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  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 301 to 350:

  1. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    I forgot to put a space after the link above.

  2. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    But again, I'm not trying to rationalize the eating of meat. And I'm definately not trying to rationalize factory farming at all, or other mistreatment of animals (and there's a lot!). Just saying that maybe strict vegans should lighten up a bit on peoples not following all of their dictates to the letter. As I said before, people who are not flawless should not critisize other people's flawfulness (it's blatant hypocrisy), except in things where those decisions (like those of the fossil fuel companies) are impacting their lives and perhaps even the planet itself.

  3. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    Are we only against taking mammalian life because that is the form of life most like our own? Okay, but we should be willing to admit that that's a bit biased. Even breathing, how many living microbes are we ingesting? Should we wear masks all the time? To live we have to take life. A sad fact.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Enough I think. This thread is about whether vegan eating would be a useful mitigation for climate change. Cruelty to animals, plants and rants about vegan self-righteousness and/or hypocrisy are pretty clearly offtopic.

  4. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    OPOF, I agree with your first paragraph, obviously. 

    The second, I'm still not convinced. But maybe we can agree to disagree?

    The third about trying not to cause harm is again, obvious. But we should be careful here not to become obsessed. Ultimately if we follow these precepts religiously we would become like the Jains of India. Do you carry a broom around with you all of the time? :) gardening would not be allowed.

    To get comparable nutrition from plants. Have you ever noticed that strict animal vegetarians eat plants pretty much constantly? Horses, cows, even pandas. Have to to get comparable nutrition.

    Again, I think you're "brushing" (pun intended) aside my thoughts about plants. Even the Jains if you take it to it's ultimate conclusions. They say to eat only above ground plants and leave the root because it won't necessarily kill the plant. But, as a gardener, I can say that that's not necessarily the case all the time. I've noticed, for example, that evergreen trees take to pruning much more difficultly the deciduous. So I think you might be rationalizing away the pain caused to plants in the interests of keeping the human alive. 

    Point is, we have to kill something that wants to be alive if we want to live too. What is our choice, and would our victims agree with that?

  5. One Planet Only Forever at 01:48 AM on 18 April 2023
    Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions


    Regarding the issue of climate change impacts:

    A fundamental understanding is that limiting the harmful impacts of human activities is important. And a related understanding is that limiting human activity to ‘necessary actions for healthy living’ is probably the most significant reduction of harm that developed human societies have miserably failed to act on.

    Regarding the ‘need to eat meat’:

    There are many examples of vegans who have succeeded through many generations, and not just in India (admittedy, entirely vegan cutures are hard to find because just one person within the cuture not maintaining the vegan diet would disqualify that entire culture). That, combined with the BBC Reel anecdotal scientific test I linked to, indicates that the concern that humans 'must eat meat to be healthy' are misunderstandings.

    Regarding ‘plants have feelings’:

    The fundamental ethical understanding would be that, since any activity may be harmful, humans should:

    • govern or limit their activity to necessary actions for a decent healthy life
    • pursue increased awareness and constantly improved understanding of what is harmful and strive to limit the harmfulness of those ‘necessary actions’.

    Applying that ethical understanding to the issue of ‘eat meat or plants’ raises the following considerations:

    • Animals eat plants. So if the animal eaten has consumed more plants than the human needs to get comparable nutrition from plants then the animal definitely should not be eaten.
    • If more artificial energy is needed to produce the meat to eat than the equivalent plant material then the meat should not be eaten.
    • If more artificially delivered water is consumed to produce the meat to eat than the equivalent amount of plant material then the meat should not be eaten.

    p.s. I have read many books on ethics, including many of Peter Singer’s books, including “Animal Liberation Now”.

  6. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    Vegan lifestyles showcase ethical and moral thoughts about human health, animal rights, and ecological integrity.  For example, only one in ten US residents with kidney disease (CKD) knows they have CKD. They might choose a vegan lifestyle if they knew because meat contains damaging phosphate levels for diseased kidneys, unlike plant-based diets.

    I don't need to point out the terrible anxiety and suffering that sentient beings go through as we process them for consumption. Of course, the ecological damage caused by factory farming is well-known to readers of Skeptical Science. I'm not vegan, but I am vegetarian and pretty new at it.

  7. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    I'm not an expert, so I don't know for sure. I do know that our closest genetic relatives, chimpanzees, are part-time carnivores too. I just wonder if it's not just a liking for eating meat, but through millions of years of evolution, has actually become a necessity of sorts as well?

    They say we need protein for our larger brains. Are there other adaptations? I don't know. But the fact that we need to supplement with not readily available vegetarian foodstuffs (except with modern day markets), seems to indicate that it might be kind of necessity. Perhaps a generation or two can eat a vegan diet, but I wonder what the evolutionary implications will be to long term veganism?

    Don't get me wrong. I'd love to not eat meat, but just vegetables tastes not great, especially if you're not a cook. But , then again, I think it's dishonest to only be concerned with mammalian life. If were doing it for ethical reasons, plants also want to be here. So it's a choice. But gotta eat to live.

  8. Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project

    The blog post was updated on Apr 16 with the link to the latest rebuttal getting the "at a glance treatment": Are we heading into a new ice age?

  9. One Planet Only Forever at 04:23 AM on 17 April 2023
    Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions


    The point of the third paragraph is that in spite of having canine teeth and having developed a liking for eating meat it is possible for anybody to live a healthy life by changing to a vegan diet. The key is to do the transition gradually. Attempting to cold-turkey the transition will not be successful. Watch the video. It is quite the experiment.

    Another consideration is that there may be health benefits of changing to less meat eating. And the rate that a person pursues the health benefits of the transition can be influenced by how urgently they need to shift away from the harm they are subjected to by their meat eating.

  10. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    OPOF, Thanks for the comment. I agree with your first two paragraphs, though on the second I think it depends on the kind of meat you're eating (i.e. beef vs poultry). 

    The third paragraph, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying...

  11. One Planet Only Forever at 03:21 AM on 17 April 2023
    Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions


    Regarding the ability of humans to dramatically reduce their meat consumption:

    When I was doing moderately high-performance training I learned that a human body will not benefit from eating more that 4 ounces (100 gms) of meat in a meal (a diversity of research reporting about that). So, most meat eaters can significantly reduce their meat consumption without any issues. Eat the same number of meat meals, but with smaller meat servings.

    However, there is increasing evidence of the health benefits of eating fewer servings of meat. Simple internet searching finds lots of that learning.

    Also, the following ‘anecdotal, but scientific’ case of very high-performance training indicates that people can transition their diet to be meat free, even though they have canine teeth with a liking for meat. The key is to do it in stages, more rapidly if the heath concerns of not changing the diet are significant (like the ‘now urgent’ need to change to limit and repair the harm done by developed fossil fuel use):

    BBC Reel: “Is a vegan diet healthier than eating meat and dairy?”

  12. One Planet Only Forever at 02:40 AM on 17 April 2023
    Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    Regarding criticisms that comments to help understand and correct misunderstandings regarding climate science are ‘politically biased’:

    Undeniably, an evaluation of the history of this issue leads to a consensus understanding that Conservative Movement populists divisively politicized the issue. They promoted pseudoscience and science denial to ‘successfully and harmfully’ appeal for support in their efforts to delay the limitation and correction of harm done by fossil fuel use.

    SkS can be understood to be one of the many developments created in response to that 'successful' harmful populist divisive misleading political marketing.

    See the SkS re-posting of the Thinking is Power item “Science and its Pretenders: Pseudoscience and Science Denial”, particularly the Standford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Science and Pseudo-Science” webpage that EddieEvans linked in their comment @5 and my response @6.

  13. We're heading into an ice age

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on April 16, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @

    Thanks - the Skeptical Science Team.

  14. Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    Dang, left an 'o' out of "copious"

  15. Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    Peppers, Adfontes Media's Media Bias Chart places both NPR and Reuters near the pinnacle of un-biased, factual reporting. The chart's methodology is copiusly documented.  Argue with its programmers, not with us.

  16. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    By the way, to the vegans that prefer to eat soy, it's growing is also contributing to deforestation, especially in Brazil's Amazon and Argentina. It's true that most soy is grown feed livestock, but a lot of it to feed people as well. "Impossible Burger" needs to get their protein from another source, and care for the planet, not just their bottom line.

  17. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    Yeah, if one divorces Vegan's hypocritical self-righteousness, misanthopism, inflicted guilt and politics from the issue, I can understand their arguments about meat eating. These animals want to live as well. But then, any animal that's ever been eaten, even by another animal, wants to live too.

    But I wonder about evolved human physiology as well. Could those of us that have bodies adapted to getting some of our nutrition from meat, probably most or all of us, and have since the beginning of our evolution, cope? Why did we evolve canine teeth? To eat plants? Why do strict vegans need to supplement with extra B12? What if that weren't available? IOW, is it natural for us to only eat vegetables? 

    Environmentally, I like the idea of eating meat-like vegetables, vegetables meant to taste like meat, like the "Impossible Burger". It's a great idea, cause I believe that the cattle industry is contributing to not just climate change, but the extinction of numerous other species as well to make room for one. But "Impossible Burger's" protein source is Monsanto's genetically engineered soy (cause they can't find non-GE soy that isn't contaminated with GE transgenes anymore thanks to the rather notorious Monsanto (omg!), and they don't want to use pea protein or something else). Also companies that sell their products, like Trader Joe's, quietly fill their shelves with IB, not caring that people shop there because they mistakenly believe that TJ's doesn't sell GMOs. It's all about the $$$ for them. 

    So a conumdrum. What to eat? Natural meat and vegetables? GMOs? Or only plants? Maybe if I could cook, and wanted to spend countless hours hunting down all the esoteric ingredients recipe books say that you need...

  18. Rob Honeycutt at 01:03 AM on 15 April 2023
    Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    Additionally, "whom are as biased as one can get" is utterly false. Both NPR and Reuters are widely recognized as straight journalism in its best sense. Compare that to FoxNews, who has now been proven in court documents to be "as biased as one can get" and could face potential bankruptcy as a result.

  19. Rob Honeycutt at 00:54 AM on 15 April 2023
    Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    Peppers... NPR is merely reporting what a scientific study says in that piece. That's as apolitical as it gets.

  20. Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    One Planet,

    Im not sure why this site is going political, but using NPR, Rueters, as opinion sources, whom are as biased as one can get, turns your comments in to political shenanigans. It expands the line of thought of having a foregone opinion and then seeking out the answers that best, and only best fit your prior conclusion. Might sound familiar.

    In 2020 Trump signed the Executive Order on “Modernizing America’s Water Resource Management and Water Infrastructure.” Oddly this dealt with all the premises of this article above. This went further though and established a Water Subcabinet specifically for the Colorado River region, to interface with tribal, local and area governments about the River.

    You, and quoting several left sided websites, post a belittlement to advance a political agenda and start slinging poo. This is then the level you leave this site as as well then.

    You can go to the if you paste the executive order sentence above ( Im sorry I dont know how to condense a link here yet and I have ton study that ) and that article shows a 4 minute read.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please refrain from political rants (partially snipped).


  21. The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations

    On April 13, 2023 the Albanian and Macedonian translations of the Conspiracy Theory Handbook were published, bringing the number of available translations up to 18!

  22. One Planet Only Forever at 14:58 PM on 13 April 2023
    Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    This April 12 NPR item "Swimming pools and lavish gardens of the rich are driving water shortages, study says" indicates that population growth and climate change are not the only significant factors leading to water shortages.

    And Trump pursuing popular support by complaining about low-flush toilets and limited flow shower heads (reported here and there and everywhere) are examples of the harmful nonsense that Populists can temporarily benefit from (an example of the time limit is presented here).

  23. One Planet Only Forever at 14:20 PM on 13 April 2023
    Science and its Pretenders: Pseudoscience and Science Denial


    Thanks for pointing to the Stanford University page. It is a great supplement to the Thinking is Power item reposted here on SkS.

    I note that the list of criteria in 'Section 4. Alternative demarcation criteria; Sub-section 4.6 Multi-criterial approaches' starts with the following criteria identifying the practice of Pseudoscience:

    "Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others have to accept their judgments."

    Note that many believers of Pseudoscience that is professed by their "Identified Authority (Authoritarian ruler on the matter that they have passionate beliefs about)" often claim that a 'presenter of the developed consensus understanding regarding climate science and the resulting need to rapidly end the harm of fossil fuel use' is claiming to be 'the authority that others must accept the judgments of'.

    The fact that the original Stanford document was published in 2008 appears to indicate that something is causing a powerful resistance to leadership learning the Truth about Pseudoscience, and not just regarding the climate impact case.

    It appears that the powerful problem is harmful Populist political players as described in the detail in the National Endowment for Democracy's Democracy Digest item "Has populism won the war on liberal democracy".

    The book "Has Populism Won? The war on liberal democracy", by Daniel Drache and Marc D. Froese, presents the diversity of Populists. Example of that diversity is Lula and Bolsonaro of Brazil both being Populists, as are Trump and Sanders in the USA. A common point about all Populists is their selling of different versions of a Big Lie that emotionally triggers support by making misleading, overly simple, claims about things. However, populists can be 'harmful or helpful'. Being misleading is not good. But it can temporarily reduce harm ... unless the 'helpful' Big Lie is 'seen through'.

    Also note that the harmful Populists love to benefit from the promotion of Pseudoscience through the 'scientifically developed' power of misleading targeted marketing. Helpful Populists would be less likely to do that. The climate science case identifies the more harmful, less helpful, Populists.

    A final point. Being scientific, and scientific developments, are no guarantee that harm is being reduced. What is chosen to be researched and how that learning is employed can be helpful or harmful. The science of marketing is an example. Nuclear weapons also prove that point. But misleading marketing is potentially a far more harmful scientifically developed thing.

  24. Rob Honeycutt at 11:50 AM on 13 April 2023
    Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    Funny. I just realized I posted the exact same story on this thread 2 years ago. No matter. It's one worth re-telling.

  25. Rob Honeycutt at 11:47 AM on 13 April 2023
    Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    Ron... As a vegetarian of over 40 years, I have to agree with you, though I'd have to add the caveat that not all vegans are militant and self-righteous about their diet. Far too many of them are, though, and it leads to making too many factually inaccurate claims. 

    The rule I've developed for myself over the years is this: I'm vegetarian with caveats. When something culturally important or a unique life experience presents itself in the form of eating meat. Give me the meat.  

    Example: When my Chinese wife's grandmother got up at 5am on Chinese New Year morning to make pork dumplings for the family, as she'd done her entire life... the last thing I'm going to say is "no thank you, I'm a vegetarian." My response is, "These are freaking amazing! Can I have more?" And I consider myself extraordinarily lucky to have shared in this special part of her life.

  26. One Planet Only Forever at 08:40 AM on 13 April 2023
    Science tackles the West’s megadrought

    Extensive additional reporting regarding the Colorado River challenge is provided by NPR, particularly NPR's KUNC. Search "colorado river" on NPR's website.

    The inability (unwillingness) of the collective users to agree to reduced water use is tragically similar to the global response to the need for climate impacts to be reduced. Each State, or each regional interest, appears to have tried to get the most potential benefit possible. The result is the creation of the current day continuation of harmful over-consumption.

    Another tragic similarity to the climate problem is that the reluctance of groups to reduce their harmful over-consumption produces the requirement for the Federal government (an external governing body) to 'impose restrictions'. That is likely to be abused by harmful populist 'freedom and sovereignty' political players to do their harmful misleading by attacking 'those others' who try to impose restrictions on freedom and sovereignty. The harmful populists will likely also blame 'those other water consumers' of being the real harmful over-consumers (populists thrive on finding ways to misleadingly be more popular by 'attacking or blaming others' - recommended related reading is the book "Has Populism Won? The war on liberal democracy", by Daniel Drache and Marc D. Froese).

  27. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    It always bugs me when Vegans (which seem to be more hateful and judgemental than Vegetarians) try to make people feel bad for being carnivores, or even drinking milk or having some butter.

    It's not that I'm at all defending the meat industry, or the way in general animals are treated by them. And I hate the way some people in Asian countries are mistreating animals too. They're vicious and heartless (but I won't get into that right now). Also, about beef eating and the environment, I agree with Vegans. It is destructive and contributes to Climate Change, obviously, so should be phased out. And any fishing is overfishing these days, which is why I don't eat fish either.

    But I think that Vegan's real issue is not about Climate Change. No, I suspect that their hostility and judgmentalism is actually about an enjoyment of telling people what to do! A hatred of people (there is reason to hate some people though).

    Do Vegans eat plants? Of course. Yet, there's a whole field emerging that says that they, too, are sentient. Feel pain. Want to live. Use all kinds of tricks to foul up predators (like Vegans). What gives them the Right to take that life away just to feed their stomachs? Is it because plants can't say "STOP!" when they are eating them? Can't move out of the way to save themselves? Can't audibly scream? How arrogant of them! So thoughtless. But so human too. :/

    Also, do Vegans have pet cats or dogs? Do they feed them plants? If so, they wont live long. I've seen it. Isn't it hypocritical of them not to call for us to stop owning them?

    Are Vegans calling for only humans and their pets to stop eating meat? What about wild animals? Do they want the lion to lie down with the lamb? All meat eating to end, period? An environmental crash would soon follow. Some people eat insects now. Yech! But anyway, do they judge them too? Insects are animals as well. Want to live. Run when we come.

    You know, they say whenever you point a finger at another person, four more are pointing back at you. Are Vegans perfect? They'd better be if they choose judge an otherwise good person. A great man once said not to judge others because with the measure you mete out to them, it will be meted out to you in return. A more modern way of saying that is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. People can lay out their beliefs, and that's fine, but don't make it personal (except for real dicks) unless they themselves are utterly flawless. Are they? Only they know.

    So I do eat poultry. You see, you gotta eat to live. That's just the way it works on this planet. But I try to find poultry that's raised humanely. Anyway plants, or animals, they ALL want to live as well. So you gotta make a choice. The alternative is to eat already dead things - or starve.

  28. Science and its Pretenders: Pseudoscience and Science Denial

    In the context of climate deception, I started my morning learning about Karl Popper's explanations for science and pseudo-science.  I came across this Standford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy Science and Pseudo-Science page. It's broad but may add to unavailing climate deceivers more quickly and thoroughly. I hope this helps someday.

  29. michael sweet at 05:25 AM on 10 April 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14

    This article from describes how the North East Power system (PJM) is making gas power plants repay funds that were given to them to provide "reliable power".  In December 2022 Winter storm Elliott took out up to 23% of "always on" gas generators.  Meanwhile, wind generators provided over two times their promised electricity. 

    Rules put in place after a similar storm in 2014, when gas generators also failed to work, fine producers who do not produce as they promised and reward generators who provide excess power (not to mention recent Texas gas fiascos blamed on renewable energy).

    Perhaps we will be able to avoid these consistent power shortages in bad weather when we have an all renewable energy system.

  30. One Planet Only Forever at 04:24 AM on 6 April 2023
    Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes

    Bob Loblaw @54,

    I agree that JohnSeers was seeking a debunking of the claim that the evidence of significant rapid recent climate system changes was significantly due to underwater volcanoes heating the oceans.

    I think it could be helpful to always clarify a 'climate change' question or claim in the context of 'its significance related to the evidence of significant rapid recent climate system changes'. And there are 2 dominant verifiable (real based on evidence) rapid recent changes:

    • Increased CO2 levels
    • Increased global average surface temperature (and warmer oceans)

    The evidence and developed understanding to date is so robust that it is very unlikely that fossil fuel use is not the dominant cause of those verifiable rapid recent changes.

    As your helpful comment confirms, that part of the science is almost as certain as science can get on any matter (part of the reason many IPCC participants see no value in 'another update'). That leads to misleading political actions hoping to benefit from the popularity of limited awareness and related increased misunderstanding which is limitless. Verifiable evidence always limits the range of believable explanations ...

  31. Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes

    I had presumed that JohnSeers' question @ 49 was with respect to the direct heating effects of undersea volcanoes, rather than any indirect effects associated with CO2 emissions, etc.

    Oceans are an important mechanism of heat transfer. Globally, tropical and subtropical regions absorb much more solar radiation than they emit back to space, so they show a net gain via radiation. Polar and sub-polar regions are the opposite - they lose more by IR emission to space than they absorb from solar radiation.

    The climate system re-balances those regions of gain/loss by transporting energy poleward, and this happens via circulation in both the atmosphere and the oceans. Ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, etc. move large amounts of energy.

    And both land areas and ocean floors show vertical heat transport from the interior of the earth to the surface - but as discussed in the link I gave in comment #50, the amounts are small. And as pointed out in comments, to argue that current surface warming is the result of this flux of heat from the earth's core (via volcanoes or regular conduction) would require massive undetected increases in that geothermal heat flux.

    Ain't happening, and anyone arguing that it is (without evidence) can be assumed to be badly uninformed (or mis-informed).

  32. Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes

    The idea of heating the oceans from below has so many things wrong it. Firstly, I highly recommend Bob's link to get a feel for the scale of different heat sources. Secondly, consider the vertical temperature profile of the oceans - rather consistant with heating from above not below wouldnt you think? And finally, to explain the rapid rise in ocean heat content, this is postulating the amount of heat being emitted geothermally has dramatically increased in recent years and yet is undetectable by observations of volcanism and vertical ocean temperature profiling. This is all about ignoring the simple, obvious explanation which is consistant with all of other data (adding CO2 to atmosphere from burning fossil fuels) and going for the extremely improbable, supported by no evidence at all, presumably because the likely explanation is unpalatable. I dont believe this is rational thinking.

  33. One Planet Only Forever at 02:18 AM on 5 April 2023
    Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes

    JohnSeers @49,

    In addition to the responses by Bob and Rob I suggest that the following fairly obvious questions, with fairly obvious answers, are raised by that 3rd volcanic impact possibility:

    1. What is the evidence that underwater volcanic releases have dramatically increased recently in a way that explains the recent rapid increase of atmospheric CO2 levels and global average surface temperature increase?
    2. What has happened to all of the excess CO2 poduced by burining fossil fuels if it hasn't been causing the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels?
  34. Rob Honeycutt at 01:05 AM on 5 April 2023
    Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes

    JohnSeers @49...  I've heard that one many times before, at least relative to rising atmospheric CO2. What those who make that claim fail to recognize is that CO2 from underwater volcanoes would merely be dissolved into seawater before reaching the surface. It would lead to greater ocean acidification but any atmospheric changes would be limited to the second order effect from changes in the ocean/atmosphere exchange of CO2. 

    This argument seems more of a "what if" argument someone made up, didn't research, and spun up into a new denial theory.

  35. Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes

    JohnSeers @49:

    Without seeing details of the claim you are mentioning, it sounds like that would be a variation on the geothermal heat myth. You can read more about that here:

  36. CO2 lags temperature

    Terry2 @ 64:

    Are you referring to the quote directly under the "Climate Myth" label? That is not a quote from the Science article - it is a quote from U.S. Rep Joe Barton. You can find the exact quote if you follow the "Full Statement" link immediately below the quote. It's Joe's interpretation of what he read (hopefully - he might just be repeating what someone else said) in the Science paper.

  37. Two attempts to blame global warming on volcanoes

    There is a third argument made that volcanoes cause global warming. Many underwater volcanoes heat the ocean and transfer heat via the PDO, AMO, ENSO etc.

    Is there any debunking of that anywhere?

  38. Inside the quest to develop long-range tornado forecasts

    Can someone please tell me the approximate minimum depth of the Atlantic ocean off the coast of Newburyport Mass. when vast amounts of water was locked up in the ice caps ? In other words, how much less than current sea level. 200 feet ? IWhen I have talked with captains of dredgers over the past 50 years, many of them have pulled up mammoth skeletons with spear points, skeletons of saber-tooth tigers, camels and other Pleistocene species many miles off the coast, so I suspect that the seal and mammoth hunters from the Spain-French occupied eastern North America long before the Indians who crossed Beringia. I believe this idea is supported with DNA evidence as well. Any thoughts ?

    Moderator Response:

    [BL} This is rather off-topic for this blog post. There are many other posts here at Skeptical Science that discuss sea level change over the time scale you are questioning.

    This post on the importance of CO2 over glacial periods shows global sea level changes of about 100m.

    Sea level past 500k years


    This post covers sea levels over the past 150,000 years, and includes this figure:

    Sea level past 150k years

    Those are global averages. Along the Mass. coast, glacial ice weight (added, removed) will cause additional local changes. The effect is explained in this post on This Elastic Earth. It includes this animation . (Go to the post to understand what it is showing.)

    Isostatic changes

  39. CO2 lags temperature

    Thank you for your excellent website and all the valuable information. I found this FAQ on CO2 lagging temperature very helpful. I found a copy of the Lorius et al. (1990) paper in Nature and it is great.

    Pardon me if this has been said before in the may posts, but I could not see the direct quote that you present in the paper. The sentiments are definitley there and reflect the findings in the Lorius et al. paper, but not in those exact words.  Perhaps the direct quote you have included comes from a different paper. It seems more like a commentary on the paper.

    Thank you again.

  40. One Planet Only Forever at 03:06 AM on 4 April 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13

    The Story of the Week raises interesting questions about how 'progress, advancement and improvement' are evaluated (and valued). New technology developments can be very negative in spite of the promotion of positive perceptions about the 'amazing new developments'. Many developed measures of status, like popularity or profit, do not relate to, or indicate, helpfulness or harmfulness.

    More freedom to develop and spread misleading marketing is potentially the most harmful type of 'freedom'. And the most effective counter-measures appear to be educating people by more effectively exposing 'everyone' to the harmful misunderstandings some people try to benefit from developing and spreading. 

    Requiring AI guardrails to make it harder to abuse is helpful. The challenge is ensuring that constantly improved guardrails are being implemented on every AI. But creative people would still figure out how to harmfully abuse those developed systems.

    In addition to rigorous requirements for guardrails, it would be helpful to have the AI developers share their product knowledge with a UN organization of global experts. That team of experts would develop and deploy a powerful AI application that seeks out misleading claims and rapidly responds with effective educational information. If it is well developed it could even produce responses that appeal to people who have become deeply immersed in harmful misunderstanding.

  41. CO2 limits will harm the economy

    As usual, MA Rodger @115 manages to find links to useful links to these things...

    I did read Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" many years ago. The major thing that struck me was the way he compartmentalized the various "costs" and alternative solutions. He'd look at one specific/isolated problem caused by climate change, and then claim that it was cheaper to fix that problem after the fact than to avoid the climate change.

    Of course, to avoid climate change you only have to pay for it once - not many times for each individual/isolated problem. He would never add up all the costs of the different isolated problems and compare that total to the one-time "avoid climate change" cost.

    It's like saying "it will cost me $10,000 to fix that leaking roof on my house", and then conclude that it is cheaper to clean and repaint the bedroom ceiling when the water damages it. And then when the leaking roof causes damage to wall insulation, it's cheaper to replace the insulation. And when electrical wiring shorts out, it's cheaper to re-do the wiring. And when the TV gets wet, it's cheaper to replace the TV. And  on, and on, and on.

    Eventually, the rational home owner realizes that it would have been cheaper to fix the roof than to replace the many, many things that the leaking roof damaged. But as long as you can fool the home owner into looking at each individual problem in isolation, you can sell them a paint job, an electrical job, and new TV, etc. If your business is home repair - not roofing - then it becomes a lucrative approach. Also lucrative if your business is to prevent roof repairs.

    MA Rodger's link to the rebuttal is worth reading. Lomborg, not so much. All you need to do is look to see what Lomborg's proposed alternatives are and assess how much effort he puts into making those alternatives happen - as opposed to how much effort he puts into arguing against preventing climate change. (Cue the XKCD cartoon...)

  42. CO2 limits will harm the economy

    retiredguy @112,

    You do specifically ask about rebuttals of Lomborg's verbose 2020 paper 'Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies' and as has been pointed out, this paper is packed full of the usual Lomborg nonsense. I don't know of any specific rebuttal to this paper. I think with a 'broken record' like Lomborg, you need the expertise to unpick his nonsense as well as the dedication to keep at it. A month after this paper, Lomborg published a book 'False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet' and that did result in a rebuttal.

    As for the paper 'Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies,' we can cut through all Lomborg's nonsense and simply consider his basic argument which is that AGM mitigation preventing large levels of global warming (as in scenario SSP1-1.9) is, according to Lomborg, not as benificial to mankind as allowing fossil fuel use to continue without restriction (as in secanario SSP5-8.5, roughly similar to the previous RCP8.5). From the abstract:-

    Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more [than 2030 costs]. The IPCC's two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today's poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

    This argument is thus mainly based on the economic predictions set out by IPCC ARs within these SSPs and then downplaying to the point of insignificant the economic damage in a SSP5-8.5 world experiencing +4.4ºC by 2100 (this a central figure in the range +3.3ºC-5.7ºC) and which will continue warming post-2100, the 2300 range being given as  +6.6ºC−14.1ºC.  Now that is scary. (And note in the graphic below, the SSP5/RCP8.5 temperatures are still rising in 2300. There is even more to come.) Lomborg is advocating a really scary future while insisting there is no scary future.

    Warming to 2300 scenarios

  43. One Planet Only Forever at 10:05 AM on 2 April 2023
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    retiredguy @112,

    As Bob Loblaw has pointed out, serious pursuers of better understanding may not have bothered to do 'yet another' detailed debunking of Lomborg's nonsense. I read some of his earlier books and was able to easily identify many misleading claims he made. He has a history of changing his claims, but not his motivation to be misleading regarding the climate impact problem and its solutions.

    Based on the title of the 2020 Lomborg item, I am almost certain that this version of his misleading story-telling efforts can be effectively corrected by reading helpful detailed documents like the UNDP's Human Development Reports. I particularly recommend the 2020 HDR which includes a robust evaluation that dispels the myth that GDP is a meaningful measure of advancement.

    Other documents that help people learn how to dismiss the claims of people like Lomborg include:

  44. At a glance - What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

    That's a new trick for me, jimpsy.

    Similar to the trick I learned when I was young, for multiplying 2-digit numbers by 11:

    • Take the two digits, and insert a space between them.
    • Add the two digits together.
    • Insert the sum in the space you created.

    23x11 becomes 2[space]3, and the sum of 2+3 = 5, so 23x11 = 253.

    47x11 becomes 4[space]7, and 4+7 = 11, so you insert 11 in the space by adding the first 1 to 4 and leaving the second 1 in place, so 47x11 = (4+1)17 = 517.

    An absolutely dastardly trick if I ever saw one...

  45. CO2 limits will harm the economy


    Bjorn Lomborg is a broken record, who basically keeps repeating most of the same arguments over and over and over (and over). Much of his stuff has been debunked in a variety of sources (over, and over, and over, and over).

    Is there anything particularly new in that work you linked to? Any reason to spend time on it, since (for me, at least) it has been years (if not decades) since I have seen anything worth reading from him?

    You can read more about his general track record at Desmog.

    ...and for the most, part, I think what he usually has to say bears a strong resemblance to this XKCD cartoon:

    Bigger Problem

  46. Rob Honeycutt at 03:01 AM on 2 April 2023
    At a glance - What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

    jimspy... I think that qualifies as Voodoo. ;-)

  47. CO2 limits will harm the economy

    Can anyone point me to a comprehensive review and response to Bjorn Lomborg's July 2020 article, "Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies" ?

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link activated. Please learn how to do this yourself.

    As previously mentioned, you can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.

  48. At a glance - What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

    If I had a nickel for every time I had to remind skeptics that there are two, subtly but distinctly differentiated meanings of the word trick... A simple way to present it, at least in person, is to demonstrate how to mutiply by 9 on your fingers.  The multiplicand is 9.  Count on the fingers of your left hand up to the multiplier, let's say it's 5.  You bend your fifth finger (pinky) down. There are 4 fingers remaining on your left hand, and 5 remaining on your right - 45.  Now, I just showed you a trick....but did I trick you?  

  49. One Planet Only Forever at 14:30 PM on 1 April 2023
    Extreme heat waves in Europe may be linked to melting Arctic sea ice

    Gordon and Bob,

    I agree that discussing 'energy poverty' is getting off-topic. But raising the related problem of 'energy gluttony' seems appropriate, because 'harmful energy gluttony' is a major root of the climate impact problem.

    All I will add is that 'energy gluttony' can be understood to be a major aggravating factor regarding 'energy poverty'.

  50. Extreme heat waves in Europe may be linked to melting Arctic sea ice

    Now that I am looking at the maps that you mention regarding the "energy poverty" issue, it looks like that December high mortality rate is in reference to the 2016-2019 average. The way they worded that suggests that they have not adjusted for seasonal patterns, which makes it very difficult to tell if the December 2022 value is really an unusual case, or just a normal seasonal effect.

    As for the similarity between the "can't keep the home warm" and the "Dec 2022 excess mortality" maps - I am not seeing a strong link. Norway and Finland score high on the excess deaths map, but they are in the lowest category for "problems heating". Switzerland and Austria also show a similar pattern. Romania and Bulgaria are the opposite: they score very low on excess deaths, but are in the highest two categories for "unable to heat the home". The geography of Europe suggests that some countries may be much better prepared for heating in the cold season. There are a lot of variables involved.

    Your definition of energy poverty also seems rather vague. There are a multitude of levels of "negatively affect", and "health and well-being" also covers an awful lot of ground.

    And finally - this is really getting off-topic for the blog post.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

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