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 8001 to 8050:

nigelj at 18:53 PM on 23 January 2020

Waking up to climate change | Australia's Bushfires

Good video.

"What changed in 2019?"

My take. Nothing all that special about 2019, just that young people have seen Kyoto fizzle out without achieving much, and probably thought give Paris a go, now that looks ineffective so they have had enough. Same with plenty of Adults. Its not just climate that reaches tipping points, so do social phemomena. Things like attitudes and desire for change take time to develop and for silent agreement to spread, then reach a tipping point. Theres a good book on this called "The Tipping Point."

Maybe this was reinforced by bad weather, but that seems secondary. There was nothing spectacularly bad about last years weather was there? Trump may have been more of a factor with his bluster and craziness.

"And what will it take to start reducing global CO2 emissions?"

So many things have to change, and so many psychological barriers have to be removed its going to need a miracle. That or truly terrible weather lasting a solid 5 years, something thats a real step change and impossible to ignore or make excuses for like the denialists try and do. These bushfires might prove to be a big motivation.

Eclectic at 17:41 PM on 23 January 2020

It's magma

Cpske ~ check out the Myth #196 of the Most Used Climate Myths (top left corner of page).

The short story : climate is changed by alterations in the 240 watts/squ.meter absorbed by the planetary surface. The 240 figure changes somewhat with solar changes ~ alterations in solar output, over the longer term or over the 11-year solar cycle) . . . or is changed by ice-albedo alterations . . . or is changed by major volcanic eruptions throwing aerosols into the stratosphere . . . or is changed by man-made industrial pollution aerosols . . . or is changed by alteration in the levels of Greenhouse gasses (of course).

OTOH, the flow of heat from the depths of the Earth is at an average rate of 0.09 watts/squ.meter ~ so very tiny that it is rightly ignored in climate measurements & calculations. This geothermal heat flow data is determined from temperature measurements take at a range of depths in deep boreholes. There's no evidence of significant variation in this geothermal flow, nor any reason to believe it could alter the climate ~ even over thousands of years. Yes, there are magma plume hotspots (such as formed the Hawaii islands) but they are fairly steady . . . and any new hotspots are too small in area to change the planetary average (the Earth's surface area being 510 million square kilometers).

Cpske, if it's not too much trouble for you, I would be interested in having a look at the "static" you mentioned. I regularly have a look at some of the Deniosphere blogs ~ such as WattsUpWithThat [WUWT], which does occasionally (well, rarely!) have articles of minor scientific interest. But mostly the WUWT articles are rather childish propaganda . . . and the comments columns are 95% full of crackpot ideas & political ultra-extremism & more general intellectual insanity & recycled long-debunked climate "theories". WUWT can be amusing, if you find amusement in Schadenfreude. But I haven't noticed any "geothermal nonsense" there recently.

Norm Rubin at 16:37 PM on 23 January 2020

How did climate change get so controversial?

nigelj, you may be thinking of "the bystander effect"? The more people know about a problem and COULD do something to solve it - whether they actually are or not - the less likely any individual is to step up.

International conferences and treaties and accords are a closer fit to the Tragedy of the Commons, IMO.

cpske at 15:03 PM on 23 January 2020

It's magma

Hey, could you guys offer a refutation argument that it's magma pockets that are heating the earth, not CO2? I am seeing a lot of static about it recently and would like to post a counter-argument.

scaddenp at 08:26 AM on 23 January 2020

2019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research

Blueball. A number of things. Firstly, Canada gets that headline because it has significant area in the arctic and that is the portion of earth that is warming the fastest. (eg see the video graphic at https://climate.nasa.gov/). Not a lot of cities up there.

Secondly there a couple of issues with the graphs at your link. They show monthly average daytime highs not average temperature. The mechanism of AGW warms night faster than day (eg see this paper of observations). They also present the temperatures with a range that covers all of Canada. This is good for looking at temperatures between places but given large year to year variation, it makes trends difficult to spot. You can make any trend disappear if you make the y axis big enough.

I dont know of any website that will give you quick graph of any weather station, but this website shows how to download and graph any station you like.

Blueball at 08:00 AM on 23 January 2020

2019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research

Sorry, I meant for this to be one post...

I am uncertain about this claim "twice as fast", shortly after this declaration, the Liberals announced a climate emergency. I am not sure what this amounts to but the rhetoric has certainly notched up recently.

When I visit Www.yourenvironment.ca I can look at the recorded temperature of any city in Canada dating back upto 150 years and I was expecting the hockey stick graph I see so regularity here, there and everywhere. But the graph is completely flat. No discernable rise in temperature in any city in any province.

What am I to believe? Who am I to believe?

Moderator Response:

[DB] The accuracy of the climate temperature station record in Canada is verified and affirmed, here:

"One last point from this CCC analysis of temperatures: it's also worth noting the magnitude of recent Arctic warming. The slope of the 30-year trend in this region is 5 to 6 C/century — a rate of warming that's much higher than the rest of the world."

Blueball at 07:51 AM on 23 January 2020

2019 in climate science: A continued warming trend and 'bleak' research

In Canada, there is a media campaign declaring that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

CANADA WARMING TWICE AS FAST AS THE REST OF THE WORLD

nigelj at 05:15 AM on 23 January 2020

How did climate change get so controversial?

There's another psychological / political factor. The climate issue has become politically tribal. Once the tribe takes on a position on climate, so peoples views become stubborn. Dissension is not tolerated.

I also think that ideally we dont wan't to over do the big government component, because there are some legitimiate concerns there. Yet its very difficult to see how you resolve this mess without things like a carbon tax. So I'm completely stumped over this.

But this is the thing. There are literally a dozen psychological, ideological, political and cost factors that are impediments to change. Plus the climate problem is huge and requires multiple changes. Taking all this together, I don't see mitigation and lifestyle changes adequately fixing the climate issue, or even coming close.

We might be heading towards dangerous experiments with geoengineering, or sucking CO2 out of the air with fans and neutralising it chemically. However I will continue to advocate for the more usual solutions.

Nick Palmer, similar to the tragedy of the commons but theres another name for it.

Jim Eager at 00:43 AM on 23 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

John exhibits exactly the kind of uncritical thinking that those seeking to intentionally disseminate climate misinformation and disinformation rely upon. 117 million hectares of dry open grass/scrub savanna simply does not compare with 10 million hectares of dense temperate forest, much of which has never burned before in recorded history.

Nick Palmer at 23:55 PM on 22 January 2020

How did climate change get so controversial?

My view nowadays is that increasingly since 2007, Big Fossil Fuel no longer directly sponsors denialism. It's not in their corporate material, in their reports or websites. They do, however, contribute to organsations which use denialist memes and rhetoric when lobbying politicians etc but I think this is a separate thing.

My opinion is that the giant energy companies do accept the mainstream science these days but are, justifiably, worried about some of the solutions put forward by extreme environmental activists and some progressive/left leaning politicians which, to 'big business', look like 'communism by the back door'. Professor Katharine Hayhoe is recently actively using the term 'solutions averse' to describe such behaviour. She is now using an approach of researched and justifiable optimism that, without crushing capitalism or using heavy handed Big Government that we can do this - we can solve it.

Nowadays, when tackling a denialist who has proved to be 'solutions averse' I have taken to saying something like:

'If you so scared of the Big Government solutions, carbon taxes etc, why don't you get busy coming up with efficient, economical freemarket solutions to the problme instead of spreading denialst memes and propaganda just because they have been shown to sway the minds of the the voting masses?'

Markoh at 23:39 PM on 22 January 2020

Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

Scaddenp @2 I totally agree. The number of people I know who boldly and loudly advertise their green credentials and then frivolously get on a plane for a holiday, astounds me. Worse still, some go business class which is nearly 3 times the emissions (eg 737 Max 9 has 220 seats for all economy and 43 economy seats are removed to create 16 business class seats for a 2 class service. Refer 737 Max specs)

Nick Palmer at 23:33 PM on 22 January 2020

How did climate change get so controversial?

"This ideology holds that capitalism and personal freedom are inextricably linked. Even a small action like a tax on tobacco could be the start of a slippery slope of ever-increasing regulation, leading to government controlling every part of our lives."

It's good to see this in the book. It does tend to be US types who most have that particularly extreme notion of 'freedom' though. Not all freemarket or libertarian types do, for example the wonderful Potholer54 (Peter Hadfield) who has done a couple of videos on freemarket solutions to climate change.

I have to say that I think the 'fossil fuel lobbyists are behind denialism' argument is getting outdated. The truth I think is more nuanced despite what the Oreskes' of this world insinuate.

nigelj #2 I think you might mean 'the tragedy of the commons'

Markoh at 23:19 PM on 22 January 2020

Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

Barbnoon1 @39. Coming from a farming family, of course grass fed cattle are sustainable. As long as the paddock is not overstocked the cattle can feed on the grass forever whilst fertilising the paddock.

if what you really meant is relative productivity per unit area of land compared to other forms of meat production, then that is a different issue.

However comparisons of beef to pork and chicken is not a like for like comparison due to vastly different animal husbandry standards. Most chicken is produced in tiny cages, whereas most beef is to use the chicken term "free range" in a paddock. A relevant comparison is free range chicken to beef.

pawanranta at 20:53 PM on 22 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

Solar & wind power can definitely solve half of the problems caused by greenhouse gases emission and resulting in climate change. The second issue that needs to be addressed is adopting energy-efficient techs at the consumer level. The Victorian state government offering free/discounted LED replacement for residential and commercial establishments. I think its a great initiative. Energy efficient systems coupled with the renewable power source is the way forward.

Eclectic at 16:47 PM on 22 January 2020

Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

Thanks, BarbNoon1 . . . yes, we are getting well off-topic, and should close our conversation. Though it has had topical relevance, in that it's emphasized the importance of "climatism" and "veganism" keeping out of each other's way.

And it has given me some worthwhile mental exercise . . . as well as some amusement ~ e.g. your "mansplaining" comment. Surely, Barb, you aren't as very non-PC as to presume you know my gender?! And in my "low key, subtle" suggestion, was there any allusion by me to women rather than to vegans generally? Hummmph !

You stating "I will not return" ~ is often a poor move. You may very well not comment further . . . but everyone knows you are very likely to return to see if I have replied. Which gives me the last word. As now :-

Cholesterol in the diet is unimportant compared with the cholesterol innately produced by the liver ~ and you ought to know that. All that business of liver enzymes / genetics / high-density & low-density lipoproteins, etcetera. Let's call it "personplaining" !

The absorption of B12 is rather more complex than you seem to think : not merely a matter of "how many micrograms went into my mouth today." Young children need very careful attention to nutritional requirements to avoid developmental damage as they grow on a vegan diet ~ sadly, some parents think it's just a matter of a shovel plus "X" number of calories / total protein. If the parents are klutzes, then it's safer to go ovo-lactarian for the children. Which the prudent parent will do anyway (keeping human evolution in mind ~ and keeping in mind we probably still don't know everything we ought to, about human nutrition and gut biome). And the children like it.

And I refer you back to the general criticism I made of medical research. Anecdotes are even worse !

Eclectic at 15:09 PM on 22 January 2020

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Andrew Strang @70 :

The short answer is . . . No, it's not.

There's been endless talk downplaying "the 97% consensus" ~ just as there's still endless talk (mostly within the Flat Earth Society) that the Earth is not really Round.

Regarding climate aspects, much of the naysaying has been like the speech delivered by the Defendant's lawyer trying to minimize his client's guilt. Rhetorical sophistry, distortions, cherry-pickings, and outright misleading information. (The only difference here is that the lawyer won't utter a 100% mendacity . . . yet there are many prominent climate-change deniers who routinely do cross that line.)

But some lawyers will go up pretty close to the line. Sort of :-

"Yes the victim died later in hospital, but my client is not actually guilty of murder because it was a flesh-wound and my client's knife only made an entry wound and the blade did not come out the other side of the body. The whole thing is really a case of poor treatment by the surgeons."

Andrew, it's a sad fact that the "op-eds" in Forbes are aimed at the reader who knows the business/financial field and is not easily fooled there . . . but who knows so little about science, that he is easily fooled in the science & climate field. (And there are some Forbes readers who want to be fooled because, consciously or subconsciously, they have a guilty conscience about fossil fuels . . . and here we might justifiably point at the very author of the article and his role with fossil fuels or "energy" as prefers to call it. Motivated Reasoning at work, eh. )

Why does Forbes publish op-eds / articles which are little short of morally criminal? Perhaps it's their politics . . . or what they suspect is their reader majority politics . . . or perhaps they fear losing major advertisers.

Andrew , consider three important points :-

(A) What is happening in the real physical world.

(B) What are the causations acknowledged by the expert scientists when you speak with them or survey their personal opinions.

(C) What does "the science" show ~ and in essence, modern mainstream science is what is published in the respected peer-reviewed scientific journals (tens of thousands of scientific articles).

(B) and (C) together or separately, can be called the consensus. In practice, (B) is the result of (C) . . . but you will find science-denialists bending over backwards to say: "Ignore (C)" and: "Let's do some creative accounting with the figures & definitions in (B)". ~Hence the Forbes article, amongst others!

Andrew, the consensus "(C)" is well over 99.9% . . . and there are some rare contrarian scientific papers ~ but they've all been shown to be very faulty.

(B) is well over 90% (the small remnant usually due to personal political extremist views, rather than any actual scientific evidence).

(A) is simply a rapidly warming world ~ ice melting, seas rising & acidifying. The more you educate yourself on the subject, the more starkly obvious it all is.

And yet there are still denialists busily denying the facts. Go figure !

BarbNoon1 at 14:44 PM on 22 January 2020

Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

Forgot this source:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-misleading-studies/
I take cherry-flavored B12.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omnivore-vs-vegan-nutrient-deficiencies-2/

BarbNoon1 at 14:34 PM on 22 January 2020

Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

Yes, I really want to get out of this conversation, and we are off-topic, but I can't believe you don't know that cholesterol is bad for you!
When study results, funded by the dairy industry came out in 2010, Dr. Jeremiah Stamler immediately criticized them, followed by other prominant doctors such as Dr. John McDougall. Of course, Time Magazine writers did not know that, and they put "Butter is Back" on the cover. However, the science has not changed. Marketing is just more skillful. The huge industries repeated the same studies in 2014 in order to look like they had more "evidence," but the truth is, cholesterol still can cause heart disease.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/apr/saturatedfat.htm

We have to be "very scientific" about following a vegan diet? Really? I have many friends who have been vegan for over 40 years (I guess I have to show my sources, Hope Bohanic, Kim Stallwood, Fiona Oakes and Butterflies Katz are a few.) Fiona Oakes runs and holds about 7 world records in ultra marathons and eats once a day, at the end of the day after training and then taking care of an entire animal sanctuary - she is 50 and has been vegan since about age 4. Source? Running for Good documentary.

39% of Americans are deficient in B12. You'd better be careful about that deficiency! We can get B12 from plants - there is new evidence that duckweed has tons of B12 and there are four plants found so far that have B12. The few vegan parents who had children who died starved them! Just being vegan was not the problem.

https://www.parabel.com/plant-based-nutrients-parabels-water-lentils-found-to-be-rich-source-of-vitamin-b12/
If you want the article for Dr. Jeremiah Stamler it is called, "Diet-Heart. A problematic revisit." However, I can no long access it - scientific document.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2000/b12-deficiency-may-be-more-widespread-than-thought/

Back to topic:
Population, what we eat, and how we live are all intertwined in the climate change problem. If you want a march specifically for fossil fuels, do so. But most people don't even know the solutions to bring fossil fuels under control, and most people cannot do anything about it themselves, except hold signs in marches or write their representatives.
Your opinion differs from mine on what is important. Eclectic, you made your points and I made mine. I will not return. Please try to refrain from "Mansplaining," telling women to be low key, subtle, and repeatedly saying things like, "You really SHOULD know this!" Obviously, there are things you do not know about as well.

nigelj at 13:02 PM on 22 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

john @9, the 1974 - 1975 bushfire season did burn 117 million hectares, but almost all of it was grasslands in the outback towards central Australia that had zero economic impact and value. It was waste lands essentially. Nobody even noticed until some satellite data appeared. Refer Bushfires in Australia on wikipedia and read the tables and source material.

So comparing that season with now is an apples with oranges comparison. The current bushfires are in forests and around urban areas.

Andrew Strang at 12:36 PM on 22 January 2020

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Is this criticism of the 97% consensus significant?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#75c776d21157

john. at 12:08 PM on 22 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You! Apparently the bush fires in 1973 '74 buned 117 million hectares. So far this year it's been 10 million.

How can you say that's unprecedented?

Moderator Response:

[PS] Please show us the source of figures so readers can ensure that you are comparing like with like. My understanding is that the "unprecedented" claims (this is the link Yale give their article) concern location and fire intensity but clarity from source would be appreciated.

Markoh at 08:04 AM on 22 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

PS @5 A week in itself is not significant but what happens in that week can have enormous statistical significance. Could anyone argue the bushfires in the New Years week was not enormously statistically significant?

Simiarly with the large rainfalls in Eastern Australia the past week. Had these rainfalls occurred 3 weeks earlier and fallen in 2019, these rainfalls would have turned large areas of Easter Australia into having normal rainfall in 2019.

The rain events of that week would then have had enormous statistical significance and continued the BOM trend of Australia trending getting wetter over the last 110 years.

BOM chart showing a Australia getting wetter with more red prior to 1950 and more blue after 1950:-

www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/

Moderator Response:

[PS] Can you provide analysis to show that the rainfall event "would have had enornous statistical significance"? Without it, you are sloganeering again. You might like to look at analysis here but also note that temperature as well as rainfall is very important in bushfire. More relevant for climate and bushfire is probably PdsI which looks at temperature and precipitation.

Estoma at 07:32 AM on 22 January 2020

How did climate change get so controversial?

I first became aware of the climate controversy in the early 90's. In perticular, Rush Limbaugh teaming up with former Washington State govenor, Dixie Lee Ray who had a PhD in biology. Ray had been sent by Limbaugh and his allies to RIO. I still remember her telling Rush why AGW was bogus. "I'm a scientist. I know!" I remember Rush proclaiming how silly AGW was. As an example he wrongly insinuated that volcano's dwarfed anything man could do.

https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n25-19920619/eirv19n25-19920619_036-dixy_lee_ray_battles_rio_green_a.pdf

nigelj at 06:29 AM on 22 January 2020

How did climate change get so controversial?

takamura_senpai, ego is a factor in all this, but imho there's more to it. You can't expect people to make big changes to their lifestyles when they don't see the entire group doing this, or most of the group. It not a rational response for them to sacrifice themselves for little gain. There's a technical term for this problem but I just cant recall it.

The only way to counter this is probably a strong carbon tax that forces people to all make some sort of change more or less in unison. Unfortunately this comes up against the people with ideological opposition to taxes and they are very influential. Because of this I'm inclined to think we are not going to fix the climate problem, not properly anyway.

Don't have a "peer reviewed study" to back this up and I'm not going to spend all my morning trying to find stuff I've read on it. So if my comment doesn't meet the websites standards I guess just do whatever you want.

nigelj at 06:28 AM on 22 January 2020

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Sorry posted 143 on the wrong thread.

nigelj at 06:27 AM on 22 January 2020

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

takamura_senpai, ego is a factor but there's more to it. You can't expect people to make big changes to their lifestyles when they don't see the entire group doing this, or most of the group. It not a rational response for them to sacrifice themselves for little gain. There's a technical term for this problem but I just cant recall it.

william5331 at 05:13 AM on 22 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

Some time ago I read a study based on the analysis of Stalactites and Stalacmintes that suggested that there is a 200 year cycle of wet and dry periods in Australia. Moreover, the wet period is coming to an end and a dry period starting. Add climate change to this and Aus looks to be in a spot of trouble. If the past couple of centuries were the wet period what must the dry period look like augmented by climate change.

takamura_senpai at 21:27 PM on 21 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

I try. More warm ocean => more water vapours =>more blocking infrared radiation above Australia and NOT produce more clouds

Main: more water vapours NOT produce more clouds

MA Rodger at 21:09 PM on 21 January 2020

Ocean acidification isn't serious

This has all got a bit shouty in a couple of days. Perhaps to return to the initial question @84. Markoh asks:-

"The bit I don't get is that all the limestone deposits in the world which is calcium carbonate were produced when the atmospheric CO2 was many times higher than today. So how did all the shellfish create so much shells that it formed huge limestone deposits with the very high atmospheric CO2 back then??"

I should point out that there is an SkS OP that directly addresses this question (Why were the ancient oceans favorable to marine life when atmospheric carbon dioxide was higher than today?) but perhaps a more succinct answer would be useful here.

Although limestones apparently predate shellfish, shellfish (or molluscs with mineral shells) date back to the Cambrian period when ocean pH was lower than today (perhaps 7.9pH or as low as the 7.3pH modelled by Ridgwell 2005). It is only in the last 30My that ocean pH was high as today (& atmospheric CO2 as low as today). With rising atmospheric CO2, the ocean pH is now falling (today it has fallen from 8.2pH to 8.1pH) and making the chemistry of shellfish more difficult. Those organisms using high--magnesium chemistry (as opposed to argon- or low magnesium-chemistry) will be especially vulnerable as will organisms who do not calsify their shells 'internally', but all will suffer. The last example of CO2 driving ocean acidification (the PETM 55My ago) saw limestones entirely absent from geological formations.

However, it is not the ocean pH that is directly the problem. It is the low concentration of calcium ions that makes shell-formation difficult and such concentrations being pushed low by dropping in pH, not by low pH. Thus over most of the last 500 million years, ocean pH was much lower than today and during these times shellfish thrived.

takamura_senpai at 21:07 PM on 21 January 2020

How did climate change get so controversial?

"How did climate change get so controversial?" - because human egoism. Not only cars and electricity, ALL goods have a CO2 price.

Individual egoism against little problems for all in very far future. What was/is/will win?

Car users say many things, but still use a cars. Same with all others.

Markoh at 21:05 PM on 21 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

Jim @3 "Moreover, it’s not just this one year, Australia has been unusually hot and dry for the past several years" I think that changed in this last week with much of Eastern Australia getting 1-2 months rain in a day. Wet and Wild theme park was closed due to Errrr too much water.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Borderline sloganeering. Climate is not changed in a month or a year. Trends are what matter. Are you seriously suggesting problem is over?

Markoh at 20:57 PM on 21 January 2020

Australia's heat and bushfires are signs of fundamental shifts in its climate

There is also the issue of fuel loads. Aboriginal Australians have been very critical of current day forest management and are advocating to bring back mosaic burning like they did for all those thousands of years. It makes sense to have a series of small fires rather than one big one.

Eclectic at 17:02 PM on 21 January 2020

What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?

Markoh @79 , thank you for re-opening this thread after nearly 8 years.

Your abc.net reference also describes how some of the Tuvalu islands are shrinking, and others are growing (a matter of coral sand being washed up onto them). A similar mixed picture, with other Pacific coral islands, and elsewhere in the world too.

Since the worldwide sea level is rising (according to tide-gauge measurements, and satellite measurements) at a slow but accelerating rate (due to the ongoing global warming plus an accelerating ice-melt . . . it comes as no surprise that many low-lying islands (coral and non-coral) are beginning to suffer problems. Not only the absolute sea level rise : but the rise plus stronger storm-urges are causing pollution of the fresh-water "lens" which, via bores, usually provides the necessities for the local population on such low islands.

It is vastly expensive for them to "transport in" such fresh water supplies. And the local trees suffer from brackish water at their roots. Result :- those islands become practically uninhabitable, long before the sea gets to ankle-level.

Also no surprise: the locals are not happy about the situation.

Markoh (as I asked and re-asked on your other thread today) ~ do you have a valid point that you wish to make?

Markoh at 16:06 PM on 21 January 2020

What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?

Hang on, the ABC Fact Check determined that Tuvalu has grown by 2.9% in the four decades to 2014?

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318

nigelj at 15:49 PM on 21 January 2020

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

michael sweet @141

nigelj: "Its clear an 80% solar and wind grid needs much less storage than a 100% grid. Orders of magnitude less. Nuclear power is one way of filling in the 20%. I have never said its the only way. Hydro would work in some places" my emphasis.

MS: "Your claim of "orders of magnitude less [storage]" is not supported by your reference. It appears you made this up. The inference that nuclear can reduce storage by "orders of magnitude" is simply nuclear industry propaganda."

nigelj :The magazine reference I quoted stated "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States posits that the U.S. electrical grid could be 80% powered by a solar-heavy+wind power combination using just 12 hours of energy storage to smooth out the variability. .....To reach a 100% wind+solar U.S. electricity grid would require 3 weeks of energy storage. " Clearly 12 hours of storage is "orders of magnitude" less than 3 weeks of storage exactly as I stated.

Perhaps the reference is wrong, but that is not my fault.

I never intened to mean that an 80% solar and wind power grid had to have nuclear power or only hydro power filling the gap, just that it was a possibility. Plus New Zealand has a lot of hydro power so I'm probably subconsciously influenced by that. Other possibilities are geothermal power, or biofuels steam turbine power, etcetera. I don't care. Whatever works.

Electricity grids need reactive power as you probably know. Solar and wind power are poor at providing reactive power although it may improve. The Drax biofuels turbine system supplies reactive power to the UK grid to help out the renewables component, which has a lot of wind power. Nuclear power , geothermal power and hydro power also provide plenty of reactive power.

I also never said a 80% solar and wind power grid didn't need battery (or similar) storage, just that it needed a lot less storage than a 100% grid.
You either don't comprehend what people say, even when its simply put or skimmed it a bit fast. I assume the later.

MS: "When you say "Sometimes the consensus view is just wrong and the research on this issue [Linear Response No Threshold] is rather old and inadequate" and you dismiss a 2006 National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report you are repeating nuclear industry propaganda."

No I'm expressing my own opinion.

MS "You exchange a lot of posts on the unmoderated RealClimate forum. Much of the material posted there would not be allowed at SkS because it contradicts the peer reviewed literature and is untrue. Be careful what you repeat here that you read there."

Obviously you haven't read much of it, because I've spent half my time attacking claims made by the pro nuclear lobby, and also promoting renewable electricity. However I think they make some good points on some aspects of things that persuades me theres some place for nuclear power in the mix. I'm not alone.

"If you continue to repeat unsupported nuclear industry propaganda here I will continue to call you out. Renewable energy can provide ALL POWER to the world at a cost similar or lower than BAU."

I think renewables will win the day and you will be proven right. But its all speculation right now because we dont have a 100% renewables grid to know. The papers modelling costs are theoretical. Modelling costs is hard and has a bad track record.

France has nuclear power and some of the cleanest electricity in the world. They have already arrived at a clean grid.

I can't see a problem with a grid that has some nuclear power in it if people want. Its not actually a big deal to me. I don't accept your argument this undermines trust in renewables. People are not stupid. The world has long had grids with multiple sources of power.

This is probably going to be my final set of comments on this particular issue. I'm getting fed up with the bickering and accusations made against me about what I say or who influences me. I think for myself. I've had to waste time over this. I made my comments in good faith quoting an article froma main stream source, not some denialist / nuclear power website.

Eclectic at 13:38 PM on 21 January 2020

Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

BarbNoon1 @37 & following:

While I agree with much of what you say, nevertheless there are many disputable points.

All American children on standard diet have "striations of fat on their hearts" by around age 10 ? Did you mean so-called "fatty streaks" on the interior of their coronary arteries (which would apply to those with a genetic proclivity) . . . or mean merely fatty deposits on the exterior of the heart [as on the bowel ~ a matter largely caused by obesity] . . . obesity being known as a promoter of heart disease.

"Milk has hormones, and casein [... etcetera]" . . . but this is starting to sound like a Gish Gallop. And you are drawing a very long bow indeed. I did watch your "Dairy Causes Cancer" video. Sorry Barb, but it's very poor science, and also ignores the Big Picture. The cited papers on medical studies ~ show the typical weaknesses of studies of humans, as (a) being poorly-controlled, and (b) making little allowance for the vast number of confounding factors present in complex biological systems. All a ripe field for cherry-picking, too !

"Eggs high in cholesterol" . . . yes, that was thought important in the 1960's . . . but scientific understanding has improved since then. Which you ought to know. Please note that my main concern with rejection of ovo-lactarian diet, was in the area of child nutrition. A vegan diet can be fully nutritious, but you have to be very scientific in following it. Doubtless you've seen those occasional reports of developmentally-impaired children, whose ignorant parents simply gave the children what they themselves ate, without any allowance for vitB12 & sufficient essential amino acids etcetera. And then we should mention children in "Third World" nations.

"Sprayed ammonia" really should be unnecessary in modern scientific organically-based farming. Nor is it justified to eliminate all cattle livestock ~ since they can graze on semi-forest and marginal land too poor for most crops. And you will find on SkS here, some commenters ( IIRC: "RedBaron" ) who indicate that free-range grass-fed cattle can be beneficial by increasing carbon storage in the soil. Carbon negative! Sure, overall the cattle (and other livestock) should have their numbers greatly reduced, but not necessarily to zero !

Bozzza says all sorts of things, and often in a spray of one-liners. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's "not so much" ~ it's as though he doesn't always care to make sense. But sure, overpopulation is a major problem, which is going to take centuries to correct anyway. AGW is too urgent a problem for "population reduction" to even be on the same page (and "population reduction" is even more a taboo subject, for most people). At the end of the day, it's the fossil fuels.

Barb, let's not get deep into subjects which are Off-topic for this thread.

The essential point I raised initially, is that the climate scientists should not be pushing veganism. Not this century, anyway !

michael sweet at 13:01 PM on 21 January 2020

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Nigelj:

At post 130 you said:

"Its clear an 80% solar and wind grid needs much less storage than a 100% grid. Orders of magnitude less. Nuclear power is one way of filling in the 20%. I have never said its the only way. Hydro would work in some places" my emphasis.

You referenced a popular magazine. The actual paper is here (Shaner et al 2018). They do not model nuclear anywhere in the paper. The word "nuclear" appears once where they suggest many resources to provide back up power. They do not model an 80% wind and solar system with added nuclear (they never model a renewable energy system since they leave out existing hydropower). As Budischak describes below, 20% nuclear does not add to 80% solar and wind to reach a complete system. Nuclear is not flexible enough. Additional storage would still be needed.

Your claim of "orders of magnitude less [storage]" is not supported by your reference. It appears you made this up. The inference that nuclear can reduce storage by "orders of magnitude" is simply nuclear industry propaganda.

Budischak et al published a similar paper in 2013, except they modeled cost also. They also did not use existing hydro to fill in storage because "Hydropower makes the problem of high penetration renewables too easily solved, and little is available in many regions". They say "We do not simulate nuclear for backup because it cannot be ramped up and down quickly and its high capital costs make it economically inefficient for occasional use" Budischek found the cheapest solution was building out excess renewables. Shaner does not model costs, they only speculate on cost. Shaner was over 5 years out of date when it was written. More recent research shows that the larger the system the lower the storage requirements. (ie All Power requires relatively less storage than electricity only).

Existing hydro would fill much (all?) of the storage requirements for Shaner et al. Why did Shaner et al leave out the most flexible, already built, renewable energy system in their analysis (existing hydro is never mentioned in their paper)? Pumped hydro (the most expensive storage option, environmentally unsustainable) is mentioned 6 times. Existing capacity of hydropower greatly exceeds any conceivable pumped storage. Perhaps they knew that if existing hydro was included nuclear would be excluded from the discussion. I think Shaner et al are nuclear shills.

When you say "Sometimes the consensus view is just wrong and the research on this issue [Linear Response No Threshold] is rather old and inadequate" and you dismiss a 2006 National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report you are repeating nuclear industry propaganda.

You exchange a lot of posts on the unmoderated RealClimate forum. Much of the material posted there would not be allowed at SkS because it contradicts the peer reviewed literature and is untrue. Be careful what you repeat here that you read there.

If you continue to repeat unsupported nuclear industry propaganda here I will continue to call you out. Renewable energy can provide ALL POWER to the world at a cost similar or lower than BAU.

Markoh at 12:40 PM on 21 January 2020

Ocean acidification isn't serious

Eclectic @96 when you questioned "Is English your first language?", that is casual racism.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Nope. Many people of same race speak different languages. Drop it. Any further offtopic distractions by either of you will be deleted.

Eclectic at 12:19 PM on 21 January 2020

Ocean acidification isn't serious

Markoh @95 . . . personal abuse and racism ?!

WTH are you on about?

Please stop the ridiculous deflections ~ and make your point, if you can. Whatever that mysterious point is !

Moderator Response:

[PS} Please cool it and stick to science.