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:

EPA chief Pruitt borrows from an old but effective denialist playbook by John Cook, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug 18, 2017

JohnSeers at 22:15 PM on 2 September 2017

CO2 effect is saturated

@Barcino2017

Are you trolling? Or can you genuinely not come up with an idea of how molecules of CO2 can heat up other molecules in the atmosphere? This idea around 2500 molecules seems to be quite common in denier circles and reminds me of a "discussion" I had with someone who was pushing this idea:

Denier: There are 2500 molecules for each molecule of CO2. For an increase of 1C the CO2 molecule would have to be heated to 2500C.

Me: Why would the CO2 molecule have to be heated to 2500C?

Denier: Because er, 2500, you dishonest green rent grant seeker.

Me: What? Why?

Denier: Your smears and lack of empirical data and science are obvious. You are a dishonest liar. I win!!!!!!!!!!?

Now, you don't want to be that person, do you? Your idea is slightly less extreme than his as you do not propose a CO2 molecule has to be heated all in one flash and heat 2500 other molecules at the same time. But you are suggesting a CO2 molecule cannot heat more than one molecule. Ever. Like, once it has heated another molecule it can never do it again? A one-off never to be repeated event?

Perhaps you need to rethink that misconception.

MA Rodger at 22:13 PM on 2 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

NorrisM @71.

I am not sure why you are having a problem with accessing Weißbach et al (2013). It is but a pdf file and the link @53 is functional. And I am not sure why you task me with finding a "a better source for accessing this report," or indeed, why you would think that there is another source available.

As for the rest of it, the publication of Weißbach et al (2013) does create "some scientists who have (I assume) published a peer-reviewed paper who do not believe that wind and solar power are viable alternatives for high energy consuming societies like Germany and the US" but if you note the journal's webpage for that peer-reviewed paper, you will note the thesis set out by that paper is controversial and contested, indeed rebutted. I will however avoid entangling this comment in that rebuttal by burrowing into that rebuttal.

The point of your interest with Weißbach et al (2013) is in its finding that "an EROI threshold can be roughly estimated by the ratio of the GDP to the unweighted final energy consumption" which is then calculated very very roughly for USA (& also seperately for Germany) for 2011 as $0.7(GDP)/kWh with electricity costing $0.10/kWh yielding a supposed EROI "threshold" of 7 (for both US & Germany) "assuming OECD-like energy consuming technology" and styling this as "the economic limit." This prompts Michael Shellenberger to state in your reference "The researchers also concluded that for high-energy societies, such as Germany and the United States, energy sources with EROEIs of less than seven are not economically viable." I find this in so many ways extremely silly. Do I need to explain why?

Paul D at 19:43 PM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

This appears to be about American science rather than Climate Science.

Climate Science is a global effort. So one would assume any teams would include Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Asians etc.

But the real problem is that the idea is the old false balance issue, this has plagued the BBC for some time due to UK government diktats regarding balance.

FrankShann at 11:16 AM on 2 September 2017

New research, August 21-27, 2017

Very useful indeed , thank you Ari.

michael sweet at 10:52 AM on 2 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

NorrisM,

In my post at 5 7above I said:

"Just for starters, the data for solar panels comes from an article written in 2006 (updated in 2007) while the wind power data comes from a masters thesis published in 2004 and a paper from 1998. These papers are also used in the article I linked above. I don't know about where you live, but in the USA there have been significant developments in wind and solar since 1998 and 2006. These data are updated yearly. I do not know why the authors decided to use ancient data, but for me that disqualifies your reference. It seems to me that the authors are trying to justify a conclusion, not reach a true answer. Other readers can make their own judgements. The article I link calculates an EROEI of above 10 for roof top solar in Switzerland. Somewhere with better sun (say New Mexico) would have an EROEI of at least 20 for utility farms."

I accessed the paper using MA Rodgers link. The german scientists concluded that in 1998 wind had a EROEI of about 3 and in 2005 solar had a EROEI of about 3. Who cares what the EROEI was 10-20 years ago? Current data is readily available to determine current EROEI values The link I provided estimates in 2015 rooftop units in Switzerland have an EROEI above 10. In sunnier locations, or utility scale, the EROEI would be much higher.

I do not have time to play these games with you. I notice that you are very well informed about what is posted on denier sites about remewable energy.

You have not read either the posts I have made or the references I have given for you that show that renewable energy is much cheaper than fossil fuel for the future.

It seems to me that you are a concern troll and I try to avoid dealing with people like that. I note that several other posters have had concerns about your postings.

DNFTT. I will no longer post responses to you.

nigelj at 10:27 AM on 2 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Red Baron @26

Yes absolutely agree. Increasing yields are one thing but the whole agricultural system is under strain in various ways. Climate change adds to these problems.

However I was just making the point increasing yields are certainly likely to some extent, but will struggle against various climate impacts and may not be as large as assumed. The following article discusses this and has a ton of sources of research. It also discusses some of the dangerous trends in modern agriculture, but by no means all.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613695/

NorrisM at 09:24 AM on 2 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

MA Rodger @ 53

I was not able to access the German scientists report referenced in Shellenberg's article in Foreign Affairs from the url you provided. Assuming that he accurately summarized the report it contains this conclusion:

"The researchers also concluded that for high-energy societies, such as Germany and the United States, energy sources with EROEIs of less than seven are not economically viable."

If you could provide a better source for accessing this report it would be greatly appreciated. There are obviously some scientists who have (I assume) published a peer-reviewed paper who do not believe that wind and solar power are viable alternatives for high energy consuming societies like Germany and the US.

Don't shoot the messenger. I would just like to understand why they have come to this conclusion and why they are mistaken.

NorrisM at 09:08 AM on 2 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

scaddenp @ 59

Thanks for the reference to the IPCC WG3 2014 report. Unlike a number of the url references, it worked. I have printed off the Summary and will take it home to read this weekend. A quick look at the graph on page 10 confirms my reference to .4% as the contribution of wind and solar power. As of 2008, the IPCC shows Wind Energy - .2% and Solar Energy - .1%. So my reference to .4% may reflect a more recent estimate I pulled from Wikipedia. If Shellenberg's figure is 1.8% then it obviously has increased from 2008. I do not know where he obtained that figure. It still is a massive endeavour to move from .4% or 1.8% to anything like even 50%.

RickG at 08:16 AM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

If I may, I would like to suggest a different approach to the problem, which Skeptical Science does very well. The denial side is very agressive in making false claims about scientists and climate organizations being dishonest and altering data; yet, it is they (the deniers) who are the ones distorting the science through their own altered/misrepresented data and graphs. I think that is the thing that needs to be emphasized most, and presented to the media, public, and especially the politicians.

RedBaron at 08:08 AM on 2 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Nigelj,

Tom13 made an assumption based on a false premise not in evidence. The projections are based on good data and the models are skillful. Tom has made the mistake of reductionism on a holistic system by only looking at the net yields trends but ignoring many other dangerous trends.

nigelj at 07:29 AM on 2 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Tom13 @24

Perhaps they just made a mistake or picked the wrong words. People do actually do that sometimes you know.The researchers would definitely have been aware of past trends with crops, its common knowledge we learn at school that crop productivity has generally increased.

Or perhaps their statement on current trends was meant as just the last five years, where some crops have had slightly negative trends.

You are making an issue out of nothing, or one little statement, while ignoring the detail in the rest research. You haven't proven the study wrong, because it doesn't rely on this opening summary statement.

nigelj at 07:03 AM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

The whole red blue idea is a game to delay things, and shopping expedition to try to find a conclusion the climate denialists and sceptics want. They wont accept a result that doesn't go their way, they will just keep on looking for another debate or forum of some sort.

Its like a court case going from one local court to a high court on and on to an appeals court, and this makes a mockery of science. Its not how science is done.

Let Donald Trump swear an oath he will accept the result and I might start to listen. Of course he never would and I doubt one single Republican voter would.

One Planet Only Forever at 05:56 AM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

JWRebel@19,

Giving Them '10 more years before They are required to take corrective actions' plays into the game that the denier/delayers want to play.

In 10 more years the perceived harm/unfairness to the 'Their even more overdeveloped in the wrong direction' parts of America will make Them fight even harder against the larger more rapid corrections They would be required to make. And less corrective action before then, because They actually increased the rate of how harmful They were, would lock-in even larger negative future consequences to be faced by all of Us.

Us people pursuing increased awareness and better understanding of what is going on to make Good Reasoned decisions about actions to advance humanity to a sustainable better future for everyone have to be the Winners. And that means not playing the games They want to play. It means pointing out how ridiculous (and dangerous) it is to play games the way They (the easily tempted to be greedier or less tolerant uniting to vote for each others unacceptable beliefs/desires)" want to get away with playing.

JWRebel at 04:55 AM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Instead of the redTeam doing some nitpicking, we could have them submit their own comprehensive climate resconstructions, temperature reconstructions, and theories to explain climate (models of current climate, models of climate in recorded history, models of longer term proxies, and models encompassing paleontological data, models of climate sensitivity, etc). Oh, wait, that would take at least ten years! After they submit their proposals, the blue team of real experts could nit pick away, see if there's anything left to publish, if there any are left: Chances are that somewhere in those ten years they will be converted, like Richard Mueller.

NorrisM at 04:47 AM on 2 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

nigelj @ 68

I completely agree with your comments. This divide that has opened up between Republicans and Democrats (and the violence we saw in Charlottesville) has the markings of a future civil war. Maybe that is pushing it but this discussion has found itself into articles in the journal Foreign Affairs.

What is also troubling is the graph in the Pew Reseach paper showing the relative faith of Americans in their military (79%) compared to their elected officials (27%). A full 73% of Americans do not trust their politicians. My understanding from other sources is that one out of 6 Americans would prefer to have the military run their country (in the 90's it was 1 out of 16). Pretty scary.

In this environment, it is hard to see how anything can get done on steps to address climate change because whatever one party proposes will be opposed by the other.

But without the US onside, I cannot believe that China and the EU would march along knowing that the US is not contributing. Trying to get the US and other nations to increase their R&D to .05% of their GDP seems a lot more doable than massive infrastructure changes involved with a switch to solar and wind power. Meanwhile the more progressive states like California etc will press on with their programs which may show the way.

I still have a lot of reading to do on the cost references so I will stop "blathering" along (as one commentator has referenced it).

One Planet Only Forever at 03:51 AM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

This is clearly an attempt at misleading marketing by a group that only knows how to Win through misleading marketing (a group that knows that in a comeptition of Good Reason all they have to offer are 'Poor Excuses for understandably unjustified beliefs and actions they hope to get away with that are potentially very popular with a significant portion of the population - just enough voters in just the Right locations to achieve unjustified Overall Wins').

The following may be a way to pro-actively criticise the attempt at misleading marketing while offering a Good Reasoned alternative that the misleading marketers would struggle to legitimately criticize:

The National Science Foundation with support from other scientists involved in the IPCC process (Team NSF/IPCC) should demand that instead of Team Trump/Pruitt (Team Whatever/Whoever) get their desired Red/Blue marketing ploy, they be required to formally present a specific position regarding a climate science issue with their basis/justification properly referenced (a submission for peer review, or a desired debate point presented for review/rebuttal).
Team NSF/IPCC would then produce a "reply/rebuttal" (present Good Reasoned evaluations/corrections).
Team Whatever gets one more try to improve/justify their initial presentation.
Team NSF/IPCC gets the last say on Team Whatever's last effort.

Only after the back and forth is completed does the entire correspondence get presented - in full. Any media attempting to present edits or make their own summary statement would be fined for unnecessary mis-presentation, attempted misleading marketing. There would be no Good Reason for anyone to do anything other than deliver the full back-and-forth.

The Show of a live debate would not result in a proper/complete evaluation of the issue. It may not even include presentation/correction regarding reference data. It would be A Show to Create Impressions, not an exercise meant to properly increase awareness and better understanding. The Show would prey on the popularity of the belief that everyone should be freer to believe whatever they want and do as they please. And that "Freedom of Belief/Action without Good Reason" has a history of producing popular poor excuses for understandably unacceptable beliefs/actions.

NorrisM at 03:10 AM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

MA Rodger @13

I am sure there are any number of other persons who have the academic qualifications to be the chair of any such process. I think the person should be outside the field of climate science but highly respected in his or her area of expertise. I have to think that the person should be a highly reputable physicist in that this seems to be the principal area of science involved when it comes to dealing with predicting the future effects of CO2 emissions.

In the absence of actively cooperating with a Red Team/Blue Team what do you suggest as an approach during the Trump years when, on an average, only 28% of American adults believe that climate scientists understand very well the causes of climate change? See page 2 of the Pew Research paper "The Politics of Climate Change".

PS On an unrelated matter, this same Pew Research paper shows that Americans are definitely signed on for more solar and wind farms. On this point, I am clearly in a minority. They have mixed feelings on nuclear power with a majority against (54-43).

ajki at 00:41 AM on 2 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

If a certain Mr Pruitt and/or others want a "debate" und a whatsoever color, then why not get to it? It may be real fun and it doesn't have to be in the format Mr Pruitt thinks it has to be. In fact, for now 30 years or something the usual suspects have put up their tired gibberish on tabloids, blogs and even tried it with scientific looking papers - the "red team" (or whatever color Mr Pruitt chooses) is greatly presented right here on SkS on the left panel above. Might he and his ilk distort their offices and come up with just another list of long debunked myths - fine! The answers will stack up in no time - from all over the world alongside with a lot of laughter und media coverage.

No "debate" for you, Mr Pruitt - but put up your fancy lists of hogwash. We'll wait...

Tom13 at 23:31 PM on 1 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Nigel @23

Just another comment to add to above. Putting it another way, the writers of the research and the article would certainly have been aware past trends are positive.

Then why did the authors of the article write the sentence with the implication that the current trend was negative - were they trying to be accurate or were they pushing an agenda. By now, I think you know the answer -

Moderator Response:

[JH] The seventh paragraph of the OP reads as follows:

Much can be done to increase the efficiency of agriculture and land-use activities in Asia, according to Mr. Kadiresan.

Why do you object this agenda?

knaugle at 23:23 PM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Face it, this whole issue reads like preparation for a college debate team competition. The only science that is really appropriate for is Political Science. So what if your presenter is slicker and more communicative than the other side's? That may win elections, but is useless for science, and is in fact a step backwards.

JWRebel at 21:28 PM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM @4 — "There would be no final decision"

I used the word "pitch", because the decision is not part of the process. But there is a final decision. The final decision with a military game is which tactics are pursued and which gear is purchased. The final decision with climate change is what society subsequently does.

My point is that it would be completely political, but just as the science debate has already occurred (but the masses have paid no attention, too much effort), the political redTeam/blueTeam is occurring as we speak. So far the redTeam, by dint of political hack (and allied media coverage) and infinite funds, has managed to sow confusion. A red/blue team exercise would be a repeat performance by this Anglo-Saxon disease, and would establish firmly that there is something to be debated outside of the scientific discourse.

MA Rodger at 20:21 PM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM @4,

Much of your blather here at SkS appears to run alongside your advocacy of a Red-Team/Blue-Team exercise with "someone like Steve Koonin ... as the chair of this red team blue team investigation I think ... a reasonably independent person at its head." I consider this Steve Koonin to be a wholly fake-scientist in that his pronouncements on AGW areunscientific nonsense. (Here I cite his 2014 WSJ article "Climate Science is Not Settled" which is nonsense-ridden from start to finish.) I note your continuing RTeam/BTeam advocacy seems hemetically wed to Koonin. Is this joker essential for your RT/BT advocacy? Or would the process still work with another candidate for the job? If so, who?

Eclectic at 18:44 PM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Very much so. Scientists (and the human race) have nothing to gain by a Red Team / Blue Team "reassessment". The process would bring nothing but harm.

Scientists should protest loudly and repeatedly [if they are pressured to "join in"] that any such "review" would be a great waste of taxpayers' money. And point out that regular reviews are already being done by scientific organisations such as the IPCC. If still hounded & pressured by politicians/reporters, then the scientists should keep repeating and asserting that taxpayers' money should not be wasted on duplication of effort. No waste of taxpayers' money! And keep returning to that phrase: No waste of taxpayers' money! (And so on, and on.)

Reporters and a large slice of the public are not really "up" on understanding the science, but they are certainly up to understanding "waste of taxpayers' money". And will remember that point, and sympathise with it!

ubrew12 at 16:13 PM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

If you accept Pruitt's red team/blue team debate, you accept that this science topic is debatable. Pruitt wins before the debate ever starts. When 'doubt is your product' you don't need to win the race to win, you just need to keep moving the finish line. Just keep the race going so no conclusion can be reached. So it's absurd to think Big Fossils would accept a red team debate loss. It would be followed by ever more esoteric debates about fine points of the policy response, the economic costs, and so on. Meanwhile, since these debates are publicly funded, the billion-dollar-a-year climate denial industry would continue casting doubt about the science, creating converts who would insist the original debate wasn't held properly, or unfairly tilted toward the warmists. Every last penny of that money is dedicated not to winning, but to keeping the 'debate' going. That's why their arguments are zombies that will never die until the money runs out, which it shows no sign of doing.

Sooner or later, the public is going to step out the front door and realize the science is right, has been right all along. Climate denial is funded to appear as an immovable object. But physics is the original irresistable force.

nigelj at 12:47 PM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

And why would anyone accept that the red blue teams findings would be final or accepted by Donald Trump or Scott Pruit? Trump has changed his position on so many things, so many times its astounding.

nigelj at 12:32 PM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM @8

"What I found very astounding is that only 55% of liberal Democrats (the most liberal category) are of the view that "almost all climate scientists agree that human behaviour is mostly responsible for climate change".

Well that is unique to America. The same Pew polls show greater acceptance of a consensus position and human causes of climate change in other countries in all political groups. America is unique in its scepticism among western nations. People just seem highly politicised and not good with science. I mean theres scepticism, then theres being the equivalent of a flat earther, and theres a lot of the latter in parts of america over various issues.

But the roughly even division of opinion in America over expert consenus and other climate matters is due to a campaign of sceptical doubt and poor reporting of the consensus in the mainstream media. The red blue team debate obviously cant alter this consensus thing because its not about debating consensus position and numbers. So your point is a red herring.

"There obviously is a lot of work to do convincing large parts of the American public even the liberal Democrats. With the Republicans presently in power, what better time to grab the centre stage? "

Yes, theres work to be done, but as I pointed out a red blue team debate is not a good mechanism to do this. Something similar was tried and failed in my country as I pointed out.

The red blue idea will also just create more information possibly conflicting with the IPCC, so more confusion as to who the public should listen to. I dont see how that helps change minds. Sounds more like a waste of time.

It all reminds me of a kangaroo court. From google, kangaroo court, noun, an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.

I agree more with the comment above about a process under one of the leading national science bodies.

Plus Norris Im going pretty easy on all this. You haven't really found fault with the IPCC (apart from not liking their conclusions) and shown specifically how a rather biased, red blue structure would be better.

HBrandt at 11:52 AM on 1 September 2017

New research, August 21-27, 2017

Wonderful!! Thank you so much for doing this. I appreciate your organizing them into categories.

NorrisM at 11:51 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

nijelj @ 6.

Your point is taken re the mid terms but this recent by-election somewhere in the SE US for a HofR seat had both national parties spend a lot of money and time on it and the Republicans defeated a very interesting candidate put forward for the Democrats. Things clearly can change but not yet.

My main point is that the Pew Research survey shows that a majority of the "middle" (representing conservative Democats and liberal Republicans) presently do not trust climate scientists so it is rather academic to point to the studies of the IPCC, prepared by climate scientists.

What I found very astounding is that only 55% of liberal Democrats (the most liberal category) are of the view that "almost all climate scientists agree that human behaviour is mostly responsible for climate change".

There obviously is a lot of work to do convincing large parts of the American public even the liberal Democrats. With the Republicans presently in power, what better time to grab the centre stage? What real choices are there to advance your position beyond this?

Ken in Oz at 10:51 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Seems like the Red vs Blue exercise seeks to make non-experts the judges and encourage the "too uncertain for serious action" position that is used by those in positions of trust and responsibility to ignore or dismiss the real, abundant and consistent expert advice they don't want to hear.

The only in depth, ground up review and critique that I think would have any hope of rising above the mire of conflicted politics would be have to be done under the auspices of the US leading science bodies - like the National Academy of Sciences. And that would have to be in conjunction with a lavish Video documentary production suited to prime time broadcast to have the reach it would need - the pdf's (that currently only those who seek them out even know exists) should be there as well, as references, every claim backed up.

The most effective medium for communication with the greatest reach is not pdf or print, it is audio visual but few of the great many docos have the standing and credibility to be authoritative or the big budget production to make it compelling viewing. I think we should not underestimate the public's appetite for a truly authoritative video documentary on climate.

sidd at 10:45 AM on 1 September 2017

Exit, Pursued by a Crab
Thank you, Mr Skuce, for all that you have done. May every one of your remaining days bring joy to you and your loved ones.

nigelj at 10:33 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

I meant the red team could win while the views of 90% of climate scientists are different. Must proof read! But the meaning was clear I think.

nigelj at 10:18 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

NorrisM @4

You say "The reality is that the Trump administration (or at least a Republican administration) will be in power both in the White House and in Congress for at least the next 3+ years."

I'm not so sure. What about mid term congressional elections?

"this "red team blue team" approach proposed by Scott Priutt could, depending on the results of the information exchange (the "debate"), move many moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats (see Pew Research) into the camp of the majority scientific view which would clearly turn the political heat up on Trump. "

I'm not convinced. I have a feeling if conservatives dont like the red blue team result, they will dismiss it and will find excuses. For example, a multi millionaire phalanthropist, and economist Gareth Morgan wrote a book in my country on climate change called "Poles Apart" where he assembled a team of climate sceptic scientists versus an equal size team of warmists (for want of a better word) who debated it out. Gareths book documented this and was thus very balanced. Gareth came down on the side of the warmists. However his book was dismissed by most conservatives I heard who claimed the process was too small, biased motives etc.

"What this first debate should be focussed on is: (1) how much of a temperature rise should we expect until 2100 (and after)...whether this temperature rise will exacerbate extreme weather events; and (2) what would those specific impacts be, etc,etc."

It's interesting when you list concrete things like this, because it brings home the fact the IPCC have had huge teams of people evaluating all this over and over for the last 20 plus years, so its hard to see what the red blue team could add, and it will never be taken seriously by the liberals, because it is set up by climate denialists, and is not as large and thorough a process as the IPCC. It will always be tainted with bias. In comparison the IPCC panels roate scientists and deliberately include a mix of people, and is constructed to minimise political bias in the science teams and avoid biased selections of people etc.

Debate also depends partly on rhetorical debating skills, appearance etc. This may suit court cases, but has less place in science. One team could win public approval purely on rhetoric, body langauge and appearance, and this is no way to decide climate matters regardless of who wins.

You are however right that one proposal is not to have some sort of judge or jury on the red blue team findings. Rather it is to let them battle things out back and forwards until they have something they can all agree on so a compromise process of reduction. But then the IPCC have already dome something similar yet more rigorous so whats the point?

And the panel is also stacked with equal members of sceptics and warmists who have to agree. This is utterly artificial as it does not represent views in the wider climate science community where the vast majority think we are warming the climate.

So the blue team could win on debating style rhetoric or trickery, when real views of 90% of climate scientists are completely different, and this would be a dangerous result. And of course the same applies in the other direction!

So in conclusion the red blue idea is unconvincing and too open to ending up with an unreliable result, that is unlikely to have credibility with the public at large.

Composer99 at 09:46 AM on 1 September 2017

Exit, Pursued by a Crab

All the best in whatever years you have remaining, Andy. I'll be sharing your post on Facebook for my own benefit, and for the benefit of friends and family (my wife is being treated in her mid-30s for metastatic colon cancer; we are cautiously optimistic as things stand, but there is of course always the potential for things to go wrong).

nigelj at 08:34 AM on 1 September 2017

Exit, Pursued by a Crab

Thanks for your interesting comments Andy and best wishes to you. I'm not as young as I used to be, and I found your comments heartening and valuable.

Just for general interest, immunotherapy is showing some very serious promise, I think regarding blood cancers but new trials are no doubt planned for other things. It's sometimes possible to become part of a trial.

nigelj at 07:48 AM on 1 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

NorrisM

My apologies if some of my comments have been rather harshly worded. I have been on jury duty all week and a bit stressed, so you of all people will understand!

If you lean moderately conservative then please try to make some of the more strident conservatives see sense over climate change. I lean mildly liberal, and I dont always accept every liberal viewpoint that comes along.

There's a place for questions about climate change, but no point spending energy rehashing silly, illogical myths over and over hoping the absurd might be true. Some of your points are good questions but many are rather old myths debunked just so easily.

The huge tribal divide that has emerged strongly in recent years between democrats and republican politicians is not healthy. Its taking a contest of ideas onto a near war footing. I hate these sorts of divisions at a gut level. It certainly makes logical, workable policy very difficult by effectively neutralising or killing each and every possible idea.

I live outside America and can see some faults on both sides, but I have to be honest right now the views of the Trump Whitehouse and Republican Congress seem generally the largest political problem. To use your own example there seems little acknowledgement from them of the problems of poor people. I take no moral high ground on the issue, rather it just seems prudent to look after all sections of society and help poor people (even if a few arent too deserving at times) to maintain a sense of stability in society and the economy, and minimise rebellion and the election of tyrants and demagogues.

A similar approach of risk management should be taken to climate change. Humanity has to apply science and logic to the issue and live with the consequences. Energy is energy regardless of where it originates.

NorrisM at 07:19 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Following up on my thoughts on another blog on this site (re Trump country to be hit hard by climate change), I truly think that the scientific community should not lose this opportunity to have an effect on Trump's policies going forward.

The reality is that the Trump administration (or at least a Republican administration) will be in power both in the White House and in Congress for at least the next 3+ years.

Although Trump has called "climate change" a hoax perpetrated on us by China we have come to learn to live with his hyperbole. He is a salesman, that is what salesmen do. Please understand I am not an apologist for Donald Trump (I just hope we can make it through the next 3 years without any major disaster).

But he will be moved by the public mood. From what I can understand, the American public are very ambivalent about Climate Change and how much trust can be put into climate scientists (notwithstanding the IPCC, Neil DeGrassie Tyson and Stephen Hawking). In many, but not all, respects these differences do seem to be drawn on political lines. I went to the Pew Research website to get my information.

Here is the url for the Pew October 4, 2016 "The Politics of Climate" article on Americans' view on Climate Change: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

Given this diversity, it would seem to me that this "red team blue team" approach proposed by Scott Priutt could, depending on the results of the information exchange (the "debate"), move many moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats (see Pew Research) into the camp of the majority scientific view which would clearly turn the political heat up on Trump. I personally would like to see a follow up examination on how best to deal with the impacts of climate change.

I do not think anyone seriously argues as to whether the climate is changing (when has it not?) or whether man has had a signficant hand in it. What this first debate should be focussed on is: (1) how much of a temperature rise should we expect until 2100 (and after) taking into account existing model predictions of future temperature increases and whether this temperature rise will exacerbate extreme weather events; and (2) what would those specific impacts be (ie estimated sea level rise by 2100, etc) on the world assuming no action were taken to limit carbon emissions to mitigate the changing climate. The second debate would have to focus on the best ways to deal with those impacts (ie mitigation and adaptation). It would be too confusing to put this all in one debate.

Given the political reality in the US today, I would hope that the scientific community would jump at this opportunity. I think failure to do so would cause serious harm to its cause. I can just hear Trump if that were to happen!

As I have said in other venues, anyone asking how this could work should search "Climate Change Policy Statement" on the aps.org website, the official website of the American Physical Society, the second largest association of physicists in the world. This panel discussion chaired by Steve Koonin, an eminent physicist (and former Energy undersecretary in the Obama administration), along with other APS physicists, had some of the best climatologists on "both sides" giving their views on certain questions posed in something called the Workshop Framing Document. This Framing Document largely keyed on the IPCC 2013 Group 1 Assessment. The three climatologists for the "majority opinion side" were all important contributors to the IPCC assessment. On the other side were "lukewarmers" like Judith Curry, John Christy and Richard Lindzen.

Based upon the final policy statement ultimately issued by the APS, the "majority side" won, so why should there be any reluctance to engage in this kind of exchange?

If someone like Steve Koonin were to be appointed as the chair of this red team blue team investigation I think you would have a reasonably independent person at its head. I fully understand that after this APS panel hearing Koonin made public statements even calling for such a red team blue team approach. But I do not think anyone could question his integrity.

As I have noted elsewhere, I just wonder whether Trump really has the intestinal fortitude to take a chance on this. My guess is that he will not.

JWRebel @ 2. Actually, my understanding is that in a red team blue team exchange there is no final "decision". I actually find this to be a weakness of the red team blue team approach but I fully understand why. But I would prefer to have a "majority opinion" and "minority opinion" published giving their reasons for their decision in words that are understandable to the public. But this would then become political because who gets to appoint the full hearing panel? I trust Steve Koonin to be a moderator but after that it would be like appointing justices to the US Supreme Court!

nigelj at 06:53 AM on 1 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Tom @13

Just another comment to add to above. Putting it another way, the writers of the research and the article would certainly have been aware past trends are positive.

nigelj at 06:46 AM on 1 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Tom @13,

I didn't interpret "trends to worsen" as meaning existing trends are already negative. I just took it to mean "things will worsen" in general. Perhaps their wording was not the clearest, and I can see its open to interpretation.

However you are picking on one issue. They have considered the most likely increases in crop productivity from breeding and genetics etc and think things would have to be exceptionally good to offset the negative impacts of climate change. I think this is the more important conclusion because we cannot assume technology will be at the top end of whats possible. That would be imprudent.

By analogy its like hoping some fantastic geoengineering would solve the climate issue. Im more of a realist on technological predictions.

Regarding renewable energy, I understand your point. I have never thought we should rush ahead with renewable energy assuming prices would drop massively. I have assumed prices will drop only moderatly at most and thats the safest assumption. I take the same view of crop productivity increases, be cautious and assume moderate improvements at most. This is perhaps why the article also concluded not enough improvements would be made to offset climate impacts. Obviously they have done detailed assessments beyond what one can say here.

I think renewable energy is quite compelling on current prices alone. If it drops more thats a bonus.

Daniel Mocsny at 06:37 AM on 1 September 2017

Exit, Pursued by a Crab

NorrisM @7:

I must admit I cannot believe people could be so naive as to think that volcanoes could be the cause of our massive increases in CO2 concentrations.

Change the word "naive" to "motivated" and it makes more sense. Literally everyone around me is heavily committed to the climate-raping lifestyle, indulging routinely in high-emitting activities such as: driving, flying, heating, cooling, lighting, eating meat, owning meat-eating pets, and procreating. If climate science is real and we decide to behave as if it is real, we'll need nearly everyone to drastically curtail those activities and more - with the highest-emitting individuals making the biggest adjustments. The lifestyle adjustments will have to continue until such time as technological progress might provide the goodies without the emissions. In the cases of air travel and meat production, that is unlikely to be within the lifetimes of most people reading this.

Among the world's highest greenhouse gas emitters (including nearly all native English speakers), you'll find little if any interest in behaving as if climate science is real. Try documenting the carbon footprint of dogs and cats for example, and watch pet users fly into hysterics, or at least fire up the excuse factory. Browse through your list of Facebook friends, and see how many post photos boasting of their climate-raping holiday trips and their selfies from the driver's seats of their climate-destroying automobiles. At least the overt science deniers are behaviorally consistent: they behave the way you would expect people to behave if climate science is a hoax.

Accordingly, this might mean that if you could persuade a science denier to stop denying science, he or she might be more inclined to respond with real action to slash the greenhouse gas emissions under his or her direct control. He or she might be less prone to the all-too-common liberal circle-squaring whereby climate change can be real and human-caused, yet no individual human is under any obligation to sacrifice any contributing vice.

nigelj at 06:23 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

The criticisms in the article and postings are excellent and pretty definitive.

But heres another issue. Firstly climate change is made complicated because we cannot put the entire planet into a laboratory and do a couple of simple experiments. The whole field relies on an enormous range of historical evidence, theory and modelling expressed in over 12,000 peer reviewed papers. You have to have a grip on all that research to really make a conclusion. Even climate sensitivity and attribution studies involves hundreds of papers.

The IPCC process is large and extended and has large teams of people going through all this. Hundreds and hundreds of scientists and support people are involved.

www.ipccfacts.org/how.html

There is no way a couple of red blue teams with three people on each side can be conversant enough with the range science to ever draw satisfactory conclusions. Even ten people on each side doesn't come anywehere near whats needed. The red blue team idea is just so inadequate and weak.

Daniel Mocsny at 05:58 AM on 1 September 2017

Exit, Pursued by a Crab

Pete @6:

Look up CBD, it's a cannabinoid, legal in UK, which among other things is an anti-cancer agent. But most doctors haven't a clue, and the pharmaceutical industry wants it kept that way.

I share your cynicism about Big Pharma's economic incentive, as eradicating a disease outright is far less profitable than continuing to sell treatments or palliatives for it indefinitely. But this has not stopped medical science from eradicating (locally or globally) a number of diseases, such as smallpox and polio. It's been a while since the Black Death wiped out 25% of Europe as well. That's because Big Pharma isn't the only player - lots of other people have incentives to cure any disease that can be cured, starting with the victims, their families, and their advocates. There is also career incentive for a scientific researcher who stands to reap awards, grants, the respect of his or her peers and of the public, and scientific immortality for curing a notable disease. That's on top of the internal motivation of the researcher who is driven to solve problems irrespective of external incentives.

Consider the vast trade in illegal drugs, which heavy police state action can only dent but not stop. The resources of governments cannot keep the chronic out of the hands of middle-schoolers - and yet Big Pharma can successfully suppress a cure for cancer?

Then there is medical tourism, in which desperate terminal patients travel to less-regulated countries where they can try any and all long-shot cures. Imagine what would happen if even a fraction of these written-off patients were to return in robust health.

These factors make it very unlikely that any real cure for cancer could go unnoticed for long. Thus I am skeptical about the endless parade of claimed miracle cures. I'm reminded of the mythical water-fuelled automobile that Big Oil is supposedly conspiring to keep off the market.

Tom13 at 05:43 AM on 1 September 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

Nigelj the first hint regarding the quality of the article is the statement in the 6th paragraph of the article where it states "anticipates that these trends are expected to worsen". which implies that the current trend is negative and the negative trend will worsen. On the contrary, the current trend is positive. See the attached link.

www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2015/06/Southeast_Asia/Index.htm

Secondly, as you stated "All I said was don't assume very optimistic rates of progress with crop improvements, and that the quoted study has evaluated projected progress and said only extremely "optmistic" estimates would be enough to offset the effects of climate change."

You certainly couldnt argue that renewable energy will never be cost effective because you have to ignore the likely technological improvements and inovations. Of course not, renewables will have technological improvements and inovations, similar to the long term trend in agriculture. So let the argument be intellectually consistent.

JWRebel at 04:07 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

Red team/blue team is always an exercise in which two sides try to pitch to somebody else who ultimately makes a decision. But there is obviously no jury or referee, because that would be some party that is qualified and is abreast of the science, like the people in peer review committees. So they would be pitching to a party that has no qualifications and doesn't care much about the truth, like political campaigning for the general public. With political campaigning it helps to have the media on your side (paid or otherwise) so that a lot of built in skew ensues for certain arguments, perceptions, and people. After all, it is about winning, not about truth. The people suggesting this exercise have so little experience with objective reality (or integrity), that they think science works just like the world of politics they know — it doesn't matter who was right, even afterwards, it only matters who gets to set the rules and who controls any official reports.

Who would like to be on the red team pitching plans to Stalin?

gorgulak at 02:58 AM on 1 September 2017

The Trump administration wants to bail out failed contrarian climate scientists

As everyone points out about this topic the red team/blue team exercise doesn't make sense in this case because that is already how science works. I don't know how the exercises usually work but I assume you select people for the teams who haveb't completely made up their mind on the topic. These people would just be rehashing research that has already been gone over a million times before. If you have worked your whole life in the field why would your opinion be changed by this exercise?

And how will the teams be chosen? Are they going to pick simply pro-agw scientists v "skeptics"?Is that really appropriate? Or should it be those scientists with the most 'catastrophic' predictions of agw against the "skeptics"?

It's one of those things that sounds like a common sense good idea to someone who doesn't follow all this, but really doesn't make much sense.

NorrisM at 02:20 AM on 1 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

OPOF @ 66.

Interesting. I am also from Alberta and originally was in the oil and gas business as a petroleum landman but only for a couple of years before returning to law school. Although I have always lived in Vancouver since becoming a lawyer, I have to admit that I also have a continuing connection to the oil and gas business. But I am 71 years old and I can say that the future of the oil and gas industry in Alberta has a nil effect on my views. Perhaps my children may have some interest from our investments but not me.

I very much appreciate the comments above and perhaps as Eclectic has suggested I have strayed from the topics (thanks editor for this stream which is not specifically on causes) but what I am trying to pass on are the views of someone who is a small "c" conservative when it comes to economic issues but is strongly supportive of social legislation which supports those who are not as economically successful (or by pure luck of the draw were not born with as much intellect as others). I think the disparity of income distribution and wealth in America is a real issue. For that matter, given gerrymandering in the US, there are serious questions as to whether you can really say there is a true democracy in the US when most positions in the Congress are decided in the primaries.

In my last posts, I have just been trying to focus on some of the "unspoken" currents that drive conservatives to question both climate change and the future economic effects. Given that the Republicans do not seem to be going away in the United States, I think it behooves the scientific community to respond to this "red team blue team" approach as a chance to get the message to the US public. Yes, I know that the IPCC already has this approach but here is the front stage and I hope that this opportunity is not lost by the "majority view" deciding not to participate because it is "below them" to discuss an issue which has already been decided. The reality is that this is an opportunity to put their case to the American public (we in Canada are kind of irrelevant if we want to be honest about it).

I have a lot of reading to do from the posts on costs so I plan to sign off for some time other than perhaps reiterating the above point on the new "red team blue team" blog.

One Planet Only Forever at 00:49 AM on 1 September 2017

New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest

NorrisM,

As an Engineer with an MBA I am absolutely certain that EROEI has very limited relevance to real world considerations.

EROEI may matter when comparing alternative ways of using a specific source of energy to produce the means to produce more energy. However, it is not relevant to the comparison of different energy sources. And it would not even be the primary consideration for evaluating the aternative ways of producing energy from a source of energy.

EROEI is a recently developed term. And its use to comparison different sources of energy appears to have been created to try to justify what cannot otherwise be justified. It is similar to the use of measures of Total Wealth or Average Income to declare if a society and its economy are 'improving'. The distribution of the wealth and income and the quality of life experienced by the least fortunate member of the society are more pertinent measures. Trying to get people focused on Totals and Averages obscures things and limits the general understanding of waht is actually going on.

Ultimately, the sustainability of an economic activity has to be the first consideration. And climate science is adding valuable information and understanding for use in those evaluations of sustainability. Any society or economic system that wants to have a better future with lasting improvement and growth has to focus on ensuring that only truly sustainable activity is allowed to compete for popularity and profitability.

Major corrections are required,and the socio-economic games that developed them cannot be expected to correct themselves.

History is full of examples of the damaging consequences for "Others (not the ones who Temporarily get away with Winning the most through the damaging unsustainable pursuits)".

Climate science, and many other pursuits of increased awareness and better understanding, have been exposing the fatal flaws of the games people play. And many of the Big Winners "Do Not Like It" and don't want the awareness and better understanding to become more popular.

Back to Lomborg. There is money to be made helping the selfish among the Rich people maintain support for unjustified beliefs and perceptions that they can benefit from. There is not much money to be made, and potential serious negative personal consequences (not just vicious unjustified attacks on a person's character), by people developing and promoting awareness and better understanding that is contrary to the interests of selfish very wealthy people. Lomborg is almost certain to be playing in pursuit of personal gain.

Disclosuer of personal interests: As a very fortunate resident of Alberta I would personally 'suffer a loss' if Alberta (and the rest of the world) changes in the ways I have mentioned regarding sustainable economic activity based on climate change considerations. I would have less opportunity to make a very high income and I would likely have to pay more taxes to fund a decent social safety net for the less fortunate. But I understand that high incomes related to fossil fuel burning activity is a temporary thing, unsustainable, not able to continue to be enjoyed by future generations in Alberta (with little true future value being cretaed today). I focused on the Responsible Professional Engineering role of ensuring that only 'acceptable options' were included in the comparison of alternative ways of achieving the stated objectives of the projects I was involved in. And as nigelj has mentioned, I had the responsibility to ensure that an unacceptable option was not 'deemed to be made acceptable' by being cheaper or quicker (no matter how much cheaper or quicker the alternative was).

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments