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 17001 to 17050:

nigelj at 12:04 PM on 23 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

Red Baron @38,

I understand there are various soil carbon pathways, some involving soil based organisms both promoting rotting plant matter and ultimately consuming carbon containing material until an equilibrium is reached, and your root fungus mechanisms are another pathway. Is it possible to genetically engineer plants and / or organisms, so this so it all works better to increase soil carbon? Just a crazy thought, and rhetorical I dont expect an answer.

The plouged under article is interesting. It's sort of a comedy of bad ideas, corn biofuels arent a terribly convincing solution to me, subsidies tend to become embedded and hard to remove, and the insurance scheme while well intended has backfired in some ways.

I'm no "small government" ideologue, far from it, but its hard to see a case for tax payer funded crop insurance, especially in a large country like America. Its particularly hard to reconcile this with a country that promotes self reliance, capitalism and free markets.

These very large industrial farms with owners like pension funds etc are worrying. I recall reading the United Nations is questioning the efficiency and damage caused to soils, and promoting smaller farms with local owners.

The prairie grass issue is frustrating, because on the one hand I can see it maximises deep carbon rich soils, but on the other all the pressure is towards more crop lands in general, and less reliance on meat. But there may be a middle ground, where grasslands can be preserved for lower density cattle and beef and conservation areas, but less reliance is on intensive dairy farming. Dairy farming causes pretty intense environmental impacts. But farming is well ouside my area, just a few ideas.

Bob Loblaw at 12:00 PM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM

France was already largely nuclear for electricity generation in the 1980s. My guess would be that they went heavily nuclear in the 1960s and 1970s in conjunction with early nculear development (bombs et al). Canada, the US, Britain, etc. all had nuclear power programs in that era, and I think France was just the one that bought in completely. I don't know what that means in terms of end-of-useful-life on their reactors and replacment plans. Canada's reactors from the '60s and '70s had a lot of early and costly maintenance that wasn't expected.

I do remember a big stink in 1983 about France's nuclear waste disposal program though - it consisted of encasing it in concrete or other materials, putting it on a ship, and dumping it the Marianas Trench area in the western Pacific. Deep ocean, geologic subduction zone - out of site, out of mind.

NorrisM at 10:50 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

nigel @ 168

I think you will understand that until I posted what I did I had never heard of Michael Miersch. It is not normal to expect that the Director of an organization called the German Wildlife Foundation would be what you refer to as a "climate denier".

In any event, I have indicated that I would like to focus on the costs of wind and solar power as it impacts the US. As much as I would like to consider nuclear power I get the message that this is not the place and I hear what you all have said about costs.

But I still find it puzzling that two very forward looking countries in France and Sweden actually converted to nuclear power for up to 80% of their power generation many years ago. Whether it was, at the time, prohibitively expensive, I do not know. I do know that they have not had any "incidents" which have come to world attention.

But I do know that France is an absolutely beautiful country and I wonder what it will look like if it in fact does convert from nuclear power to wind and solar. The wind farms in Spain are in very desolate unpopulated areas that remind you of movies like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (no pun intended). I say that having seen the windmills both near Cadiz on the Atlantic west coast and near Granada in Andalucia.

We have been to France a number of times. Two times we have stayed in the Loire Valley at the Hotel St. Michelle just beside one of the grandest of the chateaus called Chambord. Just on the other side of the hill is one of France's nuclear power stations tucked away in the hills. All we could hear from our hotel window in the evening was a low hum which was not at all offensive. I think my experiences at Chambord and my love of the French country are reasons why I ask why can we not go this direction. But, even though the arguments for nuclear power were first pointed out to me by James Hansen (thanks to a referency by one of my sisters) I will not pursue this on this website.

NorrisM at 10:30 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob Loblaw and MA Rodger

First rule of statutory interpretation is "turn the page". The modern one is "scroll down". I just spent 5 minutes trying to find both books which I guess I have left at my office. I then scrolled down and find that MA Rodger had the two books pictured. In my first reference to these books, when I found that Mark Steyn was one of the authors of the second book, I just about did not open it up. But as it turned out I found all of the others interesting. The other "starter" book was Michael Mann's book entitled "Climate Wars".

When I first started studying the early origins of Christianity and the arguments for and against the Christian god, I read books on both sides because I found that was the only way to "test ideas".

Unfortunately in the area of climate science the area is too complex for the average layman. Furthermore, the climate scientists themselves cannot even agree on the facts let alone what those facts tell us about the future.

I definitely plan to look at the book recommended.

Not to get back into the issue of freedom of speech but I just opened my email to find that Judith Curry's website today has a discussion of the very topic we were addressing. First time I saw this was about 15 minutes ago. From the blog, it would seem "both sides" seem to agree with her take on what is happening on university campuses.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Blatant lie snipped.

RedBaron at 10:00 AM on 23 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

36 nigelj,

Don't be too enamored by your science daily soil sink study. That study is just showing that the Roth C model that was developed to mathematically predict the movement of carbon in and out of soils is inadequate for the task. There are other models but if it is describing biomass decay then the model will not apply to the LCP which is not biomass carbon, it is derived by symbiosis from root exudates and never builds any plant tissues.

How can we tell? Because it was calculated by the biomass decay and biomass decay is not how soils are built. If biomass decay was how soils are built then the thickest richest soils in the world would be forest soils and especially forest soils like the amazon rain forest. They are some of the poorest in the world.

The best soils in the world are grassland soils and they have even less biomass, a lot less. So we know that biomass decay is not what builds those thick rich black soils. But I explained this to you before. Not sure why you couldn't spot it yourself. Mollic epipedon , Liquid carbon pathway

Yes we are on track to even less soil sequestration into the soil naturally than originally guessed. But it is NOT because soils can't absorb carbon, it's because all the primary soil sequestration biomes are plowed under worldwide and at minimum 50-80% of the remaining second best biomes for sequestering carbon are highly degraded by human activity and poor land management.

So in a way your study is right, but the conclusions being drawn from it are not correct at all.

This is why those carbon readings are so old and so low.

Plowed under

Bob Loblaw at 08:06 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

MA Rodger:

Thanks. I agree that the second book is a terrible thing to waste time on, just from the list of authors.

nigelj at 06:26 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM

I try to take people at face value and give them the benefit of the doubt. You seem just sincerely interested at times, but you make it hard when you persist with quoting cranks like Miersch who has no science degree, and has made no attempt to make a proper evidence based argument. His rhetoric is mostly inflammatory and sloganistic and thats no basis for anything. Some sceptics (not necessarily you) criticise Al Gore as being too emotive and histrionic, and hypocritically then support people like Miersh and Moncton who are demonstrably far more inflammatory than Gore. The denialists double standard and weak intellectual standard amuses me.

But I take you at face value that you hate the look of wind farms. I dont mind them and obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

However its all so utterly academic, because offshore wind farms are now very competitive in price. The UK has just tendered a big wind farm project, and the offshore proposal came in very cost competitive with other options. So the wind farm aesthetic problem is at least likely to become a non problem, so its hard to see why you go on bringing the subject up.

You talk a lot about what is politically "realistic" and fair enough to a point. We also need aspirations as well, however on the politically realistic theme, how likely do you think it is that government would push nuclear because its more "aesthetically attractive" (perhaps) than wind power? I dont like the chances.

I'm neutral about nuclear, neither in favour or firmly against. It has its benefits and costs like anything and Im not going to get into that discussion. I grew up with various nuclear scares that made me sceptical, but have accepted you can't judge the issue entirely on that. I dont think Nuclear is the magic bullet we all thought back in the 1970s, but neither is it so flawed that it should be banned. IMO it's for individual countries to decide, but they better have a sober look at the full range of related issues. Storing the waste is a big problem, if you do some reading.

We have various possible mechanisms for deciding the make up of a renewable energy system, from top down government control of the exact make up, to a more market based approach where generators pick and choose the systems they prefer, provided they are low emissions (so wind, solar, hydro, nuclear etc) and this is not a bad approach to my mind, as it combines the power of market forces and innovation with the foundation environmental rules and boundaries coming from government. But in such a system nuclear is failing to compete on costs, and it's that simple. The clear example of all this is America.

Theres nothing to be done about costs of nuclear, because compromising safety regulation for nuclear would be insanity if you pardon my emotive term, but actually it just would be insanity.

Theres not much that can be done unless you feel the government should force nuclear power on society, which would be very big government indeed. Aesthetic appearance is unlikely to be a compelling case. Tell me if you think I'm wrong.

nigelj at 05:31 AM on 23 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

Aleks @33, yes water vapour is a greenhouse gas and associated with combustion of fossil fuels, but you again miss the point. It mostly probably falls mostly as rain, but the simple fact is its intrinsically associated with increasing fossil fuel emissions and this water vapor is thus increasing and is another warming agent. The message: Stop burning fossil fuels.

nigelj at 05:19 AM on 23 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

Aleks @33, the university of bolder study is 5 years old now, and not representative of all studies. Uptake of natural sinks is difficult to determine and you need to look at all the research. Many other studies are more pessimistic especially more recent studies.

For example the article below discusses research finding ocean uptake of CO2 has actually slowed since 2000 due to increasing acidity.

www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/climate-change-reducing-oceans-ability-to-absorb-carbon-dioxide.html

The following article in Science Daily discusses research that finds soil sinks wont absorb nearly as much carbon over the next century as thought.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160922085737.htm

I could go on with more. Natural sinks have their limitations and carbon dioxide draw down is basically a very slow process over millenia. This emphasises the need to cut emissions at source. We can enhance natural sinks a bit, but the potential is limited mainly by the slow process of impementation and slow uptake of CO2.

nigelj at 05:03 AM on 23 October 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42

William @1, I agree. Maybe the reasons for slow uptake of basic pollution controls on sulphates etc are political. I dont think China has quite as rigorous set of environmental rules, and ability to sue in civil court like America from what I have read. People dont fit filter devices until there is some external pressure like this.

A lot of the big industrial companies are state owned enterprises very close to government, so a lot of crony capitalism and favours.

I dont have a specific source link, but this is impression from reading the Economist.com over the years. I recall reading something that theres a huge push now to clean up smog, because its at incredibly serious levels in their cities.

Marco at 04:57 AM on 23 October 2017

The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job

Sadly, bad papers are common, and getting them retracted is almost impossible. Some journals (read: Editors) react quickly to concerns, others just don't care or are too busy.

Now, I note that in part 4 it is stated "He told us that they had checked the issue with "iThenticate", which didn't show high similarity. This means that they took F13 and their earlier book chapter and compared them to each other". I don't think the second sentence follows from the first. iThenticate checks all sources that it can access. Sometimes it does take some extra steps when a paper is already published to find the plagiarism, as it may primarily highlight the same paper as the source. You then need to actively deselect that source. So, maybe the EiC just didn't do that.

I also don't think Elsevier can be blamed so much, here. It looks like it is primarily the EiC who did everything he could to evade the issue. Having had my own contact with an Elsevier representative regarding >1000 fundamentally flawed papers (that's not a typo: more than 1000) in another field, I am somewhat sympathetic to their view that the Publisher should be very hesitant in meddling with the science that they publish. This is what the Editorial Boards are for. They may make more of an issue out of the plagiarism, so you should perhaps send the plagiarism overview to the Elsevier executive, and complain that the EiC does not take any action.

MA Rodger at 04:53 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob Loblaw @166,

The book NorrisM has mentioned as his intro to AGW was actually co-authored with Ted Parson.

Dessler & Parson

The other was some nonsense edited by an Alan Moran. I say nonsense without more that spotting who is on the list of the contributing authors.

Alan Moran book

Bob Loblaw at 04:29 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM;

You referred to a book by Dessler upthread. Would that be this one?

https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/1107480671

Book cover, Dessler Climate Change

Note that Dessler is a climate scientist, not a journalist.

Out of curiosity, what was the other book?

Evan at 04:20 AM on 23 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

aleks@33, from the paper you cited, there is the following cautionary note.

“What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions,” said Ballantyne. “How long this will continue, we don’t know.”

The fact that the earth is absorbing large quantities of our emissions is great, but it has its limits. The fact that the offset of current CO2 compared to preindustrial is 3 times higher now than in the late 1960's but the authors say the uptake has only doubled may already be a sign that the uptake is slowing down. This is the nature of systems as they become saturated.

We are digging up carbon and dumping it into the above-ground systems at a rate they are not accustomed to. The result will not be good. We need to start leaving the carbon below ground where it is, instead of trying to convince ourselves that either nature or our technology will find ways to put it back underground. Why not just leave it where it is?

Evan at 04:10 AM on 23 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

aleks@33 Yes, H2O is a primary combustion product together with CO2. For "clean fuels" such as CH4, twice as much H2O is emitted as CO2. But the excess H2O just falls out of the system as precipitation. So the only increase of the steady-state H2O concentration is through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and is not due to direct emission of H2O. That is, the only way that the steady-state concentration of H2O can increase is if there is an increase of temperature first. Direct emissions of H2O do nothing to inrease to increase steady-state concentrations of H2O.

Regarding uptake of CO2 doubling, I am not an expert in this area, but this number does not surprise me, and it does not make me feel better. Consider that for about 10,000 years during the Holocene that background CO2 concentrations were about 280 ppm. The fact that the concentration was stable means that sources and sinks were in equilibrium. Then comes the industrial revolution and we start to ramp up CO2. By the late 1960's the CO2 concetration had increased to about 325 ppm. This is an increase of 45 ppm above the steady-state value during the Holocene. The result is that the earth starts to absorb more CO2 to draw down the concentration and to try to restore balance. Now we are at about 405 ppm, or about 125 ppm above preindustrial, and about 3 times higher than the 45 ppm inbalance representative of the late 1960's. So it is not surprising that the rate of sequestration has doubled in the last 50 years, because the increase above preindustrial has tripled. Far from making us feel better, the fact that we are dumping such huge levels of carbon into the natural system represents a deviation from the steady-state balance we had for 10,000 years, and such a dramatic departure should make us worry about what effect this will have. Such as ocean acidification. We know some of the good benefits, but we may yet discover that there are other not-so-good effects lurking in the dark.

william5331 at 04:04 AM on 23 October 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42

I'm puzzled by the Chinese air pollution from factories. The equipment to remove particulates and sulphur from the smoke stacks is off-the-shelf technology that America deployed decades ago to clean up her emissions. Why don't they just buy a few units, reverse engineer them and deploy them to all polluting factories. They even make money from the recovered sulphur. As for cars, they lead the world in electric cars and in installation of wind turbines and solar panels so vehicle pollution should sort itself out over time.

NorrisM at 03:13 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

michael sweet and Bob Loblaw

Thanks, I will definitely take a look at it. This whole climate change issue started from me reading two books on the subject, one for and against after my two sisters got into an argument. The "for" book was that of Dessler (if I have not said that above).

NorrisM at 03:08 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

MA Rodger @ 154

I am very impressed with your summary of that portion of the Harris podcast with Cass Sunstein. I should have qualified my comment to Eclectic that not the whole podcast is on freedom of speech. But it is very interesting on the other things discussed so it would not have been a waste of time.

We all agree that freedom of speech is very important in our society. Sunstein's point is that we have to tolerate wackos like Jones denying the Sandy Hook massacre to protect our freedoms because to do otherwise puts us on the slippery slope of quelling any dissent with the "popular view" which would be very dangerous. I think his summary of where the US Supreme Court has drawn the line is a good one and one with which I generally agree.

As to Miersch, I have since noted that at the time of my post I did not realize that he had strong views on climate change. Of course I am familiar with GWPF because it and Judith Curry's blog are the other two that I look at only occasionally. I have now searched on Wikipedia for the German Wildlife Foundation and it is not listed as a conservation society in Germany. I am somewhat disappointed in GWPF for not making it clear who Miersch is and is not. If the German Wildlife Society was in fact a true conservation society, leaving Miersch in the position as Director of Communications would say something as to their views but that does not seem to be the case.

Bob Loblaw at 03:05 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Evidently it took me more than a minute to type my response @ 162....

Bob Loblaw at 03:04 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM:

Spencer Weart's book is available electroncially for free at the link I provided. I think the on-line version is more up-to-date than any paper version you can buy. The on-line version certainly has lots of information to digest.

michael sweet at 03:03 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Norrism:

Spencer Weart's book is a free web copy at the link that Bob Loblow provided at 158. No need to waste $100.

NorrisM at 02:54 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob Loblaw @ 156

Notwithstanding my comment in one of your replies on the models, I really do not want to engage this any further. I did gain a further understanding of the complexities of these models by reading the Chapter 9 of the IPCC 2013 assessment but I would prefer to deal with solutions. This moves more into an area where it is less technical and more political and economic which is easier for me to digest.

My sense is that we will be watching the fireworks on the ability of the models to assist in predicting future temperature increases if the EPA does proceed with the Red Team Blue Team. The July news item I cited suggests they are proceeding.

NorrisM at 02:48 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob Lobaw

I have read Dessler's book but I will take a look at Weart's on amazon. I have found that a lot of these books cost more than $100.

I agree with the moderator that we should move on.

Bob Loblaw at 02:28 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Final comment for the moment:

I commend you in that you have shown a willingness to obtain and read a variety of sources of information on the subjects that have been raised in discussion here.

I think that you give credibility to some sources that I consider to be highly unreliable.

If you have not been pointed to it before, I suggest that you take the time to read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. It is written by an historian - someone with expertise in the history of science.

Bob Loblaw at 02:22 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM:

The phrase "Business As Usual" has different meaning to different people. When the IPCC assigned that term to one of their scenarios back in the 1990s, they assumed (IIRC) continued growth as seen in the past. It was a label assigned to a particular CO2 concentration growth under certain assumptions. It was not an indicator of a particular sociological or economic system.

Your examples of China reflect that things have changed since the IPCC first started using that term. None of the IPCC RCP scenarios exactly fit what has happened - but they were not predictions, they were projections to cover a reasonable range of possibiliities to see what difference it woudl make. Look back at my description earlier regarding "sensitivity analysis".

With respect to nuclear power, my personal position is that safety of long-term disposal of nuclear waste has not been solved, and that total captial and operating costs have continually been much, much larger than originally claimed. Nuclear has historically enjoyed much government support, and it seems unlikely that it can stand on its own without it. I am not against it as a solution to reducing fossil fuels, but I am not in favour of it if it costs more than other alternatives. {But we try to avoid discussions of nuclear energy here, because it will rapidly wander into non-climate-related arguments between fiercely devoted proponents of the extreme positions.)

As for my feeling about what you call a "head in the sand approach" - it is not that you are part of that group, but that you appear to readily accept information from those sources with less skepticism than you seem to apply to well-founded science. This is called "confirmation bias", and it is something that every person has in varying degrees (and varying topics for one individual). With a legal background, surely you can appreciate the question of the credibility of the witness"?

Bob Loblaw at 01:57 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM:

I see that the moderators have snipped some of your comment, relating to reliability of models. There is a Skeptical Science post on that issue. FEel free to raise those questions on that topic here:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Bob Loblaw at 01:53 AM on 23 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM: "I have never said that the best estimate of the additional costs is $0."

Yes, I agree that you never said that explicitly, and it was not my intention to imply that you had said it explicitly, but rather that your position to not include it is equivalent to placing a value of $0 on it. Thus, it is implicit in your position. Ignoring those extra costs in the risk management plan is the same as including them with a value of $0.

To further clarfiy my positon: going to the lowest common denominator (US federal position) is not acceptable to me. The evidence in this blog post is that individual US states and political postions are moving away from this scorched earth federal position. This is to be encouraged. The world's politicians (mostly) have indicated acceptance to the Paris Agreement. It is non-binding, but hopefully countries will live up to their promises, and will commit to the further actions needed down the line.

aleks at 00:36 AM on 23 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

Evan@28,29, thanks for detailed reply. About natural removal rates for CO2. Please, pay attention to the research by A.Ballantyne a.o. (University of Colorado)

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2012/08/01/earth-still-absorbing-co2-even-emissions-rise-says-new-cu-led-study

The authors state that "natural carbon sinks that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years".

Reference to the Clapeyron-Clausius equation shows that you consider water concentration change in the atmosphere only in relation to temperature. However, water emitted together with carbon dioxide at combustin of fuel in huge quantities. So, at burning of methane the yield of H2O is 2mole/mole CO2, for oil it will be slightly more than 1mole H2O/1mole CO2. Even coal contains about 6% H by mass. This is an additional evidence in favor of the significance of water vapor for the processes of heat exchange in the atmosphere.

MA Rodger at 21:32 PM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM @152,

Perhaps I should explain why I brand you a troll. In rough terms, it is evident that you come to SkS with a contrary view but fail at every turn when asked to justify that view. You appear more interested in piling on the startling contrary views than in attempting to reconcile the views you express with the views others expressed here, those which are in the main science-based.
Strangely, I don't appear to have branded you a troll before, strange as I don't usually hold back for so long. But let us consider the detail of your use of Miersch down this thread.
@122 you introduced Michael Miersch into this thread as an aside, suggesting his message comprises news from Germany of "a major backlash" against renewable energy. By the sounds of it, he is an enemy of on-shore wind power and is being invited to speak in the seat of UK government (the Palace of Westminster) by a UK educational charity, the GWPF. Of course, the GWPF is no normal charity but a cynical bunch of climate change deniers. (The last time I heard of a GWPF talk at Westminster it was veteran climate denier Richard Lindzen.) I can't believe you would not have known about the GWPF given you tell us @112 that your understanding of Miersch is based on GWPF information. If you did not, its dodgy nature was set out @114. ( Interestingly, your acknowledgement of this situation @127 is riven with the sort of gramatical nonsense you would expect from an non-English speaker, suggesting you found writing it very difficult. Perhaps the message you wrote there was foreign to you!)
It is true that you were goaded into continuing further with this, but you did so by citing in the most general terms an 80 minute pod-cast to support the case of Miersch having the right of freedom of speech to say what he does (even though we still don't know what it is he does say). I listened to what I assume is the passage of that pod-cast which you were citing. (It's at about 1hr to 1hr 6 here) What Cass Sunstein is saying is that you cannot slander or libel a person (which the German government were accused of by Miersch, but which the courts said otherwise. The courts say there is no libel as Miersch is a Klimawandelskeptiker). Cass Sunstein also says that a person has the right to describe the Sandy Hook massacre as being a real or imaginary event that was orchestrated by the US government to enable tighter gun laws. As long as you are sincere and not lying, you are allowed to say such outrageous things. This can be said as this is not slander/libel - no individual is being defamed. And apparently some seriously sick people do brand Sandy Hook a hoax/conspiracy. As it is difficult to establish legally that they are sincere in their belief (an so not lying) they are imune to legal challenges. Sunstein was also asked about malicious 'doxing' replying that newspapers do have the right to publish the names and addresses of rape victims even if the intention was to unleash violence against them. Sunstein says this is poor law, saying on this of Madison (a US founding father, apparently) "(it is) not clear if Madison would roll over in his grave if we said you can't disclose where someone lives if the purpose and effect of that is to increase the risk of voilence."
So that is pretty startling stuff you cite to defend Miersch's right to say... well... frankly, I get the distinct impression you do not know what Miersch says on "wind and solar versus nuclear" and so who can say if he is "someone who shared my views." So this continues to be a troll-like discourse here, or have you a source of Miersch-ism you have, golly, forgotten to share with us.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Everyone: Let's please return to the topic of this thread.

Eclectic at 18:21 PM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Thank you, MA Rodger @150 , for the further details on the sad case of mendacious journalist Miersch.

Who says the Germans have no sense of humor?! . . . I love the Galileo-like title reference: "Und Sie Erwaermt Sich Doch". How appropriate!

This thread is certainly quite a broad umbrella of topics.

Alas, NorrisM @ 149 , even this broad thread is not broad enough for us to engage in a discussion of your tendency to moral nihilism. The admirable and witty Voltaire nevertheless was acutely aware of the difference between good and evil (and the gradations inbetween) -— and I rather doubt he would approve of your hijacking & extremist usage of his aphorism on "rights of speech".

As for who judges -— who better than a German court, it seems! ;-)

To a large extent, the Germans have learnt their lesson (after some "difficulties" in the 1930's and 1940's). And they have realized that a supine & laissez-faire approach to dealing with harmful lies & propaganda, is not a wise policy for society.

That the matter of "judgment" in these affairs is not easy, is no excuse to abandon the attempt entirely. Surely a lawyer should appreciate that the legal system exists to deal with the difficult cases as well as the easy cases. Fiat iustitia ...

~And no, there I wasn't spruiking for a new Red/Blue assessment. ;-)

The basic climate facts have have already been determined 20+ years ago : by the competent authorities. Nowadays it is merely required to summon up the moral fortitude to take the necessary remediations of the AGW situation.

More bluntly : it is high time we got off our butts.

(Which brings us back on topic for this semi-political thread ! )

NorrisM at 17:51 PM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

MA Rodger @ 150

Defn of Troll: "A person who posts inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments online for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response."

Very disappointed in your comment. If I do not agree with your view you get upset. I guess you would prefer to hear from others who agree with you. Much more comfortable staying in your echo chamber. So much for freedom of speech.

Moderator: If you snip some of this comment then I trust you will snip the term "troll" from the above comment. All I did was quote a speaker who was appearing in England who I read from another source was the Director of the German Wildlife Foundation. Given my personal views on wind and solar versus nuclear, it was nice to hear of someone who shared my views. Is it so bad to think that wind turbines are a blotch on our landscape? Subsequent to that I acknowledged that it was pointed out that he had a history of questioning climate change and was only Director of Communications for the German Wildlife Foundation. At the time I posted this I did not know his general views on climate change. This I assume has brought on the label of being a "troll".

Moderator Response:

[DB] Off-topic, moderation complaints and sloganeering snipped.

NorrisM at 17:24 PM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Bob Loblaw @ 143

I have been very impressed by your arguments generally (interesting to see two Canadians go at it). But this comment really distorts what I have said and sounds like some others which look for some "underlying preconceived notions".

A few examples:

"Just because you want to label uncertainties in these costs as "vague", "theoretical", etc. does not mean that the best estimate of these additional costs is $0."

I have never said that the best estimate of the additional costs is $0. What I have said is that you will not get the US, Europe or China onside to recognize this because of the costs to their particular society in imposing some carbon tax beyond pollution costs. Of course, the future costs are much more than the pure "pollution costs". But unless you have a very easy alternative (as to costs and viability), then you have to weigh the benefits of FF to the future costs. I have already indicated what I think should be a two-pronged approach.

"That you keep repeating shop-worn denier talking points about uncertainty, models, etc. suggests that at some deep level you are still believing or hoping that the science is all wrong and no significant change is needed."

Wrong. It has nothing to do with hoping the science is all wrong. I also do not thing the science is all wrong. But my concern with the models, especially after having read a very honest Chapter 9 of the IPCC 2013 Assessment during my recent holiday, is that I do not think that we have the ability to model, by computers, the complexities of the climate to a level that we can fully trust them. I am not saying that the models are useless, but when I read in the IPCC assessment that the models have been "tuned" to match reality in "hindcasts" (in ways not disclosed to the IPCC) then it raises serious questions as to the ability of models to predict the future 50 years from now and suggest that sea levels really will increase at rates much higher than present levels. I understand that any model would have to be adjusted in hindsight to input things like actual volcanic activity and actual El Ninos and other actual ocean oscillations but my sense is that with these "adjustments" we are not much better off than taking a ruler and projecting sea level and temperature rises based upon the last 25-50 years.

That is why I have found myself reverting to what is actually happening both as to average temperature increases and average sea level rises over X period of years. I think it is eminently reasonable to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that things will continue at the same rates as we have seen. We had a "hiatus" for a period of 12-15 years in average temperature rise but I am more than prepared to accept that this was a "blip" and that temperatures will continue to rise because the CO2 emissions continue.

At 71 years of age, I am not concerned about myself or my economic position. I am concerned about the world but I am, more than anything, a realist. I have two adult children who will have to live in this world (I actually worry that there are other things that are more dangerous to their future welfare than climate change). So when I advocate things, I take into account political realities together with a general skepticism that we as humans are apocalyptic. Just remember that climate scientists in the 1970's, or at least a fair number, were suggesting we were on our way to another mini ice age. I just do not think that we are about to go over Niagara Falls. We have some time to see if this really is a problem. For at least 25 years, we have been told we were going "over the cliff" (or over the waterfall) and it has not happened.

I am happy to deal with linear increases. If we find that "linear' is in fact wrong, then we deal with it. That is why I have been trying to sort out what the actual sea level rise has been for the last 25 years.

The other thing I have not mentioned is my question as to whether the CO2 emissions will be the same over the next 30 years with BAU as it has been for the last 30 years. China has taken massive steps using cheap coal to fuel its industrialization. Hopefully this will not go on for the next 30 years. Surely they will not again "double" their existing steel production. Clearly China will be using wind and solar (in conjunction with their existing coal plants) to mitigate their pollution costs. As I type this, it has occurred to me that China is not focussing on nuclear power. I have never heard this from any of the commentators but that is probably one of the best arguments that nuclear power does not make economic sense. If a planned economy like China has not moved to nuclear power (and the Chinese are no dummies) then there are reasons that argue for wind and solar in favour of nuclear (I still find this disappointing for our world - I saw some of the wind farms in Spain). For some they are pretty, but to me it is a sad commentary on what humans are doing to the world.

My point is that you misrepresent my concerns. They are not based upon some "head in the sand" approach. But at least I think you would agree that I am entitled to express my opinions and that I should not be shuffled off to jail or fined for expressing them.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Off-topic and sloganeering snipped.

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

Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics, repeat fallacies and assertions already disproven or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.

Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

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, as no further warnings shall be given.

MA Rodger at 17:05 PM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Michael Miersch - For the record.

The discussion of German denialist Michael Miersch was introduced into this thread by troll NorrisM @112 and in subesquent comments the trammels of Meirsch have been repeatedly highlighted by NorrisM as he considers denialists like Mersch have the right to set out their opinion without let or hinderence. This was not the view of the German Federal Environment Agency who in 2013 published a 120-page exposition titled 'Und Sie Erwärmt Sich Doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den Klimawandel?' ('And yet it heats up. What is behind the debate on climate change') criticising German climate denial and naming Miersch and a couple of his colleagues. This naming is described as "unusual for a government agency" by Miersch (although without naming, it would be difficult to debunk any specific climate denier or instance of climate denial) who sets out a turgid account of (to quote Kenneth Williams) "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in f' me!" and how he and fellow denialst Dirk Maxeiner were taking the Federal Environment Agency to court to enforce a withdrawal of the government brochure. Sadly for Miersch, the German courts concluded that he was after all legally a Klimawandelskeptiker. His turgid account of all this was duly publshed by the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy. I think it is fair to say that, unless a translation of the full 'Und Sie Erwärmt Sich Doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den Klimawandel?' is forthcoming, the rights and wrongs of all this belong in a German-speaking forum and should not be trolled around at SkS.

BaerbelW at 16:51 PM on 22 October 2017

The F13 files, part 4 - dealing with Elsevier

In the comments for part 1 of this series it was suggested to just have one comment thread as there is bound to be quite some overlap. In the spirit of this suggestion, here is the link to that thread:

https://skepticalscience.com/f13_copy_paste.html#commenthead

BaerbelW at 16:49 PM on 22 October 2017

The F13 files, part 3 - the reference list analysis and other problems

https://skepticalscience.com/f13_copy_paste.html#commenthead

BaerbelW at 16:48 PM on 22 October 2017

The F13 files, part 2 - the content analysis

https://skepticalscience.com/f13_copy_paste.html#commenthead

NorrisM at 16:08 PM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Eclectic at 147

I have appreciated you comments in other respects. I think we disagree on this point and perhaps we should just move on to other things. By the way, I think the first one to use the expression I used was Voltaire.

I was going to resist this, but I am curious to know who do you think should be the arbiter on what should be allowed to be said and what should not be allowed to be said?

nigelj at 14:31 PM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM @134

Thank's, but just on this sea level rise issue. You appeared to be quoting some panel discussion where Koonin asked some questions, and you were dubious of whether the IPCC had sufficient reasons for projections of one metre by 2100 etc. I'm mystified why you think the criticism or questions of one person is particularly significant, especially given Koonin has not put any real evidence on the table about sea level rise and why he might think IPCC have it wrong. I have provided you with IPCC explanations of why sea level rise is expected to accelerate, and I see others have done the same. Do you have any proper scientific evidence of why they might be wrong? You certainly havent provided any.

"My main point is that I do not think the politicians of the world, not just the United States, are really going to impose carbon taxes beyond what is politically acceptable so it is wasted time talking about imposing carbon taxes based upon theoretical calculations of SCC"

I agree it all has to be politically acceptable, and I have already said that Norris. You start with an appropriate lesser figure like California has and increase this over time. I think they had $30 but would have to check and it should possibly be a bit more. But this figure will have to be increased over time reasonably quickly.

But you have to consider the theoretical maximum to get the wider picture and context otherwise its hard to identify any starting figure.

"So my principal point is that you do what is politically feasible. Impose a carbon tax on the cost of pollution. "

No this seems wrong to me and a pretence that climate change doesnt somehow exist. It should emphasise both pollution and climate change. But I understand where you are coming from.

"The other thing to do is convince the public that wind and solar power (for now I am leaving alone nuclear power) can viably compete with FF, using FF as a back up source of base load power. "

Yes no question about that. I hear what you say about Trump and Republicans. I have no idea what will happen there the whole thing looks like a disaster area of epic proportions in every respect. I'm just personally interested in the science, and practical policy responses. Politics tends to be the art of the compromise. I can only advocate on what I think the scientific truth is, and the most sensible response to reducing emissions, and hope people see sense on the political side of things and try not to let partisan political emotion take control and instead think of the wider picture a bit more rationally.

"One final point, ensure that the carbon tax is dividended back to the people. If you keep it to distort the economy by investing it in RE then you lose half the electorate. "

I basically like tax and dividend. I think about half should be given back to the people and about half put into renewable energy and electic car subsidies. There are many reasons for this, and I dont have time to explain the rationale. But I dont see any reason to believe people would rebel, if some went into renewable energy. The Pew poll research you are so fond of quoting clearly found a majority were favourable towards renewable energy etc.

I just dont think R Toll has much credibility for reasons others have stated and my own reading, but $30 is a useful figure to at least consider. Personally I think a bit more as a starting point, but look at the risk of repetition, nobody is going to seriously suggest a whopping really high tax at day one, the world doesn't work like that.

Eclectic at 11:51 AM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM @146 ,

you are (I am sure, deliberately) failing to distinguish the right to advocate genocide/mass-murder , from the right to express innocent opinion.

I am reasonably certain that jurist Sunstein (whatever his provenance) would disagree with your view that "anything goes" for freedom of speech as Freedom trumps all considerations of common sense & morality.

e.g. The stupidity of the anti-science ideas of the Flat-Earthers is one thing (since it harms no-one) -— but the criminality of a steward advising Titanic passengers to stay in their cabins & to avoid the lifeboats . . . is something completely different. ~And it's not at all innocent.

Your position is indefensible, NorrisM. Please keep your trolling mode level to 75% or below ! Even though this thread is a broad umbrella ;-)

Evan at 11:01 AM on 22 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

RedBaron@30, thanks for the additional links. Interesting points you make about how much the natural cycles could be helping us.

But my basic point is that whatever the land and oceans are doing to remove CO2, we are still building up CO2 at a net 2 ppm/year, which is disasterous. At this rate we are only about 20 years from the budget for staying below 2C. So whatever promises there are for using sequestration technologies, whether natural or artificial, we had better get busy using them. If modified farming practices can be used to sequester additional carbon, that would be great.

Thanks for pointing out a side of the discussion that I know I have been overlooking.

NorrisM at 10:31 AM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Eclectic @ 145

This has been said many times before but I am not defending what Miersch said but only his right to say it.

As soon as you start putting limits on what people say based upon your views as to what is right and wrong, you are just on a continuum with dictatorial regimes whose arch enemy is freedom of speech. One of the most important things necessary to protect our democracy is to allow people to have different views and to be able to express those different views. I am sure you have read 1984 by George Orwell. None of us want Big Brother watching.

You would do well to listen to the Sam Harris podcast I referenced and see if you do not agree after actually listening to Sunstein that Miersch should have the right to say what he says. According to Harris, Sunstein is the most quoted law professor in the United States. He is not a neo-con.

The attitude you express seems to be something that has invaded a number of university campuses in the US where students shout down anyone who disagrees with them and force university administrations to "disinvite" speakers from attending on campus. It is very troubling.

nigelj at 10:22 AM on 22 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

Red Baron, I was reading carbon rich soil is some Australian grass lands go down 20 metres, which indicates the potential.

But what do you make of this? looks ominous:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160922085737.htm

"Soil will absorb less atmospheric carbon than expected this century, study finds". It appears to be saying potential is huge but its a slow process. Or is the study wrong or out of date?

Eclectic at 09:49 AM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM @141 , you deserve to be rapped over the knuckles for your misstatement about German journalist/denialist Miersch [see posts #114 and #129].

i.e. your quote: "He [jurist Sunstein] would strongly defend the right of Miersch to say what he wants as long as it does not promote physical harm to other persons." (unquote)

But that is exactly what Miersch is guilty of (as are all climate Denialists). He disseminates falsehood (and advocates inaction) which will promote physical harm to millions/billions of people during the course of this century & the next one.

That point is plainly obvious. Is it not, Norris?

But let us not bother to discuss the sad case of Miersch, here. (And I am not offended that you are espousing Miersch's position, for I realise you are in 75% trolling mode.)

RedBaron at 09:39 AM on 22 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

@ Evan #29,

You said, "That is, the natural removal rates cannot keep up with our emissions."

You are correct. But I would like to point out the primary land based rapid removal of CO2 back into the long cycle is 99% destroyed by agriculture. Even secondary pathways are by vast majority destroyed by agriculture. Of course the rate is 100 times faster than can be removed and the sequestration rate is woefully inadequate. It's basically by all intents and purposes destroyed and actually turned into an emissions source instead, with a few rare exceptions.

Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show

Tallgrass Prairie--the Lost Ecosystem

Evan at 09:24 AM on 22 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

aleks@27, perhaps I should respond to your comments as follows. No analogy is perfect, and certainly the atmosphere is not a closed system in the strict sense as you point out. But the point I am trying to make is that whereas pollutants are regulated in cities because of the locally high pollution that can result from high emissions, once emission rates are reduced, the outside winds flush the pollutants out of the city. In contrast, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere does not depend on the rate at which we emit, but only on the total amount, because CO2 slowly builds up, and there is no ourside source to flush the CO2 away. Once we raise the level in the atmosphere, we are stuck with this concentration for a very long time, until the sinks to which you refer slowly bring down the concentration. These sinks act so slowly (i.e., 100's to 1000's of years) compared to the time scales that we care about (the lives of our children and grand-children), that effectively we are emitting CO2 into a closed system: once we emit the CO2 we are stuck with it for the future we care about.

Evan at 09:17 AM on 22 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

aleks@27, thanks for some good points. Here are some responses.

Regarding the atmosphere being a closed system, carbon budgets developed by the IPCC account for the fact that the oceans and biosphere absorb much of the emitted carbon. The reason why I refer to the year-on-year increase of CO2 is that the yearly increase is the net effect of emissions minus uptake by the oceans and biosphere. The fact that CO2 is increasing over 100 times faster than any natural cycles in the last several million years is evidence enough that we are essentially emitting into a closed system. That is, the natural removal rates cannot keep up with our emissions. Again, IPCC estimates account for the effect of natural removal mechanisms in determining budgerts that represent the amount we can emit into what is essentially a closed system to stay below a specific warming.

Regarding H2O as a stronger greenhouse gas, yes it is. But the H2O increases in response to increases of CO2, and not independently. Again, IPCC estimates account for the fact that CO2 is the main driver and H2O simply responds. That is, the removal rates of CO2 are so slow, that we can easily build up CO2 concentrations by emitting more. This is not so for H2O. If we emit more H2O, it simply rains out in a few weeks. The only way to increase H2O concentrations is to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Once temperature is increased by the CO2 emitted, then H2O increases as a response (i.e., positive feedback). The H2O increase for a given temperature increase is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.

Therefore, CO2 is still the driver, and H2O merely responds.

But thanks for your comments. It is good to get different viewpoints.

aleks at 08:11 AM on 22 October 2017

SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets

Some statements in the article seem to be inaccurate. "Earth atomospere has a finite volume". Does the author mean all the atmosphere which nominal borders are determined by amount of gases retained by Earth's gravity? Rather it's lower layer of the troposphere containing most of greenhouse gases. However, in this case the borders of the lower layer are also conditional because of uneven height distribution of different GHGs according their molar masses (for example, methane and CFCs).

"We keep adding GHGs into this closed system". The system is not closed: CO2 dissolved in fresh and saline water, absorbed by vegetation.

About relationship between the "budget of carbon" and "overall warming". It would be correct within the framework of greenhouse effect theory, if CO2 is indeed the main greenhouse gas. However, water vapor is stronger greenhouse gas than CO2: Th.L.Brown, H.E.LeMay a.o. Chemistry. The Central Science. Pearson. Prentice Hall. 4th Ed. 2009, p.781. Zerenboren & Kilpinen estimated the contribution of H2O to greenhouse effect of ~2/3: http://users.abo.fi/rzevenho/greenhou.PDF According to another source "water steam accounts for 36-70% of greenhouse effect". https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 Moreover, in IPCC list of long-lived (only!) greenhouse gases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases the radiative forcing (rf) value of CO2 is only 0.63 of the total rf of all gases in the list. So, the contribution of CO2 in any case will be much less than 50%. That's why analogies between atmosphere and a bathtub, as well as between CO2 in atmosphere and water in a bathtub seem to be doubtful.

John Hartz at 05:59 AM on 22 October 2017

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments