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 7151 to 7200:

nigelj at 08:27 AM on 5 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Michael Sweet @8, I never said in my post that storage for renewables would be expensive. I suggested its unlikely that there would ultimately be much difference between the costs of nuclear power generation and renewables generation. Renewables have to be able to deal with about two weeks of low wind and cloudy days and big diurnal and seasonal variations in demand, which means either a big overbuild, or masses of some form of storage or carbon capture .Yes it can be done eventually and economically with mass production, but I think you would have to be crazy to believe it will end up lower cost than nuclear power. The research paper you quoted saying "They show that a well designed All Power system might require zero storage" is little more than speculation based on various assumptions, the word 'might' gives it away.

The nuclear power advocates dont all suggest the entire energy system of the world rely on just nuclear power. Many accept we need biofuels and pumped hydro and so on. So your comments are a bit of a strawman.

Yes nuclear power faces big resource constraints with supplies of uranium, but that is not a compelling reason not to build any nuclear power at all. Even if Abbot is right and theres only enough uranium to power 20% of the world ( and this has been heavily contested) thats still 20%.

And my point was that renewables also face resource constraints. I actually never said there were not enough resources to build renewables at scale, simply that this probaly wont "last forever". From my recollection, Jacobson only found that there are enough resorces to build the first generation or two of renewables at scale. We have to be able to keep this going for thousands of years, and even with recycling that will be challenging. Let me remind you the earths mineral resources are finite, and rich seams of even common minerals are actually quite rare. Therefore it might make sense to mix both renewables and nuclear power.

Of course reserves of fossil fuels are even more limited, with credible estimates suggesting light crude oil has already peaked in terms of supply, and America may only have 50 years of economically recoverable coal left, and obviously oil and coal cannot be recycled. Once they are burned they are basically gone for good, so the use of fossil fuels is fast nearing the limits. At least the sun and wind are essentially unlimited and most metals can be recycled. All the more reason to adopt renewables, but maybe nuclear is ok as well.

A few of us think more in terms of a combination of systems or a hybrid system, while most people seem to take firm sides on the nuclear versus renewables thing, but to me this doesnt look terribly science based and more like its based on emotion and hype.

You said "This article is just nuclear industry propaganda uncritically presented. " Yet the article fully ackowledged the considerable challenges facing the nuclear industry. I think the article bent over backwards to be accurate and balanced, and covered as much as it could within a one page format.

bbrowett at 05:01 AM on 5 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Recognizing that I am broadening the discussion beyond the narrow focus of the article. The issue is not whether renewable generation is better than nuclear, but remains whether nuclear should be considered to be part of the future energy mix. What is lacking in the article is a discussion of values.

In one sense I agree with the title of the article: “We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy”, since the article overlooks the intergenerational responsibility and consequence of the use of nuclear power. This issue of kicking down the raod the responsibility for waste, proliferation, environmental damage, and threats of nuclear terrorism has plagued the nuclear power debate since the beginning of the nuclear age.

For the moment, setting aside the obvious problems with the article that implicitly accepts that energy narcissism/inequality is acceptable, the promotion of technical fixes to first “Climate Change”, and now the “Climate Emergency” has always been self-serving for the nuclear power industry. This industry needs to be rescued from the failed experiment that it is.

The Canadian nuclear industry, like the USA industry, has recently been pushing for small nuclear reactors … as well as newer large reactor designs, in an effort to retain some relevance … and especially to mask the legacy of the proliferation of the failed experiments of the old boiling water technology of the 1960s and 1970s designed reactors. …

Nuclear Waste (low and high level), … The plans basically amount to requiring future generations to clean up the mess from our and previous generations that benefited from the energy, but refused to take responsibility for the long-term radioactive wastes … This legacy continues.

Nuclear proliferation (extraction for bombs or creation of dirty bombs), … Curiously, perhaps this generation is just numb to the existential threats of nuclear weapons, and the potential for extraction of radioactive materials to produce weapons. Perhaps this generation has bought into the myths of limited nuclear war, and that they will be among the survivors. Perhaps there is a belief that there will be good procedures that will maintain control over the nuclear waste stream as reactors are deployed around the world … Perhaps the central White House figure should be a cautionary tale for those who believe that good leadership will always control the management of nuclear power, nuclear materials, and nuclear weapons.

Nuclear environmental damage … Throughout the nuclear life-cycle, especially the fabrication processes, through the history of nuclear power … a great deal of radioactive material has been generated: from old dump sites (land and sea) to old reactors sites and components to accident sites. Given the storied history of misadventure and mismanagement, I would have thought that some humility with respect the pollution that has been generated would have been reflected in the article.

Nuclear threats of nuclear terrorism … i.e., non-governmental actors as well as rouge governments. Given the decent in to autocratic malevolence that we are seeing throughout the world, it seems oddly irresponsible to promote a wider distribution of such lethal technologies at this time, and sadly ironic as we collectively try to fend off the environmental damage caused by the irresponsible use of fossil fuels. In many respects the irresponsible responses of governments to the Climate Emergency and pushing responsibility to future generations look similar to the issues of nuclear proliferation and terrorism …

Yes, we will need technical fixes to the Climate Emergency that has been caused by fossil fuel use. However, these technical fixes must be combined with deep social changes that are more substantive than the suggested ‘politics’ in this article. This generation in its responses to irresponsible fossil use, should not be adding to the burden of future generations by promoting additional nuclear power use. If the nuclear power industry was to be responsible, I would expect that if would put all its resources into cleaning up the messes of the past and current of nuclear power use and developing responsible nuclear power policies …

“But taking one step farther back, a few things are glaringly obvious: Smart planning, big investments, science-based strong leadership, and a motivated populace are precisely what’s needed. While we can argue about the details ad infinitum, perhaps we can also agree to stay focused on the end goal, dream big, and move forward boldly.”  

The bold step back … would be to accept that nuclear power should not be part of the mix of future energy sources. A bold step would be to address the social changes and technology changes that are needed to address the energy narcissism/inequality that will only be made worse if we focus only on technology … and worse the technologies that benefit only this generation.

michael sweet at 03:10 AM on 5 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Nigelj:

At post 3 you say: "For example, Nuclear power is expensive compared to wind and solar and gas, but probably cost competitive with wind and solar and mass storage, at current costs of mass storage."

Connelly et al 2016 (reviewed at SkS here) and the references in it show that the bigger the system the lower the storage cost. This means that an electricity only system requires relatively much more storage than a system that provides all electricity, heating, transportation and industry. That means a system that provides ALL POWER requires much less storage than an electricity only system. They show that a well designed All Power system might require zero storage. Obviously if we want to get to zero carbon dioxide emissions we require an All Power system. Electricity only systems, as nuclear supporters describe, are not helpful in reaching zero carbon emissions.

I wrote that summary specifically to address your complaints that storage for renewable energy would be too expensive. Nuclear supporters, like those on the RealClimate thread you frequent, do not discuss All Power systems because electricity only systems make renewable energy look more expensive. The OP has the same problem since it is written from a nuclear point of view.

I have shown your claims of expensive storage are false as described in the peer reviewed literature. If you want to claim expensive storage you need to find peer reviewed sources to support your repeated, false claims.

Your claims at post 3 " Nuclear power relies on a non renewable fuel, but several of the metals used to make wind and solar power plants will obviously not last for all eternity either" are also false. I have referred you repeatedly to Jacobson 2009 which shows that all the materials to build out renewable energy exist is adequate amounts, except for rare earth elements in the turbines. Since then the turbines have been redesigned so that they do not use excess rare earth elements. By contrast, Abbott 2012 shows that many rare elements in nuclear plants, including uranium, do not exist is sufficient amunts to build out more than 5% of All Power. The nuclear industry has not replied to Abbott which shows they agree with his assessment. In general, renewable plants use common materials which are not in short supply. By contrast, many exotic materials are used in nuclear plants to attempt to counter the extreme conditions of heat, corrosivity and radiation field found in nuclear plants.

If you want to contradict the accepted, consensus science you need to provide references to support your wild claims. Constantly repeating false claims does not make them true.

Nuclear supporters constantly repeat false claims about renewable energy. It does not make nuclear look better to falsely claim renewables have problems.

KR at 00:06 AM on 5 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

I see most comments so far are significantly critical of the opening post; and there's some justification for that. For example, they simply pass by the issue that nuclear power cannot, without energy storage, meet changing demand - it is uneconomical to run a nuclear power plant at anything but full load, and the output is therefore flat. Meanwhile they critique renewables in California for not time matching demands either.

However, the article does point out nuclear disadvantages, such as very long lead times, yet to be developed technology, costs, waste storage, and the certainty that the price of advanced nuclear power will be 2-3x that of renewables. And that renewables are much faster to build.

I think a central point of the argument is really the take-home: that claiming the way forward is either renewables or nuclear is a false dichotomy, that just as current energy supplies are a mix, we can continue to consider mixed supplies going forward. That's important, folks. Every bit forward helps.

Prometheus 1962 at 20:53 PM on 4 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Author says "we've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy", then writes an article that doesn't say what the right debate is, and makes the exact same points as some of those who have been engaging in the "wrong" debate.

In short, this article is a complete waste of time.

Eclectic at 13:49 PM on 4 August 2020

Milankovitch Cycles

Kylesa @63 , your question is a bit off the bulls-eye.

The climate change caused by the Milankovitch cycle during the past 1 million years, has occurred in cycles of approx 100,000 years. It is much more correct to say that those climate cycles have been triggered by the Milankovitch orbital alterations ~ because the Milankovitch changes in solar heating of the Northern Hemisphere are very slight (purely in themselves much too weak to make a difference in global climate). However, these slight changes are then greatly magnified by the consequent change in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric CO2 leaves or enters the planetary oceans.

Basically, I think of the recent glaciation/de-glaciation cycles as being caused 10% by the Milankovitch changes (which are the trigger) and 90% by the CO2 rise/fall (the CO2 being the main charge of gunpowder moving the bullet).

More than 1 million years ago, the Milankovitch cycles were still in operation, but were having near-zero effect on climate because the atmospheric CO2 level was so high it swamped the tiny Milankovitch effect.

The anthropogenic causes (mostly the fast-rising CO2) have been so rapid and powerful in causing GW, that it's fair to say that the weak and ultra-slow Milankovitch effects are tiny/negligible ~ like comparing a cockroach to an elephant.

nigelj at 12:42 PM on 4 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Norway has also made huge progress with energy efficiency documented here.

kylesa at 12:18 PM on 4 August 2020

Milankovitch Cycles

What causes more climate change then, Milankovitch cycles or anthropogenic causes?

wilddouglascounty at 12:11 PM on 4 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Oddly missing in this discussion is the role of energy efficiency as the most cost-effective way to "generate" energy by reducing its waste. For instance, the California graph charts how energy production is provided by the mix of renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels, but it does not include the greatly reduced energy needed to be produced because California has led the nation in energy efficiency measures, maintaining the same per-capita energy use while the rest of the country has gone up 33% per capita since the 1970s. All roads to a 100% carbon free energy future is impossible with continued gains in energy efficiency investments, which continues to be a less expensive investment in terms of saved kilowats when compared to the cost of any form of energy production per kilowat hour, whether that is nuclear, wind, solar, natural gas or wood, for that matter.

nigelj at 11:11 AM on 4 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

I'm a realist, and right now renewables are winning the debate in places like America because they are quicker , cheaper and simpler to build than Nuclear power and in a market economy thats how things should properly work. And we have to be able to build stuff quickly to even come close to meeting the Paris goals.

But in terms of which is the best source of power in a technical sense, maybe there just isn't much difference between renewables and nuclear power. For example, Nuclear power is expensive compared to wind and solar and gas, but probably cost competitive with wind and solar and mass storage, at current costs of mass storage. Nuclear power relies on a non renewable fuel, but several of the metals used to make wind and solar power plants will obviously not last for all eternity either, or could eventually become expensive. Nuclear waste is toxic, windfarms kill birds. There is no perfectly sustainable energy nirvana, just choosing the best options at some point in time.

michael sweet at 10:39 AM on 4 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

This article does not respond to most of the items in Abbott 2012. It is simply an amalgam of various nuclear industry fantasies with little to support the claims.

I note that the author describes generating part of electricity. Jacobson 2018, Connelly et al 2016 and many other peer reviewed articles searching for future energy systems describe using renewable energy for 100% of ALL POWER used in the economy. Electricity is only about 20% of all power. Even if nuclear was able to generate 50% of current electricity it would only be 10% of the necessary power needed. Renewable energy would be required for the other 90% of All Power.

Abbott 2012 shows that even for 10% of All Power nuclear cannot meet the need. There is not enough uranium. If fantasy breeder reactors are attempted to be used (using "unobtainium" for critical parts) it will be even more expensive and the designs cannot be commercially available for even longer.

Re-reading the headings in the OP gives a better look at nuclear power:

Smaller and more flexible … but when?
Long lead time misses the key window for action
High and uncertain price tag
But what about nuclear waste?
Funding and political will … uphill battles ahead

This article is just nuclear industry propaganda uncritically presented. I note there are no citations of peer reviewed material in the OP. The OP shoud be deleted. If the writer actually read scientific research like Jacobson 2018 and Connelly 2016 they would not write such drivel.

One Planet Only Forever at 07:56 AM on 4 August 2020

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

An important point to keep in mind is that Nuclear Energy Production is also a non-renewable system that creates harmful 'externalized costs'. Like climate change impacts from fossil fuel use, the waste is hazardous for very long time periods meaning it is inappropriate to use any discounting to determine the acceptability of the risk of harm. Believing a nuclear waste storage system is almost certain for almost 100,000 years does not make the cost of the increased chance of harm after 100,000 years almost zero (a fatal flaw of only evaluating costs and discounting the future when doing that).

Another item to keep in mind is that the nuclear power generation would be the intermittent filler in the energy production system. That means building nuclear power plants that are not the 'base-load slow to change capacity' type of generator.

New Nuclear needs to be thought of as a temporary helpful activity. It cannot be part of the required rapid transition to sustainable solutions for the benefit of the future of humanity.

All that considered, New Nuclear should be limited to safely generating power with the already created waste from existing nuclear operations and the material in existing nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons are harmful waste).

It would be a shame to claim to solve the problem of harmful consequences of the unsustainable use of fossil fuels by developing a different unsustainable harmful way of doing things.

Unsustainable and harmful activity needs to be understood to have no future, no matter how much cheaper and easier and more enjoyable it is than the alternative of lower energy consumption with that energy being sustainable and obtained with minimum harm done (accumulating harm is unsustainable).

Postkey at 19:37 PM on 3 August 2020

The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds

“If the predictions of Nordhaus’s Damage Function were true, then everyone—including Climate Change Believers (CCBs)—should just relax. An 8.5 percent fall in GDP is twice as bad as the “Great Recession”, as Americans call the 2008 crisis, which reduced real GDP by 4.2% peak to trough. But that happened in just under two years, so the annual decline in GDP was a very noticeable 2%. The 8.5% decline that Nordhaus predicts from a 6 degree increase in average global temperature (here CCDs will have to pretend that AGW is real) would take 130 years if nothing were done to attenuate Climate Change, according to Nordhaus’s model (see Figure 1). Spread over more than a century, that 8.5% fall would mean a decline in GDP growth of less than 0.1% per year. At the accuracy with which change in GDP is measured, that’s little better than rounding error. We should all just sit back and enjoy the extra warmth. . . .
In this post, Keen delves into DICE (“Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy”)—the mathematical model underpinning Nordhaus’ work and the flaws in Nordhaus’ methodologies.”

evonomics.com/steve-keen-nordhaus-climate-change-economics/

libertador at 19:35 PM on 3 August 2020

The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds

@gseattle #2

A lot of people asked NOAA what the effect of the global shutdown was on CO2

You should read the text in your link. The reduction due to the pandemic is still to small and short to have a big impact on CO2 concentrations. The annual emissions are estimated to be only 8% lower. The annual rise in the last two decades was roughly 2 ppm per year (fluctuations from 1.6 to 2.9). Therefore, the reduction is not significant enough to be measureable. This does not show, that the rise would be natural.

nigelj at 09:54 AM on 3 August 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31

The earths magnetic field is not causing the AMOC to slow. Magnetic fields affect electrical fields, not physical phenomena like ocean currents.

There is no correlation between the slowing AMOC and weakening magnetic field. The magnetic field has been weakening for at least the last 200 years, and the recent slowdown in the AMOC is believed to have started at earliest in the 1850's but the strongest evidence suggests in the last couple of decades.

The AMOC is slowing because anthropogenic global warming is not surprisingly affecting ocean currents. Some related stuff below.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/earths-magnetic-field-is-weakening-here-is-how-it-might-impact-you/articleshow/76003806.cms

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04086-4

Why would anyone propose an idea like this? Not the average scientist. I think only a "ego driven" denilalist crank would do this.

gseattle at 08:12 AM on 3 August 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31

The science is clear. Unless we're missing something.
"A 2015 study suggested that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) has weakened by 15-20% in 200 years."
"May 20, 2020 - Over the last 200 years, the magnetic field has lost around 9% of its strength on a global average."(ESA)
"Atlantic Circulation [is] Consistently Tied to Carbon Dioxide". Weakening AMOC means more CO2 is left in the air instead of absorbed in the ocean, no?
The missing piece of the puzzle is whether electrically conductive salt water experiences the Lorentz force moving through earth's magnetic field.
Weaker field = less AMOC = less ocean CO2 = more air CO2 which is what we're seeing and most of it is from nature (NOAA), and the time frame is even correct.
Since the field is only half a gauss, the question is the quantity of force compared to the coreolis effect, convection or other forces.
Scientists are currently frustrated in trying to model AMOC so that might be a missing factor.
It's presented here as just a theory that can be checked out if we want to cover all the bases to avoid missing anything.
Does this fall into one of the four categories or might there be a fifth?

Moderator Response:

[DB] Others have already responded to you, except for this:

"Over the last 200 years, the magnetic field has lost around 9% of its strength on a global average"

In actuality and for full context, the strength of Earth’s magnetic field is currently among the strongest in the past 100,000 years:

"Except for the Laschamp excursion, which is seen globally in the model, other apparent excursions appear in limited locations and are likely regional in nature.

Transitional or reversed directions during excursions do not occur simultaneously all over the globe. And, the regional duration of the excursions varies from a few centuries to about 3.5 thousand years.

It has been suggested that the current dipole decrease and association with the South Atlantic Anomaly where field intensity is unusually weak might indicate an imminent field reversal or excursion.

However, none of these similar cases progressed to transitional events: thus the present field morphology cannot be taken as any clear indication of an upcoming reversal or excursion."

Panovska et al 2020 - One Hundred Thousand Years of Geomagnetic Field Evolution

One Planet Only Forever at 13:47 PM on 2 August 2020

The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds

nigelj,

I agree that it is a distraction to claim that Global population growth is causing the climate change problem. Many actions are happening that impact Global Total Population. And some new research indicates that the peak of Global population may not be as high as many have estimated.

"Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study" published in the Lancet on July 14th

It includes the following forecast for Global Population:

"In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100. The reference projections for the five largest countries in 2100 were India (1·09 billion [0·72–1·71], Nigeria (791 million [594–1056]), China (732 million [456–1499]), the USA (336 million [248–456]), and Pakistan (248 million [151–427])."

It also indicates that if the Sustainable Development Goals are effectively achieved the Total Global Population will be even lower.

r.pauli at 00:23 AM on 2 August 2020

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #30, 2020

Doug, this is a WONDERFUL and important resource. Thank you so much for your devotion to promoting access to original source science.

nigelj at 07:09 AM on 1 August 2020

The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds

gseattle @2

No population growth is not the "only real problem". Its also a question of what fuel sources that population uses, obviously I would have thought. A large population using zero carbon energy is one potential solution to the climate issue. Your own link refutes your own assertion that burning fossil fuels is not a significant problem by pointing out you need large reductions in human emissions for it to show up in the data.

Of course population growth is also problem, but lets look at the actual evidence: The rate of global population growth started falling in the late 1960's due to the demographic transition. Population growth in developed countries is near zero, and some countries have a falling population eg Japan. The main population growth of significance is in Africa and parts of Asia. This stuff is easily googled.

But the point is natural processes called the demographic transition push population growth down, like increasing wealth provides security so people dont need to have such larger families, womens rights slowly improve, contraception becomes accepted. Clearly history shows the corporation's havent managed to stop those things, even if they have tried and they benefit from the creation of wealth.

Governments sometimes intervene to make population growth fall like China's notorius one child policy but there have been others. Do corporations lobby governments to oppose such policies, and do corporations pressure the media to keep population issues off their agenda? I wouldn't be surprised, but you provide no hard evidence.

But whatever the corporations have tried to do, the overall trend globally has been slowing population growth and it will almost certainly happen in African sooner or later, and there's nothing corporations will be able to do to stop this demographic transition. In fact its clearly in their interests for countries to grow their wealth.

Refer "projections of population growth" on wikipedia to review the research on where we are and where we are most likely heading.

In terms of the climate problem, population pressure obviously contributes, but at least the trends are mostly slowing,

Jonbo69 at 05:58 AM on 1 August 2020

Why low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out

If we hit double pre-industrial levels of CO2 in 2060 and we are likely locked into a 3 degree rise in temps above pre-industrial levels, how long does it take and around what year will it be before we reach that 3 degrees? Is this possible to estimate?

gseattle at 21:34 PM on 31 July 2020

The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds

A lot of people asked NOAA what the effect of the global shutdown was on CO2:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/covid2.html

Nature's portion is vast. So it's a myth.

150 new people on earth each MINUTE per world population balance, that is the only real problem and we are all ignoring it, because every large media outlet is controlled by the giant corporations which care only about their own growth.

nigelj at 17:45 PM on 31 July 2020

The Trump EPA is vastly underestimating the cost of carbon dioxide pollution to society, new research finds

Nordhaus got a nobel prize for this Dice model? And yet it appears to have been mostly discredited along with the assumptions and input information selected by Nordhaus. This doesn't say much for the economists who nominated him and the Nobel expert panel that assessed his work. I mean theres a serious lack of academic rigour going on here, and a serious lack of even basic commonsense and picking up on obvious red flags. The exact same can be said for the EPA, and the Trump Administration.

nigelj at 07:01 AM on 30 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Eclectic @40, I dont visit WUWT very much these days. It appears to be the hard core denialati. The truly faithful and driven. I get enough observing of denalists on our local daily media.

I suspect some of the denialati are also paid to post commentary by various conservative leaning lobby and business groups.Their job is purely to cast doubt on climate science, and they do this the simplest way they can while making a dollar: They more or less copy and paste their list of nonsense repeating old memes and myths, in other words propaganda. No point in wasting time acually addressing the article or having difficult discussions!

I agree about facebook. I certainly don't see it going away, not short to medium term anyway but it might get smaller. I dont use it these days because Im just not a hugely socially connecting sort of person in that sort of way, and prefer email, but I can see its great for people wanting to connect a lot in a group sort of way and to track down old school friends. These perfectly well intended functions have sort of been highjacked to turn it into a fake news site. Not sure what the solution is, but society is starting to loose patience with hate speech and fake news, so pressure will come on facebook from all quarters, and it may be other websites like Mewe gain traction. Old saying: The only constant is change.

Just on the denialists on WUWT. I sometimes wonder if they are inherently psychologically weak with all the motivated reasoning and other biases, or their underlying ideology and world view drives the motivated reasoning, or whether certain libertarian world views naturally coincide with a tendency towards motivated reasoning.

michael sweet at 02:49 AM on 30 July 2020

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Baerbel,

The article you linked gave a reasonable summary of the pro-nuclear argument. Those who read it will note that proposed nuclear options will not be available until the 2030's and the cost is unknown. Many other problems are left unaddressed.

The author of the piece is a free lance writer and ski instructor. Why should I think she knows more about nuclear energy than I do? By contrast, Abbott is a well known electrical engineer who has studied nuclear power for years. Most of the points Abbott makes are not addressed in the Climate Connection article.

wayne19608 at 02:11 AM on 30 July 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Sailrick, I kind of agree with you. It's more a ruling out of low end then high end states. Personally I will place more importance on the paleontological evidence. If we're 1C+/- now

+ 0.2C for the pre-preindustrial warming

+ 0.5C for aerosols

plus you have a 30year/66% lag meaning the temperatures were experiencing now are more indicative of 350ppm than 420ppm. So I see your point on how a +40% increase in CO2 has in all probability commited us to +2C rise in 150yrs. This doesn't address what the end state will be in 1000yrs or more. Now instead of a 40% increase imagine an actual doubling its obvious that a 2C warming shouldn't even be in the equation

sailrick at 01:52 AM on 30 July 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Thanks for the clarifications. The Carbon Brief article was one the two I had read.

Eclectic at 00:30 AM on 30 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Thank you, Nigelj. From time to time I do see your comments at Realclimate ( I am an irregular visitor to the site).

Yes, the comments sections at WUWT are much more for venting, than for actual discussion. WUWT puts out several new articles per day ~ and the comments after each article are mostly repetitious venting, a churning of scores-to-hundreds of posts by the usual suspects. Often with scant connection to the article itself. Yet there are subtle variations in the exhibited Motivated Reasoning . . . and this I find interesting (maybe my brain is already curdled or yoghurtified? ) And always, but always, there are immediate & childish attacks on anyone making a rational well-informed comment there (something which a few brave souls - e.g. Nick Stokes - do venture to make, occasionally.)

Facebook itself is a different kettle of fish, on my limited experience of it. I like to think that WUWT is perhaps useful in satisfying the anti-social aggressiveness of its denizens ~ so that they are less likely to go out and commit gun massacres . . . but really I'm not sure on that.

Facebook seems a mixture of good and bad, for society. Probably more bad than good ~ but its existence is now a "given" , and we must now join the dance and make the best of it we can.

nigelj at 18:17 PM on 29 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Eclectic @38, yes it's certainly interesting observing them. Dont let it curdle your brain.

I suggest have a look over at realclimate.org at the latest article: "Somebody Read the comments." Its very relevant. The research paper is a long and somewhat tedious read, but it has this interesting snippet near the end:

"Substantially more double interacts were identified in the user comments of RealClimate than Watts Up With That. This finding suggests that there is more deliberation in user threads of RealClimate as users engage with more alternative viewpoints (Collins & Nerlich, 2015). In contrast, Watts Up With That functions more as an echo chamber, as users tend to agree with comments of previous users. We need to be cautious with comparing both data sets in terms of the deployed framing strategies, as the RealClimate data set included more double interacts. Yet the fact that users of Watts Up With That always deployed issue framing and were less inclined to use identity and process framing with negative denotations supports our argument: Watts Up With That functions more as an echo chamber in which users feel safe and perceive comments less as a threat to their cultural identities. Overall, these observations are consistent with literature on one hand showing that user comments offer potential for deliberation and mobilization around climate change (Collins & Nerlich, 2015; Cooper et al., 2012; Graham & Wright, 2015; Uldam & Askanius, 2007), and on the other pointing to concerns about echo chamber effects creating niches of denial and demonstrations of incivility (Collins & Nerlich, 2015; Walter et al., 2018)."

BaerbelW at 14:44 PM on 29 July 2020

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Karin Kirk's recent article for Yale Climate Connections is relevant for this thread (I think):

We've been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy

Philippe Chantreau at 11:35 AM on 29 July 2020

Why low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out

Of course there is a lot of study behind these results, but I'm looking at where we are now: nowhere near doubling and nowere near enough time to reach equilibrium for even our current level, and pretty much 1 degree Celsius already. In my non expert opinion, that made the probability of a low end equilibrium sensitivity for doubling at 1.5 deg. so unlikely that it could already be considered negligible. Just saying.

Eclectic at 10:24 AM on 29 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Nigelj , your observations are quite correct about that type of denialist (at WUWT ).

Yes, there are a few exceptions there ~ e.g. crackpots with little or no political extremism. But the vast majority are as you say . . . wingnuts and/or conspiracy theorists, who lean toward government-free libertarianism (or at least, just enough government to supply policing & border guards in order to suppress "sub-races" and foreigners). I would go further, and say there is also a nasty streak of callous selfishness or uncharitableness ~ though you will rightly observe such is simply the obverse side of the Libertarian coin.

But you have partly mistaken my meaning, Nigelj. I have not posted at WUWT ~ I merely observe the pathology of the diseased minds there. Quite marvellous and fascinating. And one day, I may identify a vulnerable chink in their mental armor (admittedly a very, very slim chance). Until that day, I see no hope of influencing the denizens of WUWT. Yet I take my hat off to the tiny number of real scientists [especially the excellent Nick Stokes] who occasionally post comments there.

Other forums, less extreme, may indeed have lurkers or participants who can be swayed/mollified by reasoned argument. But that doesn't apply in the vitriolic echochamber which is WUWT.

Facebook itself, is territory that is worth contesting.

nigelj at 07:22 AM on 29 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Eclectic @36, I know the types of climate denialist you speak of. I argued with one for a year, a libertarian leaning chap with a chemistry degree.

They invariably seem to have a very strong ideologically based world view that is very pro small government, and very suspicious of governments especially 'big' government, and thus very intolerant of anything with a socialist leaning flavour, anything like carbon taxes or climate subsidies, and they loathe the science of climate change probbaly because it leads inevitably to these sorts of things.

You need to understand these most extreeme climate denialists tend to be libertarians, and you cannot reason with these people, because they have a sort of mental affliction that they will take to the grave. They are at the outher extreme of the bell curve. You will never find a chink in their armour. Their views are primal to the extent they will never tolerate climate science and the inevitable governmnet involvement in mitigation even if climate change destroys them as a result. To them the only thing that matter is having very small governmnet and this is so strong its like the need to breathe or eat food. They are far more rigid than conservatives.

Your commentary may however convince or be useful to other people reading who are a bit more normal, so if you have a spare moment its still possibly useful. And sure it can be fun and stimulating arguing with people even if they are as rigid as stone. Just dont expect to move that stone.

gseattle at 20:55 PM on 28 July 2020

Wildfires off to slow start in much of the West, but trouble expected starting in mid-July

Meanwhile I was surprised to hear of the fires in Russia until I read this ... "7 days ago - On Monday, Russian officials said fires had destroyed 1.2 million hectares of forest in Russia, saying this figure “is a quarter less than a year ago”, independent ..."

Temperatures in Siberia have exceeded 100 F while record snow in Norway.

Global temperature discombobulation.

Eclectic at 17:00 PM on 28 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Thank you Baerbel and John ~ I have now caught up with that Boyle article on independent.co.uk (a good article, but gloomy). Moving to another computer solved the problem of access. ( I was reading on an old Chromebook, which seems to allow loads of ads to come through : but obviously not enough to satisfy the independent.co.uk setup. )

Gloomy article. But let's hope the coming events of Nov/Dec/January will help Facebook gain a bit of backbone for 2021 onwards.

The toxic mentality of Deniers is quite a study. You may have noticed from some of my older posts, that I am an observer of WUWT blogsite, especially the comments sections. The comments sections are a fascinating study of the extremist fringe of humanity. A good number of the commenters are quite intelligent ~ on topics other than climate science and social politics. But on those two topics, they show a "marvellous" mixture of intellectual insanity & moral uncharitableness. (Not that you aren't well aware of their mental flaws!)

I am seeking an accessible crevice in their armor. But unsuccessfully so far. The armor keeps re-configuring itself, like a kaleidoscope (just as John Cook et alia know too well). Another analogy is : like trying to reason with an out-of-control paranoid schizophrenic . . . a task without much chance of success, unless some extraordinary "key" can be discovered.

Outvoting them seems the main path forward.

BaerbelW at 14:31 PM on 28 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Eclectic @33 - I just checked and the article is accessible without logging in and/or subscribing for me in Germany and using Firefox. I just see a banner at the bottom of the page asking "Want a completely ad-free experience?" Do you perhaps have an ad-blocker active during browsing?

John Hartz at 10:11 AM on 28 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Eclectic: I'm not aware of any.

John Hartz at 23:49 PM on 27 July 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

The most definitive article about the reserch findings is most likely the one writen by the paper's authors and posted on Carbon Brief. Here's the introduction to the article...

After four years of labour and detailed discussions by an international team of scientists, we are able to quantify better than ever before how the world’s surface temperature responds to increasing CO2 levels.

Our findings, published in Reviews of Geophysics, narrow the likely range in “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS) – a measure of how much the world can be expected to warm for a doubling of CO2 above pre-industrial levels.

Constraining ECS has remained a holy grail in climate science ever since US meteorologist Jules Charney suggested a possible range of 1.5C to 4.5C in his 1979 report. His estimate was largely based on the world’s first two global climate models, which gave different estimates of 2C and 4C when they performed a simple experiment where atmospheric CO2 levels were doubled.

Since then, despite more than 40 years of research, much improved understanding of atmospheric processes, as well as many more detailed observations, this range has stubbornly persisted.

Now, bringing together evidence from observed warming, Earth’s distant past and climate models, as well as advances in our scientific understanding of the climate, our findings suggest that the range of ECS is likely to be between 2.6C and 4.1C.

This narrowed range indicates that human society will not be able to rely on a low sensitivity to give us more time to tackle climate change. But the silver lining to this cloud is that our findings also suggest that very high ECS estimates are unlikely.

Guest post: Why low-end ‘climate sensitivity’ can now be ruled out by Piers Forster, Zeke Hausfather, Gabi Hegerl, Steven Sherwood & Kyle Armour, Carbon Brief, June 22, 2020

Note: This article will be reposted in its entirety on this website later this week.

MA Rodger at 19:44 PM on 27 July 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

nigelj @3,

And that RealClimate OP thread does contain this link accessing the full paper.

nigelj at 17:30 PM on 27 July 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Some free details and opinions on the new climate sensitivity study here.

One Planet Only Forever at 14:34 PM on 27 July 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

sailrick,

I also have not bought the article to read it. But the available abstract includes the following statement to indicate that several different, but similar ranges for S could be presented.

"The 66% range is 2.6‐3.9 K for our Baseline calculation, and remains within 2.3‐4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5‐95% ranges are 2.3‐4.7 K, bounded by 2.0‐5.7 K (although such high‐confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously)."

sailrick at 14:20 PM on 27 July 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

I admit I haven't read the article on climate sensitivity, but I'm confused. I read two other articles about the new study and they said 2.6-4.1 C was the new range.

Eclectic at 13:08 PM on 27 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Thanks, JH @32 , for the recommendation. Is there an easy hoop or two to jump through, to read the Boyle article, but without "registering" ?

A bit off-topic, but somewhat related, are the hoops that WUWT has been jumping through in order to change platform. (Mentioned in post #1). Latest I've noticed, is that WUWT says it has abandoned the attempt and has reversed course. It seems there were too many technical difficulties in porting the extensive past records.

John Hartz at 09:59 AM on 27 July 2020

A conundrum: our continued presence on Facebook

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments