Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Settings


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

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


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



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  Next

Comments 11351 to 11400:

  1. One Planet Only Forever at 05:58 AM on 28 March 2019
    Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    bozzza,

    The original posting at Climate Brief was 2 months ago. Commenting on that article has been closed.

    I had not looked at it before posting my comments here (I am so used to having to go to a link to finish reading a re-posting of an article from another source that I assumed this was not a re-post - I didn't read the words in the green box below the title.)

    My comment @1 was one of the two comments made on the Carbon Brief article, yet the original article was not corrected.

    william's comment@7 was also asked on the Carbon Brief site but there was no response made there.

  2. Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    Does the creation of brine as sea water freezes further north make a significant contribution to the circulation?

  3. One Planet Only Forever at 05:12 AM on 28 March 2019
    Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    bozzza,

    I am not the author. I am just pointing out the corrections/questions that came to mind as I read the post.

  4. Climate's changed before

    David@676

    I forgot to link the discovery.

    At the methane source of plants

  5. Climate's changed before

    David@ 676

     No I don't accept that all the Carbon atoms in Carbon based life were once CO2. 

    The Carbon in carbon based life could also come from methane.

    A German-British team led by researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz and the University of Heidelberg, recently discovered that methane in plants is produced from the amino acid methionine, which all living organisms need for the building of proteins.

  6. Glaciers are growing

    Supplemental reading:

    Preliminary data reported from the reference glaciers of the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) in 2018 from Argentina, Austria, China, France, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and United States indicate that 2018 will be the 30th consecutive year of significant negative annual balance (> -200mm); with a mean balance of -1247 mm for the 25 reporting reference glaciers, with only one glacier reporting a positive mass balance (WGMS, 2018).

    Alpine glaciers: Another decade of loss, Guest Commentary by Mauri Pelto, RealClimate, Mar 25, 2019

  7. Climate's changed before

    David Kirtley @676,

    You say of carbon, "Why not say it originated in the Big Bang. That, too, would be true." Actually it wouldn't. Atoms did not form until the universe cooled enough and that would have been at the time the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation appeared. This is some 400,000 years after the big bang. And surely those first atoms were hydrogen and would need to be converted into carbon by nuclear processes within stars, a process requiring a good deal further time.

    As for "ALL of the carbon atoms in your body" being converted from CO2 by plant photosyntheses and then consumed by the animal as food, this would quite a recent process as C3 photosynthesis (the oldest form) didn't begin creating an oxygen atmosphere until perhaps 2 billion years ago. (That a plant does not rely solely on photosynthesis to obtain carbon is a bit too big a pedantic step but worthy of noting.) In the "here & now," that the vast majority of higher animal carbon content is the result of photosynthesis and thus derives from CO2. But ALL the carbon? And if it were, why would that prevent a surplus of CO2 being labelled a "pollutant"? -  that being the point the denialist troll was making.

  8. David Kirtley at 22:19 PM on 27 March 2019
    Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @675, "From space. :)" 

    Heh.

    But why stop there? Why not say it originated in the Big Bang. That, too, would be true. But is such a statement in any way meaningful? Not really.

    Your denier used a true statement about the world and then used it to obfuscate about our current problem with CO2 increasing in the atmosphere.

    You are using similar obfuscation by jumping back to the primordial origin of life to talk about the elemental building blocks of all life.

    But the denier wasn't talking about that, he was talking about how life operates here and now: "Did you know that ALL of the carbon atoms in your body (as you are an organic organism) was once CO2?"  

    Do you not accept that the carbon in your body came from the CO2 in the atmosphere?

  9. Greenland is gaining ice

    Molsen @37,

    You talk of "poorly drafted statements" and ask whether GRACE data showed "accelerated" ice loss in 2009 and then "slowed down" in 2013.

    Looking at the data, the 2009 net ice loss decelerated from the previous year's average of 266Gt/yr to 199Gt/yr. And the 2013 net ice loss also decelerated relative to the previous year, from 428Gt/yr to 327Gt/yr (although, as the graph of the data shows, the data for these later years is missing a few months).

    CarbonBrief Greenland Net Ice Loss

    The rate of net ice loss is highly variable. I'm sure you could pedantically cherry-pick some of the data to demonstrate that the net ice loss is decelerating throughout the entire period. It is likewise with the ice loss from glaciers like the Jacobshavn glacier although I think you rather underestimate the knowledge of scientists. A very recent comment on the Jacobshavn glacier is HERE.

  10. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    Thanks for the two responses above. Another aspect of nuclear is its long lasting legacy. We’re arrogant enough to claim that we could manage a toxic waste problem which is radiating for hundreds of thousands of years.

    A Google search for “Asse Germany radioactive waste catastrophe” will tell you the story about a nuclear repository which in the 1980s was alleged to be “safe for hundreds of thousands of years”, but ground water started leaking into this old salt mine just a few years later. Nobody knows now what to do. And we're not even talking about high level radioactive waste with significant heat generation. Recovering the 120,000 barrels seems to be too expensive if not impossible. German engineering suffering borderline. A legacy for many generations to come.

    Here an article in the New Scientist => Radioactive waste dogs Germany despite abandoning nuclear power

  11. Climate's changed before

    David @674

    From space. :)

    Delivery of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur to the silicate Earth by a giant impact

    Where Did Carbon Come From For Life on Earth?

  12. Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    One Planet Only Forever, are you perhaps the "Guest Author"?

  13. Greenland is gaining ice

    Molsen, if you are hoping against hope that suddenly melt is going into reverse, then you are choosing to ignore much of the science published on Greenland by not looking at the drivers for is happening in the system. I sure know which way I would bet! This is like people starting the "warming stopped in 1998 2016" refrain. Hope springs eternal but you are going to be disappointed. Weather does not equal climate. Come back again and give us your opinion when, say, NAO flips again.

  14. Greenland is gaining ice

    The GRACE data show that ice loss accelerated in 2009 and then slowed down in 2013. Are you suggesting otherwise, Daniel Bailey? The underlying data are invalidated by a poorly drafted statement?

    And, scaddenp, let's see what happens in the future; as articles on the growing Jacobshavn glacier note, scientists do not understand the processes behind the Greenland ice melt as well as they thought a few years ago. Who knows what they'll know in a few year?

  15. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    Thinkingman, Foster and Rhamstorf did an exercise depicted here removing el nino / la nina, the solar cycle and volcanic activity from the temperature record and the so called 'pause' after 1998 completely disappears. So why would you need to consider some new and questionable 60 year cycle?

  16. One Planet Only Forever at 10:42 AM on 27 March 2019
    The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    ThinkingMan,

    Since you claim to be interested in 30+ year data trends please evaluate any of the surface temperature data sets (the 1880 to present day monthly NASA-GISS data is easy to get here) as folows: Look at the value of the 30 year rolling averages. Each new monthly average creates a new 30 year average with the 359 months before it (or every new yearly average creates a new one with the 29 years before it).

    I know it can be done because I have done it. It is not complicated. And the 30 year averages do indeed 'not just go consistently upward' when you look at all the data this way starting from 1880.

    What I found is that the 30 year averages ending in 1994 (the set from 1965 through 1994) were increasing or decreasing (yes there is a period when the 30 year averages notably decline).

    The extremes of the 'rates of change per decade' in that range of the data set are from -0.03 C/decade to +0.10C/decade.

    All of the 30 year averages since 1994 have been at rates of change greater than +0.10 C/decade. And the rate rapidly increased to 0.17 C/decade by the 30 years ending in 2004. And all the more recent values have rates that exceed 0.17 C/decade.

    So the 30+ year evaluation does not show what you are hoping to see.

  17. David Kirtley at 09:56 AM on 27 March 2019
    Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @673 So, where does the carbon in all life forms come from?

  18. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    Good point Eclectic. Surface temperatures have wide natural variation but ocean heat (where most of the warming ends up after all) have far less. Some wiggles are oceans exchanges heat with atmosphere but on far less scale than surface temperatures.

  19. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    ThinkingMan , the other "denier trick" is to completely ignore ocean warming.

    Global surface temperature is easy to measure on an annual, or indeed monthly, basis.   The ocean, less easy to measure at fine scale over short periods ~ but the ocean trend is upwards, because the basic physical process of Greenhouse warming is continuing unabated.   That is the crux of the matter.

  20. Climate's changed before

    David @672

    I think you must have misread what I posted. The denier I battle is the one who keeps trying to claim the CO2 is a basic building block of life. Thus why I pointed out to him the 6 known elements that are the building blocks of life. Recall I asked him if he's ever heard of CHNOPS?

  21. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    Thinkingman, you are falling for a number of deniers tricks here.

    1998-2000 "commonly cited" by pseudo-skeptics trying to claim the science has got it wrong and it is a cherry-pick because it only considers part of the record, and to make it work, you have to start the period with an exemptional El nino. Do the the arguments still make sense if you start with 1996?

    This post here goes in a proper statistical analysis of what is going on. You also seem to bought the idea that something has gone wrong with model predictions. This is nonsense. No scientist expects the actual temperature time series to evolve along the model mean. The science (everything we know about ENSO) says that is impossible.  Please read again my earlier reply. A good expectation is that the 30-year trend in temperature series will be close to the 30-year trend in the model mean. However, there is still a wide uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

    Finally, I do not accept that you can take two cooling periods (1910-) and (1940-) caused by two different changes in climate forcing and propose a natural cycle for them.  This is not evidence, it is misinformation.

  22. The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

    scaddenp, TY for clarifying.  Your commitment to basing explanations on identifiable natural and man made factors is respected.

    Let me clarify my frame of reference.  30+ year temperature trends are my focus.

    1998-2000 were not cherry picked. They may begin a break in the temperature trend that began 1970-1975.  1998-2000 is also commonly cited as a starting point for reality departing, by a wider & wider margin, from climate model temperature forecasts.  Finally, the bottom half of the 1st graph in the previously mentioned Shaun Lovejoy critique draws attention to 1998-2000.

    The bottom half is also consistent with a possible 60-80 yr temperature cycle. Pls note the three cooling trends in the "residues".  One ends 1910-1915.  The next ends 1975 or so.  The third spans the charts final dozen or so years, and it starts "on schedule".

    FYI, the 60-80 yr cycle is mentioned because it may explain in part or fully why actual temperatures are so far below climate model projections / estimates.  Solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural forces not adequately simulated by models may also explain the departure.  Finding and describing the force or forces is important to the AGW concept.

    nigelj, will read the myth buster pointed out above when time allows.

    TY to all others who have commented.  Very informative & thought provoking.

  23. Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    I recall reading an article (cant find it now) that said that it had been thought the AMOC overturning process was to the west of Greenland, and this is where most of greenlands meltwater discharged,  thus leading to the possibility of the AMOC slowing right down or even stopping causing a mini ice age in europe. The article said that given the AMOC overturning process is now known to be more easterly, this risk is reduced and replaced with the possibility of huge warming and heatwave potential in Europe. However the article was pretty conditional that we don't know enough about how sources of meltwater may change in Greenland over time.

  24. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12

    Both OPOC and William are right. It's obviously not just one thing operating here. There is another issue, namely political lobby groups. I have lost count of the times politicians have had sensible positions on issues on entering politics then changed their minds after talking to lobby groups. Policies get watered down to nothing.

    Political lobbying is a huge industry particularly in America. The theory is enough lobby groups should cancel each other out, but industry lobby groups have vastly more expertise and funding than public interest lobby groups, environmental groups etc. I dont believe that its a level playing field. The issue is all magnified further by campaign financing coming from the same corporates.

    It's all become toxic and lopsided in favour of corporate and right wing economic agendas. Too much of this lobbying is in private. It could be changed with rules favouring transparency and some form of limitation on lobbying. 

  25. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    There is another aspect to the wind farm argument.  Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that a wind turbine only returns an amount of energy equal to what is used in it's construction before it has to be replaced. (not true but bear with me).  The country where you are building these turbines creates all it's energy from fossil fuel.  You build wind turbines sufficient to generage 10% of the nations electricity, replacing that amount of coal.  Now the next tranch of wind turbines are build with 90% fossil fuel energy and 10% renewable energy.  you see where this is going.  We eventually get to a point where the wind turbines are being made entirly with renewable energy.  Since, in fact, wind turbines return far more energy that is needed in their manufacture, the argument is far stronger.

  26. michael sweet at 03:31 AM on 27 March 2019
    3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    SIr Charles,

    In your comparison of wind and nuclear you did not consider the opportunity cost of nuclear versus wind.  Jacobson 2009 (cited over 1200 times) calculates opportunity cost of various plants.  Because of the very long lead times to build a nuclear plant much more fossil power is generated during the building of the plant compared to a renewable plant.

    For example, let us imagine you want to build a 1 megawatt (delivered power) wind energy plant.  It takes about 2 years to get approval and 2 years to build.  Then you get your energy.

    If I want to builld a nuclear plant it takes 5 years to get approval and about 10 years to build.  Your wind plant has been generating power 11 years before my plant is comissioned.  That 11 years of missed power has to be supplied by fossil fuel plants until the nuclear plant is finished. 

    This makes nuclear a very high emitter of CO2 compared to renewable plants which are much faster to build (and produce partial power when partly completed).  Many analysis of nuclear leave out the opportunity cost CO2.

  27. michael sweet at 02:43 AM on 27 March 2019
    3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    Sir Charles:

    We agree.  Nuclear requires at least a gigawatt of spinning reserve at all times in case of an incident as you describe.  These incidents happen about once every two years in the USA.  For renewables the biggest incident is losing a transmission line which can be countered with an adequate grid.

  28. One Planet Only Forever at 02:07 AM on 27 March 2019
    Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    This result also intuitively makes sense if you look at the average annual maximum extent of Arctic Sea Ice. The Acrtic Sea Ice advances far down into the Labrador Sea, while a large area of open water remains North of Norway.

  29. One Planet Only Forever at 01:55 AM on 27 March 2019
    Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    The following quote in the OP appears to double describe what is being meaured (the part I show in italics).

    “It consists of a whole load of moorings, which are ways in which we string instruments between the seafloor and the sea surface in the deep ocean. So there’s an anchor at the bottom and along that wire we string instruments that can measure various things like the speed of the water, the velocity of the water, temperature and the salinity.”

    Is the direction of flow being measured? Is that what one of the two 'speed/velocity' points should have been?

  30. One Planet Only Forever at 01:51 AM on 27 March 2019
    Major study uncovers ‘sea change’ in world’s understanding of Atlantic conveyor belt

    Minor correction required:

    "To do this, it has deployed two arms: “OSNAP West East”, which extends from the Labrador Sea off the north-east coast of Canada to south-west Greenland, and “OSNAP East West”, which reaches from south-east Greenland to the coast of Scotland."

  31. One Planet Only Forever at 01:19 AM on 27 March 2019
    2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12

    william,

    I agree that elected representatives 'dedicated to appealing to rich supporters/promoters' can be problem. And limiting the influence of rich people is part of the solution.

    But wealth influencing an election is only a problem if those rich supporters/promoters are the type of people who have developed a willingness to pursue perceptions of status in ways that are harmful to Others.

    A related problem is the pressure on elected representatives who would rather not appeal to those type of supporters/promoters. The power of misleading marketing can make elected representatives vote against their better judgment on some issues. They will do that because they believe, likely correctly, that they the need to vote that harmful way on that issue to continue to win the power to vote the helpful way they want to on other issues.

    The real problem is not money influencing politics. The real problem is the ability of misleading political marketing to be done without penalty.

    Setting up rules to limit who spends how much money does not address the real problem. Setting up laws that can be enforced to remove a candidate who benefited form misleading marketing is also not an easy answer. Offensive opponents can simply create misleading marketing that would then be the basis for removal of the non-offending candidate.

    The real problem is the socioeconomic-political system that has developed. Systems that encourage people to 'develop a willingness to pursue perceptions of status in ways that are harmful to Others' will also develop resistance to correction. The fundamentals of the system causing the harmful developments is what needs to be corrected. Without the Errors in the System being corrected (more fundamental than money in politics), any attempted 'fixes' will struggle to be popular and profitable enough to be successful.

  32. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    @9.michael sweet

    French nuclear has an overall capacity factor of 75%. Not much more than offshore wind. Whereby, when a nuke has in incident you're loosing a gigawatt or more in just a few seconds. Meanwhile, wind is predictable for many hours in advance and the grid can easily be adjusted accordingly.

  33. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    @14nigelj

    I think that Project Drawdown list needs to be revamped. Offshore wind energy can play a much bigger role today. There are turbines now which produce 20-40 times the electricity than an onshore wind turbine.

    Good source of info here => https://www.windpowermonthly.com

  34. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    120 of these offshore wind turbines are delivering as much electricity as a new nuclear reactor (capacity factor incorporated)

    https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/turbines/haliade-x-offshore-turbine

  35. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    Carbon footprint nuclear vs wind

  36. David Kirtley at 22:01 PM on 26 March 2019
    Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @668: "No CO2 is not a basic building block of life."

    Is Carbon a basic building block of life?

  37. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12

    You can have as many climate change solutions as you want and they will come to zilch, naada, cluum, shum devar, in short nothing as long as politicians depend on vested interests for the financing of their next election campaign.

  38. One Planet Only Forever at 15:17 PM on 26 March 2019
    3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    An Implicit but never stated "Incorrect Myth" regarding renewable energy is: "Future generations of humanity can continue to benefit from non-renewable energy, particularly the burning of fossil fuels."

    The reality is that future generations cannot continue to benefit from non-renewable energy sources'. And there is no way to claim they can. The benefit is obtained by their predecessors. The future generations get no sustainable benefit from the activity being done by their predecessors. All that the future generations get are harmful impacts, many of which cannot be undone no matter how brilliant people in the future are, and reduced amounts of non-renewable resources.

  39. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    Some interesting ideas on electricity efficiency scattered through this list from the Project Drawdown people.

    There is a lot of potential, but the average family still faces obvious constraints. I think it's unlikely people would drastically reduce electricity use so that they go cold, or go without air conditioning. I would suggest most people apart from the rich already try to keep electricity bills as low as possible. 

    Big gains can be made with adding double or triple glazing, extra wall insulation, heat pumps etc: but they cost money. Tax incentives might help.

    I think the bottom line is it's hard to avoid the need for a big build out of renewable electricity generation as fast as possible. And it is possible technically and economcially, its a case of whether there is the will do do it.

  40. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    Well 2 biggies for energy efficiency are electrification of transport (60% of energy going to wheels cf 20% for petroleum-based) (ref), and solar PV for electricity generation instead of coal and gas. While replacement will take a while, that means all the more urgency for serious effort now.

  41. Climate's changed before

    @669,

    Forgot to mention that yes I've enjoyed Potholer54! Thanks for informing me about his videos.

  42. Climate's changed before

    Hi Electric @669,

    Yes a agree it's a pointless point but that denier keep trying to use it to prove CO2 is good for the planet which of course it's true, but only when the balance is not offset.

    Most of this deniers tactics are what both you and David pointed out...they are sprinkled with some facts but the conclusion he draws from these facts is misleading which is what I try to point out to the bystanders reading his chest beating comments.

  43. Climate's changed before

    @668 : let it slide, TVC15 .

    In the end, it's rather futile to debate the origin of metabolic carbon ~ since the terrestrial carbon cycle moves C around continuously [not counting fossil carbon]. As David Kirtley says, its ultimate origin is from some distant stellar source, pre-dating our own sun.

    If anything, one might say that lifeform C in evolutionary terms originated from lipids and/or carbonates/bicarbonates in the primordial ocean.   And there can be other arguments too . . . all getting a bit Angels on a pinhead.   But your denier friend wasn't entirely wrong in his point about carbon ~ though it certainly was a pointless point he made.

    I hope you've had time to enjoy a few of the Potholer54 videos on climate science.   He has five [FIVE] on the asinine antics of the eloquent Lord Monckton ~ quite amusing to see the "error-prone Viscount" [unquote] shoot himself in the foot repeatedly.

  44. 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation

    Renewables are not going to replace fossil fuels any time soon. See below. The two changes we need to make to reach a sustainable future are to reduce the amount of energy we use and to use what we do generate much more efficiently (2/3rds of energy generation is lost as heat without doing any useful work!)

    LLNL Energy use in USA 2017

    Moderator Response:

    '[PS] Fixed image. Please read comment policy for details of image. You must restrict image to max width of 450px using the "appearance" tab of the image inserter.

  45. Climate's changed before

    David@667,

    I don't follow how what I posted does not clarify?

    In fact when I challenged the denier with what I posted here he stopped posting over and over the same manta that CO2 is a basic building block of life. No CO2 is not a basic building block of life.

    Then he came back with the Carbon in carbon based life originated from CO2.

    He stopped spreading his misinformation after I debunked both of his inaccurate statements.

  46. David Kirtley at 10:02 AM on 26 March 2019
    Climate's changed before

    Sorry, TVC15, that doesn't clarify it. Yes, ultimately all carbon on earth comes from stars. We both agree about this. But the origins of life are not relevant here. I don't know what chemical pathways led to the origin of life, or if this involved CO2 or not. But today, right now, my everyday existance depends on atmospheric CO2.

    The question is: where did the carbon in my body come from? If you follow the trail it is clear that the carbon in my body came from the food I ate: plants and animals. Those animals get that carbon from the plants they eat. And all plants get that carbon from the CO2 floating in the air.

    None of this is inaccurate or controversial. It's Biology 101. Yes, you can follow the trail back to the ultimate origin of the element carbon inside the nuclear furnaces of stars. But why? The question is about life on Earth now.

    Your denier has stated some true facts about the carbon cycle and then tried to use this to draw an invalid conclusion about whether CO2 can be classified as a pollutant. Now you, by focusing on the ultimate origin of carbon in stars and now bringing in info about the origins of life, have totally missed the real misinformation that he is trying to push.

  47. Climate's changed before

    LOL now the deniers are using this article to claim global warming is a hoax!

    Big U-turn: Key melting Greenland glacier is growing again

  48. michael sweet at 08:39 AM on 26 March 2019
    2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12

    This is an interesting article by Bill McKibbins (founder of 350.org) that discusses how fast renewable energy will be adopted now that it is the cheapest energy. He says it might be fast enough to avoid the worst of climate change.

    Encourage any effort to build out more renewable energy. Vote for politicians who support renewable energy.

  49. Climate's changed before

    Hi David @ 663,

    This denier loves to say that the Carbon in our bodies *orginated* from CO2.  This is not accurate.

    The building blocks of life come from elements and elements orginated from stars.

    Origin of Life’s Building Blocks in Carbon- and Nitrogen-Rich Surface Hydrothermal Vents

    As I pointed out to this denier show me where CO2 is mentioned in this paper as being how carbon based life originated.

    Origin of organic compounds on the primitive earth and in meteorites.

    I hope this helps to clarify.

  50. David Kirtley at 07:17 AM on 26 March 2019
    Climate's changed before

    TVC15 @663. I'm not following you. The elements originate in stars. The Earth was made of "star stuff." But I usually eat plants and animals, not rocks.

    Plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere, photosyntesize, and build the stuff of plant tissue from that. Animals, including me, eat plants. Other animals, including me, eat animals which ate plants. We transform the plant/animal material into the stuff of our animal bodies. All that carbon origianlly came from the atmosphere.

Prev  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  235  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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