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 15001 to 15050:

william5331 at 05:12 AM on 9 March 2018

Explainer: The polar vortex, climate change and the ‘Beast from the East’

I have a different take on the situation or rather a different way of thinking about it. When most of the Arctic is ice covered, as has been often stated, most of the solar energy is reflected back into space. The air over the arctic radiates heat into space, becomes heavy and sinks. As it hits the ground it spreads south and coriolis veers the moving air to the right resulting in the Polar Easterlies (moving toward the SW). Air, sucked in to the poles at high altitude is also veered to the right resulting in the mentioned counter clockwise circulation at high altitude. The air moving along the ground rises again at about 60 degrees north and heads back north at high altitude, completing the circulation of the Polar Hadley cell. Jet streams occur at the junction between Hadley cells and the northern jet stream occurs at the top of this rising wall of air between the Polar Hadley cell and the Ferrel Cell. It is this wall of rising air that separates polar air from temperate air and shepherds wether systems around the world.

As the Arctic Ocean warms due to more and more open water, we should see episodes of rising air over the Arctic. This should occur when the surrounding land is colder than the ocean. This will suck surface air northward and with Coriolis, will result in SW winds (flowing toward the North East). This will suck warm air into the Arctic. The climate zones which at present are creeping northward at about a mile per year can be expected to lurch northward. Two results, particularly are of concern. One is the disruption of our delicately poised grain growing belts in the Northern hemisphere. The other is the melting of Greenland. Latent heat from water to water vapor is roughly 6 times as large as from water to ice. If we have a coupling of rising moist air over the Arctic with density currents over Greenland, every liter of water that condenses on to the ice from this moist air can melt 6 liters of ice. Add to that the heating of the air as it flows down as much as 3km of slope and we could see some spectacular melting of Greenland in the not too distant future.

One Planet Only Forever at 03:47 AM on 9 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

A correction of my comment @16 which is an understanding I am still developing:

"... the math would say that not even one person could live that way through the many millions of years that humanity could potentially thrive on this amazing planet."

Should be "... the math would say that a sustainable population of humans could not live that way through the many millions of years that humanity could potentially thrive on this amazing planet."

One Planet Only Forever at 03:43 AM on 9 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

A point of clarification in my comment @16.

The 'refereeing' I refer to can best be done by Peers effectively responsibly professionally monitoring and correcting each other's behaviour, based on the constantly improved awareness and understanding of climate science (and other important helpful fields of learning). When that professional system breaks down, Harmful Winning Peers can Unite to the significant detriment of Others. And history has proven that those Harmful United Groups of Undeserving Winners can cause significant harm before humanity collectively Revolts against the Winners and the Systems they Exploit.

It is far better to have Good Effective Refereeing than to let things Devolve into Fighting. Hopefully helpful people will prevail and effectively disappoint the developed harmful perceived Winners. The sooner the better for everyone except the undeserving Winners.

One Planet Only Forever at 03:29 AM on 9 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

I agree that it is not helpful to use terms and scales like Liberal-Conservative or Left-Right when discussing the type of people denying climate science or the corrections of developed human activity that climate science indicates are required to develop a sustainable better future for humanity.

The labelling of actions of people should be based on the scale 'Helpful-Harmful to Others, especially to the future generations of Humanity'. And the Sustainability of actions claimed to be Helpful is the way to rank the value of an action (how many people can sustainably live that way).
On the Help-Harm scale a neutral action would be Zero-Value, Useless (but at least Benign which is better than Harmful). And of course Harmful by that evaluation is simply unacceptable, no matter what attempted justification is developed (no matter how Helpful people who benefit from Harmful or Unsustainable behaviour claim they are). Any activity understandably producing net-harm to others, as the others perceive it, is unacceptable.

And if an activity is simply unsustainable, like the burning of fossil fuels, the math would say that not even one person could live that way through the many millions of years that humanity could potentially thrive on this amazing planet. Any activity like that is harmful to future generations because they cannot continue to live/benefit that way. And the ones attempting to benefit that unsustainable way owe the future generations the development of more sustainable ways of living and the rapid transition to those ways of living, especially the more fortunate, the ones perceived to be Winning more than others.

The Sustainable Development Goals establish a robust framework for evaluating how valuable an activity truly is, how Helpful or Harmful the activity actually is.

What can clearly be seen is that the competition to Win perceptions of superiority relative to others requires diligent refereeing to keep undeserving unsustainable or harmful activities from Winning power, popularity or profitability contests. People being freer to believe whatever they want to believe and doing as they please in pursuit of 'their happiness' can be seen to encourage the development of harmful Private Interest attitudes and desired actions.

Those unacceptable actions include people with harmful Private Interests attempting to get people who simplistically identify themselves in the Left-Right or Liberal-Conservative scales to unjustifiably or unwittingly Unite in support of understandably harmful Private Interests, to the detriment of sustainably developing a better future for everyone.

Argus at 02:05 AM on 9 March 2018

What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?

My summary as a layman of this whole post, with its attached discussion, is as follows:

We have seen unusual winter weather in several areas this winter: in some places warmer, in other places colder. These variations in temperature, humidity, and wind used to be called weather, but are now increasingly blamed on climate change.

I think Alchemyst summarized the topic post nicely in #13: "Warm air goes up Greenland - cold air comes through Europe - first law of thermodynamics". The recent cold winter weather is only interesting because it can be discussed in relation to global warming. Nobody writes reports about the unusually cold winters (in northern Europe) of 1867, 1871, 1881, 1888, and 1942, because those cannot be connected to global warming.

The warmer Arctic is interesting because it rhymes with AGW theories. What about Antarctica then? Not interesting. Near the south pole it's now -45, and that is supposed to be their summer, with the sun up 24/7. "In stark contrast to the sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, there has been a steady increase in ice extent around Antarctica during the last three decades, especially in the Weddell and Ross seas." (https://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/2721/2016/)

I can sympathize with Alchemyst's reaction at the end of #37, but I think it is not that "no dissent is tolerated". More likely it is that most writers in this forum are so skilled in advocating the AGW theory that they immediately can jump on any aberrant opinion, fully equipped with diagrams and reports that support their belief.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Alchemyst could rightly argue that the headline in nigelj newpaper article could mislead someone how only read headlines. However, the blog post, the science paper and the substance of the newpaper article were all about the increasing frequency of jetstream variability (climate) and statements that amount to "its been cold/warm before" do not address trend. By all means present dissenting views, but argue against the real premise, not some strawman and present evidence. Ie a real counterpoint is some evidence that similar frequencies of jetstream variability occurred when artic basin had more ice.

Also note that try to say Arctic seaice loss is okay because something different is happening in antarctica (and you may want to check most recent data) is a logical non-sequitor. Look at what is causing the changes in both places, but argue in an appropriate place.

michael sweet at 21:53 PM on 8 March 2018

There Will Be Consequences

According to this science direct article, the interior of Antarcticia receives about 2 inches (5 cm) of precipitation a year. I presume that is 2 inches of water equivalent of snow. Although that is not very much precipitation, since Antarctia is so big it adds up. This might be from the stratosphere but that is not mentioned.

nigelj at 18:21 PM on 8 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

It seems to me life is indeed about change. Society needs to experiment and put change first, because without this we stagnate, nothing really improves, and humanity can become overwhelmed by change that is forced upon us by external circumstances.

But we need the wisdom to not discard tradition without plenty of thought, because traditional values are obviously not always inherently wrong, and served a purpose appropriate to their time.

Its also an aging thing. I have always been symapthetic to new ideas, but become a bit resistant to change as I have become older.

Moderate conservatism values tradition. But I think the Republican Party hierarchy has sadly essentially become ultraconservative for whatever reason. Unfortunately radicals and authoritarians are ruling America, no doubt driven by a complex confluence of factors. But unless the general public say stop, it will continue.

"Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll"

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

Factotum says "And it is why conservatives really are anti science. By definition they are anti new."

There might be something in this. It's sad if thats the case, but its hard to argue against the data.

factotum at 15:29 PM on 8 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

The Republican / Conservative party is the party of DEATH!!

But first a definition: CONSERVATIVE:
adjective 1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways;

noun 1. a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
synonyms: right-winger, reactionary, rightist, diehard;

LIBERAL: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

I have found that, almost without exception, stupid is a word that has almost no meaning other than being a bit mentally slow. But this does not include those who destroyed the space shuttle in the same way as they did the Columbia, or Donald Rumseld who got us involved in the ongoing expensive mess that is Iraq, thus showing that they learned exactly nothing from our adventures in Viet Nam. So I define STUPID as being unwilling or unable to learn new stuff. Note how this fits with the definition of Conservative above.

As nouns the difference between conservative and conservation is that conservative is a person who favors maintenance of the status quo or reversion to some earlier status while conservation is the act of preserving, guarding, or protecting; the keeping (of a thing) in a safe or entire state; preservation.

Life is all about change. Systems and people that can change and adapt to a changing environment thrive. The only things that do not learn and change are dead. In order to live and thrive in fast changing environments, like the one in which we live, requires the ability to quickly learn new stuff about the environment, like Anthropological Global Warming, as opposed to living in denial.

I hope this makes it clear why getting conservatives to learn new stuff is so hard. And why less than 10% of scientists identify as conservative or republican. Scientists are people who spend their entire lives working with new stuff. That is anathama to almost all conservatives. And it is why conservatives really are anti science. By definition they are anti new.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Crossing the line.

slcochran at 10:28 AM on 8 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

Point of clarification: we are allowing the misuse of the term "Conservative." Today's Republicans are anything but conservative, they are on the opposite end of the political spectrum- they are "radicals." (The opposite end of the spectrum for Liberalism is Authoritariansim. Republicans are working very hard to undo the gains achieved for fairness and equal treatment in our society. I think it just confuses the picture when discussing those who accept science vs. those who live by willful denial.

Alchemyst at 08:21 AM on 8 March 2018

What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?

my initial comment was against a newspaper article that nigelj quoted. and as you would have read my comments.

It has had nothing against the main article. So please do not try and divert the point of my comment.

The headline is what people remember and it is misleading.

It is extraordinary that to raise a sinle error on a websit has raised so much opposition.

It would bring one to the conclusion that no dissent is tolerated.

Moderator Response:

[PS] And my second quote was also from the newspaper article that nigelj quoted which explained that it was about trend. My moderation though was about trying to get you to be more explicit about what point you were trying to make instead of having everyone guess because it appeared you were tilting at windmills.

[JH] Moderation complaint snipped.

scaddenp at 08:16 AM on 8 March 2018

There Will Be Consequences

Snowfall rates are low, but I think it reasonably likely that snow falls somewhere in Antarctica every day, especially on margins and especially on Antarctic Peninsula. Total ice discharge from Antarctica is well ahead of the estimates of mass loss so I think it is reasonable to assume the difference is snowfall.

nigelj at 06:55 AM on 8 March 2018

Explainer: The polar vortex, climate change and the ‘Beast from the East’

Thank's for that explanation. While It probably needs more time to be 100% sure, I think it would be stupid to underestimate or dismiss the scale of changes we are seeing in the arctic, and the implications for weather events.

A related thing is now happening in New Zealand but in reverse. NZ is currently experiencing what is likely to be its hottest summer on record. According to the article below this is due to a combination of climate change, a la nina weather event, and a positive phase of the SAM (southern annular mode) which is apparently a measure of the strength of the Antarctic polar vortex, and which tends to cause warm weather for NZ when in a positive phase.

www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12000289

I'm not aware of the vortex splitting in two but the boundary winds are shifting and causing a warming effect.

According to the article, climate scientists have singled out climate change as being a big driver of an increasingly positive SAM. I'm on a bit of a learning curve with the details of the SAM, but I thought it was worth mentioning as it mirrors events in the arctic in some ways. Like with the arctic it may need more time to be 100% sure, but it would be very foolish to be complacent or dismissive.

Kiwiiano at 06:21 AM on 8 March 2018

There Will Be Consequences

"It snows in Antarctica....every day...." Huh?? I was under the impression it rarely snows, Antarctica is the driest continent. Most of the 'snow' is supposedly ice crystals that drift down from the stratosphere.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

nigelj at 05:29 AM on 8 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

James Wight @11

Thanks for the comment, and I agree with much of what you say now that you have clarified it. It initially has some mixed messages on where you were going.

I still think its important acknowledge Obama tried to do the right thing in many respects and was clearly doing better than the current administration. Remember he was up against a republican congress that was extoradinarily hostile to him.

However I agree Obama fell short of the ideal on many things, and you make a good point that the situation can create a false sense of security that enough is being done. This includes the climate issue because the only substantive federal policy was really the EPA legislation and this was more their doing than Obamas. I pretty much said so myself above in saying that only when the Democrats take a stronger stand on the climate issue will things move forwards, and they will start to give the Republicans a scare on the issue and force them to move.

The TPPA is far from dead. Its been given a slightly different name and approved in principle, and it only remains for individual countries to make a final decision on whether they join.

I live in New Zealand, and I support such agreements like the TPPA in principle. As a small nation we benefit massively from free trade and I think America would have as well.

Having said that, I was a vocal critic of the agreement in respect of the details and the investor tribunals precisely because they hamstrung governments, however my country was able to modify this provision to some extent. I can live with the TPPA in its revised form.

And its important to ensure the benefits of free trade are spread widely, and not captured by the top 10% in society. But that sort of corporate capture does not make free trade wrong in principle, and the last thing the world needs is bringing back tariffs and trade wars.

You say "The difference between Democrats and Republicans is at best quantitative, and at worst good-cop-bad-cop. I don't particularly blame Obama as an individual any more than I blame Trump for the policies being implemented now. I'm saying that voting for the other party won't solve the climate problem, because both parties are controlled by the same corporate interests including the fossil fuel lobby."

I hear where you are coming from. I think the democrats need to face some realities and deserve some robust criticism. Hilary Clintons policies were just barely "ok" overall, and certainly almost non existant on climate change. However if you put the boot into the Democrats too much, it could have the reverse affect of what you want.

And I disagree about Trump. He is the author of many of the policies now being implimented. People need to fight this sort of policy every way they legally can.

How do you suggest the excessive power of the corporates over politics gets changed?

John Hartz at 04:27 AM on 8 March 2018

What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?

Seth Borenstein's below article is chocked full of information about records that have been set in the Arcitic this winter. Here are the introductory paragraphs of his in-depth article.

Winter at the top of the world wimped out this year.

The Arctic just finished its warmest winter on record. And sea ice hit record lows for this time of year, with plenty of open water where ocean water normally freezes into thick sheets of ice, new U.S. weather data show.

Scientists say what’s happening is unprecedented, part of a global warming-driven vicious cycle that likely plays a role in strong, icy storms in Europe and the U.S. Northeast.

“It’s just crazy, crazy stuff,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, who has been studying the Arctic since 1982. “These heat waves, I’ve never seen anything like this.”

It’s been so unusually warm that the land weather station closest to the North Pole — at the tip of Greenland — spent more than 60 hours above freezing in February. Before this year, scientists had seen the temperature there rise above freezing in February only twice before, and only ever so briefly. Last month’s record-hot temperatures at Cape Morris Jesup have been more like those in May, said Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the Danish Meteorological Institute.

Science Says: Arctic not so chill this record warm winter by Seth Borenstein, AP News, Mar 6, 2018

Philippe Chantreau at 03:49 AM on 8 March 2018

What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?

I don't understand what Alchemyst is talking about. My initial post makes it clear that my concern is about the Arctic and the changes taking place there. I am comparing apples to apples, namely the temperature north of 80 degrees lattitude during the first 55 days of the year in the DMI archive. So, it is definitely comparing a cold period of the year with another cold period of the year.

There may have been a similar weather situation in 1962 as in 2018 but the temperature in the Arctic was nowhere close to what it has been since the beginning of this year, as is totally obvious from the graphs. As I stated above in another post, I looked at the entire archive and did not find a single year with temperatures looking like what was just recorded in 2018. I may have missed one, anyone is free to look for themselves, the archive is freely accessible.

I did not consider European weather, my comment was about the Arctic temperatures and state of the sea ice, which saw the lowest January extent on record, and retreating ice in the Bering sea. Sea ice extent shows no sign of improvement, barely exceeding 14 million sq.km at a time where the interdecile range is between 15 and 16 million sq.km. It appears likely that we are going to see the lowest max winter extent on record for a given year.

jef12506 at 02:26 AM on 8 March 2018

There Will Be Consequences

This is a well done article. The only point I would make is the possibility that things can and often are happening much faster than discussed here.

For some reason most of science is taking the position of not wanting to worry people too much until it is too late. This is insanity.

James Wight at 19:49 PM on 7 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

nigelj @9

I'm also on the outside looking in, so we are equal in that regard!

#1 I don't dispute Obama's climate policies were less bad than Bush and Trump, but that's not saying much. They still fell far short of the phaseout of fossil fuels which is necessary to actually stop the rise of CO2, indeed Obama was still subsidizing fossil fuels. Despite his policies being less bad in a technical sense, I think there's a case to be made that Obama's net effect was worse than Bush and Trump, because Obama placated environmental concerns a bit. At least under the Republicans, everyone knows the government does not have climate change under control.

#2 Yes, Trump's dismantling of climate and environmental policies is a total disaster and insane at a time when humanity's impact on the planet is far outstripping anything sustainable. But the fact remains that those policies were already woefully inadequate and served primarily to reassure the public that something was being done. It's come out that some American towns have lead poisoning in their water supply, so clearly Obama-era environmental regulations weren't doing a great job.

#3 The fossil fuel industry has benefited from all kinds of government subsidies as well as other favorable rules. US fossil fuel subsidies increased by over a third under Obama: http://www.ibtimes.com/us-fossil-fuel-subsidies-increase-dramatically-despite-climate-change-pledge-2180918 Also under Obama, the government worked with mining corporations to run psyops against anti-fracking movements.

#4 You shouldn't assume the TPP is dead, because other countries are still developing it and Trump is now making noises that he might be open to getting back into it. Anyway, the TPP does not benefit the people of any country because it is inherently anti-democratic. Investor-state tribunals only benefit corporations and their shareholders, by allowing corporations to sue foreign governments for lost profits, hamstringing governments' ability to regulate corporate activities - such as pollution. So when you say it benefits "America" I think you mean it benefits American corporations. The TPP was negotiated under Obama's watch.

#5 Well I've just explained how the TPP is bad for anyone who's not rich. The Obama administration also infiltrated and shut down the Occupy Wall Street protests among other things. But yes, I agree the Republicans are making it even worse. That doesn't mean the Democrats were making it better. And the excuse of "We can't do anything because of the Republicans" wears pretty thin after eight years, especially since the Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years.

#6 I stand corrected on Obama's military spending. However, the Democrats voted in favor of Trump's massive increase in military spending, so my point still stands that the two parties are similar if not the same.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is at best quantitative, and at worst good-cop-bad-cop. I don't particularly blame Obama as an individual any more than I blame Trump for the policies being implemented now. I'm saying that voting for the other party won't solve the climate problem, because both parties are controlled by the same corporate interests including the fossil fuel lobby.

Doug_C at 18:30 PM on 7 March 2018

There Will Be Consequences

I can't see business as usual lasting much longer in regards to fossil fuel use.

I live in British Columbia in the Okanagan valley, we are already seeing the impacts of much more chaotic weather here and across this province. Last summer we had record forest fires across BC, one fire alone was over 500,000 hectares. We are also being warned once again this spring to be prepared for spring flooding as the snow packs are not behaving as they have in the past.

And while this is happening this province has been in conflict with another who's government resents even talking about stopping a massive increase in the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline which carries diluted bitumen from the Athabasca tar sands to shipping terminals in the Vancouver area. One of the least sustainable of fossil fuels and if spilled one of the most polluting. If the billions of dollars required to build the new pipeline capacity which is close to 1 million barrels a day, is allowed that would require many years to see a return. We are still planning on the commercial exploitation for decades of the worst possible energy sources in this country even as governments at all levels discuss the need to mitigate climtae change.

We here in Canada live in the bizarre state of being told we need to use more fossil fuels to fight climate change.

The same goes for gas fracking and LNG. This is a huge issue here with the "new" provincial government approving a dam in the middle of the Montney gas formation who's only real intent can be powering an explosion of fracking across NE BC. Something the federal government also supports. While natural gas has only about 50% of the carbon intensity of coal, fracking for it also releases large amounts of methane from leakage. Making it as bad as coal as a climate change forcer.

BC has commit to spending at least $12 billion which will likely climb to $15 billion before the Site C dam is finished. We could be spending that money on alternative energy sources across the province that would make a real difference in carbon emissions and also drive innovation in sectors that need significant stimulation to replace fossil fuels. Instead the electricty from that dam will likely go to powering gas fracking operations across the Montney gas fields. The government here has stated that no matter what its own scientific studies on the issue say, a moratorium on fracking is "unthinkable".

We are still going in the wrong direction in regards to fossil fuels and climate change in BC and in Canada. Do not listen to claims from our politicians that they are doing something about this growing catastrophe.

As early as 1993 the federal government was claiming that Canada was planning for a fossil fuel free future and doing our part to mitigate climate change. And investment and exploitation of fossil fuels across the nation has only grown.

As I said at the begining, I don't think this will last much longer. We have already lost a Canadian city to climate change induced heats waves, this one in April of 2016 in Northern Alberta where temperatures reached over +20 C when usual temperatures are often -20 C in that area at that time. And came very close to losing several BC cities to fires last summer.

At some point there will also be a political tipping point where it is simply no longer possible to deny this growing catastrophe and pretend we can base our future on fossil fuels.

Here in Canada and BC this will mean huge stranded assets, but the alternative is changes that happen so fast and are so significant that they could possible drive our species extinct.

Before much longer I don't think we will be talking about even carbon neutral energy models, we will be talking about carbon negative models to at least try and mitigate some of the impacts that are predicted before long and some like extreme heat waves and massive forest fires are already happening here.

A future such as James Hansen is discussing with superstorms strong enough to hurl 1,000 ton boulders on shore is not an option. Or the loss of sea coasts through greatly increased erosion and then inundation.

How will Asian populations feed themselves as well with areas like the Mekong and Yangtze deltas where much of the rice is grown, going under the sea or made useless to agriculture by salt water intrusion.

Any policy that relies on fossil fuels on the decade scale should be treated in the same way we would with crimes against humanity.

Because that is exactly what it is.

nigelj at 18:21 PM on 7 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

James wight @8, on second thoughts it appears you are wrong. Obama didn't increase military spending, as per this graph.

nigelj at 16:23 PM on 7 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

James Wight @8

I don't live in America, so here is a view from the outside loooking in. It does look like both Republicans and Democrats serve corporate interests, however theres clearly a difference in quite a few respects:

1) The Democrats have provably had more powerful climate mitigation policies than Bush and the current Trump / Republican administration. This has been openly documented and is not seriously disputed.

2) It appears Obama at least tried to regulate other environmental and business issues, (The Dodd Franks Act comes to mind). Trump and the Republican Congress has done his best to dismantle all this. Notice how this study below just released shows the benefits of these regulations outweighed the costs.

"Trump White House quietly issues report vindicating Obama regulations. It was easy to miss, but OMB demolishes the GOP’s deregulatory claims."

www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/6/17077330/trump-regulatory-agenda-omb

3) I dont know how you say Obama drove a boom in fracking. Didn't the free market drive that?

4) Regarding the TPPA (trans pacific partnership agreement), this involved America and various pacific nations such as NZ, latin american countries, Japan etc. I like free trade agreements, but I agree the investor state dispute resolution process involves closed door hearings by lawyers, with arguably conflicts of interest that have been well discussed. It needs to be more open and transparent.

However it's a simple fact (because I followed the negotiation process closely) that America was getting by far the best deal out of this TPPA agreement, so the fact Trump has pulled out makes me laugh at how little he comprehends these things. America is also one of the most litigious countries in trade disputes, and generally does ok in these disputes. So I'm not entirely sure why you are so upset and blaming Obama. America has also benefited a lot from free trade, according to economists.

5) Saying Obama "oversaw a rise in wealth inequality" is rather general and meaningless. I dont think he personally caused it, unless you can show me some evidence. He certainly at least tried to help poor people with various programmes, but was defeated by a republican dominated congress.

Perhaps you can explain to me how Trump and the Republicans attempts to cut taxes for the wealthy, cut death duty taxes, and cut food stamps and welfare entitlements help reduce wealth or income inequality? Because it sure doesn't look like it will help.

6) Obama increased the military spending. Can't disagree, however Trumps spending increases appear considerably more ambitious. I'm not a pacifist, but I would have thought America has enough nukes to last a million years.

So there's actually a very significant quantitative and qualitative difference between Democrats and Republicans, and it is in favour of the Democrats.

And remember, the point of the article was related to differences in respect of climate mitigation and science between the parties.

James Wight at 15:15 PM on 7 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

This article seems to conflate politicians with voters.

The politicians all serve corporate interests, though the Democrats may tend to do it to a lesser degree or, I would argue, through sneakier strategies. A recent study from Princeton University found that US government policy is determined by economic elites with little or no independent influence from the grassroots: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

The Obama administration drove a boom in unconventional oil and gas, sabotaged the Copenhagen climate talks through NSA shenanigans, attempted to cede the sovereignty of democratic nations to unelected corporate litigators via the Trans-Pacific Partnership, expanded the military which is one of the world's biggest polluters, and oversaw a rise in the wealth inequality which gives power to corporate lobbies like fossil fuels.

So when it comes to the politicians, "Both Siderism" is very much correct. The Democrats are barely better than the Republicans, and arguably worse because they pretend to be better by saying the right words about climate change.

Republican voters are worse in large part because they have been subjected to decades of propaganda from the fossil fuel lobby. Democratic voters may be better informed, but they are likewise subject to the propaganda of the Democratic Party which is paving the road to hell. If you think voting Democrat will solve anything, you are in my view extremely misled and part of the problem.

ImaginaryNumber at 15:11 PM on 7 March 2018

How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice

I would appreciate your critique of these recent articles on Polar Bears by Pagano, vs a counter-article by Susan Crockford. To my non-scientific mind, it appears she has some valid points.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/568

https://polarbearscience.com/2018/02/01/polar-bear-specialists-double-down-on-message-of-future-starving-bears/

nigelj at 12:58 PM on 7 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

Money in politics is a huge problem. And the answer is what exactly? The system resists change.

The Democrats need to at least stop relying on the fossil fuel lobby and company donations. At least find some wealthy campaign donors sympathetic to environmental issues. Find your answer to the Koch Brothers.

Alchemyst at 11:33 AM on 7 March 2018

What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?

This was the headline that nigelj posted

Arctic warmer than much of Europe is a worrying sign of climate change

however we now have established that in 1962 that a similar excursion took place in which the arctic was warmer than europe. a couple of degrees lass possibly, But these temperature reversals have a long history, so how can they be sign of global warming.

The headline is therfore misleading.

The fact that the arctic is warmer than europe at times is a sign of weather.

Moderator Response:

[PS] But a change in trends is a sign of climate change, and that article went on to explain not the significance of one event but the underlying changes. As did the paper that is main focus of this blog article. Noone disputes that one event by itself is insignificant and just weather. Persistant changes to jetstream variability are another thing altogether.

Quoting Nigelj article (did you read down that far)
But such "intrusion events" are happening with increasing frequency, says Adamson. And they "are linked to increased temperatures and reduced sea ice cover."

Global warming may be to blame.

"There is now a large and strong body of evidence that the major changes we are seeing are linked to climate change," Adamson said. "Changes in one part of the ocean-atmosphere system can have major impacts on another."

Note the "increasing frequency"?

Alchemyst at 10:16 AM on 7 March 2018

What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?

M A Roger at 5:04 am 4 March

thanks for the tables. You missed the excursion!

please read that the highest winter peak was 261.33 K on 21 Nov 1962 not 252K in February.

Moderator Response:

[PS] And??? What point are you trying to make?

Alchemyst at 08:16 AM on 7 March 2018

What role did climate change play in this winter’s US freezes, heat, and drought?

P Chantreau

hanks for the graphs, You hoverer do not compare one cold period with the other.

You need also to compare like with like.

The 62 winter freeze extended through from December to March 63.

The temp at the begining of December in Greenland according to your graphs was 262K at 2017 it was 264 K quite close!

Is it possible to see a graph of these? also is it possible to see a graph of feb 2011 to get a good comparison. The cold snap this year has lasted 6 days The 62 lasted some 70 days and the sea was frozen in UK ports.

Moderator Response:

[PS] It would still help this discussion if you made it clear what you are trying to establish.

william5331 at 04:58 AM on 7 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

All these analyses are nibbling around the edges and misdirecting our attention from the basic problem. There is one overwhelming reason for climate change dinial and one reason only. It is the same reason that kept cigaretts being extoled as the best thing since sliced bread and lead added to petrol being a good thing. Pick any cause you want and any year 12 student could tell you what the solution is. The only reason that trying to sort out these problems is so hard is money in politics. Who pays the piper calls the tune and it was never so true as in human affairs. If we want our governments to do what is so blindingly obviously needed, politicians need to be financed from the public purse and anyone giving them money or favours must be jailed. Only than will we begin to sort out the mess. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2018/01/wasted-effort.html

nigelj at 12:34 PM on 6 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

In addition to an unfortunate lack of balance in the media, the media seem to be increasingly inflammatory in things they say by my observation. I suppose its competition due to the internet, so they are crying out for attention.

Unfortunately this is creating a sort of monster of lowest common denominator flawed, ridiculous information. This is market competition that has gone seriously crazy, and its seriously dumbing down the population.

People are influenced by people like Rish Limbaugh above all else, and I doubt even that the leaders of the Republican party can now do much to counter this media monster even if they wanted to. The genie is out of the bottle. The voting "base" listen to the media directly now and its all they listen to.

Attitudes to climate change will improve with young people. They get the science at school. with less of the "noise". If only their climate denialist parents would shut up on the issue. But all this takes time.

John Hartz at 11:14 AM on 6 March 2018

Stop blaming ‘both sides’ for America’s climate failures

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments