# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.
**CLICK HERE TO SEE STUNNING ICEBERG IMAGES**
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.

"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.

"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an 'independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.'

He added: "There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.

"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

"There has been no warming over 18 years."

The IPCC argue their research shows that man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable.

US News and World Report noted that many of the world's largest businesses, including Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Nestle, Mars, Monsanto, Kellogg, General Mills, Microsoft, and IBM, "are now engaged and actively responding to climate science and data."

Mr Coleman's comments come as President Barack Obama came under fire from climatologists as federal data revealed The United State's energy-related carbon pollution rose 2.5 per cent despite the President's pledges to decrease it.

President Obama told 120 world leaders at the United Nations climate summit last month that America had done more under his watch in cutting greenhouse gases than any other country.

Despite this, the Energy Information Administration's Monthly Energy Review showed an increase in the use of energy from coal.
World leaders have pledged to keep the global average temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.

The US, along with the UK and other developed countries, is expected to pledge further actions on climate change early next year.

Climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University, supported Mr Coleman's claims.

He added: "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production.

"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

The 2010 InterAcademy Council review was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
This article originally referred to John Coleman as a top meteorologist; that reference has now been removed. It also claimed that in 2010 a high-level inquiry by the InterAcademy Council found there was "little evidence" to support the IPCC's claims about global warming. In fact, the InterAcademy Council had not found that. The article has now been amended.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Warming: So, What's the Big Deal?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Describes how small changes over a long period of time can lead to big problems, in terms of global warming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Atmospheric CO₂

411.31
parts per million (ppm)

Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (Scripps UCSD)

Preliminary data released June 4, 2018

January Global Temperature Change*

Rankings: January 1880 - January 2018
Comparisons with 20th Century Global Average Surface Temperature
(Temperatures are not compared with a pre-industrial baseline)

Rank

Year

Change in
Temperature*

Warmest January

2016

+1.06°C +1.91°F

5th Warmest January

2018

+0.71°C +1.28°F

Coolest January

1893

-0.67°C -1.21°F

Data retrieved:
March 12, 2018

*Surface temperature changes relative to 20th Century global average (1901 - 2000) Source data NOAA-NCEI State of the Climate: Global Analysis [
Web + data download]

The January 2018 temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). January 2018 marks the 42nd consecutive January (since 1977) and the 397th consecutive month (since January 1985) with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average. This was the fifth highest temperature for January in the 1880-2018 record. The last four years (2015-2018) rank among the five highest Januarys on record. The global land and ocean temperature during January has increased at an average rate of +0.07°C (+0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase is twice as great since 1975.

...

La Niña was present across the tropical Pacific Ocean during January 2018. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, A transition from La Niña to ENSO-neutral will most likely occur during the Northern Hemisphere spring (Southern Hemisphere autumn). [ NOAA global analysis accessed March 12, 2018].

"The science is sobering-the global temperature in 2012 was among the hottest since records began in 1880. Make no mistake: without concerted action, the very future of our planet is in peril."

~ Christine Lagarde, Managing Director
International Monetary Fund
[ video][ text]

NOAA's global analysis: "2016 became the warmest year in NOAA's 137-year series. Remarkably, this is the third consecutive year a new global annual temperature record has been set. The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). The global temperatures in 2016 were majorly influenced by strong El Niño conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the year.

This marks the fifth time in the 21st century a new record high annual temperature has been set (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and also marks the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average. To date, all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the seventeen warmest on record (1998 is currently the eighth warmest.) The five warmest years have all occurred since 2010.

Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970." [ NOAA global analysis for 2016 accessed March 6, 2017].

"Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much."

~ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies [ NASA post of January 20, 2016]

Before the end of 2015, scientists projected that average global temperature increase for 2015 will exceed 1°C above pre-industrial levels. The years 1850-1990 are used as the pre-industrial baseline by the MET Office and Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. The MET Office released this statement in November 2015:

"This year marks an important first but that doesn't necessarily mean every year from now on will be a degree or more above pre-industrial levels, as natural variability will still play a role in determining the temperature in any given year. As the world continues to warm in the coming decades, however, we will see more and more years passing the 1 degree marker - eventually it will become the norm."

~ Peter Stott
Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution (MET Office)
>> Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Atmospheric CO2 411.31 parts per million (ppm) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (Scripps UCSD) Preliminary data released June 4, 2018 January Global Temperature Change* Rankings: January 1880 - January 2018Comparisons with 20th Century Global Average Surface Temperature(Temperatures are not compared with a pre-industrial baseline) Rank Year Change in Temperature* Warmest January

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What the science says...

Currently, humans are emitting around 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. Around 43% remains in the atmosphere - this is called the 'airborne fraction'. The rest is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans. While there are questions over how much the airborne fraction is increasing, it is clear that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically. Current CO2 levels are the highest in 15 million years.

The 'airborne fraction' refers to the amount of human CO emissions remaining in the atmosphere. Approximately 43% of our COemissions stay in the atmosphere with the rest being absorbed by carbon sinks. But is the airborne fraction increasing? A paper published in November 2009 found no statistically significant trend ( Knorr 2009). Anthony Watts labeled this result the " Bombshell from Bristol" - A potentially devastating result for anthropogenic global warming. Was it such a shock? The 2007 IPCC verdict on the airborne fraction was "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." (IPCC AR4) I'm not sure the move from "not much happening" "to "still not much happening" warrants the label "bombshell".

The airborne fraction is calculated from the rate of human CO emissions and changes in atmospheric CO concentration. The global increase in atmospheric CO has been directly measured since 1959 and can be calculated from ice cores for earlier periods. Primarily, CO emissions come from fossil fuel combustion with a lesser contribution from land use changes. Fossil fuel combustion is calculated from international energy statistics. CO emissions from land-use changes are more difficult to estimate and come with greater uncertainty. Land use emissions are estimated using deforestation and other land-use data, fire observations from space and carbon cycle modeling.

There have been several recent studies determining the airborne fraction. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide (Le Quere 2009) examines the airborne fraction from 1959 to 2008. This period was chosen as we have directly measured atmospheric COlevels over this time. Fossil fuel emissions rose steadily in recent decades, contributing 8.7 ± 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. This is 41% greater than fossil fuel emissions in 1990. CO emissions from land use was estimated at 1.2 ± 0.4 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. Note the proportionally higher uncertainty compared to fossil fuel emissions.

Over this period, an average of 43% of each year's CO emissions remained in the atmosphere although there is much year-to-year variability. The noise in the airborne fraction was reduced by removing the variability associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic activity. They found the airborne fraction increased by 3 ± 2% per decade. This is a slightly increasing trend although only barely statistically significant .

Knorr 2009 extends this analysis back to 1850 by combining direct CO measurements from Mauna Loa and the South Pole with CO data derived from Antarctic ice cores. This enabled Knorr to compare CO emissions to atmospheric CO levels for the past 150 years.

Figure 1: Observed increase atmospheric CO2 derived from direct measurements, taking the average of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and the South Pole (thin solid line) and two ice cores: Law Dome (dashed thin line) and Siple (thin dotted line). This is compared to total anthropogenic emissions (thick solid line) and 46% of total emissions (thick dashed line). (Knorr 2009)
Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has eemained relatively constant. When COemissions were low, the amount of COabsorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low. As human COemissions sharply increased in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature increased correspondingly. The airborne fraction remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade.

There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when Knorr does include this filtering in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant.

Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is possibly a recent phenomenon due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability after becoming saturated. Several studies have found recent drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans ( Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007 , ). However, with such a noisy signal, this is one question that will require more data before being more fully resolved.

Lastly, some perspective. There are still areas of uncertainty associated with the carbon cycle. Because of this uncertainty, scientists are currently debating whether the airborne fraction is steady at 43% or slightly Increasing from 43%. Unfortunately, some skeptics use this uncertainty to hold the position that the airborne fraction is closer to 0%.

Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook

Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Additional videos from the MOOC

Andy Skuce: The CO2 rise is man man-made

Interviews with various experts

Expert interview with Corinne Le Quéré

Last updated on 8 July 2015 by pattimer. View Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Currently, humans are emitting around 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year. Around 43% remains in the atmosphere - this is called the 'airborne fraction'. The rest is absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Kyoto Protocol - a simple explanation of what it is and how it is intended to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that fuel global warming related climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits it...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Methane: The other important greenhouse gas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas -- it damages our climate when it's released during natural gas production and distribution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most Americans recognize climate change, but some are still unsure about its causes.

Tens of thousands of scientists in more than a hundred nations have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion:
Humans are the main cause.
We're the ones who burn fossil fuels and clear trees that absorb carbon dioxide, sending heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

It's like the smoking-cancer link

No one questions the link between smoking and cancer, because the science was settled in the 1960s after more than 50 years of research.

We can think of the state of human activities and climate change as no different than smoking and cancer.

In fact, we are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer.

So what's the evidence?

The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

1. Simple chemistry - when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)

2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)

4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)

5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)

6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)

7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)

8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)

9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

Addressing the skeptics

Skeptics sometimes point to the last two supporting lines of evidence as weaknesses. They're not.

But even if you choose to doubt them, it is really the first seven that, combined, point to human activities as the only explanation of rising global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, and the subsequent climate changes (such as ice melt and sea level rise) that have occurred due to this global warming.

The sooner we agree the science is settled, the sooner we can work together toward addressing climate change - and a better future for us all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most Americans recognize climate change, but some are still unsure about its causes. Tens of thousands of scientists in more than a hundred nations have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion: Humans are the main cause.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global warming and climate change are science's odd couple - you hardly hear one mentioned without the other. But much like the confusion that surrounds climate science, this pair is often misunderstood and misused. Let's take a look at what each of these two terms really means, and how (even though they're often used as synonyms) they're in fact two very different events.

The incorrect interpretation of climate change: A change (usually an increase) in our planet's air temperatures.

The true definition of climate change is just as it sounds, a change in long-term weather trends - be that rising temperatures, cooling temperatures, changes in precipitation, or what have you. By itself, the phrase carries no presumptions about how the climate is changing, only that a change is occurring.

What's more, these changes could be the result of natural external forces (like an increase or decrease in solar sunspot or Milankovitch Cycles); natural internal processes (like volcanic eruptions or changes in ocean circulations); or human-caused or "anthropogenic" effects (like the burning of fossil fuels). Again, the phrase "climate change" doesn't specify the reason for the change.

The incorrect interpretation of global warming: Warming due to a human-induced increase in greenhouse gas emissions (like carbon dioxiode).

Global warming describes an increase in Earth's average temperature over time. It doesn't mean that temperatures will rise by the same amount everywhere. Neither does it mean that everywhere in the world will get warmer (some locations may not). It simply means that when you consider the Earth as a whole, its average temperature is increasing.

This increase could be due to natural or unnatural forces such as an increase in greenhouse gases, particularly from the burning of fossil fuels.

Accelerated warming can be measured in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Evidence for global warming can be seen in retreating ice caps, dry lakes, increased habitat reduction for animals (think of the now-infamous polar bear on a lone iceberg), global temperature rises, shifts in weather, coral bleaching, sea-level rise and more.

If climate change and global warming are two very different things, why do we use them interchangeably? Well, when we talk about climate change we're usually referring to global warming because our planet is currently experiencing climate change in the form of rising temperatures.

And as we know from monikers like "FLOTUS" and "Kimye," the media loves blending words together. It's easier to use climate change and global warming as synonyms (even if it is scientifically incorrect!) than it is to say both. Perhaps climate change and global warming will get its own portmanteau in the near future? How does "clowarming" sound?

If you want to be scientifically correct when talking climate topics, you should say that Earth's climate is changing in the form of global warming.

According to scientists, it is highly likely that both are being driven by unnatural, human-caused reasons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Climate Change and Global Warming the Same Thing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global warming and climate change are science's odd couple - you hardly hear one mentioned without the other. But much like the confusion that surrounds climate science, this pair is often misunderstood and misused. Let's take a look at what each of these two terms really means, and how (even though they're often used as synonyms) they're in fact two very different events.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What the science says...

There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.

Global Warming vs. Climate Change

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:

'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. These projections of future global precipitation changes from the 2007 IPCC report are an example of climate change:

Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

Both Terms Have Long Been Used

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:

And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:

No Reason to Change the Term

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It's time for us to start talking about "climate change" instead of global warming and "conservation" instead of preservation.

"Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Summary

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne
Update July 2015:
Here is the relevant lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Additional video from the MOOC

Expert interview with Richard Alley

Last updated on 8 January 2017 by pattimer. View Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'.

# data[].attributes.body
Global warming s causes climate changes. Global warming refers to the the rising average of the global temperature in Earth. Climate change refers to the actual climate such as the amount of precipitation, heat waves, droughts. and other types of weather.

Burning fossil fuels, and deforestation are causing the Earth to get hotter. And releasing greenhouse gasses.

Weather changes have always been there. But there ways to avoid damaging the environment by just recycling and buying local produce.

There are ways to adapt to it. For instance, California is going through one of it's worst droughts ever. And they have to limit the water they use. People can be fined for over-sing water.

The kyoto protocol is designed to to ratify at least 55% of the greenhouse gasses. It's an agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change.

Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere are increasing each year.

global warming may not be a big deal right now. Just because it's not as big as other p-roblems we have. I feel like it should be a big deal because in the future our kids will be paying the price.