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:

bozzza at 16:03 PM on 12 December 2017

California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future

Trump needs reelection!

All he has to do is bring in mild regulation and he wins a second term!

He plays a long game...

One Planet Only Forever at 15:59 PM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

NorrisM,
I agree that 'Legal System competition results' should not be seen as valid ethical or moral assessments. The laws or constitution may be poorly written. And even well written ones can be open to unanticipated interpretation (such as the 2nd Amendment/Clarification/Correction of the USA Constitution, or the common current misunderstanding of what 'pursuit of happiness' is all about - at the time that term was written it was generally understood to be pursuit of the basic needs of a decent life, not 'whatever a person wants to believe or desires'). And the legal judgments made could also be politically rather than Good Objective motivated (the USA Supreme Court producing fairly predictable split-decisions indicates that even the highest levels of the law could be politically biased).

As a Professional Engineer I am well aware of the challenges of specifying 'Rules/Requirements - Standards of what is acceptable' that will be interpreted as intended by everyone in any and all current and future situations. Stating the Public Interest Good Objective of the Rule/Standard can help get the desired 'interpretation and application'.
The Good Objective of Engineering Standards is to protect the general population and other life from the potential harmful consequences of pursuers of personal benefit, particularly pursuers of profit who would try to get away with benefiting from quicker, cheaper and more damaging actions. In many cases National Standards get weakened to 'compete' with other lesser National Standards (or Private Interests try to get the Standards written to benefit from unjustified limits on competition from alternatives). And the development of International Standards is not guaranteed to be a solution when Private Interests get a say in their development. Many International Standards are not the highest justified standard that has been established by any nation. They often become a lower, or even the lowest, standard that has been developed, and include fudge wording that 'allows' a Nation to require a higher standard if it wishes. Any nations with higher standards then have their higher standards challenged by parties wanting the benefit of the 'Lower International Standard'. This can result in a spiral of competition to get away with the worst behaviour to get a bigger competitive advantage (most likely why the likes of Trump like the idea of getting out of the Paris Agreement).

Someone with a Private Interest will always try to claim that their Private Interest does not 'break any rule (as they interpret them)'. And when those Private Interests are able to influence the making or enforcement/judgment of the 'Rules' they will deliberately weaken/distort the Rules in favour of their Private Interest in spite of being able to understand that their Private Interests are impediments to achieving Public Interest Good Objectives (or will actually be harmful to others which is worse than just being barriers to the development of lasting improvements for everyone).

The resulting reasonable understanding is that the highest level Public Interest Good Objective is increasing understanding and awareness and applying that knowledge to develop lasting improvements for all life/humanity, including the future generations. And that is what the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present. The SDGs are open to improvement for Good Reason. But the SDGs have a very robust reasoned basis, so they are not likely to change significantly (just like climate science is not likely to change significantly).

Correcting everything that has developed to be consistent with achieving the SDGs is what is required. And that will include using the SDGs as the basis for evaluating the acceptability/legitimacy of any Winner/Leader anywhere on this planet. That is just Common Sense that needs to become the Common Understanding.

This is not my opinion. This is my understanding based on many things including:
- John Stuart Mill's warning 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 critique stated in the 1987 UN Report “Our Common Future”. “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.”

So I understand and share the concern about having faith/belief in any System that can be seen to not be Guided/Ruled by a Good Objective that is understandably in the Global Public Interest. No sub-group (regional, tribal or business group), is justified in pursuing an Interest that compromises the development of lasting improvements for all of humanity on this amazing planet, including all of the future generations. In fact, no sub-group of life on this planet is justified in pursuing an Interest that compromises the development of lasting improvements for a robust diversity of all life on this amazing planet.

A significant developing risk to the USA with its current Winner/Leaders is collective action by more responsible leaders to selectively effectively penalize the irresponsible Winner/Leaders in the USA for failing to behave more responsibly. Global penalty tools are often not very precise. Collateral damage to undeserving victims is often the result of attempts to 'motivate the harmful less responsible Private Interest people to change their minds'. This is probably why many major corporate leaders have stated their opposition to the understandably irresponsible actions of the Trump Administration, Senate and House Leadership regarding climate science.

These 'justifiably concerned children' pushing legal action regarding climate action based on climate science can do the irresponsible Winner/Leaders in the USA a big favour if their lawsuits significantly increase pressure on those irresponsible Winner/Leaders, motivating them to actually behave more responsibly, more considerately, less harmfully (and less self-destructively).

NorrisM at 15:31 PM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

Couple of typos

Par 1 "when this issue of the red team blue team has come up".

Par 9 "broken into a series of debates"

NorrisM at 15:24 PM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

nigel @ 1

I have hesitated to even comment on this thread because I have made my views known on this topic in respect to other topics when this the issue of the red team blue team has come up. Things became rather heated when I suggested a certain physicist as a possible chairman.

But nigelj, have you read the transcript from the 2014 APS panel review which has been referenced many times? These were not "monkeys" yelling at each other. They were rational climate scientists on both sides commenting on the questions posed from the Framework document. Why could we not have the same thing but this time allow for a long lead time for each side to prepare their responses to specific questions posed. I think this could be incredibly educational. This would be miles better than trying this issue in courtrooms as suggested by others. You never get the "give and take" between experts in a courtroom. One side says one thing and the other says something else and the two experts cannot go head to head. The only job of the lawyer in cross-examination is just to make his points and sit down. A courtroom does not offer the interchange that I would hope you would see with a red team blue team approach.

Depending on who participates in this panel (and who chairs it), it could be very valuable to highlight in the public's mind what real scientists are saying about this. Of course, such a panel discussion would raise a number of issues but do you think the public would come away thinking climate change is all a "hoax"? It would clearly bring the debate front and centre in the United States. What would Trump have to say after both sides acknowledged that there is real AGW and it is only a question of how serious it will be?

And it is not right to say that there should be a 9.7 to 1 ratio on the panel. The facts and science should stand on its own. Facts are facts. We have massively injected CO2 into our atmosphere way beyond anything in the last X,000 years. Let the facts speak for themselves. The oceans are rising, the temperature is going up and the glaciers are melting, more droughts are happening and there is more precipitation. I personally think you should not get into California forest fires or more intense hurricanes but that is just my opinion.

If you have to say climate science is too complicated, you just have to "trust us" then you will never get the public truly behind this.

I appreciate that the climate models will meet with criticisms but I have over the last while seen enough graphs to see that they have been generally tracking the temperature rise with maybe a 10% difference but not significantly off. I understand there are recent studies that have suggested the models are too conservative. Legitimately, answers will have to be given as to why temperature rates are anticipated to accelerate (if that is the case).

But this kind of debate would get it totally out in the open.

I think the "consensus side" scientists and others are far too concerned about the fact that there are scientific uncertainties as to what will happen and are afraid that admitting these things will "weaken their case" when in fact admitting these uncertainties will give confidence to the public that true science is working, not political agendas. If the science is not compelling given these uncertainties then that would be a problem. But everything that I have learned so far tells me that there is no real alternative explanation and so therefore the only questions remaining are how serious is it (ie how much time do we have) and what are the best solutions going forward? It is not a question of moving off of fossil fuels but only how fast. I have also gained a lot of respect for what the IPCC has done (and their openness to a lot of uncertainties) but you cannot expect "Joe Public" to start reading the Fifth Assessment. Watching a TV "debate" is the best you can expect of him.

If it is some kind of kangaroo court then I agree it would not be advisable. That is why I would like to reserve my decision until I see who the proposed chair or co-chairs are and who are the participants. On this point, I might note that Judith Curry has been quoted somewhere that she does not think that the Heartland Institute should be involved. I obviously agree. I just hope the "consensus" side does not just "thumb its nose" at this but rather agrees to participate CONDITIONAL on being satisfied as to the constitution of the red team blue team and the rules of the game. I would hope that this would be broken into a serious of debates on various issues spaced perhaps one month between them. I personally would like to have this extended to solutions but perhaps that would be for another year.

Again, I have made this point before, but given the political reality today in the United States, here is a chance to deliver a body blow to the Trump administration. Other than taking to the courts, what other choice is available to try and convince the middle of the road Republicans and Democrats of your case?

I just worry that Trump will not let it be sufficiently independent to encourage real climate scientists on the consensus side to participate. I think that is the real tug of war that is going on behind the scenes right now. If we see the Heartland Institute up there front and centre then we know the answer.

citizenschallenge at 15:04 PM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

Intellectual Confrontation

The fact is, climate science awareness is being actively stifled by ruthless individuals with bottomless bank accounts and octopus news outlets to do their bidding. They have sold a lazy public a pack of lies that have become the comfort zone of all too many today.

How can the misinformation this juggernaut force feeds the public be neutralized without direct intellectual confrontation by masses of informed, concerned, engaged students, and citizens, everywhere it pops up?

It’s not about attacking people, it’s about attacking the maliciously deceptive words, the lies and stupidity they spew. It’s about teaching them how our physical planet operates!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Call out False Claims & Lies

When someone makes a malicious false claim, relentlessly demand evidence for said attacks - shame and expose those who refuse to produce evidence for their malicious claims. Examine and expose the props substituted for substance.

Dissect and confront their tactics rather than being played by them!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Better than Skepticism ===> Critical Thinking Skills

The term “Skeptics” has been poisoned by theatre and the grotesque double standard of the GOP.

Critical Thinking Skills is a clear descriptive that explains the process itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Confront Trash Talk with Rhetorical Jujutsu

Contrarians depend on personal attacks to distract the discussion from their bankrupt “science”. Learn to recognize the game, turn it to your favor, be prepared to point out the juvenility of the tactic, while forcing the discussion back to the real world facts your contrarian opponent won’t have.

_____________________

Just a suggestion.

"Dysfunctional Climate Science Communication in 14 verses. " https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2017/12/dysfunctional-science-communication.html

citizenschallenge at 15:01 PM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

An apathetic uniformed unengaged public is what make all this possible.

As for the Red Team / Blue Team, seems to me if the blue team focused on exposing the tactics of deception that the red team is dependent on, it might make for an interesting event.

Define the Debate,

A Constructive Argument based on real facts, with the ultimate goal being a collective better understanding of the issue at hand.

Such as a Scientific Debate: where honestly representing your opponent’s position is required. Striving to understand your opponent’s position well enough to reject or modify it on the merits of your own facts.

If we fail, it means something. It may hurt, but it’s a learning experience for the intellectually honest. Mistakes have always been necessary learning opportunities for the stout.

The Lawyerly Debate: winning is all that matters, facts are irrelevant obstacles to hurdle. Being skilled in rhetorical trickery is a prerequisite. Objective learning is not the object.

Amorality, misdirection and theatre are its hallmarks.

newairly at 13:34 PM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

I would hope that no climate scientist will agree to take part in a farce like this. There is absolutely nothing to be gained. Let the deniers pontificate to themselves.

NorrisM at 11:59 AM on 12 December 2017

Models are unreliable

michael sweet @ 1078

I hear what you are saying but I do not want to get into issues such as whether AGW is causing more intense hurricanes (what happened between Katrina in 2005 and Irma et al in 2017?). Clearly the IPCC states that we will have more droughts and more precipitation. I fully accept that.

As for residents of Florida and California, there is a certain amount of "caveat emptor". You do not buy land near an airport and then complain about the noise of jetliners. Everyone who can afford expensive real estate in Florida and California can afford insurance to protect them from these risks. No question there are other areas of the world where this is not the case but again, this is an issue that Bob Loblaw and I discussed at length (on some other thread) and I personally do not want to revisit it. We have both stated our differing positions.

But even at this last meeting in Bonn we have seen what has happened to the climate fund for developing countries. Politicians are good at talking but when it actually comes to coming up with cash out of their national budgets it is a different thing. We even now see China and India coming back to the table with the old theme of saying that a disproportionate share should be contributed to this fund by the developed countries because of past CO2 contributions. Back to the drawing board it seems.

Moderator. I appreciate this is getting off topic. Just wanted to reply to michael sweet on his additions.

John Hartz at 11:59 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Recommended supplemental reading:

U.S. government calls for teens' climate change lawsuit to be halted by Tina Bellon, Reuters, Dec 11, 2017

NorrisM at 11:38 AM on 12 December 2017

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger @ 1077

I admit that my question was not well-posed. I went back to the Economist article and realized that I had missed their more detailed discussion of negative emissions at page 20. What I was trying to get a sense of is how significant is the problem of not having proven negative emission technologies (NETs) in place.

I appreciate that measuring this as a percentage is difficult in that we are really looking at what carbon budget we have left if we wanted to stay below 2C and what amount of CO2 has to be sucked out of the atmosphere. But the numbers are significant. My understanding is that we are presently pumping about 40 bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmoshere and that, according to this Economist article, we need to take out 810 bn tonnes by 2100 to have a reasonable chance of staying at 2C by 2100.

But if CarbonBrief.org is correct, we can only pump into the atmosphere another 800 bn tonnes of CO2 if we want a 66% chance of staying under 2C by 2100. On their website they correctly show that at the present rate we run out of our remaining "carbon budget" in 20 years.

So I agree that my question was confusing. But this is an astounding amount. The negative emissions required by 2100 represents 100% of our remaining carbon budget we have if we want to have a 66% chance of staying below 2C.

Based upon the chart on page 21 of the Economist, by 2100, the negative emissions have to represent approximately 20 bn tonnes per year to match the 20 bn tonnes per year of remaining CO2 and other emissions to arrive at a net zero emission level.

I think I have this right. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

nigelj at 11:12 AM on 12 December 2017

California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future

Addendum: Trump severely lacks the ability to go with the big ego.

nigelj at 11:07 AM on 12 December 2017

California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future

Yes a sad state of affairs, and a serious warning on future climate.

Donald Trump and the Republican Party won't be moved by California's fires. They are all in denial of agw climate change, and clearly lack scientific literacy, have plenty of vested interests, and strong political views, and this climate issue has become hugely political.This all compounds and has added up to a stubborn state of mind, and it will take earth shattering evidence like the whole country being on fire to change this mind set. It's the same psychological state as how humans deny symptoms of health issues or failing relationships, until its too late to do much.

If the science said an asteroid was heading straight towards Republican Party head office, I bet they would suddenly take notice of science, and want something done, ( probably with tax payer money).

But clearly the vast majority are not amused by Trump and Congress from various polls, and this is a good sign. Education can only help as CK says.

New Zealand is getting and unusual record setting drought out of character with climate situation and expectations. I have noticed a lot of extreme weather in various places is described as odd or unusual. That's a warning sign that needs closer more rigorous analysis.

Republicans are using Trump until they get their ridiculous tax agenda passed, then they may turn on him. The guy has an ego bigger than Mount Everest, but lacks the ability and wisdom to go with it.

chriskoz at 09:38 AM on 12 December 2017

California's hellish fires: a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Future

No, this will not change the minds of REPs. They sit in their air-con mansions safely away from fires. If pressed by public, they will point out at the snow storm during their NFL game in Buffalo following Jim Inhofe's snowball couple years back, and say gloabal warming is a chinky hoax. Any traces of intelligence in their heads were wiped out by special interest group monetary donations.

The much higher probsbility of resolving that problem is to keep educating the voters who eventualy vote them out. They must vote them out sooner or later. GOP is doomed with their pathetic denial. The fact that public elected a silly clown as their REP president, in preference of any more reasonable (though still CS denying) candidate, indicates that these are the last moments of that party. They seem not to realise that and keep the clown going, rsather than impeaching him. An impeachment of the clown is the first must do step to come back from a fake world to the reality. Then comes a try to understand that world, and CS in particular, when you look at the biggest challenges facing our generation. But REPs are as far from it as ever.

michael sweet at 09:17 AM on 12 December 2017

Models are unreliable

Norrism:

Since I currently live in Florida and come from California I will suggest you add stronger storms (especially higher precipitation and hurricanes) and a longer fire season with bigger fires to your list of significant effects of AGW.

A drought linked to AGW was one of the prime causes of the Syrian civil war. The fall of the Egyptian government was partially due to increased bread prices due to drought in Russia that caused their harvest to fail. That drought was AGW linked.

The widespread failure of farming is probably more significant in your lifetime than sea level rise (and my lifetime although I have friends in Tuvalu and own land in Florida).

MA Rodger at 07:38 AM on 12 December 2017

Models are unreliable

NorrisM @1076,

You ask "Are we talking 20% for the assumed contribution from "negative emissions" or more than that?"

I ask "20% of what?"

NorrisM at 05:53 AM on 12 December 2017

Models are unreliable

michael sweet @ 1075

"We are in deeper doo-doo than we thought."

On this point, the Economist article on "negative emissions" did not provide any "percentage" measurement as to how much reliance the climate models have placed upon the withdrawal of CO2 from the air compared to reductions in present emissions. Are we talking 20% for the assumed contribution from "negative emissions" or more than that? Can someone point me to where this has been discussed?

It clearly was not it in the Chapter 9 of the Fifth Assessment.

I have to admit that after reading Chapter 9 in its entirety and the admitted problems discussed in that chapter associated with the uncertainties caused by trying to simulate cloud processes and their feedbacks in the models that I have personally decided to focus my climate education on actual observations of temperature increases and sea level changes (including the impact of melting ice in Greenland and the Antarctic) representing the two of the most significant effects of AGW.

NorrisM at 05:33 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Just finished watching the live argument in Julianna v. U.S et al before Thomas CJ, Kozinski J. and Berzon J. of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Could not resist. The argument only lasted an hour. It is now on YouTube.

Based upon the oral argument, my guess is that the US government will not be successful in its application to effectively dismiss the case through a writ of mandamus. Berzon J. was clearly in favour of the plaintiffs in allowing the action to proceed and Kozinski J. was in favour of the US Government but Thomas CJ I think will come down on the side of allowing the action to continue on the grounds that if they awarded mandamus in this case they would be flooded with similar mandamus cases. Mandamus is only granted in extreme cases.

However, unless the US government at some point moves for a "summary judgment" sometime prior to the actual trial, this would mean that the trial would go forward. It was projected to start in February but issues of discovery I suspect will move that timing back.

On its "merits" Thomas CJ indicated that he was "sympathetic" to the jurisdictional argument of the Attorney General (separation of powers) but this was not the venue to be deciding the issues on the merits.

What is very fascinating is that it is questionable whether the government can withdraw its admissions that I referenced in an earlier post (see 10 above). If they cannot then the trial would proceed on the assumption that climate change "poses a serious threat to the planet".

Kozinski J's question to counsel for the children was very interesting. He basically asked her: So if the District Court (Judicial Branch) comes up with a decision that implements the requested order in some manner (see above) and the Executive Branch comes up with a different conclusion either on how serious climate change is or how to deal with it, who wins, the Judicial Branch or the Executive Branch? She tried to avoid a direct answer but finally had to admit that her argument meant that it was now "part of the Constitution" and would force the Executive Branch to implement the method determined by the Judicial Branch.

nigelj at 05:24 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

"But their most important argument – one that could take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Courtis that the federal government’s failure to do enough about global warming will damage the planet so profoundly that it violates children’s constitutional rights to life and liberty."

This seems to be the most important thing. Given how Americans are always invoking the importance of the constitution, (including Trump and his people) the judges and lawyers invloved in this climate matter have a responsibility be true to the principles of the constitution and take it deadly seriously.

Destabiliation of the earths climate and ecosystem can only damage life and liberty. It cannot enhance liberty or life.Liberty must include freedom from unwanted and avoidable harm imposed by other parties, including unconstrained use of fossil fuels. The scientific case of harm has already been made and accepted in the US Supreme court ruling on C02 as a pollutant. It interferes with peoples freedom to live without the insidiously growing threat and costs of climate change.

We know climate change imposes costs. This only leaves two options for the courts, awarding substantial damages or making an order that the federal government do more to reduce emissions. In the circumstances the later option makes more logical sense.

ubrew12 at 05:11 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

I recommend the David Roberts piece at Vox. For one thing, he's a very lucid writer, able to make complicated issues simple and even entertaining. He brings up the real tragedy of Pruitts red-team exercise: that they are not debating our response to climate change. The military developed this debate structure to harden its solutions to tactical weaknesses. Should we not worry about climate change? Or worry later? Go renewable? Nuclear? Geoengineering? 'Clean Coal'? (ok, I just put that in for yucks). The red-team debate pokes holes in all solutions, exposing weaknesses and making all of them more robust. Now is the time for us to build resilience, but Pruitt wants talking heads shouting in endless circles in a modern equivalent of counting how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

william5331 at 04:35 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

Many of your unscientific readers will read that statement to mean there has been no increase in temperature over the past 23 years. Possibly a better way of stating it would have been to say global temperatures have been increasing steadily over the past 23 years.

michael sweet at 03:50 AM on 12 December 2017

Models are unreliable

From reading the article that John Hartz linked free copy it appears that Norrism has been half right about climate models. They have been systematically incorrect. Unfortunately, they have underestimated the expected warming, not overestimated the warming as Norrism suggested. From the discussion:

"Finally, it is sometimes argued that the severity of model-projected global warming can be taken less seriously on the grounds that models fail to simulate the current climate sufficiently. Our study confirms important model-observation discrepancies, indicating ample room for model improvement. However, we do not find that model errors can be taken as evidence that global warming is over projected by climate models. On the contrary, our results add to a broadening collection of research indicating that models that simulate today's climate best tend to be the models that project the most global warming over the remainder of the 21st century." (my emphasis)

This is not the first evidence that models under-project future warming. We are in deeper doo-doo than we thought.

michael sweet at 03:20 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Norrism:

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The clean air act, passed a long time ago (1970's?) says pollutants must be regulated. It follows that if the government is not regulating sufficiently that it can be sued for non-compliance of the previous ruling. The Trump administration cannot claim that CO2 is not a pollutant since that has already been determined.

Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Note that a US court has been recently asked to place judgement on climate-related questions. This link has been posted elsewhere at SkS, I expect, but another mention is worth it in this thread:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/07/peabodys-outlier-gang-couldnt-shoot-straight

A Minnesota case, not the US Supreme Court, but still part of the legal precendents. I have no idea whether there has been any attempt to appeal.

Alpinist at 01:05 AM on 12 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

Just another day of "you literally can not make this s**t up" in the US. I'm embarrassed.

CBDunkerson at 23:30 PM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

NorrisM, it really doesn't matter whether the Trump administration is bound by the Obama administration's 'admission' that climate change exists. If they attempted to contest it they'd have literally nothing to stand on. Federal rules for scientific evidence simply don't allow the kind of nonsense the 'skeptic' case is built upon.

NorrisM at 12:45 PM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

I have now read the entire 54 page judgment of Judge Aiken of the United States District Court For the District of Oregon rendered on November 10, 2016 allowing the action commenced in Eugene, Oregon, to proceed. It is this decision which the Federal Government has moved to contest (by a writ of mandamus) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Oral arguments will begin on Monday, December 11, 2017 which will supposedly be broadcast live. If I had the time I would very much enjoy hearing the arguments on both sides.

I at least now know what the plaintiffs are seeking. They wish to "order the Defendants (now only the Federal Government) to cease their permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, to move to swiftly phase out CO2 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmosphere CO2 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a national plan to restore Earth's energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system."

The judgment deals with all of the legal issues and certainly was an interesting read, even citing Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis from around 530 AD in support of the "public trust doctrine" supposedly imported into US law via English common law. She even throws in the Social Contract theory (not specifically naming John Locke) but referencing Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers regarding "certain inalienable rights" and that governments were established by consent of the governed for the purpose of securing those rights.

It is interesting that on page 4 of the judgment, Judge Aiken notes, that for purpose of this motion, "I proceed on the understanding that climate change exists, is caused by humans, an poses a serious threat to our planet." This I assume is from an admission from the Federal lawyers (during the Obama administation) that "climate change poses a monumental threat to American's health and welfare by driving long-lasting changies in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time." I wonder if the Trump administration is bound by this admission at this stage of the proceedings.

As with so much litigation, so much depends on the "roll of the dice" on the constitution of what I think is a three judge bench which will hear this application in the Ninth Circuit. In the Bellon case of the Ninth Circuit in 2011 environmental advocacy groups sought to compel the Washington State Department of Ecology and other regional agencies to "regulate greenhouse emissions from five oil refineries". The NInth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff's injuries were "too attenuated".

All of the concerns I have raised above regarding "separation of powers" under the US Constitution are discussed in this judgment as well as the difficulty of the remedy. Although Aiken suggests that the plaintiffs will have a tough row to hoe to meet all the potential objections, the judge did allow the case to proceed. It will be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decides in this case. The Distict Court judge was able to "distinguish" the Bellon decision.

nigelj at 12:37 PM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #49

The red blue climate debate concept is a modern day farce, a terrible idea, that will cause further division, and whatever the result, it will be ignored by the other side. The problem is not scientific, it is ideological.

The trump administration will find scientists on red team prepared to say anything. If it goes ahead and especially if televised, find articulate people for blue team, who are polite and pleasant, but who are strong and dont take any nonsense, and who keep it simple, not lost in details. Because if you don't, it will be a massacre.

Bob Loblaw at 08:30 AM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Having worked in government (not the US), and having taken some of the basic "management" training, one of the things that is expressed clearly is that every action and expenditure has to be done in accord with legislation that grants the authority/power. Yes, the government can pass legislation to change those powers, but ultimately there is a constitutional requirement, too - legislation can be deem unconstitutional and thus void.. (And the constitution is usually hard to change.)

IANAL, but in the EPA case, the US Supreme Court declared that the EPA was required to do something based on existing law. My guess is that courts more often declare that something cannot be done, rather than requiring it, but c'est la vie. In the case discussed above, part of the goal may be to get a court decision saying the government must act. (Whether it will or not is an open question - you can always prolong the thing by forcing the complainant to sue again that you breeched the first decision.)

IAStillNAL, but key words in legislation are things like "may" (grants the power to do something, but does not require it), and "shall" (gotta do it, son).

An odd part of the current US pattern is that more and more governments are taking a "hands off" approach, in terms of actions and regulations. In the 'ibertarion ideal, everything gets decided in courts with very minimal government legislation, If the government will not act "in the common good", then an injured party has little left but to sue, it seems to me. If your reaction is "take me to court", then you aren't really justified in complaining when someone actually does.

nigelj at 05:41 AM on 11 December 2017

The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe

Singleton engineer, yes that makes sense.

It's challenging because The IPCC reports have to be signed off by governments, and they aren't going to want to do this every few months if the reports are continually changing in total, or with lots of multiple small changes to wade through scattered through the whole vast document. So the five year big picture cycle would likely remain.

There's another reason, that climate change requires weighing a whole lot of related evidence before reaching too many conclusions, and this suits a 5 year period and big review.

However its too slow to reflect the physical reality and urgency, so some key chapters need faster updating. This is a sensible compromise.

Paper is dead. Nobody has to wait for IPCC to publish and distribute paper documents. They can electronically produce the stuff immediately and its instantly able to be changed and accessible for people to print if they want. I dont even use a printer much these days.

nigelj at 05:14 AM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

NorrisM @6

Ok thanks for some legal background and history. But you seem to miss the obvious thing, these kids (and others around the world as JH points out) are bringing courst cases only because all other avenues have been exhausted or been obstructed. The stupid politicians are failing to do the right thing, so it only leaves legal action.

So I'm right behind what these kids are doing, and you might be surprised with the result. The constitution is a document so general that it is open to interpretation, and so we cant possibly guess where this court action could go. It may be symbolic,or it may lead to changes.

You quote problem areas of such cases selectively, because clearly other environmental actions bought against the government that have cost implications have actually succeeded, like the EPA example above. The fact you ignore this as if it doesn't exist, is not very impartial of you.

And climate change is essentially fossil fuel companies causing humanity harm in a similar way to tobacco, or any drug, or poison. Its also tragedy of the commons issue. To summarise these are all manifestly legal issues ultimately, and because politicians are failing to take the lead, it only leaves the courts.

michael sweet at 05:13 AM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Norrism:

Currently in the USA the legislature is controlled by people who do not care about anyone except rich donors. The EPA was sued to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant and the EPA lost during Bushes term. The court required the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant because the judges were required to read the overwhelming evidence that it is a problem. The Trump EPA has not challenged the declaration of CO2 as a pollutant because they would be in violation of the court order.

The court can declare that CO2 pollution is a national emergency and the legislative branch has to deal with it. It can set goals that have to be achieved. It can take punitive action if the goals are not met. This is currently done with sulfate pollution.

NorrisM at 04:55 AM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Moderator and nigelj

I will see if I can find some discussion of what is expected to be achieved beyond the publicity.

My rhetorical point is that the courts are not the place to decide these very complex issues. The problem courts have in cases like these is that they know very well any specific direction to the government could have massive financial costs which they are not equipped to evaluate. This is the function of the legislative arm which balances a great number of competing expenditures then weighing the use of deficit financing versus raising taxes. Many years ago our Canadian Supreme Court came down with a decision stating that if waiting lines did not improve they would render a decision finding that the Canada Health Act was beyond its power in prohibiting two tiered health care. What happened? Nothing.

Where specific issues are involved like civil rights or abortion these are legal questions where an answer can be given which can then be worked around by the legislative arm. I was familiar with the US Supreme Court decision on CO2 and that is why I asked if there were some discussion of what they think could be achieved in the children's case beyond publicity.

It is often the case in democracies that if a group of people are not happy with the government they resort to the courts. What happens is that our political system gets bogged down because every step taken by the legislative arm gets met with years of litigation. I do not think it is the way to run a democracy personally. Courts usurp the political process if they start making policy decisions. Clearly this is not a bright line between the law and policy but there are limits to what the courts can and should do. If you are not happy with your politicians then boot them out. If the US Supreme Court does get rid of "gerrymandering" this would go a long way to bringing more democracy to the legislative arm in the US.

John Hartz at 04:15 AM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

This just in...

People around the world beset by the impacts of global warming like droughts, heat waves and storm surges are calling for “climate justice,” and many are pleading their cases in court.
Globally, there are at least 1,000 active legal cases related to climate change, more than two-thirds of them in the United States, according to a recent tally from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, in London.
A summit on Tuesday in Paris — with more than 50 heads of state attending — on how to finance the transition to a low-carbon economy will be followed the next day by a climate justice forum.
Climate change: Global warming victims seek justice, on the street and in courts, AFP/Hindustan Times, Dec 10, 2017

william5331 at 04:13 AM on 11 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

The NY Times article titled Soil Power has hit the nail sqarely on the head. Read David R Montgomery's book, Growing a Revolution and then his previous book Dirt. It is all laid out clearly how to proceed and is a great read to boot.

SingletonEngineer at 21:27 PM on 10 December 2017

The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe

@nigelj:

I think that the answer to your question about paper publishing Vs electronic starts with the timeline.

IPCC operates on a 5-year cycle. The published reports hit the public some time after the end of the date at which new content is frozen. An example could be new data on ice mass stored on Greenland and the Antarctic, or the ice coverage of the Arctic. After a certain date, discussion of that new data simply must carry over to the next cycle.

At a rough approximation, let's put that at a half-cycle, ie 2.5 or 3 years.

Professor Hayhoe has suggested faster cycles for subject areas, especially the rapidly evolving ones, thus (my guess) lopping a year or maybe much more off the time lapse between publication of the peer reviewed work and its filtering out to the broader community.

IMHO, the 5-year cycle is probably going to remain for the purpose of bringing together the widest perspective and developing the broadest agreement across disciplines, but those are not valid arguments against the type of revolution proposed by Prof. Hayhoe.

Fresh is best, in science as well as fruit, but not so fresh that it hasn't ripened.

nigelj at 11:42 AM on 10 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

NorrisM @2

"Assuming the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows this case to go forward, if you were the judge what would you order......?"

I'm not sure why you are asking me. I'm not a lawyer, and I do not have a law degree, or know the American legal system, and you know this already, so theres not much I can say about what sort of legal case they can bring or what the judge would order, or damages they could demand. They will be getting that sort of advice.

Wouldn't it have been of more use for you to share your legal knowledge with us than ask a layperson on the law?

All I can say is the constitution is law in America, and violations of the constitution certainly have had legal consequences in the past with award of damages, or requiring various other orders, and the Federal government is not immune.

According to the article its all happened before "Climate science has been in court before. When he was president, George W. Bush also wanted to ignore the seriousness of climate change. His Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that CO2, the gas most responsible for the planet’s warming, is not a pollutant that could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Twelve states and several cities disagreed and took EPA to court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if the Administrator of EPA certified that CO2 does in fact endanger public health and safety, the gas should be regulated."

What I can do is give some advice on how to argue the facts 1) based on my knowledge of the climate issue and 2) I have actually represented myself in civil court several times, and won every case, so I know a little about how to present an argument.

And regardless of the legalities, the case the kids are bringing will focus attention on a very worthy subject.

"Relating to the Jacobson vs Clack litigation, I have just finished reading the published response of Jacobson and then the reply of Clack to that response. It is laughable to think that some judge with legal training could ever make sense of the complicated issues raised between the two of them even after listening to endless "experts" on both sides. "

Clack v Jacobson is complicated, but no more so than a complex financial fraud trial, or some high profile complex murder case. Judges and/ or juries hear those all the time.

NorrisM at 10:17 AM on 10 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

nigelJ @ 1

Assuming the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allows this case to go forward, if you were the judge what would you order? And who would you order to do it? Or do you, as the judge, just say, yes, it affects the life and liberty of every American. Then what?

Perhaps someone can point me to a rational discussion of what this case could achieve.

Relating to the Jacobson vs Clack litigation, I have just finished reading the published response of Jacobson and then the reply of Clack to that response. It is laughable to think that some judge with legal training could ever make sense of the complicated issues raised between the two of them even after listening to endless "experts" on both sides.

This case by these children all sounds wonderful but do you really expect some judge to come down with any decision that would have any legal effect?

Moderator Response:

[JH] You claim to be a lawyer. If so, you should be able to do your own legal homework on this case.

nigelj at 06:55 AM on 10 December 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49

Go you kids! I have total respect for what you are doing, and will watch with interest.

Lawyers can be intimidating, I have dealt with plenty of them. But a lot of it turns out to be hot air, empty rhetoric, and bluster, so dont let it intimidate you too much, and keep your discussion composed and civil, but forceful.

The main thing they will do is cast doubt on the science, and claim its not settled science and there's no consensus, so this is the main thing you have to counter. Point out that we have five independent studies showing 90 - 95% agreement between climate scientists that humans are warming the climate. Point out its climaate researchers views that count most, as they have the expertise. Point out polls like the Oregen partition are deeply flawed.

Above all do accept the fact a few climate scientists are dissenting voices, but that you do not require 100% agreement for settled science. There are always a few eccentric scientists with opposing views in any field of science, and there's still a flat earth society that is not entirely just for humour.

And point out that all natural climate trends should be causing a cooling effect rather than warming, and the fact that the denislist's haven't provided a competing, fully thought out alternative theory, that covers all issues and has won the respect of science academies and the IPCC and climate research community.

Kill it. Kill it with fire.

nigelj at 06:33 AM on 10 December 2017

The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe

OPOF, you and everyone else, may find this interesting, relevant to the games people play, and very witty. "The Parable of the Ox."

www.ft.com/content/bfb7e6b8-d57b-11e1-af40-00144feabdc0

nigelj at 06:29 AM on 10 December 2017

The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe

Swayseeker @2, I agree geoengineering by putting heat reflecting particles in the atmosphere is just high risk, with all sorts of side effects on rainfall and clouds.

You say "From my "stack effect" calculations quite a few cubic kilometres of warm moist air could be delivered every week to the high regions where the dense cold air starts descending."

Your basic theory seems to make sense, and I'm sure they could generate plenty of cubic metres in theory, but you give no idea of the size and number of greenhouses required, or cost, and its not going to be small. Like I have said before, go the further step and at least have a stab at possible scale with some reasonable assumptions and rough calculations, and it would be more convincing.

However at the rate things are going in California they may have to try some local climate modification like this. But please appreciate your technical fix is actually local geoengineering, and may produce a few side effects of its own. But they would be confined locally, more or less.

One Planet Only Forever at 03:03 AM on 10 December 2017

The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe

A clarification of my previous comment.

Human actions have already created so much CO2 pollution or reduction of CO2 sequestration in living organisms that the atmospheric level is above 350 ppm.

Therefore, human actions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere are required to be started Now, no matter how expensive it is to use the currently developed technology to do that. The current generation owes that reduction of cretaed impacts to future generations, and the wealthy people who fot wealthier through activity that creayed the problem should pay the most for the rapid removal of CO2 (while at the same time seeing a rapid reduction in their ability to get more wealth from cretaing excess CO2).

Most importantly, only options that remove CO2 without potentially creating other negative impacts should be in the competition to be the preferred actions to reduce CO2.

One Planet Only Forever at 02:45 AM on 10 December 2017

The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe

Swayseeker,

Totally agree and would add, as an experienced Engineer (applier of science), I seriously doubt our ability to understand the global environment well enough to be certain enough that there would not be unacceptable harm done by any Global Geo-Engineering attempt. All we can do is learn how to reduce the negative impacts of our actions, not try to create more impacts in the hopes that imposing more human impacts will be sustainably better.

What is certain is that even with the long established and constantly improving understanding of the harm being done by the ultimately dead-end burning up of buried hydrocarbons (more harm than the climate change conseqences of excess CO2 generation), the economic and political games people play get Won by damaging people who deserve to be Losers.

Until the fatal flaws that allow Damaging Private Interests to compete in the games people play are effectively dealt with, no Global Geo-Engineering activity should be considered helpful for the Public Interest of developing lasting better lives for all of humanity, no matter how much Regional or Tribal Popular support there is for the actions in the hopes that they will mitigate the massive damage already created by the failed Global Geo-Engineering experiment with fossil fuel burning. It would be worse to allow such actions and excuse more fossil fuel burning because such actions were allowed.

Swayseeker at 00:26 AM on 10 December 2017

The Carbon Brief Interview: Dr Katharine Hayhoe

The above article says, "A volcanic eruption spews enormous amounts of soot and dust into the atmosphere, and if it’s high enough up in the stratosphere, that soot and dust can circle the world for a year or more. It acts like a reflective blanket or an umbrella reflecting the energy of the sun back to space, which cools the Earth off. Some are proposing this as a possible solution to climate change,.."

If you cool the ground using this method you are going to get less convection and less convectional rainfall and less clouds to reflect solar energy to space. So it will lead to more drought and more fires. In my view it would be a huge mistake.

Regarding fires: California has had huge water canal construction projects and I do not see that implementation of the following idea would cost too much: The fires are fanned by initially relatively cold air that warms as it descends and heats by compression. One could have a reverse flow by having a greenhouse to evaporate seawater near the sea and have a long greenhouse pipe running upwards to where the wind starts. Because the air will be kept warm during the day in the greenhouse pipe and moist air is less dense than drier air, the air will rush up through the greenhouse pipe and heat the cold air region and increase relative humidity there. Now it might seem that this would have little effect, but this system could be kept running day and night throughout the year. From my "stack effect" calculations quite a few cubic kilometres of warm moist air could be delivered every week to the high regions where the dense cold air starts descending.
More humid air is less dense than drier air, enabling it to rise when it is at the same temperature as surrounding drier air:
Example:
1) At sea level the air pressure is 101.325 kPa. The air has a temperature of 30 deg C and the relative humidity (RH) is 95%. Then the density of the air is 1147 g per cubic metre.
2) At sea level the air pressure is 101.325 kPa. The air has a temperature of 32 deg C and the relative humidity (RH) is 50%. Then the density of the air is 1147 g per cubic metre.
So humidifying the 30 deg C air by increasing RH from 50% to 95% has about the same affect on air density as heating the RH=50% and T=30 deg C air to T=32 deg C.
Note: RH drops slightly on heating from 30 to 32 deg C, but it does not affect calculations a lot.

Eclectic at 20:00 PM on 9 December 2017

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

Citizenschallenge @78 , thank you for resurrecting this rather dormant thread. I hadn't heard of anything recently from "DrPhD" Doiron and his dozen or so of retired NASA engineers & non-climate scientists — who called themselves TRCS (The Right Climate Stuff).

According to their website, their last "activity" was 11 months ago (Jan. 2017). A quick read through their website, reveals some highly-selective cherrypicking [ Ljungqvist + one Greenland ice core site + upper troposphere "global temperatures" + one dodgy-looking graph of average once-annual world mean surface temperatures ] . . . all processed through some el basico mathematics plus a bit of curve-fitting with 61-year and 1000-year "natural cycles" . . . to produce a conclusion that there's nothing for humans to worry about because Global Warming from CO2 is only very slight and self-limiting. And it will be fine to keep burning fossil carbon in an unrestricted way.

In short, the TRCS presents a fine example of Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.

citizenschallenge at 16:38 PM on 9 December 2017

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

rbgage, at the rate we're going the not too distant future (a few decades) will be making the 17 hundreds look better all the time.

At least in the 1700s our environment was a vibrant healthy promising place, once you got out of the Europe's cities.

So sad, we never appreciate what we have till it's gone. : (

michael sweet at 10:32 AM on 9 December 2017

Models are unreliable

John,

That article is so sad :(.

John Hartz at 06:57 AM on 9 December 2017

Models are unreliable