Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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


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

Term Lookup


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

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube 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

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

Comments 451 to 500:

  1. It's a natural cycle

    For the context of this thread, the important observation will be whether the anomalous global temperature rise of 2023 will recede back to "normal" levels.   If that's the case, it will be categorized as a natural cycle.

    So far it appears that there are simultaneous spikes in the temperature of 3 different ocean indices ENSO (Pacific), AMO (Atlantic), IOD (Indian). The last time that happened was in 1878, the year known for a super El Nino. Can see the 2 spikes in AMO for 1878 and 2023 in the following chart.

    AMO spikes


    That holds interest to me in Minnesota in that this year's ice-out date for Lake Minnetonka almost broke the record for earliest date (in 1878 it occurred  March 11, this year March 13)


  2. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #12 2024

    Regarding "Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory, Schmidt, Nature [perspective]:"

    This is very concerning and perceptive.

    This following article by Copernicus has a great review of the effects of aerosols, and some interesting ideas of what may have contributed to last years unusually high temperatures in the nothern atlantic in partcular:

    "Aerosols: are SO2 emissions reductions contributing to global warming?"


    In 2020, the International Maritime Organization adopted its ‘IMO 2020’ regulation to drastically reduce shipping-related sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Studies have concluded that the drop in emissions significantly reduced the formation of clouds over shipping lanes. An analysis by Carbon Brief estimated that that “the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050 (My note: Clearly this doesnt do much to explain the last 9 months unusual warming, and why would a change in 2020 shipping fuels that was implimented in that year, not slowly phased in, suddenly manifest 3 years later anyway? ). This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions.” However, linking SO2 reductions directly to the recent extreme marine heatwaves omits part of the complexity of using models to calculate sulphate aerosol interactions in the atmosphere or estimating the effective application of the IMO 2020 regulation, and, more generally, the complexity of climate and atmospheric chemistry.

    Reviewing the record North Atlantic Sea surface temperatures in June 2023, a preliminary analysis from CAMS scientists found a significant negative anomaly in Saharan dust aerosol transport over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, and an increased anomaly in biomass burning aerosol over the North Atlantic, coming from the massive Canadian wildfires. These aerosol anomalies are much bigger than the sulphate change from shipping emission reductions. This makes the estimation of the impact of reduced sulphate aerosol emissions on the sea surface temperatures very challenging.

    June 2023 monthly mean aerosol optical depth (AOD) anomaly relative to June average AOD for the period 2003-2022 from the CAMS global reanalysis of atmospheric composition shows a negative anomaly related to reduced dust transport across the tropical North Atlantic (blue) and a positive anomaly related to smoke transport from Canadian wildfires over the extra-tropical North Atlantic (red). Base on non-validated data Credit: CAMS

    The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) also suggested that, among other factors, the reduced winds of a weakened Azores anticyclone - an extensive wind system that spirals out from a centre of high atmospheric pressure - could have reduced the ocean-atmosphere exchange and the vertical mixing of the ocean between colder and warmer waters, as well as reducing Saharan dust transport over the Atlantic, all of which has the potential to increase the ocean surface temperature.

    “There will be, no doubt, long-term impacts from the reduced SO2 emissions, but it will demand dedicated research to understand the impact of sulphur changes. The changes in dust or black carbon have a more tangible effect in the short term”, says Richard Engelen CAMS Deputy Director.

    My comments: Of course this doesn't easily explain the unusually high levels of warming in the pacific. Next year will be revealing. It should be relatively cooler year on past patterns but if it isnt IMO it would suggest a step change in anthropogenic global warming. We know the climate is non linear and abrupt changes are possible. Will be interesting to see what BS the denialists will come up with to counter another unusually warm year.

  3. It's a natural cycle

    Michael Sweet @ 38:

    A ground-based aerosol monitoring network has existed for 25+ years. It uses optical instruments - a sort of "remote sensing looking  up" approach. I don't know to what extent it has been analyzed for aerosol trends, but I'm sure someone has been using the data for that purpose.

  4. It's a natural cycle

    Re - #38: if you look at heat content graphs with uncertainty range included, it's possible that even more heat went into the oceans this past few years than we thought. For example:

    Could it be that being well on the high side of the central estimate is sufficient??

  5. michael sweet at 23:39 PM on 21 March 2024
    It's a natural cycle

    In Dr Schmidt's commentary, linked by Paul Pukite above, he reviews the possible causes of the high temperatures in 2023.  He discusses the global warming trend, El Nino, aerosols and the volcano.  He concludes that none offer enough to explain the temperature increase.  This is the same conclusion that we reached in a discussion on a thread here at SkS.  He suggests that the climate might have switched to a new, unmodeled regime.  We will all have to wait for more data to see what the data indicates.  If it was El Nino then (I think) we would expect a decrease in temperatures in a few months since that is switching to La Nina.  It is interesting , in a macabre way, to see how this scientific question is answered.

    NASA apparently finally launched a mission to measure aerosols in the atmosphere.  Dr. Hansen has lobbied for such a mission for decades.  How will scientists tell if aerosols changed significantly in the past 5 years?

    It is very disturbing to me that Dr. Hansen predicted in advance that temperatures would substantially increase this decade due to the decrease in aerosols.  It seems like more scientists think that aerosols do not explain the high temperatures in 2023.  Dr Hansen has argued for years that the aerosol effect has been underestimated.  I hope that Hansen is incorrect.

  6. The U.S. has never produced more energy than it does today

    Energy use is outside the deep expertise of climate followers. Most don't appreciate that even though USA is the largest extractor of crude oil in the world, they still need a large fraction of imported oil.  The USA only extracts <13 million barrels/day of crude oil from it's territory, yet the USA consumes 20 million/day of finished product.  Compare that to a USA wheat crop where we harvest much more than we consume.

    USA crude oil import export

    USA crude oil import export

     Note that the above is crude oil only, and other liquid fuels make up the amount to reach 20 million.

  7. It's a natural cycle

    As per the latest observations, nothing is ruled out

    "Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory" :

    • Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed.

    By Gavin Schmidt


  8. One Planet Only Forever at 12:04 PM on 20 March 2024
    The U.S. has never produced more energy than it does today

    I understand every part of the re-posted article. But it is not clear how this presentation helps increase awareness or improve understanding of the leadership (Business and Political) actions that need to become more popular to ‘produce’ the changes of attitude and action of the collective US population so that the US is clearly understood to be responsibly doing its part, and being a leader, in the undeniably essential global effort to, at least, meet the globally agreed Paris Agreement objectives.

    That said,

    I agree with wilddouglascounty #3. ‘Producing energy’ correctly applies to ‘making energy available for human consumption’.

    And, along the lines of nigelj’s point that ‘producing energy’ is understood shorthand, I offer the following detailed description: Energy production = Human actions to convert natural energy sources into 'consumable/usable energy products'.

    All that said,

    I would add that an often ‘missed, or dismissed, understanding’ is the importance of pursuing ‘sustainable energy production and consumption’. The history of action, and a lack of corrective action is an action, by misleading leaders has ‘produced’ and ‘continues to grow’ tragic consequences for the future of humanity due to the production of ‘substantial amounts of unsustainable consumption (not just energy consumption)’.

    Note that ‘consumer desires to benefit from fossil fuel use’ are the ultimate ‘product‘ pursued by fossil fuel profiteers. And recently leaders of Exxon and Saudi Aramco have blamed consumers for being ‘the problem’, not misleading leaders (undeserving wealthy, powerful and influential people).

  9. The U.S. has never produced more energy than it does today

    IMHO terms like producing energy and sunrise are just convenient shorthand. To accurately describe whats really happening in a full sense would get very wordy: For example "The world produced xyz quantity of energy in 2023" would become " In 2023 the world converted xyz quantity of energy from a variety of sources to thermal energy to carry out various tasks " Do we really need to do that?

    In the news hour on television "Sunrise" would become "Tomorrow the earth will rotate on its axis to expose the sun at 6.00 am". How ponderous. People know whats really meant. Nobody in todays world would take it literally and believe the sun really moves above the earth (except maybe the flat earth society, and a few indigenous tribes and they dont have television anyway).

  10. The U.S. has never produced more energy than it does today

    It all hinges on the meanings of words, doesn't it?

    Coal miners don't produce coal - they just dig it up and move it.

    Newspapers don't produce news, they just report on it.

    But remember: English is a language where people drive on parkways and park on driveways.

  11. One Planet Only Forever at 02:20 AM on 20 March 2024
    CO2 lags temperature

    [BL], I agree. That is why I focused my reponse on wavefunction's unjustified criticism "...can't handle critisism [sic]...". To be honest, I had a faint hope that opening with the suggestion that wavefunction's comment raised an important point would get them to read my full comment.

    Eclectic, I agree. Also, a lack of a justified response by wavefunction would indicate that they "can't handle, learn from or deliver, justified criticism".

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Hope is a good thing....

  12. wilddouglascounty at 23:28 PM on 19 March 2024
    The U.S. has never produced more energy than it does today

    Hey guys, BOTH are true in BOTH instances. Energy is not created in the universe, rather it follows the law of conservation of energy. But the miniscule part of that energy constant that is made available for human consumption is also produced.

    As we know, the sun rising and setting on the local horizon is caused by the earth rotating in its trip around the sun. Nevertheless, the local rising and setting is a physically measurable reality that every plant and animal responds to.

    So it depends on which frame of reference box you want to put onto reality: they both work and are not mutually exclusive!

  13. The U.S. has never produced more energy than it does today

    Well Doug, the sun doesn't rise or set, and yet every news channel reports the times for "sunrise" and "sunset". :-)

  14. The U.S. has never produced more energy than it does today

    Call me an old curmudgeon but I wish we wouldn't talk about "producing" energy. The best we can do is to convert it. :-)

  15. CO2 lags temperature

    OnePlanet @661  :  yes.

    Now we await Wavefunction's first piece of "justified criticism".

    Patience may be required ...

  16. One Planet Only Forever at 04:03 AM on 18 March 2024
    CO2 lags temperature

    Wavefunction @659 raises an important point.

    As a professional engineer with an MBA I have pursued developing a well justified understanding, open to being improved by justified criticism, of what is required to develop sustainable improvements.

    Everyone should welcome and engage in learning based on ‘justified’ criticism of developed beliefs and justified criticism of poorly justified or unjustified criticism. That is how ‘scientific understanding improves’, including how this site’s content has constantly improved. It is also how businesses and political groups can learn to be more sustainable (less harmful and more helpful actions have more of a future).

    The persistence, and in some cases the tragic growth or regrowth, of unjustified confidence in harmful misunderstandings is an undeniable problem. An aspect of that problem is the unjustified angry responses to sensible efforts to increase awareness and improve understanding that help people learn to be less harmful and more helpful members of humanity.

    Correction of tragically popular misunderstandings, especially misunderstandings regarding harmful profitable activity (including excusing or denying harm done because of perceived benefits), is essential to the development of sustainable improvements for the benefit of all children now and into the distant future.

    Learning about required corrections of thoughts and beliefs is also necessary for the successful repair of the damaging results of the popularity and profitability of ‘lack of awareness and misunderstandings’. Popular and profitable lack of awareness and misunderstanding can be very resistant to ‘justified criticism that would improve and correct it’.

    I welcome justified criticism to improve that understanding.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] I disagree that Wavefunction has raised any interesting points. He starts with an insult, continues with name-calling, and makes a wild claim that none of the "dozens of comments" he has read (on a topic that had  658 comments on it before he posted) "gives a straight answer" to some unspecified "question that's at the heart of the entire theory of human driven climate change".

    • He's read a few % of the comments - seemingly only on this one thread, without looking at any of the other many sources of information on this web site.
    • He can't be bothered to say which ones, or what they lack.
    • He can't be bothered to tell us what he thinks the "question the heart..." is.
    • He thinks that moderators applying the Comments Policy are "telling people what they can and can't say". (The Comments Policy tells people how they are expected to behave - not the positions they are allowed to argue.)

    The comment deserved to be deleted in its entirety, due to it's lack of anything specific, its tone, and its numerous violations of the policy - but it also deserves to be left up for anyone that reads it to see what Wavefunciton's behaviour is.

    You have used Wavefunction's comment to make what are interesting and valid points. Reasonable discussion, justified criticism, avoiding angry unjustified response. All are worthwhile goals. The Comments Policy begins with:

    The purpose of the discussion threads is to allow notification and correction of errors in the article, and to permit clarification of related points. Though we believe the only genuine debate on the science of global warming is that which occurs in the scientific literature, we welcome genuine discussion as both an aid to understanding and a means of correcting our inadvertent errors.  To facilitate genuine discussion, we have a zero tolerance approach to trolling and sloganeering.

    Genuine discussion requires a willingness to provide clear communications. Wavefunction hasn't even come close.

  17. CO2 lags temperature

    Wavefunction @659 :

    Hmm.  Now that you have vented your emotions

    . . . perhaps you would be so kind as to make an On-Topic comment that is interesting and relevant.

    Or try posting at the WattsUpWithThat blogsite, where about 80% of comments are venting & echo-chambering of non-science.

  18. CO2 lags temperature

    What an absolute joke of site this is. This isn't science, its a bunch of clowns that can't handle critisism and a hall monitor running around telling people what they can and can't say.  Its no wonder that out of the dozens of comments I've read on this thresd, not ONE, gives a straight answer to the question that's at the heart of the entire theory of human driven climate change. You and those you parrot better be right. 

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] If your goal is to get banned, so you can go and tell your friends that Skeptical Science is unwilling to listen to your wisdom, then you are off to a good start. You'll save us all a lot of time if you just post a comment saying "please ban me".

    If your goal is to actually discuss any of the science, then you actually have to be willing to make a specific, supported, scientific statement that is related to the discussion topic of the original post, then you'll need to read and follow the Comments Policy. There is a link to the policy above the box you used to post your comment.

    The first two statements of the Comments Policy are:

    • All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
    • Make comments in the most appropriate thread.  Some comments, while strictly on topic, may relate to issues discussed in more detail in some other thread.  Extended discussion of those points should be carried out in the more appropriate thread, with link backs to reference the discussion as needed.  Moderator's directions to move discussion to a more appropriate thread should always be followed.

    ...but there are a couple more that you have violated in your brief rant. Surely someone of your great intellect will be able to read the policy and identify which rules you have broken.

    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.


  19. It's a natural cycle

    Please note: the new basic version of this rebuttal was published on March 16, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @

  20. One Planet Only Forever at 03:24 AM on 17 March 2024
    Skeptical Science New Research for Week #11 2024

    Note that in my comment at 1 the link to the report is the bolded title of the report Artificial Intelligence Threats to Climate Change.

    I forgot that in these comments a bolded text string does not stand out as a link.

  21. One Planet Only Forever at 03:20 AM on 17 March 2024
    Skeptical Science New Research for Week #11 2024

    The link for the second item (description repeated below) highlighted from the Government/NGO section does not work for me:

    The AI Threats to Climate Change, Climate Action Against Disinformation, Check My Adds, Friends of the Earth, Global Action Plan, Greenpeace, and Kairos:

    The following links work for me:

    Link to the Climate Action Against Disinformation webpage introduction and summary of the report (with a button linking to the report)

    Link to the report  from the CAAD introduction page: Artificial Intelligence Threats to Climate Change  (a Friends of the Earth website location for the report)


    Thank you OPOF. Fixed!

  22. Charlie_Brown at 02:31 AM on 17 March 2024
    CO2 lags temperature

    The mention of quantum mechanics warrants further discussion so one is not baffled or misled by a misrepresentation of it. Besides, the science is fascinating, and the concept is not that hard to understand. All molecules above absolute zero have internal energy. They vibrate, bend, and stretch in a limited number of ways that depend on their structure and ability to interact with electromagnetic radiation. Absorption and emittance of a photon changes the internal energy level by a discrete amount, which gives rise to discrete absorptance/emittance lines. CO2 is a linear, non-polar molecule that can stretch symmetrically and asymmetrically, but also polarizes temporarily when it bends. When molecules in the atmosphere have absorptance/emittance lines that fall within the wavelength range of IR at moderate temperatures by the Planck distribution, they become greenhouse gases. Discrete lines for CO2 and H2O are illustrated in Figure 3 in Introduction to an Atmospheric Radiation Model.
    One more comment about the “quantum process” which is described incorrectly by RBurr @ 654. CO2 is “additive” and increasing. Thus, it is affecting the accumulation term in the global energy balance.

  23. Charlie_Brown at 09:26 AM on 16 March 2024
    CO2 lags temperature

    RBurr @ 654

    1) CO2 lags temperature rise at the end of an ice age because CO2 evolves from ocean waters as the temperature rises. This is Henry’s Law. In that case, temperature rises first due to the Milankovitch Cycles. Note that ice age temperatures cool slowly and warm rapidly. Modern CO2 emissions are different because they come from burning fossil fuels. Therefore, temperature rises as a result of CO2. Cause and effect in both cases is clear in both cases, and different in both cases.
    2) The quantum mechanical mechanism on IR radiation that explains the greenhouse warming theory has been proven. It is based on fundamental principles of energy balance and radiant energy transfer and has been verified by massive amounts of data, cross-checks, and validation.
    3) The Earth’s energy “balance” is fundamental:
    Input = Output + Accumulation
    Output is reduced as greenhouse gases increase. Thus, energy accumulates.
    4) Your description of quantum mechanics does not make sense. Quantum mechanics is fundamental to the specific frequencies (i.e., wavelengths) that are absorbed and emitted by CO2, CH4, and H2O. There is a huge amount of energy carried by IR radiation. It is naturally emitted (not dissipated) and lost to outer space by IR. By the overall global energy balance at steady state:
    Input solar = Reflected solar + Emitted IR
    Accumulation is zero at steady state, as before CO2 emissions of the industrial revolution.
    5) The hot object in this case is the sun at about 5800 Kelvin. That is more than hot enough to warm the earth. The temperature profile is 5800 K of the sun to 288 K (60F) of the Earth 217 K of the lower stratosphere to 2 K of outer space. Increasing CO2 reduces the energy loss to space at specific wavelengths (e.g., approx. 13-17 microns). The absorptance/emittance lines in that range increase, meaning that energy is emitted from a cold 217 K instead of a warm 288 K. This upsets the energy balance. The balance is restored by accumulating energy until the surface temperature increases enough to make up the reduction by CO2. Nothing about this violates either the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics. Some mistake the 2nd law by describing the energy balance being at steady state, but the steady state was upset by increasing GHG.
    6) Neither the Milankovitch Cycles nor the Schwabe Cycles (sunspots) explain the cause of modern global warming. The long-term Milankovitch Cycles have not been in a period of significant change for the last 12,000 years after warming from the last ice age. Measured radiosity data from the sun show that short-term Schwabe Cycles have not changed significantly either and do not explain modern warming.


  24. CO2 lags temperature

    Ah, RBurr's comment at 654 is indeed an odd duck. While demanding "proof", he is badly short on providing any "proof" for his wild assertions. He alludes to "new research" (Where? By who? What publication?), but then just asserts a bunch of old misconceptions.

    RBurr's assertions on "quantum mechanics" can be roughly lumped into a denial of the conservation of energy, a gross misunderstanding of the concept of temperature (individual molecules don't have temperature, and temperature is not a property of radiation), with a mix of "violates the second law" bunk.

    There are other threads here at SkS where such topics can be discussed (and have been, at length).

    A little learning is a dangerous thing;
    drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
    there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
    and drinking largely sobers us again.

    Alexander Pope, An essay on Criticism
    English poet & satirist (1688 - 1744)

  25. CO2 lags temperature

    RBurr @654 :    Your ideas are interesting, to some extent.

    But your ideas are based on semantics, not on physics.  And sadly, the Greenhouse Effect cannot simply be talked away.

    Education is the path forward for you.  Good luck !

  26. CO2 lags temperature

    The analogy was cute, that the observation that CO2 rises lag temperature rises, means that the Temp rise causes the CO2 rise, is a bit like saying that chickens do not lay eggs because they have been observed to hatch from them. I would submit that, by the same token, opining that CO2 increases cause global warming is a bit like saying that chickens to not hatch from eggs, because they they’ve been observed to lay them.
    This all suggests (as inferred) a co-dependent process.
    However, this overlooks the same thing that MOST public blogs overlook, and that is the quantum mechanical mechanism on IR radiation (per greenhouse warming theory) has never been proven, and is actually false. New research indicates the fundamental error in the theory, presumes that Heat is ADDITIVE (eg. The Earth’s energy ‘budget’). The quantum process for Thermal transference is not additive. It is a function of frequency resonance. This is why microwave ovens work. Solar heating occurs because the spectrum of frequencies included in sunlight (which reaches the Earth’s surface) sets the maximum temperature which the recipient object may reach. An object in an oven set to 400 degrees will never reach 500 degrees no longer how long it is in the oven, because heat transference is not additive over time. The low energy IR waves received by CO2 molecules will naturally dissipate into the atmosphere with negligible net effect upon the atmosphere, but will never cause planetary ‘heating’ because, per thermodynamic law, no object can heat something beyond the temperature it possesses. Irradiated CO2 molecules can never heat the earth beyond the temperature frequency that already exists within the earth, which generated the IR light waves to begin with. IR Radiation does not raise the temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse warming theory is flawed. THAT is why the universally accepted historical record shows zero correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and average temperature over the entirety of the past 4 Billion years. Zeroing in on the last 400k or 800k years, and pointing to an anomaly amounts to cherry picking, which disregards the other dynamics in play, such as Milankovitch Cycles. Note: Ozone depletion CAN increase surface temperatures because the range of UV frequencies that reach the surface is expanded.

  27. One Planet Only Forever at 05:14 AM on 12 March 2024
    2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10

    Jim Eager.

    I agree, with a slightly different perspective.

    A better question is: How much of the harmful public misunderstanding and lack of care about the future is due to the deliberate development and dissemination of disinformation by the likes of Exxon anti-leadership and the political misleaders who chose to join the anti-leadership team effort?

    I use the term anti-leadership because, from an ethical perspective, leadership obviously needs to responsibly pursue and promote improved awareness and understanding of what is harmful and unsustainable, learning and teaching how to be less harmful and more helpful. As justification for that perspective I would suggest that any organization that does not have that type of leadership may temporarily appear to be successful. But it will ultimately be unsustainable.

    I learned that understanding in the marketing course of my MBA education in the 1980s. That course began with the professor stating we would learn about the science of marketing . We would learn about the powerful ability to fool many people some of the time by being misleading. But we would also learn that abusing that 'marketing science knowledge' should not be done because it would ultimately be unsustainable. (Also, the Ethics course started with the professor stating that there would be a lack of case study examples of 'ethical business behaviours'. Admittedly some case study examples of ethical leadership have developed since the 1980s).

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Slight edit to fix an unfortunate typo.

  28. 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10

    Sorry, but actually Exxon CEO Darren Woods may be right that consumers are too stupid to understand or want sustainable energy supplies, or at least too uninterested or too unself-aware.

    If you want evidence you just need to get out more.

    I wish I had a dollar for every small p**** in a big black tricked-out pickup truck that I've seen floor it to get around my hybrid EV just to beat me to the red light, and then floor it again when the light turns green, or push that 3 1/2 ton behemoth along at 80 on the highway.

    You want consumers to understand or want sustainable energy supplies?

    Double or even triple gasoline prices and maybe, just maybe it will get their attention.

    Not that this absolves Exxon's Woods and his ilk one iota, mind you.

  29. There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on March 10, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @

  30. At a glance - What has global warming done since 1998?

    While working on a vaguely-related project I updated this rebuttal AGAIN, despite it being less than 12 months old, because 2023 smashed temperature records. Depressing business this, sometimes! No need to do anything with this post as it's timestamped. Anyone wanting to read the updated version will find it here:

  31. All this climate data is wild

    There are even data loggers for tracking the migration of Monarch butterflies (read here).

  32. All this climate data is wild

    wilddouglascounty@3 Good question. The pack was too small to contain continual broadcast. It needed to be small for a Purple Martin to carry it. It stored GPS data on a chip and could only be retreived were the bird found again, as it was in our case.

    From what I've read, the current backpacks are able to transmit live so that the bird does not have to be caught.

  33. wilddouglascounty at 03:23 AM on 8 March 2024
    All this climate data is wild


    You got me wondering: were they able to retrieve the data from the backpack?  Or did they already gathering the data as the bird flew around?

  34. All this climate data is wild

    While cleaning out our Purple Martin house one spring, I found a Purple Martin that had unfortunately died. I noticed it was tagged, and emailed the tag number to the US Department of Natural Resources. They politely thanked me for the information.

    A day later I got a very excited email from them asking if there was an antenna protruding from its back. Sure enough, there was. A bird as small as a Purple Martin had been fitted with a small backpack to gather data on its migration, tracking its flight from Minnesota all the way down to Central America and back.

  35. All this climate data is wild

    This article brings back memories from almost 10 years ago, when I was lucky enough to get in touch via email with scientists doing just this kind of research, tagging elephant seals in Antarctica with sensors to gather data. Here is the link to the resulting blog post:

    Seal of approval - How marine mammals provide important climate data

  36. At a glance - Human activity is driving retreat of arctic sea ice

    And some unusual evidence on the NW Passage hot off the press from "The Guardian" newspaper.

    Gray whale sighted off New England 200 years after species’ Atlantic extinction
    Scientists confirm cetacean’s presence but cite impact of climate change which has made North-west Passage ice-free in summer

    Scientists have confirmed the presence of a whale off New England that went extinct in the Atlantic Ocean two centuries ago – an exciting discovery, but one they said that illustrates the impact of climate change on sea life.

    Researchers with the New England Aquarium in Boston found the gray whale while flying 30 miles south of Nantucket, Massachusetts, on 1 March. The whale, which can weigh 60,000 pounds (27,215kg), typically lives in the northern Pacific Ocean.

    The gray whale vanished from the Atlantic Ocean by the 18th century, but there have been five observations of the animal in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters in the last 15 years, the aquarium said in a statement. The whale found this month was probably the same animal spotted in Florida late last year, the aquarium said.

    The researchers who found the animal off Massachusetts said they were skeptical at first, but after circling the area for 45 minutes, they were able to take photographs that confirmed it was indeed a gray whale.

    “I didn’t want to say out loud what it was, because it seemed crazy,” said Orla O’Brien, an associate research scientist with the Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life at the New England Aquarium.

    Scientists said they were thrilled to see the animal, but its presence probably has to do with the warming of the planet. The North-west Passage, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Arctic Ocean in Canada, has lacked ice in the summertime in recent years, they said."

  37. One Planet Only Forever at 13:04 PM on 6 March 2024
    2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #09

    Efforts to fight disinformation and the resulting tragic popularity of harmful misunderstanding, especially the application of Cranky Uncle beyond the important climate science matters (as highlighted in The Story of the Week), are highly valuable (tragically not valued by all leadership competitors). They help promote learning to improve the future for all children on this amazing planet which may be the only viable place for children to continue to be born to live on as sustainable parts of an amazing robust diversity of life. (tragically not the objective of all leadership competitors)

    This new CBC News article: After Mulroney, being a 'green' PM got a lot tougher presents a history lesson about the need for the development of Cranky Uncle, and more like it, to try to counter-act tragically popular and profitable harmful developments and resistance to correction of damaging unsustainable misunderstandings over the past 30 years.

    The CBC story is about a major political group in Canada, a nation that many people would currently mistakenly consider to be quite advanced. Before the early-1990s the group that Mulroney led pursued ‘learning to develop improvements for all children, including leadership actions to limit Canada’s ghg emissions’. But the group was rapidly captured (taken-over) by interests that oppose leadership actions that are being learned to be required to ‘develop sustainable improvements for all children’. (Note that the related concern about ‘harmful capture’ of potentially helpful learning institutions is highlighted in Academic capture in the Anthropocene: a framework to assess climate action in higher education, Lachapelle et al., Climatic Change:, the 3rd open access notable item on Skeptical Science New Research for Week #9 2024.)

    The following quote from the CBC article highlights this tragic transition:

    Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government also enacted the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to manage toxic substances in the environment, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to review the environmental impacts of major projects.

    It established the International Institute for Sustainable Development — still a leading voice on global environmental policy — and launched the National Roundtable on the Economy and the Environment (NRTEE), an expert advisory body that published analysis until Stephen Harper's Conservative government abolished it in 2013.

    The Harper Conservatives were what the Mulroney PCs had transformed into. And the opposition to learning to be less harmful and more helpful has increased in the Conservative Party of Canada since Harper stopped being its leader. See the following string of quotes from the article:

    In 1990, the federal government released "Canada's Green Plan," a 174-page statement of intent to deal with a host of environmental problems, including global warming. That plan set a lofty goal of stabilizing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 — the first of several targets Canada would announce and fail to pursue seriously between 1990 and 2015.
    The Green Plan touted the possibility of pursuing an emissions "trading" program — what we would now call a cap-and-trade system, one of two primary methods for establishing a price on harmful emissions.

    "There is evidence that a market-based approach to the problem can be quicker, more efficient and more effective in reducing emissions and the costs of achieving these reductions," the PC government wrote.
    It would be another 29 years before the federal government [Liberal-led] finally applied a "market-based" approach to carbon emissions, through the current government's carbon tax. But now the future of that policy is very much in doubt — Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, Mulroney's [and Harper’s] political heir, has loudly and repeatedly vowed that a government led by him will "axe the tax."

    This tragic transition of a major political group that was ‘striving to be more helpful and less harmful’ into ‘harmful disinformation producers’ trying to ‘oppose and delay learning to develop improvements for all children’ can be seen to have happened (still happening) in many other nations.

    The undeniably high-value leadership goal of ‘Learning to improve the future for all children’ is tragically opposed by special interest groups with ‘Other interests they consider to be important enough (to them) to justify being damaging rather than improving the future for all children’.

  38. Climate Adam: Are food influencers wrong about climate change?

    Given long term nature of experiment, I wasnt expecting much in updates. I am not in communication.

  39. ChangeTheName at 11:20 AM on 4 March 2024
    2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #09

    As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

    The term "climate change" is an Orwellian BENIGN and VAGUE term for a civilization threatening DISEASE. 

    A medical approach to naming this disease would result in a term such as "Atmospheric Carbon Poisoning". 

    Atmospheric is the LOCATION of the POISON

    Carbon Gases (CO2 and CH4) are the NAME of the primary POISONS.

    Poisoning is an unequivocal declaration of dangerous toxicity.

    A skeptical scientist should think about telling the public the TRUTH and not shy away from naming the disease like a good scientist would. Climate change is clearly vague and inadequate. The generally public is woefully ignorant about this DISEASE.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] When you signed up for an account here at SkS, you were expected to read and follow the Comments Policy. Two of the items in that policy are:

    • No ALL CAPSYou can't have a civil, constructive discussion if you're shouting.
    • No profanity or inflammatory toneAgain, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around.

    SkS has a post about the use of the terms "climate change" and "global warming". It would serve you well to read that post and reflect upon the meaning of the various terms.

    The wording of your post and your suggested terminology represents a level of hyperbole and rhetoric that is neither scientific nor constructive.


  40. Climate Adam: Are food influencers wrong about climate change?

    Scaddenp @3

    Has anyone had any recent communication from Scott yet?

  41. It's albedo

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on March 3, 2024 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @

  42. One Planet Only Forever at 05:42 AM on 3 March 2024
    Why Biden’s pause on new LNG export terminals is a BFD

    The point I meant to highlight in the last quote is as follows:

    And that [climate impact] chaos threatens to push countless species to extinction. What’s more, building new LNG export terminals will lock in the use of fossil fuels for decades to come — ironically delaying the transition to renewable energy to which natural gas was supposed to be a bridge.

  43. One Planet Only Forever at 05:40 AM on 3 March 2024
    Why Biden’s pause on new LNG export terminals is a BFD

    This article is another of the ‘far too many’ presentations of damaging developments, and resistance to limiting harm done, due to interests that are in conflict with learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others. These developments collectively compromise efforts to ‘improve the future for all children’ – an undeniably worthy objective. And the problem can be understood to permeate institutions of higher education, as presented in Academic capture in the Anthropocene: a framework to assess climate action in higher education, Lachapelle et al., Climatic Change:, the 3rd open access notable item on Skeptical Science New Research for Week #9 2024.

    The following statements from the article can be used to better understand the problem.

    “We will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and our environment,” Biden said in a statement. “This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”
    “As scientists,” they wrote, “we are telling you in clear and unambiguous terms that [these projects] will undermine your stated goals of meaningfully addressing the climate crisis.”
    Of course, all revolutions have winners and losers. The obvious big winner of the export boom is the oil and gas industry. Revenues for U.S. LNG exports went from essentially nil in 2015 to about $10 billion in 2021. After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, export revenues shot up to more than $35 billion that year as big European importers of Russian natural gas began switching to U.S. suppliers.
    The primary loser, to put it in the starkest possible terms, is the global environment.
    And that [climate impact] chaos threatens to push countless species to extinction. What’s more, building new LNG export terminals will lock in the use of fossil fuels for decades to come — ironically delaying the transition to renewable energy to which natural gas was supposed to be a bridge.

    A path to better understanding starts with the point I emphasized in the last quote. The concern about the more harmful activity being locked in is valid due to the history of leadership actions excusing harmful profitable and popular developments. Those leadership actions include ‘compensating people who developed perceptions of personal benefit from harmful activity’ for any ‘perceived loss of benefit or status due to leadership actions that would reduce harm done’.

    A root of the problem is presented in the second last quote. It is the systemic failure of competitors for popularity and profit to effectively and rapidly learn to limit harm done. That competitive market failure requires ‘leadership action and correction’. And the legal and regulatory systems do not help if they ‘strive to balance benefits obtained (by some people – not children) with the damage done (to other people, especially to people who do not vote – all children, especially people in future generations – all children)’ by dismissing (disrespecting) the parts in brackets.

    And a major systemic failure is the failure of the competition for profit and popularity to effectively and rapidly limit the harm done by the development and dissemination of disinformation and the resulting harmful popularity of misinformation (harmful misunderstandings that resist being corrected).

    All of that better understanding raises valid concerns about the first quote. Taking a ‘hard look’ could mean that LNG use and export will not be limited as rapidly as it could and should be because of harmful pressures to maintain and increase profitability (GDP) and popularity. Also, the statement restricts the concern to today’s beneficiaries and voters in America, potentially dismissive of global and future concerns – because all other leaders and the populations they lead are harmfully selfishly interested like that too eh – tragedies of the commons all over the planet? (especially if voters can be misled that way).

    A serious part of the problem is ‘competitors for status and power’ who strive to benefit from promoting desires to personally benefit from understandably unsustainable beliefs and potentially popular misunderstandings.

    The concerns that are accurately expressed by scientists in the second quote are unlikely to be a significant factor in the evaluations by leadership ... unless disinformation and misinformation regarding harmful activity is effectively limited – by All Leadership/Status Competitors.

    Cheaters can and do prosper ... for as long as they can get away with it ... creating and excusing as much damage as they can get away with benefiting from causing.

  44. CO2 is just a trace gas

    In addition to what OPOF says about ozone, it should be noted that ozone in the stratosphere is an important absorber of UV radiation as well. Not that absorption of UV radiation in the stratosphere causes any noticeable heating. Oh, wait. It does.

    Atmospheric temperature profile

    As for the errors in using % or ppm as a measure of CO2 quantities, I'll beat my own drum and point to this blog post from a couple of years ago.

  45. One Planet Only Forever at 04:52 AM on 2 March 2024
    CO2 is just a trace gas

    JJones1960 @48,

    I hope the following helps you understand that John and Bob have correctly pointed out that you have made a very weak counter-presentation regarding the significance of small amounts. The points presented in the Argument effectively counter the simplistic and understandably incorrect belief that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is too small to make a difference.

    A major weakness of your counter-presentation is that you appear to lack even a small amount of knowledge regarding the matter, here’s why:

    You stated • You don’t use trace amounts of ozone to trap a significant amount of heat

    That belief is contradicted by improved evidence-based understanding (contradicted by learning what is already known). One of the many presentations about the global surface temperature impacts of ozone is the NASA Aura item: The greenhouse effect of tropospheric ozone. It opens with the following:

    Tropospheric ozone (O3) is the third most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Ozone absorbs infrared radiation (heat) from the Earth's surface, reducing the amount of radiation that escapes to space.

    A lot can be learned from the items presented on SkS and other reliable information sources.

    Learning from reliable sources can make a world of difference.

  46. CO2 is just a trace gas

    JJones1960 even misses his own point.

    CO2 is not "colourless" when it comes to infrared radiation. Just because JJones1960 can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

  47. CO2 is just a trace gas

    @49: Perhaps you should have full marks for missing the point!

  48. CO2 is just a trace gas

    @48: full marks for missing the point!

  49. CO2 is just a trace gas

    This is a very weak article, here’s why:

    • You don’t use trace amounts of blood alcohol to trap a significant amount of heat
    • You don’t use trace amounts of iron to trap a significant amount of heat
    • You don’t use trace amounts of ibuprofen to trap a significant amount of heat
    • You don’t use trace amounts of Earth to trap a significant amount of heat in the solar system
    • You don’t use trace amounts of arsenic to trap a significant amount of heat
    • You don’t use trace amounts of ozone to trap a significant amount of heat
    • You don’t use trace amounts of hydrogen sulphide to trap a significant amount of heat

    You might be able to use a trace amount of colour to trap a significant amount of heat, but here’s the thing, CO2 is colourless.

  50. Climate Adam: Are food influencers wrong about climate change?

    Another couple of years for results though

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

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us