Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recommended supplemental reading:

What Does '12 Years to Act on Climate Change' (Now 11 Years) Really Mean? by Bob Berwyn, InsideClimate News, Aug 27, 2019

Human 2932847 at 19:02 PM on 28 August 2019

The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing

The sciencemag article describes conditions during glacial times, not the interglacial in which we are now. Presumably, conditions where quite different, and Europe was already ice-bound. The climate change referenced in the article wasn't the change from an interglacial into a glacial - day after tomorrow style - but variations in an already glacial kind of environment. So I don't know how much that work tells us about our current situation, I'd like to know more.

Human 2932847 at 18:51 PM on 28 August 2019

The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing

nigelj @7

Well, being on his own doesn't make him wrong, and he draws on several other's work so I assume there is a body of work about this.

thanks for link

Deb9714 at 14:44 PM on 28 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

nigelj @4

Thank you for the links, and advice.

The photos posted by celebrities and world leaders, and the Amazon is not "the lungs of the earth", are appearing on FB and websites, (see link) so I've read and shared the links you provided, and the Moderators too.

www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/#51245fa25bde

Moderator Response:

[DB] That articles gets some things right, but it gets other things wrong and is misrepresenting the science (per this link).

prove we are smart at 10:53 AM on 28 August 2019

IPCC is alarmist

M A Rodger @ 135, i think shooting from the hip is exactly what the IPCC should be doing. With CO2 levels still increasing from the last three decades, taking slow aim and firing is just missing the target. Just how unprepared / misinformed are we in Australia? Look at this, https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/

nigelj at 08:22 AM on 28 August 2019

The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing

Human 2932847 @6

Your link is one persons view. I dont know the answer, but periods of rapid cooling in the past in Europe coincided with the gulf stream slowing or stopping here,

Bob Loblaw at 07:49 AM on 28 August 2019

It's satellite microwave transmissions

tkaczevski:

No one has provided an answer to you yet, so let me try. My guess is that this question has not been examined in the scientific literature, but there is likely a reason why.

Let's first think about what your question means. Is the energy in cells phones, etc. a significant amount,, compared to other natural flows? The energy emitted by these sources of EM radiation has to come from somehwere - namely electricity. How much electricity is used to operate these devices?

I don't know, but scientists have looked at the total contribution of human heat production, and it is only 1% of the amount of energy added to the earth-atmosphere system by the effects of added CO2. SKeptical Science has a page on that subject:

https://skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

The fraction of total human-consumed energy that is used for cell phones, etc. is going to be very small. A very small proportion of 1% means that these devices cannot compare to the effects of CO2. I think it is safe to say that the EM radiation emitted by these devices is not a significant source of energy to warm the atmosphere.

jozef.van.giel@gmail.com at 05:10 AM on 28 August 2019

Why German coal power is falling fast in 2019

The main reason why gasemissions from electricity is falling is due to increased import of nuclear energy from France. see also: https://www.electricitymap.org

Moderator Response:

[PS] Can you provide data to support that assertion? It seems to be contradicted by other sources (eg here).

SirCharles at 01:48 AM on 28 August 2019

Why German coal power is falling fast in 2019

Thanks for the article.

"the German power sector’s emissions fell by 20m tonnes of CO2"

If we break that down on a per capita base for these six months we're ending up with a reduction of 1.3kg CO2 per day per capita, equivalent to burning one Imperial pound of coal or half a litre of petrol. Does that sound much?

Chancellor Merkel wanted to get one million EVs on the road by 2022 (2% of the fleet). But currently there are only some 140,000 registered EVs in Germany. Now picture how much more electricity is needed to feed just the 2% of the fleet.

So the outlook is anything but rosy. Germany was sleeping for the last decade. The government's boot licking of the automobile industry (Diesellüge) is now firing back big time.

GHG emissions and target Germany

Moderator Response:

[DB] Please reduce image widths to 450 or less.

Human 2932847 at 21:55 PM on 27 August 2019

The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing

Hi, what about this ?

http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/

It says,

"The Gulf Stream and future climate change
A slowdown of the Gulf Stream and ocean circulation in the future, induced by freshening of the waters caused by anthropogenic climate change (via melting glaciers and increased water vapor transport into high latitudes) or simply by warming, would thus introduce a modest cooling tendency. This would leave the temperature contrast across the Atlantic unchanged and not plunge Europe back into the ice age or anything like it. In fact the cooling tendency would probably be overwhelmed by the direct radiatively-driven warming by rising greenhouse gases."

Is this true, and does that mean AMOC slowdown isn't a worry ?

thanks in advance.

MA Rodger at 21:50 PM on 27 August 2019

IPCC is alarmist

prove we are smart @134,

With one exception, I have only read the summary of the paper Spratt & Dunlop (2018) 'What Lies Beneath: The understanding of existential climate risk' which you refer to. In short, the need for action on AGW was demonstrated by the science over a quarter of a century ago yet globally our emissions increased as though no such science existed. There is now, policy-wise, an agreement that radical action is needed to prevent a +1.5ºC increase in global temperature, radical as such a goal requires global CO2 emissions in future years to be restricted to something like 120Gt(C). The general message from the science is that such a goal will prevent the very bad AGW effects from happening. Yet in terms of policy, there is still little urgency. The enthusiasm for declaring a Climate Emergency has not yet resulted in any useful policy but let us hope that it will, soon. Spratt & Dunlop (2018) suggest the 120Gt(C) is flawed but it seems to me that its argument would need to be far better presented to be a useful contribution.

Their main criticism is that the science includes those "fat tails" which may make a +1.5ºC world a bit too hot to handle. There has been quite a bit of criticism of the IPCC for failing to make such potential outcomes better known. Most recently, Oppenheimer et al (2019) 'Discerning Experts: The Practices of Scientific Assessment for Environmental Policy' has described well instances of the IPCC's failings (three of the authors have an account of the book HERE). But while there are systemic problems within the IPCC assessments, they do not systematically underestimate AGW. There is perhaps need for the failings of the IPCC assessments to be better understood and in addressing that, I have no criticism of Spratt & Dunlop (2018).

But Spratt & Dunlop (2018) goes further than this. There is a feel of this in their assessment of the impacts of AGW. Their Summary begins:-

"Human-induced climate change is an existential risk to human civilisation: an adverse outcome that will either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential, unless carbon emissions are rapidly reduced."

The word "existential" is usually, in my view, very poorly wielded in regard to AGW. Here, the use "an existential risk to human civilisation" is refreshing to see. But then it is followed by "annihilate intelligent life" which is something I find very difficult to envision.

So this got me delving into one further section of Spratt & Dunlop (2018). The section Carbon Budgets makes a number of points (♣ Not working other GHGs into the budget, ♣ Not evaluating "fat tails" which would reduce carbon budgets to zero, ♣ Relying on models that potentially run cool, ♣ Not defining pre-industrial temperature adequately, ♣ Ignoring actual peak temperatures) but I only see one of these issues that is germane to setting carbon budgets (the cool models). So for me, Spratt & Dunlop (2018) seems to be 'firing from the hip' a bit too much and needs to tighten up its message if they want to make a serious contribution.

prove we are smart at 20:01 PM on 27 August 2019

IPCC is alarmist

I believe the IPCC reports are probably the most used information to help set climate policy around the globe. However after reading this,

http://climateextremes.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/What-Lies-Beneath-V3-LR-Blank5b15d.pdf

and part of their summary :

" Climate policymaking and the public narrative are significantly informed by the important work of the IPCC. However, IPCC reports also tend toward reticence and caution, erring on the side of “least drama”, and downplaying the more extreme and more damaging outcomes. Whilst this has been understandable historically, given the pressure exerted upon the IPCC by political and vested interests, it is now becoming dangerously misleading with the acceleration of climate impacts globally. What were lower-probability, higher-impact events are now becoming more likely. This is a particular concern with potential climatic tipping points — passing critical thresholds which result in step changes in the climate system — such as the polar ice sheets (and hence sea levels), and permafrost and other carbon stores, where the impacts of global warming are non-linear and difficult to model with current scientific knowledge.However the extreme risks to humanity, which these tipping points represent, justify strong precautionary management. Under-reporting on these issues is irresponsible, contributing to the failure of imagination that is occurring today in our understanding of, and response to, climate change. If climate policymaking is to be soundly based, a reframing of scientific research within an existential risk-management framework is now urgently required. This must be taken up not just in the work of the IPCC, but also in the UNFCCC negotiations if we are to address the real climate challenge. Current processes will not deliver either the speed or the scale of change required."

So, i was wondering just how correct is this need to modify the scope of the IPCC reports.

" What Lies Beneath" put into words my feelings on our current Aussie state - pretend we care but open more coal mines and do nothing..

This video was also enlightening , a new documentary series , pt 1.

https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/#!

MA Rodger at 18:56 PM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

The abstract linked @391 which is also the reference supporting the existence of those "measurements of your referral ... claimed to be the result of a 22 per million increase in CO2" which Billev @395 finds so difficult to accept: that abstract is that of Feldman et al (2015) 'Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010' which can be read in full HERE demonstrating that the effects of the +22ppm increase of atmospheric CO2 2000-10, equal to a climate forcing of +0.26Wm^-2, is directly measureable given the right circumstances

Doug_C at 17:25 PM on 27 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #34

What happens in the Amazon has impacts across the world, something the current government of Brazil is ignoring as it refuses international aid to fight the 75,000 fires in the region.

scaddenp at 13:31 PM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

So Billev are prepared to actually learn enough physics as to why increasing CO2 to 400ppm from pre-industrial levels can cause such an effect? - (you could see "its just a trace gas" myth but then you have been referred there before without apparently learning anything). Or do you prefer to stick with your ignorance?

Can I assume you would happily walk into a room with 400ppm of cyanide gas - you know how could such a tiny amount of gas be a problem?

KR at 13:20 PM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

billev - "This sounds nonsensical to me" is a pure Argument from incredulity, an erroneous logical fallacy. As scaddenp points out, you've been repeating this very same fallacious argument for at least 3 years. Clearly you're not learning anything from these discussions.

Moderators, might I point out a Comments Policy situation here, namely "Comments should avoid excessive repetition"? Also known as PRATT, a 'point refuted a thousand times'?

bozzza at 12:09 PM on 27 August 2019

The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing

Yes, Brian, it is largely due to coriolis effect ... Salt and heat are simply other factors!

bozzza at 12:01 PM on 27 August 2019

The North Atlantic ocean current, which warms northern Europe, may be slowing

Salt doesn't freeze!

TVC15 at 11:15 AM on 27 August 2019

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

@258 scaddenp; 259 Daniel Bailey

Thank you so much! I love how much I learn posting here! :)

billev at 11:05 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

Scaddenp, the measurements of your referral were claimed to be the result of a 22 per million increase in CO2. This would mean that the observed heat increase was caused by an increase of one part of CO2 per each 45,454 parts of atmosphere. This sounds nonsensical to me.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, repetitive (even after being disproven), off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

scaddenp at 10:38 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

Just reviewed billev posting history on this site. Hmm. I think the response I gave him in 2016 here still applies. What actually is the point of asking the same thing and then running away from the answers? At this point, billev is engaging in evasive repetition and running away when evidence is posted. I am not sure I can find any evidence that he has read single paper that he has been pointed to.

Bob Loblaw at 10:35 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

Frankly, I don't think billev is interested in any answers you give him. He's had lots of opportunity to learn from his many ill-posed questions here. What he's really saying is that there will never be any evidence that he will accept. As long as he dismisses any and all evidence, he can conitnue in his beliefs and remain confident of his position.

Do not feed the troll.

David Kirtley at 10:03 AM on 27 August 2019

Hockey stick is broken

TVC15 @160. Denier's statement: "State with specificity what the exact average global temperature should be now".

This is a common technique and it's a bit of a strawman argument. Scientists don't make any claims about what the "ideal" temperature "should be". There is no "perfect" temperature for the earth.

But, there are ideal temperatures for sustaining a global human civilization. We need stable temps to grow our food, we need stable sea levels to insure that our major cities are not inundated, etc, etc.

Daniel Bailey at 08:36 AM on 27 August 2019

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

Time for some updates to this thread:

"'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts"

The Guardian article then cites 3 brand-new studies, just published, which show that:

"there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades"

Neukom et al 2019 - No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

PAGES 2K 2019 - Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era

“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.

Bronnimann et al 2019 - Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions

"global mean annual temperatures are higher now than any time in the last 2,000 years, with the middle of the 20th century either matching or exceeding Common Era temperatures as well"

Tardif et al 2019 - Last Millennium Reanalysis with an expanded proxy database and seasonal proxy modeling

“But even when we push our perspective to the earliest days of the Roman Empire, we cannot discern any event that is remotely equivalent — either in degree or extent — to the warming over the last few decades.”

St George 2019 - Aberrant synchrony of present-day warming

Related LINK

This skeptic meme is stone dead. Stick a fork in it, it's done.

KR at 08:35 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

billev - It's unclear to me what your particular complaints are, but there are more specific Skeptical Science threads for various aspects of your complaints. If you can be more clear, I would suggest taking the discussion to the appropriate thread.

You don't trust the surface temp records? They are quite solid, and show considerable warming despite the statistical approaches used: skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm
You don't believe we're the cause? Lots of attribution evidence shows that we are - natural forcings would have caused a temperature decrease over the last 50 years, and we have a statistically significant warming matching anthropogenic forcings: skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
You for some reason don't believe the atmospheric changes are real? Lots of empirical proof for that, including direct spectral measurements of radiative changes over the last few decades: skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Now, if you don't have any reasons, supported by evidence, to disagree with those aspects of the global temp. record, it's linkage to greenhouse gas atmospheric changes, and attribution to human causes, your objections IMO come down to an Argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong about that, but you're going to have to support your arguments.

TVC15 at 08:26 AM on 27 August 2019

Hockey stick is broken

@ 161 Daniel Bailey

Thank you so much for that great response and all the data!

Daniel Bailey at 08:20 AM on 27 August 2019

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

Specifics on proxy datasets can be found here.

scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 27 August 2019

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

yes. Where no temperature measurements exist, then proxies are all you have.

Dont let a denier take you down the path of believing that climate theory depending on paleoclimate studies. Paleoclimate studies are useful testing grounds - if our current understanding of climate cannot reproduce measurements of temperature given the uncertaintites in the temperature measurement and our understanding of the forcings operating at the time, then the theory would be in trouble. Not the case. Paleoclimate is also useful in constraining climate sensitivity. However, uncertainties in estimating solar output, aerosols, albedo and temperature all create significant limits compared to analysing the physics of the climate system today.

scaddenp at 08:02 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

billev - I am struggling a bit to understand your issue. The surface air temperature have gone up and that is consistant with the increased irradiation of the surface. While you ask about "reduction in outgoing longwave radiation causes any temperature change", more relevant is measured increase in irradiation of the surface (though one is simply the reflection of the other assuming conservation of energy). More recent direct measurement of the increased irradiation due to CO2 at the surface is here. Are you proposing Stephan-Boltzmann law does not apply? If the sun increased its radiation by 4W/m2 and you noticed the temperature increasing as it does today, would you be saying there "was no evidence that increased output from the sun was raising temperatures"? If so, then what kind of evidence are you looking for - or are you engaging in sophistry to support a belief grounded in ideology/identity rather than science?

billev at 07:29 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

I am talking about air temperature measurements that are used to calculate the global mean air temperature.

Daniel Bailey at 07:22 AM on 27 August 2019

Hockey stick is broken

TVC15, the current global mean temperature for the Earth "should be" one dictated by the sum balance of forcings and feedbacks that drive temperatures. As those are not in balance due to human activities, the global mean temperature is increasing as a result. Global mean temperatures will continue to increase as long as temperatures are not in balance with forcings, which they are not, as long as the burning of fossil fuels continues as they are currently used.

Scientists have evaluated all natural forcings and factors capable of driving the Earth's climate to change and it is only when the anthropogenic forcing is included that the observed warming can be explained.

Natural vs Anthropogenic Climate Forcings, per the NCA4, Volume 2:

Forcings

Scientists have quantified the warming caused by human activities since preindustrial times and compared that to natural temperature forcings.

Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth from 1750-2011 are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared.

By comparison, human activities from 1750-2011 warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676).

What this means is that the warming driven by the GHGs coming from the human burning of fossil fuels since 1750 is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.

TVC15 at 07:09 AM on 27 August 2019

Hockey stick is broken

I posted in a forum about the purpose of the "Hockey Stick" study and the fact that numerous proxy studies have been performed confirming the original hockey stick conclusion: that the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
A denier swooped in and made this snarky comment and expects me to make a statement answering their question.

Which is immaterial and irrelevant.

State with specificity what the exact average global temperature should be now and the peer-reviewed science to support your conclusion.

I have no idea how to answer as I don't know what the current global temperature "should" currently be?

Xulonn at 06:35 AM on 27 August 2019

Millions of times later, 97 percent climate consensus still faces denial

Doug_C @22

I noticed that you used "tar sands" and "dilbit" (diluted bitumin) rather than "oil sands" and "oil" to correctly identify that Canadian fossil fuel energy resource.

However, I've noticed that even the Canadian government uses the incorrect term "oil sands" to minimize the negative connotation of the real name of the resource.

TVC15 at 06:31 AM on 27 August 2019

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

Hi,

How is past climate data collected? Is it through proxy studies analyzing a variety of different sources such as corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores?

Thanks

KR at 02:46 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

billev - According to the IPCC scientific synthesis:

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

There's a good and approachable summary of this by NASA that's worth reading, at climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ I'm afraid that the science, the evidence, just don't agree with your claims.

Eclectic at 02:38 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

Billev @385 and @386 ,

before you ask for evidence, you must first define what you are talking about.

So . . . what aspect of global air temperature do you mean? Air temp at the surface (e.g. standard meteorological station thermometers) ?

Air temp at 10,000 feet altitude (radiosonde balloon thermometers; or calculated from microwave detection from satellites) ? Air temp at the tropopause; temp at the lower stratosphere; at the upper stratosphere ?

What about sea surface temperature ? Important, surely !!

How is the "global annual mean temperature" calculated ?

Is the melting of polar ice counted as a global temperature change? If not, why not? (Global ice-melt is occurring at approx 500 cubic kilometers per year. That's a hefty chunk of ice, by anyone's measure!! )

Is the ongoing rise in sea level — from the warming of the ocean, as well as ice-melt — is that taken as evidence of temperature change ? If not, why not?

Ain't so simple . . . even before we start measuring whether there is, or isn't, a reduction of outgoing radiation.

MA Rodger at 02:18 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

billev @385 & 386.

As well as setting out some quite complex questions that could be interpreted in different ways and which could do with being clarified, it would be useful to specifically understand why you say "there appears to be no evidence"?

It occurs to me that this sounds a bit like a passage in the chat Roy Spencer gave at the Heartland shindig at the end of last month. (His grand assertion was "And as we add CO2 the theory says we've reduced the ability of the earth to cool itself by about one percent. That's according to theory not measurements. None of our satellite measurements of any kind are good enough to measure that. It's a theoretical expectation." Of course, as is usually the case with statements from Roy Spencer, it is wrong.)

And as the subject is quite a complex one, it might be better to kick-off discussing it with a clear understanding of what you are actually asking about. Thus, could you explain why you say "there appears to be no evidence"?

tkaczevski at 01:47 AM on 27 August 2019

It's satellite microwave transmissions

Thank you for the math regarding satellites. I would be curious what effect all microwave communications have on the climate. Cell phones towers, WiFi, phones and other devices seem to be working in the water heating frequency range. Has there been a study calculating the effect of all microwave communication on global heating? What would it take to change the EM frequencies of communication to avoid the water-warming ones?

billev at 00:52 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

There appears to be no evidence that the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation causes any temperature change that is detectable by the measuring devices used to determine global air temperature.

billev at 00:43 AM on 27 August 2019

There's no empirical evidence

What evidence is there to show that the magnitude of the reduction in outgoing longwave radiation has had any measureable effect on World-wide temnperature measurements used to arrive at a global annual mean temperature?

One Planet Only Forever at 00:42 AM on 27 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #34

I agree with the understanding that "...sovereignty is not the right to damage your neighbours interests."

Sovereignty also does not defend actions harmful to the future of humanity.

Said another way, Self-Interest cannot be allowed to result in Actions that are beneficial to a portion of the population by being harmful to Others or the Future of Humanity. In "Reasons and Persons" (1984), Derek Parfit presented a detailed and robust rational ethical proof that self-interest as a Governing Principle can be expected to produce harmful results.

What is most important for the sustainability of any culture or nation (or business) is that its Governance incorporates improving awareness and understanding of what is required for sustainability (the achievement and improvement on the Sustainable Development Goals). Failure to make understandably required Governance corrections compromises the future of the nation, culture, or business.

Within Collectively Governed cultures, nations, and businesses (those where employees have significant influence), it is well understood to be beneficial for there to be penalties to limit the amount of harmful pursuit of self-interest by individuals or groups within the Governed population (or its competition). It is also understood that rewards for helpful behaviour can also be beneficial to the sustainability of the culture, nation, or business.

The problem regarding Climate Change, and many other developed human activity impacts requiring correction, is that International Law does not effectively exist (only things like Universal Declarations, Accords, Treaties, Pacts, and Agreements that sort of influence leadership).

Nations and States or Provinces, and to some degree cities (and of course businesses) can develop rules and laws governing what happens within their populations. But Nations and International Businesses are hard to govern through those external legal mechanisms (even China's central government struggles to govern what happens in Regions within China). And of course the lack of International Law leaves decisions about corrective collective national actions, like trade sanctions or agreements to breech sovereignty to intervene, up to the fickleness and potential harmfulness of self-interested leadership.

People like Stephen M. Gardener are pushing for International Rule development and corrections. But many powerful people are resisting the Governance improvements because they prefer to get away with pursuing "Their Self-Interests" and defending "Their Developed Status in the Status Quo".

nigelj at 17:52 PM on 26 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

How climate change is leading to larger and more frequent forest fires: See how a warmer world primed California for large fires.The state is just hotter and drier than it used to be, and that's driving a trend toward larger fires.

Climate Change Is Fueling WildfiresNationwide, New Report Warns

nigelj at 17:45 PM on 26 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Deb @3, there are more fires than usual in the Amazon Rainforest this year but it appears to be caused deliberately to clear land. Climate change doesn't really start forest fires, except for possibly higher lightening strikes in some places, and instead climate change makes fires larger because land is hotter and drier. So its this scale issue that should be pointed out to the denialists.

As to convincing people that climate is changing etc, I think just stick to robust facts. Many denialists are probably beyond convincing, because for them its become political so views become rigid, but we can still chip away at them, and convince more open minded people listening in.

nigelj at 17:34 PM on 26 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #34

The Amazon rainforest also creates rain.

"By the middle of the century, deforestation in the Amazon could reduce rainfall by up to 20%, even in areas far from those that have lost trees."

"Tropical forests release huge volumes of water to the atmosphere, where it moves around and is recycled as rainfall — but pasture and farmland do not. Delphine Zemp at Humboldt University in Berlin and her colleagues modelled how the loss of forests could affect rainfall across South America. They calculate that if deforestation continues at roughly its current rate, dry-season rainfall will decrease by 8% across the Amazon basin by 2050, with localized hotspots losing up to 20% of their rain."

"The greatest reductions in rainfall were seen in the southwestern part of the Amazon, and could make the region more vulnerable to disturbances such as extreme drought and fire. Rainfall loss from deforestation could therefore lead to further environmental degradation."

This could affect neighbouring countries as well. Imho sovereignty is not the right to damage your neighbours interests. If the situation is not resolved diplomatically, it could lead to serious conflicts. Bolsonaro is not providing good leadership.

scaddenp at 13:13 PM on 26 August 2019

Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh

Since rate of removal is proportional to gradient, and sea is gradually becoming more saturated, then over time spans of 100s to 1000s of years, CO2 removal must slow (in fact as oceans heat, they will expel CO2 not absorb it).

Deb9714 at 12:44 PM on 26 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

How to answer people who say the fires in Brazil, and elsewhere are normal for this time of year, it's summer, there is no increase in the number of fires, blah, blah, blah, nothing to see here folks it's MSM spreading alarm, and NASA says nothing to worry normal this time of year. IMO it's misdirection. Please, someone, direct me to a link or links.

Thank you

Moderator Response:

[JH] See:

EXPLAINER-Why are the Amazon fires sparking a crisis for Brazil - and the world? by Jake Spring, Reuters, Aug 25, 2019

[DB] Also see this,

"Cumulative active fire detections through 8/22/2019 from MODIS and VIIRS confirm that 2019 is the highest fire year since 2012 (the start of the VIIRS record) across the seven states that comprise the Brazilian Amazon. In addition, fires in 2019 are more intense than previous years, measured in terms of fire radiative power, consistent with the observed increase in deforestation"

Brazil Fire Counts and Intensity

Bob Loblaw at 12:02 PM on 26 August 2019

Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh

DaveBurton:

You seem to be using terms like "fact" and "observation" a lot when what you are saying does not fit their definitions. You also say "If you start with a physically impossible assumption, you get a physically impossible result." Let's look at the model you present in that light.

When you present the model in comment #27, you claim:

Start with the observation that the rate at which natural systems (oceans & terrestrial biosphere, mainly) remove CO2 from the air is governed chiefly by the CO2 level in the air.

This is only crudely close to reality. The rate of CO2 from the atmosphere to the land and oceans requires a gradient, not a concentration. The rate will depend not only on that gradient, but on the efficiency that CO2 can move along that gradient. In fact, the model you present has that explicitly, where in your code you say (bolding mine):

local($co2elevation) = $co2level - 295.1;
local($ratio) = 47.73;
if ($co2level <= 295.1) {
$removalrate = 0;
} else {
$removalrate = $co2elevation * 0.0233;
}

The gradient is the result of the expression "$co2level - 295.1", and the efficiency of movement along that gradient is the value 0.0233 in the expression "$co2elevation * 0.0233". (That coefficient must have units that include a per unit time term)

In this model, there is an implicit assumption that the only stable CO2 level is 295.1 pm. Any excess above that value will be removed until CO2 returns to 295.1 ppm.

Oddly, it also state that the removal rate is zero if CO2 concentration falls below that point. Thus, it assume that there are no natural processes capable of lowering CO2 level below that majick value of 295.1 ppm. This falls into the "not even wrong" category, as we have indirect observations of CO2 levels much below this during the last glacial periods.

The model clearly starts with a physically impossible assumption. So, in your own words, it produces a physically impossible result.

...But let us consider the possibility that something majick can occur, so that the surface can somehow maintain a concentration of 295.1 ppm so it can suck the CO2 out of the air any time the atmospheric concentration is >295.1 ppm. What does it do with that CO2? It can't stay at the surface, because in the model the surface is always capable of sucking CO2 out of the air even if the atmospheric concentration is only 295.2 ppm. There must be some gradient to move CO2 away from the surface into the oceans or land.. And whatever is moving it into the coeans and land must majickally stop when atmospheric CO2 drops to 295.1 ppm, because if it didn't then the surface CO2 concentration would have to drop if there is no replacement of CO2 from the atmosphere. Remember? In your code you said:

if ($co2level <= 295.1) {
$removalrate = 0;

Now, you may try to argue that this model only applies to the special CO2 that is added due to human activities. To make that claim you are going to have to provide some sort of plausible mechanism by which nature can tell the difference between an atmospheric CO2 molecule that came from burning fossil fuels, and one that came from the multitude of natural sources. (Hint: it can't.)

To loosely quote Monty Python's Oscar Wilde sketch, the model you present is not a "gleaming shaft of gold".

scaddenp at 07:33 AM on 26 August 2019

Greenland is gaining ice

icowrich - try http://gravis.gfz-potsdam.de/greenland. Regular updates from FO are really just getting started.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments