Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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


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

Term Lookup


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

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

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

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Recent Comments

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

Comments 501 to 550:

  1. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm... "The surface is warmer, not from the GHE, but from gravity doing work on the atmosphere causing adiabatic heating."

    If this was true, how do you get these shifts in the thermal gradient of the atmosphere? Inquiring minds want to know if you think gravitity is fluctuating through the vertical profile.

  2. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm, I usually don't comment on the thermodynamic thread, but you have it completely backward.  Scientists have never argued that CO2 causes warming because they measured warming and then said CO2 was the cause.

    In fact, scientists measured the IR absorbtion spectrum of CO2 (in 1850) and then predicted in advance that increasing CO2 would cause the atmosphere to increase in temperature.  Your claim that "All you have is a correlation that doesn't prove anything." is false.  Scientists predicted 150 years in advance that increasing CO2 would cause the atmosphere to heat up.

    A prediction in advance that is correct is very strong evidence in support of a theory.  Can you provide an example of a prediction that your data sourse has made that was correct???

  3. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Let's put it this way: It is wholly implausible that the past 200 years of science, consisting of 100's of thousands of research papers, is getting this wrong in any fundamental sense.

  4. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm... "I'm just looking for the most plausible reasons for climate change."

    This is quite obviously untrue because clearly the most plausible reasons for climate change come from the overwhelming body of research demonstrating that CO2 is the primary cause. 

    I think you just don't like that conclusion and are cherry picking your way into "alternative facts," as they say.

  5. Climate Confusion

    Markp @51 :

    Your link to the extract from Wim Carton's 2020 book is not (IMHO) particularly useful.  Carton supplies many paragraphs of general discussion ~ mainly equal parts vagueness and bloviation.

    2020 may have been a bit early for ChatGPT as a co-author.  Then again, Carton may have been an early adopter, and was contracted for a 100,000 word book.  Yes I am being a bit harsh : but a book with extensive sociological commentary is always in great danger of being vague and so all-inclusive that it ends up failing to produce a clear message ~ it can be Bible-like, in that you (the reader) can find & select almost anything your heart desires from it.

  6. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm @1606 :

    Please make up your mind ~ are you arguing that "gravity" is causing the 288K temperature of the Earth's surface . . . or is the 288K the result of Dr Ward's good vibrations  of non-photons ?

  7. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    1600. Rob Honeycutt et al
    I'll wear that name proudly!
    I'm just looking for the most plausible reasons for climate change.
    I have found a number of theories. You will call them all quackery because they are not your theory.

    I like Peter Ward's. Scroll down the page you sent me and read Peter's responses to his challengers. He makes a lot of sense. His challengers did not prove him wrong, only disagreed with him.
    What I find wrong with your version of the science is that you say the small amount(less than 8% of all IR from the surface) re-radiated IR from a colder part of the atmosphere causes warming of the surface per Trenberth chart. That cannot happen. Your radiated photons from all emitting gases carry wave length and amplitude dependent on temperature emitted from. Not enough energy to heat the surface there. Per Ward 2015 colder IR is reflected by warmer object, not destroyed.
    Magically, your chart shows the down welling radiation is greater, almost double, than what the sun supplies. Satellites see 255k for the temperature that is radiated from about 5-6 km altitude, not from the surface. The surface is warmer, not from the GHE, but from gravity doing work on the atmosphere causing adiabatic heating. This is why near surface temperatures are ~33c warmer than Planck equations predict. That makes sense unlike the GHE raising the temperature that much.
    There is no experiment showing co2 warms the atmosphere.
    There is no measurement showing human emissions of co2 cause the recent warming.
    All you have is a correlation that doesn't prove anything.
    The extra UV-B radiation reaching the surface warms the ocean and the warmer ocean emits more co2 per Ward 2015 makes sense and he does have a correlation with ozone levels and temperatures. Read his paper I linked to.

    I know you like labels, but get the label right.
    It's "CO2 causes climate change science denier" not "climate science denier".

  8. Climate Confusion

    Markp... Who do you think should be taking action on climate change and how do you think they should endeavor to do it?

    I would note that, somehow, I guess inconceivably, government-led action is how we ultimately solved the crisis related to emissions of CFC's. 

    Mark, you might also want to note the IPCC doesn't have any power to regulate anything, nor can they implement any solutions. They are merely the intergovermental body that communicates the science, risks and impacts we face. 

    It's the UNFCCC at the COP conferences where goverments meet in attempts to create agreements that would address the problem. And those agreements are non-binding agreements between nations. The Paris Agreement was a product of the UNFCCC.

    What is not clear in your post is, what do you think William Carton is saying?

  9. Philippe Chantreau at 03:16 AM on 30 September 2023
    2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    A Christmas gift idea for Dr Ward and Likeitwarm:



    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link

  10. Climate Confusion

    For all you IPCC apologists, I found a nice piece of research that will help those with their thinking caps on to better appreciate the problems with refusing to accept that this government-led body is not acting in our best interest the way you may think it is. This comes from Wim Carton of Lund University in Sweden. His article Carbon Unicorns and Fossil Futures; Whose Emission Reduction Pathways Is the IPCC Performing?  appears in the book Has It Come To This? The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the Brink, (2021) Rutgers University Press

  11. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    I think you're on to something, Eclectic. That's pretty much what it would take to overturn our modern understanding of the GHE and climate change. It would require a complete restructuring of physics as we understand it today. 

    It's certainly a possibility that Dr. Ward is the person who accomplishes this feat. An infinitessimally small possibility, but still a possibility none-the-less. And if that should come to pass, we will all recognize Likeithot for his keen insight and can re-embark on burning FF's with reckless abandon.

    Until that time, I'm going to stick with the current overwhelming body of scientific research.

  12. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    MA Rodger @1602 :

    Dr Ward's novel ideas are certainly intriguing, and may be introducing us to concepts that go completely beyond Quantum Mechanics.  In physics, they could represent a great leap forward (to borrow from the political terminology).   Or a quantum leap (to use the vernacular term).   What a time to be alive!

    The commenter Likeitwarm may be on the cusp of understanding how these advanced ideas are producing a fusion  ~ a fusion of Denialati and Illuminati.   Truly a new Enlightenment.

    Perhaps this new development will give Likeitwarm encouragement and . . . a quantum of solace?

  13. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    I was intrigued by the Ward (2016) quote made by Likeitwarm @1590.

    "It is the frequencies and amplitudes of these radiating oscillations that, when absorbed by cooler matter, increase the amplitudes and frequencies of the internal oscillations of the absorbing matter, thereby increasing the absorbing matter’s temperature. It is these frequencies and amplitudes that appear to be reflected, rather than absorbed, by warmer matter [22]. When radiation has lower amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency than the prevailing amplitudes of oscillation within receiving matter, heat cannot flow into the matter by resonance, cooler to hotter. Therefore, by conservation of energy, “colder” radiation must be reflected."

    How do you measure the 'temperature' of a photon to know that it is "colder"? We have no actual knowledge of what a photon is, just its impact on the universe it is emitted from and absorbed/reflected/refracted by. And that shows us the energy of a photon (so presumably some marker of its 'temperature') is solely a function of its wavelength. There is no variation in any 'amplitude'.  So all this guff from Ward about radiation having both 'frequency' and 'amplitude' is a fantasy.

    The reference [22] which Ward uses three times to support the same crackpot contention refers to Evans & Popp (1985) 'Pictet's experiment: the apparent radiation and reflection of cold', an account of a certain Marc-Auguste Pictet's 1784 experiment along with Evans & Popp's explanation of how the 'reflection of cold' was actually measuring a drop in temperature when the "relatively high-temperature radiation** is replaced ... the thermometer now recieves less energy per unit time than previously." [**That is radiation emitted from a relatively warmer source.]

  14. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm... "GHE is a hypothesis, not fact."

    This is very base level climate denial. I mean, jeez, we literally measure the greenhouse effect and have been doing so for over a century. You can measure it from your own backyard with relatively simple, inexpensive equipment. 

  15. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm... The difference here is this: Given enough evidence and strong research, any of us could be convinced there is something other than CO2 responsible for warming the planet in the modern era. You, on the other hand, will never accept the overwhelmingly research that currently exists regardless of how convincing it is.

    Being truly skeptical means being convincible. Thus, I would term you a climate science denier. And that is the very premise of how this website was named.

  16. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Ah, yes. Likeitwarm brings out the strawmen of "AGW theory", "where's your proof?", etc. And now, he's using Friends of Science as a source. As Eclectic says, these sources are simply delusional about the science.

    The last link provided by Likeitwarm is a paper published in Energy and Environment. As quoted on this Desmog page about the journal, E&E is "a journal that climate change deniers go to when their papers have been rejected by mainstream peer-reviewed publications."

    The holes in the papers Likeitwarm has linked to are so large you could drive a Mack truck through them. They have been debunked many, many times in the past.

    As for Likeitwarm's posting history here at SkS, he has pretended to have an open mind about the science, but his last couple of posts have made it clear that he has participated here with his mind made up, and that he only accepts information that fits his desired conclusion.

  17. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Sorry, Likeitwarm @1597 . . . but the Miskolczi "paper" proves no such thing.  His "constant infrared optical depth" ideas are junk science.

    Rob Honeycutt is pointing you in the right direction.  Look inside yourself and ask why you choose to cherrypick these disproven ideas originating from a few - a very small handful - of "contrarian scientists".   That is the question for you . . . if you are brave enough to face yourself in the mirror.

    Let me hasten to add : AFAIK the good Dr Miskolczi may well be a nice guy and kind to children & animals.   And AFAIK, lawyers would not consider him legally insane . . . but he is delusional about this area of climate physics.

    Sadly, Likeitwarm, there's a small number of scientists who are simply delusional.  It's a quirk of their personality, a crazy streak.  But that is no reason for you to be sucked in by them.

  18. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    I counted on you guys reacting like you did.  You are stuck on the false AGW theory and can't get over it.  You denigrate all other theories.  GHE is a hypotheseis, not fact.  Where is your proof that increased CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere?  You only have a correlation with rising temperatures and CO2. No laboratory proofs that the addition of CO2 does anything to temperature. Check this proof that CO2 does nothing to atmospheric temperatures.

  19. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    LIkewarm @ 1594:

    Oh, my Jennifer Marohasy is a completely unreliable source. The article it links to starts with this paragraph (leaving the grammatical errors intact):

    Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0.

    This is absolutely, completely wrong. No such assumption is made. The reference provide is to a book (?) about "slaying the sky dragon".  The Sky Dragon believers are about as nutty as it gets.

    You then post links to, which has strong ties to the Sky Dragon believers and is about as reliable as the Flat Earth Society.. It is a collection of deniers - not a useful source of anything remotely scientific. You can read more about the organization here.

    You then delve into the standard "it's a plot" that characterizes the conspiratorial thinking that saturates the common denier mentality.

    You claim to "...find a lot, 1000s or more, of scientists that disagree with AGW." But what you are presenting here is just more of long-debunked crap.

    There is no polite way to put it. You are believing sources that are obscenely wrong about climate science.

  20. At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    rip71749@2, to add to the impact of your analogy, coming out of the last glacial cycle CO2 rose at a rate of 1 ppm/100 yrs for 1000s of years. So even the relatively slow increase you note of 1 ppm/year during the early years following the Industrial Revolution were, in geological terms, extremely rapid.

  21. One Planet Only Forever at 05:58 AM on 28 September 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    Eclectic @5,

    I agree that there is a preponderance of reporting of incorrect evaluations of ‘development progress’. Your example of a lack of improvement that could incorrectly be counted as an improvement is a god one. I would add the following case:

    People living a subsistence living condition in a village would benefit from receiving assistance from more fortunate people like:‘public health care’ or ‘public education that sustainably improves the quality of their food production (even if they never produce any excess product for trade). But such a person moving from that zero-income and ‘deserving of improvement’ circumstance to a city where they earn income just above the poverty line is not really an improvement. It may, in fact, be a negative change.

    Perhaps the most comprehensive recent documents I have seen that attempt to deliver a more accurate presentation are the UNDP Human Development Reports, particularly the HDR 2020 which delves into a diversity of improvements to ‘GDP measures of progress’.

    Some other more realistic economic evaluations are:

    • “Good Economics for Hard Times”, by Abhijt V. Banerjee and Ester Duflo, PublicAffairs 2019.
    • “The Age of Sustainable Development”, by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University Press 2015.

    Thomas Piketty has also presented some of this non-current-norm economics.

  22. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm... Your description sounds like a severe case of confirmation bias. You're deliberately rejecting the overwhelming body of research in favor of small cherry-picked bits that confirm what you prefer to believe.

  23. One Planet Only Forever at 05:26 AM on 28 September 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    nigelj @4,

    To be clear, I am optimistic about the future of humanity in spite of the current, and growing, popularity of misleading claims made in pursuit of 'benefit for some - to the detriment of others'.

    I believe that the disastrous results of harmful misunderstandings, like the short-term (multiple decades is still short-term) surge of popularity of nonsense like Reagan-Thatcher-nomics (a main driving force opposed to the understood required corrections to limit climate change harm done), will be overcome as global leaders become bolder about taking action that conflicts with the interests of undeserving wealthy and powerful people.

    But 'responsible harm reduction' leaders need to have clear support from a significant portion of the population. It is very hard work to limit the harmful influence of misleading populists.

    Limiting the influence of misleading populists requires leadership that will compromise the ability of undeserving powerful people to mislead in ways that suit their unjust interests. But, more importantly, it requires a significant portion of voters to be dedicated to learn to be less harmful and more helpful to others. All major political parties sharing that objective but still having a robust diversity of perspectives aligned with that objective would be 'brilliant politicking'.

    The battles to 'limit the success of misleading marketing', on all matters that really matter, not just climate science and limiting climate change impacts, need to be won in order for humanity to sustainably improve the future for the robust diversity of humans and other life on this amazing planet. SKS is just one of the many important players in battle against 'mis-Leaders pursuing harmful unjustified unsustainable benefits For Their Type of People.

  24. At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    Look at human-added CO2 as borrowing debt on a fossil fuel credit card. When we were young (>200 years ago), we had 280ppm CO2 in the bank and life was good. We had just received a fossil fuels credit card (which created debt in CO2) with seemingly no limit. Our family started to grow and we needed more energy so we borrowed a little fossil fuel. It seemed like we were borrowing almost nothing and thought there was almost no CO2 to worry about.

    But as the years went by and the balance, grew we became shocked at how much it had grown. At first there was only about 1 billion of us and we had 280 ppm CO2 in the bank. We needed a little extra and started borrowing, just a little, less than 1ppm per year. But as our family grew (population), we borrowed more and more fossil fuels because suddenly we needed the extra energy to support our growing family (population) using our fossil fuels credit card (fossil fuels from 300 million years ago, and our 100 million CO2 account credit limit of stored solar energy).

    By the time we reached 1960 our family (population) had grown to about 3 billion and our fossil fuel credit borrowing had increased to about (315-280= 35ppm) of CO2 debt, still not too bad. But then things started going crazy and our family was increasing by another billion every 12-13 years. All of a sudden in 2023 our family was 8 billion and we had borrowed so much fossil fuel our CO2 debt reached (421-280=141 ppm). We owed more than half of our entire starting bank account of 280ppm, and were borrowing more than ever at 3ppm with no end in sight. Instead of retiring in comfort in our old age, we are going to have to work until our dying day.

    It all seemed like such a small amount of borrowing at the start, but now, we are in big trouble! We will never be able to pay off that CO2 credit card debt?

  25. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Sysop, Thank you for allowing this conversation with scaddenp and myself to continue.

    1562 scaddenp
    You said "What I am asking is whether you can remember what switched you into looking for sites like CO2Science or Was it just disbelief about trace gases or were there other considerations?"

    I've been thinking about an answer for you.
    I started looking into "global warming" back in the mid 2000s, 25 years ago,
    I think with this site
    Many other places and books since then.
    I find a lot, 1000s or more, of scientists that disagree with AGW.
    One is Nasif Nahle who has calculated the emissivity of CO2 at less than .003 and and says that it doesn't absorb or emit much if any IR. You can see his calculations at
    Then there is the Club Of Rome, a bunch of rich elitists that think they know best for the rest of us. Back in 1968-1974 they decided they needed a scare tactic to get people to reduce births, thus reducing the population of the earth and the resources used by them. They settled on AGW because CO2 is emitted when fossil fuels are burned. Reduce the available energy and you will reduce the birth rate.
    The U.N. IPCC was not charged with finding out what makes the climate change but rather how to pin it on human causes. See and
    UN’s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ‘Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model’
    You see, the goal was not to save us all from overheating the planet or acidifying the oceans. The goal was to scare everyone into giving up cheap fossil fuels.
    I don't know what the goal of you and your colleagues at Skeptical Science is but I do know you can create logic and equations to describe anything, so I remain skeptical of your site.
    Now you know where I'm coming from.  See

  26. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Likeitwarm... Well, I guess Peter Ward believes, in effect and contrary to conversion of energy, that energy can be destroyed.

    Ward also claims, "...however, [ozone depletion] provides a much more detailed and precise explanation for changes in climate observed since the industrial revolution and throughout geologic history." And this us pure, unadulterated BS.

    You might be interested to know that Ward is a Seismologist, not an an atmospheric scientist nor a physicist. He speaketh from an orafice unbecoming for a serious researcher.

  27. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    FYI, there is a more complete debunking of Peter Ward's "theories" at this blog site:


  28. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    Frankly. likeitwarm, you are simply not understanding what you are reading....

    In comment 1590, you quote a paper that says "Thermal energy..." and "mechanical contact"

    IR radiation is not "thermal energy". It is "radiative energy". It does not need mechanical contact - that's why radiation from the sun reaches us through the vacuum of space.

    The quote you provide, and the paper you link to, are very, very confused. Radiation does not have "temperature". Radiation has no memory of what temperature it was emitted from - it just has a wavelength and frequency.

    In its figure 2,  the paper provides Planck curves for perfect emitters. Gases are not perfect emitters.

    The paper starts section 7 (titled "RADIANT ENERGY IS NOT ADDITIVE") with the following:

    Where most people have trouble intuitively visualizing electromagnetic energy and understanding E=hν is in recognizing that electromagnetic energy cannot be summed over frequency or wavelength, as is done today by virtually all climate models. It makes no physical sense to sum frequencies. For example, red light at 400 THz plus violet light at 700 THz does not equal ultraviolet-B radiation at 1100 THz

    This demonstrates that the author is pretty much clueless as to what climate models and radiation models do. Nobody sums frequencies in the manner he suggests - they can and do (properly) sum the energy at different frequencies. That's called an "energy balance".

    In section 11, the author cites Angstrom's 1900 paper. We've actually learned stuff since 1900, and Angstrom's errors are discussed on the advanced CO2 is saturated thread.

    You need to find some less obvious sources of misinformation, likeitwarm.

  29. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    1585. Rob Honeycutt
    "what's it do? a u-turn?"
    Ha! You're funny!
    Not exactly a u-turn, but effectively.

    Re-radiated IR cannot warm the surface according to Peter L Ward at the U.S. Geological Survey.
    He explains as follows:
    "Thermal energy can only transfer
    physically via resonance in this way from higher
    amplitude to lower amplitude at a given frequency
    and, through mechanical contact in matter, from
    higher frequency to lower frequency, thus
    explaining the second law of thermodynamics.

    It is the
    frequencies and amplitudes of these radiating
    oscillations that, when absorbed by cooler matter,
    increase the amplitudes and frequencies of the
    internal oscillations of the absorbing matter,
    thereby increasing the absorbing matter’s
    temperature. It is these frequencies and amplitudes
    that appear to be reflected, rather than absorbed,
    by warmer matter [22]. When radiation has lower
    amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency than
    the prevailing amplitudes of oscillation within
    receiving matter, heat cannot flow into the matter
    by resonance, cooler to hotter. Therefore, by
    conservation of energy, “colder” radiation must be
    reflected. It can only flow away from the matter,
    hotter to cooler. There is no physical way for
    warmer matter to absorb “colder” radiation.
    Resonance does not work in that direction. The
    flow of thermal energy is all about the propagation
    of a broad spectrum of oscillations in matter, in
    space, and in gas molecules from higher
    temperature to lower temperature."

  30. 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

    1584. "noone said the surface is heated"

    Stated in the Energy Balance section at the top of this page some energy is "directed back down towards the surface, increasing the surface temperature". The energy budget graphic shows over 300 watts per sq meter going back to the surface. How does more energy get radiated from greenhouse gases than comes from the sun in the first place? Do greenhouse gases create energy out of nothing?

  31. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    Nigelj @4 :-  "... and financial inequality within countries has increased to problematic levels.  So the picture is complicated."  [unquote]

    Quite so ~ most nations are "improving" in wealth, as judged by average or median GDP per head (inflation adjusted).  But how are the lowermost quintile of people experiencing life?

    What I have not seen, is a comprehensive analysis of the poorest in the poorest Third World nations.  If a subsistence peasant farmer earns $1.00 per day as cash income ~ but then he moves to a city slum and earns $3.00 per day as a laborer . . . he is then recorded as being lifted above the poverty line, and the statisticians are happy about that.  Even though his health and quality of life are likely worse than before.

  32. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    OPOF @3. I agree and well stated. There is certainly a risk with the glass half full positive view of human history that we concentrate on the positive data and forget the negative data. And such books can get manipulated by people to minimise the negative data.

    Although the numbers dying in global conflicts has decreased steadly since the two world wars (according to The Moral Arc book) , the War in the Ukraine is a sober reminder that things can rapidly change so we are far from achieving a really peaceful, stable  world.

    And although global poverty has decreased on the whole, the situation is still not satisfactory, and  financial inequality within countries has increased to problematic levels. So the picture is complicated.

    And for every environmental improvement some aspect of environmentalism seems to have gone backwards.

    In fact I generally have an inherently  slightly pessimistic and doomy view of the human condition, but positive books like The Moral Arc are a good counter to that and help me keep my understanding accurate and realistic.

    Both books are very data driven. However they should not be read in isolation from books pointing out problems with the human condition, and vice versa.

  33. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    Wbru49  @20 :

    What were the points you wish to make about the Happer/Lindzen letter addressed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  ~ were there any important legal or scientific aspects which are worth noting?

    Based on my quick scan of it : the letter seems to be a general outpouring of all sorts of old "denialist" talking points.  Not sure whether it's best described as a rant or as a "Drumpfized" Gish Gallop of nonsenses & half-truths.

    Either way, it is sad to see two elderly scientists showing that peculiar degeneration of intellect which too-often accompanies "Emeritus" status.  Or would be sad ~ if it weren't already Old News.

    Or perhaps I have misunderstood what these two guys are up to.  Are they laying the ground for an actual legal challenge to the EPA . . . or are they just venting?

  34. One Planet Only Forever at 08:55 AM on 27 September 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    Regarding the Story of the Week and comments by Just Dean and nigelj,

    Positivity can indeed be Good. But focusing on the positives can also develop negative results, particularly if it impedes learning to be less harmful, especially if it hides or excuses undeniably unsustainable beliefs and related unjustified harmful actions.

    Positivity can produce damaging unsustainable attitudes like: ‘Pursuing the interests of <Insert any subset of humanity> First will produce so much Winning (for the sub-set of humanity)’. That ‘positivity’ would include the harmful attitude of Prioritizing the interests of the Current Generation (discounting the interests of the future generations - or being positive that the brilliance of future generations will solve everything). It can also lead to harmful popular nonsense like: ‘There are Fine People on all sides of an issue’ or ‘Every opinion is equally valid’.

    ‘Everybody must be allowed to maintain or improve their enjoyment of their life’ is a very damaging belief. That ‘very positive’ belief has developed many harmful results and many unsustainable ‘positive perceptions of improvement and superior status’, not just harmful climate change impacts.

    The recent NPR article “The U.N. plan to improve the world by 2030 is failing. Does that make it a failure?”, like the Story of the Week, is a well-reasoned evidence-based presentation. Current global Leadership (political and business) has not been improving Humanity’s reality as quickly as it could or should – even though it understands that it could and should do that.

    The presentation by Hannah Richie, a leader in Our World in Data, also correctly points out that the required changes have not been happening quickly enough. But that presentation fails to include the understanding that it is very harmful to ‘wait for less harmful and more sustainable ways of enjoying life to become cheaper and easier’. That belief can only be helpful if it is used by leadership, and supported by others, to justify more rapidly making harmful unsustainable ways of living more expensive or harder, especially more expensive and harder for higher status people to benefit from.

    As nigelj correctly points out, the current developed situation regarding poverty is not measured by ‘today vs. 300 years ago’. It should be measured by recent rates of progress. The failure to succeed in achieving the SDGs indicates that there is a systemic developed problem. A very good recent presentation of this understanding was made by Matthew Stewart in "The 9.9 Percent" (about how the most powerful 0.1% win with support of the 9.9% - excused by a portion of the remaining 90% due to their divisive fighting to become 'higher-status' like the top 10%). “The 9.9 Percent” provides a detailed evidence-based rational understanding of the systemic problem and required changes. In a nut-shell what needs to be done is compromising the ability of the undeserving among the top 0.1 Percent (in wealth and power) to be supported and excused by the rest of the top 10% or any of the 90%. Note: 0.1% of the current global population is 8 million. And 10% is 800 million. Every nation has some undeserving trouble-makers.

     Bit about GDP.

    GDP could be increased by increasing the amount of sustainable development. But a lot of the current developed GDP is unsustainable and harmful. So maintaining current perceptions of GDP. And prolonging the harmful unsustainable activities in an effort to maintain developed perceptions of superior status can be understood to be an exercise in ‘positivity’, a very damaging exercise.

    Harmful activity that directly, and exclusively, improves the life circumstances of people living less than a decent life is understandably ‘harmful unsustainable activity worthy of being prolonged’. But it is understandable that harm done by ‘reduction of poverty’ needs to be limited for the reduction of poverty to be sustainable. Increased or prolonged ‘evaluated value’ of GDP due to harmful activity that people living better than basic decent lives benefit from needs to be understood to be a ‘negative’.

    One of the insidious currently developed results is the popularity of the claim that people only need to change to be less harmful if being less harmful is cheaper and easier. That excuses continued and increasing harmful behaviour because of the unjustified belief that ‘the marketplace will produce cheaper and easier alternatives that are less harmful’.

    The ‘positive optimistic belief’ that things will be developed that are less harmful is unsustainable because ‘less harmful is still harmful’. And if people develop desires for ‘more enjoyable or personally beneficial actions’ the result can be more harm done even if ‘alternatives that are less harmful per unit of consumption or action replace more harmful ways’. More units of less harmful actions per unit can easily be ‘even more harmful’. And expecting people to aspire to be like people who are perceived to be lower status is nonsense. The highest status people need to be setting the least harmful and most helpful example for all others to aspire to. Anyone pursuing other interests should be moved down to the status deserved by their harmful lack of helpfulness.

  35. Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

    By their fruits ye shall know them. Finland recently switched on its long-delayed Olkiluoto reactor, and promptly joined the select group of countries and regions with power emissions below 100 grams CO2 equivalent/kWh.

    Average for August -

    Finland 67g (47% nuclear)

    France 43g (78% nuclear)

    Germany 370g (37% wind and solar)

    California 282g (25% wind and solar, 9% nuclear)

    Ontario 98g (58% nuclear)

    South Australia 245g (58% wind and solar)

    California's only remaining nuclear plant was saved at the last minute - Governor Newsom realised his state was heading for blackouts. Ontario has recently announced plans to build four small modular reactors - plus four large reactors.

  36. John F. Clauser: the latest climate science-denying physicist

    Are there thoughts about this July 19, 2023 letter from William Happer
    Professor of Physics, Emeritus Princeton University and Richard Lindzen
    Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

  37. At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    For a person making $50,000/yr, and for whom expenses balance with income, a windfall of receiving an additional $2000/yr is a big deal, even though $2000 compared to $50,000 is a small amount. The same is true when comparing human emissions to the otherwise balanced natural carbon sources and sinks.

  38. Climate's changed before

    Recommended Supplemental Reading:

    Yes, there was global warming in prehistoric times. But nothing in millions of years compares with what we see today, Opinion by Michael E Mann, Los Angeles Times, Sep 24, 2023

  39. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    Just Dean

    Regarding Hannah Ritchies video. I read the main points that she made in her video. Her points were basically that infant mortality is much lower than 300 years ago, poverty has come down, we have made some progess with wind and solar power, coal fired power is declining, and levels of deforestation have generally stopped and environmental pollution in America has fallen (despite economic growth). All worthy points to make and a good counter to the doom and gloom.

    Other writers have put a positive spin on human progress such as Seven Pinker in Enlightenment Now and Michael Shermer in The Moral Arc and IMO both books make good points.

    However economic growth has a good and bad side. The good side is obvious, but the article did point out the bad side. I don't agree with all the points it made, but economic growth has been a prime contributer of deforestation and its a bit naive to think it can continue indefinitely without causing more deforestation. There is also depletion of the worlds fisheries. Economic growth is also generally accepted to be one of the prime causes of mineral resource depletion (along with population growth) that is on track to leave future generations short of basic materials. Economic growth has been one prime cause of pollution in the development phase of many societies. While its possible to have economic growth and keep pollution at moderate levels as America shows, a necessary condition is a strong rule of law absent in many countries and America ( and other developed countries) is not exactly free of all pollution.

    It therefore looks like it would be very difficult and perhaps impossible to have indefinite economic growth based around resource extraction and processing and also have a sustainable environment, and also maintain ever expanding wealth. It is also hard to see how such economic growth would be maintained indefinitely if we are using up finite resources. So it looks like economic growth may fall naturally over time all other things being equal. Economic growth rates have been falling in developed countries since the 1970s anyway.

    Japan has had relatively minimal economic growth over the last 30 years but has maintained a good standard of living. So once countries reach a certain level of wealth it looks like we could have zero or near zero economic growth and maintain a good standard of living.

    However the commentary seemed to call for a more rapid and deliberately planned end to economic growth. This might face difficulties because our entire financial system is based on debt finance reliant on at least some economic growth to pay off the debt. If economic growth was abruptly switched off for good banks would not be able to make loans.

    Any governmnet brave enough to have a policy of zero economic growth (easily achieved through monetary policy) might find the entire business sector waging war against them along with a large part of the population. A zero growth world would probably require large modifications to how capitalism operates and this should be possible but doesn't look like it would be rapidly achieved. It seems more likely to me that economic growth will slow and stop of its own accord due to emerging resource scarcity, demographic changes, etc,etc.

    Its very hard and slow turning large ships around.

  40. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

    I'm surprised that Hannah Ritchie's blogpost, My TED talk is now live ,  on Sep 22 wasn't highlighted. Hannah's message is somewhat in contrast to that offered by Nikayla Jefferson.  Her subtitle reads, "We can live well and tackle our environmental problems at the same time.  Let's do it."  I found her TED Talk quite uplifting and hopeful yet realistic about the work required to create even a better future.

  41. Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children

    It's another case of "Davz not here, man."

  42. Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children

    Davz... "Brainwashing" would be an act of convincing someone of things that are untrue. Scientists and those advocating for climate science are acting to inform people of the scientific realities and significant challenges of climate change.

    But, as Bob said. I'm sure this is another drive-by comment you're unwilling to defend.

  43. Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children


    And who, exactly, are the "climate change evangelists"??? Is there any overlap at all with "climate change scientists"? Can you provide even a single name? Do you have a definition for "climate change evangelist" that doesn't resemble "climate scientists with viewpoints I don't like"?

    Or is this just a drive-by ad hominem?

  44. Climate Town: The Brainwashing Of America's Children

    And the climate change evangelists aren't attempting to brainwash the kids then? 

  45. Climate scientists are in it for the money

    Please note: a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on September 23 and 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 @

  46. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #38 2023

    I must say, the research presented in Week #38 of Skeptical Science has once again left me both astonished and hopeful. As I delved into the details provided by the scientists, my passion for understanding our planet's changing climate grew significantly.

    In this week's research, the team at Skeptical Science dived into a previously unexplored aspect of climate change – the impact of reforestation on global temperatures. The study revealed that widespread reforestation efforts have the potential to mitigate the effects of rising <a href="">KDramas</a> temperatures significantly. The presence of more trees not only helps sequester carbon dioxide but also promotes localized cooling by providing shade and reducing heat absorption by the ground.

    One particular finding caught my attention: the relationship between reforestation and the frequency of heatwaves. The study showed that areas where reforestation efforts had been implemented saw a marked decrease in the intensity and duration of heatwaves. This correlation suggests that trees may act as natural air conditioners, helping to regulate local temperature extremes and protect communities from the adverse effects of heat stress.

    Furthermore, the research team emphasized the importance of utilizing native tree species in reforestation projects. Native trees are better adapted to local climates, enhancing their resilience to changing conditions and ensuring their long-term survival. This key insight offers a valuable lesson for policymakers and environmental organizations collaborating on reforestation initiatives worldwide.

    As I read through the research, it became apparent that the pursuit of reforestation is not only an environmental imperative but also a social responsibility. The study illustrates that by investing in reforestation projects, we can foster healthier ecosystems, safeguard biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and improve human well-being. It provides evidence that tackling climate change need not be a daunting task; rather, it presents a beacon of hope in the form of a practical and effective solution.

    In conclusion, the research presented in Week #38 of Skeptical Science not only sheds light on the critical role reforestation plays in combatting climate change but also ignites a flame of inspiration within individuals like myself. It reaffirms the notion that by working together and taking sustainable action, we have the power to carve a better, greener future. Let us use this knowledge to strive for a world where forests thrive, temperatures stabilize, and harmony between humans and nature is restored.

    With renewed optimism and determination,


    As CuriousNature79 clicked the "Submit" button, they couldn't help but feel a sense of satisfaction. Their comment served as a testament to the impact that thoughtful research, such as the one presented by Skeptical Science, had on individuals around the world. Together, through knowledge and action, they believed that humanity could indeed navigate the complex challenges of climate change and create a brighter future.

  47. At a glance - Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

    BaerbelW@3 Yes, I like the addition of the screenshot of fact and myth boxes. It gives the "At a glance" segment better context.

  48. It's cosmic rays

    sailingfree @120/121,
    The H. Svensmark input into AGW science has been in general seen as entirely overblown unless you are in denial about AGW when the idea that the sun plays a much bigger role than the climatology shows is usually seen as supportive of their denialism.

    Svensmark first published a cosmic ray climate effect back in 1997 demonstrating a remarkable fit between cosmic rays and global cloud cover. The fit proved to be spurious while experiment has demonstrated the causal link between cosmic rays and cloud formation to be very very weak. Undeterred by these setbacks, Svensmark has since been examining the detail of the cosmic ray/cloudiness relationship in an attempt to show there was a climatic effect after all.

    Part of this analysis by Svensmark homed-in on Forbush Decreases, a phenomenon identified back in the mid-1900s and today catalogued at an average rate of over 100 events per year. A relationship bewteen these Forbush Decreases and changes in cloud had been observed back in the 1990s.

    Svenmark first published on this phenomenon back in 2009. They used the most energetic Forbush Decreases (just 26 over 21 years) to produce a correlation between peak cloudiness and the Forbush Decrease strength (Fig 2- not entirely convincingly) and plotting the averages of cosmic ray evolution and average cloudiness evolution for the five most energetic Forbush Decrease events (Fig 1) although the reason for showing the averaging of these five alone is not evident to me in this paper.

    Svensmark et al (2021) which you ask about is simply Svensmark et al (2009) but using a correlation with the CERES radiation data. The CERES data restricts analysis to post-2000 events and now only the 13 most energetic events are analysed for the correlation (fig 2) with event evolutions averaged from (again) the five strongest events (fig 1), this apparently because there is too much "dominant meteorological noise" if more events are included, although I'm not sure that squares up with the effect being climactically significant.

    Of course, with the sun less active since SunSpotCycle 23, and thus presumably the cosmic rays increasing cloudiness which cools the climate, this would suggest that Svensmark's work would be implying amplification of the role of AGW rather than a diminution which denialists hope for. But such understanding may be a bit too involved for denialists to grasp.

  49. It's cosmic rays

    I interpret his 2021 paper to augment and solidify the fact that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for all of the increase in global temperature over the last half century. As I understand his argument, Increases in coronal mass injections cause more warming of the Earth. But the Sun has become less active over the last half century while the global temperatures increased and CO2 concentration increased . The  the graph in an earlier comment above is also in
    Svensmark's work would predict lower temperatures, but global temperatures are in fact higher.

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Link shortened

  50. At a glance - Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

    Note: I just added a screenshot of the fact and myth boxes at the top of the blog post to provide more context for the at-a-glance section. Do you think this is a useful addition to this weekly highlight of the most recently updated rebuttal? Please let us know either here in the comments or via the feedback form. Thanks!

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

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

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