Question: Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

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-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies) Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections) There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies) The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group III: Mitigation Synthesis Report A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct.


Question: Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.


Question: Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

Climate change can have an effect on the [[carbon cycle]] in an interactive "feedback" process .


Question: Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

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: Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

There are many facts that point to the existence of climate change.


Question: Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

Attribution of the temperature change to natural or anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) factors is an important question: see global warming and attribution of recent climate change.


Question: Human-produced carbon might be one of the factors [of climate change], but there’s simply no evidence that it is a significant one.

Anthropogenic climate change is caused by human activity, as opposed to changes in climate that may have resulted as part of Earth's natural processes.


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Not only do increasing carbon dioxide concentrations lead to increases in global surface temperature, but increasing global temperatures also cause increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide.


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

"How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?".


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that increases radiative forcing and contributes to global warming along with ocean acidification.


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that increased quantities of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide within the atmosphere will "very likely" lead to higher average temperatures on a global scale (global warming).


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

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: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

A higher amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to higher global temperatures, which then results in thermal expansion of seawater and melting of glaciers and ice sheets.


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

As stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Global warming is the result of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations which is caused primarily by the combustion of fossil energy sources such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas, and to an unknown extent by destruction of forests, increased methane, volcanic activity and cement production.


Question: So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

When CO levels rise in the atmosphere the temperature increases and plants grow.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

The increased radiative forcing due to increased CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is based on the physical properties of CO2 and the non-saturated absorption windows where CO2 absorbs outgoing long-wave energy.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs, and nitrous oxide.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 report defines radiative forcings as: "Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

Climate sensitivity is the globally averaged temperature change in response to changes in radiative forcing, which can occur, for instance, due to increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO 2).


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

In comparison, the more recent direct radiative forcing estimate by Ramanathan and Carmichael would lead one to conclude that black carbon has contributed the second largest globally averaged radiative forcing after carbon dioxide (CO), and that the radiative forcing of black carbon is “as much as 55% of the CO forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH, CFCs, NO, or tropospheric ozone.”


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

There is a scientific consensus that climate is changing and that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.


Question: While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.

CO, NO and CH are common greenhouse gases and CO is the largest contributor to climate change.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

Based on effects of Arctic amplification (warming) and ice loss, a study in 2015 concluded that highly amplified jet-stream patterns are occurring more frequently in the past two decades, and that such patterns can not be tied to certain seasons.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

It is affected by media coverage of climate change.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

The Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC) is a scientific research organization that studies climate change impacts and solutions.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

Climate change refers to a lasting change in the Earth's climate.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

Climatic Change is a biweekly peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Springer Science+Business Media covering cross-disciplinary work on all aspects of climate change and variability.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

Climate change is the variation in global or regional climates over time.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

The exchange of between the air and the ocean can also be impacted by further aspects of climatic change.


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

Climate change is more accurate scientifically to describe the various effects of greenhouse gases on the world because it includes extreme weather, storms and changes in rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and sea level.".


Question: The extent of climate change’s influence on the jet stream is an intense subject of research.

The index is also used in studies of climate change.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

The coalition report said that Benjamin D. Santer, the lead author of Chapter 8 in the assessment, entitled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes," had altered the text, after acceptance by the Working Group, and without approval of the authors, to strike content characterizing the uncertainty of the science.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

The Chapter 8 draft report put together on 5 October had an Executive Summary of the evidence, and after various qualifications, said "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate."


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

An introductory preface to the SAR written by IPCC chairman Bolin and his co-chairs John T. Houghton and L. Gylvan Meira Filho highlighted "that observations suggest 'a discernible human influence on global climate', one of the key findings of this report, adds an important new dimension to discussion of the climate issue."


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

Prior to the publication of the Second Assessment Report, the industry group Global Climate Coalition distributed a report entitled "The IPCC: Institutionalized Scientific Cleansing" to reporters, US Congressmen, and scientists, which said that Santer had altered the text, after acceptance by the Working Group, and without approval of the authors, to strike content characterizing the uncertainty of the science.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies) Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections) There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies) The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group III: Mitigation Synthesis Report A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

In 1995, GCC assembled an advisory committee of scientific and technical experts to compile an internal-only, 17-page report on climate science entitled "Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer", which said: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” In early 1996, GCC's operating committee asked the advisory committee to redact the sections that rebutted contrarian arguments, and accepted the report and distributed it to members.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

In a synthesis report published in Science in 2015, 22 leading marine scientists stated that CO 2 from burning fossil fuels is changing the oceans' chemistry more rapidly than at any time since the Great Dying, Earth's most severe known extinction event, emphasizing that the 2 °C maximum temperature increase agreed upon by governments reflects too small a cut in emissions to prevent "dramatic impacts" on the world's oceans, with lead author Jean-Pierre Gattuso remarking that "The ocean has been minimally considered at previous climate negotiations.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

The paper was criticized by numerous climate scientists.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

Contrarian John Lawrence Daly featured a modified version of the IPCC 1990 schematic, which he mis-identified as appearing in the IPCC 1995 report, and argued that "Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the 'Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report".


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

Climate scientist Tom Wigley, a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that "Michaels' statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

Wunsch has stated that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global climate change debate distasteful he wrote in a letter dated 15 March 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on 8 October 2018.


Question: "However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.

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: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

It has a regular activity cycle of starspots.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

This surface activity produces starspots, which are regions of strong magnetic fields and lower than normal surface temperatures.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

During the Maunder Minimum, for example, the Sun underwent a 70-year period with almost no sunspot activity.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

Patches of the star's surface with a lower temperature and luminosity than average are known as starspots.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

At solar-cycle minimum, the toroidal field is, correspondingly, at minimum strength, sunspots are relatively rare, and the poloidal field is at its maximum strength.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

This star is smaller, cooler, dimmer, and less massive than our Sun.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

stars that has evaporated over time, becoming gravitationally unbound.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

This star is smaller, cooler, fainter, and less massive than our Sun.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

The neutrinos escape from the star carrying away some energy.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

The star has a current mass of around 0.64 solar masses.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

The star is known to be a low activity flare star, which means it undergoes random increases in luminosity because of magnetic activity at the surface.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

The surface activity makes the star an X-ray emission source.


Question: [S]unspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped to a new low.

Such atmospheric stripping is a likely result of proximity to a star.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

"Australia's extreme heat is sign of things to come, scientists warn".


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

According to the Bureau of Meteorology's 2011 Australian Climate Statement, Australia had lower than average temperatures in 2011 as a consequence of a La Niña weather pattern; however, "the country's 10-year average continues to demonstrate the rising trend in temperatures, with 2002–2011 likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia, at 0.52 °C (0.94 °F) above the long-term average".


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

Furthermore, 2014 was Australia's third warmest year since national temperature observations commenced in 1910.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

January 2019 was the hottest month ever in Australia with average temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F).


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

], inflation has typically been 2–3% and the base interest rate 5–6%.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

Australia's climate has warmed by more than one degree Celsius over the past century, causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of heatwaves and droughts.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

According to the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia's annual mean temperature for 2009 was 0.90 °C (1.62 °F) above the 1961–90 average, making it the nation's second-warmest year since high-quality records began in 1910.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

Over the last 100 years the Earth's temperature has increased 0.6 degrees Celsius and it is predicted to increase an additional 3.5 degrees over the next century.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

According to the historical temperature record of the last century, the Earth's near-surface air temperature has risen around 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit).


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

The average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880; Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20 °C per decade.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74 °C (plus or minus 0.18 °C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13 °C (plus or minus 0.03 °C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global average temperature.


Question: unadjusted data suggests that temperatures in Australia have only increased by 0.3 degrees over the past century, not the 1 degree usually claimed

The warming has not been globally uniform.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

This would save about $600 billion in health costs a year due to reduced air pollution in 2050, or about 3.6% of the 2014 U.S. gross domestic product.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

Judging by the continued growth in the Renewable Fuel Standard and the extension of the biodiesel tax incentive, the number of jobs can increase to 50,725, $2.7 billion in income, and reaching $5 billion in GDP by 2012 and 2013.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

The goal is to reduce carbon emissions to those outlined in the Kyoto Protocol; specifically to reduce their emissions by 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

The country has a national objective to reduce emissions by 25% from their 1990 levels by 2020, and a long-term target to reduce emissions 75–80% by 2050.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

Informed by the Energy White Paper 2003, the bill aims to achieve a mandatory reduction of 60% in the carbon emission from the 1990 level by 2050, with an intermediate target of between 26% and 32% by 2020.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

In 2019 the National Bureau of Economic Research found that increase in average global temperature by 0.04 °C per year, in absence of mitigation policies, will reduce world real GDP per capita by 7.22% by 2100.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

According to the US submission, the United States committed to reducing emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, a reflection of the Obama administration's goal to convert the U.S. economy into one low-carbon reliance.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

Stabilizing the world's climate will require high-income countries to reduce their emissions by 60–90% over 2006 levels by 2050 which should hold CO levels at 450–650 ppm from current levels of about 380 ppm.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

According to the Stern Review, inaction can be as high as the equivalent of losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever (upto 20% of the GDP or more when including a wider range of risks and impacts), whereas mitigating climate change will only cost about 2% of the GDP.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

The EPA estimates the Clean Power Plan will reduce the pollutants that contribute to smog and soot by 25 percent, and the reduction will lead to net climate and health benefits of an estimated $25 billion to $45 billion per year in 2030.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

The organization estimated the cost for eliminating carbon emissions from the transportation system at $1.3–2.7 trillion; guaranteeing a job to every American $6.8–44.6 trillion; universal health care estimated close to $36 trillion.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

To limit global temperature rise to 1.5 °C, the global annual emission reduction needed is 7.6% emissions reduction every year between 2020 and 2030.


Question: Meeting the 2025 emissions reduction target alone could subtract $250 billion from our GDP and eliminate 2.7 million jobs.

(2007) estimated macroeconomic costs in 2030 for multi-gas mitigation (reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs, such as methane) as between a 3% decrease in global GDP to a small increase, relative to baseline.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

Tipping points are "perhaps the most ‘dangerous’ aspect of future climate changes", leading to irreversible impacts on society.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

A 2007 study by David Douglass and coworkers, concluded that the 22 most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC were unable to accurately predict accelerated warming in the troposphere although they did match actual surface warming, concluding "projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution".


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

The IPCC has pointed out that many long-term climate scenario models require large-scale manmade negative emissions to avoid serious climate change.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

This is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which predicted that sea level rise would accelerate in response to global warming.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

The warming has not been globally uniform.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

This article is about climate change scenarios.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

The global warming debate is over.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming."


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

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


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

Climate models suggest that lower stabilization levels are associated with lower magnitudes of future global warming, while higher stabilization levels are associated with higher magnitudes of future global warming (see figure opposite).


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

The method used by the One Earth Climate Model does not resort to dangerous geo-engineering methods.


Question: So it’s clear now we’re not seeing dangerous global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

Several media pieces have claimed that since the even-at-the-time-poorly-supported theory of global cooling was shown to be false, that the well-supported theory of global warming can also be dismissed.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

Tuvalu was mentioned in the study, and Webb and Kench found that seven islands in one of its nine atolls have spread by more than 3 per cent on average since the 1950s.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

Kiribati was mentioned in the study, and Webb and Kench found that the three major urbanised islands in Kiribati—Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai—increased by 30% (36 hectares), 16.3% (5.8 hectares) and 12.5% (0.8 hectares), respectively.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

A study published in 2018 estimated the change in land area of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, indicating that 75% of the islands had grown in area, with an overall increase of more than 2%.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

Recent research, based on archaeological and paleontological digs on 70 different Pacific islands has shown that numerous species became extinct as people moved across the Pacific, starting 30,000 years ago in the Bismarck Archipelago and Solomon Islands.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

SOPAC: South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

It hosted the Tarawa Climate Change Conference on November 9–11, 2010, where the Ambo Declaration was signed by 12 countries: Kiribati, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, the Republic of the Maldives, Cuba, Brazil, Fiji, Japan, China, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Australia.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

In a pair of studies published in 2015, extrapolation from observed extinction of Hawaiian snails of the family Amastridae, led to the conclusion that "the biodiversity crisis is real", and that 7% of all species on Earth may have disappeared already.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

In a pair of studies published in 2015, extrapolation from observed extinction of Hawaiian snails led to the conclusion that 7% of all species on Earth may have been lost already.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

The Gilbert Islands (Tungaru formerly Kingsmill or King 's - Mill Islands) are a chain of sixteen atolls and coral islands in the Pacific Ocean about halfway between Papua New Guinea and Hawaii.


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

"'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger, showing islands are geologically dynamic: study | The Japan Times".


Question: “The most famous of these studies, published in 2010 by Paul Kench and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji, showed that of 27 Pacific islands, 14% lost area.

In March 2019, "Nature Climate Change" published a study by ecologists from Yale University, who found that over the next half century, human land use will reduce the habitats of 1,700 species by up to 50%, pushing them closer to extinction.


Question: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

The average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880; Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20 °C per decade.


Question: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

Climate proxy records show that natural variations offset the early effects of the Industrial Revolution, so there was little net warming between the 18th century and the mid-19th century, when thermometer records began to provide global coverage.


Question: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

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: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere....Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels.


Question: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper states: There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change ... On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.


Question: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

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: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

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


Question: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

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: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

Global warming refers to the warming caused by human technology since the 19th century or earlier.


Question: We didn't have global warming during the Industrial Revolution

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have produced a 45% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 415 ppm in 2019.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

The NADW is fed by a flow of warm shallow water into the northern North Atlantic which is responsible for the anomalous warm climate in Europe.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

The Bermuda Triangle is a region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean where a number of aircraft and surface vessels allegedly disappeared mysteriously.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

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


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

Also, until recently, an area in the North Atlantic including southern Greenland was one of the only areas in the World showing cooling rather than warming in recent decades, but this cooling has now been replaced by strong warming in the period 1979–2005.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

There is some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

The Norwegian Sea (Norwegian: Norskehavet) is a marginal sea in the Arctic Ocean, northwest of Norway between the North Sea and the Greenland Sea, adjoining the Barents Sea to the northeast.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

The warming has not been globally uniform.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

Ian Somerhalder travels to the Bahamas where he looks at historical evidence and explores a blue hole, diving and taking core samples of the ocean floor with scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to learn how the warming of the oceans' surface will increase the strength and destructiveness of hurricanes and superstorms.


Question: Scientists have long known about the anomalous ‘warming hole‘ in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth’s oceans.

This mechanism possibly caused the cold ocean surface temperature anomaly currently observed near Greenland (Cold blob (North Atlantic)).


Question: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

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: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

Since at least the start of the 20th century, the average global sea level has been rising.


Question: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

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: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

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


Question: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

Sea level rise will continue over many centuries.


Question: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

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: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

"Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era".


Question: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

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: Global sea level data shows that sea level rise has been increasing since 1880 while future sea level rise predictions are based on physics, not statistics.

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


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

The Summer 2006 North American heat wave was a severe heat wave that affected most of the United States and Canada, killing at least 225 people and bringing extreme heat to many locations.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

For comparison, the 2003 European heat wave killed an estimated 35,000–70,000 people, with temperatures slightly less than in India and Pakistan.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

Overall it was the coldest winter since 1978–79, with a mean temperature of 1.5 °C (34.7 °F).


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

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: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

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


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

The 2003 European heat wave killed 22,000–35,000 people, based on normal mortality rates.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

According to the BBC, around 2,000 more people than usual may have died in the United Kingdom during the 2003 heatwave.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

Also more than 2,000 people died in Karachi, Pakistan in June 2015 due to a severe heat wave with temperatures as high as 49 °C (120 °F).


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

For example, in August 2003, a heatwave in Europe resulted in excess mortality in the range of 35,000 total deaths.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

One piece of their evidence is that in summer 2003, during Europe's big heat wave, there were 70,000 recorded deaths related to the heat.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

(2000), "populations in Europe have adjusted successfully to mean summer temperatures ranging from 13.5°C to 24.1°C, and can be expected to adjust to global warming predicted for the next half century with little sustained increase in heat related mortality.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

Around 300 people—mostly elderly—died during the 2003 heatwave in Germany.


Question: At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer.

In Europe, mean annual heat related mortalities are 304 in north Finland, 445 in Athens, and 40 in London, while cold related mortalities are 2457, 2533, and 3129 respectively.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

Scientists have identified many episodes of climate change during Earth's geological history; more recently since the industrial revolution the climate has increasingly been affected by human activities driving global warming, and the terms are commonly used interchangeably in that context.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

Global warming and climate change are often used interchangeably.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

Shaftel 2016: "'Climate change' and 'global warming' are often used interchangeably but have distinct meanings.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

Within scientific journals, global warming refers to surface temperature increases while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas levels affect.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

The terms "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangeably.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

However, speaking more properly, "global warming" denotes the mainly human-caused increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation, but "climate change" includes both "global warming" and its effects, such as changes in precipitation and impacts that differ by region.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

But, more accurately, global warming is the mainly human-caused increase in global surface temperatures and its projected continuation, while climate change includes both global warming and its effects, such as changes in precipitation.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

While the term "climate change" now implies change that is both long-term and of human causation, in the 1960s the word climate change was used for what we now describe as climate variability, that is, climatic inconsistencies and anomalies.


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

In their usage, "climate change" refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties, and that persists for extended periods, typically decades or longer (IPCC, 2007d:30).


Question: 'Global warming' and 'climate change' mean different things and have both been used for decades.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change" often refers only to changes in modern climate, including the rise in average surface temperature known as global warming.


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

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: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

The IPCC projects that ice mass loss from melting of the Greenland ice sheet will continue to outpace accumulation of snowfall.


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

The net loss in volume and hence sea level contribution of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) has doubled in recent years from 90 km3 (22 cu mi) per year in 1996 to 220 km3 (53 cu mi) per year in 2005.


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

"Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses".


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

"A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance".


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

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


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

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


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

The ice sheets increase Earth's reflectivity and thus reduce the absorption of solar radiation.


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

The rate of ice loss from glaciers and ice sheets in the Antarctic is a key area of uncertainty since this source could account for 90% of the potential sea level rise: increased ocean warmth is undermining and threatening to unplug Antarctic glacier outlets, potentially resulting in more rapid sea level rise.


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

Unusually rapid (up to 4.1 cm/year) present glacial isostatic rebound due to recent ice mass losses in the Amundsen Sea embayment region of Antarctica coupled with low regional mantle viscosity is predicted to provide a modest stabilizing influence on marine ice sheet instability in West Antarctica, but likely not to a sufficient degree to arrest it.


Question: Ice Sheet losses are overestimated.

Accelerated decline in the Arctic sea ice.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

This in turn reduces the temperature gradient that drives jet stream winds, which may eventually cause the jet stream to become weaker and more variable in its course.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

The strong temperature contrast between polar and tropical air gives rise to the large scale atmospheric circulation cells and the jet stream.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

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 Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

Therefore, the strong eastward moving jet streams are in part a simple consequence of the fact that the Equator is warmer than the North and South poles.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

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 Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

More specifically, D-O cold events, and their associated influx of meltwater, reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Deep Water current (NADW), weakening the northern-hemisphere circulation and therefore resulting in an increased transfer of heat polewards in the southern hemisphere.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

The Northern Hemisphere is warming faster than the Southern Hemisphere.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

Forcings that initially warm the northern hemisphere, land, or polar regions more strongly; are systematically more effective at changing temperatures than an equivalent amount of CO whose forcing is more uniformly distributed over the globe.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

Arctic amplified warming is observed as stronger in lower atmospheric areas because of the expanding process of warmer air increases pressure levels which decreases poleward geopotential height gradients.


Question: “The Northern Hemisphere jet stream […] flow is stronger when that temperature difference is large.

When there is a lot of sea ice present globally, especially in the tropics and subtropics, the climate is more sensitive to forcings as the ice–albedo feedback is very strong.


Question: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

The IPCC's Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere concluded that global mean sea level rose by 0.16 metres between 1901 and 2016.


Question: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in).


Question: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

The fact that the IPCC estimates did not include rapid ice sheet decay into their sea level predictions makes it difficult to ascertain a plausible estimate for sea level rise but a 2008 study found that the minimum sea level rise will be around by 2100.


Question: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

"Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era".


Question: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

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: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

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: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

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


Question: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

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: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

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


Question: Final data for 2016 sea level rise have yet to be published.

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


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

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: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

Earth's increasing surface temperature will accelerate the inorganic carbon cycle, reducing CO 2 concentration to levels lethally low for plants (10 ppm for C4 photosynthesis) in approximately 100–900 million years.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

The lack of vegetation will result in the loss of oxygen in the atmosphere, making animal life impossible.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

For contrast, today the carbon dioxide levels are at 400 ppm or 0.04%.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

Life on Earth is based on carbon and water.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

As phytoplankton and forests are the main ways in which Gaia draws down greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, taking it out of the atmosphere, the elimination of this environmental buffering will see, according to Lovelock, most of the earth becoming uninhabitable for humans and other life-forms by the middle of this century, with a massive extension of tropical deserts.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is essential to life and to most of the planetary biosphere.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

"High levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide necessary for the termination of global glaciation".


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

"The Worst Climate Pollution Is Carbon Dioxide".


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.


Question: if we halved today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide content, all life would die.

The loss of plant life would also result in the eventual loss of oxygen.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

In the scientific literature, there is an overwhelming consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

Scientists have determined that the major factors causing the current climate change are greenhouse gases, land use changes, and aerosols and soot.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

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: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

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: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

There is a scientific consensus that climate is changing and that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

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: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

Global warming is the result of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations which is caused primarily by the combustion of fossil energy sources such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas, and to an unknown extent by destruction of forests, increased methane, volcanic activity and cement production.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

As stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming


Question: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

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: There is no empirical evidence that increasing greenhouse gases are the primary cause of Global Warming

Media coverage of global warming has had effects on public opinion on climate change, as it mediates the scientific opinion on climate change that the global instrumental temperature record shows increase in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

As measuring technology changes over time, records of data cannot be compared directly.


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

In February 2019, The Western Journal published an article which alleged "Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation."


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

A Climate Data Record (CDR) is a specific definition of a climate data series, developed by the Committee on Climate Data Records from NOAA Operational Satellites of the National Research Council at the request of NOAA in the context of satellite records.


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

The index is also used in studies of climate change.


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

Media coverage of climate change has had effects on public opinion on climate change, as it mediates the scientific opinion on climate change that the global instrumental temperature record shows increase in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

It is a major aspect of climate change and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming.


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

Climate Action Tracker "Domino-effect of climate events could push Earth into a 'hothouse' state".


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

100,000-year problem, a climatological records problem


Question: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation

Because many such phenomena are very sensitive to small variations in climate, especially to temperature, phenological records can be a useful proxy for temperature in historical climatology, especially in the study of climate change and global warming.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

As a result of continued warming, the polar ice caps melted and much of Gondwana became a desert.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

Offshore, temperatures are also low enough that ice is formed from seawater through most of the year.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

Antarctica is the coldest of Earth's continents.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

"Coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth in Antarctica".


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

Antarctica is colder than the Arctic for three reasons.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

"Study concludes Antarctica is gaining ice, rather than losing it".


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

Antarctica is the driest continent.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

Antarctica is intensely cold and arid.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

Antarctica was not always cold, dry, and covered in ice sheets.


Question: Antarctica is too cold to lose ice.

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 Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

The percentage of baby corals being born on the Great Barrier Reef dropped drastically in 2018 and scientists are describing it as the early stage of a "huge natural selection event unfolding".


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the most outstanding coral reef system in the world because of its great length, number of individual reefs and species diversity.


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

The Great Barrier Reef along the coast of Australia experienced bleaching events in 1980, 1982, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2016 and 2017.


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

The Great Barrier Reef can be seen from outer space and is the world's biggest single structure made by living organisms.


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

Coral reefs are one of the most well-known marine ecosystems in the world, with the largest being the Great Barrier Reef.


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

It is found in Australia and the Tanimbar Islands.


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

It is endemic to coral reefs in Australia.


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

Wilson Island (Queensland), an island on the Great Barrier Reef


Question: the Great Barrier Reef is in fine fettle

It is found in the coastal waters of Australia.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

An executive order was issued by President Trump on January 24, 2017 that removed barriers from the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, making it easier for the companies sponsoring them to continue with production.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order aimed towards boosting the coal industry.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

"Executive Order Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal".


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

"LGBTQ Advocates Say Trump's New Executive Order Makes Them Vulnerable to Discrimination".


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

On January 25, Trump signed an executive order, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States", to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General and their departments and agencies to increase the enforcement of immigration laws which included the hiring of 10,000 "additional immigration officers".


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

This can be seen as Trump is right about the impossibility of climate change, has signed executive orders dismantling environmental protections, and has ordered the EPA to remove climate change information from their public site, likely signaling America's unwillingness to acknowledge the future possibility of increased environmental refugees from climate change.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

Donald Trump, the 45th and current President of the United States, has said that "climate change is a hoax invented by and for Chinese."


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

On June 1, 2017, United States President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

President Donald Trump has spoken out against the Green New Deal and has referred to climate change as a “hoax.”


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

U.S. President Donald Trump in his announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on June 1, 2017, also criticized the Green Climate Fund, calling it a scheme to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, is an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017, that places limits on travel to the U.S. from certain countries, and by all refugees who do not possess either a visa or valid travel documents.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, but a number of U.S. states formed the United States Climate Alliance to maintain within state borders the objectives of the Clean Power Plan separately from the federal government.


Question: Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."

In June 2017, Trump announced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, a 2015 climate change accord reached by 200 nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, defying broad global backing for the plan.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C".


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

IPCC authors concluded ECS is very likely to be greater than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) and likely to lie in the range 2 to 4.5 °C (4 to 8.1 °F), with a most likely value of about 3 °C (5 °F).


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report reverted to the earlier range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C (2.7 to 8.1 °F) (high confidence) because some estimates using industrial-age data came out low.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

They also stated that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1 °C (1.8 °F) (high confidence), and is very unlikely to be greater than 6 °C (11 °F) (medium confidence).


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

The estimate is uncertain, but probably lies within 0.5 °C of the true value.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

GISS (NASA): +0.185


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

A temperature interval of 1 °F is equal to an interval of 5⁄9 degrees Celsius.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

Assuming with a reaction order gives value of equal to 0.1.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

The most probable impact angle is 45 degrees.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

for which K = 0.22 at 270 °C or 0.1 at 5 °C.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

Most systems operate within the to degree range.


Question: Their ECS estimate is 1.5 degrees, with a probability range between 1.05 and 2.45 degrees.

In SI units, the Planck temperature is about 1.417×1032 kelvin (equivalently, degrees Celsius, since the difference is trivially small at this scale), or 2.55×1032 degrees Fahrenheit or Rankine.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

Potential methane releases from the region, especially through the thawing of permafrost and methane clathrates, may occur.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

"Methane release from melting permafrost could trigger dangerous global warming".


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

Additionally, the global warming induced thawing of the permafrost, which stores about two times the amount of the carbon currently released in the atmosphere, releases the potent greenhouse gas, methane, in a positive feedback cycle that is feared to lead to a tipping point called runaway climate change.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

Release of methane and carbon dioxide stored in permafrost could cause abrupt and severe global warming, as they are potent greenhouse gases.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

It is thought that permafrost thawing could exacerbate global warming by releasing methane and other hydrocarbons, which are powerful greenhouse gases.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

Melting of this ice may release large quantities of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, causing further warming in a strong positive feedback cycle and marine genus and species to become extinct.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

A vast release of methane might cause significant global warming since methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

Furthermore, permafrost melting will eventually cause methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs.


Question: The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas

When the permafrost melts, it releases carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, both of which are greenhouse gases.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

The current concentration may be the highest in the last 20 million years.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

The present concentration is the highest for 14 million years.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

However, various proxies and modeling suggests larger variations in past epochs; 500 million years ago CO 2 levels were likely 10 times higher than now.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

Carbon dioxide mole fractions in the atmosphere have gone up by approximately 35 percent since the 1900s, rising from 280 parts per million by volume to 387 parts per million in 2009.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

"High levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide necessary for the termination of global glaciation".


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

The National Geographic wrote that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history."


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

Along with the burning of coal, petroleum combustion may be the largest contributor to the increase in atmospheric CO. Atmospheric CO has risen over the last 150 years to current levels of over 390 ppmv, from the 180 – 300 ppmv of the prior 800 thousand years This rise in temperature has reduced the Arctic ice cap to , smaller than ever recorded.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

Human activities have caused CO 2 to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

On 12 November 2015, NASA scientists reported that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human sources continues to increase, reaching levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years.


Question: Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

"Rapid atmospheric CO 2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P.


Question: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.


Question: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

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: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

An increase of global temperature by more than 2°C has come to be the majority definition of what would constitute intolerably dangerous climate change with efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels per the Paris Agreement.


Question: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, recognizing that this would substantially reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.


Question: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

Some researchers have argued that the most serious consequences of global warming might be avoided if global average temperatures rose by no more than 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels (1.4 °C above present levels).


Question: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

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: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

1995 saw the creation of the phrase "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (also called "avoiding dangerous climate change") first appeared in a policy document of a governmental organization, the IPCC's Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. and in 1996 the European Union adopt a goal of limiting temperature rises to a maximum 2 °C rise in average global temperature.


Question: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

In 2015, all (then) 196 parties to the convention came together for the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris 30 November - 12 December and adopted by consensus the Paris Agreement, aimed at limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, and pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.


Question: The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius.

To limit global temperature to a hypothetical 2 degrees Celsius rise would demand a 75% decline in carbon emissions in industrial countries by 2050, if the population is 10 billion in 2050.


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center came to the following conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum."


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

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


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

"Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low—Extreme Weather to Come?".


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

Greenland, Antarctica, and the northern portions of Europe, Asia, and North America are situated such that a minor change in solar energy will tip the balance in the climate of the Arctic, between year-round snow/ice preservation and complete summer melting.


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

Polar regions receive less intense solar radiation than the other parts of Earth because the sun's energy arrives at an oblique angle, spreading over a larger area, and also travels a longer distance through the Earth's atmosphere in which it may be absorbed, scattered or reflected, which is the same thing that causes winters to be colder than the rest of the year in temperate areas.


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

Climate modelling suggests that low solar activity may result in, for example, colder winters in the US and northern Europe and milder winters in Canada and southern Europe, with little change in global averages.


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

Polar regions are characterized by the polar climate, extremely cold temperatures, heavy glaciation wherever there is sufficient precipitation to form permanent ice, and extreme variations in daylight hours, with twenty-four hours of daylight in summer, and complete darkness at mid-winter.


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

"Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming".


Question: Cold weather to grip world as solar minimum to deepen, NASA says

Earth is closest to the Sun (at perihelion) in January, which is summer in the Southern Hemisphere.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

Alpine climate is the typical weather (climate) for the regions above the tree line.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

These climates are in the polar front region in winter, and thus have moderate temperatures and changeable, rainy weather.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

Climatology (from Greek , "klima", "place, zone"; and , "-logia") or climate science is the scientific study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

However, in more recent climate classifications climatologists use the line .


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

Weather is known as the condition of the atmosphere over a period of time, while climate has to do with the atmospheric condition over an extended to indefinite period of time.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

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


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

Scientists attribute extreme weather to man-made climate change.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

Climate is the statistics (usually, mean or variability) of weather: the classical period for averaging weather variables is 30 years in accordance with the definition set by the World Meteorological Organization.Instrumental temperature records have shown a robust multi-decadal long-term trend of global warming since the end of the 19th century, reversing longer term cooling in previous centuries as seen in paleoclimate records.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

Weather is driven by air pressure, temperature and moisture differences between one place and another.


Question: Gone are the days when scientists drew a bright line dividing weather and climate.

There are essentially two definitions of abrupt climate change:


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

Limiting global warming to below 2 °C would imply a reduction in surface ocean pH of 0.16 from pre-industrial levels.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

It is expected to drop by a further 0.3 to 0.5 pH units (an additional doubling to tripling of today's post-industrial acid concentrations) by 2100 as the oceans absorb more anthropogenic CO 2, the impacts being most severe for coral reefs and the Southern Ocean.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

"Ocean Growing More Acidic Faster Than Once Thought; Increasing Acidity Threatens Sea Life".


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) writes in their Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report: "The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the increased uptake of carbon dioxide into the oceans is causing a measurable decrease in the pH of the oceans, which is referred to as ocean acidification.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

Addition of carbon dioxide to the ocean water makes the oceans more acidic.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

Between 1751 and 1996, surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

As a result, the pH in the oceans is declining.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

Rising levels of carbon dioxide are resulting in influx of this gas into the ocean, increasing its acidity.


Question: Last December, the respected  journal “Oceanography” published projections (see graphic below) for this rising acidity, measured by falling pH

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO 2) from the atmosphere.


Question: And their wind and manure emit more than one third of  emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster  than carbon dioxide.

Methane is a strong GHG with a global warming potential 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame.


Question: And their wind and manure emit more than one third of  emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster  than carbon dioxide.

The methane in biogas is 28 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.


Question: And their wind and manure emit more than one third of  emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster  than carbon dioxide.

Methane is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 34 compared to CO2 (potential of 1) over a 100-year period, and 72 over a 20-year period.


Question: And their wind and manure emit more than one third of  emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster  than carbon dioxide.

Compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, methane produces less carbon dioxide for each unit of heat released.


Question: And their wind and manure emit more than one third of  emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster  than carbon dioxide.

While the lifetime of atmospheric methane is relatively short when compared to carbon dioxide, with a half-life of about 7 years, it is more efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere, so that a given quantity of methane has 84 times the global-warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period and 28 times over a 100-year period.