—was the most notable alteration. Over the next five billion years from the
present, the Sun's ultimate death as it becomes a red giant and then a white dwarf will have large
effects on climate, with the red giant phase possibly ending any life on Earth that survives until
that time.[51]
Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon. Values since 1950 not shown.

Solar output varies on shorter time scales, including the 11-year solar cycle[52] and longer-term
modulations.[53] Solar intensity variations, possibly as a result of the Wolf, Spörer, and the
Maunder Minima, are considered to have been influential in triggering the Little Ice Age.[54] This
event extended from 1550 to 1850 AD and was marked by relative cooling and greater glacier
extent than the centuries before and afterward.[55][56] Solar variation may also have affected some
of the warming observed from 1900 to 1950. The cyclical nature of the Sun's energy output is
not yet fully understood; it differs from the very slow change that is happening within the Sun as
it ages and evolves.

Some studies point toward solar radiation increases from cyclical sunspot activity affecting
global warming, and climate may be influenced by the sum of all effects (solar variation,
anthropogenic radiative forcings, etc.).[57][58]

A 2010 study suggests "that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the
atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations".[59]

In 2011, CERN announced the initial results from its CLOUD experiment in the Nature
journal.[60] The results indicate that ionisation from cosmic rays significantly enhances aerosol
formation in the presence of sulfuric acid and water, but in the lower atmosphere where ammonia
is also required, this is insufficient to account for aerosol formation and additional trace vapours
must be involved. The next step is to find more about these trace vapours, including whether they
are of natural or human origin.

Volcanism

In atmospheric temperature from 1979 to 2010, determined by MSU NASA satellites, effects appear
from aerosols released by major volcanic eruptions (El Chichón and Pinatubo). El Niño is a separate
event, from ocean variability.
The eruptions considered to be large enough to affect the Earth's climate on a scale of more than
1 year are the ones that inject over 100,000 tons of SO2 into the stratosphere.[61] This is due to the
optical properties of SO2 and sulfate aerosols, which strongly absorb or scatter solar radiation,
creating a global layer of sulfuric acid haze.[62] On average, such eruptions occur several times
per century, and cause cooling (by partially blocking the transmission of solar radiation to the
Earth's surface) for a period of several years.

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th
century, affected the climate substantially, subsequently global temperatures decreased by about
0.5 °C (0.9 °F) for up to three years.[63][64] Thus, the cooling over large parts of the Earth reduced
surface temperatures in 1991–93, the equivalent to a reduction in net radiation of 4 watts per
square meter.[65] The Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 caused the Year Without a Summer.[66]
Much larger eruptions, known as large igneous provinces, occur only a few times every fifty –
one hundred million years – through flood basalt, and caused in Earth past global warming and
mass extinctions.[67]

Small eruptions, with injections of less than 0.1 Mt of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, affect
the atmosphere only subtly, as temperature changes are comparable with natural variability.
However, because smaller eruptions occur at a much higher frequency, they too significantly
affect Earth's atmosphere.[61][68]

Seismic monitoring maps current and future trends in volcanic activities, and tries to develop
early warning systems. In climate modelling the aim is to study the physical mechanisms and
feedbacks of volcanic forcing.[69]

Volcanoes are also part of the extended carbon cycle. Over very long (geological) time periods,
they release carbon dioxide from the Earth's crust and mantle, counteracting the uptake by
sedimentary rocks and other geological carbon dioxide sinks. The US Geological Survey
estimates are that volcanic emissions are at a much lower level than the effects of current human
activities, which generate 100–300 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes.[70]
A review of published studies indicates that annual volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide,
including amounts released from mid-ocean ridges, volcanic arcs, and hot spot volcanoes, are
only the equivalent of 3 to 5 days of human-caused output. The annual amount put out by human
activities may be greater than the amount released by supererruptions, the most recent of which
was the Toba eruption in Indonesia 74,000 years ago.[71]

Although volcanoes are technically part of the lithosphere, which itself is part of the climate
system, the IPCC explicitly defines volcanism as an external forcing agent.[72]

Plate tectonics
Main article: Plate tectonics

Over the course of millions of years, the motion of tectonic plates reconfigures global land and
ocean areas and generates topography. This can affect both global and local patterns of climate
and atmosphere-ocean circulation.[73]
The position of the continents determines the geometry of the oceans and therefore influences
patterns of ocean circulation. The locations of the seas are important in controlling the transfer of
heat and moisture across the globe, and therefore, in determining global climate. A recent
example of tectonic control on ocean circulation is the formation of the Isthmus of Panama about
5 million years ago, which shut off direct mixing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This
strongly affected the ocean dynamics of what is now the Gulf Stream and may have led to
Northern Hemisphere ice cover.[74][75] During the Carboniferous period, about 300 to 360 million
years ago, plate tectonics may have triggered large-scale storage of carbon and increased
glaciation.[76] Geologic evidence points to a "megamonsoonal" circulation pattern during the time
of the supercontinent Pangaea, and climate modeling suggests that the existence of the
supercontinent was conducive to the establishment of monsoons.[77]

The size of continents is also important. Because of the stabilizing effect of the oceans on
temperature, yearly temperature variations are generally lower in coastal areas than they are
inland. A larger supercontinent will therefore have more area in which climate is strongly
seasonal than will several smaller continents or islands.

Other mechanisms

The Earth receives an influx of ionized particles known as cosmic rays from a variety of external
sources, including the Sun. A hypothesis holds that an increase in the cosmic ray flux would
increase the ionization in the atmosphere, leading to greater cloud cover. This, in turn, would
tend to cool the surface. The non-solar cosmic ray flux may vary as a result of a nearby
supernova event, the solar system passing through a dense interstellar cloud, or the oscillatory
movement of the Sun's position with respect to the galactic plane. The latter can increase the flux
of high-energy cosmic rays coming from the Virgo cluster.[78]

Evidence exists that the Chicxulub impact some 66 million years ago had severely affected the
Earth's climate. Large quantities of sulfate aerosols were kicked up into the atmosphere,
decreasing global temperatures by up to 26 °C and producing sub-freezing temperatures for a
period of 3–16 years. The recovery time for this event took more than 30 years.[79]
Ozone depletion consists of two related events observed since the late 1970s: a steady lowering
of about four percent in the total amount of ozone in Earth's atmosphere (the ozone layer), and a
much larger springtime decrease in stratospheric ozone around Earth's polar regions.[1] The latter
phenomenon is referred to as the ozone hole. There are also springtime polar tropospheric ozone
depletion events in addition to these stratospheric events.

The main cause of ozone depletion and the ozone hole is manufactured chemicals, especially
manufactured halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants and foam-blowing agents
(chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, halons), referred to as ozone-depleting substances
(ODS). These compounds are transported into the stratosphere by turbulent mixing after being
emitted from the surface, mixing much faster than the molecules can settle.[2] Once in the
stratosphere, they release halogen atoms through photodissociation, which catalyze the
breakdown of ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2).[3] Both types of ozone depletion were observed to
increase as emissions of halocarbons increased.

Ozone depletion and the ozone hole have generated worldwide concern over increased cancer
risks and other negative effects. The ozone layer prevents most harmful UVB wavelengths of
ultraviolet light (UV light) from passing through the Earth's atmosphere. These wavelengths
cause skin cancer, sunburn and cataracts, which were projected to increase dramatically as a
result of thinning ozone, as well as harming plants and animals. These concerns led to the
adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which bans the production of CFCs, halons and other
ozone-depleting chemicals.

The ban came into effect in 1989. Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover
in the 2000s. Recovery is projected to continue over the next century, and the ozone hole is
expected to reach pre-1980 levels by around 2075.[4] The Montreal Protocol is considered the
most successful international environmental agreement to date.[5][6]

The Antarctic ozone hole is an area of the Antarctic stratosphere in which the recent ozone levels
have dropped to as low as 33 percent of their pre-1975 values. The ozone hole occurs during the
Antarctic spring, from September to early December, as strong westerly winds start to circulate
around the continent and create an atmospheric container. Within this polar vortex, over 50
percent of the lower stratospheric ozone is destroyed during the Antarctic spring.[28]

As explained above, the primary cause of ozone depletion is the presence of chlorine-containing
source gases (primarily CFCs and related halocarbons). In the presence of UV light, these gases
dissociate, releasing chlorine atoms, which then go on to catalyze ozone destruction. The Cl-
catalyzed ozone depletion can take place in the gas phase, but it is dramatically enhanced in the
presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs).[29]

These polar stratospheric clouds form during winter, in the extreme cold. Polar winters are dark,
consisting of three months without solar radiation (sunlight). The lack of sunlight contributes to a
decrease in temperature and the polar vortex traps and chills air. Temperatures hover around or
below −80 °C. These low temperatures form cloud particles. There are three types of PSC
clouds—nitric acid trihydrate clouds, slowly cooling water-ice clouds, and rapid cooling water-
ice (nacreous) clouds—provide surfaces for chemical reactions whose products will, in the
spring lead to ozone destruction.[30]

The photochemical processes involved are complex but well understood. The key observation is
that, ordinarily, most of the chlorine in the stratosphere resides in "reservoir" compounds,
primarily chlorine nitrate (ClONO
2) as well as stable end products such as HCl. The formation of end products essentially remove

Cl from the ozone depletion process. The former sequester Cl, which can be later made available
via absorption of light at shorter wavelengths than 400 nm.[31] During the Antarctic winter and
spring, however, reactions on the surface of the polar stratospheric cloud particles convert these
"reservoir" compounds into reactive free radicals (Cl and ClO). The process by which the clouds
remove NO
2 from the stratosphere by converting it to nitric acid in the PSC particles, which then are lost by

sedimentation is called denitrification. This prevents newly formed ClO from being converted
back into ClONO
2.

The role of sunlight in ozone depletion is the reason why the Antarctic ozone depletion is
greatest during spring. During winter, even though PSCs are at their most abundant, there is no
light over the pole to drive chemical reactions. During the spring, however, the sun comes out,
providing energy to drive photochemical reactions and melt the polar stratospheric clouds,
releasing considerable ClO, which drives the hole mechanism. Further warming temperatures
near the end of spring break up the vortex around mid-December. As warm, ozone and NO
2-rich air flows in from lower latitudes, the PSCs are destroyed, the enhanced ozone depletion

process shuts down, and the ozone hole closes.[32]

Most of the ozone that is destroyed is in the lower stratosphere, in contrast to the much smaller
ozone depletion through homogeneous gas phase reactions, which occurs primarily in the upper
stratosphere.[33]

Interest in ozone layer depletion

Public misconceptions and misunderstandings of complex issues like the ozone depletion are
common. The limited scientific knowledge of the public led to a confusion with global
warming[34] or the perception of global warming as a subset of the "ozone hole".[35] In the
beginning, classical green NGOs refrained from using CFC depletion for campaigning, as they
assumed the topic was too complicated.[36] They became active much later, e.g. in Greenpeace's
support for a CFC-free fridge produced by the former East German company VEB dkk
Scharfenstein.[36][37]

The metaphors used in the CFC discussion (ozone shield, ozone hole) are not "exact" in the
scientific sense. The "ozone hole" is more of a depression, less "a hole in the windshield". The
ozone does not disappear through the layer, nor is there a uniform "thinning" of the ozone layer.
However they resonated better with non-scientists and their concerns.[38] The ozone hole was
seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk[39] as lay people feared severe personal consequences
such as skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations in the
ocean's photic zone. Not only on the policy level, ozone regulation compared to climate change
fared much better in public opinion. Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays
before legislation was enforced, while climate change failed to achieve comparable concern and
public action.[38] The sudden recognition in 1985 that there was a substantial "hole" was widely
reported in the press. The especially rapid ozone depletion in Antarctica had previously been
dismissed as a measurement error.[40] Scientific consensus was established after regulation.[36]

While the Antarctic ozone hole has a relatively small effect on global ozone, the hole has
generated a great deal of public interest because:

 Many have worried that ozone holes might start appearing over other areas of the globe,
though to date the only other large-scale depletion is a smaller ozone "dimple" observed during
the Arctic spring around the North Pole. Ozone at middle latitudes has declined, but by a much
smaller extent (a decrease of about 4–5 percent).
 If stratospheric conditions become more severe (cooler temperatures, more clouds, more active
chlorine), global ozone may decrease at a greater pace. Standard global warming theory predicts
that the stratosphere will cool.[41]
 When the Antarctic ozone hole breaks up each year, the ozone-depleted air drifts out into
nearby regions. Decreases in the ozone level of up to 10 percent have been reported in New
Zealand in the month following the breakup of the Antarctic ozone hole,[42] with ultraviolet-B
radiation intensities increasing by more than 15 percent since the 1970s.[43][44]

Consequences of ozone layer depletion

Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light from the sun, ozone layer depletion
increases surface UVB levels (all else equal), which could lead to damage, including increase in
skin cancer. This was the reason for the Montreal Protocol. Although decreases in stratospheric
ozone are well-tied to CFCs and to increases in surface UVB, there is no direct observational
evidence linking ozone depletion to higher incidence of skin cancer and eye damage in human
beings. This is partly because UVA, which has also been implicated in some forms of skin
cancer, is not absorbed by ozone, and because it is nearly impossible to control statistics for
lifestyle changes over time.

Increased UV

Ozone, while a minority constituent in Earth's atmosphere, is responsible for most of the
absorption of UVB radiation. The amount of UVB radiation that penetrates through the ozone
layer decreases exponentially with the slant-path thickness and density of the layer. When
stratospheric ozone levels decrease, higher levels of UVB reach the Earth’s surface.[1][45] UV-
driven phenolic formation in tree rings has dated the start of ozone depletion in northern latitudes
to the late 1700s.[46]

In October 2008, the Ecuadorian Space Agency published a report called HIPERION. The study
used ground instruments in Ecuador and the last 28 years' data from 12 satellites of several
countries, and found that the UV radiation reaching equatorial latitudes was far greater than
expected, with the UV Index climbing as high as 24 in Quito; the WHO considers 11 as an
extreme index and a great risk to health. The report concluded that depleted ozone levels around
the mid-latitudes of the planet are already endangering large populations in these areas.[47] Later,
the CONIDA, the Peruvian Space Agency, published its own study, which yielded almost the
same findings as the Ecuadorian study.

Biological effects

The main public concern regarding the ozone hole has been the effects of increased surface UV
radiation on human health. So far, ozone depletion in most locations has been typically a few
percent and, as noted above, no direct evidence of health damage is available in most latitudes. If
the high levels of depletion seen in the ozone hole were to be common across the globe, the
effects could be substantially more dramatic. As the ozone hole over Antarctica has in some
instances grown so large as to affect parts of Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, and
South Africa, environmentalists have been concerned that the increase in surface UV could be
significant.[48]

Ozone depletion would magnify all of the effects of UV on human health, both positive
(including production of vitamin D) and negative (including sunburn, skin cancer, and cataracts).
In addition, increased surface UV leads to increased tropospheric ozone, which is a health risk to
humans.

Basal and squamous cell carcinomas

The most common forms of skin cancer in humans, basal and squamous cell carcinomas, have
been strongly linked to UVB exposure. The mechanism by which UVB induces these cancers is
well understood—absorption of UVB radiation causes the pyrimidine bases in the DNA
molecule to form dimers, resulting in transcription errors when the DNA replicates. These
cancers are relatively mild and rarely fatal, although the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma
sometimes requires extensive reconstructive surgery. By combining epidemiological data with
results of animal studies, scientists have estimated that every one percent decrease in long-term
stratospheric ozone would increase the incidence of these cancers by two percent.[49]

Malignant melanoma

Another form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma, is much less common but far more
dangerous, being lethal in about 15–20 percent of the cases diagnosed. The relationship between
malignant melanoma and ultraviolet exposure is not yet fully understood, but it appears that both
UVB and UVA are involved. Because of this uncertainty, it is difficult to estimate the effect of
ozone depletion on melanoma incidence. One study showed that a 10 percent increase in UVB
radiation was associated with a 19 percent increase in melanomas for men and 16 percent for
women.[50] A study of people in Punta Arenas, at the southern tip of Chile, showed a 56 percent
increase in melanoma and a 46 percent increase in nonmelanoma skin cancer over a period of
seven years, along with decreased ozone and increased UVB levels.[51]
Cortical cataracts

Epidemiological studies suggest an association between ocular cortical cataracts and UVB
exposure, using crude approximations of exposure and various cataract assessment techniques. A
detailed assessment of ocular exposure to UVB was carried out in a study on Chesapeake Bay
Watermen, where increases in average annual ocular exposure were associated with increasing
risk of cortical opacity.[52] In this highly exposed group of predominantly white males, the
evidence linking cortical opacities to sunlight exposure was the strongest to date. Based on these
results, ozone depletion is predicted to cause hundreds of thousands of additional cataracts by
2050.[53]

Increased tropospheric ozone

Increased surface UV leads to increased tropospheric ozone. Ground-level ozone is generally

recognized to be a health risk, as ozone is toxic due to its strong oxidant properties. The risks are
particularly high for young children, the elderly, and those with asthma or other respiratory
difficulties. At this time, ozone at ground level is produced mainly by the action of UV radiation
on combustion gases from vehicle exhausts.[54]

Increased production of vitamin D

Vitamin D is produced in the skin by ultraviolet light. Thus, higher UVB exposure raises human
vitamin D in those deficient in it. Recent research (primarily since the Montreal Protocol) shows
that many humans have less than optimal vitamin D levels. In particular, in the U.S. population,
the lowest quarter of vitamin D (<17.8 ng/ml) were found using information from the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality
in the general population.[55] While blood level of vitamin D in excess of 100 ng/ml appear to
raise blood calcium excessively and to be associated with higher mortality, the body has
mechanisms that prevent sunlight from producing vitamin D in excess of the body's
requirements.[56]

Effects on animals

A November 2010 report by scientists at the Institute of Zoology in London found that whales
off the coast of California have shown a sharp rise in sun damage, and these scientists "fear that
the thinning ozone layer is to blame".[57] The study photographed and took skin biopsies from
over 150 whales in the Gulf of California and found "widespread evidence of epidermal damage
commonly associated with acute and severe sunburn", having cells that form when the DNA is
damaged by UV radiation. The findings suggest "rising UV levels as a result of ozone depletion
are to blame for the observed skin damage, in the same way that human skin cancer rates have
been on the increase in recent decades."[58]

Effects on crops

An increase of UV radiation would be expected to affect crops. A number of economically

important species of plants, such as rice, depend on cyanobacteria residing on their roots for the
retention of nitrogen. Cyanobacteria are sensitive to UV radiation and would be affected by its
increase.[59] "Despite mechanisms to reduce or repair the effects of increased ultraviolet
radiation, plants have a limited ability to adapt to increased levels of UVB, therefore plant
growth can be directly affected by UVB radiation."[60]