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:

How 2020 Democrats plan to fight climate change by Umair Irfan, David Roberts and Eliza Barclay, Energy & Environment, July 30, 2019

“No permanent friends, no permanent enemies”: inside the Sunrise Movement’s plan to save humanity, Ezra Klein Podcast, Vox, July 31, 2019

2020 Democrats are getting more confrontational with the fossil fuel industry by Umair Irfan, Policy & Politics, Vox, July 31, 2019

Debate’s Attempt to Show Candidates Divided on Climate Change Finds Unity Instead by Marianne Lavelle, InsideClimate News, Aug 1, 2019

One Planet Only Forever at 05:15 AM on 4 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #31

What happened to John Cook is an example of the actions predicted bt the Propaganda Model (PM) that was developed by Edward S. Herman and was presented with the assistance of Noam Chomsky in the book "Manufacturing Consent".

The PM predicts that the freedom of people to believe what they want and do as they please in competitions for popularity and profit will develop powerful undeserving winners who will have many ways to influence and control what stories get told and become popular beliefs that 'suit their harmful developed interests and future desires'.

The PM predicts that people who are wealthy because they deliberately harmfully ignore the reality of improving understanding like climate science will prefer to hear stories told by people who want to 'please them'. It identifies the many ways they can influence what stories get told and become popular beliefs that 'suit their developed interests and future desires'.

The PM predicts results like powerful people not wanting to deal with 'The Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth' successfully resisting having to deal with someone like John Cook.

It can clearly be seen that many of the developed systems of wealth and power around the world have harmfully pursued greater freedom in competitions for popularity and profit with people freer to believe whatever they want to excuse doing what they please (non-democratic systems like the Soviet Union's and current day China and Saudi Arabia also suffer from this). The result can be expected to be accumulation of wealth and power by harmfully deceptive people (cheaters can and do prosper for as long as they can get away with it). And as that happens the PM predicts how they increase their power and unjustly defend their status, through their ability to influence the stories that get told (impressing the easily impressed).

Even if the Weather Network was able to force the Heartland Institute into allowing John Cook to stay, the PM predicts that the powerful interests behind the Heartland Institute would amp up their flak attacks on him and the stories he would tell.

The PM also predicts that very few other major popular media outlets will mention this incident as a criticism of the wealthy people behind the Heartland Institute, or dig into and present similar incidents. The PM also predicts that stories like this might get lower than deserved ranking in social media platforms (under the influence of the powerful).

The PM also predicts that inconsequential incidents that could be abused to discredit foes of the undeserving among the wealthy would be scatter-shot across social media platforms that the powerful wealthy can influence by the mechanisms of the PM (No need for Russian Influence, totally Made-up in America).

One Planet Only Forever at 01:28 AM on 4 August 2019

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

"Discrediting of peer-review" is likely to be an 'increasingly popular' misleading attack on the 'constantly improving climate science consensus in peer-reviewed presentations of research'. (Note: this will be a liberal arts related comment fundamentally based on abductive reasoning used to develop a best explanation for what can be observed to going on in the real world - no statistical mathematics or lab experiments are applied, mainly because social 'experiments-interviews' are difficult to perform in a way that is not open to easy manipulation, mainly because the 'act of observing those things that way' can alter the result of what is observed, like poll results are functions of the way the questions are asked and what order they are asked in)

The recent Washington Post item "Why we shouldn’t take peer review as the ‘gold standard’" is an example of the subtle ways that the Propaganda Model (PM) developed by Edward S. Herman with support from Noam Chomsky results in twists of the reporting of things (the stories that get told and believed) in ways that are beneficial to developed powerful wealthy interests (The PM was presented in detail in "Manufacturing Consent" published in 1988 and updated in 2002, with further related research and presentations by many others since then, one of the most recent being "Propaganda in the Information Age" compiled by Alan MacLeod as an update on the PM including his recent interview with Noam Chomsky).

A full reading of the Washington Post article shows it to be a comprehensive presentation that includes pointing out ways that the 'peer-review' concept and label is abused for propaganda purposes, and still supporting the importance of peer-review for the advancement of understanding.

The Title Banner in particular does not make it clear that "Wealthy powerful harmful interests are abusing the concept of 'Peer-Review' in their propaganda efforts to mislead the general population regarding important new understandings like climate science". The title appears to be deliberately vague, wide open to interpretation by a 'media consumer'. And though the opening statements are critical of an incorrect cliam by the Trump Administration about a specific recent climate science report, the opening statements are vague regarding the rest of climate science reporting. That allows a 'pseudo-skeptic' to accept a perceived to be 'minor criticism' of the Trump Administration while maintaining the belief that climate science claims are all misleading propaganda. And the title implies that, even though the Trump administration was incorrect about the report being 'peer-reviewed', the 'peer-reviewed' report can still be questionable propaganda.

Herman's PM predicts that pressures from wealthy neoliberal interests will create story presentations that suit their interests as much as possible (as media outlet owners; as advertisers; as sources of pre-packaged "new news content from supposedly reliable sources''; as flak attackers of anyone who is not sufficiently deterred by the first 3 pressures/filters). Note that neoliberals tend to flock to the right-wing parties, but they can also be seen to attempt to influence other parties that are competing for popular support and funding to promote them (neoliberal influence in the US Democrats is the fuel behind unjust but powerful criticism of things like the Green New Deal or single-payer health care insurance)

In this case the title and opening statements are wide open to the interpretation that peer-reviewed climate science is just a bunch of misleading manipulation. Many people are known to only be seeking confirmation of preferred beliefs, not improved understanding. And many of those easily impressed people only read headlines. And many more only read the headline and opening statements (and news sites like the WP can be seen to present items that way on their home pages for quick consumption).

The PM model predicts that if the title and opening statements of the article had been more directly correct and critical of the harmful wealthy interests abusing misleading propaganda efforts, the author and editor would have been pressured to 'change it, pragmatically make it more centrist, be 'more balanced (code for compromising actual better understanding)'. And maybe they were. The resulting presentation is incredibly misleading in a way that benefits harmful wealthy interests while allowing them to claim that 'the full story presented is not biased in their favour' even though its presentation undeniably is.

The PM also predicts that articles like this will be abused in other claims in a propaganda chain trying to discredit the 97% or 99.9% consensus in peer-reviewed presentations by simply referring to the article by its heading knowing that many 'consumers' of the propaganda (enough to make a difference on an election day) will not bother to actually read the full article.

barry17781 at 01:06 AM on 4 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

"Since I have a Masters Degree in Chemistry I am able to understand the complexities of different plutonium isotopes in the reactor fuel."

Yet you are willing to post the utterly false statement that

Instead military interests have
always been the driving force behind their[civilian Reactors] construction"

If you understand the reasonwhy civilian byproduct is unsuitable for weapons, and living in the States, there is a number of military reactors stuck out in the desert. You know this I know this so why post the ridiculous statement

You then state that it is only a few nations have diverted nuclear material, which is contrary to your first statment that all civilian reactors

MA Rodger at 19:09 PM on 3 August 2019

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Jiminy Cricket @351,

You ask 1) What are the limitations on the positive feedback influence of water vapour. What are the physical constraints on run away?

The concept of a "run away" climate isn't always well defined. There can be feedbacks (big & small) that once started will not stop until they reach their limit. These are the climate's tipping points and perhaps the biggest of these would be the idea of a "run away" climate turning the Earth's climate into something like that of Venus. Famously, Jim Hansen, in his 2009 book 'Storms of My Grandchildren' said:-

"After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I've come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

Hansen has since corrected that, saying (here in 2017):-

"One flaw in my book Storms of My Grandchildren is my inference you can get runaway climate change on a relatively short timescale. You have to get rid of the ocean before you get to a Venus situation, and that requires you getting the water to escape. That took hundreds of millions of years for that to occur on Venus. You could certainly get to a disastrous situation without getting rid of the ocean, but if you want to go to a Venus-type situation, then you have to lose the ocean. Venus did. Hydrogen isotopes on Venus do indicate that it once had a lot of water, but doesn’t now."

There is a more scientific account by Hansen on this somewhere but at the moment it doesn't come to hand. The mechanism for losing the planet's water is to increase global temperature enough that it wipes out the tropopause allowing water vapour into the high atmosphere and thus a route out into space.

The reason you need to get rid of the water is that the increasing evaporation/rainfall with rising surface temperature becomes a major cooling mechanism. (It presently constitutes 16% of the upward energy flux at the surface.) A further consideration is that if the primary forcing was due to CO2, that increased rainfall would cause increased rock-weathering and that in turn cause increased CO2 draw-down.

nigelj at 17:11 PM on 3 August 2019

The 'war on coal' myth

jef @1

The lack of competitiveness of coal right now is nothing to do with peak coal in the sense you mean of reserves of coal. Coal reserves have not peaked, and there are about 150 years known reserves left globally at current rates of use. It's believed it may only be about 60 years in America.

Coal reached an "energy extraction peak" in 1998 and a tonnage peak on 2008, but this is a different thing to reserves and is because of competition from other energy sources including gas and renewable energy. There have been several extraction peaks in the history of coal. Refer to "peak coal" on wikipedia.

In addition the article above showed that the price of coal has gone down in recent decades, which is obviously not consistent with any ideas that reserves of coal having peaked.

Therefore it is clear the reason coal is out of favour is competition from renewable energy and gas, and so renewable energy sources are simply more economic than coal as the article stated.

It's true to say that supplies of light crude oil have probably peaked, and heavy crude will peak sometime this century. Refer peak oil on wikipedia.

Nevertheless it is clear coal and oil are likely to increase in price at some point this century, and will obviously run out sooner than a lot of people realise, and so this is all yet another obvious reason why it makes sense to transition to renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro power.

What do you mean renewable (not)? Do you not realise the materials used to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines can be recycled? Hydro dams are built from concrete and even earth that is so plentiful it is not an issue. Sure we will run out of some materials completely eventually almost regardless of what we do, so what is it you suggest we do? Go without power?

jef12506 at 14:34 PM on 3 August 2019

The 'war on coal' myth

Its called PEAK fossil fuels and it has nothing to do with the cost of "renewable" (not) energy. Sure when the truth of fracking, coal, and oil production decline hits ever more harder ANY source of energy will look cheap. Problem is it absolutely will not/can not support modern civilization.

michael sweet at 09:59 AM on 3 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry:

From your reference:

"The wider problem
Five European nations host US nuclear weapons on their soil as part of a NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement, and roughly two dozen other nations claim to rely on US nuclear weapons for their security. Furthermore, there are many nations with nuclear power or research reactors capable of being diverted for weapons production. The spread of nuclear know-how has increased the risk that more nations will develop the bomb." my emphasis

michael sweet at 09:35 AM on 3 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Barry,

My argument is that nuclear plants are not economic. The DIW report I cited showed that of 674 civilian reactors built worldwide, 674 (every single one) were subsidized by the government. Nuclear plants lose money.

If you have a problem with DIW's claim that "military interests have
always been the driving force behind their construction" you will have to take it up with them. I suggest first that you read their report available here. Since the title of the report is "High-priced and dangerous: nuclear power is not an option for the climate-friendly energy mix" you will need to come up with some economic arguments. They also accept the LRNT descriptiion of radioactivity hazard.

When I Googled DIW they appear to be a serious think tank that has no particular bias. You need to provide evidence that your unsupported opinion is more accurate than a very well documented report from DIW.

At Skeptical Science personal opinion has little value. If you want to be taken seriously you must cite peer reviewed studies.

Since I have a Masters Degree in Chemistry I am able to understand the complexities of different plutonium isotopes in the reactor fuel.

barry17781 at 07:59 AM on 3 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Mr sweet, The sheer practicalities of using a civilian reactor do not favour weapond production either. Its abit technical, but believe me , The first nuclear weapons nations built dedicated weapons production reactors.

There was absolutly no reason for these countries to use civilian reactos to produce weapons grade plutonium.

The minimization of the amount of 240
Pu
present in weapons grade plutonium is achieved by reprocessing the fuel after just 90 days of use. Such rapid fuel cycles are highly impractical for civilian power reactors and are normally only carried out with dedicated weapons plutonium production reactors. Plutonium from spent civilian power reactor fuel typically has under 70% 239
Pu
and around 26%240
Pu
, the rest being made up of other plutonium isotopes, making it extremely difficult but not impossible to use it for the manufacturing of improvised nuclear weapons.[4][8][11][12]

barry17781 at 07:41 AM on 3 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Erratum, Iran could possibly be regarded as being with intention of building a weapon and so should have been accounted for in the argument

barry17781 at 07:38 AM on 3 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

M Sweet

Nuclear power plants have been built in 34 countries out of these 9 countries have or believed to have nuclear weapons

It is therfore clear that your stament that

"military interests havealways been the driving force behind their construction"

is false

ie contries that have built nuclear power stations = 34 less 9 with weapons = 25 countries with power plants and no weapons.

your comment is a piece of scurriulous mis information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/

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 or off-topic posts. 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.

Personal attacks snipped.

nigelj at 07:38 AM on 3 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

I tend to keep my cars until they are totally worn out, or new models have safety features that are really desirable. I couldnt care less if my car doesn't have apple car play or bluetooth, or the latest silly gadgets!

nigelj at 07:34 AM on 3 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

prove we are smart @21, exactly car manufacturers can build cars that last for ages and don't break if they want, and have been doing it for decades, so when cars have use by dates its clearly deliberate. But nobody can really force manufacturers to build things that last for ages, we are not the Soviet Union, so its up to the public to be a bit smarter and buy long lasting products which will encourage manufactuers to do more. The government could do something like maintain a register of long lasting products, or perhaps consumer organisations could do this. Consumers need information. This will then push manufacturers to build better products.

There might be something we could do to force manufacturers to make it easier to repair products.

Your model for sustainable living is fine for those able to live in rural locations, or who have large sections. For apartment dwellers its a challenge, because they are so reliant on industrial agriculture and may not be able to move house or find small plots of land. It's like industrial agriculture has to change to a more sustainable model. Again it probably comes down to the public choosing to buy the most sustainably industrially grown food, and perhaps some government incentives for farming to become more sustainable. I'm at a loss to think what else could be done.

Capitalism in its present form looks unsustainable to me, and AI might start replacing enough jobs to create a problem. The question is what to do about it, without creating even bigger problems, and repeating failed experiments like Soviet collectivisation. Its going to need some lateral thinking.

nigelj at 07:13 AM on 3 August 2019

What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?

Shoemore @4, yes George Bush made some climate promises (with zero substance) and McCain has some more tangible ideas, but right now the GOP are in almost complete denial about the climate issue. Neither they or Trump have anything to offer but empty platitudes and deceptive ideas like "clean coal" (what has Trump actually done about that? Anyone know?) so right now The Democrats can differentiate themselves with climate policies . Of course the GOP and Trump might then be forced to respond with their own ideas. All good!

I agree with your last paragraph. Perceptive.

michael sweet at 04:53 AM on 3 August 2019

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Jiminy Cricket,

You have interesting questions.

Doubling the concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would by itself raise global temperatures by about 1C. Additional feedbacks, of which water vapor is one of the biggest, would then kick in to cause about 2C more increase in temperature. The exact amount of the total feedbacks are not well known and the accepted range is a total of 2C-4.5 C (including the 1C from carbon dioxide ). There is a long tail of possiblle larger increases but the 2-4.5C range is reasonably solid. I will call it 3C for this discussion. We all hope it is not more than 3C per doubling.

After the 3C increase per doubling the temperature stabilizes. Scientists agree that the feedbacks will not continue forever in a runaway temperature increase. Some feedbacks, like melting of ice sheets, take a long time to reach equilibrium. On the other hand, the climate changes we see with just 1C of temperature increase, like last weeks heat wave in Europe and California fires, are greater than expected. Scientists agree that we should keep warming as low as possible.

Industrial extraction of water from the atmmosphere is really not pratical. So much water evaporates from the ocean and the land every day that it would be impossible to extract enough water vapor to affect the atmospheric concentration significantly. Work is being done on ways to extract CO2 which is a gigantic task but smaller than extracting water.

Your reference talks about extracting water from the atmosphere for drinking in areas where water is very short like in the Sahel in Africa. This water extraction would be too small to affect the concentration of water in the atmosphere but very valuable to people who live in areas with little drinking water.

Eclectic at 04:34 AM on 3 August 2019

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Jiminy @351 , I can see that a "super-absorbent gel" could have some uses when deployed in a a confined space. Rather like silicate crystals currently used for that purpose.

Large scale :- the Earth has 350 million square Km of seawater surface . . . and so the "engineered" removal of 20 litres (or 20 trillion litres) of water from the air would be a futile exercise. Within a few days, that mass of water vapor would have been replaced by natural evaporation from the ocean.

In rough figures, the Earth surface temperature has increased 1 degreeC since pre-industrial times, and as a consequence of that warming, atmospheric water vapor has increased 7% (which has had its own GreenHouse effect, of course). But the way to reduce that 7% . . . is to lower the temperature (which is achieved by lowering the the level of GreenHouse Gasses of the non-condensing sort i.e. CO2 primarily and to a lesser extent, methane etc.)

Alternative temperature-lowering methods would be "geo-engineering" such as injection of sulfate particles into the stratosphere (to act as reflective aerosols). But that is highly problematic, indeed.

In practical terms, we have to aim at the control of CO2. Nothing much else would work, in the medium-to-long term.

Jiminy Cricket at 02:53 AM on 3 August 2019

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

I have some questions if some kindly soul would shed some light on:

1) What are the limitations on the positive feedback influence of water vapour. What are the physical constraints on run away?

2) There appears to be much research on the potential impact and technological feasibility of extracting CO2 through reforestation or industrial extraction with everything from algal bioreactors to metal organic frameworks (MOFs). Presuming technological feasibility, in terms of the physical constraints, might some kind of industrial extraction of water vapor be possible on a scale capable of influencing atmospheric temperatures?

(If not, another side question I have is: does that mean there is no limitation to how much water vapor can be removed from the atmospheric system i.e. if you had a technological non-fossilfuel way to remove the water efficiently at relevant humidity levels (eg to supply water for water scarce areas for drinking, agriculture and dedesertification), could that be done limitlessly (presuming the technological and energetic means to do so). Eg improving and massively scaling up a material and process like this:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adma.201806446

NB This link refers to a scientific study describing an engineered "super moisture‐absorbent gel" that is experimentally shown to be able to remove 20litres of water per kg of material within a 24hour period.)

Many thanks (from a doctor worried about his kids and trying to understand this science.

shoyemore at 00:42 AM on 3 August 2019

What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?

#3,

There is nothing particularly extraordinary about measures to alleviate climate change. After all, it is what the rest of the world signed up for in the Paris Agreement (on paper, at least!). Lest we forget, George W Bush rode into office on a promise to limit carbon emissions, and John McCain had a carbon credit scheme as part of his election platform.

Besides, they can hit Trump on the Environment and Energy, where he has failed to revive the coal industry, and where his promises of "the cleanest air and water" ring distinctly hollow.

The Environment and Climate Change may not be the top issue of most Americans, but neither are Guns or Abortion, for which sizeable minorities are mobilised to vote Republican. The Democrats should aim to do the same with one of the weakest aspect of Trump's performance, a field which is target-rich.

MA Rodger at 22:19 PM on 2 August 2019

It's cosmic rays

Aldaron @106,

First a correction. I said @109 that one of the citations of Fleming (2018) was an error as it didn't cite Fleming at all. That was wrong. I was looking at the wrong PDF. Vuori (2019) does cite Fleming (2018) but cites it as being an exemplar of climate change denial.

And I have 'read' Fleming (2019) but not from start-to-finish as it is packed full of denialist nonsense as well as being, shall we say, less than coherent. (For instance in Section 3 it kicks off citing a reference which insists global warming is in the long term due to the weight of the atmosphere and then one of the GWPF 'experts' Ian Plimer who's reliability is more a joke than questionable.)

Fleming (2018) gives more detail of method than Fleming (2019) while being consistent with Fleming (2019) in demonstrating a failure to understand the mechanisms of GHG operation. Where it differs from Fleming (2019) is in not carrying out that final analysis of Fleming (2019) which used that unusual deffusion coefficient. Thus, unlike Fleming (2019), his main finding (that w.r.t. CO2 the atmosphere is effectively transperent to IR in-and-above the upper troposphere) is in tune with everybody else but his interpretation of this (that CO2 "contributes low level heating and allows upper level cooling for a zero net effect") is so-much gibberish.

prove we are smart at 20:24 PM on 2 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

So i thought of examples that are working in the real world...My car is 27 yrs old, has no computer, nor air con. It has 536000 km on the clock, it is a dual cab ute. This model ran for 1988-1997, with few changes. I believe it was finally"updated" to be less agricultural, ie more refined, more comfort and more features. I bought it with 397000 km on the clock because this model dualcab had a reputation for overbuilt and underpowered. In fact the sales pitch even now is "unbreakable",what am i suggesting? We could build "things" to last again,if the consumer with govt help demand it so.

I live in a small village with 1/2-1 acre blocks, my mate and his wife have showed me a good role model for sustainable living:

They drive a second hand Honda Prius.

They have solar power and low grid use.

Grow at least1/2 their grocery items.

Capture all their water needs.

Composting, waterless toilet

Maybe its easier for the villages/towns to adapt? As for city dwellers-use rooftop space for growing? I see communial vegetable gardens working around even the big towns-maybe cities too?

Perhaps Michael Sweet@13 has a big part of the solution, thats a lot of money to do a lot of good..

I guess if we grow less we will consume less? The jobs lost will leave people in limbo,is it time for a different form of capitalism?

prove we are smart at 13:47 PM on 2 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Nigelj@17, My bad grammer made it seem like you had missed that sorry..AS for putting the heat on, yes, talk is easy,a plan or ideas is better. I like your ideas to consumer choice, carbon footprint growth and resource management. I'm not too clever and i must go for a town dash...it will maybe help me consider some other ways to change our predicament..

nigelj at 12:28 PM on 2 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Werner Hartl @16

"2) Have any controlled experiments been done to test the theory? For example, with IR transparently enclosed identical boxes set in a field with varying amounts of CO2 and temperature monitored."

Lab experiments have conclusively demonstrated CO2 is a greenhouse gas basically by shining light sources on canisters of CO2 and other gases and this goes back literally centuries. Easily enough googled and lots of youtube videos.

3) Same experiment as 2) under lab conditions with temperature change predicted by theory before the experiment?

Not possible except very crudely in that more CO2 generates more warming. The temperature changes predicted for the earths atmosphere as CO2 increases are a function of a huge vertical depth of atmosphere and compounding factors like convection, clouds and positive feedbacks that cannot be emulated in a glass container in a lab. It relies on complicated physics, modelling and paleo climate evidence (and we have some good evidence).

nigelj at 10:13 AM on 2 August 2019

What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?

I feel for the Democrats. They need something to differentiate themselves from the Republicans or why would anyone vote Democrat, but if they shift towards policy extremes for the sake of doing the opposite of Trump, or too many radical ideas, they might alienate the very swing voters they need. Swing voters vote on the logic of policies, not partisan leanings or ideas simply because they are "new". The Democrats need "captain sensible" types of policies.

The democrats can both differentiate themselves from the republicans with climate change policies, and there are enough captain sensible climate policies like simple subsidies for renewable energy, and cancelling fossil fuel subsidies. A carbon tax would also be great, but it appears Americans have a violent allergic reaction to taxes so it would need to be carefully worked out. I'm on the outside looking in and a carbon tax might not be the best approach in America.

The democrats would be well advised to find a presidential candidate that is intelligent and with no huge skeletons in the closet. The opposite of Trump. Differentiation.

nigelj at 09:27 AM on 2 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Correction. Some cars are designed for only "150,000" kms before they start requiring serious repairs, others will happily go well over 300,000 kms and they dont cost more in many cases.

nigelj at 09:16 AM on 2 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

prove we are smart @12

You said "Built in obsolescence can seem good for everyone but is really bad for the planet. I grew up when things lasted better This quadary is similar to the CO2 reduction...The sooner we act, the less painful it will be.Could i/we live with less choices? This word "growth", a measure of success. Can you not grow economies and keep people happy ? but save our dwindling resourses?"

Goood comments and I agree built in obsolescence is a problem. I said it was concerning so I'm not sure how you missed that.

I also said what do people think society should do about built in obsolescence? In other words what is your plan to get from built in obsolescence, to less built in obsolescence? All you have done is talk about acting sooner which is not a plan. OPOF has a plan to get from A to B. Now you are a clever guy, so what is your plan? Im putting some heat on you and others because people complain and wave there arms without offereing any solutions.

I think its partly about consumer choice. For example its well known certain automobiles have a use by date of about 150 kilometres, while others will do huge kilometres without problems, so buy those. It's no good complaing if we buy the wrong products, although the real problem is when everything has built in obsolescence like smartphones. But is there anything governments could do to reduce consumer obsolescence using there power to regulate and use incentives?

Yes I agree we could clearly live with less choice, but what does this really achieve? It doesn't reduce carbon footprints or other environmental impacts. People are still buying the same quantity of goods.

Economic growth is a huge subject. Obviously infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet, so in crude terms its probable growth will slow down and theres evidence it already is in many western countries. You could grow the services sector, but growth related to resources will slow. Whether we push to slow economic growth deliberately is another question.

If you are worried about our profiligate use of resources, and future generations running out of resources as a result, imho our best bet is to encourage our generation to have smaller families and consume less to reduce demand on environmental resources, but I find it implausible that people will give up on buying technology.

nigelj at 08:04 AM on 2 August 2019

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

Sam-qc @13 , I cant find a list of Italian scientists who signed the document sceptical of human caused climate change. Other similar submissions have always ended up having very few climate research scientists as signatories. I've therefore largely given up reading these sorts of sceptical petitions, because its just going to be more of the same.

billev at 06:49 AM on 2 August 2019

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

I believe that data from the new CO2 measuring sattelite is going to reveal information that will greatly effect existing notions on the sources of atmospheric CO2. But this will only occur if the data is analized correctly. For example, NASA has published a description and comments about a Finnish study that purports to isolate the location of CO2 caused by human activity. However, the map of that CO2 in the United States shows significant correlation with areas of higher vegetation levels while the majority of U.S. large cities show the presence of the lowest level of CO2 presence.

Moderator Response:

[PS] offtopic. Try again here, but read the article first so you see the evidence. If you reference a study, please provide a link so people can check your interpretation. You expect high vege to emit CO2 so I dont why you think that challenges consensus.

Please ask yourself if any data will change your mind which is apparently biased toward finding any excuse for inaction of emissions. If you are not prepared to let data form your opionions, then this is not the site for you.

For anyone responding to billev, please do so on the topic indicated, not here.

Werner Hartl at 04:02 AM on 2 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Just some observations

1) During a period when CO2 has increased, the earth has gotten warmer. During the same period I have gotten older.

2) Have any controlled experiments been done to test the theory? For example, with IR transparently enclosed identical boxes set in a field with varying amounts of CO2 and temperature monitored.

3) Same experiment as 2) under lab conditions with temperature change predicted by theory before the experiment?

4) The earth is not a sphere at roughly uniform temperature. It is a thin crust surrounding a molten iron core.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Massive experimental work lab and otherwise supports climate theory. However, I suspect you have some misconceptions about how GHE works.

Please use the Search function, (top left) or the Arguments menu item to find relevant information. eg for geothermal heat, see here. The IPCC reports are also good place to find reviews of the science though you are really talking about experiments going back to 1896. Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" website is easily readable outline of the experimental work.

One Planet Only Forever at 03:30 AM on 2 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

nigelj@11,

Society can reduce unhelpful harmful things like planned obsolescence by increasing awareness of the importance of having everything governed by improved awareness and understanding applied to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals.

Some people are trying to have new electronics like smart phones be repairable or able to be upgraded. But private interests profiting from selling 'new versions' fight against such obviously better ways of doing things. And like the resistance to 'more expensive' renewable energy many consumers also like to resist have sustainable better ways be imposed.

Renewable energy options have only been more expensive because fossil fuels are subsidized, especially by not being required to be totally 'impact neutral' (meaning either having all potential impacts neutralized or having a conservative price imposed for harmful impacts that are not neutralized, including adding conservative costs as new potential harmful impacts are identified that are only reduced if improved understanding reduces the potential upper limit of the harm being done).

MA Rodger at 03:14 AM on 2 August 2019

Models are unreliable

I note that the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy liked Christy's little talk on May 8th so much that they have published the guts of it as GWPF Note 17 - 'THE TROPICAL SKIES - Falsifying climate alarm'.

(It was actually published 23/5/19 prior to their publishing the transcript of the talk 18/6/19, with the Gentlemen posting it under the headline - "Climate Models Have Been Predicting Too Much Warming")

shoyemore at 23:25 PM on 1 August 2019

What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?

This is a "wedge issue" for Democrats ... they can use it to capture Independent voters, and perhaps peel away enough Republican voters to swing the elections.

In Pew Research Centre figures, 56% of American support prioritizing policies for the environment and climate change. 27% of Republican or Leaning Republican voters believe climate related policies help the environment, while 40% believe such policies either help or make no difference to the economy.

These policies also stand a greater chance of mobilizing the votes of younger Americans, notoriously the least likely to actually go to the polls on election day.

I think the issue will also embarrass Trump publicly, as he trots out the most egregious, long-debunked myths on the topic.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/19/how-americans-see-climate-change-in-5-charts/

franklefkin at 23:03 PM on 1 August 2019

What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?

"What role will climate change play in the 2020 presidential election?"

Almost zero! It does not rank as a top priority for American voters.

MA Rodger at 22:53 PM on 1 August 2019

It's cosmic rays

Aldaron @106,

Tea time has come and gone so I can report back. Yet this report remains incomplete even after two cups.

FIRST CUP OF TEA
My peek inside Flemings book shows he is doing some big calculations using HITRAN data which appears to confirm the AGW impact of CO2. But then through his analysis somehow adopting a rogue coefficient of his own contrivance, Fleming manages to produce a fundamentally different result. Yet Fleming fails to explain this situation and resorts to an incoherent explanation. Indeed, the whole tends to incoherence.
Note that your quote @106 (from Fleming's website) doesn't bear much relation to what his book says.

In his book, the Summary of Chapter 11 pp80-82 tells us rather incoherently that if you use a larger deffusion coefficient (of unknown origin) on the HITRAN data, you can calculate the effective level of transparency (this the altitude where the CO2 is radiating out into space and so cooling the planet) as being up at an altitude of 16km. That is up in the stratosphere while the usual analysis, as Fleming also shows, would be lower at 9km in the troposphere. He doesn't say, but were this higher level true the impact of adding CO2 to the atmosphere (CO2 is well mixed up to 50km) would actually be be to cool the planet.
(For the record, a small part of the 15 micron CO2 absorption band does already operate up into the stratosphere and that small part will become bigger with increasing CO2. But the net effect will remain warming as there is much much more of the CO2 absorption bands still operating in the troposphere and they warm the planet with increasing CO2.)

Fleming's explanation for his finding of zero AGW effect is entirely incoherent. He tells us the temperature-with-altitude effect is "very strong" and also "the diffuse radiation intensity depletes rapidly over vertical distance" but that also the CO2 temperature-with-altitude effect is "quite small", as is the CO2-effect relative to the whole IR spectrum analysed (1 micron to 30 micron). As I say, this is incoherent and shows no understanding of the AGW mechanism. Plus, even if this explanation could be understood, these reasons are not in any way quantified to demonstrate their significance.

SECOND CUP OF TEA
While peeking into Fleming's book, I also noticed on p82 reference 6 - R.J. Fleming, (2018) "An updated review about carbon dioxide and climate change", Environmental Earth Sciences, vol. 77, pp1-13.
As specifically pointed out by Gavin Schmidt @ RealClimate, this is not a proper peer-reviewed paper as the journal doesn't cover climatology (it covers Geology, Hydrology/Water Resources, Geochemistry, Environmental Science and Engineering, Terrestrial Pollution, Biogeosciences) and shouldn't be accepting a paper so far beyond its speciality.

Now, despite the grand revalation of Fleming's paper allegedly overturning the entirety of clomatology, it has received zero citation since publication in March 2018. I say that as currently Google Scholar lists just four citations. Two are by Fleming himself and of the other two, both are obvious mistakes. One does not cite the paper at all. The other cites it for the exact opposite of Fleming's thesis, its opening line being - "It has been scientiﬁcally well established that carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, is the prime reason for the climate change and global warming phenomena in recent decades" (Fleming 2018)
Fleming (2018) is paywalled and I took a whole tea break looking for a full version on-line and here it is in PDF. I shall have a read in due course.

prove we are smart at 21:38 PM on 1 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Michael Sweet@13, I reckon Exon Mobil and their mates would like that..

michael sweet at 21:24 PM on 1 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

The Institute for Sustainablle Development has released a report (Guardian article) that says if we eliminate the $US370 billion yearly subsidies on fossil fuels and invest 10-30% of the money saved in renewable energy that woud result in skyrocketing renewable energy use. It only makes sense that removing subsidies on fossil fuels would result in faster uptake of renewables. In addition, countries would have more money to use for other critical uses.

prove we are smart at 17:14 PM on 1 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

Nigelj@11, Built in obsolescence can seem good for everyone but is really bad for the planet. I grew up when things lasted better This quadary is similar to the CO2 reduction...The sooner we act, the less painful it will be.Could i/we live with less choices? This word "growth", a measure of success. Can you not grow economies and keep people happy ? but save our dwindling resourses?

shoyemore at 16:49 PM on 1 August 2019

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

Sam-qc,

Crescenti's letter has had little or no impact in Europe. This was the first I heard of it.

Part of the right and far-right retain climate change denial as part of their DNA, but the recent (relative) success of the Greens in European elections has forced them to dial back. I am not sure if they have the stomach to fight this battle again, which they apparently lost.

The letter reads like a regurgitation of standard boiler-plate denial. I could have been written by Roy Spencer. The inclusion of the name of Fred Switz and the pre-refuted NIPCC Report is a dead giveaway.

However, there is no reason to be complacent. We await the stance of the Johnson UK Government on climate change - his cabinet contains "skeptics", and he has been ambivalent in the past.

shoyemore at 16:36 PM on 1 August 2019

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

I heard one of Trump's hacks, Myron Ebell. on a video clip parroting all the old discredited rubbish about climate change - there is no consensus, scientists disagree etc. He was pushing Trump's "solution", which he called Energy Dominance.

This pernicious rubbish will have to be opposed into the 2020s, and maybe even beyond. There is no reason to be smug.

nigelj at 09:46 AM on 1 August 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #30

prove we are smart @7, the consumer choice we have is so huge gives me a headache and wastes time in decision making, however it's a natural result of an open global market economy with many competitors. There was less choice in the 1970's when countries had huge protectionist trade policies, so were reliant on just a few domestic producers, but it's hard to see society going back to that form of trade. Bewildering choice looks like the new normal and does not seem a hugely bad thing.

The greater concern might be built in obsolescence, but how does society change that?

michael sweet at 09:21 AM on 1 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

Sorry, I forgot to link the DIW report .

A newspaper summary is here.

barry17781 at 09:08 AM on 1 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

." As MA Rodger points they are already short of uranium". M Sweet,

No he stated that there is enough for 200 years of Uranium, That does not include Thorium who's supply is vasly greater than Uranium

barry17781 at 08:55 AM on 1 August 2019

Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

"For the average plant worldwide, this translates into a total land requirement per nuclear facility plus mining and storage of about 20.5 km2. The footprint on the ground (e.g., excluding the buffer zone only) is about 4.9–7.9 km2" M sweet

Moderator Response:
[PS] Standing back for a moment. Barry, I believe you are trying to dispute the validity of Abbott's objections. Abbott raises the land area issue (and especially the need for a particular type of land) using Jacobson's figure for area based on plant, buffer zone, mining and waste requirements. Abbott states a figure of as much as 20km2 per plant (ie a maximum of 20km2). Abbott is not disproved by showing some plants are smaller (especially if your examples fail to account for mining and waste area as well). Furthermore, as Michael Sweet has pointed out, the land area is a rather trivial issue in the context of Abbott. I would prefer to see more substantive issues addressed if there is to be a case made for nuclear energy. - moderator

Dear moderator, your comments are more apt to Mr sweet;s comments who clearly is diputing the actual areas of power stations, such as hinkley point

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments