Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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

Recent Comments

Comments 13401 to 13450:

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

John Hartz at 01:36 AM on 15 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40

Sunspot: About that so-called "ridiculous" IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C...

The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) is available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15 or www.ipcc.ch.

Key statistics of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C

91 authors from 44 citizenships and 40 countries of residence
- 14 Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs)
- 60 Lead authors (LAs)
- 17 Review Editors (REs)

133 Contributing authors (CAs)
Over 6,000 cited references
A total of 42,001 expert and government review comments
(First Order Draft 12,895; Second Order Draft 25,476; Final Government Draft: 3,630)

MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 14 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40

Sunspot @3,

I would be more specific than the Moderator Response @3, and say that the particular web-page you link to at that website is exaggerating AGW.

One specific example is in the second point it sets out. We could all have a big bish-bash-bosh over where to set the pre-industrial global temperature-datum and what we mean by global temperature but the assertion is mad:-

"(T)he reality is that warming is already far more than 1.0°C and that it is accelerating." (My bold)

The one thing that is very evident is that global temperatures have not been accelerating since the 1970s and maintain a remarkable linear rise since then. See here (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') a graph demonstrating that linearity using HadCRUT4 - any other record will do the same. So the 'acceleration' is surely an 'exaggeration' of AGW.

Sunspot at 06:15 AM on 14 October 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40

For a detailed explanation of why this report is ridiculous, go here: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/

Moderator Response:

[DB] That website has a history of exaggeration and promoting fearmongering.

william5331 at 07:20 AM on 13 October 2018

Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers

Fortunately Michael is a one off event. A one in a thousand year event, not likely to happen again in our lifetime. Besides climate change is all a hoax.

How do we know

The president told us so

(Sung to the tune of that sunday school ditty, The Bible Told me So)

Daniel Mocsny at 05:04 AM on 13 October 2018

Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers

On "insensitivity" - I don't feel sorry for tobacco smokers who die from tobacco-caused diseases. They ignored the clear warnings of science and got the consequences. Similarly, I don't feel sorry for people who live lavishly all their lives off fossil fuels and then get the consequences. Everyone who consumes the benefits to self from burning fossil fuels dumps an increment of harm onto everyone else. If we lived in a just world, individuals would experience harm from climate change in proportion to their individual contributions to climate change. Instead the opposite tends to occur, with the wealthiest individuals and countries suffering the least from climate change, and the poorest individuals and countries suffering the most.

In most natural disasters to hit the USA, the poor and people of color tend to suffer disproportionately, those who contributed relatively less to climate change (although in most cases still much more than their globally equitable carbon fair share, as the USA per capita average emissions are so horrendously high). In the USA, when the poor and people of color head to the polls, and their votes aren't suppressed by Republican rigging, they tend to vote Democrat. Therefore, to the extent that we want to avoid being insensitive, we should look at who the victims are and who they voted for, before lumping them in with the narrow plurality of Floridian voters who went for Trump. In 2016, Trump received 49.02% of the vote in Florida, while Hillary Clinton received 47.82%.

Because of the winner-take-all nature of American politics, it's easy to over-generalize about an entire state. While Trump/Clinton was not directly a referendum on climate change - the issue wasn't even mentioned in the Presidential debates, and hardly came up in news coverage of the campaign - if we interpret the vote as some measure of attitudes toward climate change, Florida would be in almost a dead heat on the issue.

Let's also not forget that Trump fueled his meteoric rise by being verbally abusive to everyone - women, gays, Mexicans, blacks, war heroes, persons with disabilities, many of his fellow Republicans, etc. Anyone who voted for Trump can hardly complain about getting a taste of their own verbal medicine. Republicans mock liberals every day. Why shouldn't we ridicule the stupidity of people who deny climate change while living in the US state most at risk from climate change? Every coastal city in Florida could be underwater by the end of this century, for crying out loud. When greedy, self-interested humans finish melting the ice caps, most of the state will be gone.

Daniel Mocsny at 04:19 AM on 13 October 2018

Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers

It is a wonder that a state like Florida, which will get pummeled by Michael, could vote for someone that denies climate change.

It may be a wonder, but a psychologist (even of the armchair sort) might not be surprised. In his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, author Jared Diamond cites an example of how denial works:

The final speculative reason that I shall mention for irrational failure to try to solve a perceived problem is psychological denial. This is a technical term with a precisely defined meaning in individual psychology, and it has been taken over into the pop culture. If something that you perceive arouses in you a painful emotion, you may subconsciously suppress or deny your perception to avoid the unbearable pain, even though the practical results of ignoring your perception may prove ultimately disastrous. The emotions most often responsible are terror, anxiety, and grief. Typical examples include blocking the memory of a frightening experience, or refusing to think about the likelihood that your husband, wife, child, or best friend is dying because the thought is so painfully sad.
For example, consider a narrow river valley below a high dam, such that if the dam burst, the resulting flood of water would drown people for a considerable distance downstream. When attitude pollsters ask people downstream of the dam how concerned they are about the dam's bursting, it's not surprising that fear of a dam burst is lowest far downstream, and increases among residents increasingly close to the dam. Surprisingly, though, after you get to just a few miles below the dam, where fear of the dam's breaking is found to be highest, the concern then falls off to zero as you approach closer to the dam! That is, the people living immediately under the dam, the ones most certain to be drowned in a dam burst, profess unconcern. That's because of psychological denial: the only way of preserving one's sanity while looking up every day at the dam is to deny the possibility that it could burst. Although psychological denial is a phenomenon well established in individual psychology, it seems likely to apply to group psychology as well.

Therefore we should not be surprised to find that climate change denial would be high in the US state which gets hit by the most hurricanes and is already experiencing the effects of man-made sea level rise. Floridians are metaphorically living "directly below the dam" of climate change. Of course direct risk is not the only factor, as the perception of Floridians is also mediated by years of Republican disinformation campaigning.

California experiences climate change in the form of increasing droughts, floods, and wildfires, but California's urban blue (Democrat) majority out-votes its red (Republican) rural minority on a state level. The irony carries over there as well, since rural Californians get hit the hardest by climate change. Forest fires and crop failures occur in the countryside, not in the cities. To a first approximation, the Californians who experience climate change most directly are the most in denial about it.

John Hartz at 22:51 PM on 12 October 2018

Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers

Recommended supplemental reading:

GOP senators from hurricane-ravaged states mock UN’s climate change warning by Joe Romm, Think Progress, Oct 11, 2018

MA Rodger at 21:49 PM on 12 October 2018

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

JC @256,

Thank you for your link to Kiehl and Trenberth (1996). (You will note it is not a publication of by Geic-IPCC). The paper does demonstrate the complications in establishing Earth's CO2 GH-effect within Earth's total GH-effect but does show it is something like 32Wm^-2, and a little higher for the CO2-effect without the other GH-effects overlapping. I suggested up-thread @249 the value 40Wm^-2 as an all-sky modern value,

As for my suggestion that you test your grand method by using it on the Moon, I strongly advise that you do not dismiss it.
My reason is because Mars has such a small GH-effect that other considerations will make your calculation useless. The strength of the Martian GH-effect is very like the Moon's, at or close to zero.

Sadly, there is not a great deal of work published that calculates this Martian GH-effect (certainly not in recent years) but among these publications you will find Haberle (2013) 'Estimating the power of Mars’ greenhouse effect' which unfortunately is not directly available in full on-line. This paper suggests that the apparent GH-effect on Mars is actually negative, with the Martian temperature as-measured being Ts=~202K while the blackbody temperature calculates to Te=~208K. (Note this blackbody temperature Te is the value you use, as is made plain within Covey et al 2012. And note also I am minded not to go further into this situation with respect to Mars as it is somewhat complicated.)

The same problem with Te & Ts occurs on the Moon. If you use your grand method to calculate the blackbody temperature you would obtain Te=270K. This can also be calculated using the as-measured amount of long-wave radiation emitted by the Moon (which is how they calculate the albedo). But because the Moon has such a large spread of day-night temperature and equator-polar temperature (these spreads resulting from it having (1) such a long day and (2) no atmosphere), this method is hopeless for calculating the arithmetic mean temperature of the Moon surface. Ts and Te are wildly different.

The Moon's equatorial temperature range should give some indication of the Moon's average temperature by setting an upper limit. That provides a value of 243K, well below Te. The Moon's equator actually averages 216K (the noon-day maximum is far narrower than the midnight minimum) and for the Moon as a whole Ts=200K, these from my own calculation based on Fig9a of Williams et al (2017) (This calculation would be difficult to accept as there is no properly quoted Moon average to compare it to. Yet if I average the blackbody radation calculated for each portion of the Moon and then calculate temperature, the resulting Te=270K). Thus on the Moon the Ts-Te mismatch is very large.

I would suggest there is a similar but smaller Ts-Te mismatch on Mars as suggested by Haberle (2013) and this is of great relevance to your choice of grand method to test the GH-effects of CO2.

JC16932 at 16:55 PM on 12 October 2018

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

I do not understand your test since I try to put in parallel the quantity of CO2 of an atmosphere and its greenhouse effect, but on the moon there is no atmosphere and therefore no greenhouse effect.

For the radiative part of CO2 : "The second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which 32 W m-2 in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) goal differing from Kandel's (1993) estimate of 50 W m-2. (in : LINK)

Evan at 14:41 PM on 12 October 2018

Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers

Thanks Baerbel for the clarification. That makes more sense and seems more respectful to those who are suffering.

BaerbelW at 14:22 PM on 12 October 2018

Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers

Evan @1 - The headline of the Guardian article has now been changed to "Victims of Hurricane Michael are represented by climate deniers" after John Abraham contacted the editors of the article as mentioned on Twitter here.

michael sweet at 12:30 PM on 12 October 2018

SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability

Swayseeker,

It is my understanding that on average the ocean is warmer than the air above it. That means it adds water to the atmosphere. Can you provide a peer reviewed paper to support your idea?

Evan at 10:22 AM on 12 October 2018

Victims of Hurricane Michael voted for climate deniers

The title of this post seems a little insensitive. Perhaps it could be changed to "Victims of Hurricane Michael may prioritize climate change in future elections," or something more positive.

One Planet Only Forever at 09:45 AM on 12 October 2018

The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial

Based on lots of reading, particularly “the Enigma of Reason” by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber that I am currently reading, I have learned that all opinions likely start as Intuitive thoughts. Sometimes reasoning is applied to figure out why the Intuitive preference is what it is (science and other learning do this). When it is a matter of personal entertainment, nobody potentially being harmed as a result, the reason for an Intuitive preference does not matter. However, when there is a potential for harm then altruistic reasoned justification is essential (I learned and applied that to become a constantly improving professional engineer).

Altruism is a very good term to use when discussing the responses to climate science of people, particularly leaders who should be leading by example. Unlike terms such as 'Ethical, Moral, Good, Helpful, Reasoned, or Freedom', it is very hard to make altruism mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Altruism is 'Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others'. It is the opposite of Egoism.

All 5 stages of climate science denial are indeed attempts to delay the corrections of what has developed that are required for humanity to develop a sustainable better future.

Those delaying tactics, and other unacceptable actions by clearly unjustified leaders and winners, have a common basis. It is Anti-Altruism in response to the improving awareness and understanding that Altruism is required to govern all human activities in order for humanity to have a future (altruism can be understood to be basis for all of the Sustainable Development Goals).

My working hypothesis/theory regarding altruism/ethics related to the SDGs, particularly applicable to the climate action goal (more than enough supporting evidence that it is not just a hypothesis), is that for humanity and civilization to have a future it is becoming increasingly apparent that Altruism has to be governing and limiting all human activity. And political groups have been evolving in response to improving awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of unsustainable and harmful socioeconomic developments. Some have become more altruistic. Others have not.

Those choosing to be less altruistic, or resisting becoming more altruistic, do not like being challenged to altruistically justify what they want to believe and do. They were regionally winning support around the world because of the appearances of economic improvement and advancement that were being developed. That success has sputtered as the unsustainability, unfairness and unacceptability of the economic developments of 'people freer to believe what they want and do as they please without being governed by altruism' became harder to hide, deny or excuse.

Anti-altruism can be understood to be the root cause of almost all conflict. Altruism vs. Altruism is a debate, discussion, or an argument with a reasoned resolution, not a conflict. Anti-altruistic political parties want people focused on polarizing and divisive personal-trigger desires that prevent them from being more altruistic. They also need people to be less aware of the Altruism vs. Anti-Altruism conflict. The anti-altruists identify or create other conflicts, including making-up them up, for people to focus on rather than becoming more aware of the more important fundamental conflict of Altruism vs Anti-Altruism.

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.”

Any competition for impressions of superiority relative to others encourages the development of anti-altruism (egoism). It is seen all the time. And rules and enforcement to limit behaviour need to be developed whenever competition driven anti-altruism creates the potential for harmful results.

More potential for personal benefit creates more temptation to be anti-altruistic, because the less altruistic have a competitive advantage (advantage increasing the less altruistic they can get away with being). This is especially true in mass-advertised capitalism and politics.

Altruism is not an accounting balancing evaluation. It sets a minimum standard of acceptability of “Do No Harm”. And it establishes the open-ended inspirational objective of helping others. There is no limit to how much you can help. It is anti-altruistic to compare the perceived harm done to future generations with some perceived cost or lost opportunity to current generations. Harm to future generations is altruistically unacceptable, no mater how beneficial it may be for the current generation to cause that future harm or how costly it is to avoid producing future harmful consequences.

Pointing out the unacceptability of greedier and less tolerant people Uniting and claiming to be Right produces some interesting responses. The claims include:

claiming that 'explaining the unacceptability of greed and that it needs to be corrected' is an act of greed by someone who is jealous or wants to steal wealth or is intolerant of those who are greedier.
claiming that 'explaining the unacceptability of intolerant attitudes and actions and that they need to be corrected' is being intolerant of the less tolerant.
many other poor excuses that sound good but are not rationally justifiable.

All that the greedy and intolerant have are poor excuses for wanting to behave less altruistically. They can understand that they want to do things that harm others. But, they allow what they want to over-power their ability to be altruistic. Because they understand they cannot get what they want if they are limited by altruism.

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

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

I have been working on improving my understanding of what is going on for a while. And I have always struggled to come up with punchy banner statements for what I am understanding, partly because I was not really clear about what I was learning. But now I can offer the above for everyone to use and improve (I am not interested in reward or recognition for developing this understanding. Similar understanding has been developed in all of recorded human history. I altruistically hope that sharing in this way helps increase altruism in the general population)

People simply being freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please without altruistic self-governing or external altruistic governing is developing a potentially endless stream of unsustainable harmful activity. Less regulation of human activity is the type of environment that the anti-altruists prefer. It is the type of environment they can thrive in (to the detriment of others, especially to the detriment of future generations).

If Altruism and its restrictions of acceptable behaviour is not the Overall Governing Objective and Measure of Acceptability, then harm to others, like climate challenges unjustifiably created by current day pursuits of perceptions of prosperity and superiority relative to others, will never be sustainably ended. In fact, those problems will be made as big as can be gotten away with.

Without Altruism responsibly governing and limiting human activity there will be no sustainable future for humanity, only an eternity of harm being created by people anti-altruistically pursuing personal benefit and glory (humans will always be on this planet, but humanity and civilization may not).

(I presented more thoughts about this in my recent comments on “2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38”)

nigelj at 04:51 AM on 12 October 2018

The Trump administration has entered Stage 5 climate denial

Ruddiman has just posted a guest article over at realclimate.org

Swayseeker at 22:56 PM on 11 October 2018

SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability

Scientists are saying we might see a 3 deg C rise in temperature in the near future with climate change. I do not believe that CO2 will be limited with all the exploration going ahead - that is a lost cause for the time being. I am all for renewables, but we are going to keep warming as mentioned above. So it seems we must take CO2 out by growing trees, etc. To grow trees in deserts we need rain enhancement, etc, and planting. One method to increase rainfall is to heat sea surfaces. Indeed the sea air may actually be drying out land air where there are cold seas near hot land - see explanation below:
Suppose the sea air temperature Tseaair=16 deg C and sea air RH=75%. Suppose the air temperature over land is Tlandair=26 deg C and the RH of land air is 45%. Now suppose the sea air blows to land and the land air is pushed to light coloured land with high albedo so the land air remains at 26 deg C. Suppose the sea air is over dark land and it heats to T=26 deg C. The dew point remains the same if air is heated at constant atmospheric pressure, so the dew point of the sea air remains at 11.57 deg C. The dew point of the land air stays at 13.16 deg C. So the land air is more moist (it has to cool less for condensation). The sea air is therefore drier. Summary of calculations below: Tseaair=16, RHseaair=75%,Tlandair=26 deg C, RHlandair=45%. Then dew point of sea air is 11.57 deg C and dew point of land air=13.16 deg C. So if the sea air heats up to 26 deg C then its RH will be lower than 45% (in fact the RH will become 40.55%).
Here is a dew point calculator: http://www.dpcalc.org

MA Rodger at 18:19 PM on 11 October 2018

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

JC @253,

I wasn't aware that the IPCC (Geic) gave any value for total CO2 forcing. Perhaps you can give the reference to the IPCC (Geic) document.

Beyond that, you tread a path that is very close to the ridiculous.

As a test of your grand method, perhaps you can calculate the GH-effect for the Earth's moon. Our Moon of course has no atmosphere so this will test both you grand method as well as your data on average albedo and average surface temperature. (The average temperature you may find difficult to track down. I do have a calculated value if you need it.)

And once you have passed that test, prehaps we can address the big big problems you need to overcome in assessing the size of a real GH-effect with your grand theory.

Evan at 08:23 AM on 11 October 2018

SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability

Jef@1, or for those of us pushing 60 or so, in my lifetime we have increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations about the same amount as when we came out of the last glacial cycle (i.e., about 100 ppm). But the gist of what you're saying is that CO₂ concentrations are not just increasing, they are accelerating upwards.

jef12506 at 07:38 AM on 11 October 2018

SkS Analogy 14 - Inertia and Inevitability

Great post! Thanks!

What makes this even more important is the fact that we have released more CO2 since Al Gores inconvenient truth presentation, and have yet to feel the full effects, than we did in the prior 30 years or so. Sorry I looked but I couldn't find the article where I read this.

michael sweet at 06:34 AM on 11 October 2018

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

JC,

You are trying to do a seat of the pants calculation for something you do not understand. It is impossible to do the calculation by the process you describe. you must use the Modtram software that was referred to you upthread.

We have already discussed that pressure effects make it impossible to compare Mars to Venus in the way you are attempting to do. The calculations at Goddards site are worthless and deliberately misleading.

I recommend that you GOGGLE scientific publications on the greenhouse effect on Venus and Mars. There is a lot of material on Venus. You can also use the search function at the top of the page to find related articles.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments