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 15601 to 15650:

John Hartz at 14:56 PM on 19 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

Recommneded supplemental reading:

OECD says energy taxes in developed economies too low to fight climate change by Nina Chestney, Reuters, Feb 14, 2018

Bob Loblaw at 13:00 PM on 19 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

NorrisM:

If you can't define "harming the economy" then it is pretty hard to have any sort of reasonable discussion about the issue.

You now use the phrasing" You do not need "peer reviewed articles" to know that a $150/tonne carbon tax would have serious repercussions on a number of industries, just a little common sense." (Bolding mine.)

Well, now you're really digging in deep. The economy is not "a number of industries", it's every industry, every person, every bit of economic activity.

If your criterion for a carbon tax is that it not have any detrimental effect on even one industry, then you are setting impossible standards. If you are limiting your discussion of "the economy" to some fraction of the total economy, then you're going to need to clearly define what is in and what is out of your "number of industries". And you will need to justify why the rest of the economy doesn't matter to you.

At #23, I had asked (and you have not yet answered)

Do you want to be part of the group that pays for the damage costs of someone else's fossil fuel use, part of the group that is happy to let someone else pay for damage caused by your use of fossil fuels while you get the benefits, or some other group?

It is looking more and more as if you want to be part of the group that is happy to let someone else pay for damage caused by your use of fossil fuels while you get the benefits. Your "number of industries" that you want to protect from damage are likely the ones that provide you with those benefits. And the part of the economy that you want to ignore is likely the part that makes others suffer from the costs of fossil fuel use.

In comment #56 I gave a list of historical events. Every one covers changes that will have winners and losers. If you get to choose which parts of the economy to include in a cost-benefit analysis, then you can make any one of those look like a good change or a bad change.

To choose which evidence you will consider on the basis of what you like leads you down the path of motivated reasoning.

Up your game. Stop making vague assertions that mean nothing when examined closely.

Going South at 12:52 PM on 19 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7

John, it’s far worse than that.

The Arctic had less sea ice last year than any other year on record.

There, I've said it. It has gone totally unreported.

NOAA's Arctic Report Card, Jeremy Mathis, Emily Osborne, National Snow & Ice Data Center, Eric Holthaus, Grist, the National Geographic, Brad Plumer, Vox, they all decided, together with endless more people, against releasing this key climate change data to the public.

Axel Schweiger at PIOMAS tried to sugar the pill by claiming 2017 volume tied with 2012 for the lowest on record, but later conceded it was in fact lower by about 5%.

Don't believe me? Check out the very–very downplayed info in the 2nd paragraph at http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Moderator Response:

[PS] Link fixed. Note that "annually averaged" sea ice volume qualification. Not such an easy concept for public grasp compared to seaice maximum and minimums.

nigelj at 12:51 PM on 19 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

Alchemyst @18, interesting information on mortality rates for various sources of electricity. However the most relevent comparison is really nuclear against wind and solar power, and there the gap isn't so huge. I assume solar power deaths are installers falling off roofs! And yes the mortality rate per trillion watts is the important thing.

But again, remember most nuclear power is currently in well run countries like America and France. Also, its not just about mortality rates. Chernobyl polluted large areas of land, and decimated the Ukraines agricultural exports for years.

I think it's also a psychological perception issue. Nuclear accidents are scary events, even although very uncommon. Its similar to islamic terrorism in western countries. The public struggle to realise deaths from these things are low, measured against population, or watts of electricity. Not that this makes either acceptable things of course.

It won't be enough to say "safety has been improved". I suggest it will need something distinctly new to win over the public. However right now wind and solar power is proving popular with generating companies, and results like this speak larger than theoretcial claims.

Sorry for blathering on as well. But its an interesting issue.

scaddenp at 12:09 PM on 19 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

Lets suppose the you have 100% efficient carbon tax and no action to reduce carbon. Everyone gets the money they spent on carbon tax directly back. Its an odd and unnecessary circle but if money doesnt leak, then where is the harm?

Of course it is massively disruptive if in fact consumers/generators react by switching to other energy forms. But again the question, does that harm the economy? Locally yes - collapse of coal mining in UK under Thatcher has communities still in recovery mode, but did it damage the economy of UK?

I would say much of the resistance is fact due to FUD or worse from the FF industry. You point to Europe, but they took steps under Kyoto and brought in ETS (as did say NZ with its abundant hydro) instead. There are pro and cons to ETS versus carbon tax (especially when there is a big defector like the US), but it is incorrect to say other nations have done nothing. The US is the big non-actor and its failure to do anything ( or even exploiting others ETS) is the major problem.

And back to incrementalism - it is pretty obvious that increasing carbon emissions at rate we have done has had a serious backfire that needs to be redressed very quickly. I strongly suspect the Popper would say that when untended consequences from failure of incrementalism occur, then reverse is a desirable option.

NorrisM at 11:05 AM on 19 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

michael sweet, nigelj, scaddenp & Bob Loblaw

I have obviously hit a nerve with my comments regarding "harming the economy".

First of all, that comment was initially addressed at Bob Loblaw and then scaddenp regarding his graphic. But I was really only addressing the imposition of a carbon tax at a level that would have deleterious effects on the economy. No I am not going to get involved in defining "harming the economy" because it is too complex an issue. You do not need "peer reviewed articles" to know that a $150/tonne carbon tax would have serious repercussions on a number of industries, just a little common sense. My understanding is that Bob Loblaw is not suggesting this level but I suspect that all his proposed direct costs would in fact result in a level at least this high.

My principal point was that governments have the resources to make those decisions on what will and will not harm the economy. As part of that process they will have to convince their electorate.

I am not also going to attempt to research "peer reviewed articles" that show what damage certain environmental policies would have on the economy for the very same reason. This is a very complex matter that cannot be resolved on a climate website. Let governments decide whether "peer reviewed articles" on the costs of conversion are realistic. My understanding is that the Lord Stern report has been severely criticized by a number of his peers.

So cutting to the quick, here is the question: If the proposed steps have not yet been taken by any country in the world (other than promises to do so by 2030), then why has it not been done to date?

Why has not Germany, France or Sweden taken the required steps to date?

My guess, is that politically it would be impossible for them to do so. Politically they can sign the Paris Agreement but they cannot politically follow through.

That is only a guess but here are three forward looking countries. Clearly all of them are taking steps but have they have not done what is required of them even to meet a 2C target. My understanding is that Germany is having serious issues politically with the issue of coal. But why is Sweden not there with their abundance of hydro to assist them?

If this is so simple and does not pose any danger to the economy (Lord Stern notwithstanding), then why cannot we point to these countries as having "achieved the goal"?

To me the answer is that the solutions would not be approved by their electorates. So I am back to democracy and incrementalism. Do what you can do.

Alchemyst at 09:59 AM on 19 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

The Abbot paper looks for problems but does not indicate that are solutions already known but possibly in need of development. He is basing his arguments on current designs of light water U-235 reactors where there are alternatives that have been used in the past and future designs. He also only discusses liquid metal cooled breeder reactors where alternativea are currently in development.

With regards to my diagram of elemental abundances I believe that it is the same one that Abbott used both cite USGS http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/

Abbott starts with a premise that future nuclear reactors will be the same design and require the same construction materials as currently used, however there are alternatives.

Halfnium is used as a control rod /scram material, yet boron is an abundant and cheap alternative and has certainly been used in the past> Other alternatives are also used, silver and cadmium, gadolinium(bit rare)

Zirconium used for cladding the fuel rods, stainless steel , not as good but is also used.

He bases his arguments on U-235 (points 8,9 10)
fuel cycle which amounts to 0.711% of uranium. Yet thorium is 400 times as abundant as U-235.

Thorium is not fissile and is converted to U-233 in the reactor. This is done by using an initial charge of U-235 (or the dreaded Pu-239) after which as the U-235 is burned up it is replaced at a ratio of slightly grater than 1 to 1 by U-233.

Demonstration breeder reactors have been operated using U-238 fuel as well as thorium.. Many have used liquid metal as the coolant (eg sodium which is explosive in contact with water) yet in Julich, Germany a gas cooled reactor was operated for 20 years, but it did have a number of problems with contamination leaks. However pebble bed reactors do not need control rods (no halfnium) since as the temperature rises the reactivity of the reactor decreases and so do not go to meltdown. The fuel is clad in carbon and silicon carbide so no Zirconium is required. There has been an other prototype in Germany but that is shut down, There is a third currently operational in China, with another in construction.

India is currently constructing a thorium heavy water cooled reactor.

Thorium technology is largly undeveloped so we cannot write it off nor can we state that it will be the saviour. It still has the uranium cycle problems of public acceptance, potential bad practices. However as thought, to my knowledge there has only been one accidentaldeath in a civilian US Nuclear facility in the last 50 years (citation required but it was an NRC announcement some 5 years ago when it happened) and it was a non nuclear accident.

It is hard to believe but take a look at this referencehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#135d6fe7709b

This is far too big a topic for me to complete and I realise that I have rambled a bit and no I will not provide peer reviewed citations because I do not have the time.

michael sweet at 09:00 AM on 19 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

I think there should be a nuclear article to collect comments. As it is we have the same comments over again every two or three months. The problem is that if I write the article it will be negative. In general I do not like to read negative articles so It would be better for someone who likes nuclear to write the article. So far the people who support nuclear have not been willing to put in the effort.

scaddenp at 08:51 AM on 19 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

"What the public most thinks most about are jobs, education, health care, pensions, taxes, etc etc ie. the "economy". So "harming the economy" is very relevant. "

But the point is that harming the environment will hurt society and economy. I am continuing to harp on about the fact that you are concerned about "harm to economy" from decarbonizing (with little to support that contention), but unconcerned about damage climate change does the economy if you dont address it. Economic studies to date show better to mitigate than adapt. Where is your peer-reviewed reports to show the opposite.

I agree that decarbonizing will disrupt the economy. (FF industries go to the wall). I am unconvinced it will harm the economy. Show me the studies that show more harm from decarbonizing than adaption.

scaddenp at 08:26 AM on 19 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

I am neutral on nuclear power - looks a good option for some parts of the world, but Abbot's review is pretty sobering. The lack of response from the nuclear industry is also rather worrying. Perhaps new technology will change things.

However, the biggest issue with nuclear world wide would seem to be lack of investors -some strong doubt as to whether investing in nuclear will make a reasonable return (if at all). If Alchemyst is so sure about the technology, then by all means buy some shares in companies wanting to build one. For me though, my money is in hydro, solar and geothermal which have all done well for me.

nigelj at 06:29 AM on 19 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

I agree with PC @13. A world with thousands of reactors becomes problematic for numerous reasons, but we shouldn't completely rule out nuclear energy. For example if a country doesn't have other good options, but they appear to be in a minority.

I wonder if France developed nuclear power, because of limited hydro and coal reserves, and a desire not to be reliant on importing coal from germany? This is just a pure guess, and could well be wrong, but does anyone know, I couldn't find anything.

nigelj at 05:59 AM on 19 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

M Sweet @12

I think an article on nuclear power would make sense. It would provide some background information on strengths and weaknesses, and as you say its a place to direct nuclear commentary. In this sense, it ensures peoples opinions on nuclear aren't simply being ignored which is important in terms of balance and website image.

Theres an old saying "if it looks too good to be true, it probably is". I think nuclear power had near miraculous promise, but I remember thinking at the time it looked too good to be true. We have discovered a whole range of downsides, and other alternative electricity sources.

Best not to be closed minded of course, but I think its entirely up to the nuclear industry to provide a safe afforable version of nuclear power. I hear this talk of thorium, but if its as good as the advocates claim, why isn't it a reality?

Philippe Chantreau at 01:39 AM on 19 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

France is certainly one of the best examples to see what widespread application of nuclar energy looks like. It was a success and then hit some limits. One of them is time: the plants are all ageing, they need extensive work to go on for another 50 years, which is quite a short time span in the grand scheme of things, especially considering that the reactors will be something to manage in some form or another for pretty much ever. Ironically, nuclear energy production is also suffering from climate change: as the waters used by the plants (outisde the closed circuit of the core) tend to be warmer and the temperatures increase, they are faced with restrictions as to how much water can be released and how warm these waters can be. Constructions of new plants has not been very well received: the one built in Finland is 10 years behind schedule and billions over budget, reflecting poorly on the industry's capability to deliver, even from actors with one of the highest expertise in the matter. The costs are extremely high. Although the problem of waste remains, it is notable that France never had a major incident, unlike the US and Russia. Japan also has an excellent record, except for the Fukushima event, which was owed mostly to poor siting. It is highly dubious, however, that such safety performance could be maintained across a wide range of less well functioning states if nuclear was to be generalized through the world as a main energy source. It shouldn't be ouright ruled out inall circumstances but it is certainly no miracle solution.

michael sweet at 20:56 PM on 18 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

Alchemyst at 10,

I note that you have cited Wikipedia twice but have no peer reviewed data to answer my peer reviewed study that concluded that nuclear is completely impractical. I will also point out that no-one has published a response to Abbott 2011. Nuclear proponents appear to have conceded that Abbott is correct. You only responded to 2 of Abbotts 14 issues regarding nuclear. Presumably you think the others are correct. (Note: Wikipedia references to percent abundance of materials in the crust are not the same as economically recoverable reserves).

France has announced that they are expanding renewable energy and reducing nuclear.

When I go to Brave New Climate, which nuclear supporters used to cite as the go to web site for nuclear information, I see that nothing in support of nuclear has been posted in over 18 months. Barry Brooks (owner of Brave New Climate) was one of the reviewers of Abbott 2011 so he must have been convinced.

I have lost count of the number of times I have asked nuclear supporters to write an article in support of nuclear for Skeptical Science. No one who supports nuclear feels that it is worth their time to write such an article. You are welcome to write the article. If you cite peer reviewed data (Wikipedia is not good enough) it will probably get posted.

I have thought about writing an article based on Abbott 2011 so that we have one location for all the pro-nuclear blather. Do other readers think it would be worth having such an article?

Here is a peer reviewed article that shows there are enough materials to manufacture all the needed wind and solar power generators. There was not enough neodynium for the wind turbines so new wind turbines have been designed that do not use neodynium.

nigelj at 12:33 PM on 18 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

Alchemyst @10,

People seem to get very passionate about advocating nuclear power for some reason. Its almost a little extreme.

Please note there may be large quantities of hafnium in sea water and in zircon (?) etc but this gets expensive to extract, that is probably the significant point. Its the same issue with minerals in general, and they are all essentially limited finite resources ultimately.

And regardless of resource issues, not many countries are building nuclear reactors, due to capital costs, time delays and so on. You can't force it upon them.

"You should read the news a bit more Iran and North Korea already have nuclear power"

Iran only has one nuclear reactor fully operational last year I think, and gets most of its electricity by far from gas and other sources.

www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/iran.aspx

But the real point is thousands of reactors around the world will create a real global safety risk, especially in badly run countries. These sorts of accidents don't respect borders. You could do a complicated costs benefit analysis, but I still don't like it too much.

I confess I grew up during the three mile island scare and chernobyl, and these things imprinted a little on me and made me sceptical, but clearly these disasters were still pretty serious. I think I have it in perspective, and the safety issue is still a very real concern. Chernobyl needed a concrete encasement costing billlions, and this already leaks, and needs to be replaced every 100 years basically forever.

France is a well run country, but others aren't and will have slack safety standards. You would need to be very careful in earthquake vulnerable countries, because one blunder with the design of the building and its all over. Have you seen what building standards are like in third world countries? Its shockingly poor and corrupted.

I think the nuclear advocates need a safer technology, and then you will find people will listen.

Alchemyst at 11:04 AM on 18 February 2018

The EPA debunked Administrator Pruitt’s latest climate misinformation

Sweet at 03:16, 13 feb

Please look at the graph in Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#/media/File:Elemental_abundances.svg

There is far more Halnium on earth than there is uranium.

Halfnium is used as a neutron absorber in a nuclear reactor and absorbers are only necessary in small amounts in civilian reactors. Its use is mainly needed for naval reactors where high power to weight ratio is essential and the fuel is highly enriched and so a greater proportion of neutron absorber is required. Civilian reactors use low enriched fuel less than 5% U235 and use far less absorber than a naval reactor. Neutron absorbers are only a minor component in a civilian reactor (but very important) In fact netron absorbers lower the reactivity of the reactor and so the leas used the better. For civilian reactors there is absolutley no need to use halfnium it is a design choice since there are many other absorbers that are also used such as boron (100 times more abundant than uranium) and considerably cheaper than hafnium, gadolinium and samarium. At a push cadmium may be used but is toxic.

I could go through the rest of your diatribe but will give you a couple examples, 70 % of the electricity generated by France is from nuclear power (40 % of total energy) If France can do it the the rest of the world can.

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

. It has found space to put them, and exports electricity to Britain and Germany.

"I note that to power the world countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea and Zimbabwe would have to install nuclear".

You should read the news a bit more Iran and North Korea already have nuclear power

Now for the finite uranium resource. In the current type of reactors U-235 is almost exclusively the only fuel. It is present at 0.711% in natural uranium and using current enrichment techniques just over a half of the material is extraced into the fuel, the rest remains in the tails for future extraction.

The rest of the uranium, mainly U-238 can be used in an other design of reactor. which leads us to 99 times the current fuel resouce. In addition thorium can also be used to fuel reators in which there is a further ten fold abundance on earth.

It is not the lack of resource that limits the use of nuclear power but the public acceptance and the improved technology that that would require.

nigelj at 09:50 AM on 18 February 2018

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

I think a lot of this climate denialism is founded in political ideology, and fear of change, which goes deep in some people, along with fear of giving up even a little financial benefit for the sake of environmental goals. These attitudes are complex and partly learned and partly genetic, with plenty of science on this issue.

However we just can't avoid change sometimes. We would all be better off if we let science guide us on matters of change, because its the most rigorous information we have. That would be the main thing.

And everyone likes to make a profit. Renewable electricity is now profitable, and watch everyone eventually accept this and get on board, apart from the complete crazies.

One Planet Only Forever at 09:00 AM on 18 February 2018

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

Further thoughts related to my comment at 28.

This issue could also be seen as a conflict between Teaching/Education and Indoctrination/Brainwashing.

Teaching and education today is very different from the past. That is because, when performed properly teaching/education is updated as new awareness and more complete or more correct understanding develops.

Attempts to maintain previous understandings can be seen as being the result of effective indoctrination/brainwashing rather than genuine educating that leaves the learner open to new learning, or as a result of personal resistance to new awareness and understanding (a self-imposed indoctrination/brainwashing).

And new awareness and understanding that contradicts a perceived to be personally beneficial belief could even be challenged as being an attempt to indoctrinate/brainwash people (that could be how it is perceived by people with a motivation to hold onto beliefs that the new awareness and understanding contradicts).

That would explain the high percentage of highly educated people in regions like Alberta choosing to disagree with the developed better awareness and understandings of climate science and arguing that 'they do not have to give up their potential for benefit just because of claims about the future developed by climate science', after all, they can vote in their preferred leaders and profit from the activity, so it must be justified.

Regional socio-economics can result in indoctrination/brainwashing of many people including people who have completed high levels of education. To change their minds, they would have to admit they have allowed themselves to desire unacceptable things, admit their developed desired ways to pursue benefit are harmful to others, and admit that their perceived success/superiority relative to others is not deserved. Those can be powerful motivations to not change their minds.

nigelj at 08:39 AM on 18 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7

On second thoughts, electricity generated by wood pellets and the like probably wouldn't respond fast enough to help with wind intermmitency issues, power outages or sudden peak load situations?

Humanity is sure in the deep end over climate issues, and making sense of solutions. However we have quite a range of possible negative emissions systems, and promoting all of them equally may be the best option right now, and they will add together.

nigelj at 06:55 AM on 18 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7

BECCS has its merits, but there just probably isn't enough land to scale it up massively. Biofuels would have to take priority over BECCS, as they are the only realistically potential way of dealing with aircraft emissions.

The article also gave no indictation of whether there are enough geological formations suitable for storing such massive quantities of CO2 from plantations the size of India. Storing emissions like this also looks expensive to me.

However BECCS has one advantage not mentioned. Wind and solar have intermittency problems, and BECCS could resolve those perfectly if it was perhaps 10% - 20% of electricity generation. The land areas required to do this might be realistic in scale, and you are getting at least some absorption of atmospheric carbon. So maybe BECCS is destined to be part of an overall mix of negative emissions technologies and systems.

Sequestering soil carbon seems an attractive option to me, because its just a change of technology using existing land, and doesn't require additional land or huge changes in crops. Its almost purely a question of convincing 570 million farmers. But a lot of farmers already use no till or reduced till farming, and regenerative farming has a range of benefits in addition to the climate issue. Its a huge scaling up challenge in terms of education, but at least there are no hard land limits like BECCS, and there are no obvious downsides.

One Planet Only Forever at 04:48 AM on 18 February 2018

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

As a professional engineer I was never opposed to climate science. I was less aware than I should have been, mainly because the socio-economic systems were not raising awareness of the issue.

Increased awareness and understanding of climate science was natural for me as an engineer dedicated to constantly increasing my awareness and understanding of things related to my works as a civil and structural engineer. Regional extreme climate design conditions are the basis of much of the designs developed by civil and structural engineers. So the rapid pace of climate change potentially creating unanticipated climate conditions became a serious concern of mine.

As I was becoming more aware of, and better understanding, climate science I was amazed to see others in my profession in Alberta being dismissive of climate science and even being angry at anyone who tried to increase proper awareness and understanding of climate science.

That behaviour needed an explanation. I also have a MBA, and learned about the way that pursuers of wealth can develop damaging desires and try to justify them (usually wanting the items I was engineering to be cheaper and done quicker and not liking me pointing out the reasons they could not get what they wanted). It led me to wonder about the power of socio-economic situations on the way people think, and to date I have reached the following understanding, consistent with many other presentations of human behaviour.

The socio-economic environment a person developed their ways of thinking in can challenge their ability or willingness to change their minds about climate science, or many other matters that they have a Private Interest in.

A Developed Lack of Concern for Others or the Future of Humanity can be the result of a competitive socio-economic environment (a desire for the best possible personal Present any way that can be gotten away with). And that lack of concern can lead to unacceptable ways of deciding what is acceptable.

People can be easily tempted to believe that acceptability should be determined by comparing personal (Private Interest) perceptions of joy/benefit to the perceived harm/detriment that actions cause, with the personal conclusion being that things are acceptable as long as the perceived personal joy/benefit obtained exceeds the assessment of harm done (as the person pursuing benefit sees it).

And competition to appear to be better-off ruled by popularity and profitability, rather than competition to be understood to be most helpful ruled by Good Reason, develops more people who are more determined to believe that unacceptable way of determining the acceptability of attitudes and actions.

And groups of people who share that unacceptable way of determining acceptability can be seen to gather together in opposition to any developing better understanding that contradicts their preferred, but understandably unacceptable, Private Interest beliefs.

RickG at 01:35 AM on 18 February 2018

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

The main thing I think needs pointing out with respect to the skeptical/denial side, is that almost entirely all of their claims come from people, blogs, media and organizations with absolutely no science background what so ever, much less that of climatology. Additionally, the science papers they criticize are based on cherry picked data or deliberate misrepresentations of what those papers actually show. Also, I would have to ask these skeptics/deniers why is it that none of the non consensus climate scientists are taking any of the 97% consensus papers and showing "specifically" their mistakes?

michael sweet at 21:07 PM on 17 February 2018

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

Alchemyst,

I was commenting in the same spirit as your post I was replying to.

Medical papers are a special case where comanies with much money to gain have gamed the system. Scientists have identified that there is a problem and are working on solving this problem.

By contrast, all the money in climate is on the denier side. Seminal papers have been reproduced many times. Arrhenius 1896 paper is still in the IPCC range and he did his calculations with a pencil. Many projections of temperature rise have been shown to be within the range of error after 30-50 years wile denier claims of flat ot cooling have been proved incorrect. Review the temperature comparisons here at SkS or at Realclimate. Jacobson has hundreds of citations that get about the same result as he did on using renewable energy. While there are undoubtedly errors in Jacobson's work, the replication of his work by so may others shows he was on the right path.

The consensus of evidence is what shows us that Climate Theory is on the correct path. Yout claim is false.

I see that as I expected, you trust experts most of the time. It is only when you do not like the result that you claim that they are always incorrect.

You inform no-one when you claim that peer reviewers do not re-do the papers they review. It is not their job. They are supposed to provide a filter to remove errors but they are not expected to be perfect. The good journels (like Science and Nature) do a pretty good job of removinng the chaff. Lower quality jourals are not as good.

Mann's hockey stick paper has been reproduced by other people using different data hundreds of times. How much replication do you need? Every global climate model (dozens of different models) makes a projection of future temperatures. That is in addition to the papers that sepecifically address the climate sensitivity by other means like comparison to past temperatures.

Replication by obtaining the same result by a different path, as has been done repeatedly in climate science, is better than re-doig the experiment. Your insistance on re-doing things over is rarely done.

Your argument is incorrect. Your claims do not withstand the slighest examination. You should apologize to the hard working scientists you have insulted.

nigelj at 18:00 PM on 17 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

The so called "harm the economy" issue is meaningless, and scaremongering, unless people are specific on what they mean. I haven't had time to read the links on the costs studies, but here are a couple of thoughts from a slightly different perspective, stripping it right back to first principles.

Start with a basic normally accepted definition.The economy is the way 'society' chooses to organise the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services and money. This can be paraphrased as the best use of scarce recources.

Reducing emissions doesn't really reorganise how the economy works in terms of basic decision making and systems. It might add a carbon tax, but taxes are nothing new, and its limited to one product essentially. Even Trump wants a petrol tax for road funding.

Reducing emissions has some potential to have inflationary effects, but not significantly as I talked about above. It doesn't have to add debt. However the point is, its hard to see why it would cause stability problems, like economic bubbles do.

Of course nobody thinks making the required changes comes for free. We need to cap industrial emissions and replace coal plant etcetera. But costs of all this are put at a couple % of gdp, which equates to a couple of % of our income each year, not some doubling of income tax, or massive drop in living standards. Renewable electricity is already cheaper than fossil fuels, and it creates jobs.

The point on discounting of future costs is a good point and needs to be considered.

And of course there are the costs of continuing to use fossil fuels. They harm the economy, and not just because of CO2, and they are not ultimately a sustainable resource in the way solar power is for example.

Until its all broken down like this into the component issues, we will go around in circles.

nigelj at 16:52 PM on 17 February 2018

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

Alchemyst @24

Thank's for the links etc. Interesting.

I didn't really refer to the peer review system as such. I'm just saying climate science generates a huge mountain of research, even on basic causation. It would be almost impossible for one individual to make sense of it all to see what it adds up to, and it seems only a large organisation like the IPCC or someone like the BEST organisation can do this as a team effort. And we see meta studies. None of this is ideal, but I'm mystified what the practical alternative would be.

Likewise as MS says no one individual can be expert in everything in life. I like to think I am, but I'm just not!

But regarding peer review. I have never been involved in this, but I was a quality assurance manager for a design company for a couple of years, so I know about reviewing things and writing QA systems.

I think peer review is a very good system from my general knowledge, but its only really a means to maintain quality, and weed out obvious junk science and basic errors to declutter things. It doesn't mean every paper is guaranteed100% correct. I think the correctness can only be established by how the science community responds to published science over time, so its a quite drawn out subtle kind of process to me. But it basically works well.

Of course peer review isn't perfect, and some absolute junk slips through the system sometimes. That is not good. But nothing is perfect. And it's expensive to purchase research. On the other hand, peer reeview has worked well enough for a long time, and you would need a significantly better alternative. Journals that make scientists pay are not too compelling, and this website did an article I think.

The validation system is hard to understand, looks complicated, and like its subcontracting part of the process to some person, who in turn is validated by someone else? This looks like an expensive process, and is not going to be 100% proof something is correct. However it would provide a sort of chain of documents identifying strengths and problems in a rigorous, formalised way and this is a strength.

The stealth syndromes project peer review reproducability... I think this is all good commentary.

This makes obvious sense "For all those reasons, important decisions should not be based on a single study, but need to be made on the basis of a consensus of the overall body of trustworthy studies considered as a whole."

Repoducability and easily available and full data and methods definitely needs much more emphasis.

Stealth systems what is peer review? Churchill sums it up well. Again the criticisms of peer review make sense, and I certainly think the suggestions to improve peer review largely make sense, after a quick read.

I wouldn't blame regulatory agencies too much. They are just people trying to do a job, and are governed by partisan politics, which is sometimes very hostile even to the idea of a regulatory agency. This probably warps things.

Ultimately no checking procedure will be perfect but they can certainly be very good. I think it comes down to how studies stand up over time to wider scrutiny and more information, and also having multiple studies, especially of criticaly important science. For example, the risk of saturated fats seems to have been exaggerated to some extent, and was based on a small number of rather old papers apparently. The body of research on climate change is much larger and more recent.

Yes the climate debate gets a bit personal at times unfortunately. Perhaps theres fault on both sides. However Michael Mann and other "warmists" have been viciously insulted and received death threats not so much from scientists, but from political groups etc. Anyone in his shoes would then get bad tempered sometimes, although he seems very affable.

I have my share of dark thoughts on certain people, and its also possible to be excessively polite, but I dont like debates that become highly abusive. It just becomes a shouting match.

Alchemyst at 12:32 PM on 17 February 2018

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

michael you are offensive.

Read the Feyman quotes. My opinion is that he was the greatest scintist of his era

Also

scientists were unable to replicate the results of 47 out of 53 papers that were seminal to launching drug-discovery programs. “This is a systemic problem built on current incentives,” he said according to Nature.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33719/title/Science-s-Reproducibility-Problem/

Sweet

In answer to your question regarding medics. I do not self diagnose but I always ask to see the test results and often ask for a second opinion. I only fly in planes that have co-pilots. It's what is known as double contingency. The systems allow it for a very good reason as a bad decision can easily be fatal. As for a second shot at filling a cavity, on that, I gernerally think that once is enough, the pain ain't worth the gain.

nigelj, you seem to give too much reverence and attribute too much power to the peer review system. It is better to have it than to have not. But it has limitations, in that it does not guarantee
that the work is reproducible, or correct, see above. The reviewers check it for grammer, style, reasoning but not specifically that the results are correct and reproducible. see https://www.springeropen.com/get-published/peer-review-process.

1/ I have personal experience of stopping an already peer reviewed paper from an eminent scientist going to publication. The reasoning in the paper was correct. His results were not faked, but his conclusions had a mistake, which had only become apparent through supplemental work which we had performed at our own suggestion to strengthen his work. Upon hearing of our results he pulled the paper back. But it was only by luck through that eminent scientist talking with my collegue that these supplemental tests were performed.

2/ Peer reviewers are normally very busy and do not go to their labs and repeat the experiment, or in the case of climate reseach do not repeat the darting of polar bears or checking the thermometer readings. However there should be sufficient information available so that another researcher can reproduce the results. Please read the next ref in it you will find how long a reviewer spends on a paper. the longest time in this unscientific sample was one day whilst the researcher may well have encompassed an entire PhD project of 900 days. It can hardly do merit to the original work.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99238/how-do-people-peer-review-many-papers

3/ Having shown you the weakness of the publish and peer review process, it is still better than nothing at all. However it does have a strength. It sets out a paper with a conclusion that can be confirmed or denied by someone else skilled in the art. In reality most papers end up in the journal and get read by the apocraphal 2 and a half other researchers on a wet thursday afternoon. But sometimes someone will take the effort to properly check out the paper, which is more likeley if the guy has a genuine interest or maybe does not like the author. It is only then do we have any idea if the paper was reproducible or just bad sciencce. I hope now that you and this website will realise that Muller did the correct thing

please take the time to read these attachments and give me your opinion

https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/reproducibility-vs-peer-review/

http://stealthsyndrome.com/?p=359

http://stealthsyndrome.com/?p=2125

ps from the accounts Bohr and Einstein were always disagreeing with each others papers and trying to find holes in them. Yet both men had a deep respect for each other (and both men went out to meet the young Feynman ) and that is how scientific knowledge progresses. What I am seeing in the climate change argument is a lot of disagreement without respect.

nigelj at 07:23 AM on 17 February 2018

New research, February 5-11, 2018

Excellent research on deconstructing denialist myths, and fascinating.

Regarding your example:

P1: The climate has changed in the past through natural processes
P2: The climate is currently changing
C: The climate is currently changing through natural processes

In summary this is of course one of the most frustrating denialist arguments, because the fact that climate changed before does not mean natural causes are a driving factor today. Its logically flawed before even needing to consider the science.

However its also a frustrating argument, because I think there are other issues as well. I think this is how some denialists might see this particular myth:

P1: The climate has changed in the past.
P2: The climate is currently changing
C: Change happens all the time, so why worry?

The premises are true, but it is of course a false deduction because the argument lacks sufficient information on cause, consequences, dangers, and options available to humanity to change things to draw the conclusion. Its also a form of philosophical fatalism.

Some denialists also see the myth in yet another way in my experience:

P1: The climate has changed in the past, and humanity survived.
P2: The climate is currently changing
C: So why worry?

The premisese are true, but are not sufficient reasons because mere survival still had huge costs, and the past is not fully understood, and relevant to todays more complex integrated technological world with billions of people. So the premises are misleading, or have inadequate information.

This is possibly why "climate has changed before" is such a recurring and annoying myth, because it possibly combines three arguments in the one myth, all logically flawed. Its a sort of super myth.

jclairea at 05:15 AM on 17 February 2018

News network climate reporting soared in 2017 thanks to Trump

The fact that our digital age enables people to “stay up to date” with current events strictly through outlets that do not pose a threat to their viewpoint or identity is a curious phenomenon. Theoretically, the interconnectivity that technology offers allows for diversity in coverage and opinion relating to a particular issue (e.g. https://www.allsides.com/), yet many people have constructed their own worldview and voluntarily choose to stay within its confines. For instance, according to the article’s “US Corporate News Network Climate Coverage” figure, in 2016, FOX News only discussed climate-related matters for approximately five minutes in total. This is in part due to the presidential election, and for those who view FOX News exclusively, the topic of climate change is simply irrelevant, even nonexistent within the lens by which they interpret the world. Further, I found the comparison of major news networks’ — ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and FOX — coverage of extreme weather events in 2017 in the context of climate change to be very interesting and helpful for better understanding the scope of these outlets. Luckily, climate reporting in 2017 generally increased relative to 2016; however, the corporate broadcast networks including ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX only aired four total segments relating to natural disasters and climate change. Contrastingly, PBS continues to be an exemplar in publicly advancing climate science data, yet may face substantial reductions in federal funding in light of Trump’s proposed budget. It is critical that as conscious citizens we continue to be skeptical and inquisitive of what we hear and see on the news, pushing back against vested monetary interests that value arbitrary wealth over planetary longevity.

One Planet Only Forever at 01:46 AM on 17 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

michael sweet@77 provides a comprehensive rational assessment of NorrisM's commenting to date.

I would add that the issue neglected or deliberately ignored by NorrisM and many others is the proper consideration of the Future for humanity including the economies of the future.

NorrisM has correctly observed the problem: The development of a focus on 'Trying to get the best personal Present (Private Interest) rather than living a Good life helping Others, especially helping to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity (Global Public Interest)'.

However, NorrisM fails to understand/admit that is a problem to be corrected (and many others share that failing).

The economic evaluations I have seen, including the evaluations by Stern, side-step the issue of the simple unacceptability of current day activities negatively affecting the future. They often pretend that perceived benefits today translate into eternal future benefits.

One way they do that is by comparing the 'costs today, or lost opportunities for perceptions of prosperity today, of rapidly correcting the incorrectly over-developed activities' with 'an assessment of future costs created by those incorrectly over-developed popular and profitable activities'. And things are declared to be OK as long as the evaluation shows less future costs than the current day costs of correction. That is like declaring it is OK to do something you enjoy/benefit from because you have determined that the joy/benefit you get is more than the cost/distress/annoyance you consider you have created for your neighbour.

In addition to that obviously fundamentally unfair method of evaluating acceptability:

current day costs often get exaggerated
future costs are limited to a few specifically identified future impacts.
reduction of non-renewable resources is ignored, no future costs assigned for that.
Future costs get reduced by discounting, basically saying the future is less important than the present. Note that Net-Present Value type discounting is a legitimate way to evaluate alternative investment opportunities as long as the future costs are experienced fully by the ones receiving the present day benefit. Activities that future generations do not benefit from, like the burning of non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons, can only be acceptable if there is no negative future consequence. And the simple reduction of access to buried ancient hydrocarbons is a negative impact on future generations.

The bottom line is the developed popular concepts of 'pursuits of popularity and profitability economics' are in need of significant correction.

That means significant corrective education of the general population, another item NorrisM should be able to appreciate, unless his motives are different from the Global Public Interest of ensuring that activity today minimizes the harm done to future generations of humanity and actually develops sustainable better ways of living.

John Hartz at 00:48 AM on 17 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

An economic reason for mitigating manamde climate change now, rather than later...

Scientists are warning us that the winter is becoming shorter. First freezes are starting later. So when I look at my children, I am even more convinced that we must take immediate and aggressive action on climate if we want their generation to learn these sports and enjoy winters in the mountains. More important, we must act quickly to preserve the culture and economies that depend on winter and snow.
A report to be released this month by the group Protect Our Winters, which I founded, shows that tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in mountain towns as our climate warms. In total, the 191,000 jobs supported by snow sports in the 2015-16 winter season generated $6.9 billion in wages, while adding $11.3 billion in economic value to the national economy.

Saving Winter Is More Than About Snow. It’s About Jobs., Opinion by Jeremy Jones, New York Times, Feb 16, 2018

michael sweet at 21:53 PM on 16 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

orrism,

All the peer reviewed economic reports that I have seen from the Stern report on the Ecoomics of Climate Change up to the present show without question that it is much more economic to take strong action about AGW than to wait or go slowly as you suggest. I.E. it is much more damaging to the economy to use fossil fuels than to take action about AGW.

Your claims that reducing fossil fuel use might damage the economy are simply fake news and propaganda from oil companies. Please provide a peer reviewed economic analysis that indicates there is danger of harming the economy from reducing fossil fuel use. I doubt such an analysis exxists, it is all propaganda. Everyone who actually looks at the data concludes it is more economic to change to renewables.

You are simply spamming us here since you have provided zero peer reviewed studies to support your claims that taking action about AGW will damage the economy.

I have provided you at least 8 peer reviewed analysis of renewable energy like the Smart Energy Europe: The technical and economic impact of one potential 100% renewable energy scenario for the European Union and the Jacobson papers. All these analysis conclude it is cheaper to switch to renewable energy. They conclude jobs will increase and the economy will expand using renewables. You are simply voicing oil industry propagada. Provide peer reviewed evidece to support your absurd claims.

Moderators: Norrism has not provided any evidennce to support his repeated, wild claims. That is the defination of sloganeering. He should be required to provide citations to support his claims just like everyone else.

Your claim above about "what the climate may be in 2100" is specious. The climate will continue to change after 2100 even though the IPCC does not consider that time period. Peer reviewed economic analysis like I have cited above show that if we do not rapidly reduce fossil fuel use there is a strong likelyhood that all of civiliation will collapse. Farming in the world's breadbaskets will not be possible with 6C climate change.

Since fossil fuels will run out in 100 years or so anyway, we will be forced to use renewables in the end no matter what. Why destroy a living climate for those in the future when we can make the switch now?

Provide peer reviewed papers to support your wild claims.

nigelj at 19:18 PM on 16 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

Norris M @75

All you have said is that the public dont all understand the economy / environment relationship, and they worry about jobs. You are stating the obvious and reinforcing the general ignorance, so what is your point and purpose?

"That means convincing the public and if you make proposals that are not practical in relation to the economy then you are just whistling against the wind in my respectful view."

What impractical proposals?

You talk and talk and never really say anything. You go in circles like a merry go around like you are paid to waste time.

NorrisM at 16:01 PM on 16 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

scaddenp @ 71

The environment will always be here long after man has parted this world (after listening to a few of Sam Harris podcast interviews with people knowledgeable about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) all of this talk about what the climate may be in 2100 may be a bit academic, for the human race at least).

But assuming we somehow figure out "the alignment of AGI" and we still are around, again, it comes back not to what we might think is right (the left side or the right side of the graphic), but rather as to what does the public think about this graphic? My sense is that they would point to the representation on the left of the graphic.

What the public most thinks most about are jobs, education, health care, pensions, taxes, etc etc ie. the "economy". So "harming the economy" is very relevant.

From the above, I trust you will see Phillipe Chantreau that I believe the economy is much more than just "corporate profits".

It just seems to me to be irrelevant to talk about things in a vacuum. Anything we do has to come back to convincing governments elected (in theory) by the public to take action. That means convincing the public and if you make proposals that are not practical in relation to the economy then you are just whistling against the wind in my respectful view.

One Planet Only Forever at 10:11 AM on 16 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

nigelj,

I agree that the graphics presented by scaddenp are a good representation of different potential 'worldviews'. I would add that the right presentation is the only one that can be supported by reason.

Reality is the entire physical universe (or multi-verse if verifiable observation leads to that awareness and understanding). All of that physically understandable stuff is the Environment. Within that Environment there are Living things that have developed by 'fitting into the Environment'. Within Living Things there are Humans. Humans develop a variety of societies within the totality of Humanity. And each society of humans can have a variety of economies developed within it. But any part of developed life can only continue to exist if it is a sustainable part of the Environment.

Societies are developed by the interaction of individual humans. And economic activities are a sub-set of those human interactions. Therefore, the economy is a diversity of possibilities that can develop regionally and be changed as needed.

What is needed by Humanity is a sustainable future for humanity that is constantly getting better for all of humanity. That requires the interactions between humans to be constructive and helpful to the development of a sustainable better future for humanity. That requires all of the chosen to be developed interactions of the economy to be sustainable improvements for 'all of humanity including generations into the distant future'. Another way to say that is 'all human activity needs to fit in as a sustainable part of the environment'.

That understanding leads to the need for restrictions on human activity to protect the sustaining of a robust diversity of life in the environment, things like healthy water, healthy air, healthy soil, healthy food.

Those reasonably required restrictions contradict the preferred developed beliefs of the Economy-Centric types (the people who think the Economy Governs Reality and must be Protected, or at least be allowed to compromise Society or the Environment). Like a Religion, the Economy-Centric fans require Faith when the evidence (Reality) exposes that a developed profitable and popular Economic activity is harmful to the pursuit of sustainable development benefiting all of humanity, especially the future of humanity. But Economy-Centric belief is unlike spiritual religions because almost every spiritual religion includes teachings of the need for humans to honour, respect and protect the Environment and other life.

Philippe Chantreau at 09:50 AM on 16 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

"the economy can't exist without the environment."

I can't think of a more concise and accurate way to define the problem. We are on the way to discover the true cost of ecosystem services; it's not going to be pleasant. The other aspect is this: the immense majority of arguments that go the "harm the economy" route conflate "the economy" and corporate profits.

nigelj at 07:38 AM on 16 February 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

Regarding Scaddenp's nice graphic, the right hand set notation is clearly the more convincing. The economy is a subset of the environment. The environment is more important than the economy, because the economy can't exist without the environment.

New Zealand had a proposal to change the resource management act environmental legislation, to make the economy equal to the environment, more like the left hand graphic. I think Scaddenp is from NZ, so may recall how this provision was fortunately defeated. While it sounded superficially appealing, and balanced, they cannot be considered equal as well demonstrated by your graphic. (I lobbied on this issue under the name of gandalf.)

Although it is self evident that the economy is also important. Imo its always going to have to be a case of demonstrating that some economic activity does not significantly harm the environment, and the RMA has a good process for this. Although I think it could be made to operate more quickly I think in a practical sense, without qualitatively changing the process and rules. Lawyers slow it all down (sorry Norris).

Here is a bit of a personal view on the forces behind all this. The environment is effectively a combination of our home in the galaxy, and the the raw materials of the economy. The environment is a limited and finite resource. While we may eventually be able to mine asteroids, we know this will have problems and limitations, even with the most optimistic assessment of the possibilities so we cannot possibly count on this sort of thing as a given.

The environment is constantly changing for natural and man made reasons. It can be transformed in ways that are sustainable, and ways that aren't sustainable. Waste can turn the planet into a rubbish dump, or be disposed of more carefully, or we can use alternative materials.

All these things are interrelated of course.

The goal should be to maximise the time humans can exist and flourish on this planet. The environment can be conserved with a combination of sustainable development goals and appropriate rules. It also requires a voluntary and enlightened change in both personal and corporate lifestyles and values. Ultimately, and sooner rather than later, population growth must slow radically. Economic growth must slow, or change its focus.

If all this doesn't happen by design and evolution, planetary limits are likely to force things to change and population and growth to fall the hard way.

nigelj at 05:43 AM on 16 February 2018

News network climate reporting soared in 2017 thanks to Trump

Regarding Trump pulling out of Paris, and similar matters. Imo much of what Donald Trump does is similar to internet trolling. Trolls set out to be provocative, seek attention and to cause maximum argument and disruption, and have certain personal characteritics all as below.

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

I think pulling out of Paris is partly just to be deliberately disruptive for the sake of it.

You could also add self centred plundering of the environment with no care for the consequences.

nigelj at 05:37 AM on 16 February 2018

News network climate reporting soared in 2017 thanks to Trump

My thanks to PBS, CBS, and NBC for making the effort to report the science.

Fox are just pathetic, completely asleep at the wheel. Anything that upsets their world view is ignored. This will come back to bite them and their supporters.

John Hartz at 04:45 AM on 16 February 2018

Scott Pruitt insincerely asked what's Earth's ideal temperature. Scientists answer

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments