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 16401 to 16450:

Eclectic at 23:11 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Aanthanur @51/52 , the paper you quoted in post #48 was a paper by Uasuf and Becker, only 7 years ago — so at least it is within a decade of today !

As BaerbelW mentioned in post #50, the paper's Abstract was unambiguous about the importance of countering Global Warming. Indeed — that was stated at the start of the paper, in the very first sentence of the Abstract.

So the paper showed a very clear implicit endorsement of the importance of AGW.

And certainly by as recent a date as 7 years ago, it was entirely obvious to every informed objective scientist, that humans were the very-large-majority of the cause of Global Warming. (In fact, the sole cause of recent planetary warming.)

So, Aanthanur, the 100% human attribution of modern Climate Change . . . is nowadays the quantification default position of every scientific climate-related study.

Please tell your argumentative "friend", that for modern climate-related papers, the quantified and unquantified Abstracts are now effectively the same. Your friend is wasting his time on senseless trivialities — and he is harming you by wasting your time too.

Aanthanur at 22:07 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

"If you prefer other definitions, feel free to conduct your own study and get it published."

i used the definitions used in the study. and one of the statements in the study is wrong by their own definition.

Aanthanur at 22:05 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Definition of Anthropogenic does not include any quantification. And the study itself rates this abstract as unquantified. thus, no way of knowing how much warming.

everyone that is honest to himself knows that the statement

"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."

is false, because they trow together quantified and unquantified abstracts.

the wording in the abstract works.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

BaerbelW at 21:31 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Aanthanur - that abstract states "[..]The development of cleaner and renewable energy sources are needed in order to reduce dependency and global warming. Wood pellets are a clean renewable fuel and has been considered as one of the substitutes for fossil fuels.[...]". With that wording it clearly falls under "3.1 Mitigation papers that examine GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration, linking it to climate change" so, - under our documented rating guidelines - is an implicit endorsement of AGW (and it's called "anthropogenic" for a reason, namely for humans being the main and not just a "minor" or "one of many" causes).

If you prefer other definitions, feel free to conduct your own study and get it published.

Aanthanur at 21:22 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

"impossible expectations"

not the case here, this is not an impossible expectation.

it is simply an error in a paper, and all it needs is change one sentence, that is not impossible.

all they have to do is Change the sentence

""We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).""

or just use Support Level 1 and 7 and have a 87% consensus.

Aanthanur at 21:10 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

"12270,2011,3,3,Wood pellets production costs and energy consumption under different framework conditions in Northeast Argentina"

read the abstract, there is no way to know from the abstract aone if that study attributes 40% of the observed warming to anthropogenic source or if the attribute 140% of the observed warming to Anthropogenic sources of GHGs.

i did read everything avaible on this website on this. and i still thik it is wrong.

i also wrote to the jouranal. the wording is misleading.

yes the "expanded" the definition to include unquantified abstracts, but then they should have changed the sentence in the introduction that claim they evaluate the support for the more than 50% consensus.

i will use Verheggen 2014, they also came to the 87% conclusion. and include the important point about aerosol cooling that is masking parts of the warming.

BaerbelW at 18:14 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Aanthanur - if you haven't done so yet (which your recent comments seem to imply as they cover old and well-trodden grounds) please read KR's comment upthread from June 2014. If his first two paragraphs - esp. the mention of "exclusive choices" - don't clarify the rating guidelines for you, then nothing will and we can just as well stop any discussion right here.

If you haven't done so, you should also take the time to actually read all the information provided on the TCP-homepage I link to in my comment @40 above (which includes the various articles related to Cook et al. (2013) and subsequent studies).

It's been more then 4 1/2 years now since the paper was published and the likelihood to come up with something, which others haven't yet used to attack the paper with, is as close to zero as it can possibly get.

Basically, you seem to have been taken in by one of the characterstics of (climate) science denial which is "impossible expectations". The denialist you are referring to is playing word games with you while at the same time misunderstanding the rating guidelines himself (and it doesn't much matter if he does so intentionally or not).

Aanthanur at 15:59 PM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

i do not hurt myself. what hurts me is when AGW deniers get ammunition, and it was a denier that pointed this out to me. and i had to agree.

but you seem to not care much about accuracy. i do care, i want to use accurate data. and Cook et al is not accurate.

and i hate to be debunked by deniers. and i guess others feel the same. hense my warning to other people debating AGW deniers.

Lachlan at 13:43 PM on 2 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

nigelj @4, you are right that humanity responded well to the ozone problem. However, the vested interests were much smaller. The "refrigeration lobby", "aerosol lobby" and "fire extinguisher lobby" are no match for the fossil fuel lobby and the car lobby.

Reducing GHG emissions also requires much more explicit involvement from the general population, at least in terms of stopping using internal combustion engine vehicles and putting up with seeing renewable electricity generation.

I read someone saying that all of human civilisation until now is essentially "the fire age", since we used it for heat, light, defence, and (recently) transport and industrialisation. Saying that the transition from the fire age to the post-fire age is "more complex" than tweaking the chemical industry to find and produce "drop in" replacements for ozone depleting chemicals is a big understatement.

nigelj at 12:56 PM on 2 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

The new scientist article below evaluates the CO2 is plantfood nonsense.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

There are many problems with the plantfood idea, and only certain types of crops have improved yeilds of about 14%. This is best case scenario, so I think it is hardly going to revolutionise farming, or solve food scarcity problems, so in no way even comes close to justifying the risks of climate change. There are many safer alternatives for improved productivity of that magnitude or more.

nigelj at 10:57 AM on 2 January 2018

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

MalAdapted @42, yes I observe all this all the time. I think you have just described fundamental differences between conservative and liberal mindset, with conservatives displaying trouble with nuance and ambiguity and probabilities. Liberal mind set has its own trouble at times.

nigelj at 10:40 AM on 2 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

OPOF @4, its possibly also a difference of perspective. Professional engineers are trained with codes of ethics and understanding of environment. Practices are often partnerhip structures. Engineeres can be deregistered for breaking rules.

Large corporates tend to be guided by slightly different principles. Executives especially the CEO are more strongly driven by the profit motive rather than professional service, and they need to satisfy numerous people. They push the rules to the limits and beyond, sometimes, and codes of ethics are less prevalent and important, and aren't always binding.

It's this company structure that has to change from a narrow profit motive to a wider set of goals and responsibilities. It's that, or tougher government regulation, or environmental disaster.

nigelj at 10:22 AM on 2 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

DrivingBy @2

"Democracies run on emotion, not science.....The protest movement of the era was mostly focused on leaving Cambodia to the Khmer, using drugs and rioting....The message from Science of what was then a readily avoidable issue was lost in the babble of immediate event. "

This is a good comment, however back at the time of the Khmer Rouge climate change was relatively unknown by the public and even politicians, so obviously they didn't ignore it deliberately. There was also probably not enough data to be sure it was becoming a reality. However this is no excuse for the oil companies to have downplayed the science.

However climate change is now competing for attention with other concerns which appear more immediate, in a superficial sense. But climate change is a bigger threat than much of the material which makes for screaming headlines.

Also consider humanity responded well to the ozone issue, without emotion and it didn't get lost among other issues. The difference is possibly that climate change is a more complex issue, and has become politicised. Unwinding this is what has to be done somehow.

Eclectic at 09:47 AM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Aanthanur @43/44 , if I may simplify the philosophical aspects :-

In this world, we have (A) the realities, (B) our human concepts of the realities, and (C) the language of words which we use to describe & handle the concepts.

The nexus between realities and concepts can be valid or poor . . . or even nonexistent. Likewise our words can be useful tools in "handling" concepts . . . but in some cases they can be a handicap, or even completely divorce us from understanding the appropriate concepts & underlying realities.

Aanthanur, I very much fear that you have allowed your "Motivated Reasoning" to lose you in a forest of words — and distract you from looking at the realities. The main game is the reality of a rapidly warming Earth : ice melting, sea level rising, oceans acidifying, surface temperature rising . . . all in a harmful way (and with worse to come). And the causation of it all, is clear.

The "consensus" connects us to the scientific understanding of the [AGW] . . . and you harm yourself by diverting your mental focus toward a forest of verbal trivialites.

Mal Adapted at 09:24 AM on 2 January 2018

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

I'm baffled by the confidence displayed by both deniers of anthropogenic global warming and conspiracists. What follows may be sloganeering, but I'm taking the chance on fooling myself that it isn't ;^).

As the son of a science professor, educated in the public schools of a university town, I came early to regard science first and foremost as a way of trying not to be fooled ("The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." -R Feynman). Half a lifetime later, it's still all too easy to fool me, but AFAICT AGW deniers aren't even trying. They make no serious effort to distinguish real from fake news, because they fail to acknowledge how easy it is to fool them.

Conspiracist AGW-deniers, especially, seem uncomfortable with ambiguity, and readily succumb to the appeal of certainty. They may be wrong, but at least they're sure, and they don't 'do' nuance!

Genuine skeptics, OTOH, learn to quantify ambiguity, and give up on absolute certainty. They are willing to consider action based on what's most likely, despite known unknowns, and with awareness of the potential role for self-aggrandizement. Non-specialists may lack effective skills to evaluate genuine expertise; but why would a soi-disant 'global warming skeptic' be suspicious of working climate scientists, and no at least as suspicious of anyone else?

IOW: yes, it's remotely possible AGW is a 190-year-old hoax, but it's more likely the conspiracists are fooling themselves.

One Planet Only Forever at 07:53 AM on 2 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

This is more proof that Winners/Leaders anywhere in the world today have absolutely no excuse for claims that they doubt the validity of climate science or the changes that it has identified are required for humanity to have a future that actually has a chance of being better.

I have long been aware of the unacceptability of Private Interests such as pursuits of profit from the global burning of fossil fuels.

This article pushes back the date when leaders pursuing benefit from that activity could claim to be unaware of the likely harmful future consequences of their ultimately unsustainable Private Interest pursuit of benefit from pushing for increased burning of fossil fuels, rather than pushing for the rapid development of, and transition to, ways of living that were actually sustainable; economic development that actually had a chance of being sustained and grown.

And the 1972 Stockholm Conference including CO2 from fossil fuel burning as one of the many major global concerns to be collectively corrected makes any claim since that time by a 'leader/winner pursuing more benefit from the global burning of fossil fuels attempting to deny that they appreciated how damaging their Private Interest was' even less justified.

And that ability of the Winners/Leaders to deny awareness and understanding of the problem was categorically shut down in 1987 when the the UN report "Our Common Future" was published with the following clear statement highlighting the real problem in its opening section:
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."

Clearly, the many problems are developed by pursuit of a 'Better Personal Present (Private Interest)' at the expense of 'Developing the Gift of A Better Future for All Others (Gloabl Public Interest)'.

And the 2015 publication of the UN Sustainable Development Goals further reinforces the fact that no current day Winner/Leader has any credible basis to deny the understandable required corrections of incorrectly over-developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity. The need for many current day Winners/Leaders to swiftly Lose/Be Demoted is undeniable. Unjustified efforts to minimize the Losses of such people are easy to spot, and the success of those efforts expose the failing of things like Democracy and Rule of Law to effectively limit the damage done by unacceptable actors in the games of competition to appear to Win Relative to Others that humans allow to be played.

Popularity and Profitability based games can clearly develop extremely Harmful results if people with Private Interests that are contrary to the Sustainable Development Goals are allowed to compete to Win (they have an unjustified competitive advantage - especially when misleading marketing messages that appeal to or excuse harmful things like greed and intolerance can be gotten away with).

I included a variation of the following in my recent comment on the "Fake news is a threat to humanity, but scientists may have a solution" OP.

As an engineer with an MBA whenever I am presented with an existing item that 'appears to need to be fixed or corrected' my first step is to ensure I identify/understand the fundamental basis of the problem. I also make sure that any correction is consistent with the overall guiding objective of engineering to protect the general population (Others) and the environment (today and into the future) from the potential negative consequences of what a pursuer of Private Interest may try to get away with. That objective is well aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. Unfortunately many engineering actions (and political actions) have that objective diminished by 'being balanced with Private Interests that are contrary to that objective (less safe, more harmful). My MBA training in the 1980s helped me understand and witness how motivated many classmates pursuing an MBA were to Win their competition for Private Interests any way they could get away with.

Being guided by that awareness and understanding has led me to disappoint many clients/customers who have identified that their desire is 'to get something done quicker or cheaper'. Admittedly, developing the most advantageous solution to a challenge is an objective of engineering. But responsible considerate engineering (moral/ethical engineering) always has to severely limit the potential for negative Public/Environmental consequences (at the expense of the customer). When I point out the time and cost required to ensure the Quality of the engineered result there is often a claim that my job is to make them happy because 'the customer is always correct'. My response has been to pursue 'correcting the customer' to make sure the customer is actually correct. That often requires support from superiors who must be aligned with the understanding of how everyone is protected when such customers get corrected.

The bottom line is: If the fundamental cause of the problem is not identified, or if the 'fix' is not aligned with protecting the Public/Environment into the future, then any 'fix' will not be sustainable. It will only appear to repair what appeared to be broken. There will likely be future failure because the real problem was not identified and corrected.

If someone like me can be aware of and understand that, any person at a higher level of authority and responsibility should have no ability to claim they were 'less aware, just didn't understand the unacceptability of what was going on'.

The lack of effective limiting of competitors actions to things that can be proven to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals is a damaging failure; a barrier to advancing humanity to economic and political leadership activity to develop truly sustainable rules of law and economic activity that are able to be improved to develop an even more beneficial future for all of humanity.

Pursuers of Private Interests that are contrary to achieving any of the Sustainable Development Goals mus be seen as a threat to the future of humanity, no matter how regionally temporarily popular or profitable they may be.

Some of the wealthy and powerful clearly do not deserve to be seen to be Winners. Their actions related to the Climate Action Goals (and other Sustainable Development Goals), can be the basis for positively identifying and effectively dealing the unworthy winners, the harmful trouble-makers, the threats to the development of a better future of humanity.

chriskoz at 07:43 AM on 2 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Jeff H@20,

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of ecological adaptation to us.

To help me, non-expert in your field, to better understand it, please xplain how the availability of N as nutrient to the plants has changed with changing climate. I think not all plants can assimilate it from air where N is main ingredient. But those that do (e.g. beans) have no problems and are unnafected. How are the others affected? By changed composition of the soil which becomes depleted of N carrying compountds? Do you see any local climate treands around the world that affect local ecology by depleting N as nutrient?

And why do you think amazon rainforrests are lately becoming C source?

DrivingBy at 06:04 AM on 2 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

We (the US and Europe) are (mostly) democracies. Democracies run on emotion, not science. That was rather helpful when countenancing whether we should have expanded Aktion T4 to a global extent (there was a little dust-up over that sort of issue), it's not so helpful in dealing with a substance whose only hazard can be discerned only via science.

Dictatiorships of one form or another run on thirst for expanding and retaining power, they are even less concerned with such issues. Iran, Mexico etc have not volunteered to cut their oil exports, much the contrary.

Teller was entirely correct and was entirely ignored. In the USA, LBJ accepted a more detail report and estimates from Keeling et.al, but did not act on it. The protest movement of the era was mostly focused on leaving Cambodia to the Khmer, using drugs and rioting. There appears to have been even less interest in the issue from other nations.

The message from Science of what was then a readily avoidable issue was lost in the babble of immediate event. It will not be the last time.

nigelj at 06:03 AM on 2 January 2018

On its hundredth birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming

Astonishing history, and no chinese names as far as I can see. The early rough calculations from people like Teller and Arrhenius have been very perceptive, and an excellent validation of agw theory. if predictions work, it is a powerful validation of a theory.

Despite this the fossil fuel industry remains in denial. Of course the fossil fuel industry say they accept the climate problem, but this is a veneer of respectability, because the real denialism has been out sourced to groups like the Heartland Institute.

The fossil fuel industry have done basically nothing about the problem, other than tinkering around the edges to make it look like action, while lobbying against ets schemes. Leaders of industry and sharholders still mostly put profit and pushing the limits and boundaries ahead of everything else.

Aanthanur at 05:32 AM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

I picked just one randomly, the specific paper is rather irelevant, if old or if correct or not, what matters is, if it has a quantified attribution in the abstract.

Aanthanur at 05:24 AM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

"Aanthanur fails to recognize that categories 1 - 3 all endorse the scientific consensus "

what is the scientific consensus?

they use different definitions in the paper.

"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

one is quantified, the other not.

you cannot use unquantified abstracts to evaluate the support for the consensus as defined in the introduction, the one in the abstract yes.

and i have no problem with a 97% consensus. or 99%. the data used in this study, is not supporting one of the two definitions given in the paper.

i do not doubt AGW in the least, AGW is an observed fact.

Eclectic at 04:53 AM on 2 January 2018

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

I note that Aanthanur @41 subsequently went on to cite as example the paper Beyea et al. 1991.

But Beyea very clearly states implicit support for the mainstream science of AGW. And thus the paper goes more correctly into "Category 3" — and yet Aanthanur fails to recognize that categories 1 - 3 all endorse the scientific consensus (contributing to the quoted 97%).

The Beyea et al. paper is all the more remarkable for being published in 1991. Being 26 years ago, and at the start of the survey period.

Since that time, the consensus position, already extremely strong, has gone on to become even stronger (and has no valid challenges to it). So Aanthanur's preoccupation with allocation to category 1, 2, or 3 . . . is a complete waste of time.

Furthermore, Aanthanur displays unawareness that the Cook et al. 2013 paper provides a double validation of the 97% consensus (authors gave a self-rating of their own papers — and the self-ratings verified the 97%).

It should also be noted that the average age of the papers in the Cook survey, is now around 10 years old. With the march of time and further evidence, a renewed survey would show consensus above 99%.

Jeff H at 21:35 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

I really was not inclined to enter this thread until Zippi62 insisted on making a ludicrous argument about C02 not being a pollutant.

In excessive concentrations any element can be deemed thusly. The current biodiversity evolved under relatively low atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that species and genetic richness across the biosphere were higher quite recently until Homo sapiens began to carve its way through ecosystems across the planet. The bottom line is that high atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are NOT a pre-requisite for high adaptive radiation. Other eco-physiological factors are infinitely more important including paradoxially both stability and change.

As for increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 the net effect will be a significant reduction in diversity even if warming is excluded. This is because there will be decidedly non-linear effects of increased CO2 concentrations on plants and their associated consumers. Some plants will benefit at CO2 increases but many will not - this critically depends on the carbon pathway (C3, C4, ethylene) and how this leads to competitive asymmetries among plant communities. In other words the long evolutionary stasis that occurs under fairly stable abiotic regimes is being seriously undermined by the current athropogenic experiment. So phenology and non-linear dynamics is something that climate change contrarians continually ignore. This is because most of them don’t appear to have the reoevant expertise.

Then there is stoichiometry. Plants require more than carbon for optimal growth. Indeed C is by now essentially ‘junk’ in that it may accrue as biomass but this in no way creates healthier, fitter plants if vital nutrients like N and P are shunted out of plant tissues. In the Amazon there is even evidence now that most vegetation has reached a saturation point and that these forests are no longer sinks but sources of C. But I digress. N is generally much more limiting as a nutrient than C. The loss of N is already having significant consequences up the food chain. Most consumers, in particular herbivores, depend on N in their diet. Given that plant food is highly suboptimal to begin with, containing an array of allelochemicals, digestibility reducers, tannins, resins and other non-nutritive components, the loss of vitally important N from plants will lead to compensatory feeding by herbivores as they seek to acquire sufficient N. To compound the problem many plants possess N-based defenses; these plants are under the great rusk of becoming less well-defended from their antagonists as atmospheric concetrations of N rise rapidly. By contrast, plants with C-based defenses become much more toxic. Again, those repeating this silly mantra of ‘C is plant food’ continually expunge complex non-linear ecophysiological processes from their rhetoric. In their world, cause-and-effect relationships are linear, but complex adaptive systems just do not function in that way.

I am a population ecologist whose research involves the effects of primary and secondary plant metabolism on plant-insect interactions, and I continually cringe when I see this fatally flawed argument extolling the wonders of increasec atmospheric CO2 on nature dredged up. Few if any of those making this argument are qualified in the relevant fields.

nigelj at 15:43 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Zippi62 @20

"You are believing unfounded projections by overzealous environmentalists. "

No I just accept the peer reviewed research and IPCC science. I'm not into deep green environmentalism, although its preferable to the denialist blather.

You are sucked in by blogsites like Wattsup and iceagenow. These websites are emotive, politically driven, and make outrageous, stupid, inflammatory claims and huge cherry picks.

"There's not one person I know that wants to destroy our planet. "

So they claim. Know people by their actions and policies: Donald Trump for example.

"There's much more science out there that disproves the "limits" mantra."The Arctic Sea Ice Extent is currently in a heavy increase period.'

One year means nothing. Natural variation. The trend over the last 50 years approximately is far more important, and is of reducing sea ice cover and also thickness. Again, its one of those aspects of climate change that is incredibly well documented, and with increasing temperatures it can only get worse, unless you believe that higher temperatures cause water to freeze?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

nigelj at 15:33 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

"The EPA failed when they labelled CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant".

Really? The finding still stands in law and is unlikely to be changed. This doesnt look like failure to me.

"SKS also fails its own readers with its 'climate myth' about CO2 being a dangerous pollutant.

his website doesnt actually use that language. The language used is by the EPA. As far as I can tell this website just raises the normal concerns about CO2. Remember the EPA used those words dangerous pollutant in a legalistic sense, dont get too hung up on them, we know what they mean CO2 is a problem. Its not woryth all the energy debating whether its a pollutant or problem.

"SKS should redact many of its erroneous implications about CO2 in my opinion. Much of it is scientific conjecture."

I dont think so. The basics of climate science are well established science, not conjecture. Opinions like yours without some actual commentary, credible sources and understanding of the relevant basic science are pretty empty. Not saying you are badly educated, and happy new year and all that.

nigelj at 15:15 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Zippi62 @15

"I get what you are saying. Humans are evil and produce excessive amounts of CO2."

No, never said that. But some humans persist with bad habits even when they know they are bad habits.

"Every plant hates excessive amounts, even if those excessive amounts makes them less prone to droughts, more rigid, ..."

Maybe so to some extent, but the trouble is any advantages of extra CO2 in cell growth come up against limits, and are offset by the effects of higher temperatures that start to reduce cell growth and crop productivity particularly after 2050, and you have all the other negative effects of climate change, such as as sea level rise. The costs of climate change outweigh any benefits by a huge factor. This website has done numerous related articles, start reading them.;

nigelj at 15:06 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Zippi62@ 14

"Microphysics works with a proper analogy. Added carbon into the atmosphere can be a good thing as long as the proper analysis is applied"

Meaningless unsupported assertion.

" Carbon dioxide is not toxic and is very essential to most all living things."

Meaningless straw man argument. Nobody has claimed CO2 is poisonous in the way CO is poisonous. Merely that the build up of CO2 recently is causing dangerous climate change.

Various minerals are also essential to plant growth, but too much can kill the things.

We are bored with all these silly, weak denialist claims that are all such obviously nonsense. Can't you do better? Climate denialists are such losers.

Zippi62 at 14:59 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

nigelj @13

I get what you are saying. Humans are evil and produce excessive amounts of CO2. Every plant hates excessive amounts, even if those excessive amounts makes them less prone to droughts, more rigid, and require less water to survive. The animals that eat those plants get more carbohydrates into their own system. More carbohydrates are always good. It's basic sustenance.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Snide, argumentative, and false assertions snipped. Your willful and repeated violations of the SkS Comments Policy means you have relinquished your privilege of posting on this venue.

Digby Scorgie at 14:54 PM on 1 January 2018

From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation

chriskoz @5, David @6

Thanks for the help. So the idea is simple, but the computation is difficult. Science is not easy!

factotum @7

Please don't confuse us. It's "too much", not "to much".

Zippi62 at 14:52 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Microphysics works with a proper analogy. Added carbon into the atmosphere can be a good thing as long as the proper analysis is applied.

When insufficient oxygen is applied to combustion, then carbon monoxide is produced, which is a highly toxic gas. Carbon dioxide is not toxic and is very essential to most all living things.

nigelj at 14:40 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

By CO2 not coming from humans, I meant respiration. This is essentially a neutral cycle. Additional CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel burning.

nigelj at 14:36 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Zippi @62, Spencer is not simply an intelligent meterologist. He is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. According to wikipedia.

He is also a creationist who believes humans are too insignificant in gods creation to cause climate change. Again, you can read this on his wikipedia profile page.

"I also know where emissions come from,"

Well you apparently don't. I can tell you where they don't come from: The oceans, humans, and volcanoes and theres plenty of information on this in the "most used climate myths" part of this website.

nigelj at 14:27 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Zippi62 @9

I don't see anyone claiming that it is the 'weight' of CO2 that is critical. Its extra quantity in ppm added to atmosphere as in the keeling curve.

However a certain weight is added to the atmosphere and this is additional weight. This is obviously a fact.

Oxygen is important and must be considered. It's the two oxygen atoms that allow the CO2 molecule to basically wobble around and this quantum property is what enables it to absorb energy. As in this graphic. This is mainly why CO2 absorbs heat (technically IR radiation) and O2 doesn't.

Zippi62 at 14:21 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

nigelj @8

I know what Spencer says. He's an intelligent meteorologist.

Those "big numbers" are important. That's why we don't have the "runaway effect".

I also know where emissions come from, but a disingenuous scientist like yourself can't add 44 grams of CO2 to Earth's atmosphere when the atmosphere originally maintained the 2 oxygen atoms that were added through combustion. Let's reduce the added "tonnage" to the atmosphere by 73% (0.7272727272727) and stick to the additional carbon atom that married a couple of oxygen atoms through combustion. OK?

Zippi62 at 14:06 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

@ Moderator

Since the earth surface is 790,854,451,200,000,000 million square inches and the weight of one square inch of atmosphere at sea level weighs 14.7lbs. Then the total weight of the atmosphere is 1,162,556,043,264,000,000,000 lbs. Which I think is 1 sextillion lbs. since there are 2000lbs in a ton then the earth’s atmosphere weight in tons is 5,812,780,216,320,000 tons so the closest answer would be about 6 quadrillion tons "if" the Earth was flat.
Obviously the entire earth is not flat and other factors take that weight downwards.

In all actuality combustion only adds 12 grams of weight per molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere. The additional oxygen in CO2 was used from existing oxygen in our atmosphere. You can't add what was already there as far as "tons added". That's another scientific misnomer.

If you want to add the weight of additional carbon, then that's fine, but when you are scientifically disingenuous and add the whole as an overall "addition" to the atmosphere, then you surely need to be called out.

The 2 oxygen atoms will eventually be released back into the atmosphere away from the carbon through either photosynthesis or some other process. It's called the "carbon cycle" simply because oxygen (O2) is the transporter.

nigelj at 12:47 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

Zippi62 @7

Oh big numbers! Anyone can post superfluous or irrelevant big numbers and long words pulled out of a hat like the rabbit.

As Moderator says, CO2 emissions are coming from fossil fuels etc. It's one of those things proven beyond doubt now.

Notice how none of the serious qualified sceptics like Spencer deny this, only the armchair eccentrics. Its embarassing watching people deny the obvious, and just shows their desperation and ignorance.

nigelj at 12:32 PM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #52

Regarding this denialist slogan "we had a cold winter, or snow storm, so global warming is a myth". (or similar statements) I'm sure people must realise it's a ridiculous statement, nobody is that dumb are they?

It's got to be either deliberate ignorance, or game playing to annoy people and bait them. Be careful guys: climate change is not a time for playing silly games, and provoking people.

NorrisM at 12:17 PM on 1 January 2018

There's no empirical evidence

JH @ 348

Thanks. I was working through this thread when I saw the ongoing discussion with Gail and could not resist putting in my two cents.

Bob Loblaw @ 349

I appreciate that the future increases may not be linear but it seems to me to be a good baseline with which to start. As soon as you extrapolate beyond a linear analysis my sense is that your are into the validity of the models. I personally do not have sufficient science background to understand the issues regarding their ability to predict the future.

I was hoping to see a Red Team Blue Team debate this but I do not think that is going to happen given the information I passed on from Climatewire regarding the Trump administration having second thoughts about same.

Earlier on in this thread there was a fascinating high level exchange going on between riccardo and PaulK who both clearly are physicists which unfortunately petered out. But it was fascinating to see these two go head to head. Although I could not understand the physics I did see the two of them being very honest with each other and I could get a sense of what was happening. It is this "give and take" that would be so fascinating to watch on a Red Team Blue Team discussion.

chriskoz at 11:37 AM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #52

Thank you John and the Team for another year of enlightening about CS.

As other commenter (nigelj) has put on other weekly thread, this year will go to history as the "dumbest year" (so far) in politics. While agreeing, I also note that we're not over through dark ages yet: t-man the clown can still conceive sillier, more outragous ideas in next 3 years in office, if Congress does not impeach him.

In that disgusting reality, SkS shines the bright light of knowledge & hope. May next year be better and science and reason wins!

One Planet Only Forever at 10:28 AM on 1 January 2018

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

There may be some objection to my comment point about "...the need for some people to be removed from the competition, particularly from positions of influence and leadership, as soon as the evidence of their desire for unhelpful actions is clear."

Any business that fails to do that has no real future. Failing to correct that type of behaviour may create an appearance of value in the short-term, but eventually the damaging reality will be undeniable. Of course, many harmful gamblers only need the short-term to gather up significant unjustified benefit and hide it and themselves away, with repeated denial that they did anything wrong being their last/main line of defense.

Zippi62 at 10:16 AM on 1 January 2018

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52

nigelj @6

The 'climate issue' is based upon the Earth's ability to receive an additional 616 billion tons of natural (from nature) CO2 (40% increase from pre-industrial levels) into a 5.5 quadrillion ton and continuously moving atmospheric system that already had a naturally induced 1.54 trillion tons of CO2 working in continuous circulation with a receptive biosphere and receptive 1,450,000,000,000,000,000 ton hydrosphere (oceans).

Moderator Response:

[TD] More than 100% of at least the past 50 years' (probably decades more than that) increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropocentric causes. Read the relevant post's Basic tabbed pane, then watch the video, then read the Intermediate tabbed pane. There are several lines of evidence, but really the algebraic one (mass balance) is sufficient and airtight. If you want clarification, more evidence, or want to argue, do so on that post, not this one.

One Planet Only Forever at 10:04 AM on 1 January 2018

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

This article got me thinking ... Then the comments got me thinking some more ... then the challenge of writing a reduced presentation of my thoughts ... made more challenging by my understanding that shortening a presentation to be a punchier marketing sales pitch piece by using shorter statements and emotive labels rather than providing dispassionate fuller explanations will lead to arguments about interpretation rather than discussion of the real problem that was trying to be pointed out ... so I gave up on trying to limit what I wrote ... hope the intent/point is clear ...

Key Words/Thoughts/Considerations: Alignment - Common Increased Awareness and Understanding; Good Objectives/Intent; Sustainable Change - Improvement/Progress; Future of Humanity; Competition to Win; The Good, The Bad, Help and Harm.

The 'technocognition' proposal can be helpful. But it's success and sustainability will require understanding and acceptance that it is guided by, and aligned with, Global Sustainable Public Good Objectives. The Sustainable Development Goals are an excellent compilation of Good Objectives. They include Climate Action. And, like the climate science basis for the Climate Action Goals, all of the identified goals have an extensive and robust basis, making them open to potential change but only for Good Reason (like climate science, everyone cannot be free to have their own opinion about these goals).

The Key Point: The discussions and disputes regarding this article (on this site and at the Guardian site) expose a lack of alignment regarding what the real problem is. The propensity for people to seek validation for understandably harmful unjustified beliefs is caused by a more fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the result of the combination of 'competition to Win that is not governed by alignment on a Good Objective measure of what is allowed/forbidden in the competition', with the powerful alluring dogma that 'everyone freer to believe what they want and do as they please is the best/only way to develop good results', and leniency regarding misleading marketing and reporting. Without the filter/limits of a Governing Good Objective, all manner of unacceptable ways of marketing and competing can, and will, develop and Win for as long as they can be gotten away with, with undeniably damaging results.

Climate science has unwittingly exposed the need for some people to be removed from the competition, particularly from positions of influence and leadership, as soon as the evidence of their desire for unhelpful actions is clear. That means effectively neutralizing the impact of information providers in the system/competition for Good Reason, not just hoping that warnings about the incorrect presentations they have delivered will be effective. A 'mechanism' to catch every variation of presentation of misinformation would rely on the public acceptance that such a mechanism is 'justified/correct'. Such a mechanism could never flag a presentation that could be 'open to interpretation' because the first time it did so would be the fuel for the denial pushers/addicts to proclaim that the mechanism is biased/rigged 'Against Them'. Mind you, they would also believe that any information presentation contrary to their Private Interests is biased/rigged 'Against Them'. And they would be correct about the bias because their Private Interest must be commonly understood to deserve derision.

The key is having alignment and common understanding regarding Helpful Public Objectives and Intentions, especially among the leaders/winners among humanity. There can be many divisive matters but the focus must remain on understanding how any 'side' is helpful/harmful. Helpful Conservatives can, and should, have healthy debates with Helpful Democrats. Correctly distinguishing the Helpful from the Harmful allows debate among leaders to be of value. That requires a common Good basis for that evaluation. That Common/Public Good basis for evaluation is what appears to be missing, leading to damaging rather than helpful divisive behaviour among competing leaders, leading to misleading marketing efforts that are powerful even though they are ultimately unsustainable (I support being divisive when it comes to helpful vs harmful. The harmful should be helped to change their minds, and not be free to influence things until they prove they have decided to be helpful).

That leads to the appreciation that there can be Good and Bad in any action. There can be good and bad biased reporting (or conservatives, democrats, capitalist, communists, socialists, environmentalists, religious, ...). Good Biased Reporting is the acceptable/desirable kind of reporting. People with Private Interests that are contrary to The Global Public Good will focus on twisted claims/excuses like 'Bias is Bad (when it is against Them)' - Any Belief must be tolerated (unless it is not liked by Them)', rather than face the challenge of the differences that matter and make Their beliefs/opinions/desires (private interests) understandably unacceptable/unjustified.

How do you communicate with those type of people to make them more aware and understanding? How do you educate them? How do you 'correct their thinking'? How do you 'Change their Minds'?

Many people who are tempted to try to win by behaving less acceptably cannot be 'corrected' before they get a taste for winning that way. And once a person or group get a taste of winning by getting away with behaving less acceptably than 'the competition' it can be very difficult to 'fully correct their understandably damaging addiction'. The result is the competition spiralling downward as people compete to Win as unacceptably and harmfully as possible.

The following warning from John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” keeps coming to mind: “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

The focus needs to be understanding the Fundamental Problem and being aligned on a Good Objective for the 'fix'. That will develop a sustainable solution rather than just creating the temporary impression that things have been fixed for good (with some people believing/complaining that the Fix is Unjustifiably Against Them).

I have many Back-up and related thoughts but choose to only include the following:
As an engineer with an MBA whenever I am presented with an existing item that 'appears, or is claimed, to need to be fixed or corrected' my first step is to ensure I identify/understand the fundamental basis of the problem (being as aware as possible and understanding as much as possible). I also make sure that any correction is consistent with the overall guiding objective of engineering to protect the general population (Others) and the environment (today and into the future), from the potential negative consequences of what a pursuer of Private Interest may try to get away with. That objective is well aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. Unfortunately many engineering actions have that objective diminished by 'being balanced with Private Interests that are contrary to that objective (less safe, more harmful). My MBA training helped me understand and witness how motivated many classmates pursuing an MBA were to Win their competition for Private Interests any way they could get away with.

Daniel Bailey at 08:12 AM on 1 January 2018

Antarctica is gaining ice

I've written on the Zwally paper and its shortcomings, here.

John Hartz at 07:25 AM on 1 January 2018

There's no empirical evidence

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments