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.

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

Recommended supplemental reading...

Harvey and climate change: why it won't change minds by Amy Harder, Axios, Sep 5, 2017

Irma, Harvey reveal ‘massive national security risks’, Commentary by Sherri Goodman, CNBC. Sep 5, 2017

Three things we just learned about climate change and big storms: Can the lessons of Harvey save us? by Paul Rosenberg, Salon, Sep 4, 2017

John Hartz at 00:50 AM on 6 September 2017

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

Tom 13: Do you not see that the frequency of hurricane events in the Northen Hemisphere is only one element of the climate change-hurricane connection?

BTW, who are the scientists arguing that climate change has caused more frequent hurricans in the Northen Hemisphere?

Tom13 at 00:24 AM on 6 September 2017

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

John

Do you not see a conflict between the theory in those articles and the lack of any discernable trend for the last 160+ years during a period of warming vs the projected future increase in hurricane during a period warming which is projected to be similar warming - perhaps that is why the NAS has placed low confidence levels on their projections for future hurricane activity .

Empirical evidence is generally afforted greater weight in projecting future events -

Moderator Response:

[PS] You appear to be engaging in a straw man argument. First please cite the science papers that predict an increase hurricane activity before arguing against it. I believe other commentators have pointed you to references as to what science actually predicts. Feel free to compare empirical evidence against those predictions.

[PS] Just noticed that Benestad has a post up on Extremes and global warming.

John Hartz at 23:48 PM on 5 September 2017

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

Tom 13: If you were to read the articles that I suggested you read, you would see that the scientific understanding of the of the climte change- hurricane* interface is evolving and expanding.

*Cyclones in the Northen Hemisphere only.

BilB at 23:06 PM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

Thanks for that comment MA Rodger. My "earlier work" was very rudimentary as I said at the beginning. I will now do as comprehensive an iterative model as I can achieve with a spreadsheet to satisfy myself what is and isn't in the water cycling process. I'm happy to be wrong if I am but I want to fully understand the dynamics with this. I can see that there is a complicated relationship between air moisture temperature pressure and the relative environment all of which I will only fully appreciate with some extensive experimentation with a model, and that is going to take me some time.

Tom13 at 22:39 PM on 5 September 2017

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

#21 JH - you linked to Blomberg, the atlantic, and the Washington post, not exactly

I linked to the EPA, NAP etc, (scientific studies, reports, etc), each of which noted there is little empirical evidence of increased hurricane activity since the mid 1800s (during a time in which the planet has warmed 1.5C ). Another of the links conceeded that there is low confidence in the ability to predict future hurricane activity. In other words , science has 160+ years of good emprical evidence, yet some scientists are projecting a change in the trend.

Most rational observers would place more weight on the empirical evidence.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Inflammatory snipped.

FYI, sock puppet accounts are frowned upon in this venue.

MA Rodger at 22:32 PM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

BilB @12,
A thought for you while you "re-examine (your) earlier work."
The comment by Swayseeker @2 is correct but rather exaggerates the effect you are describing. It is indeed correct that at 40ºC, wet air has the same drop in density from dry air as achieved by an increase in temperature of dry air to 45ºC. By your "back of the envelope calculations it takes a 20 degree C difference in dry air to equal that humid air uplift capacity" and this would also be correct for dry air at 52ºC. Of course such temperatures of 52ºC or even 40ºC are pretty rare within the Earth's climate, even at ground level.
But if you are talking about climate change, such calculated effects do exaggerate the change you discribe. The value under consideration should be the relative influence of humidity in reducing density as temperature rises. A warmer climate will of course have less dense air, wet or dry. But at 20ºC (a more common climatic temperature), the drop in density will be at least 85% due to the temperature rise and less than 15% due to the potential for higher specific humidities. It is only at temperatures above 70ºC that the drop in density can be dominated by humidity.
And be sure, the drop in density due to rising specific humidity is a factor in climate modelling but it is not a major factor.

MA Rodger at 22:13 PM on 5 September 2017

Greenhouse Effect Basics: Warm Earth, Cold Atmosphere

RSaar @124,
You ask "it is not going to be same wavelength?"
The wavelength will remain the same. Note the vibrational energy from the absorbed IR photon can convert either into a re-emitted photon (which can go off any-which-way) or into kenetic energy within the gas. And kenetic energy collisions can result in vibration which again can be emitted as a photon or can return into the gas's kinetic energy. The difference that temperature makes is that lower temperatures result in less photons being emitted. The wavelength of the photons is unaltered. In simple terms, the wavelength is dictated by the mode of vibration in the molecule while the gas temperature will dictate the number of photons emitted. Thus (in simple terms) the higher (and colder) the gas at which CO2 becomes rare enough to give its emitted 15μm IR a clear run out into space (without it being blocked by CO2 higher in the atmosphere); the higher and colder that altitude, the less radiation there will be emitted out into space in that CO2 band and the less cooling provided to the planet.

BilB at 18:07 PM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

Hi Nigelj, Where Bob says that "humid air dissipates" all that can mean is that humidity in an air mass can change, and as humidity changes the air mass density changes.

As to the rest of your comment, I am thinking about it and testing my notion in the Southern Ocean with earth.nullschool.

Swayseeker dampened my argument challenging my earlier calculation and I have to re-examine my earlier work.

nigelj at 17:42 PM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

I'm talking about fact free blather from people like BilB. Just to be clear.

nigelj at 17:37 PM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

BilB

"Of course these things are known and occur routinely in nature, just as does CO2 capture and re-emission of infra red radiation, both to a very marginal degree."

Its not marginal. Wheres your evidence its marginal? CO2 molecule is recognised as having a very significant effect on radiation

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

Too much unqualified, bold, fact free blather on this website.

nigelj at 16:51 PM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

BilB,

"My conclusion is that rain clouds are formed not by thermal up lift but by humidity uplift."

Why would you think that thermal effects on air density would be less than humidity effects on air density? Where are your calculations?

Remember temperature swings can be quite large so have a significant effect on density. And as Bob says humid air dissipates so has an insignificant effect.

RedBaron at 16:15 PM on 5 September 2017

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

Thanks for the article: World’s soils have lost 133bn tonnes of carbon since the dawn of agriculture by Daisy Dunne, Carbon Brief, Aug 25, 2017

Which of course is significant considering atmosphere has a net extra approx. 230 GtC cumulative since 1870.

It's even more significant when you consider that vast areas were "blacked out" in the charts and losses of soil carbon from these were not counted, although recent discoveries indicate they too may have been caused by human activity. For example: Humans as Agents in the Termination of the African Humid Period covers an area much larger than all the arable land used in the study but is not counted at all. It is blacked out. A similar thing happened in Australia. A similar thing is still happening in the southwest US.

When you add all the carbon lost from the soil sink from all causes it exceeds all the extra carbon in the atmosphere. Which means we can reverse global warming.

Executive summary:

Yes we can reverse Global Warming.

It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies.

It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.

Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.

But of course as you can see already it is looking grim. The arable land is decreasing, which means our ability to capture and store carbon in the soil is also decreasing, even while the total lost from the soil increases and the total in the atmosphere from emissions increases. We wait much longer to make real significant changes, and we lose our window of opportunity.

So while I don't 100% agree with the study, given they ignored way too much land area that should have been included, it is still a good eye opener for many people who had no idea the ranges were even on the same order of magnitude. It's a start. Looking forward to better studies in the future.

Oh and BTW, the people focusing on Hurricanes and flooding? Carbon in the soil won't stop tide surges. But it will greatly mitigate the type of flooding Huston suffered. Instead of infiltration rates around 1/2 - 1 inch per hour or even less in clay or hardpan soils, you can infiltrate a foot or more per hour with high carbon healthy soils. High infiltration rates virtually eliminate runoff and greatly decrease flood risks. The total cumulative holding capacity for water is also equally increased.

Gabe Brown: Keys to Building a Healthy Soil

John Hartz at 12:34 PM on 5 September 2017

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

Tom13: The following articles address the surrent scientific thinking about various components of the the hurricane-climate change connection. You would do well to read them with an open mind.

Harvey Shows How Planetary Winds Are Shifting by Eric Roston, Bloomberg News, Aug 30, 2017

Does Harvey Represent a New Normal for Hurricanes? by Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, Aug 29, 2017

Katrina. Sandy. Harvey. The debate over climate and hurricanes is getting louder and louder by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Aug 30, 2917

BilB at 12:28 PM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

BobL

I'm not sure which part of the article that you read. The particular comment is under the heading "The signature of seafloor methane" where the author is speculating that the rate of increase of methane in the stratosphere "looks like" being the product of plumes delivering sea floor methane very directly to high altitudes. I believe this to be highly probable and await more direct evidence. I believe this just as I have projected for many years that Atlantic Conveyor heat would eventually penetrate deep into the Arctic to soften sea floor clathrates and release large amounts of methane to the atmosphere, which is looking more probable every year.

It seems we will have to agree to disagree on my postulation on air density.

Of course these things are known and occur routinely in nature, just as does CO2 capture and re-emission of infra red radiation, both to a very marginal degree.

My point is that one very marginal influence, CO2, provides the small degree of change over the entire Earth surface to provide a marginal amount of additional material, H2O, to the entire near surface atmosphere to produce a profound change via a very merginal density difference to the climate impact on humans. It is about perception and identifying the pivotal driver of each process of change. CO2 is heating the oceans ever so slightly, moist air density difference is accelerating atmospheric circulation, I believe, and that is the Global Warming/Climate Change couplet that periodically reshapes our planet.

If you want to demolish my argument demonstrate quantitatively that the density difference of humid air provides zero "lift" to an air mass relative to a dry air mass at the same temperature.

Tom13 at 12:08 PM on 5 September 2017

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

www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity

www.nap.edu/resource/21852/Attribution-Extreme-Weather-Brief-Final.pdf

The NAS report, however, assigns “lower confidence” to making attributions about how climate change may be affecting hurricanes.

"It is awfully difficult to see climate change in historical data so far because hurricanes are fairly rare," Kerry Emmanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT in Boston, told AFP.

phys.org/news/2017-08-cyclones-climate-dots.html

Bob Loblaw at 11:18 AM on 5 September 2017

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

Tom13 @ comment 13:

You make a serious logical error when you equate "It is premature to conclude" with "they admit there is no data to support any connection".

If you are making this error subconciously, sit back and think about how much evidence it takes to draw a conclusion on a subject you know well, and then think about how far that is from the time when you knew nothing about that subject.

Bob Loblaw at 11:12 AM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

BillB:

There is nothing in your link to suggest that any "plumes" of methane have formed through a process of methane being lighter than other gases. The mechanisms of what meteorologists call "lift" are well understood, and local lift (convection) is explained entirely by standard meteorology. Any local updraft will carry the methane along with it.

The role of water vapor enhancing convection is also well understood, through the release of latent heat as water vapour condenses in the rising/cooling air.

Your discussion shows a tremendous lack of knowledge of standard meteorology. You are trying to explain things that are already well-explained, and your explanations do not make sense.

Wol at 10:32 AM on 5 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Such a debate would be pointless, as many above have indicated.

As a non-scientist (let alone a non-scientist in any related field) I can see that climate, and in particular climate change, is possibly the most complicated area of scientific research.

Given that the objective of any "debate" would be to show Joe Public the truth - whicever way it went - any real debate would involve such esoteric and complex issues that no-one except those involved in the research could possibly understand them. And abstracting them is being done now, daily, so those who choose to ignore the conclusions will do that regardless.

It's just a "doubt" tactic.

Eclectic at 10:14 AM on 5 September 2017

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

Tom13 @9, thank you for the "txhur" link to a history [published 2009] of Texas hurricanes.

Interesting reading, of historical woes, and hurricane frequency. As others have pointed out, the "noisy" background makes it difficult to detect the initially small but now growing influence there of AGW/climate-change.

Particularly of note (and also noteworthy in view of the author's effort of 3 years in total preparation) was the brief paragraph titled "Long term trends/hurricane cycles". From which I quote: "We are currently [2009] in a hurricane-rich period which began in 2003. This is expected to last until around 2014, plus or minus a few years."

Not even a hint of a mention of Global Warming, or its likely effects. Possibly that derives from local censorship pressures in Texas — or from some bias on the part of the author (who is not representative of the NOAA). But a remarkable omission, even for 2009.

nigelj at 10:07 AM on 5 September 2017

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

Regarding flooding, and buildings codes, and land zoning. In the past I was involved in building design consultancy work in New Zealand. All our building codes are based around 1:100 year floods etc and set certain minimum floor levels and ground clearances and storm water disposal etc. I certainly know that several other oecd countries are the same, but not sure if all are.

Like OPOF suggests climate change now makes all this complicated and codes may have to change. It's also a moving target with several possible sea level rise scenarios (none of them good) so hard to decide what to do.

I appreciate that houston floods and is built on a flat sort of bayou. I suppose a lot of this is old past history. But regardless, local government officers legally owe a duty of care like anyone. If they continue to allow building on low land they could be in trouble legally given climate change impacts.

Local government could possibly be in trouble legally if they dont mandate sufficient ground clearance in building codes to deal with climate change.

Our councils are formally warning locals in writing about predicted rates of sea level rise, just as an information thing, and this is useful. Councils are also debating whether to forbid building on very low lying areas, and issues around building floor heights in the code but no decision has been made as yet.

BilB at 09:51 AM on 5 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #35

Bob Loblaw

This is the source site http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/high-methane-levels-over-the-arctic-ocean-on-january-14-2014.html
...but the suggestion was made regarding methane growth in the tropics which may be exacerbated by methane coming more directly from the Arctic. I'm still looking for the reference.

Some say Sam Caranae are alarmist, but I prefer to see Arctic News as attempting to examine evidence in real time rather than "studied and published" time with the aim of directing exhaustive study where it will better quantify dangerous trends. And here is the particular item

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/methane-erupting-from-arctic-ocean-seafloor.html

...again requiring scientific validation.

Yes, air movement over the oceans generally promotes mixing of water vapour into the broader atmosphere reasonably quickly, but air movements are not always rapid and they are generally the product of a low air pressure system which is itself the product of rising air for which the question becomes what is driving that process.

For another way of looking at this is to see if thermal energy in dry air alone can create the same degree of atmospheric change as humid air can. From what I can see desert wind speeds can reach 180 kph but nothing like those possible in hurricanes, and desert air convection can form tornadoes and dust storms, but not cyclonic structures.

Clearly H2O vapour makes a huge difference to the intensity of atmospheric air movements, so the question I am posing is, is it the mixed humid air density difference that makes the difference, or is it purely warm air convection, and/or the energy that the moisture carries and transfers to the air once condensation occurs (at altitude) that makes low pressure systems so intense. From what I am reading purely thermal lows have weak circulation.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Fixed links. Please learn how to do this yourself with the Link button in the comment editor.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments