Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
Geomancer at 15:35 PM on 12 January 2026How does global warming affect polar bears?
Eric the Red @5 we now have the benefit of hindsight and new data showing that it's sea ice loss. The U of T Scarborough study demonstrated the direct link between loss of sea ice and loss of caloric intake for the bears and lower survival rate for the cubs in the Western Hudson Bay.
-
Geomancer at 01:49 AM on 11 January 2026At a glance - How will global warming affect polar bears?
The U of T Scarborough study demonstrated the direct link between loss of sea ice and loss of caloric intake for the bears and lower survival rate for the subs. I'm surprised it didn't make a bigger splash.
https://alphasteward.com/climate-change/polar-bears-and-climate-change-current-research-and-population-trends/ -
Geomancer at 13:29 PM on 10 January 2026Fact brief - Are polar bears endangered?
The U of T Scarborough study demonstrated the direct link between loss of sea ice and loss of caloric intake for the bears and lower survival rate for the subs. I'm surprised it didn't make a bigger splash.
https://alphasteward.com/climate-change/polar-bears-and-climate-change-current-research-and-population-trends/ -
Geomancer at 12:10 PM on 10 January 2026There is no consensus
Eclectic @958
There is a market for "railing against the establishment/elites" and somehow science has been bundled into the same category as the loss of middle classs buying power and continued concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, as if they're the same subject. I've lost track how many times I correct someone's mistakes only to be met with "wait, so you're siding with the establishment?" as if facts themselves are irrelevant and we're all just wearing either pro or anti establishment jerseys. People like Petersen have tapped into that lucrative market. I suspect ego plays a huge role as well. To my knowledge he wasn't very influential in his field and didn't publish much. TBH I'm a bit rusty on my Potholer videos I'll check out his Petersen takes. -
Eclectic at 11:30 AM on 10 January 2026There is no consensus
Geomancer @957 :
I have to agree ~ and it is increasingly my impression that, on most subjects, listening to Dr Peterson is a waste of everyone's time.
As I mentioned above, he seems to be sententious and addicted to limelight ~ whether for reasons of ego or for reasons of commercial benefit (or both). A psychologist with a deteriorated level of self-insight. Sad.
You mention Potholer54, and so presumably you have viewed Potholer's two recent videos on Peterson.
I confess that I have not yet discovered any climate science contrarians that would qualify as "smartest contrarians". This is mildly worrying to me, for there (almost surely?) ought to be one or two counter-arguments (even if weak) against the climate science consensus about the observed rapid global warming. But I have not seen any. Please, if you are aware of any sensible valid counter-arguments, I should be most grateful to learn what they are.
For over a decade, I have scanned the website WUWT [the doyen website for propaganda & echo-chambering of climate contrarianism & crackpottery] and I have seen nothing of value there. Except in what we might call a "negative lesson".
-
Geomancer at 10:18 AM on 10 January 2026There is no consensus
Eclectic @953 I have been following Jordan Peterson for years. Outside of his immediate and specific field he is no more informed than someone who has decided to read up on "the contrarian stance," and he selectively interviews subject matter "experts" that push said stance. The only value to be found is to hear what the smartest contrarians are saying.
-
Geomancer at 10:12 AM on 10 January 2026There is no consensus
RicardoB @950 I watched some of it and it recycles the usual talking points. It's not a debate, they're agreeing on denier talking points that aren't even true.
"We're telling developing countries they can't industrialize"
There is no evidence of this, and in fact, there are cleaer ways to industrialize compared to 100 years ago. There's a lot of editorializing, talk of the "powers that be." Not a very scientific conversation. I suggest checking out Potholder 54. -
Geomancer at 04:04 AM on 10 January 2026Climate's changed before
Brainscientist @902:
It's like you didn't even read the post. The difference is we know WHY it's changed in the past, AND we know past climate change has resulted in extinctions. This time around we're causing it AND this time around there are 6 billion humans on the planet, most of them depending on a few bread baskets and many of them living along coasts, both of which depend on stable climates. Climate change is already leading to worsening droughts, floods, fires, etc. Soon we'll see an increase in resource wars.
Moderator Response:[BL] Brainscientist has not been sighted here since his comment nearly a year ago. I doubt you're going to entice him into a discussion.
-
Geomancer at 03:59 AM on 10 January 2026Climate's changed before
It's amazing how in 2026, deniers are still repeating the "climate has changed before, so what's the big deal" non sequitur.
-
nick51 at 04:53 AM on 6 January 2026Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
To amend the pressure readings are:-
50km 0.95 bar approx.
60km. 0.2 bar
70km 0.01 bar. At 75km The lapse rate no longer applies.
80km 0.001 bar.
After 75km the clouds reach their maximum height with the heating of the sun on the equator. Above this height, it is the mesosphere, which extends up to 120km
Moderator Response:[BL}
nick51: Even with these amended numbers your comment at 269 is a rambling, incoherent mess. I find it almost impossible to see what argument you are trying to make, and how it relates to the topic of the OP.
I suspect, but I can't tell, that you are trying to make some sort of argument that follows the rambling of sources such as Nikolov & Zeller, Gerlich & Tscheuschner, or Postma. All of these have been previously discussed - sometimes in this thread, or in other threads here at SkS. You can follow this link to see a debunking of Postma, and there is considerable discussion of Gerlich & Tscheuschner earlier in this thread.
Unless you can provide a coherent argument, there seems to be little point in posting further.
-
Eclectic at 03:34 AM on 6 January 2026Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Philippe Chantreau @270 :
You ask: "What exactly is a pressure of -58 atm ?"
Simples ~ it is a pressure exactly 600% lower than zero.
Or exactly 1500% lower than 1 atm.
btw: the planet has now been renamed as Venuszuela.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
(Excusez lame political joke for first week of Jan'26. )
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:00 AM on 6 January 2026Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
That's some impressive sciency looking stuff. As a non expert in planetary science, I am wondering about that "profile," what exactly is a pressure of -58 atm?
-
nick51 at 00:21 AM on 5 January 2026Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Venus main statistics of the planet.
Size 12,104km
Gravity 8.87 m/s2
Atmosphere co2 96.5%
Clouds circle the planet sulfuric acid
Lapse rate 10.47 K/km
Rotational speed 6.52 km/h
Axis inclination 3 degrees
Energy received from the sun 2,613 W/m2
Super rotational winds (SRW) 100 m/s
Height of sulphuric acid clouds 40 km to 75 km
Direction of rotation of the planet Clock wise
Direction of SRW ACWSulphuric acid clouds
clouds are made of 75–96% sulfuric acid.
These are formed by photochemical reactions in the upper atmosphere, involving solar light acting on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and water vapor, create the sulfuric acid.These sulphuric acid clouds drive the climate on Venus.
Properties of sulphuric clouds
Albedo effect is between 0.75 to 0.80, which means they reflect 75-80% of the suns energy
Suns energy is 2,613 W/m2, approximately 2,000 W/m2 reflected back into space.
This leaves 613 W/m2 do drive Venus climate.
Sulphuric acid clouds absorb energy in the ultra violet (UV) which is about 10% of the suns energy and the remaining 20% of visible light left which enters the sulphuric acid cloud, 10% of this is absorbedUV 450 nm, with a sharp edge around 400 nm. The iron-bearing mineral phases, such as rhomboclase and acid ferric sulfate, dissolved within the sulfuric acid droplets are the likely candidates for this absorption
No IR is absorbed by these clouds.
So the final figures are:-
Suns energy = 2613 W/m2
Reflected by the albedo effect = 2000 W/m2
Absorbed by the UV = 11% = 287 W/m2
Absorbed by the Visible Light = 11% = total = 577 W/m2.
This leaves 2,613 - 2,577 = 36 W/ms arriving at the surface (12 W/m2. Average) This means there can be no greenhouse effect. It is enough to get a faint haze glow on the surface.So this 577 W/m2 drives the super rotational wind in the Venetian atmosphere.
This heats the clouds, rising the cloud tops to 75km in height.
The clouds are heated on the sunny side most, due to the slow rotation, the super heated clouds move to the cooler atmosphere, 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is in an anti clockwise direction. This causes this super rotational winds of 100 m/s to circle the planet, in a narrow band around the equator, where they lose some energy as the wind circle the planet and spread out towards the poles.
This doesn’t change during Venus year as its axis is only 3 degrees, so there is little or no change as it orbits the sun.
As these SRW approach the dark side the winds increase again as the dark side clouds are lower, and colder, this causes extra turbulence as the hot winds encounter the cooler atmosphere. This also causes more of the winds to migrate towards the poles, combined with the downwelling of the winds. This is shown by the pictures taken by the Japanese orbiter Akatsuki.
The SRW then approach the day side again where they receive extra energy from the sun and continue its journey to where the sun is directly overhead, receiving the 577 W/m2, where the cycle starts all over again.What happens to the atmosphere as it down wells towards the planets surface.
The atmosphere has its driving force for this rotation now (the super rotation winds down welling):
Adiabatic lapse rate 10.47 c/km (Gravity rating on the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere)
We have the heights that this happens at. (Sulphuric acid clouds between 40-75km) and the temperatures. Two key points are 43km temperature is most earth like 14c, and planets surface temperature 465c.
We also have the adiabatic charts for Venus to check the results
The temperature profile of Venus is shown below:-
Height (km) Temperature (C) Pressure (1 atm)
0 465 93
10. 360 71
20 255 50
30 151 18
40. 49 7
43 14 1
50 -59 -15
60 -164 -37
70 -269 -58As can bee seen, it explains the pressure on Venus - its driven by the temperature.
-
prove we are smart at 09:51 AM on 31 December 2025Direct Air Capture
I think this may be the link you are refering to, a very sobering truth about DAC realities. www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
If anyone needs an understanding about why the big five mass extinctions happened and why we are currently on the trajectory now for number six..www.youtube.com/watch?v=77Q07i1HSYc&t=130s
-
prove we are smart at 08:08 AM on 29 December 2025How climate change broke the Pacific Northwest’s plumbing
"Its not that climate change isn't real, the cost of admitting it is too high." Here is just one example of a powerful industry manipulating reality and worsening the crisis for its own short term profit. www.youtube.com/watch?v=pST_KrbrFHM
-
nigelj at 06:11 AM on 28 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
Just a clarification on my previous comments. In no way am I dismissing the climate change problem. I was only concerned about the resource scarity issue, and this ultimately apples regardless of whether we use renewable energy (preferably) or fossil fuels. Althought it does appear that renewables are more sustainable than fossil fules longer term because the sun and wind is a limitless form of energy.
-
prove we are smart at 08:25 AM on 27 December 2025How climate change broke the Pacific Northwest’s plumbing
It seems to be that only when people are part of an unusually extreme weather event themselves or it happens in their local area do they acknowledge "things have changed".
To me, many are too de-sensitised, distracted and misinformed to react to at least a selfish response to a threat to their current quality of life.
The largest coal port in the world was blocked- at least for a while. Is this what we need more of? www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/shipping-movements-disrupted-as-climate-change-protesters-block-coal-ships-from-entering-port-of-newcastle/ar-AA1RptoX?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=692c9a2d72ee4e84b01066c5d0bea4ef&ei=12
Media in Australia, 82% is controlled by 2 corporations. This protest got little reporting or a pro fossil fuel bias. Major weather extremes are "beat-up" for their clicks but the climate change connection is poorly explained.
-
prove we are smart at 18:19 PM on 26 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
@2 MA Rodger "His argument is really simply that the current trajectory of mankind is pointing to some really bad outcomes. You could use such projections to point to, say, pre-industrial mankind drowning in horse shit."
I never read that story before-a funny shitless outcome for technology and fossil fuels saving the cities, the twist to that is the savior is now the villain and an existential threat to, well,everything. ???????????? Human health
Extreme heat increases risks for vulnerable groups, including pregnant women and infants.Heatwaves, air pollution, and the spread of diseases all worsen as temperatures rise.
???? Economies
Countries face major economic losses from reduced productivity, damaged infrastructure, and disrupted supply chains.
For example, Cyprus could lose up to €29 billion from its GDP by 2050 without action.????️ Ecosystems & wildlife
Species that depend on stable climates — like mountain meadow animals or cool-stream amphibians — are already struggling as their habitats change or disappear.????⚡ Water and energy systems
Asia’s water and power systems are being hit hard by floods, droughts, and extreme weather, putting millions at risk and requiring trillions in adaptation spending.???? Communities & infrastructure
Rising sea levels, stronger storms, and more frequent wildfires threaten homes, roads, and essential services.NASA notes that effects like sea ice loss, glacier melt, and more intense heat waves are already happening and will worsen.
???? Food security
Droughts, heat, and unpredictable weather reduce crop yields and disrupt food supply chains.????️ Earth’s natural systems
Global assessments highlight extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and destabilization of Earth’s systems as top long-term risks for humanity.There is no argument the earth temperature is still rising,in fact,arguably accelerating. All the nation states are playing in an international poker game,where everyone is cheating. The unfriendly USA is openly and aggressively war mongering for Venezuela's heavy crude and more than eyeing off the sovereign nation of Greenland for its particular usefulness.
All the responders opinions agree that last link I mentioned is complete "pretentious twaddle". I see something else. I see tipping points of no return happening on our watch. I see a tragedy from a thousand cuts to our biosphere. I see political leaders too "involved" with corporations/big business and election cycles to plan sincerely.
Worst of all,the consumer has only a little appetite for a meaningful change to their bubble. The commodification of everything and the insidious media manipulation means a continuation of an economical system driving us all towards that cliff.
At least 6@ nigelj adds a little realism to it all. I don't have an answer to turn societies to less comforts, we need to be less capitalistic and more community minded and that goes against most western countries lifestyles.
-
nigelj at 07:39 AM on 25 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
I would just add we could encourage people to make at least small voluntary cuts to their levels of consumption. Everything helps and I think it would be prudent and not compromise lifestyles excessively.
However even this plan doesn't look that achievable, given our addiction to consumption and how even small cuts to consumption tend to cause recessions and unemployment. So I'm a bit cynical I guess, and I'm inclined to think consumption will only fall if and when shortages emerge.
-
nigelj at 06:04 AM on 25 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
MAR, good comment. I would say 90% pretentious twaddle, 10% grain of truth. Regarding the 10% grain of truth. Our current trajectory is looking bad. In terms of population numbers and economic growth and industrial culture clearly has us heading towards a resource crisis where we could potentially run short of energy and various important minerals. More specifically these things could start to become ominously expensive to extract. This all seems well known and relatively uncontroversial.
Surely the most likely outcome is that there will be some shortages of energy and materials and we will be forced to prioritise things and ration things and do a lot of recycling. There may be a drop in standard of living. Its impossible to say how much, because there are so many unknown variables like population trends and discoveries of new mineral deposits and technological substitution. I could be a very small drop in standard of living or quite drastic.
The economic system will change in some way and economic growth will be forced to or stop slow by shortages of resources. Humanity will not just lie down helplessly and give up. It will mitigate and adapt in some way. Capitalism may morph into something different but then again it might not. Capitalism does not strictly speaking need endless gdp growth.
The alternative is to be proactive to avoid shortages emerging in the first place. But this would require our generation to make drastic and urgent voluntary cuts in our use of energy and materials to make what is left last a very long time, without rising in price too much. Or we could make drastic cuts in the size of our population.
Well good luck persuading humanity to all volunteer to live like poor people or kill of about 5 billion people. I'm sure that will be adopted with enthusiasm. And any drastic cuts in consumption could cause massive levels of unemployment so we are caught between a rock and a hard place. And such a plan is very risky because we cant even quantify the problem beyond saying we will likely run short of some things eventually sometime.
People also talk about abandoning capitalism and having another go at something socialist. Im very suspicious of any sort of planned utopian solutions to the resource problem, having seen how disastrous communism was. I dont oppose all socialist ideas. For example there is a strong place for some government provision of services but I think the concept of private property is so entrenched that its unlikely to change. I certainly dont believe it should change.
Or another alternative is we do both adaptation and proactive change: For example we are adopting renewable energy, which does have the virtue its not reliant on non renewable resources like burning coal. This leaves such resources for other uses like petrochemicals.
Its a very complex issue. Clearly we need to change our ways, and this will either be forced on us by deteriorating circumstances or we will be a bit more proactive about it.
-
nigelj at 04:39 AM on 25 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
Prove we are smart @1
Regarding a possible acceleration of global warming since around 2015. The following might be of interest and looks to me like a reliable analysis of the situation.
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf
Orono, ME, USA 3
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, GermanyAbstract. Recent record-hot years have caused a discussion whether global warming has accelerated, but previous analysis found that acceleration has not yet reached a 95% confidence level given the natural temperature variability. Here we account for the influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted data show that after 2015, global temperature rose significantly faster than in any previous 10-year period since 1945.
www.researchgate.net/publication/389855619_Global_Warming_has_Accelerated_Significantly
There is a pdf file of the complete paper.
Basically they are saying the surface temperature record shows strong signs of an acceleration since around 2015, but it hasn't quite reached a 95% statistically significant level but if you separate out the underlying anthropogenic warming trend by ignoring el nino, the solar cycle and volcanic activity the underlying anthropogenic warming trend has definitely accelerated with good statistical significance:
-
Eclectic at 19:34 PM on 24 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
Prove @1 :
Gotta agree with MAR @2 : The Newbury substack comments are rather bizarre in their construction. Like A.I. generated !
"Acceleration" of global warming is arguable ~ but "linear" rise is bad enough, as it is !
-
MA Rodger at 18:42 PM on 24 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
prove we are smart@1,
Your request for "proof" is a bit off the subject of climate..This Steven J. Newbury describes himself as an "Amateur Anthropogenic Entropy Theorist and Free Software developer." His (latest?) web presence dates back a month and sports 41 posts allegedly of non-trivial substance. These are not good signs.
He cannot write for nuts: another bad sign.The particular post you link-to manages to tell us he:-
argued that to avoid the “Resource Entropy Singularity”—the point where the energetic cost of maintaining our society exceeds the energy available to it—we must transition from an economy based on Exchange-Value (financialisation, infinite growth) to one based on Use-Value (utility, biophysical reality).
Readers, quite naturally, have asked the follow-up question: “How do we get there?”
He then deigns to provide his "uncomfortable truth" that "we cannot 'manage' our way to survival" and that the "best case" would be that we initiate a human catastrophe to stop us "strip-min(ing) the biosphere down to the bedrock."
The employment of thermodynamical principles within non-thermodynamical circumstances is not a robust use of the physics. Such use is pure analogy and prone to the usual panoply of pitfalls for analogies. Talking 'energy use' simply dresses such analogy in pseudo-science.
His argument is really simply that the current trajectory of mankind is pointing to some really bad outcomes. You could use such projections to point to, say, pre-industrial mankind drowning in horse shit. Or perhaps to consider that the increasing ability of humanity to wage destructive war and the use of such war over ideological differences would reach the point where we can and thus eventually will inevitably destroy ourselves.
Or you could argue that humanity is today gaining access to new technologies that are exceedingly dangerous which our societies are entirely ill-equipped to harness in any way safely. Or you could argue that the nation states around the world will be unable to mitigate the emerging climate crisis and then be unable to cope with that climatic crisis and instead resort to military force precipitating an even worse crisis. And if not the emerging climate crisis, how about the emerging ecological crisis? Or one of the multitude of resource crises (of which 'energy' is but one)? And maybe a future malthusian crisis could yet reappear despite the passing of 'peak-baby'.
I'm sure Steven J. Newbury could happily invoke such threats into his "Grand Agency" bad and "Ground Agency" good. But really? Is this idea that we can chill out and be good if only we could precipitate the revolution which allows a utopian society to appear and flourish on the bones of today's world. Is there in some manner a metaphorical island we can inhabit and grow, fat like the Kākāpō, a species which only had laughing owls to fear as long as they stayed nocturnal? And in that analogised setting, was suddenly nature actually no longer red in tooth and claw?
You've probably guessed by now, I'm of the opinion that this little essay of
Steven J. Newbury is pretentious twaddle. -
prove we are smart at 07:30 AM on 24 December 2025Zeke's 2026 and 2027 global temperature forecasts
Tis the season to be jolly, tralala, tralala, lal,lal,lar... Occasionally I still get optimistic but less frequently now. I agree with Zeke's conclusion {from a link above} "Consilience of evidence
If we were solely relying on drawing trend lines through cherry-picked periods in surface temperature records, I too would be pretty skeptical about making strong claims regarding a recent acceleration in warming.But we don’t just have surface temperatures:
Acceleration in surface temperatures is more readily apparent and significant when removing natural variability.
Our climate models expect a faster rate of warming under current policy scenarios.
We have a clear mechanism in declining aerosol emissions to explain a recent acceleration.
Acceleration is apparent in both ocean heat content and earth energy imbalance measurements.
In my view this consilience of evidence tips the scale toward pretty clear acceleration in recent years. I hope I am wrong – I’d prefer to live in a world where the rate of warming was flat or falling – but the evidence is becoming too strong to ignore." Here is his link from the re-post article above, www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-great-acceleration-debate
But as I have learnt, delving into the links and especially the comments to those links,reveal many new avenues of thought.
This link from comments from the James Hansen's link on his recent estimates (above), has really lined up with my thoughts. Can anybody explain to me why this author Steven J Newbury is wrong? theuaob.substack.com/p/the-agency-trap-why-we-must-fail
-
wilddouglascounty at 01:56 AM on 24 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
One post script note: Note that in the #50 Global News Warming Roundup, the Trump Administration has been busy scratching out all references to fossil fuels as the cause of climate change, and in #51, the article detailing the reasons for shutting down the all-important NCAR was because it was the cause of too much climate anxiety.
It is up to the scientific community to keep the causality eye on the ball: human activities in general and fossil fuels in particular are the causing the increased frequency of severe weather events, and the cause of the shifting climate, so it is incumbent in all discussions to make sure that any use of the phrase "climate change" includes the human activity adjective such as anthropogenic, fossil fuel-driven, greenhouse gas-induced, etc.
-
wilddouglascounty at 10:49 AM on 17 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
@10 Bob, we completely agree until the very last sentence. The exact analogy that I'm driving at is that we're NOT saying "He was on steroids." The analogy, if carried to its simplified analog to "steroids" is "fossil fuels" or "carbon emissions" or "greenhouse gases" and the like, not "climate change." There is a real psychological underpinning behind the need to simplify a complex topic: just make sure you simplify it in a way that points out what needs to change if you want the changing climate to stabilize!
As you have pointed out, the complexity of the climate includes all of the other factors as a system, including solar irradiation, volcanic activity, long term orbital dynamics, and on and on, which we know goes "whoosh" over the average person's head, which the fossil fuel companies have taken advantage of, by the way. But the systemic changes we're seeing in the climate is from the change in carbon emissions that are overwhelming the system's ability to absorb it, causing a change in the composition of the atmosphere and ocean that supports increasingly frequent severe weather events. So we need to really hone in on that single fact: rising greenhouse gas percentages in the atmosphere and oceans is changing the climate, not "climate change." It is easier for everyone to understand the source of the changes occurring in a very complicated system in the same way as "he was on steroids" cuts to the chase. And #11, Nigelj, I'm completely fine with the term "anthropogenic climate change" and for everyone, I don't honestly expect us to just immediately stop using "climate change" as an important phrase in our vocabulary and discussions about the topic. What I do sincerely hope is that this phrase be modified to include the human driven nature of the changes in the climate, so in addition to "anthropogenic climate change" I'm hoping folks will always use such phrases as "human activity induced climate change," "fossil fuel driven climate change," "greenhouse gas induced climate change," "carbon emission driven climate change," etc. if you need to use the phrase at all. These phrases include true causality, while "climate change" by itself does not pinpoint the causal problem as finely as it needs to be made if we have any chance of changing our future.
-
nigelj at 05:38 AM on 17 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Regarding whether its accurate use of terminology to say that anthropogenic climate change is changing the weather, by making certain events more frequent or extreme. Climate change involves a warming global climate and changes in average global precipitation and circulation patterns, its that extra warmth and precipitation that effects weather events, therefore it is correct terminology to say climate change is changing the weather.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:52 AM on 17 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Wild:
The most common (and probably the most familiar) example of a descriptive approach to climate is the Koppen Climate Classification system. It uses seasonal observations of temperature and precipitation to classify a regions using qualitative terms. This system aligns with our common concepts of tropical, arid, temperate, polar, continental, coastal climates, etc.
Attribution studies need some sort of model that allows an estimate of the likelihood of events (e.g. severe weather) under two different regimes (with greenhouse gases, and without). The Koppen system is a model - but largely a descriptive model. It uses numerical results, but those are descriptive statistical models.
Attribution requires a much more quantitative model - a physical model. The model simulates climate under one set of controlling conditions, and then it is run under a different set (greenhouse gases, in this case). It can be a bit hard to see the physics behind that, though, as physical model outputs are often interpreted using a descriptive model. The statistics with and without greenhouse gases help determine the probability of an event of a particular intensity, with or without climate change. But keep in mind that those descriptive statistics of the physical model output are just as complex as doing descriptive statistics of actual weather observations.
In the case of the "juiced athlete", the attribution to performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) is difficult, for very similar reasons. You can't claim "this home run was caused by PEDs" for the same reason you can't claim "this severe weather event was caused by climate change". Arguing that a particular drug is a PED needs to be based on detailed physiological studies, as you suggest.
...but that level of detail isn't going to get a message across to the general public very well - it will go "whoosh" over their heads. "He was on steroids" is the short form. Just as "the climate has changed" is the short form for all the things that have happened due to our release of greenhouse gases and other human activities that have altered the climate.
-
wilddouglascounty at 01:42 AM on 17 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Thank you, @8 Bob, for sharing your perspective on this issue and the climate as a causal factor. I guess I'm not sure whether its descriptive or physical when you are doing attribution of a hurricane's intensity as being caused by climate change as it seems that it has elements of both.
That aside, what I'm saying, once again to use the analogy of the juiced athlete, is that if there is a change in the constellation of factors that make them a professional athlete including years of strength and endurance training, strategic coaching, genetic predisposition, etc., along with the performance enhancing drugs, as contributing to the increased frequency of home runs, does it make sense to to talk about the athlete in general terms that includes the entire cluster of factors (physical), or the performance statistics (descriptive); OR rather does it make sense to focus on the relevant causal factor of the practice of using performance enhancing drugs as causing the changes in the athlete's performance? For clarification's sake, the changing performance of athletes in general could not really be addressed until the key causal factor, performance enhancing drugs, was identified, after which people "got it" and took actions that penalized their use.
In a similar way, yes, physical climatology has causality in a general, collective way that clusters the real causal factors "under the hood". Since there is an identifiable subset of those "under the hood" factors called "greenhouse gases," "human activity emissions," "carbon emissions from human activities, primarily fossil fuel use" or what have you, it's time to start focusing on those "performance enhancing chemicals" we're emitting as the cause of the observed changes, so that people "get it." Otherwise vested interests will just continue to spread misinformation about the other factors, such as the sunspot cycle, cosmic rays, the end of the ice age and other things they can point to also under that hood. They are not incorrect in pointing to other factors that contribute to the climate; it's just that the science is clearly pointing to the changes in the climate as being linked to the changes in the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry caused by carbon emissions.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:21 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Wilddouglascountry @ 2, 4, 6.
I would tend to disagree with your characterization of the term "climate change". You appear to be exclusively thinking of climate in terms of what is called "descriptive climatology". In that context, "climate" is just a description of what is going on.
"Descriptive climatology" gave way to "physical climatology" at least as far back as the 1950s, when the science began looking at "climate" as the physical processes that link together to produce the observations that made up "descriptive climatology".
[Note: the textbook I used when taking my undergraduate climate course was "'Sellers, W.D. 1965: Physical climatology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 272 pp.]
As such "climate change" is a causal factor: through the physical processes of climate, changes in one part of the system (greenhouse gases and radiative transfer) lead to changes in other parts of the system (severe weather).
I don't think your change in nomenclature is justified.
-
Eclectic at 10:16 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Wilddouglascounty @6 :
I suspect that the adults in the village are more concerned with the actual threat to the sheep, rather than whether the threat is categorized as a wolf or coyote or wild dog. Semantics and chicken-or-egg arguments would be very low on their list of concerns, I'm sure.
If we argue on over-fine points, then the essential message gets lost.
Best to use the K.I.S.S. principle.
-
wilddouglascounty at 09:03 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Bottom line: attribution studies should point to the real cause of increased frequency and severity of weather events: human activity, fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases, NOT climate change. Climate change does not cause anything: it's the result of the changes caused by the changed chemistries.
-
Eclectic at 08:42 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Wilddouglascounty @4 :
Agreed ~ but the metaphor is flexible. Some of the villagers think the shepherd-boy [or Thunberg-girl ] is lying . . . and some of them wouldn't know a wolf if it bit them . . . especially if the village Chief said all wolves are hoaxes.
You just have to do your best, remembering human psychology.
-
wilddouglascounty at 08:23 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Eclectic @3: The shepherd boy was lying when he called "wolf" so often that folks started ignoring him, so that when the wolf really arrived, they ignored him. The wolf is clear and present right now, metaphorically speaking, and what I'm suggesting is that the way it is being used, "climate change" is being used like a sheepskin on that wolf, and our task is to point out the wolf underneath that sheepskin.
-
Eclectic at 08:12 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
Wilddouglascounty @2 : Calling a spade a spade should be done often ~ but not too often. To change metaphors : the shepherd-boy's warning call is best made when the wolf has clearly emerged from the forest. [Yes, arguable.]
Prove we are smart @1 : If you are talking of US citizens showing more apathy, then perhaps you are being a little harsh, considering present-day distractions. After all, there is a lot more stuff hitting the fan in recent times ~ and the fan has been turned up to Turbo-speed [ sometimes known as Tariff-speed, or Taco-speed]. The air may be somewhat clearer of flying objects, after 2028.
-
wilddouglascounty at 06:59 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
I think one of the main reasons we seem to be stalling out on the climate change topic is that we've been burying the lead. Climate change is NOT a causal factor for increasingly frequent severe weather, IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Climate is a summary abstraction of individual weather events, so the way the climate changes is by increasing the frequency of extreme weather events. Saying climate change is causing more severe weather is like saying Sammy Sosa's improved batting average is causing him to hit more homeruns--ignoring the REAL cause, which is performance enhancing drugs, right?
In exactly the same way, fossil fuel emissions and other greenhouse emitting human activities have changed the atmospheric and oceanic chemistry, enabling more frequent, severe weather events, in exactly the same way Sammy Sosa's performance enhancing drugs enabled him to hit more frequent homeruns. People can understand that a juiced atmosphere is the problem here, in the same way we understand the effect of juiced athletes.
Even the attribution studies don't point back to the real causes: they point back to the "increased probability" that "climate change" has made it 300 times more likely that a hurricane grew that fast and so on, when in reality the attribution studies need to be saying that the increased carbon in the atmosphere and oceans, caused by human activities, has made it 300 times more likely that a hurricane grew that fast and so on.
We need to stop hiding behind the phrase "climate change" and start putting our human greenhouse gas emissions as causing all of this. The science is settled on this, right? Then why not start putting that front and center every time we talk about these increasingly frequent severe weather events: human activities with fossil fuel emissions being at the top of the list, is CAUSING the floods, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events to get worse. To say "climate change" is causing these things is reifying the phrase and giving it causality when none exists!
We don't have time to pass this issue onto younger folk. It's time to call a spade a spade.
-
prove we are smart at 00:47 AM on 16 December 2025Emergence vs Detection & Attribution
As much as I enjoy reading Zekes or Andrew's call out of bad actors like the US DoE www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-error I really feel an increased sense of apathy from people towards changing our behaviours to reduce co2 emissions.
You know when the US had that really terrible weather disaster year in 2020 www.climate.gov/disasters2020 .Heres a poll taken then and now, the importance of the climate has really taken a back seat www.statista.com/chart/32304/key-issues-in-the-us-according-to-respondents/
Australia too in 2020 had a catastophic fire season en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bushfire_season and the important issues poll produced this www.ipsos.com/en-au/issuesmonitor As in the US poll, interest in the enviroment is currently still declining.
Are we just desensitised to it all now, misinformed or staying wilfully ignorant? Is this the last gasp of the good ole days before the shit really doesn't miss the fan anymore? We are destroying our life support and maybe we can get some control back like this www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQMZR64G_eM or stay in our consumer role like this www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFa829W1Rk I feel like I know too much now and just say the positive stuff to any younger folk.
-
MA Rodger at 00:40 AM on 16 December 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
PollutionMonster @456,
I'd assume the paper mentioned @455 is Jacobson et al (2022) 'Low-cost solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries'.
-
PollutionMonster at 12:58 PM on 15 December 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Thanks for the quick response. I will let the author know since he is still posting as if his 2019 assertions are correct. I couldn't find the Jacobson 2022, got too many off topic search results. I did read the Abbott 2012.
Sorry about posting a link with so many flaws.
-
michael sweet at 00:01 AM on 15 December 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Pollution Monster,
Your blog is dated 2019. It is now out of date. Like many blogs, it contains many mistatements of facts, cherry picked numbers and deliberate lies. I recommend you read Jacobson et al 2022 which addresses all the issues with renewable energy raised in the blog and shows renewable energy is much cheaper than any other technology. Jacobson uses only existing technology to generate all world energy.
Abbott 2012, linked in the OP, lists about 13 reasons why nuclear will never be capable of generating a significant amount of power. Nuclear supporters have never addressed these issues. To me, the most important issue is there is not enough uranium to generate more than about 5% of all power
Since 2019 renewable energy and especially battery storage have dramatically decreased in cost. This solves the main issues the linked blog has with renewables.
Nuclear power is too expensive, takes too long to build and there is not enough uranium.
-
PollutionMonster at 18:47 PM on 14 December 2025Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I have been reading this blog and it seems decent quality. I think that nuclear energy can used side by side renewable energy sources like wind and solar. That until we get the massive grid storage needed for all renewables that we can replace brown coal with nuclear at least in the short run.
I am not pro nor anti-nuclear, I just want to understand the topic better.
-
MA Rodger at 02:32 AM on 13 December 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
michael sweet @31,
A few thoughts about this +8°C ESS finding (actually it's AESS, taking the increasing solar energy into account).
(1) Hansen has indeed proposed a lower value, famously the graphic below from Hansen & Sato (2012) which even pre-dates the term ESS.
(2) Judd et al (2025) does say its constant ESS=+8°C finding is at odds with other work, but doesn't properly set all this out. For instance, they don't [ro[er;y review CenCO2PIP (2024) who find ESS "generally within the range of 5° to 8°C—patterns consistent with most prior work." I think all would agree that we haven't found a difinitive value for ESS although it will be higher than ECS.
(3) The Earth System equilibrium is very slow to arrive so the opportunity to keep AGW below +1.5°C in the long terms is surely far less of an issue than the shorter-term century-scale AGW.
That is, if CO2 will be three-quarters sucked from the atmosphere over a millenium, the CO2 forcing from modern CO2 emissions (with Af = ~50%) will be halved during the next 1,000 years, the sort of timescale that ESS arrives in. So if ESS ≤ 2 x ECS, it is the shorter timescales we need to worry about regarding temperature. SLR would likely be a good reason for giving natural CO2 draw-down a healthy hepling hand. And the technology to effortlessly do that will not be that long in coming.(4) But on that point of a future 'effortless' techno-fix for excess CO2, I am always surprised that the post-2100 parts of the IPCC scenatios are not better known. The graphic below is Fig 2 from Meinshausen et al (2020) 'The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to AD2500'. The thumbnail bottom left-hand graph shows net CO2 emissions for scenario-various and if you scale SSP1-1.9 (a scenario which we should be trying to follow), the negative net emissions post-2050 equal all the FF & LUC emissions 2007-2050. That is something I find scary.
-
angusmac at 10:45 AM on 11 December 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
BL@173 referring to your comment that Benton (1970) is referring to the warming and cooling of particulate pollution. I have reread Benton (1970) and I agree with your interpretation. Therefore, I confirm that my point 3 in angusmac@173 is incorrect and should be deleted.
Moderator Response:[BL] It has taken 17 days for you to accept this egregious error in your interpretation of Benton (1970).
As your entire viewpoint of Benton (1970) was based on continuing that error into the rest of the paper, this only demonstrates that you are unable to understand climate science papers to a degree that would make us believe that any assessments of other papers are worth our time.
After your error was pointed out, you posted three more times on Benton (1970), trying to convince us (convince yourself?) that your assessment was appropriate. The extremely slow pace with which you reflect on criticism is extremely discouraging.
Benton (1970) is only six paragraphs long, and less than 600 words. The space taken here in discussing it exceeds the length of the paper. (If anyone else is still following this thread, and is curious, here is a link to the Benton (1970) paper. The link has not actually appeared in this comments stream - you had to download angusmac's spreadsheet to find it.)
There is no point in polluting this comments section with more of your erroneous interpretations of the climate science literature. It takes far too much work to bash our heads against your stubbornness in having your errors pointed out.
I suggest that you go back to your assessment, and look at all the papers where you disagree with PCF-08 and revisit your thinking on why you came to a different conclusion. Then you may be able to look again at any other papers you have assessed with a better frame of reference.
I also previously suggested that you should read Spence Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming", which looks back at the long history of people studying and trying to explain climate. You have an awful lot to learn.
We are not going to allow this comments section to continue as a circus where we try to change your mind one paper at a time. As previously stated, we're only willing to listen when you get your analysis published in the peer-reviewed literature.
-
michael sweet at 13:15 PM on 8 December 2025Climate skeptics have new favorite graph; it shows the opposite of what they claim
MA Rodger,
I read Judd et al. I have not previously seen an Earth Syatem Sensitivity of 8C. Hanson has long estimated ESS of 6C. If ESS is 8C we are leaving a super duper mess for our children. And the changes from 1.4 C are much higher than scientists thought they would be.
-
scaddenp at 06:12 AM on 8 December 2025A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration
Not entirely related to the experiment, but EOS has article on climate-smart agriculture here. It notes limited evidence and low adoption. The paper is largely a call for large-scale systematic evidence collection.
-
scaddenp at 05:39 AM on 8 December 2025Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
For direct measurement of greenhouse effect, try here:
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/and here for the Nature paper.
-
TonyW at 08:37 AM on 7 December 2025Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
There is also direct measurement of the effect. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26638729_First_direct_observation_of_the_atmospheric_CO2_year-to-year_increase_from_space_Atmos_Chem_Phys_74249-4256
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that the linked paper is really dealing with measurement of CO2, not the warming due to CO2. Consequently, it is sort of off-topic here. Nonetheless, the paper is an important one with respect to CO2 measurement.
Also note that the direct link to the journal paper (not ResearchGate) is https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/7/4249/2007/. There is a link there to obtain the full paper (free access), but also note that they mention a corrigendum (also available as a download).
-
angusmac at 11:38 AM on 4 December 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
BL@179
I have provided an independent review. If you disagree then that is your opinion.
Moderator Response:[BL] The initial challenge, in my comment on post 173, was "...to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you really understand the papers that you have been reading and assessing". I also stated "Please tell me, in your own words..."
The problem with your "independent" review is that it is not your independent review. You did not write it independently - you got an AI to write it for you. You clearly are not capable of doing it yourself - i.e., independently.
Reading and regurgitating someone else's work without understanding it does not demonstrate that you understand the climate science literature you claim to understand. In fact, it provides more evidence that you simply do not have the competence (in climate science) to be able to assess what papers do or do not say.
You came in here challenging SkS to change this rebuttal about the 1970s cooling myth, on the basis of your "analysis". SkS will not change the rebuttal on the basis of the opinion of an uninformed, unqualified, incompetent, unfit, unskilled, inept, worthless, and amateurish dilettante. [Full disclosure: I wrote that sentence with the help of a thesaurus.]
As this discussion is circling back on itself (item 3 in the Comments Policy), any further comments from you on this thread will be deleted. [One exception: you can come back and let us know when you get your "analysis" published in the peer-reviewed literature.)
-
pattimer at 20:43 PM on 3 December 2025Why the chemtrail conspiracy theory lingers and grows – and why Tucker Carlson is talking about it
There are many reasons why people believe that contrails are chemtrails.
There is the political motivation by climate change deniers to encourage this conspiracy and so we cannot address this serious problem without looking at politics.
However why are people persuaded by this political deception and why is it growing at the present time? This is the question that we are addressing.
*People are seeing more contrails in the sky that they used to.
* People often want an easy solution to climate change that doesn't affect their way of life. If scientists explain that contrails affect the climate or that flying has a large carbon footprint then it's easier to deflect any obligations by believing the conspiracy.
* People have learned that there are real political conspiracies that the author accepts. There is a worldwide growing awareness or believe of a lifetime of false information that has been presented from media even in countries that consider themselves democratic. (Whether or not this awareness or believe is correct is "off topic" although important to be considered elsewhere). This is evident in the mass movements we see around the world regarding wars that use weapons from the West in particularly America and her allies. Therefore to those with a less scientific understanding, people are making the false
step from their realisation that they have been deceived by politicians and the media to believing that everything including the science is false.
I have personally watched the frightning denial and conspiracies for many decades but the latter point I make here is a new trend and one that I believe should be taken seriously.
Perhaps the Author would find some agreement with this.
-
angusmac at 13:35 PM on 3 December 2025Ice age predicted in the 70s
BL@173, 177 and 178
Before responding to your challenge, I note that the points you raise would not normally be part of the guidelines that a publication would provide for an independent reviewer. Instead, they appear to be points derived by someone who has studied the paper at university and wishes to arrive at preconceived conclusions regarding my ability to carry out an independent review.
I now reply as follows.
Why did he do the work?
- He developed a one-dimensional climate model based on a steady-state energy balance approach to analyse temperature and ice distribution by latitude.
- The study was motivated by the need to understand how variations in solar radiation and atmospheric properties influence global surface temperature and ice coverage, with particular focus on the roles of solar input, surface albedo, and meridional heat transport.
- His work represents an early application of energy balance modelling to demonstrate how changes in climate variables can drive significant shifts in Earth’s temperature and ice extent
What aspects of climate science does he attempt to address?
The paper addresses some aspects of climate science, including:- The planetary energy budget, focusing on the balance between absorbed solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation by latitude.
- The role of ice–albedo feedback and the existence of multiple stable climate states, demonstrating how changes in high-latitude ice extent can lead to either warmer climates or near-complete ice coverage.
What part of his paper represents "original work"?
He appears to have made several original contributions, including:- Developing a zonally averaged, one-dimensional energy balance model structured by latitude, which calculates mean annual sea-level surface temperature for each latitude band. The model incorporates key parameters such as solar radiation, surface albedo, infrared emission, and meridional heat transport.
- Conducting systematic numerical experiments by varying parameters such as the solar constant, albedo, and transport coefficients. This enabled the exploration of climate sensitivity and the identification of distinct equilibrium states, including both warmer climates and scenarios approaching global glaciation.
What part of his paper provides useful guidance to future work in climate science?
Part 2 “The Model” and Part 3 “Applications” provide particularly useful guidance for future climate science research for two main reasons:- Conceptual: These sections demonstrate that even highly simplified energy-balance models can produce multiple stable climate states. This insight has motivated more detailed investigations into climate feedback mechanisms, such as ice–albedo feedback, and their role in glacial–interglacial transitions.
- Methodological: The modelling framework introduced is straightforward and transparent and has been adopted in subsequent research. It enabled systematic evaluation of climate sensitivity, heat capacity, and meridional heat transport.
Interestingly, Sellers (1973) is classified as neutral, and Sellers (1974) is classified as warming by both PCF-08 and me.
Moderator Response:[BL] Congratulations. You have actually provided a reasonable summary of Sellers (1969) that covers the specific questions I have asked.
You claim that my questions "appear to be points derived by someone who has studied the paper at university and wishes to arrive at preconceived conclusions regarding my ability to carry out an independent review."
Yes, I have preconceived opinions on your ability to carry out an independent review, based on your posting here. And yes, I have an academic background, which includes a skill in identifying when the assignment handed in by a student does not match the quality or style of previous work by the student. Such a mismatch is often an indication that the work handed in is not really the work of the student. In academia, such actions fall under the categories "plagiarism" (handing in work that s not your own), or (more simply) "cheating".
Give that you have previously used perplexity.ai in your responses here, I decided to ask perplexity.ai to provide me with a summary of Sellers (1969). The text I sent to perplexity.ai was:
Please provide a summary of the Sellers (1969) paper at [link to PDF] and answer the following: Why did he do the work? What aspects of climate science does he attempt to address? What part of his paper represents "original work"? What part of his paper provides useful guidance to future work in climate science?
Guess what? Although the wording is not identical to yours, perplexity.ai has given me a summary that closely matches the points you make here, in much the same order, with a lot of similarity in wording. At the end of its summary, it also provided a list of related searches:
- Summarize Sellers 1969 main findings and conclusions
- Explain the methodology Sellers used in the 1969 model
- Which assumptions in Sellers 1969 are now considered outdated
- How did Sellers 1969 influence later climate model development
- What subsequent studies tested or expanded Sellers 1969 results
So, others have been asking before me. One of those people may have been you.
Now, when I initially made the challenge about Sellers (1969) I stated "please try to look at is as a chance to convince me and others that you know your stuff."
- By "stuff", I meant understanding of climate science, not the ability to use an AI tool..
- I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that you have used an AI bot to produce your summary.
- You may have edited it into your own words, but that does not mean that they are your own ideas.
I therefore conclude that what you have posted is not an independent review.
Sadly, this is also pretty much what I expected from you.
Your credibility has pretty much reached zero here.
