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 7701 to 7750:

nigelj at 06:23 AM on 3 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

I suspect most "fence sitters " are really denialists that just don't want to be labelled denialists. In my experience that turns out to be the case because when pushed they tend to start attacking the agw consensus more than they reinforce it.

Perhaps some young people are legitimate fence sitters and need more information and I dont disagree with OPOFs categories, but the older generation has more than enough information to have made up their minds unless they have been living under a rock.

Mal Adapted at 00:12 AM on 3 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

Heh. Here's a comment by one "derpmochump", on a Carbon Brief interview with climate experts titled "Coronavirus: What could lifestyle changes mean for tackling climate change?" He's all in for nefarious intent:

Evil old gits of the technocracy, wielding political power using a hoax virus to launch a terrorist attack on the first world's standard of living. By the time you've empoverished the western way of life and stolen the future of all children not comprised of the ruling class, you bastards will be dead and in your graves and will have escaped justice.

Your crimes are endless along with the abuse of the slave classes minds, damaged by social engineering and the brainwashing of mythologised 'facts'. Truly disgusting and evil, you have no right to wield such power over the entire world, you are the great satan, liars and murderers all.

Sounds like derpmochump is a contender for the "World's Crankiest Uncle" title 8^D!

Daniel Bailey at 00:11 AM on 3 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

"I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated"

Actually, it's not very complicated at all. The scientific debate-train left the station, decades ago.

In the discussions around global warming and its anthropogenic causation, there are those who focus on the science using the scientific method and logic, seeking reproducible evidence that best explains what we can empirically measure.

Then there is everyone in the extreme minority, those who ignore the above in favor of slander, innuendo, unsupported assertion and character assassination in favor of promulgating false equivalence to support the ephemeral facade of "debate" and "sides".

But it is not about the science, the bulk of the science was settled, decades ago. Deniers posing as skeptics set up a charade tableau of false equivalence to poison the well of public acceptance of that science.

A parsimonious harping at the font of stolen, out-of-context and context-less emails proven not germane to the science is continuing on in the prosecution of the agenda of denial.

Truth, science and reputable journalism all sacrificed to the unholy alter of false equivalence under the guise of promulgating a fallacious "debate".

There is no debate. All that remains is the informed and the uninformed.

scaddenp at 14:18 PM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

Well duncan61, so which do you trust most? Information derived from a consensus of peer-reviewed scientific literature, even it is an unwelcome point of view; or information coming from non-climate scientists, non-scientists even, but which conform to what you would like to beleive?

The difficulty for laymen is, that unless they are willing to delve into the science (and learn it from impeccable sources), then you are having to decide what sources to trust.

A good start for critical thinking, is to decide what information/data would change your gut (value-driven) point of view. Scientists have no trouble telling you what measurements would change their mind on AGW. A pseudo-skeptic is more inclined to require the impossible, something science predicts cant be true (eg linear rise of temp with CO2), or the unmeasurable.

John Hartz at 13:29 PM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

duncan61 @7: You wrote:

I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated.

What "debates" do you watch. Please provide some links to them.

One Planet Only Forever at 12:36 PM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

JoeZ @5,

I believe it is more important to distinguish between:

People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are interested and willing to learn.
People who are less aware, with a related lack of understanding, who are unwilling to learn - including people who have a lack of interest in learning - especially people who sense that learning would require them to change their mind about things they have developed a liking for.

All skeptics are in the first group. And every scientist has to be a skeptic to be a successful scientist.

Given the depth and breadth of expanded awareness and improved understanding that is summarized in the IPCC Reports (since the very first IPCC Report), it is unlikely anyone today has a basis to be Skeptical of the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports.

Many people claim to be skeptical of some specific details of the science that is the basis of the IPCC Reports. But because of the massive diversity of investigations with consistent findings there is not likely to be a new validated learning that changes the Generally Understood Conclusions. If those people claim that their skepticism of a detail in the IPCC Report justifies dismissing the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports, they are clearly in the second category of people.

Some people even continue to try to claim that things like "already admitted typos in an IPCC Report" or "A few carefully selected Excerpts from a massive packet of stolen emails from climate scientists that are presented out of context" prove that the entire IPCC process and every bit of research that is referenced in the IPCC Reports of the Compilation of constantly improving understanding justifies being skeptical of the entirety of the IPCC. Those people are Conspiracy Theorists - Outright Deniers. And the people who arranged for the stealing of the emails, and organized the sifting through to find a few nuggets, and directed the development and dissemination of the misrepresentations are worse than Deniers.

So there are:

Skeptics who would all accept the Generally Understood Conclusions of the IPCC Reports. Some of them just need to do more learning.
Deniers who resist learning.
Misleaders who know better but want to encourage Denial. They are the worst. And many of them are very wealthy, or have very powerful positions, or are both (the worst of the worst).

duncan61 at 12:02 PM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

I still believe that there are a lot of people that are seeking information on the entire concept of AGW.I like to watch a lot of debates on both sides and it is complicated.We have deniers and skeptics can I suggest a new group called middle earthers that are us layman that have an interest in this subject and are still on the fence.

Wol at 11:37 AM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

All the above is relevant to what we might call "professional" debaters - the Monctons, Delingpoles, chat show hostd etc.

What most of us encounter though is the thousands of deniers in the comments columns of the likes of the UK Daily Telegraph. The problem here - in addition to the list above - is the aptly named gish-gallop. Since we are dealing here with an arms-length, non simultaneous "debate", what always happens is that refuting some false argument leads inevitably either to the lack of any counter-rebuttal (so they think they've won) or a change to some other (well worn) false argument.

Ninety nine times out of a hundred the denier and his followers imagine they have "won" and therefore their argument is proven true. Since any reply might be hours old it's actually impossible to hold any meaningful exchange such as one might in say a radio chat show.

JoeZ at 06:17 AM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

It might be useful to distinguish between deniers and skeptics.

nigelj at 05:59 AM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

Mal Adapted @3, I guess you are right. It just amazes me how people can fool themselves that much. I have many failings but I just dont fool myself all that much.

And yes calling people liars and fools will just harden their attitude, it won't win hearts and minds. However the term intellectually dishonest is a bit less inflammatory and of course it is 'true' in reference to the denialists rhetoric.

And well done to the centre for climate change communication.

Mal Adapted at 03:18 AM on 2 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

nigelj:

Does it not all boil down to the denialists just being intellectually dishonest? (I wont say liars because its forbidden by moderation rules) . Almost all the logical fallacies, cherry picking, fake experts etc are essentially forms of intellectual dishonesty. If thats the case, why not just say so?

Well, because as you know, while the professional disinformers are dishonest, the volunteer AGW-deniers are fooling themselves first and foremost. In the US, standing before a crowd of Trump voters and calling them liars or fools is unlikely to sway any of them; it's more likely to reinforce their determination to fool themselves. Cultural identity is a powerful cognitive motivator for them!

Admittedly, I have little direct insight into the Trumpist mind-set. For that I turn to genuine experts, namely Republican politicians who recognize the need for collective action against AGW. Here I will praise John's employer, the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, located just outside the Capitol beltway in Northern Virginia. They're developing tools for climate realists to work the levers of power. I was linked from there to an item at Energy News Network last year, about former GOP Congressman Bob Inglis, who continues to work them despite losing his seat to a denier:

After his loss, Inglis formed RepublicEn to try to win over members of his party from outside the Beltway. He aims to persuade and activate 200 conservative voters in a set of target districts around the country. Mobilizing volunteers in those places should convert 25 Republicans in the House and 12 to 15 in the Senate, Inglis said. “And then we win.”

He approaches his goal like any seasoned retail politician, with a focus on how to find common ground with potential activists. Rather than start his conversation with voters in North and South Carolina about the local problem of rising sea levels and more intense storms, for instance, he first talks about free market tools to lower carbon emissions.

I'm assuming Inglis's membership in the GOP helps him with Trumpists. In any case, I suspect few of them would change parties even if they accept the need for collective mitigation. John's direct attack on denialist rhetoric may be better directed at Repubican politicians, who at least know what rhetoric is.

nigelj at 18:02 PM on 1 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

The following new published research may be relevant : Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit. (This is for real)

One Planet Only Forever at 08:17 AM on 1 April 2020

Scientists share their grief, anger, and hope over climate change

This is a helpful sharing of knowledge and experience.

As an engineer I learned that it was essential to have a good understanding of a problem before coming up with potential solutions. When unacceptable results occurred, solutions that were developed without identifying the real cause of the problem were unlikely to be sustainable solutions.

And my MBA education in the 1980s, and observations since then, helped me understand that many people with Business Interests will limit their concerns and considerations to short-term Profit and Popularity (something that responsible engineers had to protect the Public from). Popularity derived from misleading marketing, especially from appeals designed to trigger desires or anxiety, could be effective ways to achieve Profit in the Short-Term.

And the ability to abuse misleading marketing in Politics, william's point about money in politics, is clearly abused by people who are inclined to try to personally benefit from their ability to influence leadership actions. An important part of politics is being able to influence the public in the very short-term of the critical few days when votes are cast in an election (and undeserving powerful people have even learned to abuse their power to keep some people from voting).

And the way laws and regulations get written and enforced can undeniably be influenced (compromised) to produce unreasonable and undeniably harmfully results that favour people who are focused on personally benefiting to the detriment of Others (any way they can get away with).

The establishment of the UN after WW2 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, were the results of expanded awareness and understanding that the developed socioeconomic-political systems were producing many unsustainable harmful results that powerfully resisted being corrected. However, the UN structure itself was compromised by the powerful people at the time of its formation.

In spite of the flaws built into the UN by the powerful, the UN has been a mechanism for many global collaborative efforts to expand awareness and improve understanding and apply what is learned to help develop a better future for everyone. The 1972 Stockholm Conference was one of those helpful results. And the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the latest helpful compilation of understanding regarding what is required for the Future of Humanity to be Better.

What can be understood is that there are many people among the currently wealthy and powerful who are anxious about the changes required to achieve the SDGs. Minimizing climate change impacts has been understood to be an important action for the benefit of the future of humanity for a very long time. However, minimizing the harm of climate change impacts will reduce the perceptions of wealth and superiority that many wealthy people developed.

Many people will lose developed perceptions of wealth and opportunity if the global Leadership actually acts to responsibly curtail the use of fossil fuels. And those undeserving wealthy people have been fighting against that awareness and understanding becoming more popular. And as result, the ones who are wealthier today because of the delay of responsible Global Leadership action on climate change impacts undeniably deserve No Consideration, and in addition to their loss of wealth due to their Bad Investment Choices they may deserve penalties for knowingly trying to benefit more from being harmful.

Which brings the discussion back to the similarity between the Governing Objectives that everyone needs to be governed by in order to most responsibly deal with COVID-19, Climate Change, and so many other challenges to global Humanity. Everybody needs to ensure their actions "Do No Harm to Any Others". And everybody needs to try to "Help Others".

Many of the Richest will lose developed perceptions of superiority relative to Others, especially if those perceptions were from unsustainable and harmful activity that was deemed to be "Legal", or not monitored for and penalized for its potential to be understood to be illegal (Illegal should mean Harmful to Others). The required changes would include "Legal Corrections". And the correct legal and regulatory requirements can only be developed by excluding People who have interests that are contrary to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, which would require that the rule-making or its enforcement must not be compromised by Consideration of Popularity or Profitability.

Beliefs that Popularity or Profitability legitimize or justify something need to be curtailed, the sooner the better. That means ending the Libertarian Free-Market beliefs that Good Results will be developed if everyone is freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please. The expanded awareness and improved understanding of the SDGs makes that required correction undeniably obvious.

Everyone's actions add up to produce the future. Everyone needs to be Governed by "Do No Harm, Try to Help". Everyone Self-governing that way would be the only way for the Libertarian and Free-Market dreams to be realized. That will never be the reality. Responsible Leadership helpfully governing and limiting what is done and expanding awareness and understanding will always be required. The challenge today is figuring out how to undo the harmful developed compromising Global Leadership that abuses harmful and ultimately unsustainable popularity and profitability as excuses to Resist Helpful Correction.

nigelj at 06:39 AM on 1 April 2020

A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial

These categories are convincing and endlessly fascinating. As someone who did a bit of psychology at university (college to you Americans) I identify immediately. But as someone who likes to also rebut the denialists and explain the issues to other people, I find the categories complicated. They look like the neural map of a denialists brain.

Does it not all boil down to the denialists just being intellectually dishonest? (I wont say liars because its forbidden by moderation rules) . Almost all the logical fallacies, cherry picking, fake experts etc are essentially forms of intellectual dishonesty. If thats the case, why not just say so?

william5331 at 05:28 AM on 1 April 2020

Scientists share their grief, anger, and hope over climate change

Excellent point. Since we are the cause, we could also be the solution. The first step is to stop vested interests and especially the fossil fuel industry, financing our politicians. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune and there is no field where this is more true than in politics. If this was stopped, there is just a chance that the politicians would start to act in our interests rather than in the interests of their finciers.

David Hawk at 05:22 AM on 1 April 2020

Scientists share their grief, anger, and hope over climate change

In 1977 I wrote a book at the University of Pennsylvania on the topic of "regulation of environmental deterioration" as based on my two-year project based at the Stockholm School of Economics. The work was to evaluate approaches to regulation of human acts damaging the natural environment. It was a multi-million dollar project involving measurement of activities at facilities of twenty international companies, and then formalizing the manner of regulation carried out by six governments.

The results were a surprise to all. They put numbers on the deficiencies in the legalism basic to societal regulation. It was shown to be overtly analytic, thus always missing the points of a systemic nature. Its resulting legal order mostly covered even worse deterioration over the longer term. Cause-effect thinking, formalized into two-dimensional laws and then set up in a regulatory process assured failure in protecting life on the planet. This artificial process only encouraged expannded deterioration from the sciences, as exhibited in industrialization of the artificial. This was projected to only worsen the enviornment out to be protected, and thus threaten life on the planet at an ever deeper level.

A more appreciative method, called "negotiated order," as seen in the sense of Vickers "Appreciative Systems," and then Rapaport's "Prisoner's Delimma," was designed and posed. Results of first trials in factories were amazing.

In September, 1977, a head scientist from Exxon, who was a part of the project, presented findings to Exxon's Board, and myself, on how human activities, as we knew them, would change the climate of the planet. He suggested we radically rethink science, economics, business, and human affairs. At the time the Board was very appreciative of his advise. Later, the legal system advised them to act otherwise, at least in the US.

Sweden's Prime Minister presented the research findings to a meeting of OECD, advising them to avoid the US attitude and approch to legalization of environmental regulation.

In May, 2019 I was asked to post a comment on this history to a newly created AAAS Community Website. I did. It attracted about 900 responses, resulting in about 2200 pages of printout. Review by others showed that eighty percent of the scientist were more pessmistic then my initial comment.

In November, 2019 much of the 1979 book was republished as "Too Early, Too Late, Now what." It led to many questions. One raised questions about there being a relaion between the general idea of climate change from human activities and the concern with humans being human as outlined in the book. I suggested a year ago that we may seen a continuation of natural responses to human incursions via more, and more deadly, diseases human science can't manage or eventually comprehend. After a discussion on this with pre-book reviewers, and colleagues in China that study diseases, a new virus did emerge. It, and those following will better answer the concern raised a year ago.

One thesis from the book is that when its too late for humans to redesign what and who they are then its timely for nature to interviene. One method is of course via natural design of viruses that become more sophisticated and deadely, and further outside human capability to respond to, or control the effects. China's leading scientist in the area believes there are an array of such virses awaiting us. As such, they will deal with the problem of humans being human. This will be nature's means for resolving the seemingly intractable human problem of creating climate change. The book describes how and why such has become more serious during forty years since the Exxon model.

By the way how do you define ad hominem comments? I asked this via memories of the qualifier from 1991. There was a $2 million project I was going to transfer to New Jersey Institute of Technology. It was on the role of infrastructures in climate change. The proposed project was rejected by the then provost, Gary Thomas, as simply being "ad hominem." I transferred the funding elsewhere to a company that since grew from $30 billion/year to $200 billion/year of work.

Does "ad hominem" mean an idea is a precursor for humans reaching "it's too late?" I hope not, but am interested in what you think?

John Hartz at 04:39 AM on 1 April 2020

CO2 is plant food

Recommended supplemental reading:

CO2 can increase plant growth in greenhouses while also negatively affecting ecosystems and human societies by Nikki Forrester, Climate Feedback, Mar 19, 2020

MA Rodger at 03:33 AM on 31 March 2020

Milankovitch Cycles

mkrichew @32elsewhere,

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

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

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

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

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

michael sweet at 22:48 PM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

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

JoeZ at 21:55 PM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

nigelj,

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

scaddenp at 11:50 AM on 30 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

I have responded to mkrichew in the appropriate place.

scaddenp at 11:48 AM on 30 March 2020

Milankovitch Cycles

Responding to comment here.

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

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

mkrichew at 08:25 AM on 30 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

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

Moderator Response:

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

nigelj at 05:52 AM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

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

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

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

JoeZ at 02:20 AM on 30 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

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

JoeZ at 22:47 PM on 29 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

JoeZ at 22:44 PM on 29 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

MA Rodger at 06:35 AM on 29 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

mkrichew @30,

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

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

WLU at 06:30 AM on 29 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

mkrichew at 05:06 AM on 29 March 2020

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nigelj at 12:34 PM on 27 March 2020

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

"In developed countries, consumers throw out excess food"

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

Haiburton42 at 04:53 AM on 27 March 2020

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #12, 2020

"accidentaly trickling sand into a precision gearbox"

What a hook!

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

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

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

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

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

wilddouglascounty at 00:01 AM on 26 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

Re: Comment #1 (and others)

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

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

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

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

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

Eclectic at 17:31 PM on 25 March 2020

There is no consensus

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

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

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

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

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

TVC15 at 15:30 PM on 25 March 2020

There is no consensus

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

swampfoxh at 12:32 PM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

william5331 at 06:34 AM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

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

Moderator Response:

[DB] Self-promotional advertising link snipped.

John Wise at 00:31 AM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

RedBaron at 00:26 AM on 25 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderator Response:

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

Off-topic, sloganeering and moderation complaints snipped.

JoeZ at 23:02 PM on 24 March 2020

The pros and cons of planting trees to address global warming

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

JohnSeers at 17:44 PM on 24 March 2020

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

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

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

Is this a disparaging comment on Mexican food? :)

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

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

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

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

RedBaron at 11:53 AM on 24 March 2020

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

@ 8 Duncan,

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

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

John Hartz at 05:40 AM on 24 March 2020

It's the sun

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments