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

Archived Rebuttal

This is the archived Intermediate rebuttal to the climate myth "No warming in 16 years". Click here to view the latest rebuttal.

What the science says...

Once natural influences, in particular the impact of El Niño and La Niña, are removed from the recent termperature record, there is no evidence of a significant change in the human contribution to climate change.

 

Global temperatures are affected by both natural and human factors. The human influence is dominated by a slow but inexorable warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Natural factors include strong but short lived changes due to El Niño, La Niña and volcanoes.

In order to reliably measure the human influence on climate it is necessary either to use temperature data covering several decades, or to first remove the effect of the natural influences. Both approaches give the same result - human activity is warming the planet.

A media myth has emerged disputing this fact. The myth is based on the fact that temperatures have risen more slowly over the past 16 years than previously. However this period is too short to eliminate the effect of short term natural influences on temperature, and no other attempt has been made to eliminate their effect. Therefore the conclusion is invalid.

The ‘16years’ video demonstrates how the natural influences are removed from the temperature record, and that the rate of warming due to human activity shows essentially no change.

In order to address the audience of the media myths the language in the video has necessarily been heavily simplified. Additional information is provided in the video description and in the advanced version of this rebuttal.

Implications

  • The 16-year temperature trend provides no evidence to suggest that the consensus understanding of human-caused climate change is incorrect.

The results of this analysis are consistent with a statement by WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud:

"Naturally occurring climate variability due to phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña impact on temperatures and precipitation on a seasonal to annual scale. But they do not alter the underlying long-term trend of rising temperatures due to climate change as a result of human activities" 

References

Credits: Calculations and video: Kevin C. Voiceover: Daniel Bailey. Advice: The SkS team.

 

Updated on 2013-01-09 by Kevin C.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


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