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.

Recommended supplemental reading:

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

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

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

nigelj,

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

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

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

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

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

nigelj at 17:13 PM on 23 March 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nigelj,

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

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

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

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

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

There are parallels in the climate change challenge.

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

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

JoeZ at 06:05 AM on 23 March 2020

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

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

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

Eclectic at 18:23 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

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

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

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

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

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

duncan61 at 16:09 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

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

Moderator Response:

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

Off-topic snipped.

Eclectic at 14:25 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Duncan, I ask again :-

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

duncan61 at 14:07 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

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

Moderator Response:

[DB] Off-topic snipped.

duncan61 at 14:03 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

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

Moderator Response:

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

Eclectic at 13:35 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Yeah right, Duncan.

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

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

duncan61 at 12:39 PM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

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

Moderator Response:

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

duncan61 at 12:30 PM on 22 March 2020

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

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

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

nigelj at 08:28 AM on 22 March 2020

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

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

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

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

MA Rodger at 05:04 AM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

SDK @399,

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

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

SDK at 03:33 AM on 22 March 2020

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

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

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

scaddenp at 18:48 PM on 21 March 2020

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

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

nigelj at 12:47 PM on 21 March 2020

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

Scaddenp @4,

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

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

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

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

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

RedBaron at 12:06 PM on 21 March 2020

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

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

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

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

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

The importance of herbivory

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

fires with Kangaroo

image courtesy New York Times

What to Read on Australia’s Bushfire Crisis

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

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

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

Buffalo Holocaust

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

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

Grassland Birds: Fostering Habitats Using Rotational Grazing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we reverse global warming?

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

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

scaddenp at 07:43 AM on 21 March 2020

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

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

nigelj at 07:32 AM on 21 March 2020

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

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

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

One Planet Only Forever at 02:14 AM on 21 March 2020

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

A summary statement, with the full story presented above to help justify it, would be:

People need to expand their awareness and improve their understanidng and apply what they learn to correct what has developed and help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity, especially learning what type of leadership to vote for.

A great starting point would be the understanding that is the basis for the full set of Sustainable Development Goals. In addition to the above information are the understanding that:

the human body only extracts protein from 100 grams of meat in a meal (the rest of that 8 oz steak is waste, except for the taste)
humans do not need to eat 100 grams of meat in every meal

That makes it undeniable that the most fortunate on the planet have a lot of opportunity to reduce how harmful and wasteful their diet, and their example, is. Correcting how they eat would make them Helpful Examples for everyone else to aspire to enjoy, and make them deserving of being higher status people.

And that simple correction of how the richest eat can make a massive difference to many important issues, not just on the climate change front.

A side issue is the need to stop the animal growing activity that is causing the frequent harmful contamination of produce like romaine lettuce.

JoeZ at 00:25 AM on 21 March 2020

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

So, this article is posted on April 19, 2020? Back from the future?

Moderator Response:

[DB] Fixed.

MA Rodger at 08:24 AM on 20 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

meb58 @15,

In terms of their contribution to the biosphere, I think the C3/C4 thing is a bit more complex than just CO2 levels. The Wikithing page does a pretty good job describing much of it, and complete with references.

C4 plants have a competitive advantage over plants possessing the more common C3 carbon fixation pathway under conditions of drought, high temperatures, and nitrogen or CO2 limitation. When grown in the same environment, at 30 °C, C3 grasses lose approximately 833 molecules of water per CO2 molecule that is fixed, whereas C4 grasses lose only 277. This increased water use efficiency of C4 grasses means that soil moisture is conserved, allowing them to grow for longer in arid environments.

C4 plants arose around 35 million years ago during the Oligocene (precisely when is difficult to determine) and did not become ecologically significant until around 6 to 7 million years ago, in the Miocene. C4 metabolism in grasses originated when their habitat migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments, where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway. Drought was not necessary for its innovation; rather, the increased resistance to water stress was a byproduct of the pathway and allowed C4 plants to more readily colonize arid environments

Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species. Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation. Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.

Of course with C4 plants becoming "ecologically significant " sometime between 35My bp and 6-7My bp, this was also a time of falling CO2 levels with (probably roughly 13My bp) CO2 levels seen dropping below 400ppm(v), until modern times.

meb58 at 07:02 AM on 20 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

This is a link to an article that I refer to on occasion.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-c3-and-vs-c4-plants/

meb58 at 06:51 AM on 20 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

Thank you for the graph. So...for the time beeing, assuming CO2 remained a static condition, C4 plants theoretically still have an advantage?

I understand the advantage from an observational perspective only...that many grasses die out entirely during winter months, with the previous season's mass decomposing and adding to the soil - storing CO2 - while new grass structures re-grow each warm season to repeat this cycle. Scrubby plants - assuming we are referring to deciduous plants - become woody and at best add saome mass back to the soil via leaf drop in the winter, but with far less leaf drop where the Cheetah run? All a question in the form of a statement...my soil sciense classes were long ago too.

Sad to read about the affect this is having on Cheetah!

John Hartz at 04:36 AM on 20 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11

Recommended supplemental reading;

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming by Bruce Lieberman, Article, Yale Climate Connections, Mar 19, 2019

Note: Lieberman's article includes a list of articles about this topic that were posted in February of this year.

RedBaron at 03:18 AM on 20 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

@meb58,

It's a good question, but the answer is no. This graph will explain it better than words.

photosynthesis graph

Instead what has happened, we are reaching the maximum rate for photosynthesis efficiency on C4 plants, and now as CO2 rises, C3 plants slowly catch up and even pass. C4's are gradually losing their competitive advantage. This is one of the factors which has allowed scrub to take advantage and become invasive where previously grasses dominated. (for exaple much cheetah habitat now is so full of thorny scrub, it is making the cats go blind from all the thorns in the eyes)

This is also worrisome because scrub is much more susceptable to out of control fires and it does not sequester carbon in the soil like grasses do. So that CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Please limit image widths to under 500.

MA Rodger at 02:28 AM on 20 March 2020

There is no consensus

Eclectic @883,

The purveyors of fakery at Heartland do seem to be re-branding themselves. As well as the recent appearance of their "Climate at a glance" website, a similar-looking site has reared its head with the title "ClimateREALISM" and proclaiming its mission saying:-

"The climate alarmism industry and its media allies present a daily barrage of false, misleading, and one-sided information designed to convince people that a climate crisis is at hand. Climate Realism provides daily rebuttals to the alarmists’ Climate Delusion, giving the media and interested persons access to the facts, data, and perspectives that the put the daily media scares in proper perspective. Articles and information presented on this website can be accessed by date or by climate-related topic."

This site too is provided with a "Consensus" page but the content doesn't even attempt to start to address the subject. I'd assume the rest of the site is likewise fake-heavy anf fact-light.

meb58 at 00:05 AM on 20 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

RedBaron,

Although my background is in Landscape Architecture, and botany was a minor subject from long ago, I have been intrigued by C4 plants; I have always wondered about the conditions that allowed C4 plants to colonize...that ratio of CO2 and O2 was very different than it is today? When possible, I try to incorporate these types of grasses/plants into my design schemes, but wonder if the concentration of CO2 in the air today is at a 'toxic' threshold for C4 plants?

This is an entirely unscientific question, apologies!

JoeZ at 22:44 PM on 19 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11

I think it would have been a better article if they explained what species were planted and why those species. If it was different species to enhance diversity- that may be fine if they'll survive the planting. Planting trees under other trees usually results in failure unless the new trees are shade tolerant and the soil is ideal for that species. As for American chestnut- I planted 3 several years ago. One has survived. The American Chestnut Foundation has been breeding trees that are 15/16 American chestnut and 1/16 Chinese chestnut. I got the trees from that organization.

One Planet Only Forever at 08:10 AM on 19 March 2020

UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade

The following BBC News Business Section story discusses a recent report related to this topic: Climate change: The rich are to blame, international study finds

Though the UK is reducing its emissions it does not appear that the Richest in the UK are leading the charge by most rapidly becoming people whose ways of living and ways of earning wealth do not create any new GHG emissions. And in addition to failing to be Leaders towards eliminating the harmful aspects of their ways, the richest are also failing to help others develop sustainable improvements of their lives.

It appears that the UK and the rest of the nations on the planet would be doing much better today, and into the future, if all of the richest actually were leaders who were deserving of their higher status and greater ability to influence what is going on.

And the partisan nature of Leadership Decision Making, biased in favour of the richest (not laying blame where it actually belongs and not imposing effective corrective actions), is perhaps the most damaging uncorrected result of humanity's development to date.

RedBaron at 05:57 AM on 19 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11

@2 JoeZ,

100% agreed unless we are talking about introducing diversity of species that were lost, like the new plans to reintroduce the American Chestnut to the Eastern North American forests, or other species to monoculture forestry plantations.

Mixed-species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for the future

JoeZ at 04:20 AM on 19 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11

Also, I have trouble understanding why they're planting trees in the understory of an existing forest. It would make more sense to plant trees where there are no trees but once were. Standing trees produce seeds which should be able to "stock" the understory.

RedBaron at 16:23 PM on 18 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

@11 JoeZ,

My appologies for not being detailed enough in my answer.

Initially the carbon leaves the plant without forming any plant biomass at all, instead it follows this biological pathway:

Liquid carbon pathway

Biology in the grasslands soils then form it into this:

Mollic Epipedon

I gave a link to the geological long cycle, but it is behind a paywall. I found a better link so you can understand it better without the paywall.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

The paper is rather technical, but the short answer is this carbon has a long chain of events and pathways to follow and ultimately becomes sedimentary rock of various types, locking up the carbon for geological time frames even after it leaves the actual living soil.

Biomass carbon generally with a few exceptions returns to the atmosphere, while as much as 78% of the liquid carbon pathway carbon when it degrades ends up locked in sedimentary rock of some sort. It may take hundreds or thousands of years to reach this stage, but the important part for climate scientists is that it doesn't return to the atmosphere. (although human disturbance with the bulldozer, plow, agrochemicals, and other agricultural practices can change this dynamic radically)

JoeZ at 07:59 AM on 18 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

Red Baron @10. You say, "In a grassland about 40% of those products of photosynthesis never get locked in plant primary productivity biomass at all, instead bypassing all that on a pathway entering the geological long carbon cycle." I can appreciate that some carbon will be stored in soils but why do you say it will enter geologic long carbon cycle? I'm not saying your wrong- I'm just surprised at what you say.

RedBaron at 06:15 AM on 18 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

Planting a forest where there once was a large area we deforested for timber is likely going to have a temporary beneficial effect on the carbon cycle and global warming, and multiple localised beneficial effects on the surrounding ecology including temperature moderation, hydrological and nutrient cycles, wildlife, reduced erosion and many more.

However, most forests are near net zero once mature, with a few notable exceptions.

Furthermore, C3 photosynthesis trees are much slower growing and far less efficient at photosynthesis than rapidly growing C4 grasses, or mixed C4/C3 grasslands. In a grassland about 40% of those products of photosynthesis never get locked in plant primary productivity biomass at all, instead bypassing all that on a pathway entering the geological long carbon cycle. For this reason instead of having a moderating effect, grasslands are actually one of the few biological climate forcings for cooling. Their long term effect is strong enough to cause our current ice age and combined with a few other factors are what gave us our cyclical glaciation cycles.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

It would be far more beneficial to climate acre per acre to restore a lost grassland, tallgrass prairie, and/or savanna. But even here the benefit is not in the biomass, and biomass should not be what is sold on any carbon markets.

Instead the soil needs sampled to verify what has been sent on that other pathway.

Why? Because the added carbon in the atmosphere was supplied from geologically old sources, so the only carbon offsets that should be sold are inputs to geologically old sinks.

Most forests don't qualify. A few are long term sinks like Mangrove forests yes, but otherwise no.

PS This also means the soil tests used need to be the A-horizon and lower, and not the top O-horizon, and can't be part of any tillage system.

Bob Loblaw at 05:49 AM on 18 March 2020

UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade

JoeZ:

Well, where I live (and many governments fall into this classification) there are three branches of government:

Legistlative
Executive
Judicial

The Legislative branch is where the politicians mainly hang out in democratic systems.

The Executive branch is often tied to politicians at the top (president, Prime MInister, cabinet, etc.), but most people working in it (people like me) try not to grind polical axes as they do their jobs. Regardless of what some politicians think, not every worker is part of a "Deep State" that views public service as a political opportunity. When politicians get resistance from this level of government, it is more often than not because they are trying to maintain the the independence (from partisan politics) that good government demands.

The Legistlative branch is supposed to be fairly independent of politicians amd partisan activity. I know the U.S. is probably not a very good example of judicial independence, but the U.S. is not the world. (Granted, there are places that are even worse than the U.S.)

So, yes. there are lots of "non-partisan government bodies" out there. You just need to know where to look.

nigelj at 05:34 AM on 18 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

Joez @8, I largely agree. Its indeed important to consider the combined multi facetted benefits of tree planting and remember they are a sustainable regenerating resource if properly managed. And trees do sequester carbon and have a role to play there. I'm just not sure that cap and trade schemes are the best way to go about it.

MA Rodger at 03:28 AM on 18 March 2020

UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade

JoeZ @2,

The UK's Committee on Climate Change is "non partisan" in that it does not conform to any party line. It is a "government body" in that its job is to advise government. The Wikithing page linked @1 describes the CCC as an "independent non-departmental public body" but, although it is classed as being 'independent', its job is 'advisory' so it is an "advisory non-departmental public body" . The CCC does have defined statutory duties which sets limits to its work. Thus the 2008 Climate Change Act set the target of 80% reduction in the UK's GHGs by 2050 (relative to 1990), this Act amended in June 2019 setting the target at 100%. The CCC was originally tasked with giving advice on "the level of the 2050 target" but only prior to this target being set in 2008. Its more central role is to advise on meeting the targets set by government.

JoeZ at 01:38 AM on 18 March 2020

What does Net Zero emissions actually mean?

I'm also skeptical of planting forests for carbon credits - but forests are wonderful so the more we have the better as they produce multiple benefits. There will always be a large demand for wood products so we do need a lot of well managed forests. Wood is a fine raw material and it has a lower carbon footprint than cement or steel. If we have less forest rather than more- the price of wood will be higher- and that doesn't help anyone. In the northeast USA we don't plant forests- they plant themselves if the forests are continuously managed- and if farmland is abandoned, the forests will return with no help from humans. So again, I don't see any need to connect forestry with saving the planet with carbon credits- instead, just be aware of the multiple benefits from good forestry - including some carbon sequestration. Currently, many forests worldwide are in poor condition. One way to improve them is through excellent silviculture which requires some tree harvesting. Over the long term, one of our objectives should be to both increase the amount of carbon stored in forests (trees and soils) while producting valuable wood products contributing to the economy.

JoeZ at 01:27 AM on 18 March 2020

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11

Regarding the story, "Climate change: Will planting millions of trees really save the planet? " I doubt anyone has said planting trees will save the planet. But growing and managing forests is a great idea. Well managed forests produce multiple benefits- sequestering carbon, producing wealth for the owner when valuable trees are harvested, wildlife habitat, soil protection, stream and wetland protection, watershed protection, produces oxygen, recreation values, spiritual values, etc. I have been a forester in Massachusetts for 47 years.

JoeZ at 01:13 AM on 18 March 2020

UK’s CO2 emissions have fallen 29% over the past decade

Can there ever truly be a "non partisan government body"?

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments