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 16001 to 16050:

NorrisM at 15:17 PM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

Riduna

"In 2017 the cost of renewable energy continued to fall with wind energy in the USA as low as $20/mWh, solar thermal dispatchable falling to around $50/mWh with grid-scale photovoltaic below $40/mWh compared to existing coal-fired generation at $40/mWh and new coal fired generation at $60-$70/mWh."

Along with a few of the other posts on this blog, there is no discussion of the present alternative costs of natural gas in the US in the competition of alternative energy sources.

Riduna, could you please provide the equivalent cost of natural gas per mWh?

Policymakers will know this cost. I think the sKs audience would also appreciate knowing this figure.

michael sweet @ 6

Are you suggesting that there has been a technological breakthrough with battery storage? My understanding is that this has not occurred. I do not fully understand the implications of the Tesla battery installation in Australia. Perhaps someone can elucidate.

nigelj at 12:46 PM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

Jef @1

"Financial pressures is another way of saying more people becoming poor and loosing access."

No they aren't going to become poor. The personal costs of large cuts in emissions might be $3000 a year in paying off extra costs of an electric car, renewable energy costs, and other costs. If you bought just a slightly smaller home, and less expensive appliances, and flew less, and wasted less, you would easily pay for the costs, and could even come out ahead financially.

It's about adjusting your priorities slightly.

michael sweet at 09:43 AM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

According to this article by JJoe Romm at ThinkProgress (a liberal web site), At a recent auction of wind and solar energy in Colorado the cost of wind with battery storage was cheaper than the running costs of any coal power plants in Colorado. Solar was cheaper than 75% of the coal plants in Colorado. These renenwable energy bids are lower than any fossil electricity in the USA.

Jeff: please provide evidence to support your wild claim that renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels in most locations. They do not have thousands of wind generators in Texas because they like the environment. They are the cheapest source of energy.

michael sweet at 09:31 AM on 11 January 2018

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

dkoli:

It appears that the OP refutes your link without any support needed. The simple fact that in 1850 CO2 was about 270 ppm and now it is about 410 ppm indicates that humans have significantly increased the concentration of CO2. In your link they agree that the CO2 concentration has increased.

dkoli at 08:26 AM on 11 January 2018

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

Any rebuttles to this (which I believe attempts to refute this page)

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/ask-randall-response-to-remarks-posted-by-david-camacho-to-redemption-of-the-beast

nigelj at 07:10 AM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

Jeff @1

"Starts out good then lapses into the usual gobbledgook."

This would more accurately apply to your own comments, and also rather unsubstantiated claims.

For example, I have no idea why you are talking about paying people, god only knows what that means. And I can't see the point of cutting all consumption and activity 80% and going back to the stone age, especially as much of that activity is not carbon intensive.

Relatively affordable focused personal sacrifices would work. For example buying electric cars, taking the bus, and less air travel, or building smaller less carbon intensive houses, etc, would go a long way to solve the climate problem. Carbon tax and dividend would modify behaviour, while giving most of the tax back.

nigelj at 06:40 AM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

Jef @2, in America a toyota corolla and a honda civic costs about $20,000, and the comparible size electric Nissan Leaf is about $32,000. However some states also offer subsidies, and the nissan leaf costs about $25,000. This is not "way more expensive."

www.cbsnews.com/news/subsidies-and-credits-may-make-the-nissan-leaf-affordable-but-not-a-slam-dunk/

The electric car also has much lower running costs and maintainance costs, which should be considered.

nigelj at 06:24 AM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

I agree simple carbon taxes like that don't work very well, and aren't terribly popular.

However without a carbon tax of some form, renewable energy would require substantial subsidies to get going, as we have seen in the UK for example, and this subsidy has to come from general taxation. This is a limited resource, and would compromise spending on other projects.

Carbon tax and dividend is another alternative that would help impel people towards renewable energy, help fund any subsidies, and would be more politically popular by giving something back to the public.

Carbon tax and renewable energy are not mutually exclusive, and just have to be done properly.

shastatodd at 05:29 AM on 11 January 2018

The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

thanks for this article.

i have previously researched this too and read (somewhere?) that the maunder minimum in the 1600's was estimated to have been caused by a -.4C (cooling).

this caused me to question the current line of thinking which says +2C is a "safe" limit for warming, because if -.4 caused a little ice age, how the heck can +2C be "ok"??

also it is very disconcerting that we are still warming when we should be cooling! yikes!

jef12506 at 03:41 AM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

Pay people to do less.

Pay people to go to school.

Pay people to farm and garden.

Pay people to do art and entertainment.

Pay people to travel the slow way.

I can go on and on.....

jef12506 at 03:37 AM on 11 January 2018

The Key To Slowing Global Warming

Starts out good then lapses into the usual gobbledgook.

Financial pressures is another way of saying more people becoming poor and loosing access. Renewables also mean more expensive any way you spin it. EV's are not cheaper to buy, they are way more expensive and will be until massive numbers are produced. Half of all Co2 emissions from the life of autos is generated before it rolls off the sales room floor, then there is the massive carbon intense infrastructure required.

All of the authors "solutions" are assuming that growth continues unabaited and everyone continues to get wealthy enough to afford the future. All of which means continued global emission increases. The building out of the future outlined in the post will require every last drop of FFs to accomplish.

The real solution??? We must all do LESS! Much less, like 80% less. Starting now.

citizenschallenge at 03:22 AM on 11 January 2018

Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution

Although I should add, I liked your comment enough to share it over at the CFI forum where we've got a discussion on pseudo-science going on (along with parts of #7 Aaron D).

Doug_C at 02:35 AM on 11 January 2018

The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

@JH

The "this" I was referring to is the belief that we can predict the long term changes in Solar output and then base policy on that.

Which seems to be the focus on a lot of these attempts to create doubt of whether we are in a warming phase - almost all the evidence says so - or at the edge of a cooling phase.

Based on the relative radiative forcings even a short term cooling phase is highly unlikely, the positive radiative forcing of the additional carbon dioxide alone we've added to the Earth's atmosphere is many times the negative forcings that result in full blown ice ages. The relative minor negative forcing of a prolonged Solar minimum would result in a slowing of global warming, not a cooling of the Earth. As the article above states.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Thanks for the clarification.

citizenschallenge at 02:06 AM on 11 January 2018

Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution

Mal, I don't think it's "confidence" it's absolutism and totalitarianist tendencies covering up for their profound lack of substantive confidence.

Pluto at 17:39 PM on 10 January 2018

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

TD @304

Water vapor levels vary locally and globally, because of numerous factors including not just temperature,...

I agree. The trouble is that your statement is in direct conflict with the needs of the AGW community for water vapor to be a feedback (not a forcing) in the greenhouse effect, and that happens only when the vapor concentration is a function solely of temperature. This is what allows the much weaker GHGs (such as CO2) to dominate the greenhouse effect (in model and theory) even in the presence of water vapor. Now, in order to constrain the H2O vapor concentrations to solely a function of temperature, John Cook and numerous climate scientists use the Clausius-Clapeyron equation from which one gets the saturation concentration of H2O vapor for a known given temperature. At this point, the actual H20 vapor concentration values are replaced their saturation values, which results in a substantial over-estimation of the enhanced greenhouse effect. This is one place where I along with numerous non-climate scientists get very concerned about what's happening in the climate science field, and don't particularly trust their results.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Evidenceless assertions and the "physics" of your personal pocket universe snipped.

This user has recused himself from further participation here.

Doug_C at 16:31 PM on 10 January 2018

The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

This sounds more like economic predictions than hard science to me.

Guessing how the interactions of a massive ball of plasma under the influence of gravity, intense magnetic fields and incredible heat at the core where fusion is taking place constantly is not like a pendulum over long periods of time. The Sun is a dynamic evolving system which means that it is not the same as it was even hundreds of years ago and it is much different now than it was millions of years ago. At some point it will not even be recognizable as our Sun.

And its output is progressively increasing, though over the scale of hundreds and thousands of years this is not that significant.

It is just as valid to assume that we could see a period of increased solar activity and a positive radiative forcing of the Earth than a deep minimum.

Ice ages do not come about as a result of radiative forcings of the Sun, they are the result of long term changes in the orbital dynamics of the Earth, the eccentricity of the eliptical orbit, the axial tilt and precession of the earth as it wobbles on its axis.

These forcings are tiny compared to what human created forcings have done in the last 150 years and require thousands of years to take a mostly ice free Northern Hemisphere and turn it into one covered by thick ice sheets that reached as far as south of the Great Lakes in North America.

This has been completely swamped by the effects alone of hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide being introduced into the carbon cycle by human activity. There will be no ice age as long as we burn fossil fuels and if we keep burning as much as we are now even a record solar minimum like the one we just had will only slow the process of global warming as the article states.

With the coincidence of a deep solar minimum and a strong La Nina a few years ago the Earth should have seen a record low average yearly temperatures. We did not, they were still in the upper levels of temperature records.

This seems to me to be just one more attempt to deny valid evidence of global warming.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Am I correct in assuming that the "this" you refer to in the initial and final paragraphs of your comment is Matt Ridley's article that the OP debunks?

John Hartz at 09:59 AM on 10 January 2018

The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

Recommended supplemental reading...

No, we’re not slipping into a proper ice age, ...and Then There's Physics, Jan 8, 2018

nigelj at 08:15 AM on 10 January 2018

The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

So in other words we know that a certain level of change in solar irradiance causes a certain change in temperature, and its quite small compared to CO2. So a solar minimum would be weak.

But the predicted so called coming "grand solar minimum" is just a guess. We don't really know the exact causes and periodicity of these cycles, and they appear random, so we are guessing that because solar activity increased from about 1600 to the 1970s, it 'might' be time for a decline of some sort, - like an economic downturn. This is just pure presumption. It could equally stay flat for decades to come, or even increase reinforcing agw.

trondedvin at 03:27 AM on 10 January 2018

The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

the sun is at minimum now,so the only thing happening is the sun is skipping a solar maximum or two.the result is the temparature might increase slower or stop for a few years.

this means the sun will keep at the energy output it has now but not increase as it does during a normal maximum.

One Planet Only Forever at 02:39 AM on 10 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

bozzza@6,

Your initial claim "No one is trying to limit warming to 2C!" is not defended by you comment @6. Your comment @6 just attempted to change the subject.

Regarding the 440 ppm number (with the recommended safer value of 350 ppm). It is like a speed limit. The fact that some people are pushing to go faster does not justify 'accepting an upping of the speed limit'. And when the limit is exceeded everyone in the vehicle will not just say, seems OK since we exceeded the limit so we can go even faster. More and more people in the vehicle will be demanding the vehicle slow down, taking firmer and firmer action against whoever they understand is pushing the accelerator, including keeping them at the back of the bus or locking them in the biffy if that is what is needed to reduce the harmful impact of the pushers.

One Planet Only Forever at 02:11 AM on 10 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

bozzza@6,

I will counter the claim you are banking on that was made by Dr. David Mills 'the venture capitalist pursuer of Private Interest who would want to induce governments to do more to fund his Private Interest pursuits' (he can be seen to be a bit of a misleading alarmist marketer), with the simple fact that in 1960 lots of wealthy people pursuing Private Interests would have told you Man was not going to be landing on the moon in less than 10 years because their Private Interest would not benefit from such a pursuit.

The technology for all of humanity to live without burning fossil fuels already exists, as does the technology to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The only thing missing is the 'powerful charitable desire' to do it (charitable because many people who incorrectly benefited from development in the wrong direction have to give up some of their perceived prosperity and opportunity). But that powerful desire is developing, and may develop far faster than 'the ones who have a Private Interest in not seeing those changes happen' will want/expect it to happen. Many of them thought/hoped the Paris Agreement would never be Agreed to. And many of them thought/hoped the Trump Win would cripple the global collective effort for Good Sustainable Change. They continue to be wrong. If anything the Trump Win has stepped up the rate of change globally as more people more clearly see how unsustainably damaging Winners like Trump are (albeit with a core of faithful Private Interest pursuers who will stubbornly resist better understanding what is going on and changing their minds to become helpful rather than harmful).

The current damaging fatally flawed economics may indeed push CO2 beyond the Paris Agreement limit, but that would be the fault of the flawed damaging system not being corrected quickly enough, with 'everyone who fought in any way against the changes being achieved - anyone who did not properly raise awareness and understanding' clearly understood to have been damaging the future of humanity for unacceptable Private Interests. And that awareness of who the trouble-makers are could develop so rapidly that the trouble-makers actually get significantly penalized in their lifetime, not just posthumously in the better understood corrected record of what was going on.

The developing awareness and understanding is that some Winners are Helpful, but many Winners are getting an undeserved competitive advantage by getting away with behaving less acceptably.

What will actually happen is hard to predict, but the Trend is clear.

Eclectic at 22:10 PM on 9 January 2018

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Pluto @304 ,

I aspire to Christian ethics, but I do not aspire to being led through a catechism. If you yourself have a dispute with mainstream science, then please state the case you wish to make, as succinctly as possible, and with minimal rhetoric.

Pluto at 18:56 PM on 9 January 2018

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Eclectic @303

Thanks for getting back with me. I appreciate your answering my rather dumb question, but I do want to be certain we are both on the "same page" with this GH effect issue. So, if you don't mind, I would like to ask another question. Suppose you brought a bucket of water into a room with unsaturated air (ie. less that 100 percent relative humidity). What would happen to that water (assuming, of course, you didn't spill it)? My answer is that the water in the bucket would evaporate until either the humidity does reach 100 percent or the bucket runs dry while the air, water vapor, and liquid water remain at the same temperature. I would, however, like your thoughts on the question. Thanks

Moderator Response:

[TD] Water vapor levels vary locally and globally, because of numerous factors including not just temperature, but liquid water sources for evaporation, ground & water temperature, wind, air pressure, amount of condensation nuclei, and more. Scientists have known about those things for many, many decades. Check any textbook for meteorology, atmospheric physics, climatology, or many other fields. None of those things eliminates the dependence on temperature. That's why your local weather person reports both relative and absolute humidities. Read the Intermediate tabbed pane of this post and then read the studies cited, regarding measurements of humidity changes.

Eclectic at 15:51 PM on 9 January 2018

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Pluto @302 :

Your comment was that the atmosphere is not always fully saturated with H2O. And of course, I must agree with you there — as, I am sure, do all scientists & meteorologists, including James Frank (the OP).

Pluto at 13:59 PM on 9 January 2018

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Eclectic @301

Your comment on the saturated/unsaturated state of atmospheric water . . . is of course so obvious that it needs no reply.

No, I'm afraid it is not so obvious to me. Exactly which comment are you talking about and what is it about this comment with which you agree or disagree?

Philippe Chantreau at 07:57 AM on 9 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

Dunno if this has been mentioned before but NOAA has confimed that there were 16 extreme weather events costing over $1Billion in the US in 2017, which ties with 2011, although the total cost is the highest on record (adjusted for inflation), coming at 306 billions. No doubt the California fires played a role in that cost.

www.noaa.gov/news/2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-record-for-us

The year was also the 3rd warmest on record, beating 1998 without the help of El Nino. This was also the case on a global scale. It seems that we are going to experience the same thing that happened after the 1998, when temperatures "settled" back down to a much higher level than what they were before El-Nino.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2017/11/supplemental/page-1

chriskoz at 06:58 AM on 9 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

A note for oversea readers, re my post @6, Penrith is the suburb of Sydney, known to be the biggest hot spot of the metropolitan area. I live closeby, that's why I didn't sleep well last night (too hot) & I am on my legs since early morning (6am my time and commenting here) because a violent rain finally came after the record heat and 2 months drought. I must look after all things arround my house not to be dislodged/ destroyed by the torrents.

chriskoz at 06:49 AM on 9 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

A very wise, scientifically accurate comment from Climate Council of Australia on recent weather events:

Penrith swelters while Florida freezes: climate disruption is to blame

while in US, a child that dreams of ravaging a candy store (who currently occupies White House) tweets his silly thoughts "gimme that bit of global warming".

John Hartz at 06:44 AM on 9 January 2018

Evaluating biases in Sea Surface Temperature records using coastal weather stations

The new research findings described in the following article further complicates the measurement of sea level rise...

So much extra water is being added to the world’s oceans from melting glaciers that the ocean floor is sinking underneath the increasing weight. This ocean floor deformation also means we have miscalculated just how much ocean levels are rising, and the problem could be far worse than previously believed.

Over the past 20 years, ocean basins have sunk an average of 0.004 inches per year. This means that the ocean is 0.08 inches deeper than it was two decades ago. While this small fragment of an inch may not seem much, oceans cover 70 percent of our planet, making the problem bigger than it seems at first glance.

In a study published online in Geophysical Research Levels, researchers explain how they used a mathematical equation known as the elastic sea level equation to more accurately measure the ocean floor. This allowed them to see how much the bottom of the ocean floor has changed from 1993 to 2014. While they are not the first scientists to look at the ocean floor, this is the first time that researchers have taken into account how additional water from melted ice may have further stretched that floor, LiveScience reported.

The Ocean Floor Is Sinking Under The Water Weight From Melting Glaciers, And It’s As Bad As It Sounds by Dana Dovey, Newsweek, Jan 8, 2018

jef12506 at 06:32 AM on 9 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

I thought I explained the dynamics in my second and third sentences.
The point is that even if the Co2 ppm were to somehow stop and stay right where they are now the earth will continue to warm, the greenhouse effect will continue to "work" as a greenhouse. There is obviously an upper limit to the heating when using this hypothetical which makes using it not very useful but the point is that Co2 ppm does not equate to a global temperature degree c that can be stated as done in the cartoon. No one knows for instance, what the high end global temperature of say 400 ppm is mostly because we have not reached that temperature yet. We can not state the high end of any ppm because we have continually added more ppm.
Also we are not accounting for feedback mechanisms which are numerous, many of which kick in even at lower levels of ppm and vary widely due to other variables.
I realize that SkS didn’t do this cartoon but I do believe it is disingenuous to promote talk about Co2 ppm and degrees C as if they are connected on a 1 to 1 basis. Also talking about 2050 or 2065 is less than useless as we are already committed/locked in to at least 2 to 3 degrees right now and again that is without all the feedbacks.
Also methane doesn’t go away as depicted in the cartoon. I starts out in the atmosphere at 85 to 100 times more potent than Co2 then gradually diminishes and becomes Co2, small amounts but still adding to Co2 ppm.

chriskoz at 06:17 AM on 9 January 2018

2017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño, thanks to global warming

Chris Mooney's WP article dedicated to the subject of climate disasters, lists the correct $ value of damages:

Extreme hurricanes and wildfires made 2017 the most costly U.S. disaster year on record

because it waited for NOAA data to become available. So NOAA finalised the cost of the three hurricanes at $265 billion total, and all events amounted to $306 billion total which is almost $100 billion lower than previous estimates but still the highest on record with CPI-adjustment.

Interestingly, that article also quotes Munish Re estimates all global events (including uninsured) at $330 billion total. It looks that Munish Re number is an underestimate compard to NOAA (because it leaves $24 billion only for the damages outside US. Still, if the two numbers can be considered credible and not too far off, we can suspect that US was by far the most vulnerable country (in terms the most valuable assets lost) in 2017. Lesson for wise people to retreat their assets and mitigate.

One Planet Only Forever at 02:06 AM on 9 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Norris and Michael,

Energy sources that are non-renewable are of no value in the future. They get more expensive as they become virtually impossible. And if they create negative future consequences then those energy sources are harmful to the future.

The easiest ways to make fossil fuel burning less expensive than it should be into the future is to continue to do what has already unfortunately been done, allow them to be more damaging than they have to be (do not impose requirements for negative impacts to be fully immediately neutralized).

And the games of popularity and profitability are full of examples of Winners in the games being discovered to be the most harmful of the competitors, the ones who got away with behaving the least acceptably. Yet that is ignored in many Economic Theory Thoughts.

So the developed economics are an understandably damaging and unsustainable set of beliefs. The presumptions that 'aware and rational people focused on sustainably improving the future for all of humanity are the vast majority of the players in the game' is easily shown to be false (was able to be seen for what it was decades ago), with many Economists being less rational Private Interest focused people. And yet the 'games filed with Fad popularity of damaging unsustainable profitability that Wins so much more easily than truly sustainable development' remains a powerful Dogma, delusion, perception (and perception is not always a sustainable reality) - because it serves the interests of the current day Winners to have it continue to be popular.

However, the Trend is clearly towards Sustainable Development. The inevitable future is an end to the damaging misunderstandings that currently still have significant power. And the way to a better future quicker is the types of changes that the Paris Agreement is leading to, especially the 'requirements' being ratcheted up every few years.

There will undeniably still be attempts by 'perceived to be Winners who understand how much they stand to lose' to fight against the more rapid improvement of the future for humanity. How much damage the trouble-makers will be able to get away with is all that is being debated in competitions between articles about how rapidly the inevitable end of unsustainable and damaging energy production and consumption will occur.

The ability to get away with marketing appeals for people to desire things other than Sustainable Development and for people who Win by abusing that understanding is the root of the problem.

The root problem is the power of misleading marketing to tempt people to focus on Private Interests that are contrary to helping others and contrary to the changes required to develop a sustainable better future for all. And that damaging power of misleading marketing is also the challenge SkS is focused on regarding Climate Science.

michael sweet at 22:23 PM on 8 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

Norrism

Fortunately, we do not need to wait for Jacobson/Clack to resolve to reach a resolutionn. As I have shown, many researchers have independently reached the same conclusion as Jacobson. Those researchers used different models and did not use extra hydropower. That indicates that the weight of evidence is supporting Jacobson. Clack has few citations and a lack of support.

Jacobson 2015 itself indicates that they found many solutions and they only showed one. Hydro produces only 3% of the power in the system, it is primarily used for power on windless nights. While it is useful, it is so small a percentage of the system that eliminating hydro completely would only affect the result a little. Jacobson will simply have to choose a solution with a little more storage in another option. Incorporating demand shiftting alone would more than compensate for overuse of hydro, and would be essentially free.

The body of research on renewable power indicates that it is possible to generate all power using renewable resources.

Eclectic at 21:49 PM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

Rkrolph, my apologies for my inadequate proof-reading @ my post #3.

A transposition typo : of course, the paper cited is McCarthy et al. 2015

. . . and the Elephant metaphor should read: "... the health of one of the Elephant's toenails ... "

Brandon Morse writes for an extremist rag, which has only a minor side-interest in climate matters. Nothing incredible about trash "getting accepted" — it is a sure bet that such trash is requested /specified /encouraged. Rather like what happens on WhatsUpWithThat website.

Eclectic at 19:58 PM on 8 January 2018

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Pluto @300 , there is no need to take exception to the word "governed" in the phrase <being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation> .

In the English language, governed has quite a number of meanings. In this particular case, the word "constrained" might arguably be a better choice. And as I am sure you are aware, the rate of evaporation depends on more than simply the temperature of the ocean and air.

[ Your comment on the saturated/unsaturated state of atmospheric water . . . is of course so obvious that it needs no reply. ]

But on a planetary scale, and in relation to the GHG effect of vaporous water, we needn't be concerned whether a water phase change rate is measured by a few minutes or a few days.

Also, considering that (at current terrestrial temperatures and partial saturation levels) the atmospheric water vapor GHG effect comprises something over 50% of the total GHG effect — then that leaves very little room for "gross over-estimation of the water vapor greenhouse effect" (unquote).

All in all, the situation is fairly straightforward.

Pluto at 18:35 PM on 8 January 2018

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

Questions for John Cook concerning rebuttal

I have a few questions about the paragraph in your intermediate level rebuttal that mentions the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Specifically, you state

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.

You realize, of course, that more water vapor can be added to the air without changing its temperature if the air is below saturation (ie. 100 percent relative humidity). Therefore, the water vapor in the atmosphere can depend on parameters other than temperature. I would appreciate it if you could give some clarification to your statement. Next, you state

... - the rate [of evaporation] depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation says nothing about evaporation rates. It is a relation that allows the determination of the partial pressure (or equivalently, concentration) of water vapor that is in thermal equilibrium with nearby liquid water at a known temperature. This would be the saturation concentration (ie. concentration at 100 percent relative humidity) at the given temperature. Therefore, it seems to me that the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is not applicable here since much of the atmosphere is not at 100 percent relative humidity. Furthermore, assuming 100 percent relative humidity throughout the atmosphere would result in a gross over-estimation of the water vapor greenhouse effect. It would be great if you could clarify what you are doing here.

rkrolph at 17:44 PM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

nigelj & Eclectic @ 2 and 3,

Thanks for the responses. It's incredible what trash gets accepted as journalism these days, but of course, there has to be an audience for it that accepts it as accurate because it's what they want to hear.

NorrisM at 16:12 PM on 8 January 2018

One Planet Summit: Finance Commitments Fire-Up Higher Momentum for Paris Climate Change Agreement

michael sweet @ 40

It will be interesting to see what happens with this litigation. It seems quite clear that the PNAS decided to publish the Clack paper after having heard all of Jacobson's objections.

Jacobson's "assumption" relying on multiplying US hydro capacity by 15 fold (without discussing in his paper how realistic such an assumption was) just confirms to me why I wish I had not wasted my undergraduate degree on economics rather than take something that would have stayed with me like a degree in History or English Literature.

It reminds me of the joke about the engineer, architect and economist stranded on a deserted island with only a can of beans to eat. The engineer proposed that they build a fire and place the can on the fire so that it would explode to access the beans. The architect suggested building a structure around the fire to catch the beans as the can exploded. The economist then contributed: "Assuming we had a can opener ......"

Tom Dayton at 16:06 PM on 8 January 2018

A grand solar minimum could trigger another ice age

CO2 emissions have delayed next glacial period by 100,000 years, according to A. Ganopolski, R. Winkelmann & H. J. Schellnhuber (Nature, 2016).

bozzza at 14:55 PM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

jef, could you please clarify your third sentence?

bozzza at 14:53 PM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

OPOF,

Dr David Mills from Ausra acknowledged years ago that it was impossible to keep carbon emissions below 440ppm no matter what happens!

Whether that can be taken back under 440ppm after the fact he said was still under scientific debate but the fact the world can‘t help but breach that level of CO2 was realised many moons ago.

Governments have done nothing because democracies are largely two parties preaching the one shared message.

It always ends in Oligarchy...

chriskoz at 10:57 AM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #1

Do you think the mitigation in Australia is progressing according to Paris goal? Think twice:

Cooking the books on climate change policy

We are dealing with a classic denier strategy here: denial that something inconvenient exists, aka "heads in the sand". Emissions started increasing when the carbon tax was removed and replaced by doubtful policy of rewarding polluters for their efforts, that are often symbolic efforts, like tree planting or other "offsets". What govs are saying about it?

The report says that will be offset in the future by "flat electricity demand, the renewable energy target and the announced closures of coal power stations"
[...] department's report says: "The key drivers of emissions to 2030 are increases in transport activity linked to population and economic growth and increases in herd numbers in agriculture
Which means the economy needs to slow down or rural voters and the Nationals are likely to be gearing up for a fight over farming.
Given the choice between the two, it's likely a government of either stripe will take the third option.
Throw Paris out the window when it comes to crunch time.

(my emphasis)

Correct analysis. History of this gov has shown, they would not hesitate doing that. Prime example: the Turnbull government's best attempts to prevent the closure of inefficient, coal-fired Liddell power station.

So do you think AUS gov is better than US because they do not reject Paris? Not really. They just want to look "smarter" but avoid talking about it when incomvenient. We know that attitude for more than decade since Gore's movie. I think the end result of both types of science denial is the same.

Eclectic at 09:44 AM on 8 January 2018

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #1

Rkrolph @1 , the article by journalist/propagandist Brandon Morse is a complete misrepresentation of the true situation.

As you will note from Nigelj's link above to the Nature paper [ published Jan 4th 2018 : authors Bereiter, Shackleton, Baggenstos, Kawamura, and Severinghaus — the same Severinghaus so grossly misrepresented by Brandon Morse ] that the the paper's Abstract says nothing to support Morse's allegations.

Morse's article is full of nonsense — it is merely an example of the same old denier-style propaganda attempt to clutch at and "spin" (by misrepresenting) any slight straw that happens to come floating past.

Was there any basis, even the slightest basis, to Morse's claim that Severinghaus had stated /suggested /claimed his co-authors' study raised doubt about modern evidence of AGW-caused ocean warming? We will probably never know. Morse claims a link to a post (by Severinghaus) at Scripps Institution of Oceanography — a post which Morse implies gives weight to his article. But the link is dead, and seemingly the post has been deleted. Conspiracy Theorists will point to censorship of the Ghastly Truth. A sane explanation is that Severinghaus likely made a post which was poorly worded & open to misinterpretation by the mischievous (e.g. by Morse) . . . and Severinghaus decided (or was advised) to delete that post. All that we can know for the moment, is that the wording of the Bereiter et al. 2018 paper provides zero support for Morse's allegations.

Other than that, Mr Brandon Morse comes up empty.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments