Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



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

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

 


Skeptical Science at EGU 2018 - a personal diary

Posted on 19 April 2018 by BaerbelW

As mentioned in an earlier post, SkS was involved with some sessions at the European Geoscience Union's General Assembly in Vienna held from April 8 to 13. This blog post is my personal recap of some of the sessions I visited and of the two I actively participated in. As I do all my climate-related activities in my spare time the week in Vienna was vacation for me from my actual job in IT. This had the big advantage that I could basically pick and choose which sessions to go to as I didn't have to be anywhere specific apart from the two sessions I presented in. And yes, this may not be everybody's idea of how to spend a vacation, but I consider it time well spend!

As this is a fairly long post, you can jump to the individual days via these direct links:

AustriaCenter

Monday, April 9

As this was my first time at the EGU General Assembly, I figured it would be a good idea to start off with a short course offered specifically for newbie-attendees like myself: How to navigate the EGU: tips and tricks. It made for an early start but was well worth it with giving us all the lay of the land both for EGU  in general and the General Assembly in particular. We learned how the EGU is organised, that it's a non-profit bottom-up organisation with currently about 15,000 members. They had almost 18,000 abstracts submitted for EGU 2018.

To get some more details, I then went to the EGU Planeray session scheduled over lunch, which meant that attendees got treated to some free lunchtime snacks. I wonder if the room would have been quite as packed without those goodies!

Read more...

1 comments


Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming

Posted on 18 April 2018 by John Abraham

With global warming, we can make predictions and then take measurements to test those predictions. One prediction (a pretty obvious one) is that a warmer world will have less snow and ice. In particular, areas that have year-round ice and snow will start to melt.

Alpine glaciers are large bodies of ice that can be formed high in mountains, typically in bowls called cirques. The ice slowly flows downwards, pulled by gravity, and is renewed in their upper regions. A sort of balance can occur where the loss of ice by melting or flowing at the bottom is equal to the gain of snow and ice by precipitation.

As the Earth warms, the melt line moves upwards so that the glacier melts faster and faster at the bottom, shortening the glacier and reducing its mass. Ultimately, the melted water flows into streams and rivers and ends up in the oceans, contributing to accelerating sea level rise.

While glaciers are interesting from an intellectual standpoint, they are also important to ecosystems and society. For example, the rate of glacier melt affects downstream water levels, river flowrates, and the water available for human use. So, it would be really important for us to be able to predict what will happen with glaciers in the future and plan for how water availability will change.

Of the groups that track glaciers, my favorite is the World Glacier Monitoring Service, which publishes a survey of the mass changes from selected glaciers around the world, available here and summarized below. The graph shows changes to the mass of the glaciers that are monitored, measured in millimeters of equivalent water.

glacier mass

Changes to water content of glaciers. Illustration: World Glacier Monitoring Service

Read more...

9 comments


Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial

Posted on 17 April 2018 by DPiepgrass

Continued from Part 1

What they decline to understand

Thousands of climate scientists are working on all kinds of interesting subjects, from glaciology to oceanography to ecology to atmospheric physics. Some pseudo-skeptics don't understand that and seem to have no inkling of what climate scientists actually do.

Others, however, do understand that there's a large and sometimes-maybe-legitimate scientific endeavor going on, and they are happy to learn about some of that stuff, as long as they don't have to accept that human emissions cause warming.


While the land (red) has warmed faster than the ocean surface (blue), sea surface temperatures have the most impact on the global average because oceans cover 71% of earth’s surface. If global warming were caused by internal variability in the oceans (in other words, if the ocean surface warmed up because less cold deep water were being exchanged with it), then sea surfaces should warm as fast as the land. And if global warming were caused by the sun, days would warm faster than nights; in fact the opposite is true. Besides, solar output is measurable and has been decreasing. It is likely that warming in the 1920s and 1930s was caused largely by internal variability, and cooling in the 1950s, 60s and 70s has been attributed largely to internal variability plus aerosol emissions that happened before environmental regulations were introduced to reduce smog. Unlike CO2, aerosols disappear quickly from the atmosphere when emissions stop. So as our air got cleaner, the effect of CO2 became dominant.

Other things they're reluctant to accept include "global warming is dangerous" and "the problem can be solved" (and if you ask me, it isn't even that hard anymore).

The 5 characteristics

Whether the topic is climate change, lung cancer’s link to smoking, vaccines & autism, AIDS or MSG, denial of scientific findings relies on a set of techniques that can be summed up by the acronym FLICC:

Read more...

12 comments


The courts are deciding who's to blame for climate change

Posted on 16 April 2018 by dana1981

There are numerous ongoing legal challenges in an effort to determine who’s responsible for climate change. Exxon is under investigation by state attorneys general, cities are suing oil companies over sea level rise costs, and Our Children’s Trust is suing the federal government for failing to protect their generation from climate change. At the heart of these legal challenges lies the question – who bears culpability for climate change and liability for its costs and consequences?

Like Exxon, Shell Knew

Exxon has been a prime target of these investigations and lawsuits since Inside Climate News’ investigative journalism revealed that the company’s internal climate science research warned of the dangers posed by human-caused global warming since the late 1970s.

Recently, Dutch journalist Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent unearthed internal documents from Shell that began warning of the dangers associated with human-caused climate change 30 years ago. The company’s 1988 report titled “The Greenhouse Effect” warned,

by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even stabilise the situation.

And, particularly relevant to Our Children’s Trust’s lawsuits, Shell’s 1988 report warned of the climate consequences for future generations.

shell

Similarly, in a 1991 film called Climate of Concern, Shell warned,

Read more...

7 comments


2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #15

Posted on 15 April 2018 by John Hartz

Story of the Week... Commentary of the Week... SkS Highlights... El Niño/La Niña Update... Toon of the Week... Quote of the Week... SkS in the News... SkS Spotlights... Video of the Week... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... Climate Feedback Reviews... SkS Week in Review... 97 Hours of Consensus...

Story of the Week...

Climate Change Or Global Warming? Three Reasons Not To Be Distracted By The Name Game

GISTEMP LOTI Anomaly Feb 2018 

 

Social media is an interesting landscape of opinions, confirmation bias (consuming information that supports your beliefs), and expressions of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, a psychological term published in the literature that argues that people think they know more about topics than they actually do. This week two very worrisome but important climate change (or global warming) related studies were highlighted in the media. One study suggested an eastward shift in the well-known climate boundary near the 100-degree longitude line in the United States. This could have major implications for U.S. agriculture; productivity. The other study, actually two of them, revealed a slow down in a major ocean circulation that affects weather-climate patterns. In discussing both on Twitter, a few inevitable "Didn't they change the name to climate change because global warming wasn't happening"  tweets appeared. While this is an oft-stated zombie theory, one that lives on though refuted by scientists, it is worth noting three reasons why you should not be distracted by this tactic.

Climate Change Or Global Warming? Three Reasons Not To Be Distracted By The Name Game by Marshall Sheperd, Science, Forbes, Apr 13, 2018 

Read more...

7 comments


2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #15

Posted on 14 April 2018 by John Hartz

A chronological listing of news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week.

Editor's Pick

Avoid Gulf stream disruption at all costs, scientists warn

How close the world is to a catastrophic collapse of giant ocean currents is unknown, making halting global warming more critical than ever, scientists say

Greenland Ice Sheet 
Other research this week showed that Greenland’s massive ice cap is melting at the fastest rate for at least 450 years. Photograph: Nick Cobbing/Greenpeace 

Serious disruption to the Gulf Stream ocean currents that are crucial in controlling global climate must be avoided “at all costs”, senior scientists have warned. The alert follows the revelation this week that the system is at its weakest ever recorded.

Past collapses of the giant network have seen some of the most extreme impacts in climate history, with western Europe particularly vulnerable to a descent into freezing winters. A significantly weakened system is also likely to cause more severe storms in Europe, faster sea level rise on the east coast of the US and increasing drought in the Sahel in Africa.

The new research worries scientists because of the huge impact global warming has already had on the currents and the unpredictability of a future “tipping point”. 

Avoid Gulf stream disruption at all costs, scientists warn by Damian Carrrington, Environment, Guardian, Apr 13, 2018 

Read more...

4 comments


New research, April 2-8, 2018

Posted on 13 April 2018 by Ari Jokimäki

A selection of new climate related research articles is shown below.

Climate change impacts

Mankind

1. Vulnerabilities and resilience of European power generation to 1.5 °C, 2 °C and 3 °C warming (open access)

"Results show that climate change has negative impacts on electricity production in most countries and for most technologies. Such impacts remain limited for a 1.5 °C warming, and roughly double for a 3 °C warming. Impacts are relatively limited for solar photovoltaic and wind power potential which may reduce up to 10%, while hydropower and thermoelectric generation may decrease by up to 20%. Generally, impacts are more severe in southern Europe than in northern Europe, inducing inequity between EU countries. We show that a higher share of renewables could reduce the vulnerability of power generation to climate change, although the variability of wind and solar PV production remains a significant challenge."

2. Future heat stress arising from climate change on Iran’s population health

3. Heat stress and chickens: climate risk effects on rural poultry farming in low-income countries

"Although these birds are generally known to be hardy, it appears that some losses experienced in rural poultry farming may be a direct or indirect consequence of climate-related stresses."

4. Australian climate extremes in the 21st century according to a regional climate model ensemble: Implications for health and agriculture (open access)

"Applying published heat-health relationships to projected changes in temperature shows that increases in mortality due to high temperatures for all cities examined would occur if projected future climates occurred today." ... "Assuming no adaptation or acclimatisation, published statistical relationships between drought and national wheat yield suggest that national yields will have a less than one quarter chance of exceeding the annual historical average under far future precipitation change (excluding impacts of future temperature change and CO2 fertilization)."

Read more...

1 comments


Sea Level Rise: Some Reason for Hope?

Posted on 12 April 2018 by greenman3610

Scientists​ analyze global sea level rise. Most uncertain of all: How, when humans reduce carbon emissions.

Read more...

2 comments


Climate Science Denial Explained

Posted on 11 April 2018 by DPiepgrass

Lonnie Thompson, a climate scientist, was told by his doctor that he needed a heart transplant.

He denied it. “You’re crazy! I’ve been climbing the highest mountains in the world for…” he paused, mentally counted the decades.

Lonnie loved his job. He hiked up to mountain glaciers at 20,000 feet, to retrieve ice cores with the help of a solar-powered drill. He felt fine — it’s just asthma, he told himself — and as long as he needed a heart transplant, he wouldn’t be allowed to go on any more expeditions. Logically, then, his heart must be fine.

He fought his doctor for two years, and kept going on expeditions. Then while drilling in the Alps in 2011, he couldn’t get up from his tent. He couldn’t breathe. Luckily he was able to go down from the mountain, and return to the U.S. where he was admitted to an emergency room, and put on a heart pump

Read more...

14 comments


EPA’s war with California proves America needs a carbon tax

Posted on 10 April 2018 by dana1981

Last week, Trump’s EPA announced that it will repeal the vehicle fuel efficiency standards set under the Obama administration and replace them with weaker requirements. EPA also threatened to revoke California’s ability under the Clean Air Act to impose its own greenhouse gas standards. If they do so, California’s attorney general will sue the EPA.

Xavier Becerra@AGBecerra

The Trump Administration’s assault on clean car standards risks our ability to protect our children’s health, tackle climate change, and save hardworking Americans money. We’re ready to file suit if needed to protect these critical standards: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-epa%E2%80%99s-assault-federal-greenhouse-gas-emission-standards  https://twitter.com/business/status/980867241565736960 

This lawsuit would be tied up in court for years, and in the meantime California’s more stringent standards would remain in place. Those standards have been adopted by 12 other states, which along with California account for one-third of new car sales in America. Weaker federal fuel efficiency standards wouldn’t much help the US auto industry if they don’t apply to one-third of domestic sales.

The Obama administration set the stricter fuel efficiency standards after the federal government was forced to bail out the auto industry. Struck by the 2008 global recession and a spike in fuel prices, US auto manufacturers, whose fleets were less fuel efficient than foreign competitors, were in dire financial straits. The auto industry thus accepted the federal bailout and didn’t fight the higher fuel efficiency standards – until Donald Trump came into office. California also agreed to the new federal standards in 2008, and now wants to use its Clean Air Act authorization to keep them.

The auto industry has argued that low gasoline prices are the problem, but that’s not a problem they want to solve. In fact, US automakers are in the process of repeating the same mistakes that led to the industry collapse a decade ago:

Read more...

7 comments


New resource: The Fact-Myth-Fallacy slide-deck

Posted on 9 April 2018 by BaerbelW , jg

Many of you will already be familiar with the Fact-Myth-Fallacy structure of a successful debunking. For a refresher, John Cook's post about "Inoculation theory: Using misinformation to fight misinformation" is a good primer on the topic.

FMF-structure

As examples for how to make use of this structure, we have short debunkings of many of the myths covered in our MOOC Denial101x readily available on an overview page, which also includes the relevant video lecture for each of them. The list is also available as a PDF-file:

Read more...

8 comments


2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #14

Posted on 8 April 2018 by John Hartz

Opinion of the Week... Opinion of the Week... Toon of the Week... SkS Spotlights... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... Climate Feedback Reviews... SkS Week in Review... 97 Hours of Consensus...

Story of the Week...

Solar geoengineering ‘too uncertain to go ahead yet’

The world must urgently agree controls on solar geoengineering to weigh up its possible risks and benefits before deciding to go ahead, one expert says.

Solar Geoengineering Brightening Marine Clouds

Brightening marine clouds is one suggested solar geoengineering approach. Image: By Ron Reeves, US Navy, via Wikimedia Commons

Progress to deploy solar engineering, experimental technology designed to protect the world against the impact of the changing climate, must pause, a former United Nations climate expert says, arguing that governments need to create “effective guardrails” against any unforeseen risks.

Janos Pasztor, who served as a UN assistant secretary-general on climate change, is using a speech to Arizona State University, broadast via Facebook Live by ASU LightWorks, 6:30-8pm Arizona time (9:30pm EDT – US Eastern Daylight Time) today, to warn the world that governments are largely ignoring the fundamental question of who should control geoengineering, and how.

There are widespread misgivings, both among scientists and more widely, about geoengineering, with many regarding it as at best a strategy of last resort to help to avoid calamitous climate change.

Mr Pasztor’s warning comes as researchers prepare for what is thought to be the world’s first outdoor experiment on stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), one type of solar geoengineering. The test is due to take place later this year over Arizona.

Pasztor heads the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative(C2G2),  an initiative of the New York-based Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. The Initiative wants solar geoengineering deployment to be delayed until the risks and potential benefits are better known and governance frameworks are agreed.

Solar geoengineering ‘too uncertain to go ahead yet’ by Alex Kirby, Climate News Network, Apr 6, 2018 

Read more...

14 comments


2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #14

Posted on 7 April 2018 by John Hartz

A chronological listing of news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week. 

Editor's Pick

March is 3rd warmest on record, many contrasts

Global Temp Anomaly March 2018 WMO 

March 2018 was the third warmest on record, according to the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting Copernicus Climate Change service.

Although not as exceptional as the values for March 2016 and March 2017, it was in line with the upward trend of 0.18°C per decade seen in global temperature data from 1979 onwards, according to the monthly report.

March 2018 was colder than the 1981-2010 average over almost all of Europe. Only in the far north and over the far southeast of the continent was it warmer than average. Below average temperatures occurred over almost all of northern Russia and over the northern USA and southern Canada.

Within Europe, Spain had 163 mm of rainfall – more than three times the long-term average of 47 mm (1981-2000), making it one of the wettest months of March on record, according to the national meteorological service AEMET.

In France, Mediterranean regions saw two to four times more rain than average. For instance Province-Alpes, the Cote d’Azure and Corsica had the second wettest March after 2013, according to Météo-France. 

March is 3rd warmest on record, many contrasts, Media Release, World Meterologial Association (WMO), Apr 6, 2018

Read more...

0 comments


New research, March 26 - April 1, 2018

Posted on 6 April 2018 by Ari Jokimäki

A selection of new climate related research articles is shown below.

Climate change

1. Consistency of climate change projections from multiple global and regional model intercomparison projects

2. Uncertainty in projected climate change arising from uncertain fossil-fuel emission factors (open access)

3. Skillful climate forecasts of the tropical Indo-Pacific Ocean using model-analogs

Temperature, precipitation, and wind

4. A new integrated and homogenized global monthly land surface air temperature dataset for the period since 1900

Read more...

0 comments


American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensus

Posted on 5 April 2018 by dana1981

Gallup released its annual survey on American perceptions about global warming last week, and the results were a bit discouraging. While 85–90% of Democrats are worried about global warming, realize humans are causing it, and are aware that most scientists agree on this, independents and Republicans are a different story. Only 35% of Republicans and 62% of independents realize humans are causing global warming (down from 40% and 70% last year, respectively), a similar number are worried about it, and only 42% of Republicans and 65% of independents are aware of the scientific consensus – also significantly down from last year’s Gallup poll.

The Trump administration’s polarizing stance on climate change is probably the main contributor to this decline in conservative acceptance of climate change realities. A recent study found evidence that “Americans may have formed their attitudes [on climate change] by using party elite cues” delivered via the media. In particular, the study found that Fox News “is consistently more partisan than other [news] outlets” and has incorporated politicians into the majority of its climate segments.

Americans are gradually becoming better-informed

Nevertheless, public awareness about climate change realities has improved over the long-term. For example, about two-thirds of Americans now realize that most scientists agree global warming is occurring, up from less than half in 1997.

gallup 1

Responses to Gallup survey question asking whether most scientists believe global warming is occurring. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli

Read more...

37 comments


Skeptical Science at EGU 2018

Posted on 4 April 2018 by BaerbelW

Next week, about 14,000 scientists will meet in Vienna, Austria for the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2018. Skeptical Science will make an appearance in a few of the thousands of sessions held from April 9 to 13.

EGU2018

Here are the sessions with SkS involvement:

Stephan Lewandowsky, Kevin Cowtan and Ari Jokimäki are co-authors for an oral presentation given by Stefan Rahmstorf on Monday:

CL2.03
Detecting and attributing climate change: trends, extreme events, and impacts
Convener: Pardeep Pall
Co-Conveners: Alexis Hannart , Seung-Ki Min , Aurélien Ribes

EGU2018-CL2.03

Bärbel Winkler will be one of the panelists in a short course about fighting misinformation convened by Bárbara Ferreira offered on Monday afternoon:

Read more...

0 comments


Scientists examine threats to food security if we meet the Paris climate targets

Posted on 3 April 2018 by John Abraham

We have delayed action for so long on handling climate change, we now can no longer can “will it happen?” Rather we have to ask “how bad will it be?” and “what can be done about it?” As our society thinks about what we should do to reduce our carbon pollution and the consequences of electing science-denying politicians, scientists are actively studying the pros and cons of various emission reductions. 

Readers of this column have certainly heard about temperature targets such as 1.5°C or 2°C. These targets refer to allowable temperature increases over pre-industrial temperatures. If humans take action to hit a 1.5°C target, it means we are committed to keeping the human-caused global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Similarly for a 2°C target.

The lower the target, the smaller the climate change. The smaller the climate change, the better. But is it worth the effort to set lower targets? I mean, if 2°C is good enough, why take the trouble to keep temperatures within 1.5°C?

Fortunately, a new paper just out in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A asks this question. Specifically, they ask “How much larger are the impacts at 2°C compared to 1.5°C?” A follow-on question asked by the authors relates to what conditions occur at a particular level of warming, such as 2°C. This is a really important question because policymakers need to know what it will take to adapt to a 1.5°C world or a 2°C world.

Read more...

6 comments


On climate change, zero-sum thinking doesn't work

Posted on 2 April 2018 by Guest Author

Joseph Robertson is Global Strategy Director for Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Founder and President of the Geoversiv Foundation, and lead strategist in the Resilience Intel initiative.

Democracy is not a zero-sum game. Behaving as if it is degrades democratic process and our personal political sovereignty.

A zero-sum game is a contest for control of finite resources. Whatever one gains, another must lose. When two or more candidates compete for a single public office, only one can win, so many people view politics as bloodsport, applying “winner takes all” thinking to everything political. But elected officials are not conquerors; they are sworn servants to all their constituents.

The beating heart of a free society is the guarantee of personal political sovereignty, safeguarded by transparent institutions, checks and balances, and a free press.

Political sovereignty is informational sovereignty. Disinformation disempowers. Distortion of our informational environment has slowed humanity’s overall effort to eliminate corruption and transcend harmful practices, like those that destabilize Earth’s climate.

peace

Snapshot of the ‘Peace Synapse’ relational synaptic graph of climate, peace and security knowledge relationships, spanning the period 2009-2016. Photograph: Geoversiv Foundation, using the GDELT global knowledge graphing system.

Read more...

34 comments


2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #13

Posted on 1 April 2018 by John Hartz

Story of the Week... Editorial of the Week... Toon of the Week... SkS in the News... Photo of the Week... SkS Spotlights... Video of the Week... Coming Soon on SkS... Poster of the Week... SkS Week in Review... 97 Hours of Consensus...

Story of the Week...

Biggest Threat to Humanity? Climate Change, U.N. Chief Says

Antonio Guterres

António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, said, “I am beginning to wonder how many more alarm bells must go off."CreditGiuseppe Lami/European Pressphoto Agency, via Shutterstock.

UNITED NATIONS — Nuclear weapons? Famine? Civil war? Nope.

The United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, on Thursday called climate change “the most systemic threat to humankind” and urged world leaders to curb their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions.

He didn’t say much, though, about the one world leader who had pulled out of the landmark United Nations climate change agreement: President Trump.

Instead, Mr. Guterres suggested that Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord nearly a year ago didn’t matter much. The American people, he said, were doing plenty.

“Independently of the position of the administration, the U.S. might be able to meet the commitments made in Paris as a country,” the secretary general said. “And, as you know, all around the world, the role of governments is less and less relevant.”

Biggest Threat to Humanity? Climate Change, U.N. Chief Says by Somini Sengupta, Climate, New York Times, Mar 29, 2018 

Read more...

3 comments


2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13

Posted on 31 March 2018 by John Hartz

A chronological listing of news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook page during the past week. 

Editor's Pick

Stanford law and science experts discuss court case that could set precedent for climate change litigation

A closely watched federal trial pitting two cities against major oil companies has taken surprising and unorthodox turns. Stanford researchers examine the case, which could reshape the landscape of legal claims for climate change-related damages.

Oil Refinery

A federal trial pitting two cities against major oil companies could reshape the landscape of legal claims for climate change-related damages. (Image credit: Walter Siegmund/Wikimedia Commons)

A judge in California took an unusual step in trying to untangle who is to blame for increasingly frequent droughts, floods and other climate change-related extreme weather. The case in San Francisco is weighing the question of whether climate change damages connected to the burning of oil are specifically the fault of the companies that extract and sell it.

The judge in People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al. had both the plaintiffs – the cities of Oakland and San Francisco – and the defendants – several major oil companies – answer basic questions about climate change in a tutorial format. Counter to what some might have expected, an oil company lawyer largely confirmed the consensus science on the issue, but challenged the idea that oil companies should be held accountable.

Stanford Report spoke with Katharine Mach, a senior research scientist at the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Science, and Deborah Sivas, the Luke W. Cole Professor of Environmental Law, to get their perspectives on the climate tutorial, the science in question and the role of the judiciary in confronting climate change challenges. 

Stanford law and science experts discuss court case that could set precedent for climate change litigation by Rob Jordon, Stanford News, Mar 30, 2018 

Read more...

13 comments



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

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