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

Myth Deconstruction

Related resource: Myth Deconstruction as animated GIF

MD Past

Please check the related blog post for background information about this graphics resource.


Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 176 to 200 out of 883:

  1. #174: would it be like these 60-ish year and non-significant fluctuations, discussed by Tamino? There's a good discussion of periodicity and the detection of cycles within. People can pretend that the world's climate is driven by something nicely uncontrollable like planetary movements (climastrology?), but back in the real world, it's the radiative forcings that dominate, and the biggest forcing factor is indeed 'controlled' by humans.
  2. 176 - skywatcher... "climastrology" :-D Tamino should add that to this discussion. Anyway, I have the strong suspicion that 174 is spam... but if you get a reply, it's probably because Mars is exerting a strong influence.
  3. 176, skywatcher, 177, les, Climastrology I like it. It's actually better than mathturbation, and more appropriate (in that mathturbation is clearly an important "skill" needed by climastrologists, but doesn't describe the overall, full version of alchemy in which they indulge). I'd personally like to recommend that we begin using the word where ever it applies... today's post by Dana on climastrologist Syun-Ichi Akasofu being a perfect case.
  4. Turns out I'm not first with the word (bah!) - a google search on 'climastrology' comes up with all sorts of nasty anti-Gore, anti-science stuff. But I would certainly say it fits very well for people who think they can predict climate using some flavour or combination of 'cycles' rather than the well-understood and well-verified radiative physics, just like your example Sphaerica.
  5. Climatologist sighting on the Akasofu thread!
  6. Yes, well if climatologists are anti-science (lets say) than what better term to use to describe the sighting in 180?
  7. What I don't understan is why Mr. Cotton didn't post on the Akasofu thread to protest that his epicycles are more true then those epicycles. I mean, they can't both be right, surely? Without physical reality as the final arbitrator, it should be a good bit of sophistry.
  8. Sorry, I meant climastrologist sighting, not climatologist sighting.
  9. Yes, climate has changed before. When grapes were grown near the Scotish border in Roman times it was probably warmer than when I was there this time last year (in summer) experiencing winds so strong I could hardly open the car door. My arguments are far too detailed to repeat here - see them at and at least note just two things ... (a) Consider the sound physical proof given there that solar insolation contributes a mean of less than 10 degrees whereas over 280 degrees K comes from heat coming through the surface from the core and the crust which warms the lower atmosphere we live in from absolute zero to above 280 deg.K, even at night. So the IPCC "theory" has only those 10 degrees to play with for a start. (b) All the available photons from the sun are already captured each day by water vapour and CO2 etc and there is surplus vapour and CO2 left over. Even what heat goes into the ground is lost again that night. (For example, hot sand on a beach cools at night.) You cannot create energy. Speaking as one who teaches Physics and has marked university assignments, I can assure you that the IPCC argument about this feedback leading to more warming each year is totally incorrect. All feedback only leads to temporary warming and I don't care if 70 odd "scientists" mostly in other disciplines seem to think energy can be created by extra CO2. It can't be. And it isn't. Equilibrium will be established at the level dictated (at least 96%) by the heat flow from the Earth which has natural long-term cyclic variations regulated by the planets by at least three mechanisms explained on my site. THAT is the reason there has been no increase in mean temperatures from Jan 2003 to July 2011 despite increased CO2. Get up to date here: I welcome ANY discussion via my email address on the site, provided you indicate that you have read all that is there.
  10. I would like to see some of our resident deniers comment on DougCotton @184.
  11. #184, how do you quantified the gravitational energy that you claim to be 200,000 times greater than solar energy? What units and what conversions?
  12. Tom@186: Thankfully, I didn't miss this one. I just havvve to read this. Thank you.
  13. DougCotton, it looks like your featured evidence for "global cooling", comparing 2003 to 2011 is cherry-picked. For example in your chart you show that 'the mean for the first half of 2011 was less than the mean for the first half of 2003" and "the mean for the second half of 2010 was less than the mean for the second half of 2003". In your graph linked above there is more support for saying "the mean for the first half of 2010 was significantly higher than the mean for the first half of 2003 and considering that those were both El Nino years, it suggests warming". Your comparison of 2011 to 2003 is not useful since 2003 was El Nino and 2011 was La Nina. You use AMSU sea surface temperatures which are only representative of part of the planet (missing all land) and heavily reflect SST which fluctuates due to ENSO. In fact the AMSU sensor that you use tracks closely to the ICOADS values of actual SST measurements, see figure 1.
  14. Wow, Doug #184 I would like to see one of your physics classes if that is what you teach! It sounds like you are suggesting that planet Earth would be pretty much just fine without the Sun, among other things. Yours is a great comment for any resident skeptics to debunk (good start Eric), as I think they could safely do it without causing damage to their own understandings of the climate system, even if they are not too close to the truth about climate. A starter for 10 - how does Doug's hypothesis account for the poles being markedly cooler than the equator, if most heat comes from within Earth? I might even have to come up with a new term for DougCotton's understanding of climate!
  15. Oddly enough, the theory that most heat comes from within the earth does not contradict GH theory since outgoing LW would still be absorbed by GHGs.
  16. Doug, the heat flux through the earth is of enormous importance to the oil industry since it is a critical component for calculating when sediments with an organic components will produce oil and gas. As a result, it is measured. The heat flux from the core around 0.04W/m2 - 0.06W/m2. Compare this with 300+/W/m2 from sun.
  17. Skywatcher at #189: "Wow, Doug #184 I would like to see one of your physics classes if that is what you teach!" He doesn't- he claims a 4 year degree in physics, and "Extensive subsequent private research and post-graduate studies in Economics, IT, Accounting, Business Administration, Marketing, Climate Change, Nutrition and Natural Medicine". He started something called the "Natural Medicine Research Centre". That doesn't sound promising. He is not a physics teacher, he's an internet scientist.
  18. I come to this debate as a philosopher and science layman. The thing that strikes me is that we have descended into a debate about the truth of facts. Without absolute verification possible in some instances of these facts we can only posit, as all good science eventually does, the most probable circumstance. If this depends on a consensus of scientific opinion, then authority rests with those with sufficient knowledge to debate what is the most probable scenario. In other words, whatever the layman thinks, the expert is the only one with real knowledge. But then another problem arises, endemic to this particular debate. We are talking about scientific theories about systems, not individual facts. The truth of this debate hinges on probabilities about complex totalities, and no consensus can be reached on such contentious grounds. If authority cannot be given to cognoscenti when the very object is too complex to predict or prejudge, then the argument must rest on faith. That is why this issue has sparked so much division and opinion-mongering. In which case, I side with Pascal and his wager. Not knowing the real truth, the total picture with absolute certainty, and having to rest content with mere probabilities about complex systems, it is better to err on the side of caution. If the worst case scenario is no habitable planet then we should opt for a sustainable future.
  19. But kropotkin, consensus has been reached, and the predictions to date have proven accurate.
  20. Tom, To what consensus are you referring? If you mean that temperature have risen globally or that atmospheric CO2 has increased, then yes. But, if you are referring to how much CO2 has contributed to the observed warming, and how much warming we can expect in the future, then I am afraid we have a long way to go to reach a consensus. Predictions have been all over the board, however as any fortune teller or stock broker will say, "make enough predictions, and some will come true."
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Actually the world climatologists are in pretty good agreement about the contribution of the CO2 to the observed warming etc. You may disagree with this, however it is for you to provide evidence to back up your opinion.

    Secondly the projections have not been "all over the board"; the uncertainties of the projections are high; that is not the same thing.

    Now this part of the thread seems to be heading to a point where no progress is likely to be made, and posts become indistiguishable from trolling. So unless you want to provide an evidence based argument with references to sources backing up your position, I suggest we all move onto a more substantive issue.
  21. This is somewhat off topic but it seems that whenever the scientific consensus on AGW comes up the reaction of skeptics is to show that there are some outliers that disagree, thus there is no consensus. Consensus does not require 100% agreement. con·sen·sus    1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month. 2.general agreement or concord; harmony.
  22. I've recently come across a number of arguments suggesting that the ice core CO2 measurements are inaccurate as they can be contaminated or only show CO2 concentrations in one location etc. Is there any charts that show the data of the various ice core datasets laid over each other to demonstrate that they are in agreement with each other as you wouldn't expect the same problems to occur at exactly the same time periods at different locations around the world. Cheers
  23. Fitz, there is an IPCC graph which shows different records overlapping. However, demonstrating that they align wasn't its intended purpose so the resolution is low and the records aren't all identified. The red is atmospheric, the green looks like it is probably Law Dome, and the purple must be Vostok. In any case, see the How reliable are CO2 measurements? page for more info.

    [DB] There is this one; I'll look for others:

    Ice Core CO2


    This one, showing the departure from the natural range of CO2, is a jaw-dropper:



    To paraphrase the Bard:  The Rate's the Thing...

  24. Good grief, DB, where did you get the second graph? I don't recall having seen it. That is almost painful.

    [DB] I collect 'em, like Imelda Marcos does shoes...

  25. That's one heck of a 'natural cycle!' And for those who accept that increasing temperature is necessary for increasing CO2 (the Salby effect), the 'its cooling' meme is blown.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  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 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us