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 6101 to 6150:

Bob Loblaw at 05:55 AM on 18 February 2021

Gillett et al. (2021) global warming attribution study

Jasmesh:

Your statement " I cannot imagine..." is an argument from incredulity. It carries no weight. I don't even know what "the process" is that you are talking about.

If you have specific things to state related to specific aspects of climate science, please use the Search function to find a topic, and place comments on that topic.

Your comments should deal with something raised by the blog post - if not, it's probably off topic there and you need to find another topic. This topic does not discuss distant geological time - only the recent past.

jamesh at 05:11 AM on 18 February 2021

Gillett et al. (2021) global warming attribution study

I appologe for the snarky remark. Will abide with the rules next time.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Offtopic. Maybe start with "Co2 levels were higher in the past" but more detail on past CO2 and past climate on many other threads. Use the Search button on top left or review the "Arguments" page.

jamesh at 05:05 AM on 18 February 2021

Gillett et al. (2021) global warming attribution study

I am an engineer by training and experience, so I do have a scientific

background. At this time, I want to point out a few scientific facts. The first

is from a text on historical geology. They list all of the geologic divisions

from the permian going back about 350my to the cambrian. We know

that most of the carbon that is sequestered in geologic formations was

deposited as coal, limestone and shale during that period. Also the

atmosphere benefited by O2. I think it is obvious that the process would

have required a lot of CO2, which everone knows is the product of

volcanic action. I cannot imagine that any scientist would alledge that

CO2 has the power to drive the process, but be my guest.

James h. shanley, environmental safety engineer

Wol at 09:21 AM on 17 February 2021

Tips on countering conspiracy theories and misinformation

Sorry - retraction: I see that clicking downloads the .pdf! Didn't notice the little green arrow.....

Wol at 09:19 AM on 17 February 2021

Tips on countering conspiracy theories and misinformation

The links to the English versions merely point to the same page, and viewing the image has such a low resolution that it's unreadable

Bob Loblaw at 08:31 AM on 16 February 2021

It's waste heat

Yes. Another give-away is the use of the term "equivalent climate change..." in front of each "boundary layer" term in the text I quoted.

Equivalent to what?

Equivalent to Finnegan's Finnagling Factor, or Cook's Constant, or less formally, the Fudge Factor - the ratio between what he really got and what he wanted to get.

"If I put these totally unrealstic coefficients into my model and label them like something real, I can fit global temperatures."

Tamino's blog is full of take-downs of this sort of curve-fitting.

Of course, we true curve fitters know that the real explanation is Pirates.

MA Rodger at 07:12 AM on 16 February 2021

It's waste heat

Bob Loblaw @202,

There is, of course, the old SkS favourite when debunking nonsense like this - the identification of curve fitting. The grand modelling exercise carried out by Bian runs 1965-2018 and shows a pretty constant increase in FF+nuclear Primary Energy and also in surface temperature.

Look more closely and, of course are we are familiar with this, the surface temperature was flat for the first few years of this period and indeed was effectively flat 1940-1970. But FF+Nuclear Primary Energy was rising at a costant rate from 1950 with a far slower rise prior to that. So pre-1965 Bian's curve-fitting would be looking a lot less than a good fit.

Global Priamry Energy

Bob Loblaw at 01:17 AM on 16 February 2021

It's waste heat

MA Rodger:

You dug further than I had the time to do. I did look at the web page for the 2019 article, and I saw that is has information on the review. I did not take the time to examine the article or the reviews, but it may be entertaining to do so.

I did look at the editorial board for Environmental Systems Research and did not see a single name I recognized, so it's hard to know what their background is.

The International Journal of Environment and Climate Change is also an unkown entity. Searching Beall's List of Predatory Journals there are 690 hits for "International Journal of" and 4 hits for "International Journal of Environment", but "International Journal of Environment and Climate Change" is not on it. BIan's article from 2019 is listed as being in volume 9, and the journal seems to go back to 2011. The publisher (Science Domain International) is on Beall's list, though.

https://beallslist.net/

https://beallslist.net/standalone-journals/

MA Rodger at 23:43 PM on 15 February 2021

It's waste heat

Bob Loblaw @200,
The craziness engendered in this thesis set out in both Bian (2019) 'The Nature of Climate Change-equivalent Climate Change Model’s Application in Decoding the Root Cause of Global Warming' and Bian (2020) 'Waste heat: the dominating root cause of current global warming' is profound. Other than having access to more recent data, the second account sets out nothing new that I can see, and there is little point in spending much time examining such madness.
I note the citations made by the second account (which are quite sparce) include two to SkS webpages, this one and 'What does past climate change tell us about global warming?'.
So from this SkS webpage the author does appreciate that the global primary energy use amounts to just 1% of the positive forcings from AGW. Indeed, this disparity he considered too small as, in the universe inhabited by Qinghan Bian the energy employed in "useful work" is somehow swept from the planetary climate system and will not contribute to a planetary energy imbalance. Given the "perspective of thermodynamics" invoked at this point in the narrative, the blundersome efforts of Qinghan Bian seem to know no bounds.

You point to the climate being modelled as having a pond-depth of ocean and a similar height of atmosphere. Adopting such nonsense allows temperature increases to be equated to global Primary Energy Use (bar the 20% that magically disappears in "useful work").
The earlier account gives annual values for the energy employed heating the various components of the planet. Thus in 2017 there is 1,500Kj x 10^14 warming the ocean surface layer. The OHC measurements give the 0-2,000m warming for 2017 as a little low relative to earlier years, averaging out at 7.8Zj annual. So in Bian-money, that is 78,000Kj x 10^14.
Some may consider this comparison a little unfair given ΔOHC is usually seen as being perhaps 80% of the heating resulting from AGW. This would put the total planetary on-going warming at some 100,000Kj x 10^14 which would compate with the 4,000Kj x 10^14 of Bian but only if the global temperature rise so far is ignored. The +1ºC extra planetary temperature which requires maintaining. If this AGW-delivered-so-far is also factored in, the extra energy flux out into space would be balancing 3.7Wm^-2 of forcing/feedback (and presumably with a ration of perhaps 1:2) giving a figure for the global forcing (20Zj balanced forcing+ 10Zj imbalanced forcing still heating) at 300,000Kj x 10^14. So very roughly the 1% value of [Primary Energy Use]/[AGW] appears again.

Bob Loblaw at 12:27 PM on 15 February 2021

It's waste heat

I have only taken a quick read of the paper, and I know nothing specific about the journal, but the paragraph on "Past Simulations" says the following (emphasis added):

It is revealed that (Bian 2019) an equivalent climate change surface air boundary layer with a depth between 50 and 100 m (also referred to as the depth’s lower and upper layer limits), an equivalent climate change waters surface boundary layer with a depth between 0.1 and 0.2 m, and an equivalent climate change land surface boundary layer with a depth between 0.05 and 0.1 m can well characterize their respective temperature changes due to the heat entered air (Fig. 2), oceans and land from human activities. The simulations at these depths are well consistent with the observed temperature anomalies in these three components (Bian 2019). These depths are referred to as equivalent climate change boundary layers’ depths.

The values for "boundary layer" depths are absurdly small for use in determining global temperature changes.

50-100m of atmosphere is about 1% of the total atmosphere.
Average ocean depth is about 3700m, so 0.2m is about 0.005% of the total ocean volume. (If we only think in terms of the ocean mixed layer, which is roughly 60-100m deep,the 0.2m figure is less that 0.3% of the total.)
On an annual basis, land surface temperature changes extend to about 10 depth, so 0.1m is about 1% of that volume. (Over decades, the temperature changes would extend to greater depths, making 0.1m a smaller %.)

The paper appears to model global temperature changes assuming that the waste heat is confined to those small portions of the earth-atmosphere system, and concludes that waster heat therefore "explains" global temperatures. As those very small proportions of the system are only a very small proportion of the amount that actually is heating up, the conclusion is absurd.

It is the equiivalent of saying that the heat from a candle is capable of warming the air in a shoebox by X degrees, so when my house warms by X degrees the candle is the explanation (and the furnace is irrelevant).

If someone can find some redeeming portion fo the paper that does any better, feel free to post it. The sole reference to the model used seems to be to another paper by the same author. It did not seem worth the effort to obtain it.

bervin75 at 09:20 AM on 15 February 2021

It's waste heat

I found a 2020 article on this topic. It makes disparaging comments on the entire science of climate change based on the fact that we havent been able to stop the impact yet through our current efforts. It discloses in the ethics section that it was completed by a guy at home in his spare time, so I also assume there is no reputable peer review. I am just wondering if SpringerOpen online publishing is known to be a reliable, questionable, or downright fraudulent in whatbit published. Here is the link to the report. Thanks. Best regards. Brock

https://environmentalsystemsresearch.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40068-020-00169-2

Moderator Response:

[BL] Link activated.

The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.

BaerbelW at 05:46 AM on 15 February 2021

Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

Klemet @10

Could you please get in touch via our contact form and we'll figure out how to best proceed?

Thanks!

Rob Honeycutt at 03:30 AM on 15 February 2021

Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

Over the years I've had a number of friends who tried to become vegetarian and failed. It wasn't for lack of trying or lack of discipline. They said their meat cravings became very intense after going veggie. Their bodies were telling them they needed it.

Humans have been omnivorous for many hundreds of thousands of years. As I've read, our control of fire and access to calories through hunting game is largely responsible for the evolutionary development of our large brains. Suffice to say, to expect all of humanity to go vegan is to swim against a very strong current.

We are going to have to find ways to reduce the impacts of animal agriculture coming decades, but as Michael Sweet points out, it's probably going to require economic benefit. Companies like Beyond Meat seem to be taking that strategy to heart.

michael sweet at 21:28 PM on 14 February 2021

Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

Klemet,

Even if becoming a vegan was a huge benefit to the climate problem I doubt that very many people would choose to become vegans. People like to eat meat. Very little renewable energy was being built until it became economic. They are not building record amounts of wind and solar in Texas to save the world. They do it to make money. I think that if we tell people that becoming a vegan is required to mitigate climate change they will just say no. Most people will not become vegetarians when they are told it will improve their health. Why would they become vegetarians to try to save the world?

All the future energy plans with no CO2 emissions that I have seen include agriculture producing meat at the current rates. A frequent poster here at SkS says that using the Savoy method of raising livestock you can sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil. Do we really have to become vegans?

My brother's family were vegetarians while raising their children. They are well educated and ate balanced meals. Their two children are both shorter than the parents. To the casual observer it appears their height was stunted by their diet.

Good luck with your vegan message. I think that we need to concentrate on messages that are more easily sold to the general public. Like build out more renewable energy because it is the cheapest source of power and will cost less.

Rob Honeycutt at 08:48 AM on 14 February 2021

Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

Klemet... For me, becoming a vegetarian was more of a health decision I made for myself at the age of 21. Originally, I tried being a very strict vegetarian, for no other reason, I think, than youthful enthusiasm for the idea. Later, I spent a summer bicycle touring in the Alaska interior and was faced with eating fish on a number of occasions. Fish is a ridiculously healthy dietary choice, so I became what I believe is now called a "pescatarian." (Though, for me the nuances of labels is like arguing angels dancing on pin heads.)

Later, I married a woman from China, which comes with a whole host of dietary adventures. One year we were in Chongqing for Chinese New Year. My wife's 80 year old grandmother got up at probably 5am on New Years day and proceeded to make pork dumplings for the entire, large extended family, as was obvious she'd done for most her entire life. I was faced with an interesting decision: do I say, "No thanks, I'm a vegetarian" or do share in this beautiful aspect of my wife's family and culture? The decision was simple to make.

Ultimately, I believe diet has to be a personal decision for people. I believe it drives people away to tell them they're bad if they do one thing or another. Too often I see veganism taking that approach and I think it does more damage than good. Too often I've seen vegans trying to make the case that becoming vegan is a panacea for fixing climate change, when it's just not.

On the issue of full supply chain, I would disagree. Consider a world where overall diet remains unchanged but we completely decarbonize buildings, and surface and air transportation (yes, I know, big challenge on air, but consider it). Essentially, decarbonizing buildings and transportation are untethered to animal agriculture. So, what then is the impact of animal agriculture? I'm pretty sure you're back down to something on the scale of single digit percentages of current carbon emissions.

Klemet at 05:49 AM on 14 February 2021

Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

@Rob Honeycutt : I apologize if I misunderstood your question, Rob. I'd say that I haven't see the IPCC clearly stating "animal agriculture is responsible for X% of emissions" anywhere; but as they use the FAO's numbers in their repport on the issue (which leads to their conclusions on the question, specifically about the sustainability of a vegan diet), I thought that this was enough of an endorsment.

Regarding the rest of your comment, I'd say that you perfectly point out why we see so many different numbers when we talk about the impacts of animal agriculture on GHGs emissions, or on over environmental issues (e.g. water, land-use, etc.).

Personnaly, I'm more of a "full supply chain" kind of person. For example, many questions and debates arise about the quantity of ressources (e.g. water) needed to produce a pound of meat/milk/etc. Advocates of animal agriculture will say that it's not that much, especially when it comes to water; but when you take into account that crops and forage has to be given in huge quantities to the animals in question (and that a lot of these ressources/energy are "wasted" as base metabolism, rather than becoming part of their bodies/secretions that we then eat), this changes everything. However, from my point of view, it is hard to argue that these crops and forage would be produced if not to be eaten by those animals. Hence, I deem it a part of the impact that animal agriculture have, just as transportation/building aspects. Might be naive of me, though.

Concerning the nutritional value of whatever is used to replace, I fully agree. That's why I'm always fond of expressing GHGs emissions or environmental impacts per calorie or gram of protein rather than in kg of food produced.

Still, and I might be wrong on that, but I think that we're starting to have a concensus on those aspects. Conclusion of articles such as the one from Poore and Nemecek are echoed in other meta-analysis (like the one from Clark and Tilman), and it kind of makes sense from my point of view : if you want to eat things coming from a step above in the "food chain" (i.e. animal bodies or secretions), then you have to contend with the fact that a huge amount of energy/ressources given to the species you feed are not going to become "food" for you, but are going to be lost in the transition from one step of the chain to another (e.g. metabolism, etc.). If I remember my ecology lessons, while the notion of "food chain" is now obsolete, there was still talk of about 80% of energy lost from one step to another (e.g. plants to herbivores, herbivores to primary carnivores, etc.). I don't know if this number still holds up today; but in any case, that makes for a low-yield ressources wise, which is what is reflected in those conclusions, I believe.

40 years of being vegetarian is a pretty long time, though ! I don't want to ask to much personal questions in comments, but I'd be very curious to know what got you to change such a long time ago, where vegetarian diets were not the trend that they are today. But I do agree with you that science on the topic is very often misguided, and use as a weapon rather than as a learning tool. I guess that it's such an emotional topic though that it is to be expected. In my experience, listening to the fears that can arise from both sides (e.g. the fear of having animal products labelled as illegal in the future, or the fear of knowing that animals are killed without good reasons) can lead to some defusing of the issue.

@BaebelW : If help if needed to maybe re-write some things or propose a more precise alternative, please let me know. Skeptical Science is a site I greatly admire, and as a PhD student, I should be able to write a proposition in a relatively proper manner. I imagine that authors must already have a ton of work on their hands, and I don't want to add to much to it. Still, thank you very much for the consideration, and thank you for all of your good work !

BaerbelW at 03:32 AM on 14 February 2021

Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

Thanks everybody for your comments, which we'll need some to time to assess, given all the feedback and references included and the volunteer nature of our team.

wilddouglascounty at 00:48 AM on 14 February 2021

Scientists sceptical of new bat study linking climate change to Covid-19 emergence

It is probably safe to say that anthropogenic induced changes in ecosystem composition have been major contributors to the changes in bat species in the region concerned, with climate change, habitat destruction, human population increases and related infrastructures both in this region and surrounds being in the mix of variables at play.

I mean, really, is there not a place on the planet where human habitat destruction hasn't been a significant variable in determining the range and species composition of any given ecosystem? And the same with the shift in climate? Trying to attribute causality to either one or the other is kind of like attributing heads on a coin to the exclusion of the tails on the same coin.

michael sweet at 16:23 PM on 13 February 2021

2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells

I misspoke in post 23. There were hundreds of monthly records in the "Summer in Winter". Since it was winter no all time hot records were set. the summer was still hotter than the winter.

michael sweet at 16:18 PM on 13 February 2021

2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells

John Hartz,

Reading your link and then searching a while online I see reports that the cold spell you report is the coldest in Europe in the last 10 years. I found a report that one country set a cold record in a different cold spell in the middle of January.

Going to the National Climate Data Center (USA national) they have a record temperatures page. Settting the page on global records (they do not have a European only page) I see in the last week there were 837 cold records and only 273 daily high records. In the harder to achieve monthly records there were only 12 low records in the past 7 days with only 2 high records. There was only 1 all time cold record globally in the last 7 days and no hot records.

Trying to measure a longer time in the past year there were 50,000 daily cold records and 109,000 hot records, hardly an ending of global warming. For monthly records there were 2100 cold records and 7,000 hot records. For all time records there were 32 cold records and 487 all time hot records.

In Europe last week it was cold compared to the past 10 years of hot weather. It was normal weather for 100 years ago. The denialists can only remember the past ten years so they think it is cold when it is really not. In addition, they often say record snow means it is cold. Record snow is not the same as record cold. Science predicts that in a warming world there is more precipitation. In cold areas that means more snow.

By contrast, the Summer in Winter in the USA and Canada (in March 2012) produced thousands of daily records and hundreds of all time records. In some locations the low temperature at night was higher than any previously recorded high temperatures!

Of course, regular readers of SkS are already aware of this. The NCDC records page is a good location to counter this denier myth.

MA Rodger at 08:39 AM on 13 February 2021

CO2 lags temperature

brneilsen @629,
I'm curious as to the origin of your 'greenhouse gas response' equation T=3.2563ln(C)-3.0323. And if there were any merit in such an equation, I'd be interested to learn how it 'yields' a "0.95 degC" boost to global ice age temperatures resulting from a 190ppm to 280ppm rise in CO2. My abacus (which I would be the first to admit is not always reliable) 'yields' +1.26ºC using this bizarre equation.

The usual calculation of CO2 forcing is ΔF = 5.35 x ln(CO2_[1]/CO2_[0]) which gives a forcing of +2.07Wm^-2 and a thus 'direct' impact on global temperature of+0.56ºC which would cause climate feedbacks that would perhaps triple this value to +1.7ºC.
The global average temperature rise out of an ice age is usually reckoned at +5ºC to +6ºC so this calculated CO2 forcing would perhaps be responsible for a third of this temperature rise. And this result fits with assessments which find the contributions to deglaciation warming to be roughly 50% surface albedo, 37% GHGs (of which CO2 is the major player) and 13% atmospheric albedo.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments