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  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Comments 701 to 750:

  1. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    ubrew12 @12:

    I don't think Evan was trying to fool anyone, but he was trying to make people think. Seeing his original comment @3, and the responses @4 and 5, the path my brain went into was:

    • 100,000 years sounds an awful lot like glacial cycles.
    • 120m sounds an awful lot like sea level changes between glacials and interglacials.
    • Effects of Saturn and Jupiter sound an awful lot like the kinds of gravitational forces that cause wobbles and slight shifts in earth's orbital patterns...
    • ...which leads to Milankovitch theory.

    Rather than jumping into a mode of "this seems absurd..", I went into a mode of "maybe Evan is thinking about something other than the obvious..."

  2. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Jon Hartz @2.


  3. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    PollutionMonster , much of what you wish to learn can be found here on the SkS  website ~ you can educate yourself by reading various of the Climate Myths (see top of page).   In addition, you can use the Search box (top of page).

    In addition, you can use your knowledge of basic geography, and your common sense will tell you what happens as sea-level rises (including salination of low-lying land by storm surges).   And as the tropics get hotter (even 1 degreeC average rise does produce bursts of even hotter weather, to the severe detriment of crops / animals / humans).

    The lands in Northern Canada & Siberia will (eventually) benefit from warming.  But much of that area has poor quality soil . . . and there is the whole cost of establishing new infrastructure, and a host of other problems.   Much cheaper to halt the rises in CO2.

  4. PollutionMonster at 16:10 PM on 27 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    "The main point is that the land loss will include a great amount of fertile farming land, including the particularly productive river delta regions." 

    "And gradual worsening & lengthening of heat waves in India and the Middle East and Central Africa." Eclectic

    Do you have a source for that? I wish to improve my arguments and I don't think linking to say BBC is the best choice. The part about losing fertile soil worries me because people still die of starvation in the world. 

    Mostly the deniers use the myth of climate change is overblown and climate change solutions are super expensive. Which to be fair, I was reading that some solutions are infeasible Weekly Roundup.

    The denizens are mostly atheists, so that is some common ground we have that lets me tailor the message.  I could also use some advice for keeping it all organized. I hate it when I loose track of a really good source or argument.

  5. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    Good luck with that, PollutionMonster, if you wish to be a David fighting a Goliath of website denizens there.  The Daily Mail , eh  [insert supercilious emoji here] .   Endless hours of free entertainment for you, in battling a bunch of bigots.   Though I hope you won't cross swords with them more than a few times per week (you do not wish to justify any label of troll . . . even where they deserve being trolled).   And after all, you have a life to live in less toxic circumstances ~ and you may be able to do more good elsewhere.

    "CO2 limits will hurt the poor"  is just one of the grossly hypocritical  excuses put forward by climate deniers.   What is behind all these Denier arguments?    Near as I can tell, the underlying personality flaws boil down to Selfishness 75% plus Anger 25% . . . or maybe closer to 50 / 50 .

  6. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    ubrew12@12, glad we cleared that up. I simply like to remind people how delicately balanced Earth's systems are. The current effect of the Milankovitch cycles on our planetary systems fascinate me.

  7. PollutionMonster at 14:09 PM on 27 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    Eclectic @73

    Thanks that helps a lot. I sometimes have doubts when a lot of deniers yell at me at the same time. I think its best for me to pick my battles and choose a different community to talk to.

    I am finding very very little common ground. They refuse to use sources, which makes it difficult to understand where they are coming from. Of course there is endless accusations of me being a idelogue.

    Other uninvited deniers join in and call me a troll for using sources and accuse me of gish gallop when I link to skepticalscience. Of the group their two favorite sources tend to be Daily Telegraph and dailymail. Though the group consensus is generally sources are bad.

  8. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Evan@7 said "I am simply framing the effects of the Milankovitch cycles in a way that people may not normally think of them."  Yes, you certainly fooled me.  It makes sense that they would be a 'forcer' for those cycles, but I thought you were refering to some kind of direct gravitational effect.

  9. One Planet Only Forever at 13:03 PM on 27 February 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8


    Humans certainly would have difficulty being reasonably certain of the results of the collective accumulating impacts of their actions. A January 13, 2016 Carbon Brief article "Human emissions will delay next ice age by 50,000 years, study says" covered a study published in Nature. It explains how climate impacts have significantly delayed the onset of the next ice age. A key point is not 'the positive' of delaying the ice age. The key point is that the climate impacts will last 10s of thousands of years unless some generations of humans 'unprofitably' drawdown CO2.

    Even if CO2 is drawndown there will be many harmful results of the short term excessive CO2 levels that are irreversible. And many of those permanent harms will be surprises because humans don't really understand the complexity of life on this amazing planet.

    Humans have proven they can have massive impacts. And have proven to resist learning about how harmful their developed beliefs and actions actually are.

  10. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    scaddenp@9, good points. Isn't it remarkable that the Earth ever so slowly changed over millions of years until we arrived at this delicate position where ice-age cycles took us up and down, cycling between 180m and 60m equivalent sea level rise worth of ice on land. The incredible sensitivity of Earth to the tugs and pulls of Jupiter and Saturn are a true indication of the delicate balance that Earth has functioned in for so long.

  11. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    The milkankovich cycles are only able to force ice ages (and sea level) when GHGs levels are so low that summer insolation at high latitudes doesnt not melt snow. (The milankovich cycles operated long before the Pleistocene ice ages). The simple geoengineering to prevent an ice age is to increase GHG to such a level (around 400ppm) that they dont have an effect. Whoops! we have just done that.

    We definitely agree with Wally Broecker that climate is an angry beast and that we shouldnt be poking it with a stick.

  12. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Indeed, Evan. That's what I figured. A subtlety in mentioning, without naming, the gravitational effects that might see minor - and are, in a direct sense, based on ubrew12's numbers.

    But those minor direct effects lead to indirect effects, with a well-known and plausible physical mechanism, that make for major shifts in climate.

    A delicate balance for sure. People argue that we don't know enough about climate to be confident that CO2 is having a warming effect - all those pesky unknown unknowns - but we know enough to be confident that geoengineering will be entirely predictable and problem free? Surely a place to be skeptical.

  13. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Bob@6, correct. These are not tidal forces due to Jupiter and Saturn, but rather complex feedback processes triggered by varying orbital cycles due to the tug and pull of Jupiter and Saturn on the Earth, ala the Milankovitch cycles.

    I did not give a reference because I am simply framing the effects of the Milankovitch cycles in a way that people may not normally think of them.

  14. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    PollutionMonster @72 ,

    Regarding Kulp & Strauss (2019)  the figure "per satellite measurement" indicated that 230 million people would need to move, i.e. would lose their land, as the sea level rose 1 meter.  Yes, that might well take around 100 years (and the figure might well have grown to more than 230 million by then).   The main point is that the land loss will include a great amount of fertile farming land, including the particularly productive river delta regions.  But I am sure your Denier friend has no concern about loss of food production in a world of increasing population.   Nor will he admit to concern about impoverished refugees coming to a location near him ~ or concern about their wellbeing.

    Yes, in the big picture, it all happens slowly.  I must admit to a certain liking for your Denier friend.  He seems a man without compassion.  The world needs more of that sort of person !

  15. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    ubrew12, Phillippe:

    At a guess, I expect that Evan may be claiming that the variations in the Milankovitch cycles are due to the gravitational effects of Saturn and Jupiter, such that we have glacial/intergalcial periods at 100,000-year intervals. And that causes sea level changes of 120m.

    Just a hunch. Evan can confirm.

  16. PollutionMonster at 05:07 AM on 27 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    Eclectic @70

    I read your entire post, thank you for the response. :) I feel like I can have a conversation with you on how to best prebunk and debunk climate change deniers. One problem I have is that some websites are so full of snark and dog piling that I am afraid to have a conversation with other climate change activists. That people are trying to look cool and who can get the best insult off, rather than attempt to become better prebunkers.

    According to Greta Thunberg politics have become very very toxic. 

    GretaThungberg NPR

    One dilemma I have with such a strategy is the person practicing denial lures me into the <i>"snake pit."</i> For example if I say the ocean is acidifying, they insist the statement is vague and therefore useless, demanding I say exactly how fast, how much, and what damage.  Ditto, with iceberg shrinking, sea level rise, and refugees.

    Next, if I commit to exact numbers, we enter the snake pit. The cranky uncle comes up with different numbers and shows the flaws of my numbers they call me a compulsive liar and are usually able to swing the audience. I'm suprised how often the onlookers side with denial.

    I am not the most scientifically literate, nor the most intelligent. I often have to admit humility that the denier is simply smarter and more knowledgeable. That they can pull the conversation to the battleground they are most effective at.

    For example when I linked to the Kulp Strauss 2019 article they just dismissed as irrelevant that the sea levels will rise slowly and people will migrate as they always do. Thank you again for the informative civil conversation. :)

  17. Philippe Chantreau at 04:43 AM on 27 February 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Evan at 3: Do you have a source, link, published paper for this very bold assertion?

  18. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Re Evans@3.  The gravitational pull of all solar system objects, on Earths surface, relative to the moon is: Moon 1, Sun 0.4, Venus 6E-5, Jupiter 3E-6, Mercury 4E-7, Saturn 2E-7, Mars 5E-8, Uranus 3E-9, and Neptune 8E-10.  

  19. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Saturn and Jupiter do a dance with the Earth which, over the course of 100,000 years, causes sea level to rise and fall by 120m (400 ft). This demonstrates how delicately balanced our planetary systems are.

    Do humans have any chance of artificially controlling such a delicately-balanced system (i.e., through geo-engineering), short of ceasing to poke a prod the system the way we do?

  20. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    PollutionMonster @70 ,

    Please do not go down into the "snake pit".  There is no point arguing in areas where you are not clearly the victor.   Whether it is 5 million per year dying of heatwaves versus 2 million dying of cold ~ or vice versa . . . really does not matter, because Deniers will dispute you with all sorts of rubbery figures (faux or real) and their own rubbery definitions of what's what.   You cannot clearly win, in the eyes of onlookers (and they will see you as argumentative & unconvincing . . . and losing credibility).

    The people who spout "freedom / totalitarian control" and suchlike ~ they are a lost cause.   They cannot (and do not wish to) think logically.   They are into Conspiracies ~ the Mr Soros; the Rothschilds (and their space lasers) ; other Billionaire Communists; the Deep State; the "Q" ; the Lizard people ; etcetera.

    Keep it simple.  Point to AGW leading to ice-melting and sea-level rise with consequent migrations of millions of refugees.   And gradual worsening & lengthening of heat waves in India and the Middle East and Central Africa.   More refugees, more poverty, and still more refugees.

    Then the real question for discussion becomes : what should we actually do to reduce & prevent those future problems?  Sit on our hands for the next 20 years?  Or advance gradually (or quickly) toward nett zero carbon emissions (maybe by 2050 or 2060 or 2070?).   Argue for the big picture, not the small stuff.

    It is the same with friends who are "un-engaged"  ~ just make an occasional brief reference to what we actually need to do.   (You don't want them to think of you as That Guy  who is a boring one-trick pony.)

  21. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    nigelj: At this moment in time, the human race seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place with respect to mitigating man-made climate change. Sooner or later, something has to give. As someone who turns 80 years old this coming summer, I don't know if I'll live long enought to see which path is chosen.  For my childrens' and grandchildrens' sake, I sure hope its the right one.

  22. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

    Regarding the engineered solutions to humanities various problems. I acknowledge the downsides of this and I oppose geoengineering the climate, but I get tired of listening to academics (and the general public) potificate on the dangers of engineered solutions, while they fly around the world and live in their homes packed full of technology and drive their sophisticated cars. If its really a huge problem, wouldn't they set an example and live simply?

  23. PollutionMonster at 05:51 AM on 26 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    BaerbelW @68

    I am checking out the link you posted. Specifically the one page Flyer.

    One page flier

    I find the part about the part about ask for the sources of their information to lead my friends to either avoid the subject or clam up. I've found my friends to either talk way too much and not give me a chance to talk or avoid the subject entirely. Feast or famine neither feels like a real conversation.

    Right now I am more concerned about stopping myself from spreading misinformation. For example I recently got called out online for spreading misinformation and labeled a liar and a science denier when I said there was five million people dying a year from climate change. I get confused by the scientific jaragon that the lancet used the word association.

    This sometimes spills over into other areas like how many people die from covid-19, or smoking and comorbidities. Seems the theme is to say yes, climate change exists, smoking causes cancer, covid-19 kills, but the damage is minimal and we should sit on our hands and do nothing.

    Followed by a verbose speech about freedom and analogies to totalitarian regimes. Anyways, seems the fastest way to lose your audience and interlocutor is to accidentally spread climate change misinformation.



  24. One Planet Only Forever at 04:56 AM on 25 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    PollutionMonster and Others,

    The post that BaerbelW @68 linked to is an excellent and comprehensive reference guide.

    I would add that it is important to understand that many difficult interactions are essentially “Conflicts of Interest”. And they can only be resolved if there is an agreement regarding the objective.

    As an engineer I learned that there are a diversity of acceptable ways to achieve an objective. The key is alignment regarding the objective. And the most essential objective is ‘minimizing harm done and minimizing risk of harm’ while developing improvements for the benefit of Others. If you are unable to establish alignment that the objective is the evidence-based pursuit of that objective there will be no ‘alignment on the acceptability of desired actions’.

    For engineered structures there are a diversity of materials and types of structures that will be acceptably safe. The problematic conflict of interest is not the choice between comparably safe solutions. The problem is a desire for an alternative that would not be as harmless or safe. Cheaper, quicker, easier, and more profitable alternatives are often more harmful or less safe. So pursuit of any of those ‘objectives’ can create a harmful conflict of interest.

    A final point. When the person you are dealing with tries to change the topic, because their original desired thoughts are not consistent with an evidence-based understanding of how to limit harm done and help others, try to remain focused on the original issue rather than be distracted by ‘the new alternative thoughts’.

  25. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    PollutionMonster @67

    One on one discussions with friends and family members can make sense but are obviously not easy. If you want to tackle them, please check this blog post about a neat communications flyer with tips on countering conspiracy theories and misinformation.

  26. PollutionMonster at 13:08 PM on 24 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    Rob Honeycutt @64

    Yes, I agree with what you are saying. Even real life friends it seems that the one versus one conversation seems pointless. The chances of changing their mind is maybe 1%.

    As for others being interested in the science. I do know depends upon the forums. Some places it just seems like who can do the best job of a gish gallop of ad hominems, strawmans, and false accusations win. Do I defend myself or just stick to the science?

  27. One Planet Only Forever at 05:37 AM on 24 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    Re my comment @65,

    I should have included the following reference:

    RateHub "What is the total cost of ownership for a car?"

    The RateHub evaluation includes costs excluded from CPA Canada link I provided @65 (which is largely based on, and refers to, the CAA's Driving Cost Calculator).

    The RateHub evaluation includes consideration of things like parking costs and seasonal tire change-over.

    And there are other costs to consider like new tires every 5 or 6 years. And a big cost that is not in the evaluations is unexpected repair costs (not part of the planned regular maintenance).

  28. One Planet Only Forever at 04:01 AM on 24 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    As Rob says @64,

    In many cases a person may not admit to changing their opinion n an on-line back and forth, or a personal discussion. However, they may ultimately alter their thinking based on the interaction. But, in some cases, they will just alter onto a different inexcusable unjustified attempt to excuse or justify their developed liking for benefit from fossil fuel use.

    It may help to share something like the following article from CPA Canada (Chartered Professional Accountants Canada). It lays out the cost facts about car ownership:

    First-time car buyer? Here’s what you should be budgeting for.

    That indicates that owning a small basic car costs about $1000 per month in Canada. And the type of vehicle (electric vs fossil fuel) would not make much of a differnce. Higher up front cost of an electric is offset by lower maintenance and lower fuel costs.

    Bottom line - Car Ownership will always be a crippling expense for middle income and poorer people.

  29. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    To add to OPOF @63... The first task for yourself is accepting you will never change that person's mind. Once someone has taken a firm position, as they seem to have done, it is virtually impossible to alter their base conclusions. In fact, they will become more intransigent over time.

    If you're engaging with them one-on-one, the exchange will be a rather pointless task, other than what you may learn, yourself, through debunking myths. If you're engaging in a public forum, try to remember the other people who may be reading. There you might find minds that can be changed and people interested in the science.

  30. One Planet Only Forever at 00:03 AM on 24 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    PollutionMonster @60,

    The 'car' issue could be directly addressed.

    Start with: AGREE with the person you are dealing with - Needing to own and use a vehicle is a very expensive requirement. It is a very "high cost of living" item faced by the poor.

    Then address effective solutions to that problem: Reducing the need for a personal vehicle. Bike lanes can be part of the solution. And improved and lower cost public transit is also helpful. (Note that making harmful fossil fuel cheaper by not requiring the effort and cost of making it 'harmless' to be paid is not a solution - It is the origin of the problem. Fossil fuels always should have been much more expensive)

    AGREE that a lack of use of Bike Lanes may indicate other systemic problems that need to be addressed to make it easier for poor people to live 'without a car' and with the freedom they can have by biking when the weather is not horrendous (when public transit would be the better option).

    AGREE that helping the poor should not be "Paid for by the poor".

    Some of those points or ways of presenting the case may apply to the Solar issue.

  31. At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

    Good points there, John. Thanks.

  32. At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

    John M @ #2:

    Taking into account what you said, I would bold the titles of the two books and put the date of publication for each in parenthesis immediately after the title. Doing so would let the reader know how old the books are.

  33. PollutionMonster at 14:06 PM on 23 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    I apologize that the inflammatory labels were too much, sorry you had to edit. Thanks for letting me know to keep the inflammatory labels down a bit. Still new here, I want to respect the rules, but gonna stumble some at first.

    Rob Honeycutt @61

    Thanks for the quick response. I want to focus on solar panels. That seems to be what the proverbial crankyuncles that I run into seem to be mentioning the most. I will put in fact, myth, fallacy, fact format a debunking. Though right now i don't have the scholarly peer reviewed articles to back up my conclusions.

    Fact: Solar panels are a cheaper energy source than fossil fuels.

    Myth:  CO2 limits in the form of Solar panels will hurt the poor of the first world.

    Fallacy: Cherry picking by using old data and omitting fossil fuel subsidies that can be used on clean energy. Hidden costs like healthcare and future generations having to clean up costs of pollution select evidence is used to come to the faulty conclusion.

    Fact: Solar energy is cheaper than coal.

    Analogy: Pretending that solar panels are still expensive is the same as imagining that all cell phones are still huge bricks.

    Sources: NPR, Nature, and popularscience.

    Solar cheaper than Coal NPR 2020

     Popular science solar panels got cheap, 2021.

    Nature 5.9 trillon fossil fuel subsidies.

    Let me know if there is anyway to improve this debunking, and of course I would appreciate a fact check.  The skeptic looks bad when the person who is denying climate science can prove them incorrect. Hopefully this is the correct thread to post this comment, seems the best to me, but I could be wrong. Thanks in advance. :)

  34. CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    PM @60... Sounds like your climate denier needs to pick a lane (pun intended) and stick to it rather than Gish galloping through all the topics they don't understand. 

  35. PollutionMonster at 09:45 AM on 23 February 2023
    CO2 limits will hurt the poor

    I could use some help I got a sanctimonious belligerent trollish climate change denier [snipped] scolding me for not caring about the poor in first world countries. They won't even tell me what country they are from.

    They go on and on about bicycle lanes not being used and how the working class has to pay for them. That lashing rain, what in the world is lashing rain anyways, makes it too difficult to bicycle to work?

    Then, they go on and on about the expense of electric cars and solar panels. I've found the electric car and solar panel argument to be very common.

    Crank uncle: Electric cars and solar panels are too expensive for the poor!

    Thank you in advance. :)

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Please keep the inflammatory labels down a bit.

  36. At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

    I kinda agree with that, John. Italics are typical in most media outlets. However, you'd do well to find second-hand copies of the books mentioned in this case since they were published almost 50 years ago.

    In the at-a-glance versions we avoid all things that could distract the reader: a link may break the flow of concentration as someone stops to think about clicking it or not. These are after all aimed at being inclusive and hopefully should be understandable to folk regardless of previous experience (or not) in the sciences.

  37. At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

    John Mason & Baerbel:

    I suggest a protocol be adopted to bold the title of all books (see second paragraph of OP) and embed a link to a publisher and/or online seller of the book into the title of each book.

    I also suggest a protocol to use italics for the title of all published papers (as was done in the third paragraph of the OP) and embed a link to the journal in which the paper appears.

  38. It's not bad

    PM @414... Oh, you'd hardly believe the number of times I've seen that line used. And, used seemingly in ernest, no less.

  39. PollutionMonster at 18:07 PM on 21 February 2023
    It's not bad

    Rob Honeycutt @412

    That's an awesome example. "I don't deny the Earth has a climate." I love it! Thank you. :)

    Eclectic @413

    Thanks this helps me a lot.

    ""Denier" is a handy short label for those who are opposed to taking action for fixing the global warming problem. They themselves dislike it, and whinge greatly about the label"  Eclectic

    I won't visit or even mention the name of the website you mentioned. I figure it is just giving them more ad revenue. As for the part about Africa, I call what the climate change denier is doing as concern trolling. This argument also relies heavily upon climate myth #3 it is not bad.

    Sometimes the denier takes the moral grandstanding route, angry, and insulted when I implied they are a climate change denier. I usually, just apologize to be nice, but sometimes I think I apologize too much. Anti-vaxxers do this too.

    Caricature of a climate argument.

    me: "climate change can be prevented without pitting the enviorment versus poor people. I recommend the websites and crankyuncle."

    Sample denier argument: "You are calling me a climate change denier by linking to the two links above. How dare you insult me! Calling me a climate change denier is an ad hominem and dehumanizing language. You should be ashamed of yourself. I will not stand for such harassment, abusive hate speech, I am highly offended!!!"

    This moral outrage type of argument can be quite difficult to stomach. More so if they catch you off guard. Let's check my message, wait what? Let alone if I show any emotion especially anger.

    me: "Wow, this is tin foil hat level of conspiracy thinking gish gallop."

    Climate change denier: "Enough with the attitude! I wrote twenty pages and you dismiss my claims with a single sentence. You ignore all of my claims and make no effort. What do I get in response, snark? I find this disrespectful. Nobody listens to me. How dare you! "

    Pay attention to the self-pity in the above paragraph. I can practically hear them playing a violin.

    With your example of Africa the climate change denier tries to peg the skeptic as a member of the cabal, the denier as a member of the army of light, and everyone else as sheeple. That's why I think #3 its not bad is such an important myth to dispel.

    The idea that proponents of climate change action are cast as the villains and deniers the heroes bothers me. Taken a step further the climate change denier sometimes resorts to abusive ad hominems and even threats. Justifying their nasty remarks and threats because in their warped sense of reality they are heroes defeating a horrific villain and saving the sheeple.

    I call the tactic attack the skeptic. Sometimes I get a little scared when a denier uses violent rhetoric and graphic threats. At first I thought it was funny because it was so over the top. I though he was just poeing to be funny.

    Poe's Law

    Pretty scary because this has been going on since about May 2022, I though if I ignored him he would just go away.

    But I guess that's pretty normal if you debunk climate myths long enough you are going to attract a tin foil hat Young Earth Creationist Christian zealot who really thinks God is on their side believes in Qanon and views the opposition as a satanic threat. How common is this?

    In conclusion, I think #3 myth it is not bad is a pretty good place to focus because climate change deniers love to declare themselves the heroes and vilify anyone who pushes climate change action.

    Simplest form:

    Climate change action advocate: "We should do something about climate change."

    Denier: "You monster! Groups x,y, and z will be harmed by your immoral and reckless actions. We should be completely passive and do nothing because climate change is good."

  40. It's not bad

    "It's Not Bad" is quite a general topic, and covers many Denialist areas.

    "Denier" is a handy short label for those who are opposed to taking action for fixing the global warming problem.  They themselves dislike it, and whinge greatly about the label : but after all, a label usually doesn't matter much ~ since every reasonable person can recognize an alligator / crocodile / caiman by sight, regardless of its exact label.

    No point in joining the bunfight at the famous blogsite WattsUpWithThat.   WUWT is 98% echochamber, and shows the interesting range of deniers ~ extending from the studious intelligent ones who are crippled by their own motivated reasoning . . . to the crackpots who deny CO2-physics and/or deny there is any true warming occurring.  And through to the paranoid political wingnuts who deny any AGW (or alternatively, claim that AGW is good for us and we should have more of it).

    At WUWT  there is a kaleidoscopic churning of all sorts of "reasons" why we should stay on fossil fuels and avoid renewables.  #Now, during the past decade (as car lithium batteries have soared in number)  WUWT  has ranted about the need to increase coal usage to: "lift those poor Africans out of poverty" . . . and even more particularly: "EV batteries are causing small Congolese children to work in slave-like conditions in the cobalt mines".

    The "poor Africans" argument I find remarkable, as it typically comes from American wingnuts who oppose any decent governmental help to their own American poor ~ and who themselves for the past half-century have have not lifted a finger personally to aid the African poor.  And even now they still do nothing to help these children ~ and they completely fail to see that it is sheer poverty which forces African parents to send young children to the mines.  Fixing the Root Cause is unthinkable.

  41. It's not bad

    PM @411...  Many who claim not to be a climate denier are merely stretching the definition to make that claim. As in, "I don't deny the earth has a climate." And then if you point out the absurdity of that definition and clarify they're a climate change denier, they respond with, "But I don't deny that the earth's climate changes; in fact it's always changing."

    Now, I generally try to skip all the inanities and go straight to the full scientifically accepted definition that... human activities, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for most or all of the warming of the past 50 years and best estimates show the earth will warm ~3°C per doubling of CO2 concentrations

    If they deny that, they're a climate denier. Plain and simple.

  42. PollutionMonster at 11:08 AM on 21 February 2023
    It's not bad

    Eclectic @410

    Right now I am talking with a person who's position is ambiguous. The individual claims they are not a climate denier. Yet, they make many of the denier's talking points. Similar to dog whistling. My guess is they are a climate change denier, but won't admit it.

    Instead, hiding behind how much the "working class" is harmed by "rip off merchants". Sample argument below:

    "But I'm not a Trump supporter or a climate change denier I'm concerned about costs to the working classes you claim you are also yet you sound exactly like one of the rip off merchants who feign concern over the planet yet profit significantly from forcing people into green schemes they cannot support, you have no explanation on how it's in anyway reasonable to expect people to pay for electric cars or solar panels, you also want to punish them further by insisting they cycle long distances to work in every sort of condition." sample probably climate change denier argument

    This seems like classis motte and bailey strategy to me. My advice to you is push a little further than you feel comfortable into the innermost motte by pushing climate change action. Giving no place to retreat, this advice is from the skeptics guide to the universe book by Steven Novella, MD.

    I've found very few climate change deniers will straight out deny warming. Instead, hiding behind more "moderate" stances. The result is the same whether a hardcore or moderate denier, slothful climate action. Anti-vaxxers do the same, "I'm not anti-vaxx I am anti-mandate and mask".

    I. Ban Gasoline leafblowers. One of my favorites to show climate change mitigation can be very small. Many people want to get rid of them anyways.

    II. Transfer fossil fuel subsidies to renewable. Showing the true cost of fossil fuels.

    I think you are 100% correct about persuading the onlookers. Good points on A, B, and C I will try them. C seem very interesting the part about denialists hating the idea of refugees and migrants. :)

  43. One Planet Only Forever at 07:41 AM on 21 February 2023
    The Problem with Percentages


    I think it would help to insert points along the line of your earlier post about the importance of watching the Keeling Curve for evidence that efforts to reduce climate impacts are being successful.

    Examples of the type of items to include would be trends of:

    • Fossil fuel consumption (burning of coal, oil, nat. gas)
    • CCS on fossil fuel use (the short-term helpful reduction of Carbon emissions)
    • CCS from the atmosphere (the CCS that needs to be developed)

    And the future of the trends should only be speculated about based on evidence of effective helpful transitions of social drivers as presented in the Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook: The plausibility of a 1.5°C limit to global warming - social drivers and physical processes (Story of the Week in the 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5).

    And the severity of the challenge can be highlighted by examples like the massive new coal plants in South Africa that are planned to be operated until the 2070s.

    Blooberg report: Giant New Power Plants Undermine South Africa’s Emissions Pledge

    Who will pay to compensate the investors and South Africans for their lost opportunity to profit and benefit from these facilities for 50 years?

    That is an absurd question. The people who made a bad bet should lose their bet. But all the people making Bad harmful bets know that the history of humanity is loaded with examples of wealthy people, and powerful large groups of people, being well compensated when they lose an opportunity to benefit from being harmful to Others (because they won't stop being harmful until they feel they are adequately compensated for not being allowed to continue believing and doing what they developed a liking for).

  44. The Problem with Percentages

    Michael Sweet@28, I am not suggesting that renewables will replace fossil fuels instantly. Rather, when the NYTs report impressive-sounding renewable-energy growth numbers, I want the readers to put those number into context and not get lulled into a false sense of success. We have a long way to go, and we need the readers to know that ramping down fossil-fuel use will not occur quickly, nor will it occur without putting pressure on governments. Regardless of how cheap renewables are, there is likely to be active lobbying for years to come to sustain the fossil-fuel industry. You note the we all need to work harder to get governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. I agree. We need readers to help apply pressure through their votes. What I want them to know is that although the renewable revolution is getting going, we are a long way from where we need to be and we need their help to get where we all want to be.

    I will consider your's and all of the other comments in the rewrite. I am not trying to contribute to doomerism. Just trying to make sure people understand the full scope of the problem, because there is no time to waste in continuing the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

  45. The Problem with Percentages

    I am sorry, FIgure four shows 14,000 TWh of energy, similar to the IEA.  I have difficulty reading series of zeros.

  46. The Problem with Percentages


    Renewable energy has only been the cheapest energy for about 5 years.  For the first couple of those years renewables were only a little cheaper than fossil fuels and there were many locations where fossil was still cheaper.  Now renewables are the cheapest everywhere.   It takes 5-10 years to build most fossil plants.  It takes years to build the factories that manufacture the panels and turbines for renewable energy.  Your expectation that renewables will replace all fossil fuels instantly is misplaced.

    We all need to work harder to get governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and make it easier to install renewabes.  Environmental doomerism turne people off so that they do not take the actions necessary to turn the ship around before it hits the iceberg.

  47. The Problem with Percentages

    Michael Sweet@26, you note,

    "The claim that renewables can only generate 30% of all electricity was shown to be completely incorrect years ago."

    I am not saying that renewables cannot generate more than 30%. I am saying that going beyond 30% on an annualized basis is difficult and will likely require storage. Figures that show renewables generating in excess of 30% on an annualized basis are, to my understanding, based on relatively short-term events and not averaged over an entire year.

    I am not trying to propogate doomerism. Rather, I am trying to convey to the readers the task that lays ahead if we are to meet the goals of the Paris Accord. You note yourself the headwinds we face ramping down fossil-fuel use. Yes, I made a mistake in my analysis summarized in the first comment, and I will correct this. I will refine the rest of the text. But the main conclusions remain. Getting renewables to the point where they begin to supplant, and not supplement fossil fuels is still ahead of us and will not necessarily be easy. I read your comment as saying essentially the same thing.

  48. The Problem with Percentages


    I saw the reference.  The entire point of the OP is derived from figure 4  which is the construction of the author and has no reference.   Others have  pointed out why this figure is not even wrong.  According to the IEA report, global electricity demand will be approximately 29,000 TWh in 2025 not the 160,000 TWh shown in figure 4.  It appears to me that the author has added a factor of ten to the world energy demand which makes it appear that renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels.  I note that checking the carbon intensity of the EU would immediately show that renewables have significantly reduced the amount of carbon released.

    It appears to me that MA Rodgers analysis of figure 4 is correct.  Wind and solar energy, especially solar which is the cheapest energy in the world today (only wind can come close to solar), are increasing exponentially.   Averaging in hydro, which for all practical purposes has not significantly changed in the past 10 years, makes an exponential increase turn into a small increase.

    In the OP it states "it is very difficult, without using energy storage, to generate more than about 30% of the energy from renewables."  In comment 8 says " Any of these projections are risky, because continued expansion of renewables beyond producing about 30% of power requires storage technology that must be deployed on a large scale and may compete for materials used in the transportation industry."  The published literature has analyzed this and there are sufficient materials for the foreseeable future available.  There are bottlenecks that have to be overcome as more renewable energy manfacturing facilities are built.  The claim that renewables can only generate 30% of all electricity was shown to be completely incorrect years ago.

    The International Energy Agency report that I cited covers the entire globe.  I used USA data to address the 30% claim because the data was the first hit on my Google search and met the criteria of wind and solar only.  It takes some time to find renewable energy data where the hydro has been left out.  The 30% claim was made without any supporting data.  Data proving the 30% claim is false anywhere shows the 30% claim is false for the entire world.  

    The OP is terrible doomerism.  The IEA data clearly shows that wind and solar currently replace essentially all of the increase in energy demand worldwide.  The question is: can the installation of wind and solar increase fast enough to meet climate goals.  Last year over $1 trillion (!!!!!) was spent by governments to subsidize the fossil fuel industry and only about 1/3 of that was spent (primarily by the free market) on building new renewables. How can the politics be overcome?  

    Renewables including storage are much cheaper than fossil fuels.  In addition, fossil pollution kills over 5 million people every year worldwide.  Switching to renewables will make everyone healthier because ofreduced pollution.  It has been shown that even 2% of EVs replacing internal comustion engines results in less hospital visits for asthma.

    The Paris accords could still be met if most governments worldwide subsidized renewable energy as much as fossil fuels.

    The OP should be removed from Skeptical Science since the conclusions are false.  It will be used as an example of environmental doomerism.


  49. The Problem with Percentages

    Ubrew12, PrzemStep, and Michael Sweet. I placed a green-box message at the start of this post noting the error in my analysis and also noting that I will be redoing this post. Thank you for your comments and for helping maintain the high-quality readers expect to find at SkS.

  50. The Problem with Percentages

    Michael Sweet, thanks for your comments. As ubrew12@1 pointed out, I did not properly account for efficiencies in comparing electric generation from fossil fuels to determine, as you also point out, that renewables are expected to cover the growth in electric energy demand over the coming years. Others here have pointed out other analysis they would like to see in such a post. I will be redoing this post to clean up the points everyone has made here. As much as it hurts to be reminded of weaknesses in my analysis and writing, I will correct them.

    None of this will change the basic points of this article, however, that percentages can hide real trends, and that renewable energy has yet to replace fossil fuels in any significant amount. Don't expect the fossil-fuel industry to just let that happen without a fight. One of my purposes in writing is to help the reader see the true magnitude of the problem we face so that they can properly gauage their response when they decide what to buy, and how to vote. Renewables meeting growing electric energy demand, instead of only 30% as I noted, may be a good thing in terms of our progress towards ramping down fossil-fuel use, but it is not a reason for too much celebration if we are to meet the objectives of the Parid Accord. We must do much much better. I want readers to be aware that we've done the easy work with renewables, and that what comes next will likely be much harder.

    So thanks all for your comments. I have work to do to rewrite this paper. I will try hard to regain your respect with the rewrite.

Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2023 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us