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 Pinterest 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  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Comments 1101 to 1150:

  1. Models are unreliable

    Regarding models, the explanation is good, especially about whether or not a model is good or not.

    My observation: Are these the same models that for the last 40 years (Since I was in high school.) that predicted global warming before it predicted global cooling before blaming any and all weather on climate change driven by man's activity?

    Are these the same models that for the last 40 years have predicted global coastal flooding, sinking island, the extinction of polar bear, penguins and increasing deserts and that man has only 8-12 years to survive?

    I make these observations to prove that is seems there are NOT any good models, based on a proven, accurate track record, that can be called "good".

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] You appear to be engaging in strawman arguments - ie making claims about what science has said that are not true. You can find details of how well past predictions have done in "Lessons from Past Predictions" series. Broecker's 1975 model holding up pretty well.  See here for the "Scientists predicted cooling" myth.  If you dispute this, then please provide 1/ a link the scientific prediction you think was mistaken, and 2/ link to evidence that it is wrong.

  2. Wildfires are not caused by global warming

    A-Train1906 @ 4:

    You state "As for my claim they didn't give fuel density it's due, I simply read the inputs on their model."

    If you want us to listen to you, I suggest that you provide details on the following:

    • who "they" are.
    • the details on the model(s) you are referring to.
    • what inputs are included in the model(s).
    • what inputs you feel are missing from the model(s).

    I am familiar with the Canadian Wildland Fire Index, and have seen its application to changing climates, if you want to pick one to start.


  3. New IPCC report: Only political will stands in way of meeting the Paris targets

    Quite right , Rayates55 .   Although SkepticalScience is a website primarily and almost  exclusively oriented to the scientific aspects of climate change, nevertheless you will find occasional articles on the psychological aspects of science denialism.   Politics, in the sense of partisan politics is hardly touched upon.   And if you hail from the USA, you know how toxic & insane the partisan politics can be ~  about science, epidemics, vaccines, and you-name-it-whatever . . . including public toilets !

    So in the practical area of influencing the various legislatures, SkepticalScience is not a participant.

    Rayates55 , your scope at this website is therefore very minimal for discussing the political science aspects.   But this very thread may be your opportunity to make a brief contribution to such a topic.

    Please start the ball rolling, with your own summary of the important points which you feel would be of practical use !

    ( My own thoughts are that the political world will gradually ramp up its corrective actions, as the technological capabilities slowly improve ~ and as, decade by decade, the worsening situation stimulates voters to demand more action.   So, not very fast.   And if anything good is to come from the recent/current coronavirus pandemic - plus the atrocities of the Ukraine War [happening in Europe, not Africa]  - then it may be that national governments will pay more attention to "resiliency" of local energy supplies & food production & manufacturing. )

    Rayates55 , the floor is yours.  I am all ears, for your insightful ideas.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Everyone reading this and thinking about commenting should be reminded of the section of the  Comments Policy that says:

    No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics.  For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.

    As this blog post explicitly has "political will" in the title, it clearly falls into the category of posts that "touch on issues related to politics", but please try to keep it on topic.

  4. New IPCC report: Only political will stands in way of meeting the Paris targets

    Once again we see an article that follows this format: 1) Time has almost run out, 2) radically decreasing CO2 emissions is essential, yet they continue to rise, 3) countries' current policies will not reach necessary emissions goals at this rate, 4) here is a list of technological solutions if only there was the political will.  All true.

    But when will Skeptical Science begin to apply its discerning analysis to the proven blockage to progress: the lack of political will? Political Science is a thing, albeit a much squishier one.




  5. michael sweet at 11:18 AM on 10 April 2022
    Wildfires are not caused by global warming

    A-train 1906

    So no data to support your claims.  Yuo claim that you have extensive experience working in the forrest service. Perhaps yo could use that experience tofind some acutal data to share with us.  Your claim defies common sense.  You need to provide data to support your wild calim that increasing temepratures do not incfluence the amount of fires.

  6. Philippe Chantreau at 11:04 AM on 10 April 2022
    Wildfires are not caused by global warming

    I haven't seen the Potholer video. Nonetheless, I don't believe that A-train1906' remark applies to the immense fires in Siberia, affecting areas that have historically received little to no human intervention. 

    Reaching temperatures close to 50deg Celsius at 50 degrees lattitude, as happened last year in BC should not be discounted as insignificant.

  7. Wildfires are not caused by global warming

    A-train1906 at post #4 :

    Welcome back to this thread after your 18-month hiatus.   (An enjoyable vacation, or a period of deep cogitation? )

    It is indeed difficult to reach unambiguous conclusions about forest wildfires, because of the many confounding factors ~ and as you indicate, the forest understory (carbon buildup) is a major factor in fire intensity.   ~Among other factors, like moisture levels and high temperatures.

    To reach a scientifically valid conclusion, would require careful analysis of areas of untouched old-growth forests versus logged forests and plantations ~ of various degrees of management (including of the understory).   So many variables, and so much room for gut-feelings to be wrong!

    But either way, high temperatures and low moisture levels must be huge contributors to the problem, and are very evidently influenced by global warming.   Clearly there is room for better forest management, and perhaps of novel types.   Less clear, is whether that should include managed burns in virgin forests where (in previous centuries & millennia) the climate was cooler and/or wetter and where native peoples did not do burns.

    All very difficult to assess (and react to).   But we should not fall into the trap of implying that modern rapid global warming should be ignored.

    A-train1906,  there is a Youtube video by Potholer54 title from January 2020, titled:  "The cause of Australia's bushfires _ what the SCIENCE says".    Recommended.   It is rather long, at 36 minutes . . . but Potholer54 does include some humorous parts, so it is all good entertainment as well !   It covers the catastrophic Australian fires only, but there are some general applications too.

  8. Wildfires are not caused by global warming


        I'd love to see the data source you are referencing. As my observational opinion, having worked for the Forest Service for years, would be antithetical.  Canada, Australia, and the US have had a century of aggressive fire suppression that has resulted in areas of carbon build up that is multiples of the norm for these historic fire regimes.  Not only are the fires significantly larger now, because of the higher fuel density, the intensity now causes many of the nutrients to sublimate, lengthening the restoration phase.  As for scientists "measuring everything", I would push back, especially since these models have so many moving parts, with significant unknowns.  Once a scientist no longer questions their models, data, inputs, etc. it's very easy to let bias creep in.  As for my claim they didn't give fuel density it's due, I simply read the inputs on their model.

  9. Eric (skeptic) at 21:43 PM on 9 April 2022
    Energy transformation can strengthen democracy and help fight climate change

    Three issues should be on topic: energy, climate and money.  The PM of Norway was unfortunately constrained in the interview: by the interviewer.  But he claims cutting off the money would have no effect (implying sanctions are binary when they have not been binary in reality).

    Also I read up after my comment above on seasonal alternatives to natual gas.  Something like this would take years of planning.  But ramping up such a capability quickly may have a deterrent effect which was what we hoped the threat of sanctions would do.  And it uses the same pipes as Russian natural gas.

    European leadership should look for ways to apply their wealth quickly on Russian-funding harm reduction.  I would note they have done that recently to achieve greater CO2 harm reduction by phasing out Russian coal starting April 4th.

    In short, all harm reduction must be considered, holistically.

  10. EnergyRethink at 09:53 AM on 8 April 2022
    Energy transformation can strengthen democracy and help fight climate change

    Just to correct nigelj, the value of the Ruble is basically back where it was before the war.  This is due to Russia pegging the Ruble to the price of gold and demanding payment for oil and gas in Rubles. It is unfortune though for Germany that they are moving away from Nuclear as they have essentially snookered themselves.

  11. Energy transformation can strengthen democracy and help fight climate change

    Eric the sceptic:

    "Russia had a debt to GDP ratio of just 19% last year up from 18% the year before"

    This is not much of an advantage when 1) The world wont loan you any more money, 2) the ruble is crashing in value 3) Inflation in Russia is now rampant 4) The western world has frozen many oligarchs accounts 5) Markets are closing to Russias exports 6) Russias have been denied access to various international financial systems 7) Russia is having trouble importiung enough goods.

    I guess Russia might print its own money. That creates a further raft of problems.

    "One question that needs an answer, therefore, is how to deal with the increased demand for fossil in winter, in Europe and elsewhere."

    Scary scenario for places like Germany. They are very reliant on Russian gas. Apparently America is supplying lpg gas but ships can only transport so much.

    I have read that Germany has commited to a big acceleration of its renewables programme. Building nuclear would probably be too slow.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Just a little prompt to would-be responders, that while energy and climate implications of Ukraine war are on topic, this is not a forum for general discussions of the war and it's politics.

  12. One Planet Only Forever at 02:38 AM on 8 April 2022
    Energy transformation can strengthen democracy and help fight climate change

    This is a timely presentation of Options for Helpful Leadership action by global leadership.

    It would have been beneficial for helpful global leadership (those claiming to defend democracy) to have pushed harder for Option 2 starting 30 years ago. That would have reduced the harmful pursuits of control, and the related acceptance of harmful regional leadership, in the Middle East and parts of Africa (and Russia). And it may have avoided the harmful power play by Putin today.

    There is an important supplementary action that everyone can be helpful with right now (it is never too late to learn to change to be less harmful and more helpful).

    Everyone who is consuming more than their basic needs can help by reducing their consumption, especially their direct use of fossil fuels. That would reduce the need for Option 1 and maximize the rate of achievement of Option 2.

    There can be very rapid benefits realized if everyone transitions quickly (immediately) to cooler indoor spaces in winter and warmer indoor spaces in summer. People can also have shorter showers and fewer baths starting immediately. And people can also help fight the harmful likes of Putin by stopping unnecessary power consuming trips (Walk and bike more. Use public transit more. Enjoy 'getting away to somewhere close' rather than going far away for a change).

    There is growing evidence that consumers who attempt to be Greener while maintaining or increasing their consumption are far more harmful and less helpful than consumers who simply reduce their consumption without pursuing 'greener options' (of course reducing consumption is improved by pursuing genuinely less harmful options for the remaining reduced consumption).

  13. Eric (skeptic) at 22:48 PM on 7 April 2022
    Energy transformation can strengthen democracy and help fight climate change

    I'm glad someone finally brought this topic up.  Every time I listen to a story in the media about "sanctions" I think about the BBC hard talk interview with the Prime Minister of Norway last month. They asked him why Europe was sending a billion dollars a day to Russia.  The PM tried to make the case outlined above, but he was constrained by the hard talk interview "gotcha question" format.

    The amount is less than a billion a day now, and I don't have a figure.  Some omissions from the article above: Putin attacked in winter at the time of peak demand.  Russia had a debt to GDP ratio of just 19% last year up from 18% the year before, an extremely strong financial position compared to most countries.

    One question that needs an answer, therefore, is how to deal with the increased demand for fossil in winter, in Europe and elsewhere.  It's hard to say no to fossil when you need it for heat.

  14. EnergyRethink at 09:50 AM on 7 April 2022
    Energy transformation can strengthen democracy and help fight climate change

    What about Option 3: follow France and dispatch more Nuclear ?

  15. How a few geothermal plants could solve America’s lithium supply crunch and boost the EV battery industry

    Meurig: Geothermal power is already very flexible, and appears quite suited to working with solar and wind power: "At the same time, geothermal power plants offer more flexibility than some other types of baseload power sources, as it is relatively easy to ramp their power production up and down depending on need."

    "It (geothermal power) can run as baseload power around the clock, including at night, or “load follow” to complement renewables’ fluctuations."

  16. How a few geothermal plants could solve America’s lithium supply crunch and boost the EV battery industry

    This potential source of lithium is great news, and I would be interested as to where else in the world the same might apply.
    However, one point about geothermal.  In order to properly complement low-cost low-impact variable sources like wind and solar, we don't need traditional (inflexible) "baseload" - that would merely compete with wind and solar for high merit-order grid slots and actually reduce the ability of the grid to be responsive.  Instead, we need sources which can be ramped up and down easily and rapidly, to "fill the gaps" when solar and wind aren't able to fully meet demand.  I can conceive of ways (high temperature heat storage, for example) that geothermal can be made somewhat flexible, but I'm wondering how much work has been done on this.
    This is an important consideration as we shift to renewables-based grids in places where a substantial proportion of hydro isn't an option.  As the IPCC AR6 WG3 TS states (box TS.9, p.55),:
    "An increasing reliance on electricity from variable renewable sources,
    notably wind and solar power, disrupts old concepts and makes many
    existing guidelines obsolete for power system planning, e.g. that
    specific generation types are needed for baseload, intermediate load and
    peak load to follow and meet demand. In future power systems with high
    shares of variable electricity from renewable sources, system planning
    and markets will focus more on demand flexibility, grid infrastructure
    and interconnections, storage on various timelines (on the minute,
    hourly, overnight and seasonal scale), and increased coupling between
    the energy sector and the building, transport and industrial sectors."

  17. How a few geothermal plants could solve America’s lithium supply crunch and boost the EV battery industry

    Philippe. Sorry I missed your mentioning this. It would have been nice to have seen someone else who sees the enormous potential for this. Possibly the greatest  aspect is that it would even up the share of global energy supply that most nations would have because the newer techniques can access the energy almost everywhere on earth - no small set of nations would have a stranglehold on the supply of large amounts of energy

  18. Getting involved with Climate Science via crowdfunding and crowdsourcing

    Update notice: This article was re-published on April 5 2022 to mention the short term crowdfunding project "Warming Stripes on the Sachsenbrücke" in Leipizg, Germany. We also added a fourth section to highlight our own projects you can contribute to.

  19. Philippe Chantreau at 02:48 AM on 6 April 2022
    How a few geothermal plants could solve America’s lithium supply crunch and boost the EV battery industry

    Nick Palmer, on that point we definitely agree, although I'd say that it is not that new. I have mentioned it several times over the years in various threads without arising much interest. Nonetheless, it remains one of the best options available. The small surface footprint, the 24-7 operation independent of weather, the lack of any waste product ending up in the environment, the lack of any kind of fuel needing to be extracted, exchanged and transported, the lack of risks of harmful by-products escaping, make a compelling argument in its favor. The plant in France drilled to 5000 meters, many locations would not require such deep drilling, but there is now technology that allows for even deeper wells. Of course, geology won't allow it to be done anywhere, but it should be done everywhere it can be. It's as close to a freebee as we can possibly find on our planet. 

    Last I read, the Soultz-sous-Forets plant was feeding 1.5 MW in the grid. Much knowledge and experience were gained in the development of what was intended to be a pilot experimental facility, that was later converted in a commercial electricity generation operation.

  20. michael sweet at 02:43 AM on 6 April 2022
    2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13

    This article in The Guardian describes how small solar set ups (not specifically described in the article but probably one or two panels and a storage battery) have improved the lives of refugees in Rwanda.

    Recently several commentors suggested that developing countries might need to use coal to get their economies started.  This use of solar is more environmentally responsible and much cheaper than coal or other fossil fuels.  In addition, it can be impemented in small steps that are more easily funded.  Why build a fossil generating plant that will be obsolete in ten years and is subject to extreme price swings like current fossil energy supplies?

  21. michael sweet at 02:25 AM on 6 April 2022
    How a few geothermal plants could solve America’s lithium supply crunch and boost the EV battery industry

    It is very interesting to hear about echnologies that have dual applications.  Here generating electricity and producing lithium.  The amounts of lithium sound very large.  We will have to see how their pilot plants work.

  22. It's the sun

    krit242 @ 1298:

    The argument that short wavelengths of solar radiation have a large effect on climate is usually tied to the "it's cosmic rays" argument. The total amount of energy at those shorter wavelengths is very limited - although individual photons have more energy  at shorter wavelemgths, there are just a lot fewer photons. A large percentage change in a small number is still a small number.

    As for cosmic rays, Skeptical Science has a page for that, too.

    The review I linked to at 1297 looks at a paper that tries to argue in favour of "indirect" solar effects - i.e., effects that are related to "something unknown" that is not the direct heating/energy input from variations in solar output. (Spolier alert: it's not a good paper.)

  23. How a few geothermal plants could solve America’s lithium supply crunch and boost the EV battery industry

    Yup. Geothermal has been rather overlooked. Even this article doesn't really refer to the exciting new development of 'enhanced geothermal' and ultra-deep geothermal, both of which promise huge capacity available to almost all areas of the world, not just the current 'hot spots'
    wiki article about some enhanced geothermal systems

  24. It's the sun

    Krit242  @1298 ,

    Please look again at the diagram Figure 1 at the top of this page.  The blue line shows the solar irradiance (in watts per square metre) has been decreasing since about year 1960.   There is no increasing.   The planet Earth is warming, and the warming is not due to solar changes.

    That is why Pepper  @1296  is wrong also ~  and the paper linked  @1297  [ Ziskin & Shaviv, 2012 ]  is poor science.   Pepper has been deceived by Shaviv & some of the other (very tiny number of) scientists who are acting as propagandists.   And why are these propagandists trying to deceive people ?  . . . yes, that is an interesting question !   Most likely, these propagandists are first trying to deceive themselves.

    Krit242  ~ please look at "the big picture".   Look at the huge forest of climate evidence, and not at just one or two trees.

  25. Understanding the promise and peril of fusion power: Chimera or climate panacea?

    Global birth licensing and enforcement would be easier and less risky.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Off-topic and inflammatory statements deleted.

  26. Climate scientists are in it for the money

    I feel like scientists in every field are important to us. Scientists are vital to the globe since they assist individuals in comprehending how the world operates in very particular ways. Humans have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to stay alive and happy, and science has proven to be an useful tool for doing so, even if it doesn't always make us happy. Science is a certain perspective on the environment. It's a mode of thinking, a means of organizing what we know in order to better comprehend how things work. I also think there aren't much people choosing the environmental science field because of the "they are doing it for money" reason and also there aren't much people paying much close attention to their result/studies. 

  27. It's cooling

    The Earth is not in radiative balance with forcings and will continue to warm for some time yet until that balance is reached. Even the warming is uneven. Further, current levels of the warming of the globe likely exceed those found both in the Holocene and in the previous interglacial.

  28. Planting a trillion trees will solve global warming

    I think that planting many trees would be able to help with climate change but it wouldn't be that much effective. Sure, plants are cheap and can absorb carbon dioxide. Can also remove a substantial portion of heat-trapping emissions from the atmosphere. However, there are more different problems that makes climate change way worse. For example ocean pollution, industrial activity and agricultural activity. I also think that planting trees will take time to grow because of the environment. Temperature rising would make it hard to grow and there will also be people who would deforesting the trees. Which means that planting more trees would be useless. So i think we should focus on the people first then the environment. 

  29. It's the sun

    The video tell the problem of energy balance. Temperature is tightly coupled variables. The solar irridiance is increasins during the past 50 years, I think it's important to know that solar irridiance changes most in the shorter wavelengths. It might not look like large effect for this change but there is something more.

  30. It's the sun

    Pepper: Welcome to Skeptical Science.

    Although there is a lot of noise about solar variations being a possible cause for recent warming, the papers that make this claim usually suffer major flaws.

    The numbers that you are quoting need a reference - "they" is not enough detail! It sounds like you may be referring to the results of the paper that is reviewed in this blog post at Skeptical Science. Follow that link to see an example of how papers claiming a significant solar effect can have serious shortcomings.

  31. 2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13

    Hello, all Skeptical Science readers.

    I am using this weekly digest post as a place to make a comment about recent activity on a number of blog posts.

    A few years ago, we had a collection of students from KMIDS college in Bangkok that were assigned work that included reading and commenting here at Skeptical Science. It looks like we may be seeing similar activity this month. (We are trying to confirm if it is indeed the same school.)

    When this happened before, we wrote a short blog post explaining the situation.

    Please try to provide these students (if we have correctly identified them as such) wtih a warm welcome and encourage them to read material here and engage in constructive dialog.


  32. There is no consensus


    There is a lot in between the two extremes of "catasrophe" and "no need to do anything". It is not a binary system or "right or wrong" - it is a range of likely outcomes and risks.

    We know with pretty much 100% certainty that adding CO2 causes some warming. For doubling of CO2 (from 300 to 600ppm) it is very unlikely that it will be less than 1.5-2.0C. It will also be very unlikely that it will be more than 4.5-5.0C. But that leaves a lot of range of likely temperature effects that will cause serious changes in climate and very likely serious (and expensive) impacts on society. The larger the temperature change and the impact, the more important it is that we take additional action.

    The idea that CO2 limits will harm the economy is discussed in this thread at Skeptical Science.

  33. CO2 lags temperature

    The time lag between CO2 and temperature is due to the time offset between warming oceans and continued ocean CO2 emissions. with this cumulative effect Carbon dioxide, therefore it will becomes the main driver of temperature during glacial and interglacial warming. Shakun et al 2012 paper showed that warming was indeed triggered by the Milankovitch cycles and that a small amount of orbital cycle-caused warming eventually triggered the CO2 release, which caused most of the glacial-interglacial warming. So while CO2 did lag behind a small initial temperature change, it led and was the primary driver behind most of the glacial-interglacial warming. According to the Shakun data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

  34. It's the sun

    Total solar radiation has a huge impact on climate change, according to the scientific article below: Combine the data below with the closure of the ozone hole over the past 20 years, and that in itself could explain global warming. All hot in the last 25 years. They estimate that the Sun was responsible for 45–50% of global warming and 25–35% of global warming in 1980–2000. It may have played a key role in continued climate change over the past century. It also pointed out that the impact of solar on climate change over the same period was much stronger than what some theoretical models had predicted.

  35. GraceKanyanat at 11:20 AM on 5 April 2022
    Sea level rise is exaggerated

    Sea level rise is one of the most common topics among the environmental science community and it should be since this topic is a topic that everyone should acknowledge. Sea level rise is caused by global warming which leads to ice and glaciers melting in the polar regions. This caused water to run off to the ocean which causes the sea to be above land.

    This is extremely dangerous, especially to people who live near the shore or anywhere in particular since we cannot predict when there will be flooding. According to the graph above, it is safe to say that the sea level has been rising a lot during the past decades which also shows that global warming is getting worse and worse every single day. For me, sea-level rise is an important topic because it affects human lives in a bad way.

    For example, flooding can cause damage to our areas of living, and it can also harm our drinking water and the crops that we grow for food or the country to send out for trading or any other opportunities. We can help solve this problem by again raising awareness of people living near the shores to watch out for signs of flooding. We can also help each other lower global warming by burning fewer fossil fuels and using more organic stuff. Please help each other resolve this problem for your own safety.

  36. GraceKanyanat at 11:19 AM on 5 April 2022
    Climate's changed before

    Global warming has always been one of the most concerning and dangerous things that humans and the climate can experience. Global warming is when the concentration of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, making the planet heat up.

    Although global warming is genuinely concerning, a lot of people all over the world still look over it and do not seem to really care. This might be because people think that global warming is impossible to solve since we still need to use the stuff that is causing the problem, like burning fossil fuels. But for me, I do not think that is the case.

    I think that global warming is especially important because it affects us as human beings e.g., extremely hot weather can damage our lungs. Moreover, it affects a variety of biodiversity across the world. An example would be in the polar regions where it starts to get warm which leads to animal deaths. I believe that we can help solve this problem and make the planet a good place to live in again. We just need to put our hands together and fight through it. We can start off by raising awareness and using fewer fossil fuels.

  37. Climate's changed before

    Welcome to Skeptical Science, hmmyes and Fya.

    hmmyes: you ask about how much CO2 the climate can handle? The earth-atmosphere system can handle a lot, and climate will always be there - it is simply what is observed, however cold or hot things are. From a human perspective, though, there are an awful lot of climates that earth can tolerate that humans cannot. 18,000 years ago was 4-6 C cooler than now, and cie covered huge areas of current land. Running today's modern civilation in that earth would be very difficult. On the flip side, a 4-6C warming would also be very expensive for humans, if not intolerable. The past changes in climate tell us that 4-6C of change is a big change.

    Fya: mass extinctions from things like meteor impacts are indeed a very abrupt and severe form of change, and CO2 wll not have that rapid effect. But the effects of a 4-6C rise in temperatures (the high end of esitmates for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppm) will not be gentle.

  38. CO2 lags temperature

    Welcome to Skeptical Science, Fya.

    It is difficult to know what you are responding to here. It helps if you refer to the comment number, or the portion of the post you are responding to.

  39. Climate change solutions are too expensive

    It has taken six years, Grace, but we finally have a comment on this thread!

    As you point out, the desire to supply enough energy to meet demand can be helped by reducing demand as well as increasing supply. And the economics need to properly look at environmental costs. Factoring in environmental costs is difficult when the costs will be paid by someone else - or at some time in the future.

    In economics. they call these costs "externalities". You can read about it on wikipedia.

  40. Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

    Welcome to Skeptical Science, Grace.

    You have correctly identified the issue of rapid cycling of carbon versus slow cycling. Some plants grow and die on an annual cycle. Animals maye live for tens of years, and forests grow and die over hundreds of years. But fossil fuel is coming from sources that were stored away millions of years ago.

  41. It's cooling

    Welcome to Skeptical Science, Sun and anika.

    One of the things that you will notice here is that no discussions are ever closed. But you do need to pay attention to when comments were made, as very old discussions may not be active.

    Sun: you mention several items, but it is not clear if you are responding to the main article, or comments from others. It helps if you refer to the comment number, or the portion of the post you are responding to. In looking at global temperatures, "global" will assign a weighting to the land temperature record based on the global land area, while sea surface temperatures will be weighted according to ocean area. As for older data: global coverage is much less dense in the 1800s, so for some purposes the older data may be too unreliable to be able to say that it represents "global" conditions.

    Anika: you raise an important point. Each individual characteristic (temperature, ice cover, vegetation, etc.) will have short-term variation that makes it harder to see the long-term trend - but when you see similar response in a wider variety of characteristics it becomes much less likely that any single one is "by chance". There is a "big picture" that is more than just the sum of the parts.

  42. It's cooling

    Global warming is definitely still happening, and there are many factors that show this. Saying that the earth is “cooling” does not make any sense, due to the many indicators that it is such as snow covers, ice melts, and the temperatures over the land and ocean. I really like the quote: The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event...For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.” I think it sums up the entire argument well and makes it very simple for people who still may be confused to understand.

  43. GraceKanyanat at 01:41 AM on 5 April 2022
    Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

    In my opinion, I think that burning fossil fuels is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases emissions because more fossil fuels = more CO2 being released into the atmosphere, making the temperature warmer. Though I also think that deforestation is also a huge contributor to GHG emissions, but deforestation might not happen as frequently as burning fossil fuels.
    Ok sure cutting down trees can lower the amount of CO2 absorption while animals and humans continue to produce CO2, but can it really make much of a difference since new plants are also being grown every day?
    But to take into consideration that animals shouldn’t even be part of the greenhouse gas emissions since many of them are being killed every day to provide people with food. Animals also take a much longer time to grow than plants, so I think that animals shouldn’t really have much of a contribution to the GHG emissions.
    I agree with the fact that everyone can help contribute to reducing GHG emissions if we all come together and set our minds to the same goal, which is to minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases.

  44. GraceKanyanat at 01:40 AM on 5 April 2022
    Climate change solutions are too expensive

    We all know deep in our hearts that climate change will take a lot of effort to reverse. It would take a lot of both time and money to be able to make a single little change, but it will be for the better. As you have said in the text, “solar and wind farms are currently the cheapest sources of new electricity,” I totally agree with your solutions, but can there also be other ways to create electricity like hydropower? Could there also be a change in the lifestyles of people so that we consume less energy?
    According to the data from Lazard, “Leveled Cost of Energy Comparison,” also shows that the cost for renewable energy is cheaper than conventional ones yet they are still cost-competitive with conventional energies. I would like to know if it is possible that one day there would be no more conventional energies since renewable energies might come out on top?
    I also feel like we will be able to achieve this goal of slowing down climate if we all start caring less about the finances and more about the environment, governments could make policies where fossil fuel will be banned so that there would be less greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere.

  45. CO2 lags temperature

    It redirects focus over to like the greater part of the compelling anticipated from a multiplying of CO2 ought to have as of now occured except that is unrepresented. For this reason, assuming there was a space. Without it, however, input numbers or moderately.

  46. Climate's changed before

    There were changes in climate that caused species extinctions, but those changes were caused by physical impact in scale and duration far beyond what we can do by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

  47. Ocean acidification isn't serious

    Even just a slight change in the pH of the ocean can affect it a lot, this includes all the animals living in it as well. As time goes on the amount of CO2 that humans are emitting through industrial activities is increasing, this means the amount of CO2 that the oceans are absorbing is also increasing, if this continues at the rate that it is going, there are going to be extreme impacts on the oceans and ocean life. Coral reefs will suffer affecting all the animals that rely on them, and many humans who rely on the ocean will suffer as well.

  48. There is no consensus

    Dr. David Evans made the statement: "Yes, it's important to get our response right. If the alarmist is correct, then we should cut down our carbon emissions of the planet from overheating. If the alarmist is wrong, it's important not to cut back our carbon emissions or we'll create widespread poverty unnecessary.

  49. It's not bad

    While it is true that climate change can cause these things to happen or have already caused it to happen. In my opinion, I still think some of these that you provided are just speculations which I'm not denying in any way. I also noticed that there are way more negative effects than positives which is why I support the effort of mitigating climate change and global warming.

  50. It's cooling

    if you want to measure trends in temperature there is no reason to weigh land temperatures differently from sea surface temperatures. There was also no reason for you to exclude a third of the Earth's surface from your "logical and mathematical approach". There was also no reason to exclude 21% of the data in time. Including the data from 1871 to 1899 shows that the pattern you claim only have detected in a single cycle does not mean the same go for other periods.

Prev  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us