Question: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.

Essentially, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, as well as other effects, that occur over several decades or longer.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

For instance, a 2016 study led by Jim Hansen concluded that based on past climate change data, sea level rise could accelerate exponentially in the coming decades, with a doubling time of 10, 20 or 40 years, respectively, raising the ocean by several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017, which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

"20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise".


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

"Antarctica ice melt has accelerated by 280% in the last 4 decades".


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

A 2018 systematic review study estimated that ice loss across the entire continent was 43 gigatons (Gt) per year on average during the period from 1992 to 2002, but has accelerated to an average of 220 Gt per year during the five years from 2012 to 2017.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

Sea level rise will continue over many centuries.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century...


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by more than 125 metres (410 ft), with rates varying from less than a mm/year to 40+ mm/year, as a result of melting ice sheets over Canada and Eurasia.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

For at least the last 100 years, sea level has been rising at an average rate of about 1.8 mm (0.07 in) per year.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

In 2018, scientists concluded that high sea levels some 125,000 years ago, which were 6–9 m (20–30 ft) higher than today, were most likely due to the absence of the WAIS, and found evidence that the ice sheet collapsed under climate conditions similar to those of today.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

As the great ice sheets began to melt, around 11,000 years ago, the sea level started to rise.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

These global climatic changes occurred slowly, prior to the rise of human civilization about 10 thousand years ago near the end of the last Major Ice Age when the climate became more stable.


Question: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every ten years.

Sea level rise will continue beyond 2100 even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions: (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

As described above, a small minority of scientists do disagree with the consensus: see list of scientists opposing global warming consensus.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

Newsweek reports that the majority of Europe and Japan accept the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans considered human activity to play a major role in climate change in 2006; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot."


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

The group claims that many scientists choose to endorse prevailing theories of global warming to protect their research funding by the government, a view that is held by French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux, and was the subject of the book "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media" by Patrick Michaels.


Question: Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

It is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010.


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

Scafetta and West correlated solar proxy data and lower tropospheric temperature for the preindustrial era, before significant anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, suggesting that TSI variations may have contributed 50% of the warming observed between 1900 and 2000 (although they conclude "our estimates about the solar effect on climate might be overestimated and should be considered as an upper limit.")


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

Given that records of solar activity are accurate, solar activity may have contributed to part of the modern warming that peaked in the 1930s, in addition to the 60-year temperature cycles that result in roughly 0.5 °C of warming during the increasing temperature phase.


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

Retrieved 2010-08-28. the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is 'unequivocal' and that human activity is the main driver, 'very likely' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950 Stevens, William K. (2007-02-06).


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

A 2018 CRS cited the October 2017 CSSR: "Detection and attribution studies, climate models, observations, paleoclimate data, and physical understanding lead to high confidence (extremely likely) that more than half of the observed global mean warming since 1951 was caused by humans, and high confidence that internal climate variability played only a minor role (and possibly even a negative contribution) in the observed warming since 1951.


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

There is a clear human influence on the climate It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

It is a major aspect of climate change, and has been demonstrated by the instrumental temperature record which shows global warming of around 1 °C since the pre-industrial period, although the bulk of this (0.9°C) has occurred since 1970.


Question: About 60% of the warming observed from 1970 to 2000 was very likely caused by the above natural 60-year climatic cycle during its warming phase" (Loehle and Scafetta)

Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

"Carlos Curbelo wants to be a Republican leader on climate change—if he can keep his seat".


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

"Miami Republican opposes allowing Arctic oil drilling in tax bill".


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

The Miami Herald wrote that Curbelo has "attempted to position himself as the national voice for Republicans who are concerned about climate change," describing him as "one of the few GOP voices speaking out against Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and his desire to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency."


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

United States Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, in a 19 June 2017 interview with CNBC, acknowledged the existence of climate change and impact from humans, but said that he did not agree with the idea that carbon dioxide was the primary driver of global warming pointing instead to "the ocean waters and this environment that we live in".


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

Freddie Rodriguez, American politician who assumed office in 2013


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

On November 27, 2018, Climate Solutions Caucus members Representatives Ted Deutch (D-FL), Francis Rooney (R-FL), Charlie Crist (D-FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and John Delaney (D-MD) introduced the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HR 7173).


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

Mike Feinstein, American Green Party politician


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

The Democratic Party seeks to develop policies which curb negative effects from climate change.


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

Javier Diez Canseco, Peruvian Congressman and presidential candidate in the 2006 elections


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

According to the Environmental Integrity Project, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March 2002 by former attorneys at the Environmental Protection Agency, “Companies like ExxonMobil and Sunoco keep reporting record profits while increasing emissions or more cancer causing chemicals from their refineries.” The energy lobby has been criticized by environmentalists for using its influence try and to block or dilute legislation regarding global climate change.


Question: Miami Congressman Carlos "Curbelo supports drilling offshore" and "repeatedly voted against President Obama's ability to fight pollution and combat climate change."

In its 2016 platform, the Democratic Party views climate change as “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” Democrats are dedicated to “curbing the effects of climate change, protecting America's natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations.”


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

"Greenland's Coastal Ice Caps Have Melted Past The Point Of No Return".


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

Methods agree that the Totten Glacier has lost ice in recent decades in response to ocean warming and possibly a reduction in local sea ice cover.


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

"Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE".


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

"A tipping point in refreezing accelerates mass loss of Greenland's glaciers and ice caps".


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

"Interannual variations of the mass balance of the Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets from GRACE".


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

As a consequence, glaciers worldwide have been found to be shrinking significantly Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002.


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

"Greenland enters melt mode".


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

The Greenland ice sheet (, ) is a vast body of ice covering , roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland.


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

Greenland (, ; , ) is the world's largest island, located between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.


Question: While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice.

The Greenland, and possibly the Antarctic, ice sheets have been losing mass recently, because losses by ablation including outlet glaciers exceed accumulation of snowfall.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

The global temperature increase since the beginning of the industrial period (taken as 1750) is about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), and the radiative forcing due to CO 2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – mainly methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons – emitted since that time is about 2.6 W/m2.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

Taking planetary heat uptake rate as the rate of ocean heat uptake estimated by the IPCC AR4 as 0.2 W/m2, yields a value for S of 2.1 °C (3.8 °F).


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

Solar irradiance is about 0.9 W/m2 brighter during solar maximum than during solar minimum, which correlated in measured average global temperature over the period 1959-2004.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

They judge that global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 °C over the last 100 years, broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

The Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum was an approximate 200,000 year long event where the global average temperature rose by some 5 to 8 °C (9 to 14 °F), and mid-latitude and polar areas may have exceeded modern tropical temperatures of 24–29 °C (75–84 °F).


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

The direct effect, via albedo, is a cooling effect that slows the overall rate of global warming: the IPCC's best estimate of the radiative forcing is −0.4 watts per square meter with a range of −0.2 to −0.8 W/m² but there are substantial uncertainties.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

In 2018 the IPCC published a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C which warned that, if the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions is not mitigated, global warming is likely to reach 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) between 2030 and 2052, risking major crises.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

Positive radiative forcing results in warming.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

The observed 0.1% irradiance increase imparts 0.22 W/m climate forcing, which suggests a transient climate response of 0.6 °C per W/m.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years.


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

Between the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, and the year 2005, the increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (chemical formula: ) led to a positive radiative forcing, averaged over the Earth's surface area, of about 1.66 watts per square metre (abbreviated W m).


Question: Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 Wm–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°).

Global Warming of 1.5 °C.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

Increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone have correspondingly strengthened their absorption and emission of infrared radiation, causing the rise in average global temperature since the mid-20th century.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

During the late 20th century, a scientific consensus evolved that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause a substantial rise in global temperatures and changes to other parts of the climate system, with consequences for the environment and for human health.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

Rennie 2009: "Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

While CO 2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO 2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human (anthropogenic) activity.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

The climate change referred to may be due to natural causes, e.g., changes in the sun's output, or due human activities, e.g., changing the composition of the atmosphere.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

Due to the increase in temperature of the soil, CO2 levels in our atmosphere increase, and as such the mean average temperature of the Earth is rising.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

The ice core data shows that temperature change causes the level of atmospheric CO2 to change - not the other way round.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO 2 shows that the recent observed CO 2 increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.


Question: that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature  increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of  natural variation...

"The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature".


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

(2009) found that the evidence showed that connections between solar variation and climate were more likely to be mediated by direct variation of insolation rather than cosmic rays, and concluded: "Hence within our assumptions, the effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07 °C since 1956, i.e.


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change.


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

Three mechanisms are proposed by which solar activity affects climate:


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

Our Changing Sun: The Role of Solar Nuclear Evolution and Magnetic Activity on Earth's Atmosphere and Climate.


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

[citation needed] The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next ice age, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

From 1961 to 2003, the global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10 °C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. There is variability both year-to-year and over longer time scales, with global ocean heat content observations showing high rates of warming for 1991 to 2003, but some cooling from 2003 to 2007.


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch9 2007, p. 690: "Recent estimates indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the second half of the 20th century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings."


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability.


Question: However, more direct comparisons between solar activity and global temperature finds that  as the sun grew hotter or cooler, Earth's climate followed it with a 10 year lag - presumably due to the dampening effect of the ocean.

Both long term variations in solar intensity are known to affect global climate.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

Whether this be due directly to the health, disposition or constitution of our globe itself, or to the weather from without, as the new glacial cosmogony would teach us, must remain a question for experts to debate, if not settle.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

Public disputes that also reflect scientific debate include estimates of how responsive the climate system might be to any given level of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), how the climate will change at local and regional scales, and what the consequences of global warming will be.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

It said that Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

This article is about climate change scenarios.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

These changes can influence the planetary climate.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

Potentially severe changes in the Earth's climate might then ensue.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

"Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming".


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

The Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

The 1979 World Climate Conference (12 to 23 February) of the World Meteorological Organization concluded "it appears plausible that an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at higher latitudes...It is possible that some effects on a regional and global scale may be detectable before the end of this century and become significant before the middle of the next century.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

Scientist seek periods that are in some sense analogous or informative to current climate change.


Question: Ever since 2012, scientists have been debating a complex and frankly explosive idea about how a warming planet will alter our weather — one that, if it’s correct, would have profound implications across the Northern Hemisphere and especially in its middle latitudes

"Q&A: How is Arctic warming linked to the 'polar vortex' and other extreme weather?".


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

The Keeling Curve is a graph of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere based on continuous measurements taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii from 1958 to the present day.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

Keeling’s Tellus article of 1960 presented the first monthly CO 2 records from Mauna Loa and Antarctica (1957 to 1960), finding a “distinct seasonal cycle…and possibly, a worldwide rise in CO2 from year to year.” By the 1970s, it was well established that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide was ongoing and due to anthropogenic emissions.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

Charles David Keeling, of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, was the first person to make frequent regular measurements of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations at the South Pole, and on Mauna Loa, Hawaii from March 1958 onwards.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

Charles David Keeling (April 20, 1928 – June 20, 2005) was an American scientist whose recording of carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory first alerted the world to the possibility of anthropogenic contribution to the "greenhouse effect" and global warming.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

"Up-to-date weekly average CO 2 at Mauna Loa".


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

The Keeling Curve measures the progressive buildup of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

The data collection started by Keeling and continued at Mauna Loa is the longest continuous record of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the world and is considered a reliable indicator of the global trend in the mid-level troposphere.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

Figure 4 shows seasonal and annual changes in CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii from 1987 to 1990.


Question: "The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

The measurements collected at Mauna Loa Observatory show a steady increase in mean atmospheric CO 2 concentration from 313 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in March 1958 to 406 ppmv in November 2018, with an increase of ~2 ppmv CO 2 per year.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

Their studies are used to warn the general public of the occurrence of these events.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

In Hutton's words: "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now."


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

A 2012 paper in the journal Science examined the geological record in an attempt to find a historical analog for current global conditions as well as those of the future.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

Some risks are due to phenomena that have occurred in earth's past and left a geological record.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who are accustomed to dealing with very long time scales and use "soon" to refer to periods of thousands of years.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

Scientist seek periods that are in some sense analogous or informative to current climate change.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

This involves biological and geological processes that take place over time.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

For an overview of Geology see Outline of geology.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

A geologist is a contributor to the science of geology.


Question: While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what lies ahead.

From the past to present, some authors consider the Anthropocene and the Holocene to be the same or coeval geologic time span, and others viewed the Anthropocene as being a bit more recent.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

Although the parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required and that global warming should be limited to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) in the Paris Agreement of 2016, the Earth's average surface temperature has already increased by about half this threshold and current pledges by countries to cut emissions are inadequate to limit future warming.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

Scientists acknowledge that "abrupt climate change initiated by Greenland ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century".


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

The Paris Agreement aims to combat global climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

Reducing black carbon emissions could help keep the climate system from passing the tipping points for abrupt climate changes, including significant sea-level rise from the melting of Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

Although the parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required and that global warming should be limited to well below in the Paris Agreement, the Earth's average surface temperature has already increased by about half this threshold and current pledges by countries to cut emissions are inadequate to limit future warming.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

The warming has not been globally uniform.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

Although previously it was thought that the polar ice caps were not contributing heavily to sea level rise (IPCC 2007), recent studies have confirmed that both Antarctica and Greenland are contributing a year each to global sea level rise.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

Both the Greenland ice sheet and Antarctica have tipping points for warming levels that could be reached before the end of the 21st century.


Question: Scientists say the recent climate agreement negotiated in Paris is not remotely ambitious enough to forestall a significant melting of Greenland and Antarctica, though if fully implemented, it may slow the pace somewhat.”

The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

Measurements by Jason-1 indicate that mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 2.28 millimeters (.09 inches) per year since 2001.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

Since 1900, the sea level has risen at an average of 1.7 mm (0.067 in) per year; since 1993, satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of about 3 mm (0.12 in) per year.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

This network was used, in combination with satellite altimeter data, to establish that global mean sea-level rose 19.5 cm (7.7 in) between 1870 and 2004 at an average rate of about 1.44 mm/yr (1.7 mm/yr during the 20th century).


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

Data collected by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia show the current global mean sea level trend to be 3.2 mm (0.13 in) per year, a doubling of the rate during the 20th century.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

Based on tide gauge data, the rate of global average sea level rise during the 20th century lies in the range 0.8 to 3.3 mm/yr, with an average rate of 1.8 mm/yr.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

Current rates of sea level rise from satellite altimetry have been estimated to be 3.0 ± 0.4 millimetres (0.118 ± 0.016 in) per year for the period 1993–2017.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

IPCC (2007a:5) reported that since 1961, global average sea level had risen at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

The rate of global mean sea-level rise (~ 3 mm/yr ; SLR) has accelerated compared to the mean of the 20th century (~ 2 mm/yr), but the rate of rise is locally variable.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

Between 1993 and 2017, the global mean sea level rose on average by 3.1 ± 0.3 mm per year, with an acceleration detected as well.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

The "global mean sea level is projected rise (relative to 1986-2005) by 0.26 to 0.77m by 2100 for 1.5°C global warming" and about 0.1m more for 2°C.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

The consensus of many studies of coastal tide gauge records is that during the past century sea level has risen worldwide at an average rate of 1–2 mm/yr reflecting a net flux of heat into the surface of the land and oceans.


Question: Together, these two unaltered [sea level] datasets indicate that global mean sea level trend has remained stable over the entire period 1992-2007, altogether eliminating the apparent 3.2 mm/year rate of sea-level rise arising from the “adjusted” data.

IPCC (2007a:13, 14) projected sea level rise to the end of the 21st century using the [[Special Report on Emissions Scenarios|SRES]] emission [[economics of global warming#Scenarios|scenarios]].


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

Thresholds and boundaries The threshold, or tipping point, is the value at which a very small increment for the control variable (like CO2) triggers a larger, possibly catastrophic, change in the response variable (global warming) through feedbacks in the natural Earth System itself.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

It should in principle, however the atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO is a greenhouse gas it causes warming.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

Rennie 2009: "Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

Some climate change denial groups say that because CO 2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere (roughly 400ppm, or 0.04%, 4 parts per 10,000) it can only have a minor effect on the climate.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

Most scientists do seem to accept that there is an effect of CO2 on climate; the big question is how large and dangerous it will be in future.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

As of 2019, there is still a chance of keeping global warming below 1.5°C if no more fossil fuel power plants are built and some existing fossil fuel power plants are shut down early, together with other measures such as reforestation.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

IPCC says, "All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C [2.7°F] with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the order of 100-1000 GtCO over the 21st century.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

Although the parties to the UNFCCC have agreed that deep cuts in emissions are required and that global warming should be limited to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) in the Paris Agreement of 2016, the Earth's average surface temperature has already increased by about half this threshold and current pledges by countries to cut emissions are inadequate to limit future warming.


Question: CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels.

Limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require reducing emissions to below 35 GtCOeq per year in 2030, regardless of the modelling pathway chosen.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

There was high agreement and much evidence that a substantial fraction of these mitigation costs may be offset by benefits to health as a result of reduced air pollution, and that there would be further cost savings from other benefits such as increased energy security, increased agricultural production, and reduced pressure on natural ecosystems as well as, in certain countries, balance of trade improvements, provision of modern energy services to rural areas and employment.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

The report's executive summary stated that the emission reductions necessary to stabilize radiative climate forcing would "require a transformation of the global energy system, including reductions in the demand for energy... and changes in the mix of energy technologies and fuels.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

An 'energy transition' is usefully defined as a change in the state of an energy system as opposed to a change in an individual energy technology or fuel source.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

Shifting the total global primary energy supply to renewable sources requires a transition of the energy system.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

Greenpeace recently released a report entitled Fuelling a BioMess which outlines their concerns around forest bioenergy.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

To create lasting climate change mitigation, the replacement of high carbon emission intensity power sources, such as conventional fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—with low-carbon power sources is required.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

One vision of a sustainable energy future involves all human structures on the earth's surface (i.e., buildings, vehicles and roads) doing artificial photosynthesis (using sunlight to split water as a source of hydrogen and absorbing carbon dioxide to make fertilizer) efficiently than plants.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

Greenhouse gases are not the only emissions of energy production and consumption.


Question: It is expected the report will focus on required changes to the energy system, rather than forests.

Moving towards energy sustainability will require changes not only in the way energy is supplied, but in the way it is used, and reducing the amount of energy required to deliver various goods or services is essential.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

The fires were associated with record-high temperatures, which were attributed to climate change—the summer had been the hottest recorded in Russian history—and drought.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

Scientific experts and land management agencies agree that severely below average fuel moisture attributed to record-breaking temperatures and drought, accompanied by severe fire weather, are the primary causes of the 2019-20 Australian bushfire season, and that these are likely to have been exacerbated by long-term trends of warmer and dryer weather observed over the Australian land mass.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

Across the country, the average summer temperatures have increased leading to record-breaking hot weather, with the early summer of 2019 the hottest on record.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

Climate change increases wildfire potential and activity.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

As extreme heat makes landscapes dry, nature is more prone to fire.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

Research shows that rising heat due to climate change has caused an increase in fires around the United States.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

Episode 2, "End of the Woods" (April 20, 2014): Schwarzenegger accompanies the "hot shots", elite firefighters in Western US forests, as they risk their lives fighting the fire season made longer and more destructive by global warming, as fire regions expand from the southwest US further north into Canada.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

The rising temperatures cause massive wildfires especially in the Boreal forests.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

A summer heat wave in Victoria, Australia, created conditions which fuelled the massive bushfires in 2009.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

At the time of high sun (summer), scorching, desiccating heat prevails.


Question: The answer lies in the summer’s record-breaking heat, say wildfire experts.

Eric Klinenberg has noted that in the United States, the loss of human life in hot spells in summer exceeds that caused by all other weather events combined, including lightning, rain, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

The Great Red Spot (GRS) is a persistent anticyclonic storm, 22° south of Jupiter's equator; observations from Earth establish a minimum storm lifetime of 350 years.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

"New Red Spot Appears on Jupiter".


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

"New storm on Jupiter hints at climate changes".


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

The best known feature of Jupiter is the Great Red Spot, a persistent anticyclonic storm that is larger than Earth, located 22° south of the equator.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

They also observed changes in the Jovian atmosphere, including the Great Red Spot.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

The 2009 Jupiter impact event, occasionally referred to as the Wesley impact, was a July 2009 impact on Jupiter that caused a black spot in the planet 's atmosphere.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

David Wallace-Wells, "The Uninhabitable Earth: Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think," New York Magazine, July 9, 2017.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

These changes can influence the planetary climate.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

This article is about climate change scenarios.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" (PDF).


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

It is affected by media coverage of climate change.


Question: "A new storm and a new red spot on Jupiter hints at climate change, USA TODAY and dozens of other sources explained yesterday.

"Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming".


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

"Extensive flooding, damage in Turks and Caicos".


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Rainfall resulted in several rivers reaching major flood stage.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Heavy precipitation – and storm surge, in some instances – overflowed at least 32 rivers and creeks, causing in significant flooding, particularly along the St. Johns River and its tributaries.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Lee County was lashed by strong winds and heavy rainfall, which caused prolonged flooding in some areas.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

In the days after the hurricane, due to the heavy rainfall, numerous rivers had flooded, including residential areas.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

In the United States and many other parts of the world there has been a marked increase in intense rainfall events which have resulted in more severe flooding.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

This has led to an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

"Impacts [of climate change] will very likely increase due to increased frequencies and intensities of some extreme weather events".


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Examples of affected short-time climate in North America include precipitation in the Northwest US and intense tornado activity in the contiguous US.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Extremely wet or dry events within the monsoon period have increased in India and East Asia.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Analysis of 65 years of United States of America rainfall records show the lower 48 states have an increase in heavy downpours since 1950.


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

• The intensity and frequency of days of extreme rainfall are projected to increase (high confidence).


Question: The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

There has been an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events over many areas during the past century, as well as an increase since the 1970s in the prevalence of droughts—especially in the tropics and subtropics.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

According to the Fourth (2017) National Climate Assessment (NCA) of the United States it is very likely sea level will rise between 30 and 130 cm (1.0–4.3 feet) in 2100 compared to the year 2000.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

In 2019, a study projected that in low emission scenario, sea level will rise 30 centimeters by 2050 and 69 centimetres by 2100, relatively to the level in 2000.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

In high emission scenario, it will be 34 cm by 2050 and 111 cm by 2100.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

For example, in 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a high end estimate of 60 cm (2 ft) through 2099, but their 2014 report raised the high-end estimate to about 90 cm (3 ft).


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

Estimates on future contribution to sea level rise from Greenland range from 0.3 to 3 metres (1 to 10 ft), for the year 2100.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

It has also been stated that the sea level will rise 28–43 cm by 2100; if all the ice on Earth melts, it is predicted that the ocean level will increase 75 meters, destroying many coastal cities.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

The "global mean sea level is projected rise (relative to 1986-2005) by 0.26 to 0.77m by 2100 for 1.5°C global warming" and about 0.1m more for 2°C.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

According to 2007 estimates by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “global average sea level will rise between 0.6 and 2 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) in the next century.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

Around 1.5°C to 2°C of global warming," irreversible instabilities could be triggered in Antarctica and "Greenland ice sheet, resulting in multi-metre rise in sea level.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

Instead of a global 5-meter sea level rise, western Antarctica would experience approximately 25 centimeters of sea level fall, while the United States, parts of Canada, and the Indian Ocean, would experience up to 6.5 meters of sea level rise.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

[citation needed] By 2100 the overall level of the Mediterranean could rise between 3 to 61 cm (1.2 to 24.0 in) as a result of the effects of climate change.


Question: When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels will rise by about 50 cm (20 in) by 2100 due to global warming and a further rise would be inevitable.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

Sea level rise will continue over many centuries.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

Slowing global warming requires a transition to a low-carbon economy, mainly by burning far less fossil fuel.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

[citation needed] The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's Oceans and atmosphere will prevent the next ice age, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

The amount of heat trapping gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere are predicted to prevent the next glacial period, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

Reducing black carbon emissions could help keep the climate system from passing the tipping points for abrupt climate changes, including significant sea-level rise from the melting of Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries even if GHG emissions were to be reduced sufficiently for GHG concentrations to stabilise, due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks".


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

Continued carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel sources could cause additional tens of metres of sea level rise, over the next millennia, and the available fossil fuel on Earth is even enough to ultimately melt the entire Antarctic ice sheet, causing about 58 m (190 ft) of sea level rise.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

IPCC (2007a:13, 14) projected sea level rise to the end of the 21st century using the [[Special Report on Emissions Scenarios|SRES]] emission [[economics of global warming#Scenarios|scenarios]].


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

However, Greg Holland from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who reviewed the study, noted: “There is no doubt that the sea level rise, within the IPCC, is a very conservative number, so the truth lies somewhere between IPCC and Jim.” In addition, one 2017 study's scenario, assuming high fossil fuel use for combustion and strong economic growth during this century, projects sea level rise of up to 132 cm (4.3 ft) on average — and an extreme scenario with as much as 189 cm (6.2 ft), by 2100.


Question: A fast transition away from fossil fuels in the next few decades could be enough to put off rapid sea-level rise for centuries.

Control of black carbon, particularly from fossil-fuel and biofuel sources, is very likely to be the fastest method of slowing global warming in the immediate future, and major cuts in black carbon emissions could slow the effects of climate change for a decade or two.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

Prolonged periods of warmer temperatures typically cause soil and underbrush to be drier for longer periods, increasing the risk of wildfires.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

If GHG emissions grow a lot (IPCC scenario RCP8.5), already dry regions may have more droughts and less soil moisture.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

Overall, higher temperatures bring more rain and snowfall, but for some regions droughts and wildfires increase instead.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

Climate change leads to a warmer ground temperature and its effects include earlier snowmelt dates, drier than expected vegetation, increased number of potential fire days, increased occurrence of summer droughts, and a prolonged dry season.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

Climate change poses a challenge to the management of conventional air pollutants in the United States due to warmer, dryer summer conditions that can lead to increased air stagnation episodes.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

Climate change will modify rainfall, evaporation, runoff, and soil moisture storage.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

In addition, the end of the 20th century drying trend may be due to global warming.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

After an initial warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will hold more water.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

Overall, global warming will result in increased world rainfall.. Activities resulting in global climate change are expected to trigger droughts with a substantial impact on agriculture throughout the world, and especially in developing nations.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

Climate change is projected to affect water availability.


Question: If warming temperatures brought on by greenhouse gas emissions make wet years less wet and dry years even drier, as scientists anticipate, year-to-year recovery will become more difficult.

The more sensitive a climate system is to increased greenhouse gases, the more likely it is to have decades when temperatures are much higher or much lower than the longer-term average.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Human activities emit about 29 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, while volcanoes emit between 0.2 and 0.3 billion tons.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO 2 emitted by human activity.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are approximately 0.645 billion tonnes of CO 2 per year, whereas humans contribute 29 billion tonnes of CO 2 each year.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Land use change (mainly deforestation in the tropics) account for up to one third of total anthropogenic CO 2 emissions.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Some climate change denial groups say that because CO 2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere (roughly 400ppm, or 0.04%, 4 parts per 10,000) it can only have a minor effect on the climate.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Rennie 2009: "Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Cumulative anthropogenic (i.e., human-emitted) emissions of CO 2 from fossil fuel use are a major cause of global warming, and give some indication of which countries have contributed most to human-induced climate change.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Pollutants emitted into the atmosphere by human activity include: Carbon dioxide (CO 2) – Because of its role as a greenhouse gas it has been described as "the leading pollutant" and "the worst climate pollutant".


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is a trace gas, currently (mid 2018) having a global average concentration of 409 parts per million by volume (or 622 parts per million by mass).


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

Climate change mitigation generally involves reductions in human (anthropogenic) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

About one quarter of the additional carbon dioxide generated by humans is dissolved in the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid.


Question: Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of CO2 emissions.

CO 2 currently forms about 410 parts per million (ppm) of earth's atmosphere, compared to about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times, and billions of metric tons of CO 2 are emitted annually by burning of fossil fuels.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

The two variables aren't related at all, but correlate by chance.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

In time series analysis and statistics, the cross-correlation of a pair of random process is the correlation between values of the processes at different times, as a function of the two times.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

In statistics, the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC, pronounced /ˈpɪərsən/), also referred to as Pearson's r, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (PPMCC) or the bivariate correlation, is a measure of the linear correlation between two variables X and Y.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

According to the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality it has a value between +1 and −1, where 1 is total positive linear correlation, 0 is no linear correlation, and −1 is total negative linear correlation.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

A value of 0 implies that there is no linear correlation between the variables.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

Correlation of CO 2 and temperature is not part of this evidence.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

"Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature".


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

He says a greenhouse effect exists, and that carbon dioxide contributes to it, but claims there is no "causative link" from CO2-concentration to global average temperature.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO 2 shows that the recent observed CO 2 increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

In the 1998 paper, "CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change" Idso said: "Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

Rennie 2009: "Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

Because CO is close to saturation with high concentrations and few infrared absorption bands, the radiation budget and hence the greenhouse effect has low sensitivity to changes in CO concentration: the increase in temperature is roughly logarithmic.


Question: Soares finds lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature

Singer argues, contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, that there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

Most recently in Summer 2018 and with much drier than average conditions prevailing from May to December.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

That, in turn, renders most of Sweden's southern areas having warmer summers than almost everywhere in the nearby British Isles, even matching temperatures found along the continental Atlantic coast as far south as in northern Spain.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

June 2019 was the hottest month on record worldwide, the effects of this were especially prominent in Europe.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

Several weather records were broken in the United Kingdom, including a new record for the country's highest ever recorded temperature of at Faversham in Kent on 10 August, which remained the highest recorded temperature in the UK until the heatwave in July 2019.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

Summer (early June to mid September) is hot and sunny with a July and August average of 23 °C (73 °F).


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

The 2003 European heat wave led to the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

The European heat wave of 2006 was the second massive heat wave to hit the continent in four years, with temperatures rising to 40 °C (104 °F) in Paris; in Ireland, which has a moderate maritime climate, temperatures of over 32 °C (90 °F) were reported.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

The European heat wave of 2007 affected primarily south-eastern Europe during late June through August.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

Across the country, the average summer temperatures have increased leading to record-breaking hot weather, with the early summer of 2019 the hottest on record.


Question: ‘Summers keep getting hotter,’ said Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford, who conducted extensive research into data from the heatwave that spread Europe in June, July and August 2017.

August 2018 was hotter and windier than the average.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

This warm air carries heat to the permafrost around the Arctic, and melts it.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

"Ice melting across globe at accelerating rate, NASA says."


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

A cumulonimbus incus cloud top is one that has spread out into a clear anvil shape as a result of rising air currents hitting the stability layer at the tropopause where the air no longer continues to get colder with increasing altitude.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

This phenomenon has been suggested by some to result from the rapid melting of polar sea ice, which replaces white, reflective ice with dark, absorbent open water (i.e., the albedo of this region has decreased).


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

"'Polar vortex' set to bring dangerous, record-breaking cold to much of US".


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

The polar vortex is a whirlwind of especially cold, dense air forming near the poles that is contained by the jet stream, a belt of fast-flowing winds that serves as a boundary between cold polar air and the warmer air of other hemispheres.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

[citation needed] Arctic regions notably release more heat back into space than what they absorb, effectively cooling the Earth.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

"Q&A: How is Arctic warming linked to the 'polar vortex' and other extreme weather?".


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

The cryosphere (from the Greek "kryos", "cold", "frost" or "ice" and "sphaira", "globe, ball") is an all-encompassing term for those portions of Earth's surface where water is in solid form, including sea ice, lake ice, river ice, snow cover, glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets, and frozen ground (which includes permafrost).


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

A polar cyclone is a low-pressure weather system, usually spanning 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) to 2,000 kilometres (1,200 mi), in which the air circulates in a counterclockwise direction in the northern hemisphere, and a clockwise direction in the southern hemisphere.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

It has been suggested that the association of climate change with the Arctic in popular media may undermine effective communication of the scientific realities of anthropogenic climate change.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

Because the power of the polar vortex and jet stream is derived partly from the temperature contrast between cold polar air and warmer tropical air, it is at risk of becoming severely diminished as this contrast is eroded by the effects of melting sea ice.


Question: the media created the term "polar vortex" and the cold air proves "the ice isn't melting."

It is also known as the coldest of all the oceans.The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) recognizes it as an ocean, although some oceanographers call it the Arctic Sea.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

For example, diverse geochemical and paleontological proxies indicate that at the maximum of global warmth the atmospheric carbon dioxide values were at 700–900 ppm while other proxies such as pedogenic (soil building) carbonate and marine boron isotopes indicate large changes of carbon dioxide of over 2,000 ppm over periods of time of less than 1 million years.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

At around 41.5 million years ago, stable isotopic analysis of samples from Southern Ocean drilling sites indicated a warming event for 600 thousand years.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

Before the Industrial Revolution, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases caused the air near the surface to be warmer by about 33 °C (59 °F) than it would be in their absence.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

The current scientific consensus is that: Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

The Jurassic is thought to have been approximately 10 degrees Celsius warmer along 90 degrees East paleolongitude compared to the present temperature of today's central Eurasia.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

In at least some areas, the recent period appears to be warmer than has been the case for a thousand or more years".


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

The IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990 noted evidence that Holocene climatic optimum around 5,000-6,000 years ago had been warmer than the present (at least in summer) and that in some areas there had been exceptional warmth during "a shorter Medieval Warm Period (which may not have been global)" about AD 950-1250, followed by a cooler period of the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

Evidence of past climate change and present climate change comes from a variety of sources.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

Evidence for warming accumulated.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

Ice core records show that before the Holocene there was global warming after the end of the last ice age and cooling periods, but climate changes became more regional at the start of the Younger Dryas.


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

"Estimating Changes in Global Temperature since the Preindustrial Period".


Question: But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period

Preceding this was a warm period centered around A.D. 1000, which was warmer than the late 20th century by approximately 1°C.