Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Abrupt vs slow change.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high COin the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

Lush Eocene Arctic 50 million years ago

Lush life in the Arctic during the Eocene, 50 million years ago (original art - Stephen C. Quinn, The American Museum of Natural History, N.Y.C)

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the PermianTriassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

Basic rebuttal written by howardlee

Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Last updated on 6 August 2015 by pattimer. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments


Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Comments 351 to 400 out of 883:

  1. I think one of the "strengths" of this argument (from the Denialist point of view) is that there are actually two possible implied arguments.  One is (as others have pointed out above) is

    Climate has changed before [naturally and so the current instance of climate change must be natural too]

    The second is this

    Climate has changed before [and "the planet" survived that and so will survive the current climate change, irrespective of how its caused]

    I've put the incorrect implication in []. The first case is a failure of logic, the second case mis-identifies both the risk of climate change, and what "taking action" on GHG emissions seeks to accomplish.

    So when responding to the simple statement "Climate's changed before",  you can't be sure which one of these two arguments is being implied, if you rebute one the other can still be thought to be valid, if you try and rebute both it can get very involved.

    Perhaps this helps explains why, as an argument, it is so popular with contrarians.

    A final thought: It seems to me that as soon as the implied arguments are stated, the flaws in them are very obvious, and this, together with the fact that the prima-face statement is true and uncontestible, explains why the implied arguments are always just that - implied - which is why SKS haven't found a quote to adorn this acticle that exposes the real myth(s)

  2. Phil:

    Yet another "advantage" of not stating the implied argument is that it leaves the imagination of the listener free to come up with any number of arguments. I was going to phrase that as "possible arguments", but then I realized that they don't even need to be possible - at least in a real sense. As long as the listener thinks they are "possible", then the speaker has sown the seeds of doubt.

    Twenty listeners can come up with 20 mutually-exclusive implied arguments, and as long as nobody goes into detail everyone is happy (except for the scientists and policy people that actually want to examine the logic, validity, and strength of the argument).

    As you say, getting the person to explicitly state the argument, rather than leaving it implied, allows you to examine it properly. Unfortunately, you often end up playing whack-a-mole as the fake skeptic refuses to provide a proper argument, and keeps saying "that's not what I meant" as you cycle through the possibilities and explain why they are wrong.

  3. In conversation I actually enjoy this kind of misleading statement;

    Denier: 'You know, climate has changed before.......'

    Me: 'Good point! The link between past CO2 changes and past climate changes gives us a clear idea of what to expect with our current CO2 emissions.'

  4. Is climate sensitivity a constant or dependant on other variables? Meaning, as the earth gets warmer (or cooler) does the climate sensitivity stay the same or increase/decrease (or maybe it's dependant on some other variables as well)?

  5. Kristjan, I think it is expected to be more or less constant within a particular range of temperature/states. Ie once all the ice is melted, then the albedo feedback becomes a lot more subtle. Ditto, on an iceball earth, you would expect sensitivity to be high at point where ice melts at tropic.

  6. "The combined evidence indicates that the net feedback to radiative forcing is significantly positive."

    I would say that the fact that the planet survived several cycles of glaciation over the last half a million years, and that the planet's sensitivity can be computed, is an indication that the net feedback is negative.  Positive feedback would cause a runaway temperature, even after the forcing function is removed (See amplifier squeaks.)

    However I would like to verify the list of the various feedback mechanisms.

    I read a lot about poitive feedback processes.  Water vapor, atmospheric CO2, polar ice reflection, and maybe more.  As for the negative feedback I saw only brief mention of clouds and black body radiation.

    Are there any other negative feedbac mechanisms?  

    What is the dominant negatve feedback mechanism?

    Is there evidence of its occurence at the peak of the glacial warming cycles?


    (Rob P) Please see this SkS post by Neal King:Why positive feedback doesn't necessarily lead to runaway warming. Further comments on positive feedback should be directed there - where it is considered to be on-topic.  

  7. I stumbled on this webpage and appreciate the huge amount of work, data and analysis that goes into it. I have a degree in Geology and understand the arguments yet I'm not convinced and I'll site two examples. 1. The text posted alongside a graph showing sea level rise cautions the reader not to focus on a small set of points (with a ruler) as any trend line can be visible in a small data set. We are cautioned further to look at the entirety of the data. The first thing I noticed is that the data is only available to the mid-1800s. This ~180 year span is a tiny sliver of geologic time- even since the last ice age. We don’t seem to have a data set covering a span of time long enough to be meaningful. Why draw a conclusion from incomplete data? 2. Ice cores are presented as providing data on volcanic dust, atmospheric gases and other forces that worked to cause previous climate change. I have not see any proof that we understand whether the delta in the ‘forces’ caused the climate change or themselves were caused by the climate change (or were coincidental to it). The inference I took is that we fully understand the mechanics of the earth’s climate and can account for the causes of past climate change. Given our meager ability currently to forecast the weather and predict storms this does not seem to be true. I’m not a ‘denier’ nor is my head in the sand. I’m offended by these terms and refuse to hold a civil discussion with anyone resorting to name calling. My position, to paraphrase, is that incredible claims require incredible evidence. I don’t deny anything- but I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause. To the supporters of man-mad climate change- I hope for all our sake you are wrong. P.S. I don't seem to have mastered the formatting capabilities of the software- please forgive the lack of structure in my writing.

  8. Skeptical Still... 

    First I have to ask, do you believe that the researchers who have spent decades studying this subject understand their field of science?  Those researcher are extremely clear about how serious this issue is.  What I get from your comments is that, not only are you "not yet convinced," you seem to have already made up your mind before fully understanding the issue.

    This is definitely a field of science where there are considerable uncertainties in many areas.  Thus, it requires getting to know many more of the elements of the research in order to grasp how all the pieces fit together.

    This is the point I usually direct people to Richard Alley's AGU lecture.

    "I don’t deny anything- but I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause."

    And this is where I usually point out the basic radiative physics of CO2.

    "To the supporters of man-mad climate change- I hope for all our sake you are wrong."

    And this is where I agree wholeheartedly.  But the concern is that the evidence is overwhelming at this point.  It's very unlikely to be wrong.  The remaining question is merely, is it going to be bad, or is it going to be really bad?  Or, hope beyond hope, can we stomp on the brakes and get our trajectory under control fast?

  9. Skeptical,

    If you have a degree in Geology you will be aware that changing sea level leaves geological records.  This link has data you might appreciate covering the last 40 million years.  Is that enough for you?   The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians all left records of sea level.  These records extend the well documented record back 4,000 years. You cannot expect to have world wide tide gauge records longer than 150 years, scientific measurements have only been done for that long.

    You are confusing climate and weather.  Climate is much easier to forecast than weather.  I do not know if there will be a storm in two weeks.  It will certaily be colder in January than it is now in Florida.  Read the background information before you challenge people who are much more informed than you are.   If you do not understand the basics you cannot hope to master more complex subjects.  The ice core data is compared to model projections to determine how the various forcings interact.  This is one of the ways the models are validated.  If you do not understand how the data is examined, how can you expect to understand "incredible" results?

    It is not the responsibility of this web site to spoon feed you all climate science.  You must read the background information so that you can ask reasonable questions.  I suggest you go to the "start here" button at the top of the page.  Ask a few questions about items you do not understand.  You will sound like you want to learn more with a better attitude.

    If you do not look at the data you will never see "incredible" evidence.  That does not mean that the data does not exist, just that you have not looked for it yet.  Arhennius predicted in 1896 that the increase of CO2 would increase temperatures more in winter than summer, more at night than in the day, more over land than sea, more in the arctic than the tropics and more in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere.  All these predictions have been measured in the last several decades.  That sounds pretty "incredible" to me.  What is your alternate explaination for the collapse of Arctic sea ice (keep in mind that the "skeptics" still deny the ice is melting and predict a recovery every year)?

    We all wish that AGW theory was wrong.  Unfortunately, the data indicate that is not the case.



  10. Skeptical Still.

    Okay, how about looking at a longer (2000 years say). The important thing is actually to take a long enough record to be able to distinguish the signal from noise. This depends on S/N ratio.

    "I have not see any proof that we understand whether the delta in the ‘forces’ caused the climate change or themselves were caused by the climate change (or were coincidental to it)." I find this strange coming from a fellow geologist. Firstly its not normal to talk of proof in science, only maths gets that. Second, there is a vast geological literature on the paleoclimate and forces. For starters you should look at IPCC WG1 Chp 6 for the basic background but follow cites from key papers and you will see new research. Hansen and Sato 2012 is discussed here. Note Fig 3  especially.

    "Cant predict weather so cant predict climate" is a very old myth. See here for pointers to the science. I would strongly suggest you work your way through the "arguments" button on the top left of this page so see what science has to say about these myths.

  11. Yah, I second what Rob points out. 

    Skeptical Still: "I don’t see adequate evidence showing mans’ actions as the cause."

    Start with the greenhouse effect.  If it's highly probable (it's been measured in lab for over a century, inferred from satellite for decades, directly measured from the surface for a couple of decades (e.g. Puckrin et al. 2004), and successfully accounted for in products such as air-to-air missiles), then we have a basic energy imbalance situation.  Add GHGs, and the climate system stores more energy.  No matter what any other forcing is doing, and no matter what alternative is offered, the enhanced greenhouse effect must be accounted for.  If you don't believe that humans are responsible for the rapid rise in CO2, there are threads for that.  If you don't think that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, Lacis et al. 2010 is a fairly readable explanation why it is.

    The paleo data simply helps constrain the net feedback both in terms of strength and timing.  It does not provide evidence for the basic theory.  That's just physics.    

  12. Thanks to those that responded to my post- I will look through the references and continue to visit this site; it’s the best representation I’ve found for the pro-manmade argument. I am open to the idea and willing to review more data but I remain unconvinced. Thanks again.

  13. Sorry if it's been replied to on other pages, but where is the link to the peer-reviewed research? And where is the skeptics research on the same subject, so I can pick whichever suits my beliefs better? Isn't what science is about?

    Thank you.

  14. justmoi - try clicking on the tab to see the intermediate version of the article and/or look at the notes at the bottom of the page, there are plenty of references to the peer-reviewed research.

  15. @ justmoi: 

    In response to your question, Nope, that is not what science is all about.

    The vast majority of "skeptic research" is pseudo-science poppycock.

  16. Oops, sorry for the duplicate (F5 shouldn't do this, computer science is really one!). John, what is science about if not making really sure that the "other side" isn't right when assuming theories about the future? Tagging their arguments as "myths" to begin with is not what I'd call a scientist approach. And I'm glad you admit that not all (let's say 95% ;) of "their" research is rubbish, dare to enlighten me on the remaining 5%? Thanks!


    [JH] Your duplciate comment has been deleted.

  17. @justmoi #366:

    In response to your question, I decline to engage you in a game of "Gotcha."

    BTW, I just realized that your comments are "off topic" for this thread. Please post your comments on the thread to an article which directly relates to your concerns. 

  18. I have read that CO2 ppm have been much higher in the distant past,as much as 1000ppm. Over what period of time did CO2 reach that level? Is the current rate of increase faster,or can we tell?

  19. John Wise


    Yes CO2 has been higher in the distant past, even much higher than 1000 ppm. Over the very longest timescales (100's of millions to billions of years) CO2 levels have been trending downwards. 400-500 million years ago CO2 levels were perhaps 4000-8000 ppm. But what we need to bear in mind is that this is actually compensating for the fact that the Sun was cooler in the past. The Sun's heat output has grown by around 40% over its 4.5 billion year history.


    As a rough calculation, Solar intensity today is around 341 Watts/M2 at the earth. Allow for albedo reflecting around 30% of that and the Earth absorbs around 238 Watts/M2 . If we go back 500 million years that would 230 Watts/m2. A doubling of CO2 wil produce around 3.7 Watts/M2 of warming so around 2.5 doubling of CO2 would be needed back then just to compensate for a cooler Sun. In fact the level was more like 3.5-4 doublings of current levels. And temperatures back then were warmer than now - perhaps 5-8 DegC warmer. Suggesting some of the past higher CO2 levels were compensating for a cooler Sun and some were actually producing a warmer climate.

    As for the rate of increase, yes it is currently perhaps the fatsest in Earth's history. Some numbers.

    • Current CO2 concentrations are rising at a bit over 2 ppm/yr
    • CO2 concentration over a Glacial cycle changes by around 100 ppm over perhaps 10-20,000 years. So 0.005 to 0.01 ppm/yr
    • A period around 55 million years ago called the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is regarded as the point in the past most analgous to today. A large, geologically rapid release of CO2 & Methane occurred and temps climbed 5-8 Deg C. Recent research by Lee Kump and colleagues has obtained a good estimate for the release of CO2 back then - it occurred over around 20,000 years. We are raising CO2 levels today 10 times faster than that. See this report
    • Much of the Coal we burn was laid down during the late Devonian and Carboniferous periods. Perhaps 60 million years. And we are burning this cola up in the space of centuries. Coal that took centuries to be laid down is burnt by us in 1 day. So yes, we are likely releasing CO2 at unprecedented rates.
  20. Glen Tamblyn

    Thanks for taking the time to provide such interesting and useful information.

  21. Ok, I asssume this forum will be eager to slap this down but I am honestly trying to do the math based on geological evidence. First, there is little doubt that the recent Co2 increases can be attributed to anything else but human impact. What i don't get is that the math doesn't seem to add up to any serious problem unless measured in Ma.  I will use an average increase of 10% per year based on the numbers in the original header. I note that the Dacaan traps are briefy cited in one of the posts. Dewey M Mclean in his 1985 paper, " Deccan Traps Mantle Degassinging the Terminal Cretaceous Marine Extinctions," has established the mechanism of volcanic outgassing being the proximate cuase of several mass extinctions(besides the one cited in this paper). This theory has now largely surplanted the impact theory and should rightly be taken as a blue print of how excess Co2 could cuase mass extinction events. The problem I am having in looking at the numbers is trying to understand why the current increase is seen with such alarm and portrayed as immently catstrophic in affects. If you read this paper, you will see that he asserts that this geological event increased the rate of annual Co2 outgassing over baseline by 10-25% . This increase is comparable if you take his lower number and far greater if you take the higher numbers. Becuase of the intermittent periods of eruptive events of the traps, the anual numbers probably ran up and down this scale of averages. Still the mean increase would be substantialy higher than the modern rate of increase. The problem I have with these numbers comes down to this: this paper asserts that these increase took place in a .53-1.32 Ma time frame. For the sake of simplicity, lets use 1,000,000 years as a round number.  I just can't imagine what is so different now about the earth that it could handle 1,000,000 years of continual co2 increase before pitching a fit, but now is only seen as capable of going only a few hundred years before an extinction event is seen looming. Help me out here.

  22. pheidius @371, the background rate of natural emissions of CO2 over the last several million years has been 0.09 Gt C per annum.  That compares with a current rate of industrial emissions of 8.2 Gt C per annum.  That is, rather than a 10-25% increase of emissions, there has been a 90 fold and counting increase.  If you feed that into David Archer's GeoCarb model by setting the transition CO2 spike to 0, and the simulation CO2 degassing rate to 682.5 x 10^12 mol/yr, then look at the result after a million years, you will see that the CO2 concentration is still increasing linearly after a million years.  Effectively, the current rates of emissions of CO2 are so high that they cannot be stabilized by geophysical processes.  Only be radically reducing emissions can we stabilize.

    In contrast to the current rate of anthropogenic emissions, a 25% increase in the base background rate of emissions (simulated by setting the degassing rate to 9.4) results in an atmospheric increase to only 510 ppmv after a million years.  Importantly, after 500 years there has only been an increase in CO2 concentration from 273 to 276 ppmv, and a corresponding temperature increase of 0.1 C.  In contrast, in half that time, from 1850-2100, anthropogenic emissions will raise CO2 levels and temperatures by approximately the equivalent of a million years of Deccan traps outgassing.

    What makes this fact worse is that species adjust to changes in temperatures either by migration or adaption.  For most species the potential for migration is low, and the speeds of migration are slow.  For some species, at high altitudes or at the poles, there is no potential for adjusting by migration at all.  Species in those regions face a future of extinction as better migration by species better adapted to the new, warmer conditions results in their being out competed in the areas they formerly dominated.

    For those species that must rely on adaption, we face the conumdrum that evolution is slow relative to human scales, though rapid in geological terms.  An indication of how slow evolution is is the fact that many humans are still ill adapted to diets high in milk (lactose intolerance) or grains (glutten intolerance) 12 thousand years after the invention of agriculture.  As it happens, most species are currently adapted to conditions colder than those that prevailed pre-industrialization.  That follows from the slow pace of adaption and the fact that just 10 thousand years ago the world was much colder for 100 thousand years.  So, for adaption, species are already behind the eightball.  And now they are faced with the prospect of adapting to a million years of warming in just 250 years.

    Given these facts, it is probable that the current anthropogenic warming will result in extinctions far greater in number than those caused by the Deccan traps.

  23. I admit to some difficulty with Mclean's math as he was using moles as a measurement while current measurements use ppm(petagrams). I could not find any online calculator as moles and metric measurements are apples and oranges. He cites the figure of 5 x 10 to the 17th moles of co2 as the total Deccan release. I made that out to be 500,000,000,000,000,000(500 quadrillion moles). He gave a current mean figure of 4.1 x 10 to the 12th moles as the annual realease from all sources. (410,000,000,000 410 billion moles) At first, I thought I would try to convert from moles to the modern atomic unit by dividing by 12 and then trying to convert to ppm but then got muddled into thinking I could just multiply the moles by 1,000,000 to get PPM. Then I got tired and decided to post in the forum before going further. So how does Maclean's  1985 math fare against more recent calculations?

  24. As a footnote to the above, I am reading another paper, "An Atmospheric pco2 Reconstruction across the Cretaceous_Tertiary Boundary from Leaf Megafosils."  This paper compromises the usual bolide vrs. outgassing argument by accepting the linear increase from the Daccan traps but postulates a bolide colision as well that threw 4,600 GT c into the air rasing the ppm from 500 PPM to 2,300 ppm in only 10,000 additional years. I think were the two authors to duke it out in person, Mclean would argue that 500 PPM was the tipping point where the carbon sinks failed causing the rapid rise and consequent extinction while the author(s) of this other paper argue that another cause was neccssary for such a quick and dramatic increase.


  25. pheidius, 1 mole of CO2 contains 12 grammes of carbon.  Thus, 5 x 10^17 moles of CO2 equals 60 x 10^17 grammes, or 6,000 petagrammes of Carbon.  A petagramme is also a Gigatonne, so 6,000 petagrammes of Carbon is 6,000 Gigatonnes of Carbon.  4.1 x 10^12 moles equals 49.2 x 10^12 grammes, or 0.0492 Gigatonnes Carbon.  In contrast, the IPCC cites a value of 9.5 Petagrammes of Carbon (or Gigatonnes of Carbon) in 2011.  Given the large discrepancy, it is likely the figure you cite from McLean is an estimate of natural emissions only.

    The unit, ppm does not stand for a given mass of CO2, but for part per million, ie, a concentration of the gas within the atmosphere.  Strictly what is called ppm in climate science is actually ppmv, ie, parts per million by volume - ie, the ratio of numbers of molecules in the atmosphere rather than the ratio of the total mass of each component of the atmosphere.   Given the mass of the atmosphere, 2.13 Gigatonnes of Carbon = 1 ppmv of CO2.  However, about half of all emissions are taken up by the ocean or biosphere rather than staying in the atmosphere.

  26. I also read the second figure in question to be natural output. He phrased it as "the modern mean annual rate of Mantle co2." So I have the concepts but got led astray by dividing by 12 in my attempt to get to the modern atomic weight and then try to convert that when all I had to do was multiply by 12.  So 6,000 GT divided by 2.13 would mean a theoretical atmospheric input of 2817 ppmv over that (plus minus) 1,000,000 million year time period  less whatever the Earth's carbon sinks could then reabsorb. Mclean strongly implied a weaker feedback mechanism in describing the ocean's of the day as being warm, deep and with slugish circulation. So a conservative number might be closer to 40%. That would imply the the ppmv towards the end of the period was around 2012 ppmv.   The other author'(s) paper, however, stated that the ppmv was pretty consistant at around 350-500 ppmv until, right at the KT mark, it shot up to 2300 ppmv. Darn: it would seem both of these sources can't be right.   I was looking, in all of this, for an aproximation of the tipping point when the ocean's heatsink mechanism just shuts down. It would seem all the author's numbers agree about ppvm being roughly in the  2000-23000 range indicating dead oceans below at the end of the sequence. The Ma period numbers preceding are wildy divergent. The second paper looked for 4600 Gt to be thrown up by an impact to get to 2300 ppmv.

    4600Gt divided by  the current anthrogenic number of 8.2 is 560 years to dead oceans.  That is worrysome indeed, but I wish there was more consensus on the background data as there seems to be on current data. In both of the papers I cite, the ppmv figures in the long term neatly support each author's hypothesis but both can't be correct. One would think peer review would catch major discrepencies such as these. Thanks for the help. I am just a laymen who can read fairly technical data but strugeles a bit with the math.


  27. pheidius @376, I am unable to comment further unless you do in fact cite the two papers, ie, either list their names, authors, date and journal of publication; or provide a link to the abstract including those details.

  28. Hi,
    Sorry about the delay but, yes, the papers are available. I would have included them at the onset but I was confused by the insert and source tabs. The Mclean paper is available on this page  as a pdf on a link called McLean (1994)

    The second paper I referenced is here


    I have mulled over the discrepancy because its magnitude is glaring. The pertinent facts, as I see them, are that while both camps seem to agree that a ppmv of 2000-2300 marked the bitter (acidic) end of the line at the KT boundary E.G. dead oceans, they clearly disagree on the ppmv preceding the heat sink's 10, 000 year collapse. Mclean's numbers would indicate a millennium long sharply punctuated yet steady uptick where the second author(s) see a steady 350-500 ppmv for the Ma and only then see a massive jump in the final 10,000 years.

     I think I see a possible way to explain this difference. In doing further research, I am seeing some current rump climatology research, which undermines a critical assumption that Mclean may have used. The current working assumption, in most climatology models, is that the Earth reabsorbs around 50% of the Co2 emitted and that the remainder is added to the heap, as it were, thus causing an ever increasing ppmv. This may be a key assumption that Mclean did not question and used in the exposition of his model. The other authors used a more direct measurement of ppmv for the Ma(the size of leaf stomata). This would support the rump research, which postulates that the Earth’s sinks absorbs Co2 regardless of the amount emitted, keeping the ppmv in the 300-500 ranges.

     I am trying to ground my take on this on the older and longer data sets.  In comparing the two sides, one used an assumption to approximate ppmv for the Ma in question while the other used a form of indirect measurement that has wide acceptance in the field of geology. This brings me back to the salient question with which I began.  The Ma preceding the KT boundary extinction event saw 10-25 % higher co2 levels annually yet the ppmv fluctuated between 350-500.  I understand the risks involved in a 90 percent annual increase yet I am struck by the fact that the second set of author(s) paper required the instantaneous release of 4600 Gt on top of 1,000,000 years of a 25 % increase before the sinks failed catastrophically over a period of 10, 000 additional years.  In terms of percentages, the 90 Gt number which you described, as a 90 % increase over baseline constitutes only a .019 % annual increase relative to the near instantaneous increase wrought by 4600 gt.(not to mention the other colossal atmospheric effects of a bolide collision).  

    I am, by no means, taking a hard and fast position here. I do see another unquestioned assumption as well as other implied and, as of yet,  unexamined data sets and models in the position taken by the second paper for the need for an additional 4600 Gt to precipitate disaster.   I will have to reread this paper carefully and look closely for the source(s) of this modeling.

  29. Is anything in this link useful information?  Thanks.


    [TD] No, not a single thing.  Really.  For each of the arguments that page makes, you can find the actual scientific evidence summarized in a Skeptical Science post.  EIther use the Search field at the top left of any Skeptical Science page, or click the View All Arguments link next to the thermometer below that, or click the Arguments link in the blue horizontal bar at the top of any Skeptical Science page.  Note that most posts have different levels of detail in different tabbed panes--Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced. Here are just a few examples:  "It's the Sun," "It's Cosmic Rays," "We're Heading Into an Ice Age," "We're Coming Out of the Little Ice Age."  (Okay, Skeptical Science does not have rebuttals for all the contentions made in that page; we don't have a rebuttal to the contention that the Earth will stop rotating and then start rotating in the opposite direction.  Here's an answer to that one:  That would happen only if a planet-sized body smashed into the Earth, offset from the center, and in the direction opposite the Earth's spin.  But if that happens, I'm perfectly willing to stop worrying about CO2 levels.  Because I'll be dead.  Along with everything else.)

  30. " The current working assumption, in most climatology models, is that the Earth reabsorbs around 50% of the Co2 emitted and that the remainder is added to the heap, as it were, thus causing an ever increasing ppmv."

    This is an extremely simplistic and short term view of carbon cycle modelling, and only true for very short term (around 100 years). Both modelling and paleoclimate studies point to significant positive carbon cycle feedbacks as sinks are saturated. You might like to look at:

    Le Quere, C., C. Rodenbeck, E.T. Buitenhuis, T.J. Conway, R. Langenfelds, A. Gomez, C. Labuschagne, M. Ramonet, T. Nakazawa, N. Metzl, N. Gillett, and M. Heimann, Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink due to recent climate change, Science, 316 (5832), 1735-1738, 2007.

    Schuster, U., and A.J. Watson, A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North Atlantic, J. Geophysical Res., 2007.

    Ultimately, as the oceans warm, they outgas CO2.

  31. Actually for a good look at current understanding of carbon cycle and its evolution, look at Chp6 (esp 6.4) in the just released IPCC AR5.

  32. You also cite "some current rump climatology research". This is a curious term. Could you perhaps give some cites for this "rump" research?

  33. This is a major point made repeatedly by my "opponent" one which I'd like answered as well if at all possible. Thank you again for your time.


    "The period that we were talking about is the Younger Drayas / Preboreal

    Which in conjunction means that we are talking of the transition from the Younger Drayas to the Preboreal.

    This is an example of a D-O event. (Everyone calls them that because the names of the original people Dangaard -Oestinger? are hard to say/remember).

    The point of that is that there have been THOUSANDS of these transitions. They occur every 1100-1500 years.

    Think with common sense for a minute. If these transitions have been occuring every roughly 1500 years for thousands and thousands of years.

    If that is true - why do you think THIS temperature change is man caused? Especially since we are roughly due for a transition? Remember these temperature changes have been seen for more several tens of millions of years - and in none of them were men around to cause the change.

    In all of them, the CO2 levels changed; the atlantic and the pacific oscillations occurred.

    In addition to that, Al Gore ( has basically said that the temperatures the earth is seeing now is unprecedented. This is just simply factually untrue. Look at the K. ice cores - where we have an unbroken temperature record for like 1,000,000 years. Temperatures *higher* than the ones we see now have been seen every 50,000 years or so.

    Followed by steep plunges in temperature (ie, drops of 12oF). The period of life that we regard as normal is only the very tip of the mountain - most of the time the temperatures of the earth are much, much colder. Hence sabertooth tigers and mammoths.

    Now, regarding the two skeptical science articles about correlation & lag.

    I quite agree that there is a correlation between co2 and temperature. Where I differ is that I do not believe that Co2 is causal.

    But I need to refine that statement again.

    As the vostok cores show (and every other ice core) is that Co2 follows temperature change. Again, this is a simple reflection of Henry's Law - which climate scientists are trying very hard to ignore.

    In that second skeptical science article, they cherry pick exactly *one* transition, that was known to have asymptomatic co2 event to prove therefore that ALL transitions are induced by carbon.

    Thats flat out deceptive.

    Look back to the Quaternary paper I quoted. It claims that it is clear that there are SIX main drivers of climate change - as opposed to AGW -which claims there is only one.

    If you look at the Quaternary paper - as well as others - you will see they claim that the temperature difference attributable to the change in CO2 is between 1.1 and 2.0 degrees.

    (Also many D-O events occur that have precisely that range of temperature changes; as well as the current temperature change).

    The quaternary paper is nowhere near alone in claiming documenting D-O transitions - there are literally hundreds of papers saying the same thing.

    Going back to the skeptical article you quoted (again, not a science paper, but I'll live). Look at the graph. Notice that the temperature change occurred differently in the arctic and the anarctic.

    Doesn't that just scream to you that something is involved other than Co2? Since CO2 distribution is fungible & normal? And indeed - something else IS involved - the ocean water temperatures are huge drivers of climate change.

    Again, even the hansen paper you quoted said that climate change could be caused by orbit shift.

    So contrary to what you have thought, I do not disagree with the fundamental fact that CO2 absorbs in the infrared.

    Contrary to what you may have thought, I do not necessarly believe that Co2 doesn't play some role in global warming. It may.

    But if so, it is one of many drivers of climate forcing.

    And what I said before is still true - the role of co2 outside the troposphere and the effects of carbon migration through the atmosphere are mostly unknown, and that nasa has documented that CO2 in the upper atmsphere cools the planet.

    And the effects of aerosols - as one of your skeptical articles alludes too, plays a much larger role than the AGW accepts. This by the way is the nature of Svenmark's & Cern's & others research."

  34. tkman0 - 'This is a major point made repeatedly by my "opponent"...'

    Actually, that's an entire series of bad denial myth points, a veritable Gish Gallop. If your 'opponent' has an actual point, please indicate what that is. As it stands you have mentioned the climate has changed before, CO2 lags temperature, the erroneous strawman of claiming that CO2 is the only driver of climate, it's cosmic rays, it's aerosols, and the questionable assertion of repeated D-O events - and I may have missed a few. 

    That is not 'a major point'. It's a shopping list.

    I hate to say this, but your posts have increasingly taken on the appearance of presenting your own opinions, not those of an 'opponent', ramping up in absurdity as initial errors are pointed out. I would strongly suggest looking at the list of the Most Used Climate Myths on this website regarding your most recent, and future, posts - it may save some time.

  35. I apologise, they're honestly not my own opinions, despite the fact that I can see how it was mistaken that way. I'm personally debating this guy on a website and these are the points he has sent to me and I'm just seeking a more professional explanation. The "main point" I was trying to point out was his reference to these D-O periods which I have no previous knowledge about. I'm sorry for posting the entire message he sent my way, I'll try to cut it down to the more basic points next time. And the reason why I'm posting these on his behalf is because I'm informing him while learning a lot myself in the meantime. 

  36. Also these D-O periods dont seem to be referenced on the website, which is mainly why I'm asking in a comment, to send him a more specific answer.

  37. tkman0 - Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events occur during glacial periods. The interglacial equivalent is that of Bond events, discussed here. When considering those against recent climate change, however, Bond events are regional (showing in regional records such as Greenland or Antarctic ice cores), and in fact often include warming in one hemisphere (North or South) and cooling in the other. Recent warming is global, which just doesn't match the signature of a Bond event. 

    If your previous posting is any example, your opponent is clearly attempting to throw everything in the 'skeptic' myths but the kitchen sink in the hopes that something will stick. I find that sort of scattershot approach, rather than explaining an objection in detail, to be a signpost of denial - since any individual myth quickly runs aground due to errors of fact.... 

  38. Thank you very much KR, I appreciate the assistance. Tbh ive spent the last little while debating him, and his typical method seems to be to throw as much misinformation out there so that it makes it extremely dificult to debunk each argument on a case by case basis. 


    However he does keep coming back to the fact that just because there is a correlation between CO2 and temp doesnt make it causational. I point to the fact that we have never seen this level of atmospheric CO2 before but he simply denies it. He's largely a lost cause, I'm simply humoring him because it's fun to watch him squirm with the facts thrown at him over and over. I'll try to keep to the articles themselves and only resort to comments when explicitely necessary. Thanks again.

  39. tkman0, I have little to add to KR's comments re Dansgaard-Oeschger events.  I will, however, show this graph from wikipedia:

    The original caption reads:

    "Comparison of temperature proxies for ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland for 140,000 years. Greenland ice cores use delta 18O, while Antarctic ice cores use delta 2H. Note the en:Dansgaard-Oeschger events in the Greenland ice core between 20,000 and 110,000 years ago, which barely register (if at all) in the corresponding Antarctic record. GRIP and NGRIP data is on ss09sea timescale, Vostok uses GT4, and EPICA uses EDC2."

    I, however, want to draw your attention to the radical difference in magnitude in the perturbations due to D-O events durring the last glacial, and those during the Holocene - even in Greenland.  If your interlocuter knows enough to know about D-O events, he also knows about the minimal impact during the holocene of their (possible) equivalents, and that consequently that the current warming in not a D-O event, or a Bond Event

  40. tkman0 @383 quotes his interlocuter as saying:

    "Doesn't that just scream to you that something is involved other than Co2? Since CO2 distribution is fungible & normal? And indeed - something else IS involved - the ocean water temperatures are huge drivers of climate change."

    I am not even sure what your interlocuter is saying when they say "...CO2 distribution is fungible...".  Are they saying that any distribution will have equal effect on climate?  That it doesn't matter whether you have a Venusian or a Martian atmosphere when it comes to climate, its all the same?  That is the literal meaning of what they write.

    As to "... CO2 distribution is ... normal", that is clearly false when "normal" defined by comparison to the last 10 thousand, or indeed the last 5 million years.  That is, you have to go back to a time when the apes whose descendants are modern humans were just differentiating from the apes whose descendants are chimpanzees and gorillas to find a time when that claim is anywhere near correct.

    My primary concern, however, is the last sentence.  Given that ocean temperature is a part of climate, indeed, a major part of climate, that sentence reduces to:

    "Ocean water temperatures are huge drivers of ocean water temperatures"

    or possible:

    "Change in climate is a huge driver in climate".

    Your interlocuter can only avoid the evident circularity of the claim by assuming feedbacks are very large such that any change in ocean temperatures will result in further changes in ocean temperatures in the same direction, and of substantial magnitude.  That is, they must assume climate sensitivity is very large.  Far greater than IPCC values.  Without that assumption, his claim is vacuous due to circularity, and therefore cannot represent a causal relationship.

  41. tkman0, regarding causation, your denier is (irrationally, of course) consciously ignoring the experimental evidence that was woven together to form the theory that was then supported and improved by more experimental and other empirical evidence, and used to build models that unquestionably accurately predicted Earth's temperature trajectory.  Links to that evidence already was pointed out in replies to you.  That behavior is common among deniers.  So you might as well give up on your denier, unless dealing with him is educating or entertaining you.

  42. tkman0 - It's pretty simple. Increased CO2 causes less IR to go to space at any surface temperature (physics, in particular spectroscopy).

    A bit of Milankovitch warming causes the oceans to release some CO2 (temperature/solubility relationship), and considerably more warming results - a release of perhaps 20ppm/degree C - acting as a feedback. Our use of fossil fuels releases a great deal of CO2, and entirely without surprise warming results from that - in this case as a first cause. It doesn't matter whether the cause of CO2 increase is a bit of previous warming and ocean release or the result of millions of SUVs - the spectroscopic result of increased CO2 is that the climate will warm

    Not just correlation, but rather causation from physical principles (Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius all over 100 years ago) - with the correlation observed later (now) just as predicted. 

  43. @Tom Dayton, 

    It's personally very entertaining as odd as that may be. But also I'm learning a LOT in the process, so I hardly see this endeavour as worthless. But thanks for the admice anyway :)

  44. tkman0 @393, given an interest in learning about global warming, I believe that the best approach is to start reading the history of the science.  Here are some good resources from SkS:

    Climate Science History Interactive Tool

    Introducing the History of Climate Science

    The History of Climate Science

    Behind the Lines:  Herschel's Discovery of Infrared

    Two Centuries of Climate Science, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

    You should supplement reading those pages by targetted questions about aspects o the science discussed in the history that you do not understand.  This will give you a far broader knowledge base than answering detailed questions in response to a denier.  It will also show just how narrow is the focus, and how ignorant of the history of the discipline those deniers are when they start denying things proved decades, or even centuries ago.

    Finally, I believe a good, clear explanation of the basic physics helps understand everything more clearly.

    If you try to learn by debates with deniers, you will find they repeat previously refuted claims, contradict themselves and do not have a clear idea of the subject.  Refuting them may be interesting the first time, but it will leave you with an unbalanced understanding of the science.  As it is also the several thousandth time various of the people helping you have refuted those same points, a more sensible approach would be refreshing for them as well ;)

  45. This for me highlights one major problem for sceptics and parents


    As the planet cools into an ice age, CO2 is transported to the deep oceans, helping to cool the planet.  As the planet again warms at the end of an ice age, this CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere, helping the warming process along.  How and why CO2 gets stored and released from the deep oceans is something scientists are still working on.  Increased wind, driving more ocean circulation and changes in marine algae that take in CO2 may be parts of the process.


    From this 'educational' site

    Does this class as misinformation?

  46. Vonnegut, I'm not sure why you would think that might be "misinformation". The only part I'd question is, "How and why CO2 gets stored and released from the deep oceans is something scientists are still working on." It is well established that colder water absorbs more CO2. I suspect what they are questioning is how the CO2 then gets mixed into the deep ocean, but I'd think that would happen inevitably happen over time... leaving the relevant mechanism just the warming and cooling of the water itself.

  47. Vonnegut @395.

    Question 21 on the web page you link to doesn't provide the best answer in the world but the whole exercise is trying to be attractive to kids at the same time as keeping to the straight and narrow. (Thus Question 4. Do people farts contribute to climate change, too?) And it does fail to answer some questions it poses (eg Question 7) despite answers being readily presentable.

    Question 21 is in error by failing to differentiate between CO2 uptake into the oceans (which is mainly a temperature thing) and the transfer of that CO2 into the deep oceans (which is better understood than is suggested by the question). But this isn't the sort of detail you would expect to throw at kids. I see no case for classing it as "misinformation".

    BTW, thank you for the demonstration of how my cold oceans question works with deniers.

  48. So If I understand this correctly, Co2 is released from the oceans with extra heat so the oceans will become more alkaline, or more acid if it gets colder and more co2 is dissolved in the oceans?

  49. Vonnegut:  Not necessarily.  Oceans always release CO2 and absorb CO2--both processes.  Oceans are able to hold less CO2 the warmer they are.  Whether the net effect is more CO2 in than out depends not only on the temperature but on the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2--how much CO2 is in the air.

  50. Vonnegut, of course my answer was only about the really short term in versus out of CO2 from the oceans.  Over longer periods, other processes remove "CO2" (really, the chemical byproducts of CO2) from the ocean into sediments.  That is covered by the OA is Not OK series, and also by other posts such as the place of that process in the even longer period cycling through the crust--explained in "Understanding the long-term carbon-cycle: weathering of rocks - a vitally important carbon-sink."

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us