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 Donate

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


Recent Comments

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

Comments 1 to 50:

  1. The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations

    The Conspiracy Theory Handbook is now also available in Turkish, which marks the 10th available translation of this very helpful handbook!

  2. The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy

    'This' may invalidate the 'choice'? 'We' have ten years? “ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
    33:33 per barrel available for the global
    33:36 economy was about eight percent
    33:38 and that in over the next few years it
    33:42 will go down to zero percent
    33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
    33:46 actually the
    33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
    33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
    33:56 but there are ways and means of
    33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side\
    34:00 here on our diagram\
    34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely\
    34:05 around 2030 . . .\
    34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes\
    34:46 down to zero
    34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
    34:50 collapse of the oil industry
    34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
    34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
    34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “
    Louis Arnoux.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You have been warned before about posting comments that consist of little more than quoted material. You are skating on thin ice, approaching violation of the comments policy.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.


  3. wilddouglascounty at 23:36 PM on 10 April 2021
    The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy

    It seems to me that this article does an excellent job of describing the complexities of what true equity is and where the inequalities exist in the regional, national and international spheres. Alas, these well described complexities could also be used to argue precisely the opposite conclusion: that the inertia that arises from built in reinforcements for the advantaged that are inherent in those inequalities is the primary reason things have not changed in a timely fashion so far. So if we want to be able to change things, we must work within the framework of inequality in order to make it worthwhile for those who have concentrated power and resources to adopt the low carbon economy required to reduce carbon emissions.

    I'm not trying to defend the inequalities that have been created through the fossil fuel economy; indeed these inequities make it even more difficult not to see the transition to a low carbon economy as yet another way for those with power to retain it. But I believe we are in an "all hands on deck" time if we are to avoid an even more dire future, meaning that we need to enlist those who benefit from inequity alongside those on the short end. The "haves" have unfortunately but predictably been reluctant to redistribute the concentrated wealth that comes hand in hand with a fossil fuel economy but it will be easier to attain the common good of a low carbon economy if they can be allies instead of barriers. The 'haves' have already shown a willingness to create a 'gated community' version of the future where the 'haves' increase inequality in order to maintain their power, leading sometimes to violence and more/new forms of inequity. Some countries have used governments to reinforce the concentration of economic power in the form of totalitarian/fascist repression, while other countries have used their governments to spread the wealth more equitably. But this has been difficult to maintain considering that all governments are responsive to their own sources of their power and find concentrated power irresistable.

    As we look at the technological and cultural challenges of transforming to a low carbon future through such endeavors as Project Drawdown, I think we need to devote similar attention to the barriers that are caused by the concentration of political and economic power that goes with it. Change does not occur unless the barriers to change are removed, no matter how attractive the alternatives are. The barriers to a low carbon future are intertwined with the barriers to equity and I daresay that even if we can remove enough barriers to create a low carbon future, we will find the barriers to equity even more resistant.

  4. There is no consensus


    You may find it informative to read the American Meteorlogical Society's author information web page. They publish several highly-respected journals in various specialities in atmospheric science.

    The review process is described here:

    ...and what they expect from editors and reviewers is here:

    A couple of Skeptical Science pages on peer review:

    The second of those links shows a case where "skeptic" scientists basically did what they keep accusing the mainstream scientists of doing. Another blog post on the same story can be found at ThinkProgress:

    Two more examples of misbehaviour at journals:

  5. There is no consensus

    BaerbelW @893

    Thanks for the links.  This will definitely add to my toolbox!

  6. There is no consensus

    Karlengle @892

    Have you browsed our TCP homepage about (esp.) our consensus-related studies yet? I'm fairly certain that we by now have answers for all the various attacks lobbed by the usual suspects at them. Most will be answered in the FAQs and others in one of several blog posts and rebuttals published over time and listed a bit further down on the homepage. And there's also The Consensus Handbook with even more information!

  7. There is no consensus

    Tom Dayton, Thanks for the insight into the peer review process!  Sounds pretty grueling... 

    I was asking because one of the main responses I get from deniers when I give the studies on consensus, are links to notable deniers going into details on their own reviews about the studies always claiming a smoking gun of trickery and deception on these studies.  One usually has to get pretty deep in the weeds to dispel those.  I always look for the simpler explanation that makes sense to the possible audience of my discussion.  I've usually given up on convincing the other person, but I want to always frame my arguments to appeal to those with a cursury interest and not get mired in the snowing attempts from deniers.  It would be good to argue that denier biased "reviews" of studies are not reliable, and the scientific peer review process is much better at catching bad science.

  8. Skeptical Science to expand impact as 501(c)(3) non-profit

    Congratulations on becoming a 501(c)(3)! For all the reasons you presented so clearly, this will empower your organization to have a much bigger impact. The work you are doing is brilliant and essential—and helping to empower many, many others to become forces for change.

    I look forward to seeing your "Theory of Change". Having worked for several years facilitating transformational change leadership with nonprofit organizations, I deeply appreciate how vital it is to embody a clear understanding of how to drive real change, no matter what arena it may be in. And if there is any issue where transormational change is desperately needed--climate change is it!! Kudos to Skeptical Science for taking this step!!

  9. prove we are smart at 17:27 PM on 9 April 2021
    The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy

    This article puts words to my thoughts. An example here in the Upper Hunter Valley,with my local NSW state govt here in Aust unwilling to unshackel from its fossil fuel donations and an election in under 6 mths. The local populace are very pro mines, so a losing stratergy for any politic party if anti coal. People want action on climate change but not if it is too disruptive, ha .   Sometimes I think we get the leaders we deserve- not the leaders we need..

  10. There is no consensus

    Note there is more the Naomi Oreskes paper here. It is not clear to me from the context whether the Oreske article was peer-reviewed. Editorial-type and some review pieces in Science journals are not always peer-reviewed, though papers are in Science. However, the Oreske paper was in section called "essays on science and society". Since it was presenting an actual analysis rather than comment, I would guess "yes", but it isnt that clear.

    The Oreske conclusion is not substantively different from other peer-reviewed studies of consensus however. It is extremely difficult to challenge the conclusion that a very strong scientific consensus on AGW exists from the evidence.

  11. There is no consensus

    Karlengle: Perhaps I misunderstood your question. I thought you asked to see the peer reviews of the publications. Are you instead asking how to tell whether a given publication was peer reviewed?

  12. There is no consensus

    Karlengle: "Peer review" of submissions for scientific publication usually is done double blinded--the reviewers don't know who the authors are, and vice versa. Authors are given the reviews regardless of the final decision of acceptance or rejection by the journal or conference. For many decades, those reviews remained private, as a way to support frankness. But some publications are changing the model to open reviews.

    (In fact, at this very moment, I am in hour 10 of 12 hours of a conference subcommittee meeting--fortunately three sessions of four hours. All 37 subcommittee members are watching discussions of each submitted paper by two of those members, summarizing each paper's review by them plus by two to four reviewers who are not on the subcommittee. Substantial effort went into carefully recruiting those two to four external reviewers, curating discussions among those reviewers to clarify disagreements in their reviews, and crafting demanded or suggested revisions to the authors.)

  13. There is no consensus

    Hi, I have a question about peer reviews.  Are there lists somewhere that show who has peer-reviewed studies/papers being mentioned?  For example, I have been searching for peer reviews of Naomi Oreske's consenus study, but I'm not having any luck?  Any places you can point me to?  When offer these studies at online discussions, I invariably get linked to critiques given by bloggers.  Of course, these bloggers, being climate deniers offer all sorts of claims of dishonesty and bad studies, but it seems like if these studies where peer reviewed, those reviews would hold much more water than a denier blogger with no real expertise in climate science...

  14. CO2 is plant food


    Hi johnd,

    CO2 is not the basic buidling block for a carbon based life.

    CHNOPS, which stands for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, represents the six most important chemical elements whose covalent combinations make up most biological molecules on Earth.

    Carbons ability to hybridize orbitals is the key factors here, not the CO2 molecule.

    It's also Carbon's capability of forming a vast number of compounds, more than any other element, with almost ten million compounds described to date. Carbon's widespread abundance, its ability to form stable bonds with numerous other elements, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables it to serve as a common element of all known living organisms. Carbon is important because of its ability to form long chain-like molecules (carbon chains form the backbone of organic molecules.

    Finally, consider the abundance of carbon in the universe ( 4,600 ppm in the universe) versus the next group 14 element silicon (650 ppm in the universe) and you see that carbon has a  unique abilty  to hybridize its S and P electron shells, thus making 4 electrons of equal energy level, this proptery of carbon really was the only way to achieve a carbon based life here on earth. Why? Because carbon can form stable bonds with itself, but also with a variety of other types of elements. This is why life is "carbon-based" or predominantly carbon.

  15. CO2 is plant food

    Eclectic @42, @43

    I truly enjoy your responses.  I've learned so much from posting the links and comments from the occasional denialist I run across.

    I told the Canadian to go ask the Midwest farmers if the extra CO2 in the atmosphere helped their flooded fields in 2019 and the econimic impact it cost.   I suggested that while he's at it, please ask the CA farmers if the extra CO2 in the atmosphere helped their drought stricken crops last year and to explain how climate change impacted these events.

  16. CO2 was higher in the past

    Robert Murphy#46 
    "And that is true, except it says nothing at all about CO2 levels." From: 'The Undesigned Universe' - Peter Ward
    “ . . . it>
    62:26 is these ocean state changes that are
    62:28 correlated with the great disasters of
    62:30 the past impact can cause extinction but
    62:35 it did so in our past only once that we
    62:38 can tell whereas this has happened over
    62:40 and over and over again we have
    62:42 fifteen evidences times of mass
    62:45 extinction in the past 500 million years
    62:48 so the implications for the implications
    62:51 the implications of the carbon dioxide
    62:52 is really dangerous if you heat your
    62:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic
    62:58 to melt if you cause the temperature
    63:01 gradient between your tropics and your
    63:03 Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
    63:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen
    63:11 sulfide pulses “

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You have been warned before about posting comments that consist of little more than quoted material. You are skating on thin ice, approaching violation of the comments policy.

    The comment you claim to be responding to (#46) was posted in 2011. Do you really expect to be engaging in discussion with that participant?


  17. CO2 is plant food

    Perhaps rather than considering that CO2 as being plant food it is more exact to describe it as the basic building block of a carbon based life form, given all life as we know it is just that.

    Typically, 99% of the human body consists of six elements, oxygen 65%, carbon 18.5%, hydrogen 9.5%, nitrogen 3.2%, calcium 1.5%, and phosphorus 1.0%. which explains why when the human body combusts, so too with most other materials, all that is left is carbon.

  18. CO2 is plant food

    TVC15 @#40 ,

    the Canadian denialist has linked to an "amusing" website article showing :- 

    (A) "Plants have been starved for CO2 at the low levels existing before the industrial revolution".    (Which would be why the South American Amerindians have dwelt in semi-arid wastelands for thousands of years rather than discovering the lush vibrant Amazonian Jungle ? )

    and (B) "Mankind has been living on the edge of extinction with low levels of atmospheric CO2"  . . . since all (terrestrial?) plants die if atmospheric CO2 falls below 150ppm.

    I gather that under experimental conditions, plants can survive with less than 150ppm CO2  ~  but this is confounded by many other associated factors that would apply in a real world situation (including very extensive glaciation).

    See my comments in #34 above.

    But the very low CO2 scenario is moot because of recent anthropogenic CO2 emission.   Without current human emissions, the planet would have continued for millions of years before reaching below the 150ppm mark.  During that time, "assisted" or natural evolution would likely produce plants adapted to low CO2.  Assuming that the humans of the future would decide not to burn a few gigatons of coal occasionally . . . or chose not to use heat to decompose calcium carbonate rock.

    Humans "on the edge of extinction"  is alarmist hogwash.

  19. CO2 is plant food

    TVC15  @#40 ,

    undeniably, CO2 is a plant food, and the increased planetary greening is of benefit to insects and goats.  Whether the general increased greening is to be beneficial to humans, is an arguable point (see the Lead Article, above).

    Also note that some of the greening in India has come from increased irrigation, and some of the greening in China has come from extensive governmental tree-planting programs.

    And the greening of past decades may be plateauing out ( I do not have a convenient citation for that).

    What is amusing, is how so many prominent denialists will vehemently [and correctly] assert that nearly all life on Earth is supported by the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere . . . yet, minutes later, they will assert that the atmospheric level of CO2 is simply too tiny to affect Earth's climate.

  20. An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature

    Crashed: That sentence is an attempted summarization. Would it be clearer if it were expanded to "...rather than examining only noisy short-term temperature data, we should remove the effects of those other factors on temperature so we can estimate the effect of CO2 alone, then examine how much atmospheric CO2 is increasing."

  21. An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature

    Crashed @14 ,

    Quite right.  And it goes in the opposite direction, too  ~  some "skeptics" say well-established physics theory (e.g. gravity causing downward acceleration, or CO2 radiational properties causing planetary warming) must be false because whatever-it-is  has not yet happened.  Or more precisely: has not yet happened "enough"  to impress them to a drastic extent.

    Rather like the tale of the Optimist who fell off the top of the Empire State Building  ~  "25 floors and okay so far . . . 28 floors and okay so far . . . 32 floors and okay so far . . . "

    Until the final predictable Splat  onto the pavement, the Optimist refuses to make a realistic assessment of the overall situation.

    You see that sort of thing very often with "skeptics"  ~  the globe isn't warming (enough) . . . the ice isn't melting (enough) . . . the sea-level rise can't accelerate ( because  it didn't do so during the previous century).   And they turn the logic inside out, to claim this proves AGW & climate science must be fake.

    Crashed ~ if you could analyse & explain that sort of stupid thinking, I would be very grateful !

  22. An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature

    Some skeptics have claimed that these projected amounts of warming have not been borne out in the surface temperature changes over the past decade. But there are many factors which impact short-term global temperatures, which may conceal the long-term warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. So if we want to know if the IPCC projections are realistic, rather than examining noisy short-term temperature data, we should examine how much atmospheric CO2 is increasing.


    That is not really helpful. When you break it down what it says is... some skeptics might say that what's happening on the ground doesn't reflect the theory, so for that, we use the theory to proove that what didn't happen will happen in the future.

    You cant use what we expect to see in the future as a rebuttal against what we haven't seen in the past, that seems like abit of a fallacy.

  23. CO2 is plant food

    Ops I meant Canadian denier. 

  24. CO2 is plant food

    The climate deniers are getting out of hand here in the US.

    I have a Canidain denier trying to covince me that CO2 is plant food and good for the earth.  He proceeds to back his beleif by posting this on LinkedIn.  

    …CO2 is Greening Planet Earth…


  25. Daniel Bailey at 09:27 AM on 6 April 2021
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate

    Sigh.  If only people would stop checking their cerebral cortex at the border to Denierstan: people live in the troposphere, not the thermosphere.

    I know they both start with "t", but that's all they have in common.

    From NASA scientist Martin Mlynczak:

    "There is no relationship between the natural cycle of cooling and warming in the thermosphere and the weather/climate at Earth’s surface. NASA and other climate researchers continue to see a warming trend in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface."

    "Observations have shown that solar flare activity on the surface of the Sun is in the quiet phase of its continuing 11-year cycle. This causes cooling of the thermosphere—a layer of the atmosphere that starts 65 miles above the surface—and will not cause noticeable cooling at the surface"


    Please surprise us by demonstrating some actual skepticism.

  26. Rob Honeycutt at 07:38 AM on 6 April 2021
    CO2 is not the only driver of climate

    Well, Likeitwarm... I'd say that's one seriously ludicrous piece of writing you've linked to there. 

    It's a long Gish-gallop of anti-science, so was there any specific point contained in it that you'd like to see addressed? If you don't narrow it down a little it would require a very long response to debunk the loads of crap written on that page.

  27. CO2 is not the only driver of climate

    Hi.  Neophyte here again and I do consider myself that, but I keep trying to learn.

    I think this'll be on topic, but possible it should be under "it's the sun". Sorry if I made a mistake.

    I ran into this article:

    Let me know what you think of it.  I'll keep reading.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link activated.

    The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.

    ...and pay attention to Rob Honeycutt's comment, along with the portion of the Comments Policy that states:

    No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.


  28. Philippe Chantreau at 08:23 AM on 5 April 2021
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    MA Rodger,

    It may be too late for that. Down the comment thread at NTZ she seems to argue against space being a heat sink.

    Other commenters refer to G&T as if it held any value.

    It seems NTZ is every bit as much a waste of time as WUWT.

  29. Clock is running on our reliance on vegetation as a steady 'carbon sink'

    The new netflicks movie Seaspiracy makes the point that killing off the bigger fish eventually reduces the ability of the Ocean to sequester CO2.

  30. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Rob Honeyutt @434,

    Even though Zoe Phin's credentials are not that of a climatologist, I would suggest her work providing the basis for the 'article' presented @431 (her work is set out here) is so poor, she should approach her college and ask for her money back. Evidently her education has entirely failed.

    What Zoe Phin manages to show is no more than "Look!! Lots of numbers with decimal points. So I'm right and AGW is fake!!!" Or in her own  baseless words "The greenhouse effect hypothesis is simply incorrect and should be abandoned for the sake of empirical science."

    The first table of numbers presented by Zoe Phin are presumably taken from CERES and shows that high, uppermid & lowermid clouds have increased through the period 2003-19 while low cloud shows no statistical trend. However I don't see any use of this data within the analysis provided.

    The second and third tables (again presumably from CERES but quite where from CERES is a different matter as this is modelled data not measured data) shows annual global average values for surface upward & downward IR and TAO upward for clear-sky/all-sky and with/without areosols. These numbers are not the sort of thing that can be measured globally and further are a ridiculously good fit with GISS annual global average SAT which shows to anybody with half a brain who thought to examine them that the values are modelled numbers not measured numbers.

    The extent of the analysis provided by Zoe Phin is simply to compare the 2003-19 averages of these annual global average IR numbers and declare the upward surface IR do not vary enough between clear-sky/all-sky for clouds to play any role in any greenhouse effect. Thus Zoe declares AGW must be fake.

    The averaged clear-sky/all-sky TOA upward IR numbers vary by 25Wm^-2, enough to provide 20% of a theoretical +33ºC greenhouse effect, not a million miles from what would be anticipated. But the analysis dismisses the relevance of TOA IR. We are told "Less top-of-atmosphere outgoing radiation doesn’t cause surface heating."  So what does less energy leaving the planet do? Where does the energy that is now failing to exit planet Earth go? These are the questions Zoe Phin needs to answer before she continues to make a total fool of herself.

  31. Rob Honeycutt at 06:29 AM on 3 April 2021
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    I would note that Zoe Phin's credentials are "B.S. Economics, M.S. Quantitative Finance, 10-year Wall Street veteran"

    These are most certainly excellent degrees and experience to have, but they are far from what you would want to rely on for topics like, changes in planetary energy balance and the earth's greenhouse effect.

    When you need an expert in economics and finance, you certainly don't go looking for a phycisist or a climate scientist. I'm not sure why people think the reverse is rational.

  32. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Rkcannon, permit me to add a comment, as a non-expert in these matters.   Measuring the alterations in outgoing IR radiation from Earth, is a matter of measuring a very small quantity against the background of a very large quantity.   Rather like measuring your bodyweight on ordinary bathroom scales ~  with and without wearing your wristwatch.   It is hard to get an accurate assessment of the weight of your wristwatch, even though you repeat the measurements daily over many years!

    (Nevertheless, basic physics and common sense do combine to tell you that the wristwatch has a real positive weight, not a negative or zero weight.)

    Taking a step back and looking at the climate situation :-  over many decades, the observed surface temperature is rising, and the observed Ocean Heat Content is rising, and the observed planetary ice-sheets are melting, and the observed sea-evel is rising.   And these changes are in accord with our understanding of radiational basic physics, too.

    So only a fool (or scoundrel) would assert that Global Warming is not occurring.   (Despite the difficulties inherent in a situation of continual variations and distributions of planet-wide cloud types.)

    Speaking of which :- the NoTricksZone  website has an appalling track record of presenting distorted and/or misleading information.   It is clear that "NTZ"  has a strong agenda of presenting disinformation via misquotes and misinterpeting of scientific papers.   Yes, I am making an ad hominem comment ~  and it is a very well deserved ad hom in the case of NTZ  and its chief editor.   Whenever you see something "scientific" reported on NTZ  website, your own proper skepticism should immediately go to Triple Red Alert overdrive status.

    There are several versions of reporting circulating about an initial study (Kramer et al., 2021).    NTZ's  effort mentions a Zoe Phin, who is IIRC one of these "GreenHouse Effect does not exist" people ~  so again, your skepticism should result in a close examination of what's being put forward.  (Unless you wish to dismiss it all as a huge waste of time for you to investigate.  Just as you do when faced with a complicated "proof" of Flat Earth . . . or a new Perpetual Motion Machine . . . or a complicated screed of mathematics supplied by AGW-deniers like Christopher Monckton.)

  33. Philippe Chantreau at 05:22 AM on 3 April 2021
    Increasing CO2 has little to no effect


    If Zoe Phin really thinks she has a better grasp than the Kramer et al (2021) team, she should go hack it in the litterature, I'm sure that GRL would be interested. In the meantime, the Kramer et al study is even more recent than Zoe's blog post, peer-reviewed and published, so it was picked up by the SkS team. It uses the data from CERES, whic includes the ERB instruments. Kramer et al find 0.5 W/sq meter increase just between 2003 and 2018.

    Kramer et al (2021)

    NASA's press release on the paper.


  34. Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

    Can someone please comment on this article?  Why is overall radiation still constant over last couple decades?

  35. Clock is running on our reliance on vegetation as a steady 'carbon sink'

    Seems there is no particular point in planting trees when the planet's principal oxygen producing organisms, phytoplankton, are  being marched off to extinction.

  36. Clock is running on our reliance on vegetation as a steady 'carbon sink'

       This does not seem like new information. Tim Flannery wrote about this in "The Weathermakers". Plant growth from excess CO2 has always produced toughened leaf structures, undesirable phenolics, etc. At the same time, other scientists report increasing losses in oxygen production by phytoplankton, themselves imperiled by  ocean acidification and warming from the CO2 problem...etc.

  37. It's planetary movements

    Likitwarm @7,

    The intervening comment provides answer to the direct question you pose.

    I think it should be added that this correlation you invoke certainly does not imply any causation. This is not because it is but an instance of coincidental curve-fitting, but simply because there is no correlation.

    The measure of Scalar Sum of Angular Momentum which provides one side of the corelation is in the words of its creator "nonsense"  while the other side (already a very poor fit for a correlation,) is but one version of the measure and additionally incomplete in its presentation. Note the prediction of the creator of the graphic.

    "According to this connection, the current warming rate should slow down a little now, but will grow to local maximum arround year 2040, from which point it should drop to next little ice age arround year 2430 and to next warming arround year 2900."

    The "current warming rate" presented runs up to 1979. Has the post-1979 warming rate 'slowed down'? It hasn't. It has done the exact opposite and has been doing so for forty years. Thus the complete presentation of this second side of the correlation results in a very very bad fit.

    Then you do tell us @3, "I think I'm in over my head." You apprear to be correct with that statement.

  38. It's planetary movements

    To further add to Rob's comment, the time scales in which CO2 causes a tempaerature rise, and  a temperature rise causes a CO2 rise are very different.

    For a temperature rise to cause a CO2 rise, you need to wait while ecosystems and oceans slowly adapt to the temperature rise - hundreds to thousands of years.

    CO2 rising from fossil fuel combustion is taking only decades to cause a rise in temperature.

    Time scales are important.

  39. It's planetary movements

    Correlation does imply causation. In fact, correlation is necessary for causation. It's just not sufficient.

  40. It's planetary movements

    Likeitwarm : if I may add to Rob Honeycutt's comment :-

    Your thinking seems muddled and confused.

    A rise in temperature can cause a rise in atmospheric CO2.  And a rise in CO2 can cause a rise in temperature (the last 200 years being an excellent example of that . . . and you can find other examples in the paleo history).   But I suspect you already knew that.

    Just to put things in perspective : the planetary temperature has been falling gradually for about 4,000 years ~ a fall of roughly 0.7 degreesC.   The recent Medieval Warm Period [MWP] and the Little Ice Age [LIA] have been very small blips (around 0.3 degrees up or down) on that background decline.  So the MWP and LIA have been insignificant in comparison with the overall trend since the peak of the Holocene.

    But the modern temperature has now risen far above the MWP and is probably even slightly higher than the previous plateau of the Holocene ( 5-10,000 years ago ).  And it is still rising fast.  The onset of next major ice age (glaciation) was due in around 15-25,000 years' time . . . but is now postponed far beyond that time span.

    Sadly, the movement of the planets Jupiter and Saturn have nix to do with the Earth's climate.  But they may have some influence on your personal life, Likeitwarm ~ if you yourself believe in Astrology.  (Are you a Cancer or a Capricorn perhaps . . . or more likely a Taurus ?   Or perhaps all three ? )

  41. Rob Honeycutt at 05:02 AM on 1 April 2021
    It's planetary movements

    Likeitwarm... No, because there is a definable mechanism for CO2 being the cause of warming. We know CO2 is a long-lived, non-condensing greenhouse gas. We know that other greenhouse gases, like water vapor, are feedbacks (short-lived, condensing GHG's) that respond to changes in temperature.

    You kind of have to look at the whole puzzle, not just the isolated bits.

  42. It's planetary movements

    MA Rodger @6

    Well, I guess that I have perpetrated a case of correlation does not imply causation. I've heard that a lot.  I had a thought on that, doesn't that same principal apply to a rise in temperature just happening to correlate to a rise in CO2? Which is it, CO2 causing the rise in temperature or the rise in temperature causing the rise in CO2 or niether?

  43. Hard-hitting video explains the origins of climate change 'polarization'


    The moderator comment you are looking at (which was entered by me) is in response to deleted contents for comment #2, from jamesh.

    That particular user has been making a habit of posting off-topic responses that are not connected to the topic at hand.

    Anyone is welcome to participate here, according to the Comments Policy that is linked to in the line just below "Post a Comment" when you are logged in.

    Moderator comments appear in green boxes, to distinguish them from general comments from any normal users. They apply specifically to that one comment.

  44. UK is now halfway to meeting its ‘net-zero emissions’ target

    MAR @2, thats unfortunate to hear. You live there so you would obviously know. Looks like the material I was reading some time ago put a rosy glow on things. Still, its important to acknowledge that their leaders have made some progress on at least some things like wind power. Carrot and stick psychology.

  45. Hard-hitting video explains the origins of climate change 'polarization'

    This message is very confusing to me.  Does it means I should erarse this site and just go away?  In the message the moderator uses the word "you" as continuing to do whatever. Does this mean "me?"  

    I don't recall making any comments on this site?  I don't mind leaving it if you want that, or your moderator whats that?  Never saw such a threatening message with mo content to me? 

    My book on climate change sells well in Europe and Asia. I guess I'll post this comment on chat sites there to see if they should abvoid this site as well?  Hope this helps  you get rid of readers.


    "Moderator Response:

    [BL] Despite repeated warnings, you continue to fail to find proper places to discuss items."

  46. Hard-hitting video explains the origins of climate change 'polarization'



    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Despite repeated warnings, you continue to fail to find proper places to discuss items.

    Final Warning

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  47. prove we are smart at 19:48 PM on 30 March 2021
    Biden's executive orders on climate have broad public support

    Nice reading , however in my opinium, until you stop political parties of all persuasions accepting donations/(bribes) as in my Australian example here, the world will still keep warming .

  48. Hard-hitting video explains the origins of climate change 'polarization'

    Would love to hear from folks who did a screening in the US south ... scary thought

  49. It's planetary movements

    Likeitwarm @3,

    You appear to be wanting to convert Semi's assertions into something more than they merit.

    Semi says that the Scalar Sum of Angular Momentum (which even Semi brands as as "nonsense") "seems to match the climatologic events" and also "roughly correspond to human civilization thriving" (although I would suggest Semi demonstrates a pretty poor grasp of the chronology of "human civilisation").

    From that rather weak relational description you are asserting there is a "correlation" (your assertion because Semi does not go so far). And if you examine the data that you assert is correlated (as shown in Semi's Fig 81 on p50), it is far from convincing. And it gets worst. Note the Moberg et at proxy data only reaches to 1979, since when NH temperatures have risen by +1.3ºC. Semi strangely omits the vertical scaling from his graphics, but a quick look at Moberg et al shows his smoothed 2000-year NH proxy reconstruction has a full range of 0ºC down to -0.7ºC meaning if the last 40 years were plotted onto that Fig 81, the NH temperature trace wouldn't just be off the graph, it would be off the page!!

    So I would strongly caution you to ignore all ideas of there being something 'matching' or 'corresponding'  shown and certainly not any correlating.

  50. Daniel Bailey at 02:45 AM on 30 March 2021
    It's planetary movements

    "there is no effect on our climate"

    Likeitwarm, while the Sun can influence the Earth’s climate it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.

    One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing the recent warming of Earth’s surface and ocean comes from looking at the amount of the Sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward or downward overall trend in the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching Earth.

    A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a build-up of heat-trapping gases near the surface of the Earth, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

    It's not the Sun

    Scientists have quantified the warming caused by human activities since preindustrial times and compared that to natural temperature forcings.

    Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth from 1750-2011 are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared.

    By comparison, human activities from 1750-2011 warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676).

    What this means is that the warming driven by the GHGs coming from the human burning of fossil fuels since 1750 is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.

    Radiative forcing of climate 1750-2011

    The reality is, over the past 6 decades of significant global warming, the net energy forcing the Earth receives from the Sun had been very slightly negative. As in, the Earth should be cooling, not warming, if it was the Sun driving the observed warming of the past 6 decades. Does this mean the Sun is dimming? No. Over the centuries, the Sun’s output waxes and wanes between more active periods of time, like during the 1950s and 1960s, and periods when it is very quiet for decades like in the1600s (called a Grand Solar Minimum). However, the difference between the more active periods and the quieter periods isn’t very great and is not by itself long enough or great enough to propel Earth’s climate into either a runaway heating (like happened on Venus) or into an “snowball Earth”. Overall, the Sun has increased its output by roughly 10% per billion years of its life.

    "brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century"


    What this means, in plain English: the warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is 6 times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum.

    Even if a Grand Solar Minimum were to last for a century, global temperatures would still continue to warm. Because the Sun is not the only factor affecting global temperatures on Earth.

    The human forcing is now the dominant forcing of climate, dwarfing all natural forcings combined. Even that from the Sun.

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

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

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