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 Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube 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
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Comments 651 to 700:

  1. One Planet Only Forever at 05:00 AM on 29 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    michael sweet @17,

    Agreed that the use of CO2 to scrub oil off of rock formations, a possible benefit of CO2 injection to increase the production of oil as presented in the article, would almost certainly mean that CO2 comes out with the oil. But, to be fair, CO2 injection can potentially lock-away CO2 while producing more oil from an oil deposit.

    Here are potential stages of oil production:

    • Natural pressure of the trapped oil deposit forces oil to the surface when it is drilled into – the ‘gusher’.
    • Pressure drops as the oil flows out.
    • A pump-jack increases the rate of extraction by ‘lifting’ oil out of the well – like a water well pump.
    • As more oil is removed the rate of flow to a well point pump-jack declines.
    • Injecting gasses like captured CO2 can increase the pressure in the oil deposit and force more oil out of the well locations. Current operations inject CO2 captured from the exhaust of burned fossil fuels. This process potentially traps the injected CO2 in the rock formation that the oil was trapped in.

    So oil can be produced by injecting and trapping CO2. But scrubbing oil off of the formation that the oil is in would mean CO2 comes out with the oil.

    However, CO2 thought to be trapped in an oil deposit may not be truly trapped. Accurate pressure monitoring over a long time frame would be required to prove that the CO2 is staying where it was put. And until the completion of that pressure testing it is uncertain that the ‘claimed to be trapped’ CO2 is properly trapped. If a pressure test fails, the pressure drops, then the ‘carbon removal’ action plan is failing. And there would be little that could be done to keep the rest of the ‘believed to have been locked away’ CO2 from leaking out.

     

    Who will pay for removing it and locking it away? Everybody essentially pays for the profit obtained, or pays for the government subsidy (worse when the government subsidizes the obtaining of profit - nobody should profit from publicly funded harm reduction like CO2 removal).

    It would be nice if the ones who benefited most from the developed total current problem paid the most to limit the harm done ... but the current systems have a histry of making the least fortunate, who do not deserve to be penalized, suffer the most harm. Refer to the lead article in the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 for a detailed presentation of concerns regarding free-market development of Carbon Capture.

  2. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Prove we are smart @5. Thank's for the comments and links. Looks like useful information.

    "Nigelj@3 Sorry you only lasted 4minutes longer, I suppose that was a lot considering you said " I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything."

    The entire first five minutes of the video (might have been a bit less, I wasnt timing it) was devoted to sarcastic, insulting, generalised comments about EVs and their drivers. There was not one specific factual claim about the actual technology. I decided I wasn't going to risk yet more of this.

    "We need more renewable wholesale electric to support clean electric cars. This is where some detractors have valid points when they argue that electric cars are shifting the problem..."

    Ok, but they are stating the obvious about needing more renewables. The same EV critics who say the problem is that renewables aren't expanding fast enough are sometimes the same people who criticise or oppose renewables. They contradict themselves. Their aim in most cases doesn't seem like true scepticism. It is just to throw mud at anything to mitigate the climate problem.

    "Every electric car is forcing these electricity generators to work harder. In Australia thats 68% worth from fossil fuels.

    Yes ok, but this is better than cars burning petrol which is 100% fossil fuels. The grid will also have to expand due to the extra demands, but thats obvious.

    IMO its also a logistical exercise like this: Would you deploy millions of EVs In Australia at day one when the grid is all fossil fuels? No this wouldn't make sense because it would put too much demand on the grid and there is no benefit.

    Do you wait until the grid is entirely renewables before deploying any EV's? No because you then have a long delay while Evs are scaled up and with climate change time is an issue and you miss out on some benefits of Evs.

    So you phase EV's in gradually while the grid gradually moves to renewables and gets larger (but preferably faster than it is) . So the critics dont have much of a point.

    Will get back to you on the video.

  3. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    The OP is an interesting story.  My daily experience with a 2023 Tesla model 3 is very different.  My brother has a 3 year old Kia which is more similar to the OP.  Some bullet items:

    1) I rarely use public chargers, less than once a month.   I average 90 miles a day.  Going to a gas station is so 20th century!  If you live in a house you install a charger.  As electric cars become more common apartments will install chargers.

    2) My brother's 3 year old Kia takes twice as much time to charge as a new Kia.  At home that does not matter.  All new cars charge much faster than even a few years ago.  I expect in 5 years my 2023 Tesla will be slow.

    3) One big reason I bought a Tesla is the Tesla charging system is bigger than all other systems combined and has much faster chargers.  For driving anywhere in Florida I do not think about charging until I have less than 50 miles to go.  There are always superchargers about every 10 miles near major highways.  If you drive through the country you have to pay more attention.  The car warns me if I try to drive past the last charger on my GPS route.  I never use non-Tesla chargers, they are too slow.  The Tesla system is reported to be open to other cars next year.

      If I drive four hours I stop for food and charge while eating.  If I eat fast the car is full when I finish eating.

    4). My brother has made several long trips like the OP and he plans like the op.  Every year it is easier.  When I have traveled in the rural West I had to watch the gas gauge all the time.

  4. prove we are smart at 23:49 PM on 28 December 2023
    I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Ok, I believe in keeping an open mind with most things these days.

    RH@2, I agree, it wasn't a "review". You know, I will often just click on various parts of a video, to be sure I have the right tone of it- judging a book by its cover,I learnt long ago.

    Nigelj@3 Sorry you only lasted 4minutes longer, I suppose that was a lot considering you said " I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything."

    By the way, the "you" in my moniker is for any replies I read on this blog site- I have learnt a lot following yourself and others replying to many with inaccurate info.

    I reckon at least you got the patronising, piss-taking, swearing and taking ages to get to point right with JC If you could have toughed it out,( I'm sure against your better judgement) we might have agreed with some of his observations and disagreed..

    I"m not agaist EV cars, far from it but a smart person can check out many sources of info and recheck again from others to get the big picture and not a green washed fervour towards the complicated issue of EV cars.evse.com.au/blog/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-an-internal-combustion-hybrid-and-electric-car-emit/

    "We need more renewable wholesale electric to support clean electric cars. This is where some detractors have valid points when they argue that electric cars are shifting the problem."www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-energy-statistics/electricity-generation

    Every electric car is forcing these electricity generators to work harder. In Australia thats 68% worth from fossil fuels. There is a lot to do and time is running out-( a familiar comment) for us as we are already behind the 8 ball. www.drive.com.au/news/electric-car-battery-recycling-australia-environmental-harm/

    These and a few other issues are mentioned by our smart arse mate Mr Codogan-don't ask him about EV fires..  In truth, I believe hybred cars are better during this transition, ask Mitsubishi and Toyota-at least for Australia,www.drive.com.au/news/electric-vehicles-worse-for-environment-than-petrol-cars-report/

    You wrote.."There is a group of people on the hard left of politics and academia who dislike EVs (and sometimes wind and solar power) because they are the product of the capitalist society and industrial society and because rich people drive them and profit from their manufacture. You see this in internet discussions sometimes.

    While unrestrained greed and laissez faire capitalism is not my thing, their reasoning seems shallow and emotive. It is a fallacy of perfectionism - where a perfect, implausible socio- economic utopia is prioritised, and more realistic attainable compromise solutions are discarded."

    Your talking to a guy who has worn many hats, and speaks simply because of all the fake people and their entitled behavior, here is another one, see if you can stomach the guy and tell me are his facts correct?..www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRzpKWshwU

  5. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    OPOF:

    In addition to the flaws you discuss about the Stratos plant, as you described in post 16 it is "being built in the midst of oil fields"  The carbon will not be stored, it will be used to extract more oil from the ground!!!

    Oil companies are not storing carbon when they are using it to extract more oil, the carbon dioxide comes back out of the ground with the oil.  This is a completely false story, Occidental fooled the reporter.  I guess that you could claim that Occidental is showing how to air capture the carbon. 

    We will have to wait until the plant is built to evaluate how much energy it takes to capture the carbon and at what cost.  My bet is that it will be too expensive and take too much energy, but that is simply speculation at this time.  

    Even if you thought that using the carbon to extract more oil is storing it, as Nigelj pointed out, the number of plants needed to make a dent in carbon pollution is enormous and the number of plants being built is very small.  The scale of extraction plants is way too small to make any significant difference.  

    Who will pay for carbon that is permanently stored?  Not the fossil fuel industry.

  6. One Planet Only Forever at 07:51 AM on 28 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    Regarding nigelj's @1 astute point about the scale of the direct air carbon capture challenge:

    The NPR article I pointed to in my comment @14 is about Occidental Petroleum's Stratos carbon capture plant which will be 0.5 Mt/year. The article introduces the plant as follows:

    "The Stratos plant — being built in the midst of oil fields — is playing a key role in scaling up the technology, which is not fully proven yet. Once it's up and running, the billion-dollar facility will be 100 times bigger than any direct air capture plant ever built — and yet, even if it works perfectly, it will take a year to remove less than 10 minutes' worth of global emissions."

    Later in the article it provides more details about the scale of the global challenge, with my inserts in [square brackets]:

    "Some climate advocates agree that Oxy's doing something extraordinary for the planet. Others, however, are raising alarms about why.

    The International Energy Agency calculates that the world needs to remove 80 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year through direct air capture by 2030, and more than 1 billion metric tons per year by 2050, to meet the world's goal of holding warming beneath 1.5 degrees Celsius.

    That assumes the world also cuts emissions sharply and restores vast expanses of forests and wetlands, which also remove carbon dioxide from the air.

    Getting to that scenario would require about a thousand giant direct air capture plants twice the size of Stratos, each capturing a million metric tons per year

    But the slower the world acts [to reduce fossil fuel use], the bigger the numbers get. [DAC used to offset 'unnecessary', but popular and profitable, climate impacts develops the need for even more 'unnecessary' DAC]

    The IEA described one possible future where cutting emissions more slowly would mean that the world would need to capture more than 3.3 billion metric tons per year from the atmosphere. Some projections call for much more than that."

    And near the end the following statement is made:

    "The Stratos plant may be the biggest of its kind, but even when run perfectly, it would end up taking a full year to capture what the world releases in 7 1/2 minutes today [the 'less than 10 minutes' bit].

    Pulling carbon dioxide out of the sky the way Oxy plans to do also requires enormous quantities of energy.

    And carbon removal has simply never been done at the scale Oxy envisions. In a report this fall, the International Energy Agency warned that relying on this kind of technology to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is unacceptably risky because if technologies fail to deliver, there's no backup option.

    "Removing carbon from the atmosphere is costly and uncertain," Fatih Birol, the head of the IEA, said this fall. "We must do everything possible to stop putting it there in the first place.""

  7. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    One thing is for sure, hate-filled rants are good for generating views on your monetized YouTube channel.

    You got further than I did, Nigelj. I got barely 60 secs in before I decided the piece was less about substantive discussion and more about driving clicks.

  8. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    Prove we are smart. I tried to watch the EV video, but I gave up after five minutes. The video was a   nasty, patronising, empty, hate filled rant against EV's and people who drive them,  full of swearing and taking ages to get to anything useful. Not going to tolerate that and waste my time.  I already know the downsides of EVs, and I doubt some motor repair mechanic will add anything.  

    Since you are so keen to "prove you are smart" what do you think we should do when we run out of oil? The point is electric cars in some form seem pretty much inevitable. The other alternative is running cars on artificially created electrofuels, but I don't find that very persuasive when you research that issue.

    Or do you think we should all give up on cars and ride bicycles? Is that a realistic solution?

    There is a group of people on the hard left of politics and academia who dislike EVs (and sometimes wind and solar power) because they are the product of the capitalist society and industrial society and because rich people drive them and profit from their manufacture. You see this in internet discussions sometimes.

    While unrestrained greed and laissez faire capitalism is not my thing, their reasoning seems shallow and emotive. It is a fallacy of perfectionism - where a perfect, implausible socio- economic utopia is prioritised,  and more realistic attainable compromise solutions  are discarded.

  9. One Planet Only Forever at 04:05 AM on 28 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    An important consideration regarding my comment @14 ...

    A massive amount of less harmful, more sustainable, energy is needed to run these Direct Air Capture and Storage operations.

    All that 'development of less harmful energy' could likely be 'better employed to sustainably improve living conditions for people'.

  10. One Planet Only Forever at 03:51 AM on 28 December 2023
    2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #51

    The following NPR News item is new recommended reading for anyone interested in what is happening regarding Direct Air Carbon capture.

    It is a comprehensive report showing how 'the fundamentally ethics-free marketplace' is developing Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage. And it shows how governments can be motivated to subsidise harmful unsustainable 'misguided' developments to protect unjustified perceptions of status (including unjustified perceptions of people like Warren Buffett being concerned about being less harmful and more helpful).

    "This oil company invests in pulling CO2 out of the sky — so it can keep selling crude"

    Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage is almost certain to be needed to bring human climate impacts back down to 1.5 C levels of impact. Plans like Occidental's, and many other 'profitable or popular net-zero efforts', do not help achieve that undeniably desirable result.

  11. One Planet Only Forever at 03:39 AM on 28 December 2023
    Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023

    NPR News has published the following comprehensive report on Carbon Capture. It shows how 'the fundamentally ethics-free marketplace' is causing Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage to be pursued for the benefit of people who unjustifiably developed ways to have higher status by getting away with ‘excused’ harmful unsustainable activity.

    "This oil company invests in pulling CO2 out of the sky — so it can keep selling crude"

  12. One Planet Only Forever at 03:36 AM on 28 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    NPR News has just published the following comprehensive report on Carbon Capture. It shows how 'the fundamentally ethics-free marketplace' is causing Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage to be pursued for the benefit of people who unjustifiably developed ways to have higher status by getting away with ‘excused’ harmful unsustainable activity.

    "This oil company invests in pulling CO2 out of the sky — so it can keep selling crude"

    This Market-drive development undeniably makes the future worse than it needs to be by protecting unjustified unsustainable developed perceptions of status. Burning fossil fuels is not sustainable. Getting more of the non-renewable stuff out does not have a future ... but it sure can increase current day ‘enjoyment of life’ by some people.

    Marketplace competition ‘freer from ethical governing’ develops very little motivation to learn to be less harmful and more helpful. There is a tragic diversity of examples of harmful unsustainable activity becoming popular and profitable, some benefit at the detriment of other, including cases of the current generation benefiting to the detriment of future generations.

    Competition for status undeniably develops interests that very powerfully motivate people to oppose and resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.

  13. I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    PWAS @1... This article is not really a review, though. He's merely recounting his experience and strategy for completing a long cross country trip with an EV. 

    As for the video you posted, I'd like to hear exactly which points he made that you thought were convincing so we can discuss them here.

  14. prove we are smart at 09:04 AM on 27 December 2023
    I drove 6,000 miles in an EV. Here’s what I learned

    How lovely, a retired climate scientist with a perfect review for a EV manufacturer. I prefer a more Australian perspective..www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIpipeUI6zw&t=35s

  15. CO2 is plant food

    Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal was updated on December 24, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  16. One Planet Only Forever at 03:19 AM on 23 December 2023
    Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

    Related to the "If Trump Wins" project John Hartz pointed to in his comment @17...

    Anyone that the likes of Trump sense is exposing the harmful unjust actions of Trump and his likes, including everyone trying to expose and correct misinformation or disinformation, including the ones fighting against misunderstanding of climate science, faces potential violent responses from the likes of Team Trump.

    This NPR report "Violent online rhetoric heats up after Colorado ballot ruling on Trump" highlights the problem that has developed.

    Unjustified Rhetoric is a 'plausible deniability' gateway mechanism for triggering violent unjustified actions, including violent intimidation actions like making threats against promoters of improved climate science understanding.

    Fuelling violent thoughts with unjustified rhetoric is very hard to legally prove directly caused violent actions. And even if proven that way, as in the Colorado case, or any environmental legal action, it can still be denied ... because ... well ... the likes of Team Trump well understand that even the laws and its judges can be unjustifiably biased by ideology.

    The senseless 'common sense' of groups like Team Trump is a Tragedy of the Commons of Sense. It is almost impossible to establish and improve global common sense understanding when non-sense is allowed to be popular and be excused. Each COP session has provided proof of that point.

  17. The Cranky Uncle game can now also be played in Romanian!

    Quick note: the Cranky Uncle game can now also be played in Finnish. Installed apps should automatically update as soon as the latest version becomes available in the app stores for your location (this may take a bit, so please be patient). You can however already play it in Finnish via the browser version should the iOS or Android version not yet be available for download / update.

  18. Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

    Suggested supplemental reading:

    The Climate Can't Afford Another Trump Presidency His approach to the environment: ignore it. by Zoë Schlanger, Science, The Atlantic Magazine, Dec 4, 2023

    [Note: This article is part of “If Trump Wins," a project considering what Donald Trump might do if reelected in 2024. These articles also appear in the Jan/Feb, 2024 print edition of The Atlantic Magazine.

  19. Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

    Rob Honeycutt @15 :-    Yeah, I'd have to agree.

    The internet allows chain reactions of Dunning-Kruger-Dunning-Kruger-Dunning-Kruger-Dunning-Kruger.

     

    And in more bad news for this time of the year

    . . . Elon Musk announced yesterday

    . . . that he has registered the name Xmas.      

    (Sorry)

  20. Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

    @14...

    More evidence that the internet is dead.

  21. Petra Liverani_1 at 12:59 PM on 20 December 2023
    Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

    Unfortunately, the argument against so-called misinformation fails to acknowledge that scientists and doctors from the getgo of germ theory have argued against it. The term "misinformation" implies that people who do not have the right credentials are misguided, latching onto false claims when, in fact, scientists and doctors far better credentialled than those making the argument for misinformation have put forward arguments against germ theory in general and the covid pandemic specifically.

    Essentially, the "misinformation" argument is a very big strawman argument that does not represent in any shape or form the wealth of argument against germ theory, virology and vaccinology from scientists and doctors dating from the the mid-1800s. Of course, the fact that someone has the right credentials doesn't necessarily mean anything as those with the same credentials are arguing for the pandemic but it should be at least recognised that it is not "ordinary" people who put up the argument first against the scientific methods used to isolate the virus, show contagion and devise testing, but scientists and doctors as credentialled as those arguing for "the science".

    Mike Stone, author of the site ViroLIEgy presents argument from scientists and doctors who've argued against germ theory from the getgo and has also analysed numerous documents from at least as far back as the mid-1800s and shows clearly that the scientific work done to prove the existence of various pathogens does not stand up to scrutiny. And he's only one of quite a number.
    https://viroliegy.com/

    I think that Skeptical Science does themselves no favours arguing for the reality of a covid pandemic. I was a gungho climate activist for a number of years and I cannot say I've switched to believing that AGW is not the emergency claimed, however, when I see the calibre of the argument against the so-called covid misinformation, it certainly gives me pause ... and people I know who were as gungho as I about climate change have simply dropped it and are as convinced it's a scam just like covid.

    As Kary Mullis said: "The scientist aims to prove their hypothesis wrong."

    Where is the response to the argument from the doctors and scientists dating from the mid-1800s?

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Unfortunately, the Skeptical Science Comments Policy does not allow people to create multiple accounts. Specifically:

    • You are not allowed to create a second identity to replace an identity that has had its posting rights revoked due to an inability or unwillingness to follow the Comments Policy.

    Reincarnation of a previously-banned user deactivated.

     

  22. One Planet Only Forever at 15:13 PM on 18 December 2023
    Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023

    I highly recommend the top highlighted article "The distortionary effects of unconstrained for-profit carbon dioxide removal and the need for early governance intervention", Grubert & Talati, Carbon Management.

    It is very comprehensive. I learned a lot.

    The chosen quote is a very good representation of the article.

    I think the following quote of the concluding statement presents the many key points made in the article:

    A call to action

    The structure of the CDR sector is not yet final, though current trends suggest a strong bias toward an unconstrained for-profit market model. The nascency of the sector, including the lack of entrenched interests, widespread property claims, or legal liability means that there is still an opportunity to thoughtfully design a CDR sector that both protects the climate and structurally incentivizes more just outcomes. Although the need for CDR exists because of longstanding and ongoing injustices, the sector can be designed in ways that do not perpetuate the patterns that created the conditions that necessitate it. Particularly given the clear risk for significant interdependencies to develop between CDR and the fossil fuel industries, especially oil and natural gas, identifying and avoiding such patterns early will be necessary for long-term sustainability of CDR as an atmospheric function with high potential to provide substantial societal benefits, including by stabilizing and perhaps even repairing the climate, and by providing a pathway for some form of reparations by the most responsible. For now, the nascent CDR sector is reliant on public infrastructure and public funding, much of which has not even been disbursed as of this writing. This reliance suggests a clear pathway to public ownership and public management of CDR in the long term – but one that will quickly disappear as the sector matures. CDR has the potential to be both more successful and more just if it is not developed under an unconstrained for-profit regime. The time to act is now.

    It is never too late to act to limit harm done. But in cases like the governing of CDR the opportunity for significant benefit is reduced the longer that global leadership fails to focus on effectively limiting the harm done and maximizing the benefit of the new development.

    Leadership, in politics or business, that mistakenly believes that unjustified developed popular perceptions are worthy of being promoted, conserved, and excused can be very damaging.

  23. One Planet Only Forever at 14:43 PM on 18 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    I wish to clarify that in my comment @12 I inserted the wording in square brackets in the part requoted below:

    In effect, unconstrained for-profit governance of CDR allows for luxury consumption to colonize [and tragically abuse] an emergent global commons.

    It is my attempt to indicate that this is a 'Tragedy of the Commons' matter.

  24. One Planet Only Forever at 14:37 PM on 18 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    michael sweet,

    I agree that focusing on building the renewable energy systems, along with reducing unnecessary ‘luxury’ ghg emissions, is the most rewarding action, from the perspective of the future of humanity. It is far better to do that than build partial fixes like Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) in an attempt to make ‘parts of unsustainable damaging systems – like the fossil fuel systems – appear to be ‘helping to achieve’ global net-zero.

    In addition to wasting effort attempting to prolong an unsustainable damaging developed system with CCUS, getting those parts of the fossil fuel system to appear to be net-zero will require significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).

    A serious concern is the use of CDR to make those parts of the ‘system that is still, all things considered, very damaging’ appear to be excusable/acceptable. The article I linked to in my comment @3 explains things well in the following quote from the part titled A CDR thesis:

    CDR is a limited resource [Citation14]. For-profit goals inherently prioritize the activities for which some entity will pay the most, which are likely disproportionately related to compensatory removals in high wealth contexts. Allocation of more CDR to compensatory functions constrains availability for drawdown while increasing overall demand for CDR and CDR scaling. These incentives create a structural bias toward providing offsets to high-wealth emitters who can provide ongoing revenue streams, and away from offsets for low-wealth emitters or remedial drawdown activities. In effect, unconstrained for-profit governance of CDR allows for luxury consumption to colonize [and tragically abuse] an emergent global commons.

    Another example of plans, not started to be built, for a major CCUS operation with an eventual demand to unnecessarily consume CDR resources is the action plans of the Alberta oil sands operators in Pathways Alliance. Refer to this linked CBC News article “Oilsands giants continue work on proposed $16.5B carbon capture project, despite lingering questions”

    Alberta already has some CCUS, similar to the Middle East capture of CO2 and its use to produce more oil or gas. But a major collective CCUS project, subsidized by public funding, is the first part of the Pathways Alliance plan to be able to claim to be ‘net-zero’ producers of exported fossil fuels by 2050.

    By 2050 there will hopefully be a very small market for exported fossil fuels. And that fossil fuel use would hopefully be restricted to assisting people who live less than basic decent lives.

    The Alberta oil sands operators, with the support of government in Alberta and Canada, plan to compete to be exporting 5 million bpd or more in 2050 and beyond (being an exporter of choice). Other regions with already discovered exportable fossil fuel resources can be expected to do the same. Who would give up on such a potentially lucrative opportunity? And they will all potentially end up fighting to be among the few who end up with the least ‘stranded fossil fuel reserves’. Tragically, that marketplace for-profit competition to be the biggest winner will also consume massive effort and resources, public and private, to build CCUS facilities that will also end up ‘stranded’.

    If, instead of being assisted to build CCUS, they were required to build DAC facilities, those DAC facilities could continue to be beneficial after the need for ‘dead-end fossil fuel extraction for export’ is substantially ‘transitioned away from’ (by 2050).

    Global leadership focusing on rapidly building the transition away from fossil fuels, along with reducing unnecessary energy demand, will reduce the unnecessarily tragic damage being done to the global commons by making the ‘deservedly tragic future’ of all the ‘pursuers of maximum benefit from fossil fuels’ harder to deny.

  25. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    I should have added to my comment ... that I'm following my own advice by volunteering with a local Adopt-a-Stream organization in monitoring my local waterway. In doing so I'm meeting wonderful folks who are of the "regenerative systems" mindset (and expert in it) and learning from them. I'm also learning through one of my connections how he is aiding some of the indigenous peoples in the US state of South Carolina relearn some of their lost knowledge about their lands by teaching them about their native plants and geology, and how the systems of their land work. That amazes me.

  26. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    As I've been involved as a volunteer in helping researching and writing a paper with IEEE's Planet Positive 2030 initiative I've come to learn a great deal that I hadn't considered beforehand regarding approaches to addressing climate change:
    1) Mass education - education that teaches/reminds us all to become planet stewards in the context of each our our own local environments.
    2) Context matters - its important for people to learn within our own surroundings, to make it real. Dig our hands in our own soil, speaking figuratively AND LITERALLY.
    3) Ensure all levels of education are trans-disciplanary. Societies, especially in Western affluent societies, are over-specialized resulting in intelligent, yet nonsensical solutions, similar to what Climate Adam describes with CCS.

    What these simple steps aim for is helping people redirect their thinking of climate change as an abstract idea for which they feel compelled to  be "for" or "against" it (what a waste of brain energy), rather to have them engage in the present, in their surroundings, learning how the planet works such that more of us appreciate the earth's interconnected systems, and how we're a part of those systems.

    My thinking is the inertia of the gradual behavior change could be dramatic in improving the climate we all need to sustain our species. We might all get along better to boot.

  27. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    M Sweets reasons sound quite convincing. There may be additional factors with CCS. The development of CCS applied to fossil fuels generation has been very slow. Probably a good thing given it is such a band aid solution. Perhaps it's partly because it requires politically unpopular subsidies. The public generally dislike the corporates getting tax payer money, in New Zealand anyway.

    Or alternatively where CCS is incorporated into emissions trading schemes, this isnt working, because currently forests appear to provide lower cost offsets, and the free market dogma says allow the lowest cost alternative in the short term to prevail. Im not so sure the dogma makes complete sense, but it's good if its delayed CCS.

    And renewable energy is now cost competitive so for aging coal fired plant it might make more sense to just build a wind farm. In comparison it looks like its much harder reducing the costs of CCS, which is not so surprising when you look at the technology and the processes.

    Once we run out of land for forests,  there may be serious interest in CCS, but by then, how many coal fired power stations will be left anyway?

  28. One Planet Only Forever at 05:22 AM on 18 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    nigelj,

    Agreed about potential limits for DAC operations. The research article I refer to in my comment @3 includes information regarding the limits of all the potential CDRs, not just the mechanical ones like DAC facilities.

    CDR being a ‘limited’ opportunity is mentioned in the selected quote (stating that CDR is “limited resources”) presented on the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 page.

    If you do pursue a more detailed evaluation of the limits of DACs the article may provide helpful references for you, particularly in the section headed “CDR as a limited allocable resource”.

  29. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    A more reliable source states China will install 230 GW of wind and solar in 2023.  This compares to 75 GW in Europe and 40 GW in the USA.

  30. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    It seems to me that to find the bottom line for carbon capture used to keep fossil fuel production going in the future all you have to do is look at the production facilities that the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the oil majors have built or planned.  As I understand it, they combined have about one large facility world wide.  They recover CO2 from their refinery operations and pump that back into the ground to recover more oil, but that is not carbon capture and storage.

    If the fossil fuel produceers were serious about carbon capture there would be many facilities planned or under constrution.  These facilities take 5 years or more to build, and longer to plan and permit.  The lack of proposed facilities indicates that this is the last gasp of the oil producers hoping everyone will look at the squirrel instead of installing solar and wind.

    The only realistic solution is to build out wind and solar as fast as possible.  If all fossil fuel subsidies were transferred to building renewable energy we would finish the system in a decade.

    China alone will install over 300 gigawatts of renewable energy this year.  If the entire world put in as much effort as China we would be in a much better place.  The fossil plants China is building will be obsolete before they are commissioned.

  31. At a glance - Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

    As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

  32. It's methane

    Please note: a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on December 17, 2023 which includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance

  33. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    OPOF @4

    Thank's for correcting the math. I think I know what happened. I scribbled some numbers and calcs. for different scenarious on a piece of paper and came back to it later, and transposed the wrong number into the computer. The main thing is the total is 925,000 DACs, or even  more using the assumptions in your copy and paste. 

    We clearly need some sort of way of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. But the thing I was trying to get across  about the DAC industrial plant option is that 925,000 DAC's would clearly require  a  vast quantity of materials and energy, and over a 30 year span if its function is just to offset certain emissions. These plants are not small. Photo of worlds largest existing  instillation here.

    For comparison purposes the world currently has 600,000 bridges and about 24,000 coal fired power stations built over our entire history. The issue is whether the world has enough materials and spare energy for something like 925,000 DACS, -  especially if they are all built over about 30 years. Remember we are also building renewable energy at the same time.

    Known reserves of concentrated deposits  key minerals are only expected to last another century or two at current rates of use. There are enough apparently to build out a renewable energy grid, (Jacobson)  but add in  925,000 DAC's and its another matter entirely. I'm not a minerals depletion pessimist and we will probably discover new reserves, but it intuitively looks like we might not have enough materials to do everything. 

    The other options you list for extracting  CO2 from the air ( biomass, soil sinks, enhanced rock weathering, marine storage, etc ) look interesting an dpotentially useful,  and intuitively look less materials and energy intensive given natural processes do some of the work. But they are very land intensive.   DAC does have the advantage that its a rapid extraction, and less land intensive and CO2 storage is permanent or close enough.

    I might try and find or calculate some comparisons of materials and energy required if I have time.

  34. One Planet Only Forever at 08:44 AM on 17 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    nigelj,

    While reading the report I mention in my comment @3, I came back to re-read your comment.

    There is indeed a concern about the scale of required DAC's. But the math appears to be:

    • currently 37 Gte of emissions
    • 20% assumed to be impractical to stop is 7.4 Gt, not 4,625 Gte
    • Number of 8 kte DAC plants is 925,000 (as you correctly indicated)

    The report I refer to @3 indicates a higher possible range of required Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) in the following quote:

    Thus far, estimates of how much CDR might be needed range from almost none up to more than 300 gigatonnes (Gt) cumulatively by 2050, or over 1,200 Gt cumulatively by 2100 [Citation10] – that is, up to about 10–15 GtCO2/year starting immediately, contingent on simultaneous rapid emissions mitigation, to meet 1.5° or 2 °C targets. Such estimates are purely mathematical, balancing positive with negative emissions: in theory, CDR could be used to counteract any emission (currently about 60 GtCO2e/year [Citation5]). As such, CDR requirements will be higher for less rapid and/or lower levels of emissions mitigation. To date, binding requirements for decarbonization that clearly articulate which emissions should be mitigated and which remain residual emissions to be addressed via CDR [Citation12] are rare, and CDR remains voluntary, contributing to a lack of clarity on necessary scope, scale, pace, and degree of resource competition.

    Also note that the author's CDR includes many actions, not just mechanical DAC, as described in this quote:

    Here, we define CDR to mean intentional, additional actions taken to capture CO2 from the atmosphere (either directly or via intermediaries like biomass or the ocean) and permanently store it such that the CO2 will not return to the atmosphere on time scales that at least match the lifespan of its impacts on the atmosphere and ocean [Citation5]. Commonly proposed approaches that are potentially capable of delivering CDR include (but are not limited to) direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS); biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS);Footnote1 direct ocean carbon capture and storage (DOCCS); enhanced rock weathering (ERW); forestry; and soil carbon management. Some storage mechanisms, particularly those that rely on biological sinks like forests and soils, are not permanent in the sense of matching the lifespan of CO2’s impacts. As such, we distinguish between CDR-capable interventions (e.g. an afforestation project) and actual CDR, which might entail consistent rehabilitation or replacement for projects where CO2 is stored for less than geologic time (and which necessarily imposes greater administrative burden for strategies requiring relatively short replacement intervals).

  35. One Planet Only Forever at 11:11 AM on 16 December 2023
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    PollutionMonster,

    I agree that Jason Stanley's book, How Fascism Works, is recommended reading.

    I recommended How Fascism Works, along with Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny, in a comment I made in 2021 on a different SkS item, "The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews". My comment there is @17 (linked here). Note that Bob Loblaw makes an additional excellent recommendation, for "The Authoritarians", on that comment string.

    We are indeed in "Strange Daze" (Days misspelled intentionally) full of examples of trouble-makers succeeding in "Strange Ways". Maintain your focus on learning to be less harmful to others. And help others, including trying to help them learn to be less harmfully misled (admittedly you will encounter some Almost Lost Causes - People very deep into the delusions and fantasy beliefs of misinformation and disinformation).

  36. PollutionMonster at 08:59 AM on 16 December 2023
    CO2 limits will harm the economy

    One Planet Only Forever @121

    I am still reading your post and sources. I recommend a book by Jason Stanley. How fascism works explains how the Merchants of doubt borrow fascist strategies to spread disinformation and fearmonger. Combine this with the communist technique of the fire-hose of falsehoods and no wonder they are such a formidable adversary.

    I also heard on NPR that we need to "phase out fossil fuels anything else is a distraction." From arguing with deniers a carbon tax is a snake pit argument like AGW deaths with too many ways to be derailed. Thank you for talking to me. :)

  37. One Planet Only Forever at 03:16 AM on 16 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    The top item (the first Open Access Notable) in the Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 appears to be a comprehensive presentation of understanding related to and aligned with my comment @2.

    I have only read the introduction of The distortionary effects of unconstrained for-profit carbon dioxide removal and the need for early governance intervention, Grubert & Talati, Carbon Management.

    After I have read the full item I will make any further comments about how Carbon Dioxide Removal will hopefully be managed/governed to limit harm done to the future of humanity on Skeptical Science New Research for Week #50 2023 (based on reading the Intorduction, I expect to learn a lot and may have nothing more to add).

  38. Greenhouse effect has been falsified

    Is it healthy to pander to crazy sock-puppet nonsense by discussing 'what-if' ideas when the sock-puppet is wedded to a 'surely it is' idea?

    The idea that the existing GHE can be attributed to 50% water vapour, 25% cloud and this forced by 25% CO2 which thus attributes cloud as a warming agent does overlook the full impact of cloud on planetray albedo and which could be used to calculate cloud as a cooling agent.

    The sock-puppet @176 suggests a cloudless Earth would see albedo drop from 30% to 15%, the latter being roughly the Moon's effective albedo which would suggest the Moon woud have an average temperature of 267K. However the measured temperature of the Moon averages at 201K and this because the Moon rotation is so slow that it sheds massive amounts of energy during its day with Moon equatorial temperatures reaching 390K.

    Of course, the Earth spins fast enough to prevent such a large duirnal range and if there had never been CO2 to form a GHE, there would never have been oceans to slow it down from its 4 hour day back when the Earth-Moon began.

    But unlike the Moon, there is a lot of water on Earth and the albedo of ice is high. That is reduced by the dust which would cover the ice on a GHE-free Earth but albedo would remain high, and perhaps higher than today. De Vrese et al (2021) suggests the albedo of 'meteoric ice' is 65% which, if the Earth's albedo, would indicate a 250K Earth and a GHE of 38K.

  39. Greenhouse effect has been falsified

    CTS @176... "The often-quoted 255K black body temperature of the earth is wrong..."

    That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

  40. Greenhouse effect has been falsified

    CTS @176 :

    an iceball Earth (at 255K or 271K)  has how many clouds?

    Have you really thought this through . . . and published?

  41. ClimateTruthSeeker at 16:43 PM on 14 December 2023
    Greenhouse effect has been falsified

    The often-quoted 255K black body temperature of the earth is wrong and the 33K GHE is overstated.  This is due to the albedo being too high in the calculation which is meant to show what the temperature would be if the earth had no atmosphere at all.

    However, the calculation falsely uses the albedo when an atmosphere exists, completely ignoring the fact that if there is no atmosphere, there are no clouds.  Using a conservative estimate that 50% of albedo is attributed to clouds, this decreases the albedo from 0.3 to 0.15 resulting in a black body temperature of approximately 268K, reducing the GHE to 20K.

    However, there would be further impacts on ice and water, and a more realistic albedo when there is no atmosphere at all is 10%, as others have postulated.  This leads to a black body temperature of approximately 271K (-2.15C) and a theorized GHE effect of 17K, just over half of what was previously estimated.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Return of another sock puppet.

  42. One Planet Only Forever at 15:21 PM on 14 December 2023
    Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    Excellent point Nigel.

    I would add that the lack of reduction of climate change impacts by the portion of the global population that benefit most from the harm being done has made 'Carbon capture from the atmosphere and locking it away' an essential action to bring the level of impact back down to 1.5 C.

    The people today who have benefited most from the damage done to date owe the future of humanity a significant number of DAC facilities being built and beginning operation in the near future, no matter how expensive that is.

    Excessive levels of impact, far beyond 1.5 C, are now almost certain. The accounting of credit for actions to limit the harm done during the curtailing of human caused climate change impacts, during the transition away from unsustainable developed activity, needs to exclude any 'credit' from DAC facilities (or extra trees planted). Those CO2 removal actions need to be understood to be a 'debt penalty owed' in addition to the Loss and Damages penalties owed.

  43. Climate Adam: The tough reality of Carbon Capture & Storage

    Informative video as always. Its true that fitting CO2 capture technology to coal fired power stations isn't compelling because it just prolongs our reliance on coal fired power and the technology is plagued with problems. DAC (direct air capture) that removes CO2 directly form the air sounds helpful in dealing with areas of the economy that are hard to decarbonise. Or would it? Consider the maths:

    We emit about 37 giga tons of CO2 globally each year.
    Lets assume we use direct air capture to extract 20% of this each year, so 4,625 giga tons, because about 20% of the economy is really hard to decarbonise.
    There are about 20 DAC facilities operating globally. The  largest existing DAC facility extracts 8,000 tons CO2 each year. And this plant is large and complex and energy intensive.
    This means you would need 925,000 DAC plants!!!!!

    I feel the number speaks for itself. Yes you would not necessarily rely just on DAC but even so it would be a collosal challenge. 

     

  44. One Planet Only Forever at 04:12 AM on 14 December 2023
    A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

    MA Roger,

    Thank you for pointing to alternative approaches to global warming scenario development. And thank you for pointing out those justified concerns about how the limited scope and method of presentation of an evaluation can be misleading.

    In all honesty, I conceptually created the 3 situations to try to make the point that how we get to a global warming impact temperature value at 2100 and what is done after 2100 makes a difference. I hoped to present the understanding that there are a variety of ways of achieving a value of 2100 warming impact, with an ‘important differentiating consideration’ being what happens beyond 2100. And I simply chose to call the three created example situations ‘scenarios’.

    I chose 1.7 C in an attempt to be brief but clear that I am not referring to any of the formally presented scenarios. I am pessimistic that the 2100 warming impact level of SSP1-1.9 is likely to be achieved. But I am hopeful that something better than SSP1-2.9 can be achieved. The important point is that there are many ways to conceptualize getting to the same 2100 impact result. And the variety of ways of getting that 2100 result, including what happens after 2100, are not ‘equivalent levels of harm reduction’.

    I will add that my MBA included Organizational Behaviour and Design where I learned that it is incorrect to believe that a specific set of policy or operational rule changes can be certain to produce a desired ‘objective change’ (I believe this is part of the reason for the range of results for each IPCC scenario). New policies and rules may result in changes, or they may not, or they produce unanticipated changes.

    When there is a need to change the collective behaviour of the members of any organization, including the organization of all of global humanity, a diversity of hoped to be helpful policy and rule changes can be conceptualized. And some of those changes would be based on improved understanding developed in the very hard to investigate fields of social, political, and economic behaviours where irrational behaviours can, and do, significantly occur. Irrational behaviour, including resistance to learning to be less harmful and more helpful to others, can especially occur due to the potential to benefit unjustifiably, especially from from secrecy (people less aware than they could be) or the popularity of misunderstanding (abusing the powerful science of marketing).

    Therefore, when pursuing an objective correction of unsustainable or harmful developed behaviours by changes of policy or rules it is important to diligently monitor the changes that actually occur and revise the policy and rule changes as required to increase the chances of achieving the desired correction of collective behaviours. (hopefully accomplished by each COP session).

    I have to add that when I got my MBA education in the 1980s it was rather rare to have the MBA program include ‘social and psychological’ considerations. Most MBA programs of the time, particularly the most prestigious programs, were focused exclusively on ‘maximizing making money matters most’, like Economics, Accounting, Finance, Efficiency of Operations and Material supply, Marketing, and Legalities related to financial activities and contracts.

  45. A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

    One Planet Only Forever @3,

    Where do you source your "set of scenarios with equal 2100 temperature values of 1.7 C" ?

    I do note the use of IAMs to create scenarios & MAGICC to calculate the climatic outcomes does provide a route to developing such scenarios with a lot less effort than the SSP -> GCM approach. And I also note the rather worrying way such scenarios are presented simply as % cuts by 2050 along with a temperature rise. This is worrying as the cuts required over shorter and longer timescales are airbrushed away, this often along with the substitution of CO2 emissions timings for CO2(equivalent) emissions which can be very significant (as per AR6 WGIII Fig3.6 below).IPCC AR6 WGIII FIG3.6

  46. A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

    The information on earth system sensitivity of 5 - 8 degrees C is very sobering. There are many accounts of what a 6 degree world is like easily googled and its very inhospitable for humans and other species. Because ESS develops on long time frames we might adapt to some extent, but that doesn't really make it any less inhospitable.

    This is one authors depiction of a 6 degree world based on available research. The description is based on such a world developing over the next couple of centuries and a failure to curb emissions, but even if it takes thousands of years as a result of ESS,  many of the outcomes would be similar.

    "Special coverage is given to the positive feedback mechanisms that could dramatically accelerate climate change. The book explains how the release of methane hydrate and the release of methane from melting permafrost could unleash a major extinction event. Carbon cycle feedbacks, the demise of coral, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, and extreme desertification are also described, with five or six degrees of warming potentially leading to the complete uninhabitability of the tropics and subtropics, as well as extreme water and food shortages, possibly leading to mass migration of billions of people."

     

    LINK

    The IPCC seems to have focused most attention on warming and sea level rise rates by 2100. We have projections of around 3 degrees C of warming and  worst case about 5 degrees, and SLR around 1 metre with a worst case 2 metres. The details on longer term trends several centuries into the future,  or millenia into the future like earth system sensitivity, are buried away in their reports or not given much attention.

    The IPCC have a chart buried in their reports showing a worst case of about 10 degrees C by about 2300 if equilibrium climate sensitivity turns out to be high and we just go on burning fossil fuels. Likewise by 2300 SLR could  be well over 2 metres. This may be somewhat attenuated by the impacts of renewable energy already reducing projected coal use, but it would still be a big number and theres a lot of SLR already baked in even if we stop warming right now.

    I wonder if this focus on year 2100 is a deliberate psychological strategy to focus on our immediate future. If they focused on the longer term trends there might be a risk that people would say why worry that won't effect me or my children.

    However warming of for example 3 degrees by 2100 and one metre or so of SLR  doesnt sound very scary to some people, while numbers like 5- 8 degrees longer term and SLR of 10 - 20 metres are obviously intuitively far more scary and certainly get my attention. Clearly we do need a focus on year 2100, for obvious reasons, because its in our lifetimes and adaptation would be very costly,  but I wonder if a bit more attention on longer term time frames would have really shown people the huge scale of change we are facing.

    Moderator Response:

    [RH] Shortened link

  47. At a glance - Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

    Ian Plimer: "If Senator Wong were really serious about her science she would stop breathing..."  Not unless Senator Wong is eating 'Coal-Coal-Puffs' for breakfast, Professor 'I'm-Really-Serious-About-My-Science'.

  48. One Planet Only Forever at 03:40 AM on 13 December 2023
    A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

    Evan @2,

    Agreed that the popularity of those ‘beliefs’ are a serious problem.

    Those types of beliefs get some support from statements like the one included in this press release: “The giant caveat: Earth system sensitivity describes climate changes over hundreds of thousands of years, not the decades and centuries that are immediately relevant to humans.”

    That correct statement regarding the developed highly influential, but undeniably harmful, attitude and restricted consideration of many people should always be paired with a clear statement of the unacceptability of any person in leadership, or of high status, thinking that way.

    As an example, the likely global average surface temperature in 2100 may seem like a decent measurement point given the increased uncertainty of modelling into the future. But it is understandably not an appropriate measure of success. Here are a set of scenarios with equal 2100 temperature values of 1.7 C (not the desired 1.5 C, but maybe considered to be well below 2.0 C):

    1. Human rates of impacts that would increase temperature are ended without temperature impacts exceeding 1.7 C. And sustainable measures are being increasingly implemented that will reverse previous impacts. The future temperature is not expected to increase above 1.7 C and will actually be reduced beyond 2100, including confidence that there will not be increasing surface temperature due to long term potential warming feed-backs.
    2. Human impacts peaked above 2.0 C before 2100 and have been reversed and removed back down with efforts to further reduce impacts being curtailed. Less certainty that there will be no feedback warming after 2100. Part of that uncertainty regarding future warming is uncertainty about the long term impacts of the peak temperature value and duration of the higher temperatures.
    3. Human impacts have been been successfully limited so that the total warming by 2100 is 1.7 C. But impacts are continuing to increase after 2100.

    Those 3 scenarios are not ‘equally successful’ at sustainably improving the future for humanity. Only the first one could be considered to be ‘real success’. The others are just perceptions of ‘equal success’.

    Note that adaptations to the impacts of climate change are 'not improvements of the future' They are attempts to maintain developed ways of living. And repair of climate change damage is also 'attempts to maintain developed stuff'. That leads to the understanding that developed perceptions of poverty reduction and perceptions of living better than a basic decent life are unsustainable if they rely on harmful unsustainable actions like the use of fossil fuels (even abated use of fossil fuels is unsustainable).

    The challenge is being clear about what developed perceptions do not deserve to be maintained as the developed harming of the future of humanity is corrected.

  49. A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

    Some say that current CO2 emissions have no effect on future warming (global warming, climate change deniers).

    Some say that past CO2 emissions have no effect on future warming (no-warming in the pipeline climate modelers).

    This study suggests that maybe we are not in as much control of the environment as these other two groups of people would like to think.

  50. 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #44

    Dessler's post does rather hedge its bets by suggesting it might be "due to natural variability persisting over an extended period" which will at some point come to an end (so as per the 2007-12 slowdown but in reverse). But he also points to the recent deep La Niña which may be amplifying the impact of the less-than-massive El Niño.

    The ENSO indices do show the build-up to present weak El Niño conditions were unusually preceded by strong La Niña cinditions which had been, if anything, strengthening through the period rather than, as is usual, weakening as El Niño conditions approach. (The MEI perhaps shows this situation best.) Yet the big 1997-98 El Niño also strengthened quite suddenly and showed nothing like this 2023 bananas situation.

    MEI el nino profiles

    The bananas (sudden appearance of an additional +0.2ºC in the global average temperatures) won't be some sudden forcing as there is no sign of anything (or things) approaching the required force. That means we have a natural wobble.

    But is that wobble reversing something that has been shielding the impacts of AGW and so it won't reverse? Or is going to abate in coming months/years? Dessler looks to the climate models as suggesting it is the latter. But the question is still an open one!!

Prev  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us