Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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



Term Lookup



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...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced


Climate Myth...

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect


Predicting the Future

Good scientific theories are said to have ‘predictive power’. In other words, armed only with a theory, we should be able to make predictions about a subject. If the theory’s any good, the predictions will come true.

Here’s an example: when the Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.

The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up.

What they don’t agree on is by how much. This issue is called ‘climate sensitivity’, the amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels. Climate models have predicted the least temperature rise would be on average 1.65°C (2.97°F) , but upper estimates vary a lot, averaging 5.2°C (9.36°F). Current best estimates are for a rise of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a likely maximum of 4.5°C (8.1°F).

What Goes Down…

The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation.  The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up. There should be some evidence that links CO2 to the temperature rise.

So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4°F):

"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."

The temperatures are going up, just like the theory predicted. But where’s the connection with CO2, or other greenhouse gases like methane, ozone or nitrous oxide?

The connection can be found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation. Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.


Figure 1: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.

...Must Go Up

How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?

There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.



This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence

As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments. 

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

Update July 2015:



Last updated on 1 August 2015 by MichaelK. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Further reading



Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Comments 51 to 100 out of 407:

  1. thepoodlebites wrote : "When you get a chance, can you please point me to RC’s regularly updated model-data comparisons?" You obviously have some ulterior motive for asking that because a few seconds of searching found this, up to the end of 2010 : Real Climate 2010 updates to model-data comparisons Were you looking for something else ?
  2. #50 belay my last: too many nots, sorry. My guess is that the model temperature predictions based on CO2 rise alone will not match the observed temperature record since 2000. If that is the case then the radiative forcing components that Meehl used in 2004 were not accurate and that forcing from natural climate variability has not been properly accounted for. Or to put it another way, the temperature record for the last decade can not be reproduced in the model with anthropogenic forcing alone.
  3. #51 KMurphy Ulterior motives? Surely you're joking Mr. KMurphy. Justed wanted to access precisely what scaddenp referenced, so there would be no misunderstandings. I'm now visiting the website now, for the first time. Wow, what big error bars you have, +-0.4C.
  4. #53 Make that JMurphy, not KMurphy. A typo and a copy typo, nothing more. No conspiracy or hidden agenda, just the facts please.
  5. thepoodlebites, how do the error bars affect that black line you can see in the first graph, which is labelled 'IPCC Ensemble', and around which the actual temperature records are congregating ?
  6. "So the statement “model parameters can be adjusted to match any set of temperature observations" is not true? " Of course not. Even a brief look at papers on model parameterisation, or a look at the FAQ at realclimate would show that model parameters are not "fitted" to temperature. This is a common denialist assertion repeated without a shred of supporting evidence. If you are going to repeat it, then I do not think it unreasonable to ask for a paper showing a model parameter that was tuned to global temperature. I would also suggest looking at RC post on what IPCC models really say. You might also consider how successful Wally Broecker was at forecasting 2010 temperature in 1975, using results from a model so primitive that it didnt have parameterizations.
  7. "What big error bars you have". Yep, climate models are for forecasting climate. They are no good at shorter scales because the climate system has a lot of internal variability. They are good for 30 year trends, not next years temperature. I think this discussion belongs in models are unreliable.
  8. #56,57 scaddenp The model simulations use observed forcings up until 2000 (or 2003 in a couple of cases). This sounds like adjusting model parameters to match observations. How do the observed forcings differ from modeled forcings and how do these modeled forcings compare to Meehl’s 2004 runs? What are the observed forcings and how are these forcings measured? The modeled trend is about +0.2C per decade, which fits scenario C the best. But scenario C assumed no further emissions after 2000. Why the discrepancy? Scenario B predicted +0.27C per decade. What are the forecasts for 2020, 2050, 2100? From what I read, separating climate sensitivity to CO2 from natural climate variability is still a work in progress, especially considering the observed temperature record over the last decade. How can you say with confidence that most of the warming over the last 30 years is from CO2 rise when it seems that ENSO/PDO/AMO/AO (and solar) are playing a much more significant role in changes in global surface temperatures?
  9. Okay, some major confusion here and time for me to apologize. Parameterization is models usually refers ultimately to parts of the model where empirically determined relationships are used instead calculation directly from physics. Its a denialist meme that you can "tune" these to a desired result which is bunk. I now see that this is not what you meant. Observed forcing are just that - observed. They are the measured inputs to the model. In a really crude form a model is Output(eg temperature) = F(input) where F is the model. Input is climate state plus forcing. A forcing isnt modelled, but the measurement obviously has error bars too like any other. So forcing are: GHG, Albedo, TSI, and aerosols. GHG forcing is determined from atmospheric measurement. Confirmation of radiative change comes from both satellite and ground stations. Albedo, TSI are measured by satellite; aerosols are more complex involving sampling, satellite and ground observations. Uncertainties increase as you go back in time. For the model run, changes in albedo attributed to landuse change, change in GHG, and change in non-volcanic aerosols are anthro. Its important to realise that these are no free variables that the modellers can change at well to fit a result. The numbers are published by the relevant observing network. Meehl does not adjust model parameters to match observations. As to scenario C versus scenario B, its done to death in Hansen's 1988 prediction thread. In short, the 1988 model used by Hansen (also very primitive) had sensitivity of 4, while more recent research (IPCC models) estimate it at 3.
  10. Oh you're all going to love this...... already in the presses ready to publish, peer reviewed and from a respected climate scientist too!

    [DB] Salby is essentially speaking gibberish.  In the past, temps tended to lead CO2 increases, with the notable exceptions of methane peturbations.  How things are different today is that we have injected immense quantities of previously sequestered CO2 back into the carbon cycle, turning CO2 from it's normal feedback into a forcing.

    Salby has been discussed to some degree already on RC, Open Mind and internally here at SkS. 

    There are no credible physics to support his assertions.  As a further note, his reputation within the community is less than you make it out to be.

  11. Dale - the paper is yet to be published, but I've listened to a talk which Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week - it doesn't look good for him. He seems to have it in his head that annual CO2 emissions (that is the natural flux of CO2 in and out of biological reservoirs like forests and the oceans, plus human emissions, should follow human CO2 emission trends on a year-to-year basis. He doesn't explain why he thinks that, but he's wrong anyway - El Nino/La Nina and droughts in the Amazon for instance, can drive large swings in the flux of CO2 in and out of natural systems. Human CO2 simply adds to the pool size which natural systems can draw from. The rest of his argument stems from that basic misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. Maybe he should have stuck with atmospheric physics?
  12. What do you think of Salby's work, Dale? Do you accept it, and can you defend it? Remember, you're asking people here to defend AGW. If you're curious about Salby's work and want to know more--arguments for and against--then you shouldn't present the work as if it's the Holy Sword of Scientific Truth. If you do, you'll be expected to use that Sword. Perhaps instead you should say something like, "What about this _____ chap who claims ____? He seems legit--he's got lots of titles and such."
  13. DSL@62 So often those Skeptic Silver Bullets turn out to be chrome plated brass. Yet they keep firing them and the AGW monster keeps coming.
  14. Dale, for Salby to be correct, conservation of mass has to be wrong. Now if he can come up with an theory that explains why the conservation of mass should not hold, he might have something that really would make him famous. Otherwise, he should be asking, "what could I be doing wrong here?" That's what a true skeptic does when he evaluates all the evidence. Instead, Salby simply ignores one of the most fundamental and easily understood tenets of physics as we experience it here on earth. What is depressing is that Judith Curry apparently didn't see through this immediately and shepherd her flock away fromthe road. It's also depressing (and telling) that this topic still has any legs at all among the larger community of so called "skeptics."
  15. I do not know what is worse, Salby trying to sell this ridiculous notion, or people like Curry uncritically egging him on. It is clear from the Climate Etc. thread that Curry does not know what is going on. And Salby has not published a single paper on the carbon cycle that I am aware of. Really this is just smoke and mirrors and people like Dale lap it up to reinforce their denial. For example, one of the commentators to that advertisement for his talk (50% of which was about him, not the subject he is trying to speaking to) states: "But I thought the science was settled??" Now there is a true "skeptic, not. His mission has been accomplished before the paper has even made it though peer review. This is very, very likely just another Trojan paper to make people think "the science isn't settled so we don;t have to do anything". PS: "Skeptics" claim that temperatures have not warmed since November 1996, if Salby's hypothesis is correct then why have CO2 levels continue to rise, perhaps even accelerate since then?
  16. How about we listen to what an expert, a real climate scientist, has to say: Comment from Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate: This has nothing whatsoever to do with attribution of the temperature rise. The response of the CC to temperature is a specific thing - and it doesn't matter if it is originally driven by Milankovitch and ice sheets (over the ice age cycle), solar and volcanic activity over the pre-industrial, or by human activity/martian fairies/the PDO or whatever today. ENSO is an internal source of temperature changes on short time scales, and Pinatubo is an external source of temperature change over a short time period - both are included in any modern period regression such as Salby must have used. And the sensitivity of the carbon cycle to such changes is noticeable, but small and nothing like enough to explain the 20th C change. But even without thinking about this that deeply at all, it is obvious that Salby is wrong - we have put more than twice as much CO2 into the air as has actually accumulated over the last 100 years. To posit that the rise is not anthropogenic implies finding sinks that have totally taken up the anthropogenic CO2 *and* new sources that have put half of it back again. Meanwhile, all the actual reservoirs have more carbon than they had previously. Furthermore, the 13C and 14C data (up until the bomb peak) support a predominantly fossil fuel source. And the O2/N2 levels are dropping at the rate expected (given that we are burning C, and taking O2 from the air). The idea that a poorly performed regression undermines all this is ludicrous. - gavin"
  17. from jcurry's commentary: "huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions." I wonder how these 'spells of warming' manage to both increase and decrease CO2 in sync with human economic activity, even down to as fine a scale as the day/night differences associated with weekday traffic (also here). And I can only marvel at how these 'warming spells' know to take the weekends off. Spells? Sounds a bit like witchcraft to me.
  18. Stephen, It is not an issue of conservation of mass. Atmospheric CO2 is part of a complex equilibrium system. The CO2 that we are emitting does not remain in the atmosphere, but reacts according to the many natural chemical equations on this planet. If the amount we were adding was insignificant, then the environmental equations involving CO2 would use up the excess CO2 and form more products, keeping the atmospheric concentration relatively constant. Salby's own numbers indicate that nature is only using 45% of the excess CO2, with 55% remaining in the atmosphere. His assertion that CO2 is simply reacting to increasing temperatures would be more believable if it followed the recent temperature profile. However, temperatures have oscillated significantly during the past 130 years, while CO2 emissions have consistently increased.
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Atmospheric CO2 is part of a complex equilibrium system, however it is a closed system and so must obey conservation of mass. Becuase of conservation of mass, the fact that annual rise in atmospheric CO2 being always smaller than anthropogenic emissions establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink and hence is opposing the rise in atmospheric concentrations, not causing it. Unless Salby et al can refute that argument, the paper shouldn't pass review.
  19. Muoncounter @67 and EtR @68, You know, Judith should really just step away form her keyboard-- she is continuing to make an utter fool of herself. These "huge increases in CO2 concentrations" that Curry is so excited about are a) transient and b> < 2 ppmv.
  20. "Spells? Sounds a bit like witchcraft to me." Or a touch of the vapors.
  21. John N-G just posted this over at RC on Salby:
    "I was lucky enough to attend Murray Salby’s talk at the IUGG conference in Melbourne. The thesis is not quite so simple as a correlation between CO2 rise and short-term temperature variations, because he found corroborating evidence in the change of CO2 slope over time. This made the argument not so easy to dismiss out of hand, although Salby was extremely careful not to draw any conclusions in his public presentation. It was quite good sport to play “spot the flaw” in real time. Fortunately, the talk was the last of the session, and both Alan Plumb and myself chatted with him right afterwards. Aside from whether a statistical argument makes physical sense, it also must hold water statistically by being applicable beyond the time frame of model development. In discussing what his model would mean for past variations of temperature and CO2, it eventually became clear that he believed all paleoclimate data that supported his statistical analysis and disregarded all paleoclimate data that countered his statistical analysis, even though the latter collection was much larger than the former. Eventually I realized that if 0.8 C of warming is sufficient to produce an increase of 120ppb CO2, as Salby asserted, then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative. That was enough for me."
    [Emphasis added] Good enough for me, too.
  22. It's kind of astonishing that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of basic climate science - let alone a climate scientist like Curry - wouldn't immediately see the many obvious flaws in Salby's argument (let alone advertising his talk as some sort of major revelation).
  23. Mods, I can't defend myself now?

    There are threads to discuss denialism vs skepticism, but this thread is not one.  If that is your wish, then please use the Search function to find one & place those comments there.

  24. Dale#73: Defend your ideas; on this thread, the topic is CO2 causing warming. Other topics = other threads.
  25. okay, 1) water vapor has a much broader absorption in more regions than any of the GHGs addressed here; it cannot be ignored!!!! H2O covers 70% of the Earth's surface (plus a lot of it in the vapor phase as well), it therefore is hit by most of the incoming solar radiation (uv or high-energy) - the H2O absorbs uv and emits it as IR, this is undeniable. therefore, the radiative energies coming from the H2O are well outside of the 298K band. so the water on the surface and in the ATM has a massive effect on the temperature. this cannot be ignored in a "model" - the biggest part of the system must be included in the model. 2) what about the interaction of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields (solar wind)? this effects the temperature as well. maybe we should be more worried about the things we cannot change than the ones we can. we cannot accurately study a system so dynamic and not completely understood, and ignore the major contributors to an effect while having a limited amount of sample data. we need temperature date from 1000 times more points to make a valid conclusion toward surface warming. the Earth is larger and more dynamic than the model(s) account for.
  26. Phan-tum. Why do you believe we need 1000 times more points?
  27. PHAN-TUM @75, Both of these topics are covered on this site, along with a legion of others. There is a search function, and a helpful list link "Arguments" on the top left of the page. 1) Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works 2) Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
  28. PHAN TUM: "we need temperature date from 1000 times more points to make a valid conclusion toward surface warming." I agree with the first part of the statement. Will you support this endeavor with your tax dollars? You should really move the modeling comments and questions to the appropriate threads, though. Water vapor, by the way, is not ignored in the models. It has a short atmospheric residence time, though, and the quick cycling stabilizes it as an element of the long-range atmospheric dynamic (climate). Take a good read here and here, and reply on those threads.
  29. PHAN-TUM "this cannot be ignored in a "model" indeed it's not. As for the cosmic rays, take a look and comment here.
  30. phantum#75: "what about the interaction of the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields (solar wind)? this effects the temperature as well" If you have data to substantiate this claim, please provide links to it on the cosmic rays thread. I've looked and haven't found much of any quantitative information. "maybe we should be more worried about the things we cannot change than the ones we can." That is an interesting suggestion. After we've worried about the things we cannot change for a while, what do you propose we do about them?
  31. CO2 is a heavy gas that tends to stay close to the ground. (otherwise plants couldn't consume it) Heat always rises, it does not fall, even when radiating in all directions, the hotter the air the faster it rises. So explain to me how CO2 is keeping any heat from simply slipping past it and rising into space? Additionally, on a cloudy day, temperatures go down, not up. Heat rising with water vapor in it tends to create more clouds and thunderstorms, which cool things even more. I can see how (at night) cloud cover would keep some heat from escaping the atmosphere, but once you're more than a few feet off the ground (even in the heat of summer) the air temperature drops dramatically. I have personally observed this as a glider pilot. Even 3000' off the ground you can see ice crystals form on your canopy with the sun shining and ground temp at 90 degrees. So someone explain it to me (taking real world observations into account).
    Response: CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, as has been repeatedly measured with ground stations at various altitudes, aircraft, and spacecraft. Not an assumption, but a repeated observation. That's different than what happens in a small enclosed system such as a jar. Clouds keep the surface warm at night because they prevent some infrared radiation from escaping to space. During the day they do the same thing but also prevent some of the Sun's radiation from reaching the surface, and the energy prevented from coming in can exceed the energy prevented from getting out to space. Heat does not rise. Hot air does. It cools as it rises because its pressure drops because its surroundings are at lower pressure.
  32. Still, compared to water vapor, CO2 is such a miniscule percentage of the atmosphere. Water vapor and the sun itself seem to play a much greater role in the natural cycle of heating and cooling the planet. Take the sun out of the equation and no amount of man made warming would keep the planet from turning into a frozen world. You can't regulate or outlaw water vapor any more than you can CO2, they are the essential building blocks of life. Has anyone considered that the sheer numbers of humans exhaling has increased several fold over the past 100 years? Where are we now 6 billion? It was barely 2 billion when I was a kid. Could that account for increased CO2?
  33. Alleycat, you would do well to look at (and comment further, if you wish) the following threads : CO2 is a trace gas Water vapour It's the Sun Human exhalation of CO2
  34. Alleycat... You getting a few things wrong here. First, water vapor responds to heat. More heat, more water vapor. This is very basic. The only way you get more water vapor is to turn up the heat somehow. Second, the sun varies only a very tiny amount. Of the ~1370Watts/m2 it only fluctuates about 0.5W/m2 over the course of an 11 year cycle. The sun is very stable, it just doesn't change much. We know with a high degree of accuracy how much the added CO2 has changed over the past century and we know the radiative forcing change for it (and the other man-made greenhouse gases) is about 2.4W/m2. That is a big change that turns up the thermostat and causes more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere. Human's exhaling doesn't actually add to the carbon in the atmosphere because, well, where did that carbon come from? It was already part of the natural carbon cycle. The problem comes from burning ancient carbons in the form of fossil fuels.
  35. #81, 82: Take yourself to the Most Used Climate Myths, you'll see such gems as Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and Does breathing add CO2 to the atmosphere. You can search for more as well. I'd also recommend Richard Alley's AGU talk about why CO2 is the biggest control knob on climate despite the small overall percentage in the air. One of the best bits of science communication you'll see, and a better use of an hour of your time than browsing on most climate blogs!
  36. Alleycat, I think you'll dig this Alley cat.
  37. I watched Dr. Alley's speech and it seems to suggest that in the past the climate changed without any human intervention whatsoever. Very interesting stuff but it doesn't do anything to point a finger at man as the cause. I really hate the term "climate denier", it says to me that someone has made up their mind and their is no room for debate. In fact none of this is carved in stone and we're still figuring it out. I have to quote the article "So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger." The fact is that water vapor IS the dominant greenhouse gas, and if all this happened many times before man entered the picture, that says to me that we are not the problem and that this is a natural process. Just because it might not end well for man doesn't mean it's our fault.
  38. Sorry guys, but I remain skeptical. Not denying that the climate is changing, but I am skeptical that it is 100% man made.
  39. Alleycat @88, You really do not seem to understand the science behind climate change and the theory of AGW, and that is confusing you. Also, no reputable climate scientist are claiming that ALL the observed warming is due to increased GHGs from burning fossil fuels and land use change. Nor do the IPCC assessment reports make that claim. As for fingerprints indicating that the warming is because of an enhanced greenhouse effect, well they are everywhere (follow the link below for more information). [Source]
  40. Alleycat#87: "in the past the climate changed without any human intervention whatsoever." No one disputes that. However, this time around we have intervened and the climate is changing, in large part because of that sudden and unprecedented intervention. Using the 'its changed before' argument begs two questions: Do we know what caused climate change in the past? Answer: mostly yes. Do we know if those same mechanisms are making climate change now? Answer: We know very well they are not. Let's use an analogy: The last time your house burned down, it was due to a lightning strike, an entirely natural cause. Does that mean that an arsonist can't burn it down the next time? Does that mean you shouldn't be concerned when you see smoke coming out of the attic?
  41. Albatross, NO ONE seems to understand the science behind climate change, not even the scientists who espouse it. Remember when you were all calling it 'Global Warming'? Now it's 'climate change' because you're all not sure if we'll end up with an ice age instead. A science that relies mostly on computer models as opposed to observation is completely flawed. If this was all so obvious, then the majority of scientists would concur, but they don't. muocounter, one volcano can throw out more CO2 and ash into the upper atmosphere than all the coal power plants on the planet combined. What are your plans to stop that? Outlaw volcanoes and undersea gas jets? The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself. WE ARE A PART OF THAT SYSTEM, not some separate alien invader corrupting it. So even if it is 'man made' it's still 100% natural. The earth created us and it can destroy us just as easily. I'm fine with that, but you all seem to think you're some splendid shepherds of the planet, when in fact we're just another life form on it. Name calling and demonizing someone because they don't agree with your 'deeply held beliefs' is the first sign that you've lost the argument. [snip]
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory comment deleted, please read the comments policy and make sure your posts conform to it more closely in future. We are very happy here to discuss the science with those who disagree with the mainstream poistion. However, it would be helpful if you were to first find out what the mainstream position is on the science, for instance volcanos do not produce more CO2 than anthropogenic emissions. Many of these facts can be easily checked by looking at the list of most used climate myths (on the left of the page), and then if in doubt, following the links given to the peer reviewed science. There is a possibility that you have been mislead, and some self-skepticism is a valuable quality in anyone wishing to discuss the science.

    By the way, understanding is not binary, there are issues in climatology that are very well understood, others where there is considerable uncertainty. This is much the same as in any other science. The use of computer models is not an indication that science is flawed. For example predicting planetary orbits into the distant future (i.e. astronomical timescales) is a special case of the n-body problem, which is analytically intractable, and as a result you need a computer to do the calculations. Does this mean that the science of planetary motion is flawed? Of course not. (note that the observations we have of planetary motion are the merest blink of an eye on astronomical timescales, so the science of planetary motion is no different from climatology from the point of use of observations).
  42. Alleycat, Your understanding of climate science is deeply flawed. The shift to the term "climate change" because the effect of global warming goes far beyond a simple increase in temperature. It affects rainfall pattern, ocean acidity etc. Global warming is the cause, climate change are the symptoms. No working climatologist believes that we are heading into an ice age. Global warming theory came long before the first computer arrive, and the theory have been verified through multiple observations and experiments. None of the 10 fingerprints albatross cited requires the use of a computer model. Computer models themselves are tested continuously against observations to ensure that the physics are captured correctly. You should also check out How reliable are climate models? Your belief that Volcano emits more CO2 is flat out wrong, as Dikran pointed out.
  43. Alleycat @91:
    Actually, claiming somebody has lost the argument based on some trivia entirely unrelated to the science is a fairly sure sign that you have no substantive argument to offer. As an aside, the whole "global warming"/"climate change" issue is a complete non-issue that just makes you look silly (watch the video - you'll know what I mean).
  44. alleycat#91: "So even if it is 'man made' it's still 100% natural. " What a useless tautology. Cars are man-made and are therefore 100% natural (by your 'logic'). Yet there are laws to control the use of cars. Should nature just self-correct wayward drivers? Volcanoes? Biggest in recent memory was Pinatubo and it did have an effect on climate - for about 2 years. So? You can learn something about the science here. Thus far your claims (such as 'volcanoes emit more CO2') have all been factually incorrect and everyone commenting has politely told you so -- with references. No one is name-calling and demonizing; the first to accuse another of doing that is usually the one who has lost the argument. If you find it necessary to go that path, you'll find the moderators will quickly show you the door.
  45. Alleycat, "The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself. WE ARE A PART OF THAT SYSTEM, not some separate alien invader corrupting it." Alleycat, The idea that the planet tends to correct itself has a definite problem: what is "correct"? What is the ideal state? You don't know, because if you did, and you had evidence, you'd either be considered a major prophet or everyone would already also know. Humans have enjoyed a relatively stable climate for roughly 10,000 years. It's understandable that climate instability is not an element of any original narrative--except perhaps as a distant echo in certain practices and pieces of wisdom. It's also understandable, then, why climate stability might be represented with a Gaia-type character: Earth-and-biosphere-as-being, and as a being in some sort of balance that has recently been upset. No. The earth is what its historical and material conditions (including us) make it. It has been wildly variable in the distant past, and for long periods (very inhospitably so). There is no base climate that the Earth returns to after excursions. There is no base climate that the Earth is heading for (well, there is a set of unpleasant end scenarios involving the "death" of the sun and the "heat death" of the universe). To think that we can't alter climate is to set us outside of nature. We can alter nature, and we make choices every day that increase or decrease the long-range chances for our own happiness, health, security, and freedom (and the same for other parts of the biosphere). I assume from your use of "outlaw" that you are concerned with individual freedom and government regulation. The more that AGW is allowed to become a problem, the more likely a government solution will be necessary--perhaps even a global government solution. At some point, you're going to have to set aside the universals and start up from basic physics. Do you accept that CO2 absorbs and emits (in all directions) at a specific set of pressure-broadened frequencies within the range at which the Earth emits (having been initially warmed by the sun)? If no, then read the advanced version of this page (again) and provide evidence for your position here. If yes, then do you accept that humans are the primary reason why atmospheric carbon has been rapidly increasing over the last 150 years? If no, then provide evidence for your position here and/or here. If yes, then you are pretty much forced to believe that humans are responsible for the activation conditions of a warming mechanism. The question then becomes one of energy balance. Is there enough warming (through positive forcings and feedbacks) to overcome the effects of negative forcings and feedbacks? Answer that question here after reading the article(s).
  46. Hello Alleycat, The climate system is complex, no doubt, but scientists have increased their understanding on it immensely over the last 150 years or so. Not knowing everything, does not equate to knowing nothing. We do not know everything about how the human heart operates, but surgeons operate and save lives each and every day. We have known for some time (and past climate change has aided scientists in understanding this) now that doubling or trebling or even quadrupling CO2 levels in a very short time is going to have a dramatic impact on the climate system and biosphere. Indeed, those changes are already evident in data collected/observed across many scientific disciplines. No models required. You say "The planet is a dynamic system that tends to correct itself." You seem to be trying to apply Le Chatelier's principle, but in the wrong context. I encourage you to read this great article by Dr. Bill Chameides. "If this was all so obvious, then the majority of scientists would concur, but they don't." It has been quite obvious for quite some time now actually (e.g., seminal research by Tyndall,Arrhenius, Callendar etc.). Not that science is done by consensus, but the vast majority of scientists who are working in climate related fields do agree on the theory (not hypothesis) of anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change. That there is allegedly "no consensus" is currently ranked as Skeptic Myth #4. Regardless, the agreement goes beyond "consensus", it is in fact consilience. Hope that this helps.
  47. Let it be noted that the posters here have been patient and polite to AlleyCat. Yet s/he keeps insisting that people are making comments about his/her persona, when all people are trying to do are point out the problems with his/her logic and understanding of the science. And rather ironic too, given that he/she has been the one making inflammatory comments about people here. But all that aside, even if people here were being rude or whatever, that would not be an excuse to dismiss the physics, the data and the observations.
  48. Alleycat is correct that the planet will most likely "self correct" whatever we do to it. The challenge is how to survive the correction. Better yet, how do we avoid pushing the planet to a point where a self correction is inevitable?
  49. Rob, I would agree that the planet will respond to any human-based forcings. However, if the forcing is rapid and severe enough, the current path of the biosphere will be permanently altered, and the biosphere has a great deal to say about the global carbon balance and the composition of the atmosphere. That idea of "self-correction" disturbs me, because it implies that a "correct" state is definable in the interests of something non-human. Roughly 2.4 billion years ago, cyanobacteria altered the Earth (both the biosphere and indirectly the shape of the surface) permanently. There was no "correction" to this event. There was simply a permanent change, and life had to adapt or disappear.
  50. DSL... I think we're saying the same thing. The point I'm trying to make to Alleycat is to be careful what you ask for. The "correction" may take more the form of a "hard reset" than a nice soft bounce back. I think skeptics sometimes find comfort in the idea that the planet will pull all that carbon back out of the atmosphere naturally. And that's realistic... over the next 10+ million years. I, for one, don't care much about what the planet will be like in that amount of time. What I care about is that we at least try not to create undue (and avoidable) hardships on near term future generations. As it is already, with another, what, 0.6C of warming baked into the system and not a lot of progress towards significantly changing our ways, the latter half of the 21st century is going to be pretty hellish for billions of less well off people. It's awful but I don't think that is avoidable. What I hope is still avoidable is that hard reset.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Post a Comment



Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2020 John Cook