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 Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

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...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Comments 801 to 850:

  1. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:14 PM on 28 March 2018
    They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'


    What you said is correct. There is also a 3rd term that only gets used occassionally. The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. We can think of it like this.

    • Adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases increases the strength of the greenhouse effect, 'enhances' it.
    • This then causes more heat to accumulate and, on average the Earth warms up - Global Warming.
    • Then this warming has other effects, increased evaporation from the oceans, so more rain, shifts in weather patterns and local climates, etc. Also chemical changes in the oceans - Climate change.

    The first use I am awars of of the term Climate Change was in a paper by Gilbert Plass in 1956 titled 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Changes' - note he used Climatic, not Climate. And the Climate Change Plass and people before him were more interested in was the answer to what caused the ice ages. It was only as they investigated this question that they started to realise that this might mean climate changes in the future as well.

  2. Glenn Tamblyn at 15:58 PM on 28 March 2018
    We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

    There are several factors that have influenced CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, not just CO2 from burning fossil fuels, although that is he biggest factor. Also likely other factors before the industrial revolution

    1. CO2 from fossil fuels is the biggest factor

    2. CO2 from land clearance is an important factor. Clearing forest particularly to make agricultural land means the carbon from the forests ends up in the atmosphere. Often this change means more carbon is released from the soil as well and this can be bigger source than the original forest. Land clearance has been a common means of producing food for 1000's of years. Not only to make more farmland, but because land that has been cleared may only be fertile for a few years then more land has to be cleared. Only some soils and climates are suitable for being continuously farmed for very long periods without artificial fertilisers which only were important from the mid-20th century onwards. Paddy based rice farming in Asia combined with things like the use of 'night-soil' in Japan are examples where land can be used for long periods.

    3. As farming increased, release of more methane occurred due to changes in land use and the presence of many more animals. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, then eventually becomes CO2 in the atmosphere.

    4. from the mid 20th century on, the use of nitrogen based artificial fetilisers increased the crop yields of much farmland. But this also increased emissions of Nitrous Oxide, a greenhouse gas.

    5. Later the development of refrigerant gases for refrigeration such as CFC's and later HFC's meant they also started to be added to the atmosphere and are greenhouse gases.

    6. There is reasonable evidence that humans have had a smaller but still real effect on the climate for 1000's of years. The early development of farming and land clearing, domestication of animals, and particularly the development of the wet paddy system of rice farming 1000's of years ago appears to have meant the Earth didn't cool down as much as we would expect over those years. Professor Bill Ruddiman and his team have investigated this for many years.

    7. He even thinks that major social events in the 15th to 17th centuries may have had small climate impacts. A substantial culture in North America, based in the Mississippi Valley collapsed shortly before Europeans arrived in America. This society had substantial towns and small cities, agriculture etc. Then after it had collapsed, the arrival of Europeans introduced diseases that devastated the native American population. Most of this impact was unintentional by the Europeans although there were some bad cases of deliberate infection. The population of native americans crashed. And a reforestation of farmland may have happened as a result, reducing CO2 levels slightly. A second effect later may have occurred due to the slave trade. The population of West Africa may have dropped significantly due to the slave trade to the Americas and reforestation of farmland in west Africa may also have lowered CO2 levels a little.

  3. Glenn Tamblyn at 12:55 PM on 28 March 2018
    Scientists can't even predict weather


    The scientists aren't trying to predict the weather in the future, they are trying to predict the cimate. What is the difference? Climate is the average of the weather, normally considered as the 30 year average. Weather is what happens day-to-day. Predicting the two is quite different. Let me use two examples to highlight this.

    1. A man is walking his dog along the beach. The dog is on a lead. If we watch the dog it wanders up and down randomly, down to the waters edge, up to sniff some seaweed - quite random. But the man is walking in a straight line along the beach, and the dog's movement is limited by how long the lead is. Can we predict exactly where the dog will be when the man has walked further along the beach? No, that is like predicting the weather. But we can predict that if the man continues along his current course, the dog's position will be within a certain distance from the man.

    The dog is weather, random, but a bounded randomness. The man and the length of the lead is climate. If the man continues on the same path, with the same lead, the climate hasn't changed. If the man moves higher up the beach, the dog has to go with him. The dog can now reach higher up the beach, but it can't reach as close to the water. When the man moves, the climate has changed.


    2. Or consider a swimming pool. It has a certain amount of water in it. If nobody uses the pool for a long time its surface will be very smooth and level. It is easy to estimate how much water is in the pool.

    But if people are using the pool the surface is very rough and unven. Each little wave and trough is like the weather, random. But if the amount of water in the pool doesn't change, then the waves are all within a certain height of each other. The waves on the top are the weather, how much water is inthe pool is climate. Predicting one if very different from predicting the other. And if we add more water to the pool, that is like changing the climate.

  4. In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial

    Big oil funded the Heartland Institute, when they could have chosen to fund other business lobby groups less in denial about the science. Its got guilt written all over it.

  5. In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial

    Thus setting themselves up nicely for an argument 

    "Look, we don't control these guys"

    even as the indirect funding continues.   

    Also that Exxon != Chevron. 

  6. It's methane

    In recent years, atmospheric methane concentration has increased again. It has been reported that "if you leak more than 2 or 3 percent [of methane] it’s worse for climate change than coal", so I checked Google Scholar to find out whether U.S. fracking might be why methane increased. In short, the answer is no. Nisbet et al. (2016) says

    "since 2007, growth has resumed, with especially strong growth in 2014. Evidence from carbon isotopes implies that the primary cause of the new growth is an increase in biogenic emissions, probably from wetlands and also agricultural sources, such as rice fields and cattle. The evidence presented in this research study, from a wide range of measurement sites both in the northern and southern hemispheres, suggests increased tropical emissions, for example from tropical wetlands, may be a principal cause of the global rise in methane. Contributions to the growth may also come from agricultural sources and perhaps some fossil fuel emissions also."

    But people should realise that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, so natural gas still causes global warming even though it emits less CO2 than coal.

  7. In court, Big Oil rejected climate denial

    Good article on the legal background: Two Major Climate Change Lawsuits Move Forward

  8. Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States

    shastatodd @2

    "please, this is hopium bullshit. there is no way 7.6 billion rapacious human animals (increasing at 1,000,000 ever 4.5 days) can live our lifestyles of waste and massive consumption on "magic green", which by the way is 100% dependent on the underlying, fossil fuel powered industrial infrastructure. please familiarize yourself with the limits to growth. technological cornucopianism cannot mitigate finite planet realities."

    Why not? Lets take some specific examples. Theres enough lithium in known current reserves for one billion electric cars. Lithium reserves data here.

    Lithium can be recycled endlessly, so thats enough for hundreds to thousands of years of use provided waste is minimised. This is before we get to new discoveries of lithium, more efficient use of lithium, aluminium based batteries, and the new carbon based batteries.
    The same principles tend to apply to other materials.

    Yes minerals are a finite resource, but they can be recycled where fossil fuels cant be recycled. Provided we use mineral resources wisely we can maximise technology. I do believe however that we are going to have to be more prudent in how we use resources, with some reduction is use, and prioritising of essentials and population growth must stop. But that is not incompatible with renewable energy at a decent level.

  9. Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States

    jef @1

    "There is no question that solar and wind can provide our energy. The real question is how much energy, can we use it easily, and can how much does it cost. We can't afford the cost of slightly more expensive FF energy, there is not enough surplus to drive the economy so how can we afford more expensive, less surplus solar and wind?"

    The article answered how much energy. Solar and wind can provide up to 80 - 90% depending on the two scenarios. I mean with respect I don't understand how you missed that, unless you were concerned about future demand or something? There's no reason to belive this would be a problem.

    It's hard for me to see why the energy would be hard to use. It's the same electricity as any electricity, and is transmitted the same way. Some lines upgrades would be required of course because of inter state transmission to deal with intermittency issues, although this depends on which option is preferred. The article demonstrated that intermittency issues can be dealt with effectively in varrious ways.

    I don't understand how you can claim we can't afford the cost of "slightly more expensive" energy. If its only slightly more expensive, then by definition it's affordable. Buy slightly fewer coffees or something. Poor people are the one group that might struggle, but they could be subsidised.

    Wind power and solar power is now very affordable low cost power in general terms. Its the same cost as coal in some places, and is expected to be cheaper in the future. Lazard cost analysis here. Prices had literally plumetted in recent years.

    "When ever an author puts "Imagine..." in an article it should be dismissed. If we had the storage tech we could cut FF use for electricity by more than half right now. What makes anyone think we will do it later if we can't do it now?

    Maybe the article worded it less than ideally,  but battery storage is improving fast and its not unreasonable to conclude costs will drop in the future very significantly. Likewise there can be good confidence wind and solar prices will continue to drop. Solar may be nearing the limits, but wind could drop considerably further yet.

    The article suggested one scenario of 80% renewables and 20% hydro nuclear etc. This is a very affordable option right now, and a total system would not be hugely more expensive than coal. Given price trajectories its very likely such a system could be cheaper than coal in the near future, and the nuclear component might not be essential and it may be viable to use battery storage or hydro storage. Such decisions do not need to be finalised until the renewable component of the grid starts to get over about 30%. Alternatively, theres the other option that uses a surplus of wind and solar  power, and less use of hydro and nuclear etc.

    Of course we would have to replace existing coal fired power for example, sometimes before it's at the end of its life. Costs of completely converting a totally fossil fuel grid including generation and transmission lines upgrades have been estimated at 1% of a countries total gdp (gross domestic product) per year, and quite probably less, a number that is clearly not "unaffordable". In return we get clean energy, a more sustainabe form of energy, and a system that is very likely ultimately cheaper tnan fossil fuels, so whats not to like?

  10. Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States

    In a world of self-driving cars, floating offshore windpower should really not be all that difficult.  Put each tower on GPS and let it stationkeep with onboard navigation and power from a combination of wind and wave (no wind and wave=  no need to stationkeep).  Each tower should be floating, perforated to allow wave action to go through and around it, and anchored 100ft below the surface to plastic sheeting (i.e. a 'water-brake').  At 100 ft and below, surface wave-action is negligible.  A water-brake of sufficient size and perhaps multiple levels can be designed to hold the tower quite still, even in the waves of the N Atlantic).  You can design the tower so that, absent the force of its own buoyancy, it tends to sink from wave action more than rise, so that it tends to align itself with the wave-troughs rather than the wave-crests.  Thus the water-brake is in no danger of being pulled to the surface and destroyed by waves.  After securing a stable platform via sunken water-brake, but still an untethered platform capable of being motored horizontally using locally available power and GPS, then its just a matter of making the tower tall enough to clear the tallest waves.  This kind of windpower favors very large blades the size of jumbo jets.  Since the system is unanchored, probably one of the most expensive parts of this system is the (sunken) power feed back to land.  The advantage of floating offshore wind power is it has little to no NIMBY effect and the wind is stronger.  I sent a design concept to GE a few years ago but they passed.

  11. One Planet Only Forever at 02:16 AM on 28 March 2018
    CO2 is not a pollutant


    You provided two definitions of pollution then provided the connection between human created CO2 from burning ancient buried hydrocarbons to the second definition.

    Think seriously about why you opened your comment by declaring "I think carbon dioxide is not a pollution."

    The interpretation of the definition is a game played by legal-minded people trying to argue against government regulations to limit harmful impacts of human activity. The EPA written legal mandate is to limit 'pollution'. That is the cause of the attempts to legally argue that CO2 from burning fossil fuels is not 'pollution' (an argument has been lost in the courts). Continuing to argue about the definition distracts from the undeniable harmful consequences of the activity. And regulatory bodies like the EPA should act to restrict the creation of harmful consequences, no matter what term is used to describe them.

  12. Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States

    please, this is hopium bullshit. there is no way 7.6 billion rapacious human animals (increasing at 1,000,000 ever 4.5 days) can live our lifestyles of waste and massive consumption on "magic green", which by the way is 100% dependent on the underlying, fossil fuel powered industrial infrastructure.

    please familiarize yourself with the limits to growth. technological cornucopianism cannot mitigate finite planet realities.

  13. Study: wind and solar can power most of the United States

    There is no question that solar and wind can provide our energy. The real question is how much energy, can we use it easily, and can how much does it cost. We can't afford the cost of slightly more expensive FF energy, there is not enough surplus to drive the economy so how can we afford more expensive, less surplus solar and wind?

    When ever an author puts "Imagine..." in an article it should be dismissed. If we had the storage tech we could cut FF use for electricity by more than half right now. What makes anyone think we will do it later if we can't do it now?

  14. Daniel Bailey at 21:01 PM on 27 March 2018
    Greenland is gaining ice

    "But why Greenland is highly sensitive to warmer temperatures?"

    Partly because, due to its latitude, it gets a lot of summer insolation from the sun (much more so than does the Antarctic Ice Sheet), and partly due to its proximity to warming ocean currents.  Poleward convective energy transportation systems do the rest (helping to raise the ablation line higher up the ice sheet, driving further mass balance changes).

  15. CO2 is not a pollutant

    I think carbon dioxide is not a pollution. Let talk about definition ,the definition of pollution in Webster’s dictionary is "to make physically impure or unclean: Befoul, dirty." By that definition, carbon dioxide is not pollution. However, Webster's also has the definition: "to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste." Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste.

  16. Thanapat Liansiri at 16:22 PM on 27 March 2018
    Solar cycles cause global warming

    Do we have another issue that caused climate change?

  17. Thanapat Liansiri at 16:21 PM on 27 March 2018
    Springs aren't advancing

    If we cannot stop this problem how it will affect our Earth?

  18. Thanapat Liansiri at 16:19 PM on 27 March 2018
    It's global brightening

    How can we prevent the infrared radiation when the cloud and aerosol all gone?

  19. One Planet Only Forever at 07:51 AM on 27 March 2018
    Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures


    Thank you for sharing your impressions of “Enlightenment Now”.
    I suspected that Pinker's presentation would include an apologetic argument for people to be freer to believe what they prefer and do as they please.

    In addition to the two-siderism explained in this OP, the misrepresentation of the Klein-Koch matter in Washington State that NorrisM quoted was a red flag that Pinker had a bias towards promoting/excusing freedom of thought and action without restriction of the responsibility to not harm others. Klein and the Kochs did not share the same motivation regarding what was happening in Washington State. Pinker's apparent depth of investigation into other matters raises suspicions about why he would fail to better present the proper understanding of the Klein-Koch matter.

    Also, expecting future generations to experiment with geoengineering in the hopes of reducing the harmful consequences created by irresponsible people in previous generations is the sort of careful callous disregard for Others I have seen many times from current day people who desire the promotion/continuation of the Religion/Dogma of 'Good things will develop if people are freer to believe what they wish and do as they please'.

    Therefore, I will borrow the book from a Public Library. I only want to make purchase choices that help to more rapidly achievement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). I have no interest in supporting efforts to excuse clearly and undeniably harmful things that have developed by claiming that helpful developments have also occurred during the same time period (no proof of a direct connection between the harmful unsustainable activity and the helpful activities/developments, just a claimed connection because of concurrence in time).

    In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill explained that society has the ability and responsibility to properly educate its entire population. And he warned that “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

    Musings that attempt to defend 'liberty without responsible self-limiting and correction of unacceptable behaviour' are unhelpful, and likely to be harmful. I will read and evaluate Pinker's book with that in mind. I would blame Pinker for creating a tool that can be misused by failing to include the warnings about its potential misuse.

    My recommended reading to others prior to reading a book like Pinker's is the SDG's and all of the internationally collaboratively developed documents associated with their development through the decades, especially the 1987 report “Our Common Future” (and including the IPCC Reports).

  20. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12

    Who is going to bear the cost of developing such techs and runnning such facilities? The commmon people?

     Probably the same common people who will bear the cost if we don’t develop CCS. The 1% are very adept at dodging paying taxes, that’s how they get to being the 1%.

  21. Sea level fell in 2010

    I think that this short-term decline from lanina isn't affected much because it will back to the same situation. But its effect much on the climate of that area. How is it increasing amount of greenhouse gases?

  22. voravichlouis at 02:58 AM on 27 March 2018
    It's only a few degrees

    One cause of temperature increased is CO2 and these two are directly proportion to each other, which mean it will double each other. While temperature is increasing just 6 degrees it double CO2 amout. In my opinion I think this is and global problem that everyone have to be aware because just a few degrees can cause a huge problem, trigger dangerous and damage climate change. It can change our environment, including our world.  

  23. We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

    I think that in the industrial revolution, CO2 started to emit rapidly but it didn't reach the point that we can detect it clearly that there is global warming. But I want to know is there other factors that cause this?

  24. Kotchakorn Janroong at 01:43 AM on 27 March 2018
    Scientists can't even predict weather

    Do the information is trustworthy? How can we predict the exactly true weather for the hundred years from now? Just only tomorrow we never know that the weather will likely happen as we are predicted or not, the weather always changes and we cannot control it. So, if we think about the prediction of the weather for the hundred years from now, I think it will be impossible and hard to explain.

  25. Kotchakorn Janroong at 01:24 AM on 27 March 2018
    Melting ice isn't warming the Arctic

    Arctic amplification is the phenomenon where changes in the net radiation balance due to greenhouse gas levels, for instance, tend to produce a larger increase in temperature near the poles than the planetary average.
    Sea ice helps to keep the Arctic atmosphere cold. Its whiteness reflects much of the Sun's energy back to space, and it physically insulates the Arctic atmosphere from the underlying Arctic Ocean. With less sea ice, the refrigerator door is left open-darker open water is exposed, which readily absorbs the Sun's energy in summer, heating the ocean and leading to even more melt. With less sea ice there is also less insulation, so that heat from the ocean escapes to warm the atmosphere in the autumn and winter.
    What are the main reasons that can cause the Arctic to heat faster? How it impacts human life?

  26. CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

    In general, I believe that many things happen naturally. But naturally, cause a very little amount of effect if we compare to human activities. CO2 or carbon dioxide is a colorless gas consisting of carbon and oxygen. It occurs naturally in the atmosphere. Plants use it and animals also produce it in respiration. It is a major greenhouse gas emitted by fossil fuel combustion. Burning fossil fuels is one of the causes that make CO2 increase so we can't say that iCO2 came from natural because human is the one who controls everything even we can control that in next 50 years what we want our world gonna be like. The science researcher says that humans are emitting CO2 at a rate twice as fast as the atmospheric increase (natural sinks are absorbing the other half).Nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. So, the percent that CO2 increases in our world today caused by human activities whether directly or indirectly way. It has more effect than natural.

  27. Greenland is gaining ice

    I understand that Greenland is not gaining ice now after the 2000s and it decreases over 300 billions of tons of ice every year. Because of the world temperature increases can cause too much ice loss so it cannot change all of the water from ice to precipitate all of it at the interior. But why Greenland is highly sensitive to warmer temperatures?

  28. They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

    I believe that scientist gives the different meaning of climate change and global warming. One reason that I notice about scientist wouldn't change the name of global warming to climate change because global warming could define only the meaning of the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, but climate change could define as a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth that can be hotter or colder if compare over period of time. They could say that global warming is one type of climate change because it is also about the temperature that changing but they cannot change the word from global warming to climate change.

  29. Developing countries need fossil fuels to reach the standard of living we enjoy, right?

    Hi RG @7. Keep in mind that fossil fuel infrastructures are centralized, which goes hand-in-hand with corruption much better than decentralized structures created from renewables use. There is a good reason why e.g. Venezuela and Lybia are high on that index. Building community around decentralized energy structures may a long way to fight corruption.

  30. Mars is warming

    Our world has been changing over a period of time as a same as the universe. I think a climate is one of a factor that makes planet changed. Radiation from the sun can be a cause that makes the temperature change. I understand that each planet has their own relationship and effect. But I'm not really sure that effect from volcanos can make earth cooling and makes mars warming. Is this really true?

  31. Climate scientists are in it for the money

    Thank you for posting!!

    Scientists are important for our world. Because of climate change that we made it happen. Many countries tried to solve this problem. The government gave the budget for science companies to research. Causes somebody to think that climate scientists are in it for the money. In my opinion, science project and research need money and time. Money that government gave could be running out easily. Some country didn't support science field so much. Sometimes it made people don't want to be scientists because science work is very tough work and the scientist isn't high salary career. So I think scientists aren't in it for the money.

    What would make science project become more famous? 

  32. It's too hard

    Thank you for posting!!

    Climate change destroyed our earth so much. Climate change that we made it because of human's want. It changes our world from clean to dirty. It's too hard to change our globe back, but we can stop it before it destroys us more. If we help each other, we can reduce climate change. By reduce to release greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, water vapor. Climate change is not too hard to stop if we help together.

    Is it would be harder, if we won't do anything?

  33. It's not bad

    Normally, everything has two sides, positive and negative ways. For global warming, seem the negative ways are more than the positive one. The positive is affect only some area but the negative affect all, direct and indirect ways to human's health. In my opinion, CO2 didn't make sense much on agriculture in a positive way. More CO2 didn't say that more O2 plants could produce. While we have global warming, that means many trees had been cutting down. No helper to absorb CO2 as much as the past. So in agriculture, few trees cannot take all CO2 to change to O2. CO2 also causes many glaciers melted that made the fresh water mixed with an ocean. Decrease the water supply that is the factor in human's life. In conclusion, I think global warming didn't make our world be good.

    I have a question. What would the world be in 100 years if we still release CO2?

  34. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12

    Why does this article sound like it is screaming with adjective?

    mans sounds very insecure. Any article that speaks about carbon capture and carbon reduction should always mention “net” gain or loss in co2 or ghg for that process. All AGW articles are repeating the same in every article, repeating same adjective. So why not repeat same solutions and effects? 

    Why AGW articles does not talk about “cost”? Like cost capture and store carbon. Who is going to bear the cost of developing such techs and runnning such facilities? The commmon people? Ok now I understand why the adjectives and the scare and daRe. The word “denier” should not be used and should be banned. AGW is an opinion and not a fact. You can call it “expert opinion” but scientists are not god (well for that matter I am athiest) same applies to doctors , we have seen written offs by doctors living. Science is not absolute and not settled. Science is growing and challenging assumptions every day. 

    When einstein started to think about gravity did he say “newton settled this issue? It is just like belief in god. 

    Whenever i read articles like above it only rreminds me of the telemarketing ads “act us in the next 10 minutes and you will get two..,” 

    people should realize that between the scientists and the people there are two more layers, they are the funders and the media, both have vested interest in what the scientist says And will exaggerate or change it. Media’s only interest is in selling itself through sensationalism. Funders wants material for policy making and public support.


    Why AGW does not talk about the jobs of so many illiterate or undereducated people in the world? why AGW does not talk about ware management (I mean every article)

    suspicions are only growing day by day. The more you call them “deniers” the more you will be suspected of moral crucifixtion , word play, “term shifters”, dishonest people.

    hope you are not going drown today.


    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please keep comments both on-topic and constructed to comport with this venue's Comments Policy.  Thanks!

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

    The more we eat, the more we eat, the more we need to increase the amount of animals. And from the document, it is said that the cow has a large amount of gaseous emissions. The more the glass is, the more likely it will be the greenhouse effect. But the industry is another factor in greenhouse gases, but methane emissions have led to clean gas ( sciproject / project / Kingdoms / Bacteria3 / methanogens.htm)

    The responsible animal industry has the second highest potential for methane to make clean energy.

  36. voravichlouis at 22:52 PM on 26 March 2018
    Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers

    Based from the article, I agree with an argument that says unnecessary that higher technology always better for measure and predict climate than normal equipment. What we are focusing on is temperature of throposphere is rising up.  For me I think there is both side for each apparatus. Satellite is measuring the temperature of above the Earth suface. By the value of the temperature from the satellite is an calculated number after discount other factor. There are a thousands of factor that can affect the values such as different in temperature from different layer of atmosphere, water vapour in the atmosphere and also the attitude of satellite should be stable, but we can't control that. So the result of temperature from sattellite is quite inaccurate, even though it can cover larger area of measuring. On the other hand, thermometer is used to measure the temperature on Earth, so it is more accurate in specific area. 

  37. Scientists have detected an acceleration in sea level rise

    I think the melting rate of ice is also likely to increases and increasing the rate of sea level rise as well. Since the environment is connected to each other just one change in one part of the cycle can cause a change to a whole cycle, in this case, the factors are not only the temperature rises up but it also warm currents that run-pass ice sheet as well. So I'm sure that sea level will rise much faster than now, in just a few years, if we can't make an impact big enough to stop temperature rise.

  38. The sun is getting hotter

    The sun's heat is increased, but it is not the main factor for the increase in temperature. Even though the sun is burning, burning and spreading the sun, and the sun is expanding, it is hotter.

    The world is being heated by the increase in greenhouse gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels and transportation or transportation. Why global warming does not depend on the green house effect.In spite of this, greenhouse gases have increased and global warming is due to the destruction of the ozone layer.

  39. Thanapat Liansiri at 22:06 PM on 26 March 2018
    Solar cycles cause global warming

    This article is interesting I want to know too, so solar cycle cause global warming.

    The temperature around the world is now increasing and TSI(Total Solar Irradiance) I think solar cycle can cause global warming because our temperature is increasing by radiation from the sun which comes from solar cycle too. In that time global temperature increase by 0.18 but now in 2018 is much warmer than that time

  40. Jet fuel from sugarcane? It’s not a flight of fancy

    @5 I really agree with Digby Scorgie. The problem with biofuel is that it hard to produce. In this case, sugarcane requires too much area and too unreliable in the rate of production. I couldn't imagine what will happen if we all use jet fuel and have a major drought in an agriculture area. That drought must cause a damage worth many millions of dollars in just one day.

  41. voravichlouis at 21:35 PM on 26 March 2018
    CO2 is coming from the ocean

    But my question is CO2 that dissolved in the ocean, even it dissolved for long time ago and also the ratio between dissolve in and release out are very different, where does the CO2 go? Is it going to be a long term effect to the ocean in the future?, thousands or millions of years after this.

  42. Thanapat Liansiri at 21:29 PM on 26 March 2018
    Springs aren't advancing

    I really agree with this article especially "Climate change is being recognized as one of the most influential drivers of changes in biodiversity". this statement is true this issue now becomes world global issue that we face today.

    From this article said that this issue affects the timing of plant flowering can disrupt so this situation happens because of our ecosystem change this issue not just happen with a plant, it also happens with insect so they change their behavior all of this problem comes from the change of temperature in our atmosphere. If we do not fix this problem or find the way to deal with it we will soon face another big problem that we can't imagine.

  43. voravichlouis at 21:27 PM on 26 March 2018
    CO2 is coming from the ocean

    In my opinion, I strongly agree that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from the oxidation of fossil fuels and not from outgassing from the ocean. Based from what the professionals say, CO2 emission in the atmosphere is less than half of fossil fuel emissions of CO2. Another half ends up in the ocean, which mean ocean isn't the factor of releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.

    Even there are exchanging of CO2 between ocean surface and the atmosphere. But there is a huge range of differences between going in and releasing out of CO2 from ocean. Absorbtion is a lot higher of amount.

  44. Developing countries need fossil fuels to reach the standard of living we enjoy, right?

    I have to say this is a nice video for convincing someone to trust that they can get over fossil fuel and use renewable energy instead. The video itself has a good point but the truth about corruption in developing world is undeniable.corruption perceptions index 2016 by Transparency International

    just by look at the picture you can see that most of developing country have a very high percentage of corruption and it most likely that all the income and profit will not come to people. So in short, it doesn't matter if they (or us as from my perspective) use fossil fuel to boost GDP or not we will never get a good living standard as a developed country do unless we somehow change the country to a better situation.

    ps: sorry for bad English I'm not a native speaker. Proper English education here is very hard to find, but I will try as best as I can.  


    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Image width resized to 450

  45. Thanapat Liansiri at 21:07 PM on 26 March 2018
    It's global brightening

    I agree with your article

    so the global brightening is caused by changes in cloud cover, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets, frozen crystals, or particles suspended in the atmosphere so the major one that absorbing all the radiation in our atmosphere is cloud and aerosol, aerosol can absorb the solar radiation so if we decline in absorbing aerosol so that means sunlight will reach the earth so the result is our Earth is warmer than before.

    Cloud also take a major character because clouds can trap the infrared radiation So if we have less cloud infrared radiation will come directly to us so the result is our surface warmer than before. From the graph, you bring I can understand all of that information.

  46. Southern sea ice is increasing

    Sea ice in Antarctica was increasing until around 2015 while the temperature was warming up, and then in 2016, the ice started to decrease and reached its lowest record in 2017 as it is said in Ice plays an important role on global warming issue. If we knew the factors which drive the sea ice to changes and how it works, we could understand more about climate change.

  47. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12

    Consider the source:  Heartland telling your kid that fossil fuels is no big deal on his climate, is like Philip Morris telling him that cigarette smoking is no big deal on his lungs.

  48. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #12

    BECCS = huge use of existing scarce land, huge use of fertlisers and water, complicated energy intensive processes, and considerabe transport costs = something where serious questions need to be asked.

    Related articles ; "It’s the big new idea for stopping climate change — but it has huge environmental problems of its own"

    "Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundariesVera Heck1,2*, Dieter Gerten1,2*, Wolfgang Lucht1,2,3 and Alexander Popp"

  49. Arctic was warmer in 1940

    To get the true information, we as a reader should check the evidence of those analysis and compare the information in the different sources. Sometimes the headline of the article is very interesting but it isn’t true and sometimes the author hides some part of the information so the article is true only in 1 aspect. We have to aware of these false data!

  50. It's too hard

    Thank you for posting!!

    Climate change destroyed our earth so much. Climate change that we made it because of human's want. It changes our world from clean to dirty. It's too hard to change our globe back, but we can stop it before it destroys us more. If we help each other, we can reduce climate change. By reduce to release greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, water vapor. Climate change is not too hard to stop if we help together.

Prev  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us