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.

Suggested supplemental reading:

The Hard Lessons of Dianne Feinstein’s Encounter with the Young Green New Deal Activists, Opinion by Bill McKibben, New Yorker Magazine, Feb 23, 2019

The Climate Science Behind The Green New Deal - A Layperson's Explanation by Marshall Shepherd, Science, Forbes, Feb 24, 2019

This is an emergency, damn it by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Feb 23, 2019

A Green New Deal Is Technologically Possible. Its Political Prospects Are Another Question. by Lisa Friedman & Trip Gabriel, Politics. New York Times, Feb 21, 2019

Don't trust the adults in the room on climate change, Opinion by Kate Aronoff, Comment is Free, Guardian, Feb 25, 2019

A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not, Opinion by Justin Talbot Zorn, Ben Beachy & Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Comment is Free, Guardian, Feb 25, 2019

Evan at 00:43 AM on 1 March 2019

What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand

I think the following sentences from this article spell it out well and deserve to be repeated.

"How much more global warming can occur before its net physical impacts become unacceptably negative?

The science community’s answer is that we’ve already passed that point; that it’s time to act now."

michael sweet at 23:18 PM on 28 February 2019

What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand

I think Dana's commentaries are always good.

In the USA I think most people feel bad for other countries but in the end will not do anything to help out those countries. Suggesting that "curbing climate change could also prevent trillions of dollars in damages globally", while true, does not appeal to many voters

With the cost of sea level rise on the US East coast alone you could justify saying curbing climate change would save the USA alone trillions. Add in the wildfires, floods and increased hurricanes affecting the USA already and people will listen.

The cost of the GND will be lower than the cost of currently occuring damage. In addition the cost of the GND is less than current subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Emphasing that installing renewable energy saves money rather than discussing how much it costs appeals to more people. Renewable energy will be cheaper to install until at least 50% of the electrical system is renewable.

Emphasize that most of the electrical generating system (especially coal plants) is old and will have to be replaced in any case. The choice is buiilding new fossil plants or new cheaper renewable plants.

Emphasize the benifits of the GND, do not focus on hypothetical problems from the fossiil fuel industry.

Postkey at 20:54 PM on 28 February 2019

There’s one key takeaway from last week’s IPCC report

Does anyone know if this is the case?

" . . . the IPCC report is faulty, based on ten year old CO² emissions data . . . yet the IPCC report neglected to include the last ten years of emissions in it's calculations."

MA Rodger at 18:25 PM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

Correction to #18.

Of course a 1750-2008 integration would be 'above 1t(C) not 10t(C). That does allow the possibility for it being, say, an integration over a shorter period, perhaps since 1900, and showing tons(CO2) not tons(C).

MA Rodger at 18:19 PM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

scaddenp @17,

Certainly, if it were Cumulative Emissions it would have a very different shape from the Current Emissions graph. It doesn't help itself by labelling its y-axis "Average pollution rate (tons CO2/y per person)" and no title.

But even with that I struggle. I note from the source (where it's Figure 12) that it dates back to 2008. (I haven't found a web-page using the graph that may better put it in context.) Cumulative Per-Capita CO2 are in excess of 300 tons(carbon) by 2010 for UK US & Germany. (A graphic based on CDIAC data is here - usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') Integrating over, say since 1750, 260 years would put all three over 10t(C)/year/capita. And the UK would be ahead of US. Mind, China would be a tenth the level, about 1t(C)/year/capita which is about what is shown.

So it remains all rather odd to me.

nigelj at 16:52 PM on 28 February 2019

What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand

Nice concise analysis of the main issues. I think agonising and debating over a cost benefit analysis is not the right way to look at this climate problem, because the debating and agonising will never stop. Instead look at total costs and their feasibility and impacts on the economy. Studies like the Stern Report estimate changing to renewable energy would cost 2% of gdp per year, over 30 years. Do it in a compressed 15 year time frame and it would be 4% a year.

This is almost identical to what America spends on the military each year. That is not going to bankrupt the economy, because the rest of the economy could be trimmed and it would barely be noticed provided everyone got behind the issue. It's well short of war spending during WW2.

It's more a question of how the GND is all best funded. The GND proposes a big government spend, which in turn has options of deficit spending, tax increases, or federal reserve credit creation. Alternatively the process could be driven largely by carbon fee and dividend or cap and trade.

I come down on the side of carbon fee and dividend, because it looks politically feasible, and less of a problem than governments taking on more debt, but time is running out. If people cant get it sorted out, the only realstic option of meeting Paris time frames could well be a massive government funded infrastructure programme!

nigelj at 16:02 PM on 28 February 2019

A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate

OPOF and Scaddenp. Academic research suggests people are born either liberal or conservative as below:

academicearth.org/electives/born-republican-born-democrat/

So perhaps core values might be pretty fixed and with a biological origin. But I know conservatives sometimes accept liberal positions and vice versa, on specific issues. People often get a little bit more conservative as they age and circumstances change. So some level of significant change is also clearly possible at least on some specific issues. The mechanism is obviously complicated.

But I'm all for finding common ground etc as well.

None of these things are mutually exclusive.

scaddenp at 11:49 AM on 28 February 2019

A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate

Depends on what you mean by "changing their minds". Core values, (Schwatz framework or similar) nope. Not in the ordinary course of things, or more to point by methods that only involve discourse. Happy to be presented with empirical evidence to the contrary for someone over age of around 7.

Consider what it would take to change your values to that of a right-wing Red-state voter. A bit of a struggle?

Far better to recognize that and work to create change within the context of other peoples values, working with them not against them.

scaddenp at 10:42 AM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

MA rodgers - different quantity - it is not CO2 per capita but historical contribition to CO2 emissions (ie integrated from pre-industrial). Which countries have contributed most to our currently elevated CO2. UK got an early start in the industrial revolution.

MA Rodger at 10:17 AM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

scaddenp @12,

I'm not sure that graphic is up-to-date or even accurate. The US emitting close to the UK per capita figures? Germany per capita lower than the UK? China's total emissions less than the US?

This one seems a better representaion.

Per capita CO2 emissions graphic

Moderator Response:

[DB] The image is not displaying for some reasons. Link to it added.

Image display issues fixed.

scaddenp at 09:57 AM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

Well nuclear war could be beneficial for climate - removes a lot of FF users and the associated fire and dust have option for massive (if short term) aerosol load in the atmosphere (aka nuclear winter) while contributing comparatively very little heat.

Personally I would have rather thought the point of climate solutions was to improve the lot for humanity so I dont think this one stacks up.

The increase in CO2 since pre-industrial works results in the equivalent of 4 hiroshimo bombs per second. I suspect nowherethis was expecting a different number.

One Planet Only Forever at 09:50 AM on 28 February 2019

A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate

There is a misconception that people cannot change their minds.

Some of the more recent writings on the topic are trending towards the understanding that each person is born with a pre-disposition, but the environment they grow up in can make significant changes to that pre-disposed starting point and foundation (no one is born to be harmful).

Sally Kohn's "The Opposite of Hate" is only one of many books exposing that the 'systems' are creating problems.

The developed socioeconomic political systems will only stop resisting correction 'after they are corrected'.

And I agree that the correction requires public support, which means changing the minds of people to develop heartfelt pursuit of helping develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.

Daniel Bailey at 09:07 AM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

"What is the effect of a few hundred nuclear detonations in the atmosphere and do we have a solution for that?"

Sigh. From 1945-2009 there were 2,402 surface and underground nuclear weapon tests. Of those, 527 were conducted above-ground. Of those, some 458 were conducted in the first 20 years of nuclear weapons testing.

Looking at those peak years of testing, the forcing from those 20 years of peak tests of the nuclear weapons on the Earth came to about one eight-millionth of a Watt per square meter (8 x 10-6 W m-2) of power.

For comparison, the 1.8 Watts per square meter (1.8 W m-2) of CO2 radiative forcing as of 2011 generates approximately twenty nine billion, trillion Joules of energy (29 x 1021 J) over the Earth's surface in a single year, or more than ten thousand times as much energy in a year than the entire combined nuclear weapons program of the world had generated in those 20 years.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuctestsum.html
Annex B Report from 2008
http://www.laradioactivite.com/site/pages/RadioPDF/unscear_artificielle.pdf
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
https://skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html

scaddenp at 08:55 AM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

"Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference."

Draconian is rhetoric. What makes ending FF subsidies, transition to renewables "draconian". We havent seen any CO2 reductions to make a difference but the IPCC reports WG1 and WG3 are full of peer-reviewed papers on why increased CO2 is causing warming; why changes of GHG have changed climate in past; and what effectiveness of mitigation strategies IPCC wG3. I am guessing that you didnt look very hard. Since you have come to this site, then hopefully you are not just looking for some shallow excuse for inaction.

scaddenp at 08:47 AM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

If you look at who is creating the problem however, the population problem is about the too many rich westerners rather than too many africans. It is the affluent west which are largely responsible for all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

Source:

It could become too many rich Chinese, but the important part of the equation is the extent to which increasing affluence leads to increased FF use.

You can prove things in mathematics but not science. Do you demand the such nonsensical certainty before you take a doctors advice? Demanding absolute certainty before any action is taken is an impossible criteria and is frankly a rhetorical excuse for inaction.

There is some fundimental physics at work here. We directly measure the increase in irradiation of the globes surface from increased GHG. If you decrease GHG, that radiation goes down. Now in summer your hemisphere gets more radiation at surface than at winter. Do you need proof that decreasing radiation in winter will make it cooler? Ditto for decreasing GHG. Supporting evidence without resorting to physics, would be to note that in other times when GHG levels have been lower, then the climate got colder and warmed again when they rose.

I am guessing "promoting taxpayer funded projects" is an idealogical beef. By all means suggest an effective alternative way to reduce FF consumption which is compatiable with your ideology. This thread is a good place to do it.

nowhearthis at 07:08 AM on 28 February 2019

New research, February 4-10, 2019

Special thanks to Red Barron for an extensive discussion on the issue. I'm still studying it and your links.

While this page may not specifically state "solutions", much of the debate revolves around things purported as "solutions". Before making major changes to society, perhaps we should validate they are worthwhile. I beleve those affected will demand that. Nowhere have I seen any peer-reviewed, difinitive science to demonstrate these Draconian measures (mostly to reduce CO2) actually makes a measurable difference. All I hear are promises and avoidance - THAT IS A PROBLEM.

We see policies proffered by "progressive" politicians, promoting taxpayer funded projects (rail, transit, bike paths, fuel source shifts) with no proof they are effective. The issue has become a religion and an us vs them sinkhole. Until skeptics and supporters alike can be shown proof these sacrifices work without question, the debate will continue.

Red Barron brings up a powerful point: The remediation equation is more complex than what politicians promote and much of the answer exists outside the developed societies. Further, those who believe the problem is anthropogenic, must acknowledge our massive planetary population increases, offset those 1st world sacrifices sold as "solutions". Planetary population is 7.5b and has doubled in my lifetime, the U.S. represents a little over 4% of that. Big players like China, India, Pacific Rim, Middle East, etc. aren't making the sacrifices sold to us as "solutions". We can't do it alone and the Paris framework wasn't a realistic answer IMO.

Once again, I ask: Is there a paper, study, analysis, etc. that PROVES (not promises or predicts) we can reverse climate change? -or- If sound mitigation methods exist (as Red Barron posits); is it realistic to think we can get the entire planet to make the sacrifices that will drastically degrade their current quality of life for future promises? DOUBTFUL!

This needs to be figured out; wars have started over much less. Raising the question: What is the effect of a few hundred nuclear detonations in the atmosphere and do we have a solution for that?

scaddenp at 06:31 AM on 28 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

Michael, I dont think RB has pushed farming as silver bullet, but as a potentially important "wedge" to help. When you have food production that depends on growing grain to feed to animals/birds, then there is definitely carbon advantage to convert land use from grain production to direct managed grazing.

Of more concern to me here in NZ, is whether it is possible to reproduce carbon capture observed in prairie soils outside of that environment and how much does it depend on grass types with limited climate range? The only places where grazing has recorded a soil carbon gain instead of loss here is where grazing was introduced onto badly degraded soils formerly used for grain. As RB has pointed out, there is no shortage of badly degraded soils to work with however.

I am persuaded by literature that he has provided, that a lot more work should go into research of low-input managed grazing techniques with different pasture types, rather than the high-input irrigated grazing that typifies most of our dairy systems. Our meat production occurs almost exclusively on low input, hill country, ex-forest soils and so far I cant any find any examples of enhanced soil carbon in these systems.

scaddenp at 06:16 AM on 28 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

jcfanclub - the predominant carbon prices mechanisms discussed are:

1/ fee and dividend. You tax the carbon and return 100% of what is collected to tax payers on per capita basis. If your FF consumption is "average" then what you get back in dividend should cover the increased cost of FF. However, it creates powerful incentives to reduce FF use and thus benefit from the dividend. I cannot see how anyone could "perpetuate the problem" so as to gain from it.

2/ ETS. Emitters have to buy carbon credits from carbon sequesterers. That certainly creates a convenient revenue scheme for those able to sequester carbon, but how is it possible from them game the system to encourage emissions?

I find it hard to imagine a carbon tax scheme where the revenue beneficiaries could work to perpetuate emissions. Can you provide an example?

william5331 at 05:29 AM on 28 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

I think the author is way off the mark. The only system likely to actually achieve the aim of reducing our carbon output is Tax and Dividend a la James Hansen

There are a couple of vital aspects of this policy.

1/ The tax can be small to the point of insignificance at first but built into it is an increase each year. This can be arithmetic (1,2,3,4...) or geometric (1,2,4,8...) but the inevidability is the important part. People will be divesting from fossil fuel long before it is an economic necessity to avoid taking a 'hair cut'. Where will they shift their money to. Predominately to renewable energy.

2/ Insteas of stifling the economy and making the government the bad guys (look at Macron in France with his fuel tax. Jeeesh!!) money is put into the hands of the poorest who will spend it all just to keep their heads above water. The government becomes the hero of the people. Mony is not put into the hands of the rich which they squrrel away as happens with, for instance, Cap and Trade. What the economists call velocity (the rate money circulates in the economy) increases instead of decreasing as with C&T.

https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2009/12/jim-hansens-climate-change-solution.html

nigelj at 05:27 AM on 28 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

MS Sweet, thank's. I took the 5 - 20 tonnes number in good faith. I hadn't seen that page of discussion on soil carbon issues. Perhaps someone can clarify exactly how the 5 - 20 tonnes figure is derived?

Red Baron mentions it in relation to the research :"Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future" on the page you linked to. I had a quick scan and the only thing I could find was that there was evidence in Australia that better grasslands management could sequester 15% of their emissions. Not a silver bullet, but not insignificant either. Of course this number only applies to Australia.

jcfanclub at 04:05 AM on 28 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

When you are talking about economic incentives you should also consider the incentives of those who collect the carbon taxes or whatever. What's to prevent them from perpetuating the problem the tax is designed to solve? If the problem goes away, so does their revenue stream.

BeezelyBillyBub at 23:47 PM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

*U.S. = #1 Exporter of Coal Gas Oil*
In 2017 U.S. coal exports to Asia went up 61%.
Our oil will soon run out and we need Venezuela's oil. Many will die for it.
All the world's energy growth is in Asia India Africa, and not here.

They want to live like us more than they care about the climate.

*Why North America and Europe Do Not Matter Anymore*

Electricity = 25% of total world primary energy.

Energy Use By Nation:

Canada = 360 Giga Joules / person

___ U.S. = 300 Giga Joules / person

__ China = 120 Giga Joules / person

___ India = 90 Giga Joules / person

___ Brazil = 60 Giga Joules / person

___ Africa = 20 Giga Joules / person ur

Euro-America demand is slow compared to Africa India and Asia.

Solar + Wind = 6% of electricity production worldwide.

Electricity production = 25% of world primary energy.

Solar + Wind 1990 - 2018 grew to 1% of world primary energy.

Solar/Wind 2019 = 1% of energy after 30 years of hype.

Emissions went up 60% in 30 years.

Food + Meat = 24% of emissions.

World concrete = 4 billion tons / yr

World steel = 2 billion tons / yr

World sand = 11 - 15 billion tons / yr

Open sand piracy is the norm over there. They just take your sand and go.

It doesn't matter what North America and Europe does for emissions.

World energy demand growth is in Africa and Asia. They are all young and eager.

India's energy demand grows as much as all the energy used in Canada every 32 months.

Indian coal is going to go up to drive the economy, even if they convert it to gas.

China's coal has grown from 1 billion to 4 billion tons / yr in 30 yrs.

China coal is now down to 3.5 billion tons.

China is building 700 coal plants worldwide, not in China.

Many of these plants convert coal to gas.

Solar panels in Germany provide 90% of their rated power 11% of the time.

Wind turbines in Germany provide 90% of their rated power 20% of the time.

It doesn't matter that Denmark has the most wind turbines, they are only a few million people.

What matters is what's happening in India and Africa not here.

Coal and gas will still be 70% of their energy by 2040.

There are 30 million EVs and 1.2 billion gas vehicles on earth.

It will take 40 years to convert all the cars on earth.

The amount of batteries Tokyo will need during future Typhoons is staggering.

Batteries cannot be scaled up in time to make a difference to climate.

The Paris Agreement = Emissions go up from 35 billion tons to 50 billion tons by 2040.

The Paris Agreement will not be kept and you know it.

Emissions must go down 50% in 10 yrs + 100% in 20 yrs for 2 C.

Five of 13 major hothouse tipping points start below 2 C.

Runaway mass extinction cannot be stopped or reversed.

Krill cannot survive in many parts of the ocean without oxygen.

All ocean life depend on Krill.

The world wants the American lifestyle and we can't stop them.

China is buying up U.S. chip and bio tech right now.

The U.S. is now the number one exporter of gas, oil and coal.

In 2017 U.S. coal exports to Asia went up 61%.

All the U.S. will have left is its guns and fracking gear.

BeezelyBillyBub at 23:47 PM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

Corporations, NGOs and governments have been fixing climate for 30 yrs.

Emissions went up 60%.

That is why carbon dividends must be 100% private = 0% for corporations, NGOs and governments.

The tax must be on the rich and paid directly to the poor.

michael sweet at 23:28 PM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

Nigelj,.

In Red Baron's post a few days ago here, the first paper he cited to support his claim of 5-20 ton/ha/yr was:

Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change

Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A

It can be located here. (I had to look up the location).

Table 1 lists many methods of enhancing cabon uptake in soils. It has three categories: 0-2 t/ha/yr, 2-4 t/ha/yr and >4 t/ha/yr. Only 5 of 20 methods rise to the highest amount of sequestration. Of those 5, 4 involve removing land from cultivation and returning it to pasture or forest. The fifth is adding biochar to the soil which would involve enormous manufacture of biochar to implement on a widespread basis. Improved grazing pasture management, often cited by Red Baron as 5-20 t/ha/yr, is given as 0-2 t/ha/yr.

I do not have time to reread all of Red Baron's citations. They do not support his wild claim of 5-20 t/ha/yr of sequestration. I recommend you do not hang your hopes on farming being a silver bullet to solve AGW.

AEBanner at 22:05 PM on 27 February 2019

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Thank you, Eclectic, for your helpful comments.

AEBanner

AEBanner at 22:02 PM on 27 February 2019

Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1

This is eddieb.

Thank you, Bob Loblaw, for your very interesting and helpful contribution.

AEBanner

MA Rodger at 20:37 PM on 27 February 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8

stevestory @3,

Over a decade ago I was tasked with presenting an opinion for a green group on nuclear power. A bit of a poisoned chalice, I knew it would make some unhappy which ever side of the argument I came down on. Safety, weaponisation, cost, the absence of new-build plants (or plans for them), inflexibility of output - all could be argued both ways.

Happily, there was one area where there was no ambiguity - nuclear failed. The present technology on offer hardily had enough uranium to fuel itself at present-day levels (2% of world power) for a century. If nuclear use was scaled up to levels useful within global AGW mitigation policies, it would very quickly run out of fuel to power itself.

This fuel difficulty facing nuclear power is not widely cited as being a problem. Sources of uranium that would overcome the problem are all problems themselves (like fuel reprocessing or sourcing uranium from sea water, etc). We are thus left with conventional known uranium reserves that would last several decades at present useage.

It was a few years ago that I did this analysis. I note today that more uranium reserves have been identified since then. See here. Still producing 2% or less of global primary energy consumption, nuclear has a little over 100 years-worth of uranium reserves if uranium prices double. (Fuel cost is not a massive issue in the nuclear industry.)

nigelj at 16:00 PM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

Regarding Red Barons information. Soil carbon sequestration from enhanced farming systems equals 5 - 20 tonnes CO2 / hect / yr. I assume this is additional sequestration over the normal sequestration of carbon from standard farming systems.

This number doesn't mean a lot to me, so I have tried to see what it means in terms of how much of global emissions such farming systems might sequester per year (tried a google search but nothing). Quick and very rough back of envelope calculation : Lets assume additional CO2 sequestered is 10 tonnes CO2 / hect / yr.

Total global arable land plus open range grasslands equals approx. 3 billion hectares. Lets assume 1 billion is suitable for enhanced soil carbon sequestration so this equals 10 billion tonnes / CO2 / yr sequestered.

Total CO2 emissions 2017 was approx. 36 billion tonnes / CO2 / yr. So 10 billions sequestered seems like significant potential.

Bob Loblaw at 12:55 PM on 27 February 2019

Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change

jcfanclub:

I, too, would be interested in seeing you describe what you think is the data set that backs the "skeptic" side. Please pick one (to start), and explain what you find convincing about it.

RedBaron at 12:52 PM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

50 dollars a (metric?) ton at the rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr for a farmer means something significant. Even a small farmer of 200 acres can earn additional ~ 25-100 thousand dollars a year sequestering carbon.

Do that and the price of beef and organic produce will drop and end up offsetting the extra costs in fossil fuels directly, while also directly removing the Carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it deep in the soil.

It will also offset a great injustice that has been perpetrated on small family farmers and rural comminities since the 1970's, namely the forced instability of the small family farm forcing millions off their land and out of their homes.

Even now only 46.1% of farmers have net positive income from farming. This would rejuvenate rural economies as well as rejuvenate degraded soils.

Bob Loblaw at 12:50 PM on 27 February 2019

Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1

eddieb:

Let me try to give another explanation. First, emission of radaition is given by Planck's Law, which tells you how much radiation is emitted at any wavelength, as a function of temperature and emissivity. Emissivity is correctly applied at a specific wavelength, not across all wavelengths as it is typcially used in the Stefan-Boltzman law. However, for solids and liquids, emissivity is usually fairly constant over a wide range of wavelengths, so it is not a bad approximation to treat it as a constant in some cases.

The Stefan-Boltsman law is the sum total of all radaition emitted at all wavelengths - essentially, the area under the curve described by Planck's law.

Now, to get back to your comment at #138. The earth's surface temperature is about 288K, as you describe. The surface emissivity in the infrared is not as low as you have suggested though - in fact, most natural surfaces are close to 1:

https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity_table

So, a surface at 288K would emit something like 390 W/m² - much more than the 240W/m² that balances absorbed solar radiation. The issue is that the surface can't emit this all directly to space - the atmosphere blocks this.

THere are two ways to resolve this in the Stefan-Boltmann model:

The atmosphere must be having a blocking action that makes the earth-atmosphere system behave as if the surface has an emissivity of 0.612, The reduction in apparent emissivity is a measure of the greenhouse effect.
It isn't the surface that is emitting IR radiation to space. In essence, the blocking action of the atmosphere means that the amount emitted to space comes from somewhere up higher in the atmosphere. Because the upper troposphere is colder, we can say that it looks like it is the upper troposphere that is emitting to space, not the surface. That's where we will find the 255K temperature suggested by the Stefan-Boltzmann law with an emissivity of 1.

Both of these are pretty simplistic descriptions of what is happening, because the atmosphere does a lot of things other than radiation, but the basic ideas are sound: the atmosphere prevents the earth surface from emitting IR to space like a black body, and what does reach space is usually emitted at high altitude.

I hope this helps.

nigelj at 12:20 PM on 27 February 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8

Facts will struggle to persuade conservatives. They like nuclear power because liberals dont like nuclear power. Its become politically tribal. But good luck, facts are probably still worth a try.

GregoryV at 11:21 AM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. Bill 763) is a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend approach. I think avoiding the word tax and giving all the "well head" fees back to the public as a monthly dividend is a good reminder about climate change and would offset some of the increased costs of fossil fuel by the suppliers. Fuel prices are going to go up regardless of what system is used to reduce emissions.

stevestory at 11:10 AM on 27 February 2019

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #8

That Abbott article is very close to exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Eclectic at 10:41 AM on 27 February 2019

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

AEBanner @1499 ,

Well said. Including your description of entropy as "untidiness".

This particular thermodynamic "Law" is a source of endless trouble to some people, because (as you have said) they do not look at the basic physical entities involved. Instead, they stand back and try to view the universe as ruled and directed by "Laws" . . . laws which are actually simply abstract conceptions in the human mind. It's all a very Nineteenth Century religion-like viewpoint. Very pre-Einstein, pre-quantum-mechanics way of thinking. Mistaking the concept for the reality. ( Can we blame Plato for this? )

Eclectic at 10:19 AM on 27 February 2019

Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change

Jcfanclub @95 ,

to expand slightly on Scaddenp's comment, I can say that for quite some years I have paid fairly close attention to the news & disputes regarding modern climate change ~ and I have never come across any data supporting the "skeptic" viewpoints. Not even close. And not even heard of any such data, at second hand report.

I try to be skeptical, and keep an open mind to the possibility that some such valid supporting data could emerge . . . but all I have ever found is a group of "anti-mainstream" people whose ideas are often mutually-contradictory, and who are continually tangling themselves up in semantic confusion (often deliberately in confusion, I suspect ~ as a consequence of their "Motivated Reasoning" driven by their emotions).

Jcfanclub , it would be a great service to readers here, if you would demonstrate whatever data you feel disproves the mainstream science. It would be enormously interesting, if you could find anything of that sort!

Possibly you may not have heard of the Berkeley Earth "BEST" project ~ a study promoted & sponsored by a number of super-wealthy "skeptics" (such as the Koch brothers). Heading the study, was a scientist who was feeling quite dubious about all the mainstream science temperature data. The study reviewed temperature data & its validity, and reassessed/re-analysed, using its own criteria & methodology. And the BEST study came to the same conclusion as the mainstream. (The study's head scientist says he is no longer a "skeptic".)

# It was all a huge embarrassment for those who wish to deny reality . . . and they bend over backwards to avoid mentioning the BEST study. A study which was (IMO) their last hope of any serious scientific opposition to the mainstream climate science. Since then, we observers have seen nothing scientific coming from the self-called "skeptics" ~ all we see is FUD & confusionism plus carefully-crafted lawyer-talk from their propaganda wordsmiths.

Postkey at 09:38 AM on 27 February 2019

Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

According to Michael Mann.
“02:13 . . . scientists who have studied this
02:15 problem say yeah there's a certain
02:16 amount of methane that we it could be
02:19 mobilized and it will add to the warming
02:21 but it's a small contribution compared
02:25 to the warming we are causing by the
F02:26 burning of fossil fuels . . . “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LifcMZyCYmc

scaddenp at 08:45 AM on 27 February 2019

Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change

"So how does one determine who's fudging the data and who is not? "

Good question especially if you want an answer other than "whichever suits my biases". I am not sure what you mean by a dataset that "backs the skeptic case" (I dont think such a thing exists), but some criteria to look at:

1/ is it peer-reviewed? Any amount of nonsense put out by those who aim to deceive but these could not make it publication is a proper peer-reviewed journal.

2/ What does IPCC reports have to say on it - noting that the review process for IPCC has to be the most rigorous and open I have ever heard of. (You can see who said what and what the final editors judgement was and why).

3/ What is the consensus scientific position - ie what is assumed by experts working in the field?

4/ And if you dont like any of those, then you need to a/ get yourself the appropriate domain knowledge for assessment and b/ apply the disciplines of critical thinking that go into scientific evaluation.

There are plenty of threads here about deniers accusations of fraud. People are happy to help you evaluate the validity of arguments.

"Fudging the data" is an accusation of fraud. Anyone actually doing that would become pariah in scientific community. When there are numerous groups of scientists of all political associations working in many different countries, the chances for fraud are pretty minimal. What is usually objected to is the routine adjustments to homogenize, remove bias, or remove noise to various datasets. In this dialogue, anything that results in increased warming is "fudging the data". Anything that decreases it (eg the historical SST adjustment which is biggest change to temperature data) is good science. The better way to evaluate the adjustments is to ask "why is it being done", "is the methodology valid" and "how is it validated". Plenty of resource here to help. I dont think unadjusted data sets help the skeptic cause either unless they cherry pick (usually short intervals or particular regions).

Perhaps you first step would be to identify what skeptic resource you think is most convincing and find the appropriate thread here on it to comment further.

Ravenken at 08:11 AM on 27 February 2019

Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate

I just have to say that I am a little amazed at the gentle tenor of this dialogue considering what is actually going on. I go over and look at the NOAA MetOp-1 date LINK1

and also CAMS

LINK2

and I see LARGE releases of methane constantly coming from undeveloped areas. Methane is skyrocketing and people use GPW100 to express CO2e. Just crazy.Can someone please give me an honest answer?

Moderator Response:

[DB] Shortened and hyperlinked URLs breaking page formatting.

nigelj at 07:40 AM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

Sorry to sound like a parrot. J W Rebels comment was not there when I pushed submit. Hes right as well.

jcfanclub at 07:09 AM on 27 February 2019

Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change

Why should we care what he thinks? He's not a climatologist, but then is the author of this post a climatologist? For that matter how many of the folks that contribute to IPCC reports are climatologists? It is my understanding that climate science involves many disaplines: chemistry, biology, computer modeling, statistics, economic impacts, and the list goes on. Personally, I'm sitting on the fence and I just want to inform myself of the simple truth, whatever that may be. But it's hard when there are two sets of data: one backing the warmist case and the other backing the skeptic's case. Both camps accuse the other of deception or being duped. So how does one determine who's fudging the data and who is not?

nigelj at 07:04 AM on 27 February 2019

Prices are not Enough

Fair comments in the main, but it comes down more to political realities.

Clearly carbon taxes or cap and trade 'could' be applied to the climate issue and work in a technical sense, (but that you would still need other measures with both). Cap and trade was used successfully to resolve the ozone problem. Consumption taxes have worked to help get rates of tobacco smoking down and pay for the damages in my country of NZ. The climate problem is a consumption and energy substitution problem.

However its confoundingly complicated. Carbon taxes work best short term, cap and trade long term as below:

www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/31/carbon-tax-cap-and-trade

However this could possibly be resolved. While a carbon tax sets a price and not a limit on quantities, quantities can be monitored over time and the tax adjusted surely?.

The issue is which is most appropriate approach for the climate problem? Perhaps it partly comes down to "political acceptability". While the article is right that people dont like taxes, they dont like cap and trade schemes either, because they are opaque and look like a form of crony capitalism that favours the corporate sector. They might not be, but the perception is there among some of the general public posting comments in the media.

And the political difficulty of selling a carbon tax can be mitigated with a carbon fee and dividend scheme that uses different terminology and softens the blow with the dividend component. Technically cap and trade could return money to the public but It becomes a little more complex to explain to the public how it is all working.

AEBanner at 06:10 AM on 27 February 2019

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Greenhouse Gas Theory does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Attempts have been made to discredit the GHG theory by claiming that it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and so the theory cannot be valid. I have seen some rebuttals on this site, but I was not convinced; so I now offer my own approach which I hope will be helpful.

The claims of violation are based on the idea that heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hotter one. In general, with heat transfer by conduction and convection, this idea is very true. But the Second Law does not actually state that idea. In fact, it deals with another property of the system, known as entropy, which is the degree of disorder of the system. If the system is very “tidy”, the disorder is small, and so is the entropy. Great “untidiness” means high entropy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system will increase.
It does not mention Heat.

In the case of heat transfer, it is readily seen that the Law is obeyed by conduction and convection between objects in contact. Higher temperatures mean that the atoms and molecules are moving/vibrating more rapidly and to a greater extent than at colder temperatures, and so have high entropy. Some of the greater movements in the hot object can be passed into the cold object, so increasing the overall degree of disorder, or entropy, of the system. But, the reverse cannot happen, according to the Law, because the colder object has smaller entropy.

Therefore, heat can flow from hot to cold, but not from cold to hot. And it is only for conduction and convection transfer.

This leaves us to consider heat transfer by radiation.
This is the method by which heat is claimed to flow, according to the GHG theory, from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. But the atmosphere is cooler than the Earth’s surface, so how can this happen? Does it not violate the Second Law? And this is the big problem the GHG theory has to overcome.

Not a problem. Consider photons of infrared energy emitted downwards from carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. These are neat little wave-packets of electromagnetic energy, and have no charge. Very neat and tidy. The entropy involved is small because they are not continually in vibrational contact with each other, as are the atoms in a solid, or the molecules in a gas. Once emitted, they will continue in their motion until they are absorbed by the Earth’s surface, (although some may collide with molecules in the air). Upon absorption, the energy given to the surface atoms and molecules causes them to increase vibration and movement, and so the entropy, the degree of disorder, increases. OK, and the surface gains energy and so the temperature rises.

The entropy increases. This is in agreement with the Second Law. No violation, but the temperature of the surface of the Earth also increases. This is what the GHG theory says.

william5331 at 05:59 AM on 27 February 2019

Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action

Individual action is great and puts us in the proper frame of mind but the heavy lifting can only be done by politicians. No they don't have to actually do anything. They just have to set the ground rules so that it happens naturally. Such measures as taking off all government subsidies on fossil fuel and transfering them to renewables comes to mind but there are many other similar measures which would result in a rapid and smooth transition away from measures that add GHG to the atmosphere. But as usual, this will not happen if the vested interests are still allowed to finance politicians. Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune. The one necessary measure to get to this situation is obvious.

nigelj at 05:58 AM on 27 February 2019

Fighting Climate Change: Structural vs individual action

Nick Palmer @6, I agree the concept of free speech is being abused to justify spreading fake news, lies and deceit. I dont think the notion of free speech was ever meant to encourage this. Fake news and a lack of agreed basic facts is really dangerous for society for obvious reasons. It will undermine everything including on both sides of politics. There will be no winners out of this.

Free speech is really about the right to express opinions and spread information freely without fear of legal retribution or violence, but is not open ended. For example society has all sorts of limits on free speech such as defamation law, time and place restrictions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

The question is how to treat "dissinformation". Personally I would like to see people who spread serious dissinformation, particularly climate denialists thrown in jail, or fined or something, but it would be hard for central government to legislate against this missinformation as it would be hard to define and expensive for them to enforce themselves, but I notice that the social media have been shamed into removing some of the dissinformation and this public pressure is good. The more public pressure the better.

Some of the things the Trump administration have done look like blatant attempts by them to muzzle free speech. Pages disappearing from climate websites, etc.

I feel free speech is a right, and with rights come unspoken responsibiliites to be honest and upfront and have good motives. As Google says dont be evil.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments