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:

Trump: My ‘Natural Instinct for Science’ Tells Me Climate Science Is Wrong by Jonathan Chait, Intelligencer, New York, Oct 17, 2018

One Planet Only Forever at 08:47 AM on 18 October 2018

Republican lawmakers react to the IPCC report – ‘we have scientists’ too!

"Rounds is right. Republicans ought to be looking for policies to address climate change that will maintain a strong economy."

The problem with that statement is that the best chance to do that was 'starting in the 1970s'.

The over-development in the wrong direction that has occurred instead of correction has set up the challenging current reality for those who resisted being corrected - It is likely impossible to maintain the unsustainably developed perceptions of prosperity (and superiority relative to others).

The likes of Republicans should indeed be looking for 'answers from their perspective'. But until they actually come up with something better, they should get out of the way of people who actually want to develop a sustainable better future for humanity, and they should accept their deserved loss of status due to their stubborn refusal to be corrected.

nigelj at 08:17 AM on 18 October 2018

Republican lawmakers react to the IPCC report – ‘we have scientists’ too!

Excellent article. I'm wondering what is the best approach to convincing The Republicans to do more about climate change? Some advocate being inclusive and nice and polite, and trying to frame issues in ways that appeal to their world view, (me included in the main) but this has been tried and isn't working too well.

For example, Obama reached out to the Republicans, and had his hand torn off (figuratively speaking), and he kept doing it with the same result. Being nice or conciliatory, and seeking consensus doesn't seem to be working too well. If people, or entire political movements are being plainly idiotic, how much should we try and sugar coat our response?

I'm not advocating blatant personal abuse or nastiness, because I deplore that, but it seems that strong and simple words can be effective political tools at times.

Evan at 07:08 AM on 18 October 2018

SkS Analogy 15 - Ice Tea and Temperature Rise

nigelj@5, if you put the stones it at the same temperature as the wine it will be no more effective at keeping the wine cool than replacing the stones with wine. If the stones are put in colder than the wine, then they will cool the wine. The real point, of course, is that a phase change (from solid to liquid) soaks up a lot of energy without the temperature increasing. The temperature of rocks will always increase as they soak up heat.

Sorry if I am confusing the issue by using rocks. I will put them back in my head. :-)

nigelj at 07:01 AM on 18 October 2018

SkS Analogy 15 - Ice Tea and Temperature Rise

Sunspot @3, I would agree that the IPCC are a little too conservative or understated, but not to the extent you and the arctic news website claim. The difference is important, because wild claims attacking the IPCC will undermine trust in it.

I have just had a read of your arctic news website including the 12 points where it claims the IPCC is misleading. I just think most of this is wrong. Theres no obvious acceleration thus far in global temperatures in recent decades, if you look at the hadcrut or nasa data, although the IPCC project there will be in coming decades and with good reason. The IPCC does consider all the things you claim it doesn't consider, such as the water vapour feedback and methane clathrates, but doesn't reach your conclusions. It doesn't see this as leading to quote your website to " a potential global temperature rise (from 1750) of more than 10ºC by 2026, as illustrated in the image at the top."

Its also absurd of this website to claim the IPCC understate the problem for humanity, given the strident wording of this latest report on 1.5 degrees - and its good to see a sense of urgency in this report.

This is not to suggest the IPCC are perfect. This media article from the Guardian claims evidence that the summary for policy makers gets watered down, for example language gets changed from highly likely to likely etcetera. This would not be surprising as this document is signed off by politicians and bureaucrats from sceptical countries, but there's no evidence that the detailed science is watered down. Just consider this: The IPCC projet that if we continue to burn fossil fuels global temperatures could possibly hit over 10 degrees celsius by the year 2300. This would be totally catastrophic and should be enough to scare the pants off anyone with a functioning brain! So this is hardly the IPCC playing risks down.

There are recently emerging concerns and evidence about melting permafrost and some excellent science on the history of hothouse earth and various tipping points here in this article, that are cause for considerable concern, but this is new material, and so clearly wasn't in the last IPCC report. I would expect it to be in the next report and would be very concerned if it wasn't highlighted.

nigelj at 06:04 AM on 18 October 2018

SkS Analogy 15 - Ice Tea and Temperature Rise

Excellent article and analogies, but surely if you add cold stones to a glass of wine, heat energy will flow from the wine to the colder stones so cooling the wine? Obviously the stones warm up fast so the effect is much more limited than ice.

william5331 at 05:01 AM on 18 October 2018

SkS Analogy 15 - Ice Tea and Temperature Rise

Interestingly, the latent heat of evaporation is 540 calories per gram or over 6 times as much as the latent heat of melting. If warm moist air flows from the Arctic Ocean over Greenland, the heat from one gram of water vapor condensing on the ice will give up enough heat to melt over 6 grams of ice. This is in addition to whatever 'sensible heat' the air contains.

Sunspot at 04:00 AM on 18 October 2018

SkS Analogy 15 - Ice Tea and Temperature Rise

At the Arctic Blogspot they have been talking about this for a long time. Over there it's fearmongering. Here it's science. As for "One Planet's" comment - there is no cold mug to put the Arctic Ocean into. There are no cold rods to insert into it. And we are not going to refreeze it using frozen plastic balls or rocks from the freezer. So I fail to see any relevance to your points...

But back to the article - doesn't this seem in contradiction to the IPCC notion that the Arctic Ocean can go ice-free, but then re-freeze magically and not be ice-free again for another 9 or 99 years. That is what the IPCC claims! In a warming world, with surges of warm water into the Arctic becoming more frequent, they think this is possible, even likely. Amazing.

Science is all about looking at all possibilities. Even the watered-down IPCC report says that the human race is going to be in big trouble in less than 20 years. The Arctic Blogspot says we are in worse trouble sooner than that. Yet the IPCC, which tries to strike an acceptable balance between science and political reality, is considered pure science, while the latter is dismissed as hysterical. And that dismissal is not science. It just isn't.

Oh, and for those who believe the future temp rise will be linear - do you really think that it will happen that way when this, and other, feedbacks start to seriously bite? Because that conclusion would also fly in the face of long-established science. Nature isn't big on linear change. She loves those exponentials! Ask Albert Bartlett...

Evan at 03:57 AM on 18 October 2018

SkS Analogy 15 - Ice Tea and Temperature Rise

Agree that a really cold rock would work to cool a drink. I should have written that if you place a rock at 0C into a drink, it will warm up with the drink and do nothing to keep the drink cool, whereas if you place ice at 0C into a drink, it will keep it cool while it melts. That is, the main point is that during a melting substance will keep the surrounding liquid cool because it absorbs heat while it melts.

One Planet Only Forever at 02:37 AM on 18 October 2018

SkS Analogy 15 - Ice Tea and Temperature Rise

Perhaps the title could be revised to “Iced Tea and Temperature Rise - Tipping Points”, with the term 'tipping points' mentioned regarding the phase transition examples that are presented (balloon starting to lift-off or, finally getting air-borne using wings).

Adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to result in the elimination of year-round ice in any region is a tipping point for that region. And that CO2 level will be reached before the actual observation of the end to year-round ice. A related concern that could be added in the section discussing how regions without year-round ice will warm more rapidly is: When glaciers completely melt before the end of a summer season they will fail to deliver water downstream through an entire summer season, which can be a disastrous result that will suddenly occur at some time after the tipping-point level of CO2 has been forced into the atmosphere.

Another concern could be added regarding reduction of arctic ice extent. There is increased solar energy absorbed in the Arctic waters that are no longer covered by ice during the northern hemisphere summer, that time of the year when the sun shines on the Arctic. That amplifies the concern about the amount of warming of Arctic waters. Arctic waters that are not near surface ice will get warmer than waters near or under sea ice.

I think that the part about rocks in a drink is not a great example for this very relevant technical point. Many cold things, other than ice successfully help keep beverages cold:

Cold mugs are often used. A&W Root Beer in Frosted Mug comes to mind. And I often use chilled beer steins.
Cold rods are inserted into wine bottles to keep white wine chilled.
And reusable frozen blocks or balls that float are used to keep drinks cool rather than have the drink watered down by melting ice.

Also, a cold rock could do a lot of beverage chilling. The lower the initial temperature of the rock the more cooling it can do. The disadvantage of a cold rock in a drink, other than it potentially being dirty in its many crevices, is that it will be at the bottom of the drink. A floating cooling element is better. As the drink warms up the warmer contents rise to top. With a rock in the bottom, each sip from the top will be warm unless the drink is stirred before each sip.

Other people may come up with points like that which would be a distraction from the validity of the technical points being made.

Eclectic at 22:21 PM on 17 October 2018

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

MAR@259 , the Nikolov & Zeller / a.k.a. Volokin & ReLlez joke is getting a bit old these days. Is it still considered to have some instructive elements to it?

MA Rodger at 21:11 PM on 17 October 2018

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

JC @258,

Thank you for finding Nikolov & Zeller (2015). These exoplanet scientists often come up with interesting work but it is not an area I follow. You will note their Appendix B providing a calculation of the Martian average global temperature based on measurements taken from Martian probes.

The lunar temperature they use is reliant on Volokin & ReLlez (2014) who check their modelled value against the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment data which is also the data presented by Williams et al (2017) which I mention @257 as the source of my calculated average lunar temperature.

One Planet Only Forever at 06:09 AM on 17 October 2018

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

jef@10,

"The issue is how do we do less, stop what we are doing and still take care of 7+ billion people in a humane way?"

Promote altruistic leadership that responsibly pursues the achievement of all of the Sustainable Development Goals (and strives to improve on them). The Climate Action Goal is particualrly important because achieving it quicker makes it easier to achieve the others.

Note that many right-wing groups, like the Republicans in the USA, have policy desires that are contrary to achieving many of the SDGs not just the Climate Action Goal (at least they are consistently anti-altruistic).

The Future of Humanity is in Question - Altruism is the Answer
Altruism! What is it Good For? - The Future of Humanity

One Planet Only Forever at 06:01 AM on 17 October 2018

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

jef@10,

"There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money."

I agree. Unsustainable unjustified developed perceptions of superiority, prosperity and opportunity will have to be scrubbed out of the economy. It is already happening to coal barons. It is startig to happen to oil sands barons. And it will have to happen to oil and natural gas barons. Everyone else on the sustainable development path will make more money forevermore.

nigelj at 05:47 AM on 17 October 2018

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

Art Vandelay @8

I'm sceptical about solar geoengineering because of the risks. CO2 levels of 600ppm might encourage plant growth but various articles on this website has pointed to research that this will be overwhelmed by the negative effects on crops of higher temperatures, droughts and heatwaves.

In fact I agree population growth is a problem in many respects, for example energy and resource use, however simply changing to a vegetarian diet would solve the food scarcity problem.

nigelj at 05:42 AM on 17 October 2018

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

jef @10

"Nigel said,"during WW2 as production was geared up for the war effort. Economic output also doubled, and wages increased." Yes and CO2 and many other toxic destructive doubled too."

Come on you are deliberately missing the point. The point was surely obvious that humanity has made massive economic transformations in the past so could do so again. What is lacking now is motivation, due to a range of pshychological and political issues, and a campaign to spread climate denialism and pessimism, the later which appears to be what you are hell bent on doing :)

"Any talk of ramping up means ramping up total energy use and resource extraction which guarantees runaway destruction of the biosphere."

I never said anything about ramping up total energy use. I simply referred to transitioning to renewable energy.

For the record I agree with comments by others that it would be wise to reduce population growth and I would add that we should try to reduce our per capita energy use. These things are in the commonsense basket.

There is a problem with resource extraction but you have to think past the slogans. Most materials can be recycled or are abundant. Metals can be recycled indefinitely, including the metals used in renewable electricity generation and batteries. Where I would agree with you is we have a problem with non renewable resources ,which ironically includes fossil fuels, so once they are gone they are effectively gone and this has implications for plastics and fertiliser manufacture. However if we stopped burning fossil fuels, they would provide many centuries of use for other applications.

"Fossil fuels (FFs) are the most traded commodity in the world."

So what?

"Virtually every business in the world is dependent on FFs."

Yes, and this has to change, and can change. We already know alternatives are possible for most things. The last IPCC Report had an entire section devoted to climate change mitigation policies.

"Global food production is 100% dependent on FFs."

Not really. Many third world farmers make no or little use of fossil fuels, fwiw.

"There is no water without FFs, and no FFs without water."

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Water could easily be pumped using electricity from renewable generation.

"There has never been a transition away from an energy source only additions."

Theres a first time for most things. We used to cook food over open fires.

"There is no alternative energy source that isn't 100% reliant on FFs."

This is total nonsense! If the grid becomes entirely based on renewable electricity then by definition it is clearly not reliant on fossil fuels.

"There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money."

Empty unsubstantiated slogan. Theres no logic that says an energy transition means we stop making money. The worst case scenario is we are replacing infrastructure, so might make slightly less money in the short term, but good long term outcomes require up front investments thats nothing new. But go back to my example of WW2. Although huge sections of industry were turned over to war production, wages acutally increased and the supply of consumer goods increased. I think its quite possible transitioning to new energy sources will make us wealthier.

"The issue is how do we do less, stop what we are doing and still take care of 7+ billion people in a humane way?"

I think thats a very good point, but it is a separate issue to the climate problem. Right now the solution to the climate problem is renewable energy. The climate issue is a consumption issue, and you are not going to convince people to cut their consumption of energy in half or more, especially poor people. The most we can hope for is to substitute renewable energy and perhaps get people to make some modest reductions to their total energy use. I'm being a realist.

Eventually its obvious humanity is going to have to reduce its per capita use of minerals and energy but I doubt you will solve that problem by Paris time frames of 2050. I agree entirely that we have to look after the global population in a humane way, and I would hope we eradicate poverty, or at least ensure everyone has good opportunities to improve their situation. However I dont think you will convince people to radically reduce their consumption of materials and energy. The best you can hope for is reducing waste and inefficiency and promoting smaller houses etcetera. The principal and ultimate solution to resource scarcity is going to have to be smaller global population by encouraging low birth rates. So this is demand reduction which enables us to still have a reasonable standard of living.

JC16932 at 05:05 AM on 17 October 2018

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

LINK

Here page 11 you have an estimate of the average temperature of the Moon: 197,35 +/- 0,9 ° K. This corresponds to your 200 ° K!

I think for the rest of your remarks (review the value of the Moon albedo ?).

Moderator Response:

[DB] Shortened and hyperlinked URL breaking page formatting. Please learn to do this yourself using the Insert/Edit Link tool.

One Planet Only Forever at 01:07 AM on 17 October 2018

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

The current generation of humanity has a clear responsibility to remove CO2 from the atmosphere starting now, as well as dramatically reduce the creation of new CO2 by burning fossil fuels.

The only ones who can help the future generation are the current generation. The current generation should never believe it is OK to do harm to the future generation, no matter how appealing the harmful activity appears to be, no matter how regionally popular or profitable.

Understanding that changes everything. That could be understood decades ago, especially by leaders and winners who have little excuse to not 'know better' that others. But the global leadership (winners) at the time chose to maintain and maximize their popularity and profitability any way they could get away with. They kicked that responsibility further down the road, but also down a hill.

The result of that irresponsible behaviour by the supposed deserving leaders and winners has been like a landslide or avalanche. The problem has just gotten bigger, and will continue to grow unless responsible actions by leaders correct the unjustified developed perceptions of superiority relative to others.

There are existing technologies that can remove CO2 with vary little negative future consequences. But the methods that will be truly sustainable and not potentially create other problems for future generations are not profitable and may never be profitable. Other riskier or more harmful ways are cheaper and potentially profitable.

If the socioeconomic-political systems are not corrected to keep the undeserving harmful selfish from getting away with the advantages they can personally get from behaving less acceptably, then the 'solutions' that are implemented (if they get implemented), will be less effective than they need to be and could potentially be more damaging than the problem they are claimed to be a 'solution' to.

jef12506 at 00:52 AM on 17 October 2018

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

Nigel said,"during WW2 as production was geared up for the war effort. Economic output also doubled, and wages increased." Yes and CO2 and many other toxic destructive doubled too.

Any talk of ramping up means ramping up total energy use and resource extraction which guarantees runaway destruction of the biosphere.

Fossil fuels (FFs) are the most traded commodity in the world. 

Virtually every business in the world is dependent on FFs. 

Global food production is 100% dependent on FFs. 

There is no water without FFs, and no FFs without water. 

There has never been a transition away from an energy source only additions. 

There is no alternative energy source that isn't 100% reliant on FFs. 

There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money.

The issue is how do we do less, stop what we are doing and still take care of 7+ billion people in a humane way?

Moderator Response:

[PS] This post is walking a very fine line on sloganeering. You are making a large no. of assertions and provide no sources to back any of them.

In particular "There is no solution where we make a change of this magnitude and still all make money" flies in face of published plans and many countries roadmaps. Please provide sources to justify this assertion.

The assertion "There has never been a transition away from an energy source only additions.?" doesnt seem supported by EIA data.

Sunspot at 20:47 PM on 16 October 2018

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

Jef, not only is Trump not right, he is lying again. The US contribution to the UN Global Warming fund was going to be $3 Billion. Which was cancelled. We spend almost $2 Billion A DAY on our military adventures, I think we could have afforded that. Anyway, "trillions and trillions" is bull. And every study shows that ramping up alternative energy creates a lot more jobs than coal mines do.

One Planet Only Forever at 15:00 PM on 16 October 2018

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

Art Vandelay @8,

I agree that the total global population is a concern. But the issues identified by climate science are regarding the total impact of all humans, not the number of humans.

The highest impacting portion of the population changing their minds and behaving less harmfully will have to happen to achieve the required limiting of impacts on the future generations.

A significantly smaller total global population with the highest impacting people still as numerous is almost no improvement. Of course, a reduction of population that eliminated the highest impacting people would make a big difference, but my preference is for those people to change their minds and behave more altruistically.

One Planet Only Forever at 14:49 PM on 16 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

nigelj,

The following may be a better way to explain my comment @7.

In 2013 there was a major flood event in southern Alberta. All kinds of people did all kinds of things to help those affected. The ones in need of help were helped. Nobody asked what the political ideology of anyone else was. And all the help was done in ways that did no harm to anyone else. And the helping did no harm to the future of humanity. That 'local' helping was altruistic.

In Alberta (and Canada) today, many people claim they want to be helpful regarding jobs for 'others in Alberta (and Canada)' and want tax revenue to help pay for public health insurance, public education, and other social assistance program, which makes them oppose efforts to 'make burning fossil fuels more expensive or more difficult to profit from'. Their opposition to efforts to support the required climate impact corrections is because trhey 'want to help others'. That is just appeals to tribalism (group selfishness) and promotion of anti-altruism.

Ayn Rand said that capitalism and altruism could not coexist, probably because the likes of her do not like the extra effort and resulting limitations of options that Altruism requires.

Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" includes information about what conservative leaders actually did after Katrina hit New Orleans to try to make New Orleans more like what they wanted it to be (not so full of those "Others").

And more recently we all know how the conservative leadership in the USA 'helped' Puerto Rico.

Individual conservatives may be nice people. But gathered into a group, especially the United Greedier and Less Tolerant claiming to be Right, they can be very different. The Unite the Right objective is to give those still thinking they are conservatives only one voting choice - supporting the collective of unacceptable interests United and claiming to be Right.

Art Vandelay at 14:12 PM on 16 October 2018

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

@Ted Franklin, agreed, but if it's able to halt or reduce polar amplification then it will also reduce some of the related impacts, such as jet stream related weather events and coastal innundation. It also buys some time to develop methods and technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and inevitably, for the world to reduce its population to more sustainable levels. The effect of 600ppm+ CO2 in the atmosphere does at least have the effect of amplifying the carbon cycle, and with so many mouths to feed by 2070 it might be an almost necessary evil.

John Hartz at 13:53 PM on 16 October 2018

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

Recommended supplemental readings...

How to talk about hurricanes now by John D Sutter, Health, CNN, Oct 10, 2018

The Hurricanes, and Climate-Change Questions, Keep Coming. Yes, They’re Linked. by Henry Fountain, Climate, New York Times, Oct 10, 2018

Is climate change making hurricanes worse? by Daniel Levitt & Niko Kommenda, Weather, Guardian, Oct 10, 2018

Yes, Hurricane Michael is a climate change story by Pete Vernon, Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), Oct 12, 2018

Note: The Daniel Levitt & Niko Kommenda article include outstanding graphics.

MA Rodger at 02:39 AM on 16 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40

Sunspot @7,

Your comment is rather confusing but you do appear to be saying that, rather than global temperature "is accelerating" (as that web-page you linked to @3 says) but "will be accelerating." The difference between "is" and "will be" is not trivial.

Beyond that, you appear to be linking the delays between a climate forcing and the resulting temperature rise with some unspecified feedbacks which you say are well known but ignored by the IPCC. That is a strong accusation to make.

It is possible to accuse the IPCC of not properly accounting for certain slow feedbacks. But that doesn't seem to be what youy re saying.

You seem to be saying that the IPCC ignores the most basic of feedbacks. And you do seem to misunderstand the reason why it takes time for a climate forcing to impact temperatures. The reason is the thermal inertia of the oceans. The surface waters take about a decade to warm with further warming taking a century or so as the deep ocean reacts that-much-more slowly to the cilmate forcing.

And all the time this decadal/century-long warming will involve feedbacks. So with today's level of increase in AGW forcing pretty-much at the same level it has been since the mid-1970s, or forty years ago, there has been plenty of time for feedbacks to kick in and start your alleged acceleration mechanism.

I hope this demonstrates why your accusations against the IPCC are too confused to be taken seriously. I suggest you need to be more specific as to what feedbacks you are referring to.

jef12506 at 02:28 AM on 16 October 2018

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

Trump stated; "I don’t wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t wanna lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t wanna be put at a disadvantage.”

This the general consensus around the world and he is right. Unless and until this is addressed nothing will get done. And we will not solve the problems that industrial consumer capitalism has wrought on the world by ramping up industrial consumer capitalism.

Sunspot at 23:58 PM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40

The IPCC ignores feedbacks. The past temp change is linear because the feedbacks are just starting to kick in. We also know that it takes at least ten years for added CO2 to have its full effect. So warming has to continue just from the CO2 we have put there in the past decade. Every Climate Scientist knows about this effect. Yet it is ignored in the IPCC report.

Moderator Response:

[JH] You assert:

Yet it is ignored in the IPCC report.

Please specify which IPCC report you are referring to.

Sunspot at 23:50 PM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40

"The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C." Directly from the IPCC report. So...if the temp goes up to 1.5C above baseline, the Arctic may be ice-free once per century. Once per decade for 2C. Huh? Once it melts completely, it will magically get colder the next year and refreeze, and stay frozen for the next 99, or 9, years? Ridiculous! This is the sort of utter nonsense Arctic Blogspot is pointing out. Just one example. Feel free to worship the IPCC. Read their earlier reports. WRONG. I'll stick with the real scientists at the Arctic Blogspot, who aren't afraid to tell the truth. I won't post about that site here ever again. I promise. You all can't handle the truth.

Moderator Response:

[JH] You state:

Directly from the IPCC report. So...if the temp goes up to 1.5C above baseline, the Arctic may be ice-free once per century. Once per decade for 2C.

Please specify the IPCC report that you are referring to and provide a link to the page of that report where this statement is made.

As was pointed out to you previously, the use of all-caps is prohibited by the SKS Comments Policy.

MA Rodger at 06:41 AM on 15 October 2018

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

lonegull @319,

The atmosphere comprises 400ppm by volume of CO2 which is roughly 600ppm by weight. This is a small portion of the atmosphere but given the physical characteristics of CO2, it is significant enough.

It isn't clear where you come by the 3.5% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made. The usual understanding is that perhaps 45% of atmospheric CO2 is there because of anthropogeing emissions. (That's 400ppm/275ppm.)

Given the physical characteristics of CO2, that is probably enough to add +1.5ºC to global temperatures in 150 years. But as such levels of additional CO2 has not been in the atmosphere that long, it has only raise global temperatures by some +1.0ºC.

Concerning the weather being unpredicatable, this is indeed so. Yet the weather has the characteristic of not shoot off to places it hasn't been before. For instance, summer is warmer than winter in the higher latitudes with winters generally getting progressively colder as the latitude increases. By similar considerations, it is possible to identify climatical norms. And when something like CO2 is increased by 45% in the atmosphere, the resulting warming can be identified withi those climatical norms.

So the one thing not understood about your comment is the "humans are 3.5%" bit. Perhaps you would care to explain.

(By the by. Is the 'gull' part of your pseudonym based on the noun or the verb?)

One Planet Only Forever at 06:30 AM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

jef,

I agree that 'some' op-eds are allowed to get away with claiming that people cannot be expected to behave better, and claim that more freedom for people to believe whatever they want and do as they please will develop a good result.

In a recent comment on "The Trump administration has enetered stage 5 denial" I shared the following about an Ayn Rand quote that basically encapsulates the current develeoped wrong thinking of the Right.

"In the Feb 29, 1960 issue of Time magazine Ayn Rand stated that “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” and “Capitalism and Altruism are incompatible ... capitalism and altruism cannot coexist in man or in the same society.”

Ayn Rand's observations were correct, but she came to the wrong conclusion. Since every human can understand that it is better for the future of humanity if they behave altruistically, the correct conclusion is that capitalism discourages the development of altruism and encourages the development of anti-altruism if it can be gotten away with."

Many right-wing propagandists continue to get to have similar incorrect understandings published as un-challenged un-corrected op-eds (corrections and clarifications not done in a way that reaches every reader of the original op-ed).

I personally believe every op-ed is valid, freedom of speech is essential, as long as any required corrections of understanding are provided as lead-in comments to the op-ed (different opinions are welcome. incorrect arguments and claims that only work if you ignore relevant information require correction). Op-eds are not like scientific publications that would pass a critical peer-review before first publication and are open to criticism after publication that every reader of the initial publication actively seeks out and reads.

Professional Journalism, with rigorous auditing of performance, being required for any media to be able to declare that they are a Journalist News Provider would be helpful.

One Planet Only Forever at 06:12 AM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

In my earlier comment I stated that the Alberta UCP policies regarding climate science would be worse than the current Notley Government.

That is supported by the information in this CBC article "'The worst tax ever': Doug Ford and Jason Kenney hold campaign-style rally against carbon levy", that I had shared in a recent comment I made to the "2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39".

I indicated in my comment that current day Conservatives (hoping to win by Uniting greedier and less tolerant people and claiming to be Right) should not be expected to respond positively to a Price on Carbon. They will likely respond by making the potentially very popular claim that such an action is an Evil Tax, especially in a region like Alberta.

The Alberta NDP leadership of Premier Notley implemented a Carbon Levy and Rebate program. The Conservative response has been to declare that if they win power in Alberta in the next election they will cancel the evil carbon tax (and cancel the rebates that resulted in the middle and lower income people getting a net-benefit from the program).

william5331 at 05:16 AM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

It really is simple. WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE Who pays the piper calls the tune. As long as politicians are financed by big business, by vested interests, they will do their bidding. This is the one ring that controls them all. Finance politicians from the exchequer and legislate manditory jail time for anyone who gives even a paper clip to a politicians and the way will be open to make progress on all the oh so necessary changes we must make. http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/01/wasted-effort.html

Moderator Response:

[JH] The use of all caps is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. The use of bold font for emphasis is acceptable.

lonegull at 02:19 AM on 15 October 2018

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere, humans are 3.5% of that which comes out to be .0014% of CO2 is man made. CO2 lags temperature change in ice core samples by 800 years. Yet it is believed that man can emit a .0014% of CO2 for a mere 150 years and cause a 1.5+ degree change in climate temperature.

The weather cannot be predicted beyond several days with any accuracy, due to the complexity of the atmosphere. But we are told to believe that climate modeling can predictions 50+ years into the future is science fact.

jef12506 at 02:02 AM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

All of these articles and comments about how we have to be careful not to scare anyone too much or they will not do anything completely missing the issue. Not scaring people allows them to not have to do anything either. Point being everyone is looking for a reason they don't have to do anything. Why is that? Well if you read the op-eds in all the top media its because humans are just BAD and that is all they are capable of.BS!

The reason people are looking for an excuse not to do anything is because they have to go to work in the morning and for most people thats not optional. Tell them that they don't need to commute to work back and forth everyday, no flying to meetings, no tearing resource out of nature to make, sell, buy, throwout stuff. Tell them they do not have to worry about themselves and their loved ones suffering and dying, healthcare bills, housing, education, etc. and I will bet you whatever you want that 90% of the population will stop doing all the wrong things.

Moderator Response:

[JH]

You assert:

Well if you read the op-eds in all the top media its because humans are just BAD and that is all they are capable of.BS!

I have read many of the op-eds and cannot recall any stating what you claim. Please provide examples.

One Planet Only Forever at 01:55 AM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41

The root of the problem is that 'capitalism with mass-marketed competitions to appear to be superior relative to others any way that can be gotten away with' encourages and rewards the opposite of the type of behaviour that the future of humanity requires. Popularity and profitability governing the behaviour of leaders is developing harmful leaders presenting bad examples for the rest of the population to learn from.

Without Altruism governing potentially harmful action everywhere, with the minimum acceptable behaviour of altruism being “If you are not being helpful, at least do no harm”, there will continue to be damaging regional set-backs to the development of a sustainable better future for humanity, particularly without altruism governing the behaviour of winners and leaders.

The fact that the supposedly most advanced nations have less Altruism governing their behaviour than the inspirational examples of the working population from poorer nations (that may also have less altruistic leadership) exposes the fallacy of believing that 'perceptions of economic prosperity or technological advancement indicate the development of sustainable improvements for humanity'.

In Alberta, the current Premier recently tried to argue against rational explanations of the need for Alberta to stop trying to increase its ability to collectively get more benefit quicker from the extraction and export of oil sand. Her potentially popular appeal to greed got the following coverage:

CBC Article "'In Alberta we ride horses, not unicorns': Rachel Notley calls pipeline opponents unrealistic"
Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal Article (same media company) "Tzeporah Berman, Rachel Notley face off at teachers' conference"

Though it is incorrect and harmful to the future of humanity for Premier Notley to promote the unsustainable lure of more jobs and money from oil sands, her main competition in the upcoming election, the United Conservative Party (UCP), is even worse regarding its positions and claims on the climate science issue. And the UCP are far worse regarding their resistance to other required corrections of what has become popular and profitable. Like the Trump Republicans, the UCP have many policy objectives that are contrary to, and harmful to, the achievement of many of the Sustainable Development Goals, not just the climate action goal.

Global collectives on the political Right have been Uniting the greedier and less tolerant into groups that vote to support each other's understandably unacceptable developed desires. They have done it by getting away with misleading marketing appeals to developed preferences for 'not correcting things that clearly need to be corrected'. They do it because it increases their chances of winning their way. And their 'winning' has undeniably turned regions of the planet with the greatest potential to be helpful or harmful to the future of humanity into significant threats to the future of humanity. And even if they do not win, their attempts to influence the population to be greedier and less tolerant makes it more likely that the leaders of the moment will be less altruistic that they should and otherwise would be.

Humanity likely needs to learn how to penalize those types of 'pursuers of winning' to develop a sustainable future, to get the required climate action corrections. That means significant corrections to the developed socioeconomic-political systems, corrections that will be detrimental to many people who have developed unsustainable perceptions of superiority relative to others.

The future of humanity will remain in serious doubt, and likely get worse, as long as 'developing unsustainable perceptions of prosperity and opportunity, or defending and prolonging unsustainable developed perceptions' is allowed to compromise altruistic responsible leadership.

The Future of Humanity is in Question - Altruism is the Answer

Altruism! What is it Good For? - The Future of Humanity

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments