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 18101 to 18150:

bozzza at 14:21 PM on 7 September 2017

30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years

Sure, even the deniers know that CO2 is the culprit: the main task now is to convince the captains of Industry that the rate of change of Climate Change necessitates serious changes to their industry/s now.

But how seriously, and how seriously fast would they be expected to do such a detrimental thing to their privatised profits? They are going to argue very seriously in order to keep their Jevons-Paradox-induced-money-making-ventures going for aslong as possible. This argument making would include making the science look as vague and alarmist as possible in order to discredit it as much as possible ... that's the politics of making money.

Are the numbers in? What do they say about the rate of change of climate change? How can we be sure this isn't temporary natural variation? How do we know they don't employ more trolls than Putin to go about this work? How do we know it's not Putins troll army itself at work?

Hollywood has a lot to answer for: it promotes the fast lane lifestyle replete with endless fashionably seasonal changes to "individualised" clothing. Is Hollywood the troll of all trolls that in the end caused Climate Change when all is said and done.

To win this battle the populace at large has to start thinking together how to change this large-momentum-system we call the world or vested interests will always win.

Jevons Paradox is generally written so it can apply to any resource... including the populations intelligence and ability to come up with solutions together. Hollywood just dulls us into a trance of becoming ever more "individualistic" and better than our own neighbours so that the rich- read fossil fuled interests- can take advantage and take the cream of our hard earned wages via endlessly transported fashion statements, if not just pure over-indulgence on travel to advertised fashionable destinations- and over time that spells big big money.

In conclusion, the world turns but only at the rate it can keep up with.

(** The heart is ephemeral and looks to attach itself to things and only the sword of wisdom can cut the string of Mara.)

(** ..to put the above another way, I believe Hannibal Lecter once said... via the recall of Agent Starling: "We covet the things we see everyday." This explains Hollywoods roll in all of this. What about the endless morning programs and TV in general: are they not endlessly promoting fashion and perpetual fossil fuel use? We the people must wake up or stop complaining about bad habits that we obviously don't find important enough to give up! Do we really care about our kids? Well, let's get together and demand change and work out what the solution is!)

nigelj at 14:09 PM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

NorrisM, instead of your many questions including affects of climate change on hurricanes etc, why dont you read The IPCC report 2013? You can download this from the IPCC website as below below on the "full report" link. This is the physical science basis, and it has three sections, the very brief summary for policy makers, the technical summary, and the full detail. Its only 1550 pages, nothing for a smart lawyer to read through, ha ha. I have read some parts of it.

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

This report predicts more intense hurricanes and more rainfall associated with them. Every degree adds about 7% more water vapour so over time climate change will quite substantially increase heavy rainfall events, and has already had a detectable effect. And it's non linear and can have a greater effect than this in localised instances. But theres much more to the effects of climate change on weather, and you need to start reading all of it, because a failure to get the full picture just trips you up over and over, like a simple assumption about M Manns qualifications without checking. This is the problem with reading a few carefully selected bits on denier websites, this once tripped me up.

You keep saying better technology saved lives from Hurricane Harvey, but it still caused massive property damage. Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees.

bozzza at 13:42 PM on 7 September 2017

30 Climate Lessons I Learned in 30 Years

I don't think I'd heard of Climate Change 20 years ago. I may have heard about the Greenhouse Effect but it was to do with CFCs although that would have been more like 25 years ago...

michael sweet at 12:13 PM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

NorrisM,

If you are ignorant about the extensive contributions Michael Mann has made to various sections of climate science it is better to remain silent than to prove that you are ignorant. As the OP states, Dr. Mann has published on the topic of stationary summer weather patterns and is exactly the type of expert you need for attribution of this event.

Here is Dr. Mann's CV. A glance shows his degrees in Geology, Geophysics and Math, nothing on Palentology. it will take you a long time to read he has so many accomplishments. Dr, Mann is unusual because he contributes to so many different aspects of climate science (and other scientific disciplines).

No climate skeptic has a comparable CV to Dr Mann. You would understand more about AGW if you read more from Dr. Mann (at Realclimate) and wasted less time at denial sites. The science is not that difficult if you read it.

michael sweet at 11:35 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Swayseeker,

Your reference does not mention your geoengineering scheme, it appears that you made it up o your own. In addition to the problems others have pointed out, you would stop the rain over Florida during the rainy season and cause severe drought. That would wipe out Florida agriculture. It would also make the already extremely hot summers in Florida even hotter.

On a scientific blog like SkS you are expected to produce citations that support your claims.

scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

"Thanks to our technological progress there were mercifully very few even when Mother Nature threw a big punch."

You keep bringing this up. Its relevance is what? That you need FF to have technological progress? That seemed to be Lomberg's false dichotomy.

Why the lack of flood insurance? Well it is only required if you are in “100-year floodplain” apparently. And since GOP doesnt believe in climate change, not seeing a lot of updating of those maps. That would be an example of red-tape hindering progress and driving up costs in the eyes of congress wouldnt it?

ubrew12 at 10:07 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

NorrisM@13 said: "Is this 1% or 20%? If it is only 1% then this just looks like "piggybacking". And if there have been no studies perhaps that should be stated." I'm guessing 10% to 40% of the damage from Harvey can be attributed to climate change, but its too early for attribution studies to have been completed. And can I just point out: once those studies are completed, there is a billion-dollar-a-year industry dedicated to slandering the authors of such studies as 'liberal elitists', so I'm not sure what value in the public realm such studies will carry. The sad fact is that, thanks to that industry, those of us worried about the climate impacts of the future are left "piggybacking" onto overtly natural events. Face it, when its not hot outside, that industry can bring its 'relax-everything-is-fine' message right into the US Congress in the form of a snowball.

NorrisM at 09:31 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Can someone explain to me how Michael Mann, known as a paleontologist measuring tree rings, et al, suddenly becomes an expert in jetstreams so he can opine on how climate change is exacerbating extreme natural events?

On another point, attempting to tie the first major hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico in 12 years to climate change is a bit of a stretch. So it does not "cause" them (no big ones for 12 years) but "exacerbates" them. Obviously any hurricane will be impacted slightly by small changes in sea level and slight increases in water vapour but are there any studies to say by how much? Is this 1% or 20%? If it is only 1% then this just looks like "piggybacking". And if there have been no studies perhaps that should be stated. This just seems to be another event to point to disaster pending thanks to climate change when we are really just dealing with a common occurrence in this area.

The biggest problem is the lack of preparedness for these kinds of storms (a point made by Lomberg in Cool It). That is what causes a great deal of the damage. But if people choose to live in areas where hurricanes are common, you have to expect to live with the consequences. Why are they allowing people to build in flood zones? If you do not want to build dikes to protect these areas (passing the cost on to those owning the properties protected by the dikes) then leave these areas to the birds. Probably best to leave them to the birds anyways. Good way to deal with encroaching sea levels. Give up the lands to the birds.

What I find astounding is that 85% of homeowners did not have insurance for flood damage. Do these homeowners not have mortgages? I find it incredible that lenders would not require proof of flood damage protection in the insurance policies. I bet they will in the future!

But another point made by Lomborg in his book relates to the number of deaths caused by natural disasters. If this storm had occurred here 100 years ago (even with a much smaller population), how many deaths would it have caused? Thanks to our technological progress there were mercifully very few even when Mother Nature threw a big punch. The loss of life could have been even less had the proper planning taken place.

Moderator Response:

[JH] 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 offensive or off-topic posts. 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.

nigelj at 07:23 AM on 7 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

SDK @60, yeah good points.

From what I have read we use world views, instincts and politics as a lens to simplify complex issues. This can be very troublesome no matter how tempting it is.

In fact we just have to set politics aside, and not apply it with science. The science is telling us some things, even if some people dont like what it says.

World view has more application to how we fix the problem and what we do with carbon taxes and renewable energy. I would argue we need to be careful we are not unfairly dumping a huge problem on future generations, but I admit this is a value judgement. But it needs a global debate about sustainable management goals. Clearly some people dont buy into the idea of sustainablity and fairness.

Another thing going on. I think a lot of people look at the IPCC reports and the climate sceptics and conclude temperatures and sea level rise will probably be in the middle and no big issue, but they fail to realise the IPCC reports are quite conservative reports, understated especially on potential sea level rise, so peoples whole perception is flawed.

nigelj at 06:53 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

William @10, its also called karma.

nigelj at 06:50 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Swayseeker, I think that could work in theory, but you would require so many solar heaters over millions of kilometres of ocean it would cost trillions and trillions of dollars. Its just not practical and I can see this straight away.

Geoengineering climate can also have unanticipated consequences as well, although I admit none are immediately obvious for your example.

But putting the whole thing in context we have a range of growing environmental impacts, like climate change, over use of nitrate fertilisers, etc and its a question of what we do. Sometimes theres an obvious technical solution right now, but often there isnt a technical solution or the solution has dangerous side effects.

I think the first approach should be prevention, which is obviously going to have the least undesirable consequnces. Only when prevention is difficult should we then look at technological fixes.

We also cant assume future generations will come up with miracle cures to fix the problems we are creating now. We need some realism and management. The approach should be prevention where this makes sense, and sustainable use of the environment.

william5331 at 06:05 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

A bit of rough justice - The oil producing capital of the world being hit by a record breaking huricane and Very possibly a second one coming right after her.

mrkt at 02:36 AM on 7 September 2017

Exit, Pursued by a Crab

Many thanks for your post and for all the work you have done and continue to do. May it give the rest of us (me) inspiration and courage to fight the good fight while we can.

SDK at 02:01 AM on 7 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

I suspect a lot of people are still looking at science using politics as a guideline. Like we need to reach some compromise of sorts. So if we have one side arguing that the earth is flat, and the other shperical... let's all just agree that it's really a cube.

One Planet Only Forever at 00:41 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Swayseeker@7,

Global geoengineering like you have pointed to, in an attempt to control the damaging impacts of the understood to be negative Global Geoengineering impacts of unsustainable and damaging human developed activity, is a Very Bad Idea (building machines that will remove CO2 from the atmosphere is a possible exception, but planting plants to do that would be better more sustainable than building machines).

Humanity has the potential to thrive on this planet for many millions of years. But to do that humanity has to have 'all of humanity' fitting in and living as a sustainable part of the robust diversity of life using the increased understanding of what is going on, like improved climate science, to develop even better ways to sustainably advance/improve humanity.

There is little chance that the humanity will ever so fully understand the intricacies and inter-relatonships of the global environment to be virtually certain of all of the results of a global geoengineering action. Humanity can however, understand enough to know what activities have to be stopped because they are not sustainably improving things for humanity (what ways of winning have to be blocked or denied the opportunity to be gotten away with).

Any faction of humanity that gets away with enjotying personal benefits in ways that are not sustainable (way that potentially negatively impact others, particularly future generations), is a potential serious threat to the future of humanity and needs to be dealt with that way.

The robust current best understanding of the required direction/correction of development is presented in the Sustainable Development Goals. Those goals have been developed by a massive global collaboration of expertise, like the IPCC, that started before the 1972 Stockholm Conference. The IPCC is actually a sub-set of the Sustainable Development Goals effort. The Paris Agreement is also a sub-set of the actions by real leaders toward achieving the SDGs.

Real Leaders Lead for Good Reason. Poor Excuses for Winning follow (or 'Win' through unjustified) public opinion. Citizen's United has clearly been one of the major steps towards the USA becoming a major Poor Excuse for Winners creators on the planet.

Promoting popular support for the belief that future generations will develop the ability to globally geoengineer controls of the planet's environment is one of the Poorest Excuses for prolonging understood to be unsustainable and damaging pursuits of personal benefit. It is right up there with Denier/Delayer actions trying to keep climate science from being properly understood and 'popular'.

John Hartz at 00:25 AM on 7 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Recommended supplemental reading...

First Harvey, now Irma. Why are so many hurricanes hitting the U.S.? by Nisikan Akpan, PBS News Hour, Sep 6, 2017

Swayseeker at 22:40 PM on 6 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Drying out the air to prevent hurricanes like Harvey: In summer in Florida rain occurs daily during some periods. A sea breeze is created by hot rising air over the land, wind blows in from both sides (two sea breezes) and the two air masses collide. Pressure is created where they collide and the air has only one place to go and that is upward. This rising air creates convectional rain frequently. To dry out the air so that less hurricanes are formed in the Gulf, put wide strips of solar air heaters in the Gulf to imitate a sort of very narrow Florida and create convectional rain that way to dry the air and reduce hurricanes - see http://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.liftingmechanisms

MA Rodger at 19:55 PM on 6 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM @58,

"...to properly spell his name" you could simply replace the 'ß' with 'ss' which is what the 'ß' represents (although its origin was as a shorthand for 'sz')

NorrisM at 14:47 PM on 6 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Bob Loblaw @ 57 and nigelj.

We are two Canadians and one New Zealander looking across the borders (and Pacific Ocean) and wondering what is going to happen next.

We will just have to watch because we really are powerless. I just think that the best chance the "consensus side" has is to "go with" the Red Team Blue Team approach (and do the best to ensure that it is as independent as possible) because in reality that is the best route for the next 3 years. Who knows, if Trump "tones down" he could be here for another 7 years.

I sometimes wonder whether I should just "sign off" and see what happens over the next 5 years. That has generally been my approach with the Arab/Israeli conflict. It just goes on without resolution. If after the conclusion of the Republican control of the White House (3-7 years?) global surface temperatures or the sea levels have risen dramatically then perhaps the American public will take note.

We are leaving our kids with a lot of problems (I am 71 and effectively retired). Although climate change is an issue there are, in my opinion, many more that could impact our next generation a way more dramatically. Having a maniac in charge of North Korea seems to me much more existential than a possible 1-2 ft rise in sea levels by 2100.

I am presently reading the Weisbach paper on EROI. I think we have pretty well exhausted our discussion on this topic.

PS I am not proficient enough on my computer to properly access the German alphabet to properly spell his name.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Sloganeering snipped. No.Further.Warnings.

bozzza at 13:18 PM on 6 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Dick Smith is launching attacks on the abc for being a propaganda agent for unsustainable population growth by way of immigration for Australia.

The panic is on.... perpetual growth is what got us into this mess and we are all starting to realise the ship needs to be righted before it's too late. Those who seek to live in better countries will all start screaming that it's unfair to lock them out from opportunity but this world has to realise it can't just keep burning endless fuel.

Change is coming sooner rather than later I suspect. The murmurs are here already...

vortexan at 12:06 PM on 6 September 2017

We're heading into an ice age

"Ice ages take thousands of years to develop. If you're that concerned about an impending ice age, just look to northern Canada. If there's a giant ice sheet slowly creeping down the North American continent, then you have reason to be concerned. But if glaciers are retreating worldwide and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate, you can relax about the possibility of an upcoming ice age in your lifetime and the lifetime of your children and grandchildren."

Glaciers don't creep per se. If The world entered into an ice age it would start as a few decades of cold climates and entire summers where the snow never melts. The first decade it would be a few tens of feet of snow, then a few hundred. Then a few feet of ice. 30 years of cold climates mean the snow and ice never leave. Within 50 years a couple of miles thick is doable, depending on precipitation.

Glaciers grow from the heavens and creep along hell.

Moderator Response:

[PS] This is at odds with every paper I have read. Please cite references to support your assertions or your comment will be removed for sloganeering (see the comments policy). I should add that this also contradicts ice core dating and basic physics (viz to get thick snow fall you need a lot water vapour in the air which needs warm temperatures. Antarctica is one of driest places on earth).

Bob Loblaw at 11:28 AM on 6 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

Note that Tom13 @25 is again making the logical error that lack of a statistically-significant trend is equivalent to saying that no evidence exists.

Also note that the most frequent (well, in my viewing) data on hurricanes - as presented by "skeptics" - is the data on hurricanes that had landfall in the US. Such data is:

Only a subset of all hurricanes
A relatively infrequent occurance
...and thus a noisy data set, which makes it really hard to detect trends.

I will leave it to the reader to decide whether this is a feature or a bug. I seem to remember a blog post (Tamino? Couldn't find it) that did an analysis of this, showing how poor a choice it is.

Bob Loblaw at 11:17 AM on 6 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM @ 53:

What nigelj said in his first paragraph @56.

Koonin gets enough stuff horribly wrong, and has already made his mind up, so he is a terrible choice to lead any investigation in any form. To draw another legal analogy, would you feel comfortable argung a case in court when the judge made public statements before the trial that you knew were horribly wrong and indicated that he had already passed judgement?

Good scientists don't arrive on the scene with conclusions in mind. They let the evidence lead them to conclusions. My conclusions are not based on what I thought 40 years ago - heck, I started university during the supposed 1970s "cooling scare". I've watched the science become more and more certain over the decades. What the "skeptics" present as doubt is largely balderdash.

You are mistaken in thinking that the IPCC is a collection of like-minded scientists. The IPCC imply tries to summarize the existing science (predominantly in the form of peer-reviewed literature). If there is a legitimate publication with a differeing viewpoint, that will be included. The IPCC does not guide research. Eminent scientists are invited to participate in the writing of the reports, but as nigelj points out this has included "skeptics".

As for what would I do? I am not a resident of the US. In Canada, we had a climate-change "skeptical" government in Harper. I voted against him.

Bob Loblaw at 10:51 AM on 6 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

One last point (for now):

Going back to the wet lawn vs. dry pavement, take a bit of time to think whether that huge difference in surface temperature can be felt as a difference in air temperature at a height of a metre or two over the two surfaces.

Then think about what that means for how quickly the atmosphere mixes the air between the two sources of heat/water vapour.

Bob Loblaw at 10:46 AM on 6 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

Point 4 should say "warm, drier air".

One more example: the visual atmospheric shimmering over a road on a hot summer day, The air is rising over the road - the driest, hottest area of air.

Bob Loblaw at 10:43 AM on 6 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

My apologies, BillB - I only read your first link. I see the second has more discussion, including the mention of plumes. Primarily, though, it discusses plumes originating on the sea floor. These would rise through the water until reaching the surface.

I see no evidence in either post that the atmospheric transport of methane to higher altitudes is the result of methane itself rising as an independent plume through the atmosphere. I don't think it is possible to demonstrate that with the level of detail in the data provided. As such, it remains an hypothesis, not a fact.

As for water vapour causing density changes that lead to convective lift, I repeat again that this is contrary to standard meteorology. I will note a few things:

Water vapour is tyically released over a wide area, not at a localized point. It is driven by evaporation, which is driven by energy availability (primarily sunlight).
When there are variations in surface wetness, the wet areas will evaporate more. They will also be cooler, as the energy required to evaporate water is not available to heat the surface. Try walking from wet grass onto pavement in bare feet, on a hot/sunny summer afternoon. The difference can be tens of degrees.
As the dry areas are hotter, the air above them is less dense. Thus hot air rises and it is the dry areas that see the greater upward movement of air.
Two regional circulation patterns that are driven by this difference are land-sea breezes and monsoons. In both cases the warm, dier rising air over land is replaced by coller, wetter air moving off the water. Air is subsiding over the water.

Thus, observations are contrary to your hypothesis.

As for me doing the calculations for you, no thanks. The calculations are done every day in every weather model, and it is the thermal effects that dominate the motion, not the humidity.

nigelj at 08:15 AM on 6 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM @53

"Bob Loblaw, I understand your criticism of Steve Koonin reaching past his expertise but I have seen nothing to impact his integrity."

No, with respect you miss the point. Its not a question of integrity alone. S Koonin has a lack of grasp of the science, and an obvious sceptical bias which makes him totally unsuitable. Would you be happy with Al gore leading / organising the debate?

"Why not, with the support of the Democrats, make sure this Red Team Blue Team is independent?"

Its going to be very hard to do this, especially given your very own suggestions so far.

"There is clearly something that is driving conservatives and others "in the middle" when you look at the Pew Research results (I do not believe anyone is questioning the integrity of Pew Research). "

Yes on the science. But do you seriously believe conservatives would accept a red blue team result that found climate change was even more serious and proven than the IPCC claims? Really?

"I think you find a reluctance in much of the American public to accept the "scientific consensus" of major global warming and its effects because the costs are so drastic."

Maybe, maybe not. The pew research you yourself are fond of quoting shows the majority are uncertain on the science, but the majority actually want more done about the climate problem, and favour renewable energy. I think the scepticism about the science might be largely politically and ideologicall driven, so a sort of dislike of liberal elites who are generally support the science. Theres certainly some evidence of ideological factors behind it is you read for example The Economist which is pretty reliable.

Of course commonsense suggests cost of renewable energy are at least some degree of concern, but your red blue team is not actually debating that aspect, so your point is irrelevant.

"When or where else has the American public (or any democracy for that matter) been asked to make massive and costly changes to their lifestyle based upon predictions of the future?

How is that relevant really? Theres a first time for everything. And plenty of environmental law has been passed that has had significant costs at least short to medium term. There's some precedent there even if the scale is different.

"There is an expression used with religious claims that applies to other areas of human endeavour. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

This is yet another meme copied and pasted from denier websites. I'm wondering how a busy lawyer like yourself has the time for all your commentary.

Anyway we do have good evidence for climate science and perhaps you also need to take into account the "extraordinary scale and implications" of climate change.

"So this Red Team Blue Team approach, if the Trump administration goes along with it, is that opportunity to get that confidence level up so that it at least includes those in the middle."

By rehashing over studies of climate sensitivity, the mwp, sea level rise projections etc? I cant see it. They will probably conclude much the same as the IPCC . The red blue process is too tainted with bias to have much appeal to moderates in the middle.

"Because both the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences are populated with climate scientists who have taken a clear position on the issue, this investigation has to be conducted by some other body."

So on that basis you would have to have a red blue team debate for every scientific issue in history. Just so absurd.

And the people you have on the teams also have a "clear view" on the issue negating your argument.

"I think there is an underlying distrust that climate scientists are consciously or subconciously misrepresenting the existing state of knowledge in their zeal to get people onside. "

There will be considerably more distrust of a red blue team collection of scientists picked by a climate denying organiser.

"Climategate reinforced that view or perhaps caused it. "

Well it left a bad impression, but given the red blue team doesn't really address the climategate thing, I can't see how it changes the perception. Basically people need to read up on climategate carefully, and they will realise the scientists did nothing wrong or deceptive. Unfortunatly people are clutching at any reason possible, no matter how silly, or scurrilous or lying, to deny fossil fuels are a problem.

"Judith Curry suggests another US body which I think deals with national security which, as she says, does not have a "dog in the fight".

Actually they do, or at least the military do, because they have produced reports greatly concerned about climate change.

Pleas also note the IPCC teams do include some sceptics. The IPCC makeup reflects weight of climate opinion but does make sure it always includes several sceptics, this is deliberate.

"The constitution of the body has to be equal otherwise you are deciding the issue before the contest. "

No it doesn't. Its not even supposed to be a contest of people like some silly school debate. Science is a contest of ideas and if most scientists support one idea, you can't force them otherwise.

Public debates have their place, but are mere entertainment, and should not be used as alternatives for IPCC process on serious issues.

"What I come back to is, what are your choices?"

One of the real problems is money in politics. Your quoted pew reseaarch shows one important thing that people do generally want more done about climate change, even if they are sceptical of causation, but they are ignored by Trump and Congress, and I suggest this is money in politics and influence of lobby groups, and this is what needs to change.

gws at 08:03 AM on 6 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Philosophical growth discussions aside, I think the link to the Niskanen Center post and discussion is crucial as it shows, again, that the NYT's Stephens is simply wrong whenever he writes about climate science and related issues. I would add two arguments to what Mr. Majkut (Niskanen Center) wrote:

1. Effects are observed on a local/regional basis, while growth is observed on a national basis, so the comparison usually becomes one between apples and oranges. In addition, extreme weather effects disproportionally impact the poor, while (today's) growth disproportionally benefits the rich.

2. What is missing from current analyses such as the ones by Pielke Jr. that Stephens highlights, are the effects of costs and benefits of experience and associated responses to extreme events, such as through stricter building codes. How much of local "growth" for instance after an event is due to rebuilding one way or another? IMHO, such "growth" ought not to be included into the overall calculations; it represents a bias. Also, how does the hypothesis of outgrowing disaster stack up against the frequency of events? Does anybody think "growth" would work if Houston were to suffer a Harvey-type event every other year?

John Hartz at 07:59 AM on 6 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

nigelj: Here's an excellent article on an issue that you broached upstream...

Hurricane Harvey's aftermath could see pioneering climate lawsuits, Analysis by Sebastien Malo, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Sep 5, 2017

nigelj at 07:19 AM on 6 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

Tom @13

"in other words , science has 160+ years of good emprical evidence, yet some scientists are projecting a change in the trend.

This statement is just unmitigated nonsense. We dont have particularly good empirical evidence of past hurricane intensity, because hurricanes just arent all that common and past records of intensity are not that reliable. We just dont know if intensity has changed or not. This point is made in some of the very articles by the scientific bodies Tom claims to respect.

Tom is also appearing to erroneously claim yet again that past trends must be a guide to future trends as if nothing can change or accelerate. Its just astonishing to make the statements he makes.

nigelj at 07:00 AM on 6 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

BilB

I dont think you can simply ignore the mixing of gases effect. You would have to quantify it properly. Its probably more significant than you think.

I'm not a scientist but I know enough that you have to be careful before you disnmiss the conventional wisdom. Obviously rising air is a combination of both temperature and humidity altering density but my guess is its mostly temperature and MA Rodger clearly knows what hes talking about and demonstrates this.

But to come back to your original point its still increased global temperatures behind both phenomena. I wasnt sure what you were really getting at in respect of your talk about the climate sceptics.

But good luck its interesting exploring these things.

One Planet Only Forever at 06:53 AM on 6 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

nigelj,

Any economic activity that is not actually sustainable into the far distant future (millions of years into the future) can only temporarily create perceptions/impressions/delusions of prosperity or 'progress/advancement'.

And developed perceptions based on unsustainable activity cannot be expected to grow or last indefinitely because the unsustainable reality of their basis is eventually undeniable. In fact, trying to grow/maintain perceptions by expanding or prolonging unsustainable activity will only make the eventual correcting/shattering of those delusions more significant.

The USA today (and any other nation that deliberately developed in unsustainable directions) is facing that larger correction reality because of the dogged determination by many of their Wealthiest/Winners to try to prolong/expand their ability to maintain and grow unsustainable and unjustified perceptions by continuing to get away with unsustainable and understandably damaging activity.

One Planet Only Forever at 06:33 AM on 6 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

My comment @50 was done under a time constraint, and it shows ...

To atempt to be clearer: Since climate science is a very robustly developed field of investigation/observation and establishment of a Good Explanations for all of the avaliable information (even though there is more investigation and understanding to be added), the currently developed and presented concensus explanations/understanding regarding the matter should be considered to be "The Objective Understanding/Explanation/Truth of the matter for everyone to understand and accept unless/until some new 'justified and robustly defendable information' is presented that results in Good Reason to revise a part of that developed understanding".

Therefore, anyone who prefers to try to promote and believe things that are contrary to the "Developed Objective Understanding" without providing new 'justified and robustly defendable information' that is significant enough to result in Good Reason to change the understanding" deserves to be referred to as a Denier/Delayer.

So the people NorrisM (and others) refer to as Warmists should be referred to as a sub-set of the Denier/Delayers. And the ones he refers to as Skeptics probably also deserve to be referred to as Denier/Delayers if they have not developed and delivered any new 'justified and robustly defendable information' that is significant enough to result in Good Reason to change the developed understanding.

And a debate that gives a platform to Denier/Delayers will not be helpful. If a debate is to be held it should be True Skeptics with valid new information "Debated/Reviewed" by all of the knowledgable evaluators of the merit/legitimacy of the new information. And that process clearly does not occur in a "Debate", especially not in a broadcast Live Debate. My suggested process @18 (and @37) is one process that would achieve what is required then broadcast the results to everyone.

It is umportant to understand that the IPCC process gave ample opportunity for people who prefer to believe and promote alternative facts/understanding to provide their input. The only restriction was that Good Reason consistent will all of the available information/observations (understandings that best explained all of the available information) was the basis for establishing conclusions, not the popular opinions/results measured after a broadcast Live Debate.

nigelj at 06:28 AM on 6 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Some of the climate denialists claim we dont need to tackle climate change now because increasing wealth from economic growth means future generations can deal with climate disasters easily (as discussed in one of the links in the guardian article). This may not be viable. The trouble with this idea is you cannot assume economies will grow indefinitely.

Economic growth has already slowed considerably in America and most western countries. Economic growth was 6% per annum in the 1960s and is now down to approx. 2.5% typically. The trend is falling growth.

You cannot have infinite growth in a finite world. There are numerous limits and factors acting to slow growth and the days of high economic growth are probably over. All the evidence points that way to slowing and even zero growth is possible. In western countries we have saturated markets, aging populations, etc.

So to assume wealth and gdp growth in the future will somehow compensate for climate impacts is a very dubious assumption. Articles on future projections of economic growth:

www.businessinsider.com.au/imf-world-economic-outlook-slow-growth-2015-4?r=UK&IR=T

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/13/do-we-dare-to-question-economic-growth

www.bbc.com/news/business-31868506

Im not promoting zero growth and some level of growth seems possible and desirable, but to assume high rates of growth forever in the future is insanity.

Obviously it also depends on how growth is measured, and ideas of sustainable forms of growth with minimal enviromental impacts. But that means taking flood protection measures and altering energy use etc. Another subject I guess.

knaugle at 05:29 AM on 6 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

... and now Jose ... and maybe Katia this week?

NorrisM at 03:53 AM on 6 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Moderator

Just reread my last post. Apologies for comments re public views expressed in Pew Research and Climategate. This is repetitious.

I highly respect all of the climate scientists who have dedicated their life to this important issue including those contributing to this website, including Bob Loblaw (notwithstanding his irritation with me) and a number of others who I assume are climate scientists, although not specifically disclosed.

I am just trying to make the point that this Red Team Blue Team proposal is an opportunity which should be embraced as long as its independence is protected.

Moderator Response:

[JH] You have made your point. It's time to move on to a different topic.

NorrisM at 01:53 AM on 6 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Bob Loblaw @ 47 and Nigelj at 51

Bob Loblaw, I understand your criticism of Steve Koonin reaching past his expertise but I have seen nothing to impact his integrity so your scenario of an effective kangaroo court I do not think is apposite.

But to the two of you, my question still remains, what do you do given the reality of a Republican White House for at least the next 3 years? Why not, with the support of the Democrats, make sure this Red Team Blue Team is independent?

There is clearly something that is driving conservatives and others "in the middle" when you look at the Pew Research results (I do not believe anyone is questioning the integrity of Pew Research). I think you find a reluctance in much of the American public to accept the "scientific consensus" of major global warming and its effects because the costs are so drastic.

When or where else has the American public (or any democracy for that matter) been asked to make massive and costly changes to their lifestyle based upon predictions of the future? Look how long it took the US to engage in both WWI and WWII when the danger was very obvious to Western liberal democratic order.

There is an expression used with religious claims that applies to other areas of human endeavour. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

The facts remain that even with an Obama administration the "scientific consensus" was not able to convince the American public. So this Red Team Blue Team approach, if the Trump administration goes along with it, is that opportunity to get that confidence level up so that it at least includes those in the middle.

Because both the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences are populated with climate scientists who have taken a clear position on the issue, this investigation has to be conducted by some other body. I think there is an underlying distrust that climate scientists are consciously or subconciously misrepresenting the existing state of knowledge in their zeal to get people onside. Climategate reinforced that view or perhaps caused it. But leaving out "qualifying statements" in Summaries for Policy Makers etc that clearly has happened does not help. Judith Curry suggests another US body which I think deals with national security which, as she says, does not have a "dog in the fight". Perhaps this body would be better than the EPA. I do not think this matters as much as the constitution of the body.

The constitution of the body has to be equal otherwise you are deciding the issue before the contest. I think you should again, recognizing the reality that the Republicans are in power, "play the hand your are dealt".

What I come back to is, what are your choices?

Moderator Response:

[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and ecessive repetition — both are prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

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

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

John Hartz at 01:39 AM on 6 September 2017

Denying Hurricane Harvey’s climate links only worsens future suffering

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments