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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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.

Recent Comments

Comments 1 to 50:

MA Rodger at 03:33 AM on 31 March 2020

Milankovitch Cycles

mkrichew @32elsewhere,

The inclination of our slightly-less-than-round Earth doesn't appear to impact the area subject to insolation by very much. The Earth's dimensions are given as a polar minimum radius of about 6,357 km and an equatorial maximum radius of about 6,378 km. If we were to consider the Earth as an elipsoid with these dimensions, its area facing-the-sun with a pole pointing at the sun would be just 0.3% greater than with the tropics-facing-the-sun but that would be assuming the axis is tilting through 90º relative to the sun and staying there throughout the year. Yet the actual change in tilt is nothing like 90º and is only fully acting at the solstices.

The tilt varies between 22º & 24½º through its 40,000 year cycle, so just a 2½º variation, and that inclination is achieved relative to the sun only at the solstices, twice a year. So the increase in Earthly area facing the sun would vary by perhaps (0.3% x 3% x 70% =) 0.006% or a forcing of very roughly 0.015Wm^-2. That's only about 4-months-worth of AGW so not exactly significant. And bear in mind the bigger winter/summer temperature range at the two poles resulting from any increase in tilt. That would firstly see more energy leaking away into space (as the energy loss to space is T^4 so a constant temperature is more energy-efficient than hot-summer:cold-winter) and secondly the albedo change from the greater area of winter snow will reduce solar warming. These two cooling effects should well-exceed the warming from the greater earthly area catching the sun from there being a greater axial tilt.

(Note also the calculated effect of orbital eccentricity in the link @54 is 0.167%, some 30x greater. Even with this larger increase in insolation leads John Baez to the conclusion "if changes in eccentricity are important in glacial cycles, we have some explaining to do.")

One Planet Only Forever at 02:31 AM on 31 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

A significant reason to stop using concrete block is that cement production is a significant source of excess CO2.

If new materials for making things like concrete blocks sustainably are developed, Then and only Then, should the block building approach be used for new structures.

Until that sustainable block is developed actual sustainable ways of building need to be employed.

For tall structures where block building systems are not practical, wood structures are indeed being built as a sustainable alternative to steel and concrete. An example is the recently built 18 storey structure on the University of British Columbia campus.

However, I think it would be better if all new structures were limited to something like 8 storeys. The shorter structures can have all floors reached by current day fire-rescue ladders. And water services can be delivered to the top without the need for mid-height water reservoir and pump stations (The pressure needed to pump water to the top of a taller building requires impractical pressure resisting water system features at the base of the building).

Another benefit of shorter buildings is that many people would be capable of climbing up to the 8th floor. That would reduce the power demand for elevators. And reduced energy demand by people is an important part of the changes required for sustainable development.

michael sweet at 22:48 PM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

I live in Florida. Many homes and commercial structures here are built using concrete block. Presumably that is because block is hurricane resistant (there are also a lot of manufactured homes because they are cheap). You use what works best where you live.

Properly managing forests and using the wood to build structures would be a good idea even without cliamte change. Undoubtedly properly managed forests would yield more money. I hear that forests in Europe are better managed than forests in the USA. Does anyone here know the facts about forest management in various parts of the world?

JoeZ at 21:55 PM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

nigelj,

I suspect wood will always be prefered for building over cement/mud/straw. We can have "wood products" while increasing carbon storage in forests. There is now a movement to build very tall buildings with wood rather than steel using cross laminated timber (CLT): https://info.thinkwood.com/clt-handbook and https://www.archdaily.com/922980/is-cross-laminated-timber-clt-the-concrete-of-the-future and many other web sites. It's beautiful, sustainable, and the wood holds carbon.

scaddenp at 11:50 AM on 30 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

I have responded to mkrichew in the appropriate place.

scaddenp at 11:48 AM on 30 March 2020

Milankovitch Cycles

Responding to comment here.

Perhaps you need to spell why you dont "beleive" in Milankovich cycles since the cycles themselves are extremely well observed in astronomy and the effect of the cycles on the insolation hitting the earth is readily calculated. Ie this is not some hand-wavy speculation. From memory, Milankovich did the calculations by hand while in prison so not too daunting. The detail of the maths and the results are detailed here (among many other places) - see bottom of the page.

The match of the variation of insolation at 65N from Milankovich and the glacial cycle as revealed from ice cores and benthic forams is extraordinary. Any competing theory would need to do at least as well.

mkrichew at 08:25 AM on 30 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

Thank you for your kind response. As you may have guessed I am the author of the Mike Krichew Theory of What Causes Ice Ages which I wrote sometime after Al Gore released his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" and conservative elements responded as President Trump did, suggesting a conspiracy. At the time I suggested a comet tail reflecting sunlight might account for the increased insolation that would warm the oceans causing an increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels which would warm the atmosphere and further warm the oceans. At the time I was not much of a believer in the Milankovitch cycles theory. However, the other day it occurred to me that if the earth is indeed an oblate speroid or ellipsoid in shape then it may be possible for the earth to present different size cross-sectional areas to the sun during the cycle. This would result in different insolations. Someone with a talent for mathematics might show the different cross-sectional areas if it has not already been done. Someone else with an interest in celestial science might calculate where the minimums and maximums of cross-section occur and plot them on the slightly sinusoidal graph of climate change over time. If there is any correlation, it should then be possible to calculate and model the increased insolation that occurs during the cycle. If this has already been done, a reference would be nice.

Moderator Response:

[TD] Please copy and paste your comment into a relevant thread you find by typing Milankovich into the Search field at the top left of the page--for example, this one.

nigelj at 05:52 AM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

There are several ways of reducing use of timber. You can build nice sustainable homes with mud bricks or straw bails, and only use timber for the roof framing, so this means we are increasing the amount of timber in a forest (although that must surely reach a limiting factor) but still milling some for the roof. It also means we can expand the area of forests more easily.

The trouble is mud brick homes are expensive, because they are labour intensive. I'm not sure how to overcome this.

The other solution is concrete block homes, again just with timber roof framing. Concrete block is really good, very hurricane resistant, but again is a little bit more costly than timber framed homes, and people go for the cheapest option that has the biggest area, which is timber framing. It is also rather significant in carbon content.

Given the climate problem one solution might be for governments to give people tax credits if they build with mud bricks. There might not be many takers at first but it might lead to innovations which reduce costs.

JoeZ at 02:20 AM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

Just to clarify- when I said above 6,000 acres of forest destroyed to build solar farms- I should have said just in tiny Massachusetts. I don't have the figures for 2018-2020 but they're popping up faster than before. I did a rank amateur video of the construction of a solar farm behind my neighborhood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4&t=5s

JoeZ at 22:47 PM on 29 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

WLU, also, trees evaporate vast amounts of water which has a cooling effect.

JoeZ at 22:44 PM on 29 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

Wilddouglasscounty, all of your concerns are intensily discussed and debated here in New England and have been for many years. I've been involved with these debates for decades. I've been promoting a kind of forestry that will produce wood for our economy while having the overall amount of wood in the forests always going up- (with the harvesting being very carefully done) -not as fast as they would with no forestry industry- but it's a tradeoff. I don't think anyone wants to build a home with cement or have plastic furniture or no paper products. But it's a tough fight- there are still logging enterprises which prefer to butcher the forests, there is a huge demand for more housing and many who'd like to continue with urban sprawl, and much forest land is currently being totally destroyed for solar "farms"- about 6,000 acres between 2012 and 2017 according to a recent report by Mass. Audubon.

MA Rodger at 06:35 AM on 29 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

mkrichew @30,

I would say it is a bit lax to substitute 18 for 19 within the OP but given the situation the OP describes, it makes zero difference to the argument presented. The "19 billion tons" figure in the OP is described as "roughly" the ΔCatm required to give a +2.4ppm(v) increase which is given as the rate of CO2 increase "recently."

We could be more precise and say that a +2.4ppm increase would require ΔCatm = 18.7 Gt(CO2), but given the wobbles caused by ENSO to the annual increase in atmospheric CO2, it is impossible to be that precise about it. The OP was written in 2012 and the source of the MLO CO2 data cited ESRL give a value for the 2012 annual MLO CO2 increase as +2.61ppm = 20.4Gt(CO2) although if the average of the 12-month increases through 2012 is used to calculate a value the result is +2.20ppm. Or if the ESRL Global data is used instead of MLO data, ΔCatm for 2012 is given by ESRL as +2.39ppm while tha average of the months yields +2.00ppm =15.6Gt(CO2). Or an alternative source of the value would be the Global Carbon Project's 2012 ΔCatm of 5.07Gt(C) = 18.6Gt(CO2) (altough note the 2012 LOC emissions are a long way from zero which is the assumption made in the the OP).

WLU at 06:30 AM on 29 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

By planting trees not only is carbon sequestered from the air but the radiant energy from the sun it is turned into chemical energy rather than thermal energy. While planting trees will produce a darkened landscape they will not respond like a landscape of darkened rocks. Rocks absorb the radiant energy from the sun and heat up radiating in the infrared which is blocked by greenhouse gasses causing global warming. Green plants don't do this. They tend to inhibit global warming.

mkrichew at 05:06 AM on 29 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

mkrichew:Having difficulty understanding how 2.4 ppm change annually ( or 19 billion tons ) atmospheric CO2 translates to delta Catm = 18 billion tons.

One Planet Only Forever at 01:13 AM on 28 March 2020

Aggressive action to address climate change could save the world $145 trillion

nigelj's point is an important awareness and understanding. Additional awareness and understanding is that wasted food can be put to better use ... but there is no Profit to be made doing that.

I have taken left over platters of food from meetings and conferences to a nearby charity that provides food or shelter. And there are some restaurant operators who donate their end of day food, prepared foods that they can't keep to sell the next day, to charity.

And in several cities in Canada charitable groups have recently set up the ability to get grocery store food that would otherwise be wasted delivered to people who 'need food', people without the wealth to afford adequate basic food or shelter or clothing or a job that pays enough - many of the desperate work a job or even 2 but do not earn enough for a decent life - and the most desperate are the excess people that the economy has no use for.

The people doing this good work expend their personal effort without earning any money. And that is the root problem. Charitable efforts are often not profitable. They certainly do not earn the return on investment that Investors look for ... immediate high rates of personal return being more desired than benefits for others in the future. And that is the root of the insidiously incorrect application of 'Discount Rates' to evaluations of the merit of correcting harmful unsustainable economic developments like the burning up of non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons.

nigelj at 12:34 PM on 27 March 2020

Aggressive action to address climate change could save the world $145 trillion

"In developed countries, consumers throw out excess food"

Yes, however much is also wasted in the supply chain. Supermarkets often throw out anything past its best before date, although such food is still edible and generally fine, and damaged or not perfect looking fruit and vegetables is often thrown out because its hard to sell.

Haiburton42 at 04:53 AM on 27 March 2020

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #12, 2020

"accidentaly trickling sand into a precision gearbox"

What a hook!

One Planet Only Forever at 03:56 AM on 27 March 2020

Aggressive action to address climate change could save the world $145 trillion

In addition to the Public Health Savings that are not part of the calcualtion, more rapid reduction of climate change impacts and reducing the maximum impact would reduce suffering and save lives in developing nations.

Climate change threatens the sustainability of regional food production and provision of safe water. Reducing the magnitude of climate change reduces the costs of trying to reduce the suffering and save the lives of those negatively affected.

Reducing climate change impacts would make it easier and cheaper to achieve and improve on all of the Sustainable Development Goals. And that is a Very Good Thing, contrary to the interests of pursuers of perceptions of superiority relative to Others in competitions for popularity and profit.

wilddouglascounty at 00:01 AM on 26 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

Re: Comment #1 (and others)

I agree that spending money to stabilize traditional Rainforest management practices and communities would be an excellent investment, far better than monoculture tree planting efforts for the lumber industry or planting pell mell across all biomes and hoping for the best.

Much of eastern North America has "resprouted" on its own, i.e. pioneering tree species with no particular lumber value have cropped up in many an abandoned fields that were cleared of forest centuries ago during the initial settlement of the United States and much grassland in central North America, at least on the wetter eastern tallgrass prairie sections, have also "gone woody" due to the removal of fire as a management tool to maintain those grasslands.

I wish foresters across these areas would have some very important conversations on how to manage these otherwise ignored landscapes as part of the equation too. They are not only adapting to climate changes too but could play an important role in transitioning ecosystems in addition to their role of locking up carbon. For instance, what would enable these non-economic woodlands to better provide safe harbor, green corridors and food habitat for the many other species of animals who are having to transition their habitats poleward/up slope/from south to north slopes? How can these "lower quality" woodlands and non-native grasslands be transitioned into viable green corridors that interconnect highly fragmented native remnants which would otherwise face local extinction as they are surrounded by agricultural/suburban/urban land use patterns?

So making use of existing vegetation needs to be central to the issue of carbon sequestration by living organism, as they are already there, can no doubt have enhanced carbon fixing properties by tweaking management practices, and provide additional ecological services.

And the issues of fragmentation and green corridors for safe passage is a worldwide issue, not restricted just to North America. So planting a trillion trees should also be done in a way to fit into what is already on the ground, and placed to "fill in the gaps" that exist after looking at the all that is already present.

Eclectic at 17:31 PM on 25 March 2020

There is no consensus

TVC15 , if you have time for a 20-minute youtube video, then you might enjoy Potholer54 : "How to argue for science (and have fun!)" .

Potholer54 is always good value, and usually entertaining. His style of "debate" is consistent, and I can't recall any climate denier getting the better of him. The typical denialist is psychologically stuck in concrete and won't change or admit error . . . but there will always be some ambivalent onlookers (who may well be swayed by Potholer's fact-based line of reasoning).

Potholer is currently up to 52 videos on climate; plus many on Evolution; and a few more general ones of interest.

WUWT is a fascinating study in itself, demonstrating the abysses of human intellectual insanity, in rampant form. But I am undecided whether it is a force for evil, in magnifying & "echo-chambering" the nonsense and anger of the anti-science extremists & paranoid Conspiracy Theorists . . . or whether it is indirectly a force for good (in allowing a public venting-space for wackos who would otherwise spend time elsewhere, physically "acting-out" their anti-social urges).

As MA Rodger mentions above, the denialists seem to be gradually trying to re-classify themselves as Climate Realists. Laughable, to be sure . . . but let's hope such semantic shenanigans will keep them occupied in establishing their own consensus about their "label" (instead of getting up to more mischief in the public space).

TVC15 at 15:30 PM on 25 March 2020

There is no consensus

Thanks MA Rodger and Electric! I can only predict that the climate deniers that I tango with will start parroting Heartlands misinformation campaign...especially the WUWT fans here in ‘Merica.

swampfoxh at 12:32 PM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

May we hear from an authority on phytoplankton's contribution to oxygen production and its current state in the ocean regarding acidity and shell forming prospects?

william at 06:34 AM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

So many measures we take such as not using plastic straws or plastic super market bags or even planting trees are feel good measures which simply distract us (or are designed to distract us) from the real problems and their solutions. Clearly, we simply have to rapidly decrease our use of fossil fuels. But to do this we have to stop our politicians from doing everything they can to keep us using fossil fuels. To do this is simplicity itself. We must stop them receiving money from the fossil fuel industry (and of course, from other harmful vested interests). Then there is a chance that they will start to act for us, the people who have elected them and who actually pay their salaries and not for their election finceers.

https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/01/wasted-effort.html

Moderator Response:

[DB] Self-promotional advertising link snipped.

John Wise at 00:31 AM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

JoeZ: I didn't find it negative, but it is cautionary, and aimed at those who might think that all we need to do is plant trees, or who think that trees can be planted anywhere and thrive. The diminishing of the albedo of the far north by planting there was news to me(mind you, it is still so cold and dry there that few trees would grow).

RedBaron at 00:26 AM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

As I have stated many times here at Skeptical Science, this is the wrong biome.

Trees do have their ecosystem functions and obviously protecting and restoring forests is a good thing, but it is not the biome responcible for cooling the planet. Thus this is more like using AGW as an excuse to plant trees rather than an actual solution designed to reverse AGW.

I am glad Dana Nuccitelli wrote about the flaws in using the wrong biome to reverse AGW, but I am surprised how resistant people are, even here.

Allan Savory has come on this very site and tried to explain it. Probably by far the best expert scientist on the planet regarding grasslands restoration and how this in fact is the correct biome to accomplish the task.

I myself have posted significant numbers of published science when and where I can find it. And I have been doing this for years here.

We can even trace the original tree planting idea back to a "merchant of doubt" denial and obfuscation proposed by Freeman Dyson. He did have some minimal expertise, but not really in the climate science field long enough to be considered a reliable source.

Yet this "tree planting" myth still persists over actual working scientists that have dedicated their entire lives to this one specialty? I am always confounded by this. Is it really so hard to understand that carbon on the surface is more likely to decay back into the atmosphere than stay sequestered long term as the carbon deep below the surface? Is it so hard to understand that C4 grasslands have much higher albedo, lower humidity from transpiration, and much higher efficiency of photosynthesis, while putting all these "ecosystem services" under the surface where they are protected?

I have no problems with planting trees when and where we can, but really this is not helping much.

And please. Lets be honest here. The real reason the grasslands solution is being ignored or discounted is due to all the prime bits of land being already in intensive agricultural production. Oh and by the way the very reason they are "prime bits of land" is generally because of the very fact they were at one time either grassland or savanna and have already sequestered vast amounts of carbon before we plowed them up. In fact they already did what the pseudoscience claims is imposible.

I really seriously can't understand why of all places on the web, at least you guys can't get this very important part of climate science right. And please don't just delete of mod clip this post. Because if you'll just answer at least I can go try and find you some good citations to address them.

Moderator Response:

[DB] As you well know, discussions surrounding Savory and his claims belong on more appropriate threads (here or here).

Off-topic, sloganeering and moderation complaints snipped.

JoeZ at 23:02 PM on 24 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

"It seems like such a simple, straightforward, empowering idea: plant trees – a lot of trees – all over the world, and watch the planet’s temperature fall." I seriously doubt anybody has said that- so what's the point of being negative? Planting lots of trees- in the right areas- with the right mix of species is a good thing. Supporting this idea would be more productive than having a negative attitude about it and again, nobody is saying it's going to cool the climate. As a forester for 47 years and still working- I say planting trees and better managing forests is a win-win for everyone. By the way, that Yale site doesn't allow comments- though its sister web site "Yale 360" does.

JohnSeers at 17:44 PM on 24 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

"Figure 3: Other comprises ... Mexican dishes ..."

Mexican dishes!? Why Mexican? Why are Mexican dishes singled out?

Is this a disparaging comment on Mexican food? :)

One Planet Only Forever at 12:12 PM on 24 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

Responding to Duncan @8, in addition to RedBaron's @10.

In Yuval Noah Harari's book "Sapiens" he provides a very compelling explanation for what caused the extinction of the very large animals that used to roam Australia ... Homo Sapiens arrived.

RedBaron at 11:53 AM on 24 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

@ 8 Duncan,

Seasonal migration of marsupial megafauna in Pleistocene Sahul (Australia–New Guinea)

There were of course many more kangaroo and wallaby species, but also Diprotodon optatum, Nototherium, and others which were analogous to the large migrating herds in Africa, Asia, N & S America.

John Hartz at 05:40 AM on 24 March 2020

It's the sun

Recommended supplemental reading:

Electroverse article incorrectly claims the Sun is behind climate change, Edited by Scott Johnson Climate Feedback, Mar 18, 2020

One Planet Only Forever at 03:45 AM on 24 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12

nigelj,

The pithy statement you shared is sort of OK. It is mysteriously silent regarding the real problem which is the harmful powerful resistance to limit or correct unnatural human developed economic activity. It fails to make the essential point that human economic desires can be very harmful.

In the COVID-19 and Climate Change cases the real problem has become bigger than it needed to become because of efforts by many of the Highest Status people to not have the understood required actions 'reduce the perceptions of status they have obtained through the unnatural human developed economic activity'. Leadership delaying 'economic impacting actions' has made things worse.

What is becoming abundantly undeniable is that the artificial (unnatural) human developed socioeconomic-political systems have a powerful tendency to produce harmful unsustainable results and a powerful resistance to being corrected that makes the ultimate correction worse than it needed to be (people in the future suffering worse than they needed to, because of current moment concerns about reducing developed economic status perceptions).

Specifically, the developed systems need to be corrected so that human developed economic activities naturally fit in as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life on this, or any other, amazing planet. And that includes developing systems that are flexible to allow required rapid adaptations to the surprises that come with the Wonders of Nature. That is what the Sustainable Development Goals are all about.

An associated important correction is the need to end beliefs that humans are somehow independent of Other Life, with the worst aspect of that gross misunderstanding being the beliefs that everyone is an Individual who should be free to beleive whatever they please to excuse trying to benefit from doing something understandably harmful to Other Life. Versions of that gross misunderstanding are the root of many, if not all, of the harmful Tribal problems that develop.

nigelj at 17:13 PM on 23 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12

OPOF @2, yes there are huge parallels between covid 19 and climate change. Just been reading a couple of parallels on another website and here's one, and this is a good pithy one:

"Someone told me that coronavirus was essentially “climate change on fast track,” noting how, despite what the experts said, pundits and politicians were calling it a “hoax,” and when that failed they said it was “under control,” and when they finally realized action needed to be taken they were caught wholly off guard. Essentially COVID-19 is the story of anthropogenic global warming on speed." (its fairly obvious what country is being talked about)

What you say is true, although it varies around the globe. Asia has put health above short term business interests and acted very fast and intelligently, and used testing kits that actually work. Although the same can't be said for their climate change efforts.

Everyone is waking up after seeing whats happening in Italy. Perhaps theres some xenophobia in that China is viewed as still a bit backward and such a thing couldn't happen in Europe. Well it has happened in Europe and they haven't coped as well as China and S Korea (although part of it is Italy's aging population as well as their complacency and perhaps the desire not to upset business as usual for the 'elite')

Hopefully we don't have to wait for climate change to achieve the equivalent horrific status to Italy before something robust is done.

One Planet Only Forever at 13:07 PM on 23 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12

nigelj,

I see correlations between the items you linked and the climate change challenge.

Major reasons the attempts to limit the rate of spread of COVID-19 have not been as successful as they needed to be and could have been are:

the initial harm was happening to Other people far away.
the potential for personal experience of harm was remote
the actions to actually effectively limit the spread required 'harm to developed economic activity' and 'harm to perceptions of superiority of the winners in the developed economic games'.

The harm of COVID-19 was also increased because when it did start to appear 'locally' there was a developed resistance to 'correcting how people lived to reduce harm to Others or reduce the risk of harm to Others combined with a belief that the ones not correcting how they lived would be OK'. After all, 'only a Few Local Others' were the ones being affected.

A related part of the problem is the plethora of unjustified beliefs that some cure or vaccine will be developed rapidly enough to be the solution. Even USA President Trump made the tragic damaging mistake of promoting a made-up claims about existing malaria treatment.

There are parallels in the climate change challenge.

The main problem is the powerful desire to not compromise the perceptions developed by the economic game playing that created the problem.
The game of popularity and profit had developed powerful support for resistance to the required helpful changes.
The excuse of hope in the development of new technical solutions

The result for climate change, as with COVID-19, is the problem becoming more harmful than it needed to become.

JoeZ at 06:05 AM on 23 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

If everyone became a vegetarian, far less land would be needed for food production. I and my wife are semi vegetarians. We buy organic beef and turkey at Whole Foods (which is mostly locally produced) so we can occaisionaly have beef taccos and turkey meat loaf. I suspect we eat much less meat than most Americans. I'm very physically active at the age of 70 so I think some meat will help balance my diet- plus I like the taste of quality meat though not on a daily basis.

Land no longer used for meat production could be restored to forest and "natural grasslands" which would sequester a great deal of carbon. I say all this though I'm admitedly a bit of a climate skeptic. At least I do have a very low carbon footprint- small car, small house, don't buy much, don't fly in jets and I do think vegetarianism or the semi version is good for health and if everyone did it- there is no downside. We'd be a much healthier nation more likely to solve national problems.

Eclectic at 18:23 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Sorry Duncan, but you are still not giving any real evidence that the scientists are ignoring data.

Science is published in peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals. Not by Al Gore or Christopher Monckton or Tony Heller in shonky crap like Breitbart or NoTricksZone or WattsUpWithThat.

Reputable scientific journals, Duncan, where it gets examined and criticized by experts. The data can also be extensively discussed on reputable websites (such as this one).

If you are having problems in understanding the real factual state of things, Duncan, then it is likely because the real scientists know something that you don't know about climate. The scientists are not ignoring data. And so far, you have not demonstrated any data that they are (allegedly) ignoring.

Duncan, you are well off-topic for this thread, which concerns CO2 and Warming. If you can find some genuine examples of what you believe is ignored information /data, then please bring it to everyone's attention in the proper thread for that topic.

duncan61 at 16:09 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

I will pick sea levels,The actual tide reading at locations around the world are real and recordable but the NASA data is different and the modelling even wilder.Its hard to take it serious when predictions are made but do not come true in real time.I have access to claims that areas where I live would be underwater by 2020.Well can we agree its 2020 and the areas are still there and not flooded.I was wrong about the sea levels in Fremantle they have gone up 200mm but its over 160 years and the sea is lower at French Guyana.The magnetic poles are moving and undersea volcanoes occur plus localized silting.There is a claim here locally that the land is sinking because we are using a lot of groundwater for consumption.You can easy find all the data online or would you like me to post pictures with wriggly lines on it.I am keen to find the truth and need some actual proof.On another forum a poster showed before and after pictures of a glacier the first is from 1940 and its all iced up the second is recent and it shows all the ice gone except on the top of the mountain.The only problem I picked up on was the second photo is clearly much closer than the first and the water level is way down on the first photo where they were standing at the edge of the lake.The second photo they would have been 30 feet under and it is definitely the same place.That individual never posted again once I pointed this out.Makes it hard to take it for real.What do you have.Claims based on what should happen.Can anyone in the universe show me where its flooded and not Norfolk because that always floods on the spring tide.I have seen pictures of 1940 airbases on pacific Islands that are only 1 metre above sea level and they are still there

Moderator Response:

[DB] You are off-topic. There are thousands of posts here on virtually every subject pertaining to climate change science, each with it's own discussion thread. Use the Search tool to find the most appropriate one. If you persist in being off-topic, as you have been, your posting privileges will be rescinded. There will be no further Warnings on this matter.

Off-topic snipped.

Eclectic at 14:25 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Duncan, I ask again :-

Please specify the actual real time data which the scientists ignore /misinterpret.

duncan61 at 14:07 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

I reread the question.NASA sea level data does not corelate to the actual tide data around the globe and its different by a lot.There is no relationship with alledged climate change and bushfires in Australia.I live here and it has happened as long as I can remember.Its all about reducing fuel load.We dont get fires in the middle of the country cos there is nothing to burn

Moderator Response:

[DB] Off-topic snipped.

duncan61 at 14:03 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

I looked at all the historic records for all the major cities in Canada and there has been no change.It should of started by now.I am keeping it simple and would have to go back to the source but all the predictions for as early as 2000 have not come true.The show I saw was filmed in a basement in Manhattan which according to the modelling should be under water but it is not.The data for the extreme change is all being fudged and you cant do that.I will be surprised if I am allowed to ask these questions and expect to get Moderated

Moderator Response:

[DB] Conspiracy-thinking, ideology and off-topic snipped.

Eclectic at 13:35 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Yeah right, Duncan.

Please specify the actual real time data which the scientists ignore /misinterpret.

Yes, deniers do sometimes look at the data ~ they see it, but they do not observe it. [courtesy: Sherlock Holmes]

duncan61 at 12:39 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

I am interested in the climate debate and have noticed a pattern where the pro camp resort to insults and continue to claim its science where the deniers tend to look at the actual real time data regarding warming,sea level etc.You see it should have started happening by now.Curious? feel free to insult me

Moderator Response:

[DB] Ideology, fake-ad-hominem and off-topic snipped.

duncan61 at 12:30 PM on 22 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

The vast herds of herbivores that once grazed worldwide are gone. In many cases like in Australia most are extinct and never coming back. In other cases remnants exist but it would be virtually impossible to bring back huge herds 10’s of millions strong.

I feel compelled to ask what herbivores are now extinct in Australia.I know we have more Kangaroos than when Captain cook landed.There are Water buffalo going out of control in the north and camels in the middle that became such a problem in 2013 the Government commisioned pros to cull out as many as possible by helicopter.Its too remote to transport live or proccessed meat.Donkey and wild horses are culled by fitting a tracking collar on one and calling it a judas then regular culls are undertaken leaving the Judas alone as they herd up.Just curious as to what is extinct I know wallabys are culled in Tasmania In the west we do Reds and Greys but no wallaby species

nigelj at 08:28 AM on 22 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12

Stumbled across a couple of really useful things related to covid 19. Off topic but perhaps this can be indulged given the circumstances. This commentary by a panel of medical experts gives an astonishing behind the scenes insight into the codiv 19 problem. This article is a science based review of whether vitamin and mineral supplements and other supplements might help the fight against covid 19.

It will be interesting to see whether reduced travel and so on bounces back after covid 19 diminishes, or whether there's a permanent reduction in tourism. Some commentators are predicting the later.

Climate change will arguably be just as destructive as covid 19, only the time frames differ. Use self isolation to swot up on climate science and mitigation and recycling.

MA Rodger at 05:04 AM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

SDK @399,

You provide the link to Allmendinger (2017) 'The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative' and say it is featuring on denialst sites. This should not be a great surprise as Allmendinger (2017) is a pack of nonsense, pretty-much like the rest of the content of denialist websites. There is a post about this particular pack of nonsense at …and Then There's Physics. Apparently Allmendinger paid $519 for his vanity publication.

Another grand work from the same author was 'published' a few months later, 'The Real Cause of Global Warming and its Implications', and a further work with a similar title is also listed in his biog but appears to have disappeared with a defunked website. Other works are listed here. I would suggest the only reason for examining them would be to gain a better insight into the mind of a lunatic obsessive.

SDK at 03:33 AM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

What is this? It appears to pop up on the denier blogs these days.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-refutation-of-the-climate-greenhouse-theory-and-a-proposal-for-ahopeful-alternative.php?aid=88698&fbclid=IwAR2gACyQb0Go0cRXogTIWxLcO5KsaMASUV-iOee95d6rMlW9YX9QDyLI2Oo

scaddenp at 18:48 PM on 21 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

No, I was looking further down in your original healthline article. Since we dont eat a lot of meat, we recently checked our intake against CSIRO guidelines. 1.2g/kg was regarded as minimum for older adults.

nigelj at 12:47 PM on 21 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

Scaddenp @4,

"56gm/day is what is needed so you dont fall ill from defiency. A lot more is needed to maintain good health and adequate muscle-mass especially as you age."

I'm not so sure. Read this reference its from NZ (coincidence). Only certain groups of people need more.

Maybe you are thinking sort of subconsciously that 56 grams or protein equals 56 grams of meat. A grilled steak at 135grams is only 35 grams of protein (which surprises me), so you would need about one 150 grams steak a day which is fairly decent size, plus a bit of protein from vegetables and brown bread etc.

But plenty of people currently eat more meat than this each day, with meat sometimes at every meal.

That said, really low meat consumption and veganism doesn't ring true to me environmentally. Quite apart from what Red Baron says, eliminating grasslands for cropping or forests creates yet more loss of diversity and natural habitats in the natural world.

RedBaron at 12:06 PM on 21 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

How much would becoming everyone becomming vegan reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions? Most likely none, but at best maybe 5%.

However, that’s not the full story because many ecosystems that could mitigate global warming are currently under the plow in order to provide feed for the most inefficient agricultural system we humans have yet to devise, factory farming of animals. When you include this destruction of ecosystem services on land primarily used to grow commodity grains for factory farms and biofuels, the number jumps to about 15%- 20% reduction in emissions and even more considering lost ecosystem services due to land use change.

So at first glance it may seem like a great idea just to eliminate all domestic animal production and return those vast prairies back to the native grasses found before we plowed them up. The problem with this is that the grasses eventually become moribund and choke themselves out. They then either create huge grass fires or simply die.

Walker et al. (1981) and Ruess (1987) and many more report that light grazing may stimulate grass growth, and lead to a higher biomass. This increase is probably due to the induction of tiller formation of perennial grasses (Tainton 1999). On the other hand, if grazing is too light, a significant amount of dry, moribund material may remain at the end of the season, causing the grasses to shade themselves.

The importance of herbivory

We could try burning that material. But that of course releases the CO2 and CH4 right back into the atmosphere, kills vast numbers of animals, and even can make a bad problem even worse. Don’t believe it? Ask Australia.

fires with Kangaroo

image courtesy New York Times

What to Read on Australia’s Bushfire Crisis

So you see it is entirely possible to both overgraze and to undergraze. Both cause ecological damages. This is where the Vegan argument breaks down. Here is why:

In 1871, an American soldier named George Anderson send a letter to his sweetheart describing a herd he saw in Kansas.

“I am safe in calling this a single herd,” he wrote, “but it is impossible to approximate the millions that composed it. It took me six days on horseback to ride through it.”-George Anderson

Buffalo Holocaust

Can you even imagine a herd of wild bison like that roaming through say… Wichita, Kansas today? It could take days crossing major interstates connecting east with west. You think rush hour gridlock is bad. Try a week long traffic jam! That kind of numbers just isn’t possible even if we did stop growing corn and soy to feed animals and biofuels for cars.

So since it is impossible for us to completely restore those vast wild herds, and it is also impossible to restore the prairies without removing old moribund material because the top successional grasses just die or burn. That leaves us with only one solution. We actually need domestic animals raised properly to restore the habitat. If we do that we can restore much needed hapitat for dozens of endangered species.

Grassland Birds: Fostering Habitats Using Rotational Grazing

“As the small trickle of results grows into an avalanche — as is now happening overseas — it will soon be realized that the animal is our farming partner and no practice and no knowledge which ignores this fact will contribute anything to human welfare or indeed will have any chance either of usefulness or of survival.” Sir Albert Howard

However even that’s not the whole story, because far from causing AGW, animal production done properly can actually sequester vast amounts of carbon in the soil through the grasslands symbiosis networks.

Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

So amazingly a very significant problem suddenly becomes our biggest chance for a solution! All we need to do is change the way we raise those domestic animals, and instead of causing global warming, they could potentially reverse it!

“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory

And it is not just cows either. Savannas, open woodlands, forests etc all need animal impact to function as healthy ecosystems. They too can be restored with domestic animals raised properly!

"The pigs do that work (by rooting in the forest and that creates the temporary disturbance on the ground that allows germination for higher successional species.) And so it allows for those pigs to be not just pork chops, bacon, and that. But now they then become co-conspirators and fellow laborers in this great land healing ministry ... by fully respecting the pigness of the pig." Joel Salatin

In fact there isn’t an ecosystem on the planet that doesn’t need animal impact in order to make it sustainable. This is important to understand if we are really trying to develop sustainable agriculture. The good news is there are new improved methods for every major food world wide! All we need to do is make the change.

Can we reverse global warming?

"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labor; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison

Vegans are well meaning and I support their personal choices, but there is a much much better path forward that allows vegans to eat what they like and the rest of us to eat what we like, and both will mitigate Global Warming.

scaddenp at 07:43 AM on 21 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

56gm/day is what is needed so you dont fall ill from defiency. A lot more is needed to maintain good health and adequate muscle-mass especially as you age.

nigelj at 07:32 AM on 21 March 2020

Is becoming vegan the best thing people can do to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?

The average sedentary male only needs 56 grams of protein a day, the average sedentary woman is 46 grams discussed here! Several credible websites I looked at had these or very similar numbers. This is much less protein than people typically consume in western countries.

That said, I agree with the article that veganism doesn't appear a justified response to the climate issue. For example low density open grasslands cattle farming appears to be carbon neutral or even sequesters carbon, and has never to my knowledge caused a global warming problem in the historical past. The problem appears to be the rapid growth of high density cattle farming in the last 50 years or so generating a lot of methane. IIt all suggests lower meat consumption is wise, but not zero meat consumption.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments