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 16651 to 16700:

One Planet Only Forever at 04:56 AM on 7 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #48

NorrisM,

A legal case like the one you refer to could lead to changes of official policy requiring proof that the changes will actually meaningfully rapidly reduce GHG emssions. As a minimum, it could require the reversal of every Trump Administration reversal of Obama led policy actions related to climate science, including the requirement to honourably rejoin the Paris Agreement. It could also result in a requirement to return of government funding for climate science research and promotion of understanding (refunding the climate science advisory panel to help Leaders better understand what actions are helpful).

The legal case is more likely to increase the awareness and understanding of how the games of popularity and profitability can result in truly damaging developments. It could also increase awareness of the lack of development of sustainable improvements for the future of humanity due to Winning by people with Private Interests that are understandably contrary to the undeniable governing Public Interest of achieving the globally developed Sustainable Development Goals (goals that include sustainable poverty reduction, environmental protection, climate action and population limits - most important being limits on the total impact of the activity of the global population, with the understanding that all of the goals need to be achieved).

Clearly the Private Interests that are contrary to achieving Good Objectives like the SDGs should not even be allowed to compete for popularity and profitability. Such Private Interests can increase their competitive advantage by trying to get away with behaving less acceptably. Those Private Interests can too easily drum up popular temporary regional or tribal support for understandably unhelpful actions. Cheaper and quicker are more profitable and can be popular regardless of any proof of how harmful the cheaper quicker option is. And that greed temptation/addiction can more easily Win if it successfully partners with less social intolerance (as is clearly proven by Unite the Right groups who will vote for each other's understandably unacceptable social and economic Private Interests).

Perhaps this legal action will also increase the understanding that it is OK to penalize people for actions that were 'legal' if the only reason they were 'regionally legal at the time' is that the 'laws or their enforcment' failed to effectively responsibly limit actions that were understandably contrary to achieving the Good Objectives of the SDGs. That would include the ability to remove Supreme Court Justices who present 'legal positions attempting to justify actions that are contrary to acheieving the SDGs by claiming some nonsense such as a dogma-based claim that Private Interest Freedom (based on an interpretation of the US Constitution and its many amendments) should over-rule the Global Public Interests (such as the absurdities of economist beliefs that more freedom in Private Interest economic pursuits and less government action regarding 'what is encouraged/discouraged' in the Public Interest will develop lasting improvements for all of humanity). I mention this because the undeniably politically biased US Supreme Court in its current form would likley pass a 5 to 4 split-decision judgement against the interests of future generations of USA citizens, 5-4 in support of Private Interests that are contrary to any lower court decision that supports the Public Interests of the future generations (the current US Supreme Court would likely do that rather than declare the need for another Constitutional Amendment - or they may declare the need for an unjustified Constitutional Amendment that is contrary to achieving the Public Interest). A Good Way to change that 'debilitating legal aspect' is developing the acceptability of removing a US Supreme Court Justice for 'Good Reason'. Nobody should be 'above being removed from a leadership role or being penalized for Good Reason', not even a Supreme Court Justice. As for 'who' would make such a decision, a consensus of experts in the field would suffice leading to a Senate Vote to remove the Justice for Good Reason (with each expert/Senator subject to removal from being considered an expert/Senator by their peers if they can be shown to have acted in a way that is contrary to the achievement of the Good Objective of the SDGs - and with all experts able to recommend improvements to the SDGs, substantiated by Good Reason of course).

One Planet Only Forever at 03:13 AM on 7 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Daniel Mocsny,

Selling/promoting 'climate action' needs more than a 'better marketing spin'. In fact marketing spin can be understood to be part of the problem. Raising awareness and better understanding is often easily challenged by misleading marketing that tempts people to prefer to believe an unjustified claim supporting a Private Interest.

The real problem is the lack of a Good Objective (lack of morality/ethics) that obviously/undeniably develops when people are freer to believe anything that suits their personal interest and do whatever they desire.

As John Stuart Mill warned in “On Liberty” ... “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.”

And the 1987 UN report “Our Common Future” pointedly identified the political-economic problem as follows:
“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.”

Economists mainly get their applications of theory like Adam Smith's, Milton Friedman's, and Say's Law wrong because they 'presume' that the damaging potential of self-interest will be effectively managed by more freedom of people to think and do as they please. They ignore the undeniable reality of the damaging results that develop when people with harmful Private Interests are allowed to compete for popularity or profitability. The nuttiest of them are totally deluded acolytes of the fairy tale spinners like Ayn Rand. They believe that any collective action that would restrict individual freedom to is poisonous. They fundamentally incorrectly believe that collective social leadership through government (and I would add business leadership) is only ever a bad thing.

My understanding of the problem is that people who get away with behaving less acceptably will have a competitive advantage. There is ample evidence of that axiom in politics, economics and sports. And the answer in every case is responsible restriction of what can be gotten away with through collective support of Good Responsible Leadership/Winning. And in every case of the pursuit of the development of that collective desire for Good Leadership/Winning there is the constant challenge by Private Interests gaming things to be able to Win by behaving less acceptably. Even in Sports, there is the constant need for new rules and monitoring and penalizing to try to ensure that Good Behaviour is the only behaviour competing to Win Rewards (some competitors always try to figure out ways to Legally behave less acceptably - leading to the need for new rules including actions to expel the cheaters who generate the need for new rules from the competitions).

Moral/Ethical outrage should be focused on raising awareness and understanding of the unacceptability of fundamentalist believers in that 'Freedom to believe and do as you please', especially focusing on exposing damaging reality of the groups of Fundamentalist Freedom Fighters who try to Win by gathering support through damaging misleading marketing to encourage people to be greedier and less tolerant. Those groups refer to themselves as Uniting the Right and claim to be Conservative (they hope to get the votes of support from easily impressed people who fundamentally support 'Conservative' without really thinking about what they are actually supporting. Those groups carefully appeal for votes of support from clearly harmful Private Interests, being careful not to push away people with harmful Private Interests who may choose not to support Other Harmful Private Interests. They make it clear that their only hope of Winning is to vote to support each other's understandably unacceptable Private Interests.

A more important action is the positive raising of awareness and understanding of the Good Objectives that need to be understood to be the aspirations of human activity, the Public Interest. It is very difficult to argue against the value of the Public Interest in developing lasting improvements for all of humanity, including (especially) future generations. However, it is very easy for people to be temporarily be tempted to be Tribal Regional pursuers, especially if they do not have a solid understanding of what is truly valuable. The response to the increased understanding of climate science is a excellent case study proving how easily people can be tempted to consider their convenience and lower cost of personal enjoyment in their lifetime to be Worthy of being Balanced with consideration of the unsustainability of those ways of living or the damage they cause that Others have to deal with. The political-economic misleading marketing response to improved understanding of climate science has proven the power of regional and tribal Private Interest (incorrectly but effectively being claimed to be regional and tribal Public Interests, as if any sub-group of humanity can claim their sub-group interests from their perspective are valid Public Interests. That is obviously absurd since it leads to the nonsense that any individual's Private Interests can be declared to be the Public Interest ... but that absurdity of individual Private Interest being the Public Interest is the flawed core of the beliefs of many Fighters for Freedom, especially those constantly wrong economists).

The best presentation of the detailed requirements of the Good Objectives of human activity is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs are the result of many decades of detailed collective global investigation into better understanding the reality of human activities that started in the 1960s. The SDGs include Climate Action. But they make it clear that climate action alone is rather irrelevant. Achieving climate action can even be understood to be easier to do as the other SDGs are achieved, and vice versa.

So the best action is raising awareness and understanding of the importance of all leaders in business and politics being evaluated for their worthiness of their Leadership position based on the honesty and amount of effort to raise general public awareness and better understanding of the importance of achieving all of the SDGs, especially the importance of responsible limitation of pursuits of Private Interests to ensure the most rapid achievement of the Public Interest of the SDGs.

Discouraging people from trying to secretively or 'Regionally Legally' temporarily Win by getting away with Private Interest actions that are contrary to achieving the Global Public Interest will require the ability to penalize anyone who can be shown to have acted in a way that is contrary to the Global Public Interest. That means the end of National Sovereignty on matters that affect the achievement of the Global Public Interest. There are already global sanctions on Nations that are attempted to be carefully targeted at the offending people who try to hide within a nation.

That concept of justified removal/bypassing of sovereignty simply needs to be extended to penalize all of the people who try to Win through actions that are contrary to achieving the SDGs. Any nation that fails to properly limit the actions within its influence, because they '(paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) let a considerable number of their population grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, being easily tempted by harmful Private Interests' does not deserve sovereign freedom from Global actions targeting the unacceptable actions attempting to be gotten away with. And the response to Team Trump's irresponsible action plans regarding climate impacts shows that global support exists to pursue targeted penalties on 'Regionally Legal Unacceptable Winning'.

Support for penalties on actions that are contrary to the Global Public Interest SDGs exists in the USA and many other nations. But growth of popularity is restricted by the powerful temptation/addiction to the dogmatic and undeniably wrong belief that more Freedom is will develop lasting Good Results. And the resistance to raised awareness and acceptance of that understanding is fuelled by the magnitude of development in the wrong direction that must be 'corrected'.

The support for the changes required by climate science could be increased by connecting the support for all of the SDGs. Anyone who shows any interest in any one of the SDGs (or any part of any one of the SDGs), should be able to extend their understanding to the importance of achieving all of the SDGs, including climate action. The result would be the opposite of the Unite the Right gathering up of people with harmful Private Interests. It would be the Uniting of all of the people with Private Interests in achieving part of the SDGs to support all other pursuers of SDGs. An example would be ending the in-fighting between 'people wanting to help improve things for the less fortunate' and 'people wanting to reduce the harm done by the burning of fossil fuels'. The less fortunate can only be sustainably helped by actions that do not increase or prolong the burning of fossil fuels. It would also reduce arguments about 'total population' and 'impacts of human activity' since reducing the impacts of the highest impacting people allows for more people to live decently with acceptable total impact, and the other SDGs include actions to limit total population.

scottfree1 at 03:08 AM on 7 December 2017

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine

Corrupting good data with bad for the sake of "science"

data

Moderator Response:

[DB] Please limit image displayed width to 450.

scottfree1 at 02:56 AM on 7 December 2017

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine

temp adjust

"The adjustments are scientifically necessary"

But are they actually science?

When the hypothesis is not supported by the data you change the hypothesis NOT the data.

So lets look at the 34 (yes 34) "official" Nasa/Giss temperature records issued between 1998-2011. In this "unbiased" purely "scientific" process of "correcting" temp data you might expect near 50/50 distribution of +/- adjustments? Well, not so much, of the 34 adjustments 33 raised current temps and lowered historical temps. The odds of 33 to 1 distribution? A most reeasonable and unbiased 1 in 505,300,000 or 20x worse than hitting the super lotto..

Moderator Response:

[DB] Please limit image displayed with to 450.

Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

scottfree1 at 02:26 AM on 7 December 2017

Homogenization of Temperature Data: An Assessment

Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization E. Steirou, and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.23854.31046, European Geosciences Union, 2012.

In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.

The use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Linked to the paper for you. Please learn to do this yourself.

Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

John ONeill at 20:24 PM on 6 December 2017

Renewables can't provide baseload power

The proposition that 100 percent renewable energy is both possible and affordable is about to be tested in the way that really matters - in the Washington DC Superior Court. Mark Jacobson, who backs 100%, is suing Chris Clack, lead author of a paper claiming that for US electricity, 80% is an achievable figure, with the balance being legacy nuclear, biofuels, and natural gas. There's an interesting graph from the late David Mackay, plotting population density and energy consumption per head against the area required for various renewable technologies measured in watts per square metre. http://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/data/powerd/HiRes/PPPersonVsPDen2WA.eps.png A few countries in the 'low energy use' quadrant, and even fewer in the ' low population density ' area , actually do manage 100% renewable electricity, but that's mostly hydro. Denmark claims about 40% from wind. However the eastern and western sections of the Danish grid are actually more closely tied to, respectively, Norway and Sweden ( with ten times the capacity of the whole Danish grid ) and Germany ( about twenty times as big ), than they are to each other. Energy flows, and CO2 produced by electricty generation, can be seen in real time here -https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=DK The island of El Hierro, in the Canaries, also gets about 40% of its power from wind, using pumped hydro up to a handy volcanic crater to balance lulls. http://euanmearns.com/el-hierro-october-november-2017-performance-update/#more-20384 Of countries invested heavily in solar, Italy and Greece manage about 8% of domestic generation, averaged over the year, much less in winter. Mark Jacobson's team has drawn up 100% renewable scenarios for fifty US states and about a hundred countries. http://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/ In nearly every simulated case, wind and solar make up about 90 to 95% of the total projected energy use, compared to about one percent worldwide today. Jacobson claims this is possible, at least in the US, with no energy crops and practically no additional hydro dams, just more grid interconnections and more generators on the existing dams. Clack says, a bit more circumlocuitously, that he's a halfwit. http://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ReplyResponse.pdf

nigelj at 17:11 PM on 6 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

Scaddenp @20, where have you been living? Leighton Smith has been doing the 1ZB talk back radio show for about 20 years, 9am-12am. He has even won awards, despite his absolute nonsense, so his profile is quite high. He is an institution.

He even initiated a ghastly climate debate on television. I used to listen but not much now, its always the same rubbish. Don't worry you haven't missed much.

I do listen to talkback radio a little. I live alone, semi retired, like to see what people think. A lot of its poison of course. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

scaddenp at 14:14 PM on 6 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

Nigel - well amazingly, I have never heard of him. I dont think I have ever willingly listened to talkback radio, but surprised I havent had people push this stuff at me. Hopefully it means his profile is quite low. Is Auckland radio denizen?

John Hartz at 11:45 AM on 6 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

Recommended supplemental reading:

Top US firms including Walmart and Ford oppose Trump on climate change by Richard Luscombe, Guardian, Dec 1, 2017

knaugle at 01:46 AM on 6 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

It's off topic, but this just appeared as an Los Angelas Times article...

Climate scientists see alarming new threat to California

Interesting read.

Moderator Response:

[JH] For future reference, the appropriate place for a post like the above would be the comment thread of the most recent SkS Weekly News Roundup.

Ogemaniac at 23:16 PM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

And to think the question was biased in favor of conservatives in two ways

1: A "decade from now" is not the long-run equilibrium. The basic effect of these tax cuts is a boost to GDP due to the increased deficit spending, and a long-run drag as we pay ever-growing interest in on.

2: It focuses on GDP, not GNI. The problem with GDP is that it counts as a positive income "earned" by foreigner investors inside the US. Most of the purported GDP gains are merely a reflection of foreign investors reaping a tax windfall and having more bonds to buy (likely, at higher interest as well!).

Thiristaer at 22:32 PM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

The % of GDP cost is an excellent point. Especially when it’s coupled with the idea that costs to mitigate climate change now reduce the risk of greater costs in the future.

Unfortunately, that sounds just like the kind of mumbo jumbo about “tax cuts paying for themselves.” Oh wait, but many Americans totally buy that. Hhhmmm

What you say about science denial actually being rooted in Red Fear and Anti-Globalism is spot on. I’ve heard it over and over again. Let’s remember that the Trump campaign was able to turn the climate debate in its favor not by denying the science (“Chinese hoax”) but by playing to Exceptional American‘s idea of fairness (The Paris Agreement/America First.)

ubrew12 at 12:53 PM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

If you wait long enough, deniers often reveal themselves as 'defenders of the homeland against communist and globalist takeover'. They see that climate change requires a 'one-for-all and all-for-one' approach, and Big Fossils tells them that's UN Agenda 21 and the end of freedom as we know it. At times like these, I try to remind them that, if they used a toilet today (or even had access to one), they are already taking orders from the 'Big Guvment', to save them from their own filth (liquid in that case, but in climate change it's their gaseous filth they need saving from). And they've been doing this for 150 years, apparently not aware of their 'communism', and that its been costing them in taxes, all this time, about 1% of their GDP to save their children from dying of cholera (but just look at that cost, mon Deiu! btw, this is about the same % of GDP that fighting climate change is expected to cost if we start soon). I was brought to this realization by skepticalscience, btw!

The magic of the market can (and should) be directed to bring us the latest wizbang ideas at the 'lowest entropy' sector of human development (computers, information, electronics). Sadly, someone still needs to be there to take out the trash (the 'highest entropy' sector), or we will literally drown in it. Turns out: the captains of capitalism ain't interested (garbage collection isn't sexy, I guess), which leaves the sadly benighted public sector. It always falls to the public sector to tell the public to put a toilet in their house, and use it. Using it, however, hasn't left the public powerless to defend itself from the clutches of the commune, for some strange reason. And that reality is worth repeating to the denial community.

There's nothing wrong with fossil fuels. Fossils just needs to pick up its trash. And... there's the rub.

nigelj at 08:13 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

"When moral and secular authority join to convince the public to 'just trust me' on reality (to use a favority phrase of Mr Trump), then that's the path people take. "

Yes absolutely. People hurting or confused by complexity and poverty, turn to public figures especially dangerous demagogues, who will find scapegoats. Conspiracy theories take presidence over objective reality, and are a form of escapism. There's also a belief in "truthiness" which I think is over emphasis on gut instincts.

If the problem is misdiagnosed, the results will not work. America has places hurting like detroit, but this is due to automation as much as jobs lost to mexico and free trade like this has benefits as well as some problems. You have to help these people left behind, with retraining and relocation allowances, or income support, or maybe some universal basic income scheme, otherwise its going to get ugly. Yet this is an anathema to Republicans.

ubrew12 at 06:58 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

Perhaps this comes down to whether one believes reality to be objective or subjective. Subjective reality can be obtained from authority figures (because going against them is more painful). When moral and secular authority join to convince the public to 'just trust me' on reality (to use a favority phrase of Mr Trump), then that's the path people take. The purpose of Fox News is to emphasis the 'moral rightness and necessity' of taking that path. If reality is objective, then wonk opinion matters. Scientists matter on scientific matters, and economists on economic matters, and this is regardless if they are spouting 'inconvenient truths'. As regards the recent tax cuts, some people with little regard for objective history will be condemned to repeat it, I guess. The main thing is to keep the pillars of free speech, so that the wonks can remain a buzzing fly in the GOP ointment. That's the real danger right now, to this website and others messaging objective truths that many in authority don't want to hear.

nigelj at 06:54 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Daniel Mocsny @5, what you say is pretty interesting, but the environmental movement does spend a lot of time suggesting things individuals can do to change their lifestyles (regardless of what government does or doesn't do). For example reducing consumption, using low energy lighbulbs, theres a large list of things, but the point is you can only repeat this so many times, and its more or less a finite list well known by now. We can't force this onto people. Anyway this is why enviromentalists concentrate also on what governments could do as well.

The problem is often cost related. Electric cars have been just out of cost reach of many people, and even if you are worried about climate change, it's a big thing to find money for an electric car. This is of course now changing as prices drop, and the technology improves, and we may be near a tipping point of exponential growth in this technology.

There's much sensible government can do to help electric cars, and other issues, such as small subsidies, recharging stations, carbon fee and dividend schemes. It seems clear to me fixing the climate issue is ideally a combination of private individual action, corporate action and some government action, in a partnership approach. This is idealistic, but when I'm convinced of something, it's important to spell out the proper way. Of course as you correctly say the "oligarchs have captured the regulators", but we cannot simply accept that is how it must be. It has to change somehow, and I suspect it will change and presidencies and congress change towards people more prepared to confront the issue. The point is idealism has it's place, as does consideration of the full picture on what everybody should do on the climate issue, or we loose a rational and positive path forwards, and any semblance of a coherent overall plan.

I like your moral outrage point, and it is something that can work well at an individual sort of level. But we are still left with figuring out the best way of communicating the science, and the risks posed to humanity. Personally I think the IPCC have done a good job at a technical level, and it's hard to see how their reports could be fundamentally better or radically different, in approach and style. Scaremongering has no place in technical reports, although risks should certainly be underlined boldly.

Perhaps it's more up to scientists in the media, and also politicians and business people to help spread the message. They can talk more freely than the iPCC. Scientists have done ok, but are not trained public relations people. Messages from politicians and business have been mixed, and often non existent from these two groups.So you see we haven't really delivered the message all that well in the past in some respects. I think if a few of these people started talking about the risks of climate change,in a cool way but emphasising the high level of risk it would help. Of course there are 101 reasons why they are reluctant, but perhaps its time they looked at their moral bottom lines.

Daniel Mocsny at 05:29 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Should we use fear, optimism, facts, or something else to motivate people to do everything in their power to rape the planet less hard? The proof is in the pudding. When someone figures out the right message, we'll see everyone around them slashing their individual carbon footprints, in a steadily expanding circle. We'll see fossil fuel companies getting worried as they notice their business cratering in particular geographic areas, and looking for ways to restore demand. As I have never heard of this occurring - there is no community in the developed world where people en masse have adopted low-carbon behaviors across the board, and the behavior pattern is spreading relentlessly outward - then it is likely that nobody on this panel or anywhere else has any evidence-based idea of how to present climate change to the public. We might as well speculate on the best strategy for curing Huntington's disease (a disease that nobody knows how to cure yet), when we're still at the stage of reiki, homeopathy, leeches, and purgatives.

The melting glaciers don't care whether people are optimistic, pessimistic, despairing, dismissive, or hopeful, because emotions don't affect the rate of warming. Only actions do. Individuals who experience the full range of emotional reactions to climate change messaging continue to climb in their automobiles every morning, and book holiday flights regularly. You can see how people are acting by glancing at any highway or airport. Each airliner (a carbon-spewing flying fossil fuel tank) probably carries the full range of opinions on climate change. Look around the pages of your Facebook friends - how many are festooned with largely unwitting photographic boasts of how hard they raped the planet on their last holiday trip? Even many so-called climate activists continue to engage in the fossil-fueled gang-rape of the planet. People have somehow mastered the trick of compartmentalizing their personal assaults on the climate off from whatever they may believe about the climate.

As the election of Donald Trump should have made abundantly clear, government cannot be relied upon exclusively to solve the problem for us. The great hope of the environmental movement - that we can bypass the individual, who is the unit of climate change causation, and invoke collective magic - has played into the hands of the oligarchs who long ago perfected the formula for capturing the regulators. Unfortunately for the biosphere and its human and non-human residents, the environmental movement has focused almost exclusively on obtaining government regulations, when this is perhaps the easiest strategy for oligarchs to counter.

So forget trying to motivate people with optimism or fear. We need a good healthy dose of moral outrage. When you see someone raping the planet with their automobiles, holiday trips, etc., react to them the same way you would react to seeing someone doing something that is morally outrageous (such as killing a kitten). As a culture, we care more about the welfare of individual kittens (even though domestic cats are nowhere near endangered as a species) than we care about the welfare of the biosphere on which cats and every other known living thing depends.

nigelj at 05:24 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

"Theres just no logic to the Republican tax plan at all, and it is a shameless self serving give away to business interests"

Actually a correction. There is a certain twisted logic, keeping your donors and supporters satisfied, but it's all still gone too far and is a morally bankrupt decision not in the countries interests.

America will also be financially bankrupt if it keeps cutting taxes and increasing spending on military. Debt is already at nearly 100% of gdp well above IMF recomendation of 60% maximum of gdp, and is something like 13 trillion dollars. It cant go on forever without disastrous consequences.

nigelj at 05:07 AM on 5 December 2017

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party

The Republican tax policy and climate policy simply doesn't make any sense to me either. A general tax cut doesnt make sense. America is not a high tax country contrary to the bizarre claims of some people. Its tax rates are very significantly below the OECD average, as a total tax burden, shown here and here for example. Therefore its hard to see a pressing need for a tax cut in general terms.

The country doesn't need general tax cuts. It's obviously not in recession needing stimulation.

Economists say Americas at near maximum capacity so tax cuts could well lead to inflation, a boom and crash cycle, and larger trade deficits (that Trump says he is worried about) and will certainly add to government debt and deficit loads, which Obama was criticised for. But apparently high debt and higher deficits is now "ok". The double standard is breathtaking.

Tax cuts will raise pressure to cut important spending in health, education, NASA, and climate research.

Theres just no logic to the Republican tax plan at all, and it is a shameless self serving give away to business interests. Economists say most of the corporate tax cut will go to executive pay and shareholders, not pay of ordinary workers.

There may be a need to tidy up deductions, cut taxes on poor people, and some small corporate tax cut, but any of these cuts should be revenue neutral surely? Balanced by tax increases (maybe a carbon tax). But the Republicans are in total denial about the climate issue as well.

I'm not an advocate for high taxes as France has for example, more a middle ground approach, but the Republicans have lost touch with reality.

nigelj at 04:27 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Thiristaer, fair comment. Cynics, denialists.

The cynics like to feel they have some special insight that makes them superior, like people who believe in conspiracy theories. They do not. They are either dumb, or intellectually lazy and mostly terribly insecure and deeply afraid to admit they were wrong, so they get locked into beliefs regardless of reality.

A good read on genuine healthy scepticism "Skeptic, by Michael Shermer"

Thiristaer at 03:46 AM on 5 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Nigelj

Those are not skeptics. If skepticism was their bag they would apply an equal level of scrutiny to the “research“ they base their conclusions on and any/all research that points in another direction.

Their behavior fits better within the definition of cynicis. To title them skeptics is an insult to those of us who are genuinely inquisitive and love nothing more than gaining new knowledge by discovering we were wrong about some.

nigelj at 12:44 PM on 4 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Some people probably consider Crockfords views have "truthiness" because they tell people what they want to hear, and are consistent with their world view, therefore she is an "expert". I think that's how it works. Expertise as normally and properly defined doesn't even enter into it.

Bob Loblaw at 07:57 AM on 4 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

I perused through Matthew L's list of Crockford's publications. I followed the link to the two Comments posted with respect to journal papers.

The first comment (on the Science paper) discussed observations of cross-breeding between brown bears and polar bears, and says nothing about climate change or future directions of polar bear habitat reductions. I can't tell from the web page whether the comment is strictly an on-line comment or whether itt appeared in print. (The paper is from 2012.)
The second link (to the Current Biology paper) is also a paper about historical brown bear and polar bear hybridization, but I see no comments listed at all. Using that web page's search tool produced no material written by Susan Crockford. The paper is from 2011.

It is interesting to note that in the first comment, Susan Crockford lists her affiliation as "Department of Anthropology ... University of Victoria". The department's faculty listing states that she is an Adjunct Assistant Professor. Being an adjunct carries a lot less weight than being a university employee.

https://web.uvic.ca/calendar2014/FACS/FoSoS/DoAn/index.html

Desmog.ca also has a story on this paper, which includes an interview with one of the authors of the paper - Ian Stirling. I've met him ,and he is a real polar bear expert. His opinion of Susan Crockford, expressed in the story, is not flattering.

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/11/30/polar-bears-chosen-bizarre-symbol-deny-climate-change-scientists-say

Mathew L's depiction of Crockford as a relevant expert is a classic example of the denialist use of Fake Experts:

FLICC

jsmith at 07:52 AM on 4 December 2017

Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1

Honestly I'm not sure where to comment this, but there's a paper listed as by Lamar Alexander here https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=195 that is actually by AJR Alexander, so that paper should be removed. I'd do it myself but I can only tell how to add papers, not remove them.

nigelj at 05:13 AM on 4 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #48

This graph below is the temperature trend at Barrow Alaska, showing an increase of 5 degrees F from 1949 to 2014.

toolkit.climate.gov/image/1151

Project this out another 50 years or so, even just as a linear trend and it's astonishing, but it's highly likely to be more than a liner trend according to IPPC.

Eclectic at 01:39 AM on 4 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

I regret that I must issue a correction of my comments @ post #21.

I had mentioned Mr Larry Kummer's blogsite "Fabius Maximus" as an example of the "denier" blogs alluded to by the OP — blogs which opposed the overwhelming scientific evidence of AGW and which inter alia tended to make use of a lone outlier scientist [in this particular case, Dr Susan Crockford] for the purpose of "proxy-style denialism" of the global problems produced by AGW.

A quick look over "Fabius Maximus" (a blog with Headline Mission of opposing the modern degeneracy of the American Nation) . . . showed me that the blogsite was mostly political in nature, with little attention to science. The link from Dr Crockford to a recent "Fabius Maximus" article by Mr Kummer, showed a standard denialist article with misrepresentations & poor logic. Standard fare, indeed — yet in presence of the other generally political articles in the blog, I drew the conclusion that the science denialism was "a minor personal side-issue for him [as prime author of the blog]".

How wrong I was.

Mr Kummer's subsequent (post #25) assertion that he was no denier but "a strong supporter" of the IPCC and major climate agencies . . . was surprising to me, for it showed a vast discordance with the body of his article. A discordance of truly Presidential degree (an allusion to the current President, of course).

Digging deeper, I found quite a number of Kummer articles with strong science-denying bias [here I could have said climate-science-denying — but all well-established science hangs together, so to speak . . . and so to be a denier of one area is in effect to be a denier of all areas].

There were also querulous posts by Mr Kummer (to similar effect) on third-party blogs. # So I was quite wrong to describe him as a minor or low-grade "denier". He actually rates as a red-hot public denier of climate science.

The irony of this, is that his blog which is nominally fighting the decline/degeneracy of "the nation" . . . is actually an active contributor to the anti-science movement which is a causative part of the national decline.

nigelj at 07:27 AM on 3 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Yes polar bears are accustomed to a certain way of life. It's not as if polar bears and seals can build boats. Polar bears eat seals and also carcasses of beluga whales. But seal numbers are declining, and arctic belguga whale numbers are under threat from hunting:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beluga_whale#Population

Polar bears are not evolved to eat smaller fish easily. Its hard for me to see how they can adapt in time to all these changing circumstances. Things will reach a tipping point where numbers dwindle at an accelerating rate, and even finding a mate will become more difficult.

The resilent or adaptable species tend to be insects, bacteria and smaller mammals. And humans to an extent. But our vulnerability is the complexity of our economy and society now.

nigelj at 06:23 AM on 3 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

The comments posted after the hope and despair article are interesting. Totally fact free, politicised, gut reaction, sneering, venting of anger.You wont convince half of those climate sceptics, but may convince those near the middle of the bell curve.

nigelj at 05:57 AM on 3 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #48

Good article. You don't want to exaggerate, like claiming the earth will become like venus, and ruin credibility of science, or have false optimism either, that ignores unpleasant realities.

Just give people the facts. Climate change is serious, and while probabilities of some of the worst aspects ( like several metres of sea level rise this century) appear low at this stage, because consequences are so severe, we cannot gamble, and must take action. I call this measured scariness, with all the facts on the table in an adult way.Treat the public like adults, and hopefully they will respond like adults.

One Planet Only Forever at 05:11 AM on 3 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

In addition to the threat to polar bear populations from reduced Arctic sea ice extents, there is already the challenge to polar bear populations due to the later formation of sea ice. I have seen numerous reports of polar bears trying to survive on the shorelines because of later formation of sea ice. unlike humans who can get a science based forecast and plan accordingly, polar bears base what they do on what they are accustomed to.

Unfortunately many humans fail to 'learn from science' and will not change their behavior responsibly if the required change is contrary to what they have developed a desire for ... become addicted to.

Jeff H at 19:39 PM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

The things we wanted to emphasize in our paper are important concepts like tipping points, critical threshold, time lags and what Tilman and May referred to as the ‘extinction debt’ in their 1994 Nature article. Polar bears depend on habitat that literally melts as temperatures rise. If, as projected, ice extent in the Arctic continues to decline, then at some point bear populations WILL collapse. We have seen similar occurrences in tropical biota; species remained in fairly sizeable numbers until forest cover was reduced below a critical threshold and then numbers plummeted, often so rapidly that extinction was inevitable.

We therefore emphasize that focusing on today tells us little about future projections in a warming world. Paul Ehrlich’s building analogy is appropriate here. A man jumps off the top of a 100 story building, plummets 50 floors and while doing so shouts “everything is OK!”. Well, it clearly isn’t OK. Climate change skeptics and deniers routinely fail or refuse to project. Their mantra is, “everything is OK today, so don’t worry about tomorrow”. This isn’t science. I was taught as a professional ecologist to place the demographics of species and species populations in a dynamic, changing world. The world is not static. Humans are altering vast swathes of the biosphere, including surface temperatures, at rates well beyond the capacity of many species to adapt. Therein lies the rub.

Moderator Response:

[PS] By the way, thanks Jeff for stopping by and entering this discussion. It is appreciated.

nigelj at 18:17 PM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Matthew L @22

"The longer the ice in the Arctic fails to melt away,"

He says this despite indisputable evidence from multiple sources of a longer term decline in arctic sea ice areas and thickness. He must either dispute the obvious, or live in a world shielded from actual evidence like this. Either way, this is why we call you people 'denialists'.

Eclectic at 13:31 PM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

FMeditor @25 , you cherry-pick a couple of "failed" comments [2007 Prof X said: Arctic summers ice-free by 2013 . . . Also 2002 Prof Y said: Regular summer trade ships within a decade] to imply that all of mainstream climate science is worthless. And then you cherry-pick summer polar sea-ice extents in 2008 and 2017 . . . while turning a blind eye [= not informing your readers] to the multi-year trend while at the same time ignoring the spectacularly-large decline in summer polar sea-ice volume ; and all the associated causations of these effects [i.e. ongoing AGW]. And then another non-sequitur : you imply that Dr Crockford's PhD in zoology would/could qualify her as a new C.R.Darwin or S.J.Gould or someone of similar weighty opinion.

FMeditor, your article was worthy of the British Daily Mail. What next : Al Gore said New York would be 20 feet under water by now?!?

You have a strange way of being "a strong — even dogmatic — supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies". Hmm, with friends like you, why would science need enemies? ;-)

On the FabiusMaximus politics, I am eclectic. Some I agree with, and some I think are "unsupported". And I also perceive that the Shakespearean Lady protests too much, about the FM lack of bias. # But all this is irrelevant to the outlier position of Dr Crockford and her lack of objectivity.

"Full information" given on the FM website? Far from it, on Crockford/AGW. Half-truths may be presented as disinformation, or OTOH may be presented in a way that is truthful & useful to the reader. It's largely the editor's choice, don't you think?

As Popper would say if alive today : the mainstream scientists have done a fine job in gathering the climate science evidence of rapid Anthropogenic Global Warming, and their predictions so far have been good . . . while the predictions (and science) by Lindzen & other "contrarians" have been appallingly bad.

FMeditor at 11:04 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Eclectic,

(1) "The climate science denialism seems to be a minor personal side-issue for him."

I don't respond to unsupported smears, but in this case will point out that I am a strong — even dogmatic — supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies (esp NOAA). Their work is the foundation of my posts. That you consider that "denialism" is ... strange, and sad.

(2) "the topics tend toward the partisan-political,"

The tagline of the FM website says it is about "geopolics." So, yes, there is a lot about politics. Much of our content attacks extremists on both Left and Right. That's the case for posts about the policy debate about climate change — where both extremes have turned against the IPCC.

(3) "thereby implying to the casual/superficial reader, that Crockford was an expert in the field and whose opinion was worthy of respect)."

Your description of that section of the post is misleading. As is the standard practice on the FM website, we provide readers with full information so that they can make the own evaluation. I gave a summary of her professional background — education, a link to her publication (including her paper about polar bears), etc.

Calling that "disinformation" is daft.

Here background in zoology is relevant to this subject. Time will tell if her analysis is correct. As Popper said (paraphrasing), successful predictions are the gold standard in science.

Matthew L at 11:01 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Sorry for the typos. Keyboard on my phone is very small and editing a pain!

John Hartz at 10:58 AM on 2 December 2017

There once was a polar bear – science vs the blogosphere

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments