Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Recent Comments

Comments 20501 to 20550:

nigelj at 05:18 AM on 30 March 2017

Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate

Skepty @3 suggests climate will change anyway, so we might as well do nothing abot fossil fuel emissions.

It's just a weak type of reasoning. Here's another analogy: we will all get old and get some sort of disease, so why bother with medicine at all. I guess there are many such analogies.

The point is we probaly can't resolve all future challenges like ice ages, but we might as well at least reduce risks that we have some control over.

Ultimately it's a question of the level of risk of global warming and whether we can realistically reduce fossil fuel use, and I think we can. The sceptics give me the impression they think it's all too hard, or too complicated for them.

Spassapparat at 03:06 AM on 30 March 2017

There is no consensus

Eclectic @745 , thanks for your response!

Since the chair of the science committee in today's hearing on climate change brought the papers critiquing the Cook et al study into public record, this brought me back here.

I am aware of (A), but one should note that even there we still do not get close to a 97% consensus on category (1). I've looked into the data, and it suggests that 17% of the authors of papers that do express an opinion on climate change self-identify their paper as a category 1 paper. This is substantially higher than the rating by Cook et al. themselves, but still a farcry from the 97%.

If Cook et al. are now saying that many papers do not make a definite statement because it is obvious that most of global warming is human-made, I am inclined to agree with this assumption, not least because of other research referenced on this page showing a similar degree of consensus. However it is still just that, an assumption.

I do not think it is just Spass to play with words, I do think there is a substantial difference between saying "Cook et al. show that there is a 97% consensus that most of global warming is human made" (which, in my opinion, is an untrue statement) and "Cook et al. show there is a 97% consensus that some global warming is human made".

I wonder why, since there are half a dozen other studies showing a similar agreement, this site in particular and the climate science community in public discourse in general chooses to use a study whose proclaimed findings are so easily attackable.

Jim Eager at 01:47 AM on 30 March 2017

Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate

Shorter Skepty: "I don't know, therefore we don't know."

pattimer at 00:07 AM on 30 March 2017

Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate

Skepty

"Ok. I don't have the answers."

Surprised to see you then attempt to offer answers though.

"nor do you"

Surprised that you then tell us about your knowledge of past changes that could only be learned from climate scientists.

"Ultimately it doesn't matter."

Surprised then that you even bothered to comment. (According to your strange outlook it would make sense to build houses on shifting sand because ultimately they will fall down.)

"Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now."

Surprise you go into the prophesy game after your comments suggesting extremes will come and go without us knowing about the causes. Did you use tea-leaves to reach this conclusion?

Skepty at 23:00 PM on 29 March 2017

Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate

2030. 13 years. Ok. I don't have the answers, nor do you. Is the climate changing? Yes, as it always has and always will. I'll even agree that we are influencing its change. Ultimately it doesn't matter. The Earth's environment will fluctuate to extremes regardless of what one or every man does or doesn't do. Eventually our planet will experience another ice age, the ice will come back. As far as changes to currents, temps, water levels, etc. What complicates one life benefits another. What I find most comical about these discussions is how wrapped up some get, that they want/crave controversy. Step back and really think about it. Would you rather live 100 years ago or now. People will be saying the same another century from now. As long as Mother Earth allows it.

bjchip at 15:23 PM on 29 March 2017

Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate

Any realistic and reasoned discussion of "Clean Coal" ends up with the understanding that the oxymoron is real, and the concept is not.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

― Philip K. Dick

The Tyrannosaurus-rump (T-rump) has an amazingly large and toothy mouth, a tiny brain (to go with tiny hands) and a dangerous disregard of reality... the TV version not being particularly real. What we can expect however (IMO) is that he will weary of being the wrong end of the joke and find a way to get medicaled out of the job. Which will leave us with Pence who is more certain in his ignorance than even Trump can manage. This does not end well.

By 2030 ordinary people will understand what the science has been saying for the past half a century and it will suddenly become a massive priority. What is the outcome in that case?

That is an input I suggest needs to be entered into the models. BAU and no effective action prior to 2030 and a crash program to reduce CO2 after that date.

What can we expect from that?

I do not clearly know but the expectation of the free-market fundamentalists that there is prosperity in trade is going to be incinerated with CO2 costs of shipping over long distances. Assertions that there will not be a cost to emitting will be used to eviscerate political parties that are so loudly expressing them now.

Will it be enough? I think not. I think there will be war on the far side of that process. The T-rump is bad and his potential replacement no better. Ignorance is the enemy of democracy

“if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be” - Jefferson

and the USA has embraced it.

and I moved to New Zealand ... which is not nearly far enough away :-)

chriskoz at 08:16 AM on 29 March 2017

Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate

Like in case of T-man anti-climate coverage during his campaign by mainstream meida - subject of previous SkS article - I want to know how much of this news will be covered. Not by Guardian and not by PBS who do a reasonable job (and that's why T-man doesnt like them) but by mainstream media: ABC, CBS, MSN, CNN, FOX.

They're reverberating on ends with the coverage of anti-healthcare fiasko and earlier anti-immigration nonsense. But when it comes to the real issue herein, affecting long-term environment and intergenerational morality, arguably the biggest political issue of current generation, I predict the above media will remain laregely silent. They woul rather prefer a silly soap opera like like pussygate. I rest my case, no more words necessary.

A truly sadf state of affairs. I personally, would even like to turn blind eye on pussygate (which might be irrellevant to the ability of the president to actually govern the nation) if the president was otherwise a wise leader when it come to doing his job. But media view it differently and turn the priorities around. Really sad!

Moderator Response:

[JH] Rest assurred, Trump's blitzkrieg on the environment is being covered by all MSM in the US including the broadcast media you have listed. I have posted links to some of those news reports on the SkS Facebook page and will continue to do so throughout the week. In addition, i am posting links to editorials about Trump's erasure of US climate policy at the federal level. The editorials that I have read so far are quite damning.

Tom Curtis at 08:05 AM on 29 March 2017

Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

Grumpymel @91 and 92, the claim above is a rebutal of denier claims that human respiration is a direct source of the increase of atmospheric CO2, just as is the combustion of fossil fuels. That claim by deniers is typified by the quote from Ian Plimer, that

"If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that's got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat."

Of course, if Ian Plimer was at all honest in his science (on global warming) he would have noted that the carbon in what we eat comes from CO2 in the atmosphere, and consequently Senator Penny Wong's, and our respiration causes no direct increase in CO2 concentration.

That is a seperate question as to whether or not human agricultural activity has changed atmospheric content. It has, and in complex ways. Of these the most important have been the increase in CO2 from deforestation, and the increase in CH4 from rice farming and cattle production. Nothing above denies this, and there is extensive discussion of this in comments above. Further, the IPCC takes account of CO2 and CH4 production from these scources.

For what it is worth, CO2 emissions due to Land Use Change (the title given to those emissions) represents about 10% of emissions from fossil fuel use and cement manufacture (another important source).

Grumpymel at 06:28 AM on 29 March 2017

Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

Thanks for your rapid response and I aplogize for the use of capitals. I was just trying to denote emphasis.

I think the problem I'm running into is simply this. The claim is that an increase in the numbers of humans engaging in respiration has a zero net effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere because that is offset because we produced more crops which themselves take in C from the atmosphere and thus results in net zero change.

In theory if the only things you were considering were plants consumed and human respiration (and I suppose storage of C in tissues) in isolation... that argument would seem to make sense.

However, just as the Carbon we exhale comes from somewhere (consumption of plants) and our respiration should not be looked in isolation from that so too do the crops we produce to eat come from somehere and our production of them has some effect beyond thier simple consumption.

In other words, I think what you are categorizing as land use change is salient to the topic being discussed and should not be artificially isolated from it.

That is to say, if we weren't burning any fossil fuels whatsoever but still somehow performing all the other activities we perform in order to produce the food that we consume and which in part we respirate out as CO2 waste would the effect on the composition of the atmosphere be nothing whatsoever? Would the composition of the atmosphere be exactly the same as if there were no humans on the planet doing those things? or if there were only 1 billion. I really don't see how that would be a given.

I can see the argument that the change might be very small compared to fossil fuel production, maybe even reach some equilibrium but would it be exactly the same equilibrium as were there no humans on the planet. I really don't see how you could make that argument?

Moderator Response:

[RH] Again, you're extending the issue into other topics outside whether breathing adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Re-read the myth statement at the top of the article. That is what is being discussed. It's a very common misunderstanding that many non-scientists have regarding climate change and CO2 levels.

william5331 at 05:09 AM on 29 March 2017

PBS is the only network reporting on climate change. Trump wants to cut it

The situation is so severe that one hopes the reaction will put us firmly on the road to some sensible government. It is time for Bernie to do a Lincoln and take his supporters and start a new party. The Dems are not the solution. Sorry about the political nature of the comment but politics is the problem. Get vested interest money out of politics as Bernie was doing and it is not an automatic solution to all our problems but it suddenly makes them possible to solve.

Moderator Response:

[PS] This really is not the forum for political comment. Try ThinkProgress.

Grumpymel at 04:48 AM on 29 March 2017

Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

Sorry, but it seems a rather simplistic approach to assume the result would neccesarly be net neutral in terms of emmissions. Yes, we've obviously grown more crops in order to consume them.... but that would have to assume the land upon which the crops were grown was absent of vegitation wouldn't it?

The assumption seems to be that we've increased the total amount of vegitation exactly enough to offset our increased respiration.... but haven't what we've actually done is CHANGED THE TYPE of vegitation from a form we can't consume to a form we can consume.

Where is the evidence to suggest that we've actually increased the total mass of vegitation in an amount exactly equal to our respiration?

Further wouldn't that also assume that all plant mass has exactly the same value in removing carbon from the atmosphere and acting as a carbon sink. Just the fact that certain plants have longer life cycles and hold onto their mass for longer periods of time.... or have different growing cycles would tend to suggest otherwise wouldn't it?

Would even a deciduous tree have the same value in removing carbon from the atmosphere and producing O2 as a conifer occupying the same acerage?

That's even ignoring the role of livestock in the cycle and assuming all our intake comes directly from plants.

I'm not a scientist but it seems rather like you've made a convenient set of assumptions of net neutrality for something that is not nearly as simplistic.... but maybe I'm completely off base.

Moderator Response:

[RH] Note that all caps isn't allowed here. Thanks.

In terms of your question, first, make sure you've read both the basic and intermediate tabs for this topic. It seems to me that you're trying to make the question more complicated than it is. This topic isn't intended to address land use changes due to population growth. For that you can read this SkS article.

green tortoise at 03:23 AM on 29 March 2017

Global warming is increasing rainfall rates

Dear John Abraham:

This paper is specially interesting given the current disaster in my country (Peru). So far this rainy season was similar, if not worse, than the and 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 El Niño events.

There is a rare, localised warming along South America Coast (peaks of 5-10°C in the Peruvian Northern Coast), but weaker anomalies go all the way down to Chile and along the Southern Pacific Subtropics into the Australian Great Barrier Reef, were there is currently a severe bleaching event.

We call those events a "coastal El Niño", but I am unaware of the effects of the large "blob" of warmer water in the Pacific Subtropics. Perhaps this could be our (southern) version of the infamous "Blob" seen in Northern Pacific before the 2015-16 El Niño?

Perhaps you have a copy of the paper, where there could be any clues.

And what do you think of what is happening in the Pacific Ocean right now?

Tom Curtis at 09:38 AM on 28 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

JohnFornaro @56, it is not a rational response to uncertainty to assume that, with 100% certainty the uncertain thing won't happen. That, however, is the effective attitude you say I give Congress "effective permission" to adopt.

I would suggest that the information I have provided should lead Congress to adopt now, a policy of converting to parkland any land subject to flooding by king tides or by 1:50 year rainfall events or more in coastal areas, or within around 300 mm of that datum. Converting to Parkland would involve buying back private properties using eminent domain. They should further commit to reviewing the policy in a decade. Standards for levies are a bit different as you greatly increase the cost of the response if you do multiple builds. There I suggest they set a standard for levies equivalent to a Katrina level storm surge plus around 1.5 meters. Again, they should commit to decadal review.

This policy admits to the near certainty that there will be significant sea level rise, and then hones in on the most appropriate level of response by dealing with the the near certainties first and progressively responding as we have better information. Both of the suggested short term standards (300 mm and 1.5 meters) should be refined by a short term review by relevant experts (of which I am not one).

In the US, I understand many people have a phobia about reasonable government regulation, so you may prefer to simply legislate that in any property sales, the buyer must provide the supplier with the height above sea level of the property, along with the height of a representative storm surge plus the 300 mm; along with the specific cost of flood ensurance for the property. At the same time, any law prohibiting insurance companies from varying the cost of flood insurance based on local conditions plus expectations based on climate change should be repealed; and any government flood insurance, including any emergency help in the event of flood other than to rescue occupants, should be banned for properties below the surge plus 300 mm datum, unless the properties are protected by levies meeting the 1.5 m datum.

These two regulations amount to a requirement that buyers do not conceal faults in a property they are selling, and that the government not subsidize the insurance, or become the insurer of last resort for people who ignore the reality of sea level rise. Nor reasonable, and principled objection to excessive government regulation can object to those requirements.

Of course, many of these courses of action would not actually be in the power of Congress, and must devolve to state or local governments.

Rob Honeycutt at 02:22 AM on 28 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

JF... Regarding sea level rise, if you merely squash a chart down you're unlikely to gain any valuable information. Much of what is expected from future sea level rise is a function of ice sheet dynamics. The 1m+ projections for SLR are a function of how fast Greenland and Antarctica are melting. There's a lot of research being done on that very issue but the dynamics are extremely complex.

In terms of "persuasion" what are scientists supposed to do? They can't just make up numbers. They have to have a basis for any projections they put forth. That's what make science so much more difficult than political rhetoric.

What seems ridiculous to me is that people, such as Adams, have some expectation that if scientists were more clever with their words or graphics, then people would easily be convinced of the dangers we face with climate change. I'm sorry but such thinking oversimplifies the issue and doesn't even start to offer any substantive insights into what could actually be done to more effectively communicate complex issues to non-scientists.

Rob Honeycutt at 01:44 AM on 28 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

JF... "I'm hoping that we agree that neither amateurs nor experts can determine which model best fits the data."

I'd have to say, that's a non-statement on par with, "I can neither confirm nor deny existence of such an operation without the explicit concent of the secretary." (re: Mission Impossible)

On persuasion without expertise, I'd suggest that's a dangerous area on many levels. This is how you end up with people in positions of power and importance who do not have to moral character or requisite skills to perform their duties.

JohnFornaro at 00:46 AM on 28 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

I'm hoping that we agree that neither amateurs nor experts can determine which model best fits the data.

Tom Curtis @55:

"It will be a decade or two before we can significantly resolve which projection/model combination is most accurate with respect to sea level rise."

Which is fair on one level, but it is also permission for Congress to say, wait and see. Ten to twenty years is not three years.

I made an effort to demonstrate that, with at least one model, within three years, there should be a measurable rise in sea levels which could not be dismissed on a partisan basis.

On some other site, I was advised that the extreme predictions are more to be believed than the less extreme predictions about sea level rise. This is why I chose the extreme example in the graph @ 40. What is the thought about sea level rise on this site?

About persuasion, I said that Scott Adams does have good knowledge about persuasion. As you noticed, I didn't say anything about Scott's "expertise". In addition, Scott says that he's an expert in persuasion, not an expert in "something". Scott did not force people to give him money over his career; he persuaded them. It sounds like you may not agree with me that without, for example, a verifiable rise in sea levels of about 4cm in three years, that policymakers need to be persuaded to change carbon emission policy.

I also said that if policy is to be changed by effective persuasion, then it would be requisite to show all the graphical pictures at the same scale. It's easy to make fun of congresscritters for being visually challenged; I do it all the time.

I pasted the colorado.edu graph mentioned above over the graph @40, squeezed it down to about the right scale at least on the abscissa. The ordinate of the colorado.edu graph should be flattened even more. 1 cm barely registers.

The illustrated flat curve is not at all persuasive regarding catastrophic sea level rise. [Edit just before posting: I was not able to upload the described image from my computer to this post, using the 'Insert Image' tool]

What is the best predictive model showing expected sea level rise?

Moderator Response:

[PS] The comments policy includes information at the bottom about posting images and other useful stuff. You have to host the image somewhere else on the web and then use that URL with the image tool.

jlsoaz at 13:53 PM on 27 March 2017

Antarctica is gaining ice

Hi -

I have found this thread helpful to getting perspective on land and sea ice discussion. My comment is a question or request about data:

For a long time I have been trying to monitor land ice, but for the layman the information does not seem to be readily out there and updating regularly. I see this page:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

However, that information has not been updated past March 2016. I've tried to dig around a bit for alterntaive sources of information and haven't so far been able to find any. I don't know if it is the function of this page to provide such information, but does anyone know of a good source that can readily be understood by non-scientists? (To get an updated reading of whether trends in Antarctica toward lower land ice are continuing).

Tom Curtis at 09:53 AM on 27 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

John Fornaro @53:

"At the risk of running into the repetition problem, I remind you of my question. At what point can we measure sea level rise and point to that rise as incontrovertible evidence that one or more of these models is accurately predicting sea level rise?"

And I remind you of my answer:

"[I]t will be a decade or two before we can significantly resolve which projection/model combination is most accurate with respect to sea level rise."

"If policy is to be changed by effective persuasion, then it would be requisite to paint all the graphical pictures at the same scale."

Not to put to fine a point on it, if our elected representatives cannot cope with the mental difficulty of understanding a change in scale, there is no hope of persuading them of the actual science and it implications. Understanding science requires an ability to reason, and if a change of scales defeats a person, they lack that ability.

What is more, if we continuously elect representatives whose capacity to reason is so easilly defeated, we probably deserve the consequences.

Tom Curtis at 09:34 AM on 27 March 2017

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

John Fornaro @302:

"400 ppm is a "greatly increased partial pressure? As compared to 270 ppm in 1750?"

Importantly, the current CO2 concentration is 400 parts per million by volume, ie, ppmv - not parts per million by mass. That hooks it into a number of important equivalencies. Specifically:

1) pi/p = ni/n where pi is the partial pressure and p the total pressure, and ni the moles of the individual gas and n the total moles of the gas; and also

2) Vx = Vtot x pi/p = Vtot = ni/n, where Vx is the partial volume and Vtot is the total volume of the gas.

The second equation is why the ratio of molecules of CO2 to the total number of molecules in dry air is expressed as ppmv.

It follows from the above that an increase of 42.9% in concentration will result in approximately a 42.9% increase in partial pressure, any slight variation being due to a variation in the total pressure. That, as the article says, is a "greatly increased partial pressure".

"Woah, in that, the same care in studying carbon sequestration by plant life has not been included in the calculations."

The change in plant life is given fairly precisely by the change in C12/C13 ratio once adjustment is made for the contribution of fossil fuels to that change. It is also given some what less precisely by the change in O2 levels, in that the total change in O2 level, ignoring ocean outgasing, is the original total, minus the amount combusted with fossil fuels, plus the extra amount from CO2 that has been photosynthesized, with the carbon being retained in plant matter. Detailed local surveys (which have been conducted across a number of ecosystems) are necessary to determine in what form the retained carbon is stored (living plant tissue, or dead plant tissue, or soil organic carbon) but not to determine the total extra amount stored.

Rob Honeycutt at 04:13 AM on 27 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

JohnFornaro... "Scott Adams [...] does have good knowledge about persuasion."

I don't believe this is even remotely established. Adams certainly believes this is the case and repeats it often. Personally, I don't think saying you're an expert in something actually makes you an expert. (Yes, I realize you didn't use the word "expert" but Adams generally presents himself as such.)

Tom Dayton at 03:39 AM on 27 March 2017

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

John Fornaro: It seems you have overlooked or misunderstood the mass balance evidence of humans being responsible for the rise in CO2. It's just algebra.

JohnFornaro at 02:03 AM on 27 March 2017

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

Tom Dayton @ 297: "Your understanding that "the current warming cycle is releasing more naturally sequestered carbon into the atmo than mankind is emitting" is incorrect."

There is an argument that warming is forcing carbon release. My understanding of the argument as simply phrased above is correct. That doesn't mean I'm a proponent of that argument.

Tom Dayton: "The amount we release is enough to outstrip the abilities of the natural sinks to absorb it."

That is also my understanding of this argument. From the 'intermediate pane':

"Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years."

Obviously, temperatures, ocean levels, and CO2 concentrations have varied over the millenia. Because that was the case then, doesn't mean that humans now are or are not forcing the climate beyond what is thought to have been a natural balance.

There is no question in my mind that humans have burnt off a lot of fossil fuels that otherwise would have stayed in the ground. The climate will seek a new balance, but that new balance would also include warmer temperatures and different coastlines, among several other effects.

I looked at:

https://skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

"But in today's world, the greatly increased partial pressure of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions causes a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans."

Ai chihuahua. 400 ppm is a "greatly increased partial pressure? As compared to 270 ppm in 1750? The pressure relationship is not defined solely by 400/270. I could use some education on this matter.

Still, "Hocker begins his analysis by calculating the first derivative of the CO2 data", which doesn't make sense to me either. It seems more like he's hindcasting.

I also looked at:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

"Caveat: Land use and biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some [of] it [is] simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up enough." [a small amount of editing for clarity added]

Woah, in that, the same care in studying carbon sequestration by plant life has not been included in the calculations. My three acres is sequestering more carbon than either an equivalent area in Manhattan or the Sahara. Land based plant life must be included for the sake of accuracy.

JohnFornaro at 01:12 AM on 27 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

Tom Curtis @ 44:

I quite realize the necessity to smooth out what will certainly be an irregular yearly rise and fall of sea levels. For example, we cannot be sure exactly when the penguins, with their rhythmic jumping up and down, will crack off Larsen C. Anyhow, by my reading, I would agree that Greenland will melt first. Surely, it is generally agreed that there is more ice in Antarctica.

At the risk of running into the repetition problem, I remind you of my question. At what point can we measure sea level rise and point to that rise as incontrovertible evidence that one or more of these models is accurately predicting sea level rise?

If the graph @40 is incorrect as of now, can you point me to a better one?

In this case, persuasion by the sea itself will speak far more than a bunch of graphs. Surely, The Donald would acknowledge a one meter rise of sea level around Mar a Lago.

"Since 2006, the average rate of sea-level rise in South Florida has increased to 9 millimeters a year from 3 millimeters a year, for a total rise over the decade of about 90 millimeters, or about 3.5 inches, according to Shimon Wdowinski, a research scientist at the University of Miami."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/07/donald-trump-maralago-climate-change

Shimon sez:

"The average rate of sea-level rise increased by 6 millimeters per year over the last decade - from 3 millimeters per year before 2006 to 9 millimeters per year after 2006."

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-events/press-releases/2016/new-study-shows-increased-flooding-accelerated-sea-level-rise-in-miami-over/

This is more along the lines of what my casual but accurate graphing exercise of the smooth curve extreme range on the graph @40 indicated. This is a lot more than suggested by the info in your link:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

As a technical point, this graph from colorado.edu is in millimeters, and the graph @40 is in meters.

If policy is to be changed by effective persuasion, then it would be requisite to paint all the graphical pictures at the same scale. Scott Adams may not have any good knowledge about the climate, but he does have good knowledge about persuasion.

To get to one meter of sea level rise, it would be necesary to go one silly millimeter at a time, over a long period of time. When you say, "the current best estimate from an empirical stance would be a near 1 meter sea level rise", you don't mention the year 2100 for one thing. For another, what does the term "empirical stance" mean?

Finally, Michael Sweet @43:

"It is not really possible for amateurs to determine which model is the best fit right now."

Neither is it really possible for the experts to determine best fit. But you already knew that.

On other fronts, is humor understood and allowed here?

Jim Eager at 00:41 AM on 27 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

What's missing here is the fact that below the effective radiating height relaxation through collision with another gas molecule (mainly O2 or N2) is far more likely than relaxation through spontneous emission of a new photon, thereby converting the vibrational energy of absorption to thermal energy within the atmosphere.

chriskoz at 20:37 PM on 26 March 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #12

So despite bad news, KXL is not a done deal yet: a permit from NE is required. I hope someone will find a legal glitch that can possibly stop/delay it, just like judge Robart found anti-immigration order unconstitutional but5 chances look slim.

I don't understand the political details here and how long state of NE will take on it. Or how "a fantastic governor" of NE can expedite it. I obviously do not believe in a single word of a man who signed it & who says: “It’s going to be an incredible pipeline. Greatest technology known to man". Foolish moronism of that man was only confirmed here, because a person who pronounces such nonsense clearly does not understand how human technology has evolved in more than 150 years since mid-1850. He's proven once again that facts and reality do not matter to him, not only when he's angry, but also when he's happy and smiling because things are moving according to his wishes.

Digby Scorgie at 18:01 PM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

JupiterJosh

Which purse-string-holding politicians are we talking about here? Let's put the matter in a wider context:

I've read that there's over thirty-thousand climate scientists at work around the world (I hope that's correct). The IPCC reports provide a summary of the consensus viewpoint of this huge number of researchers, a consensus based on strong evidence.

Now, as it happens, almost all the governments of the world — including the US — accepted this consensus and signed the Paris Agreement as a consequence. What has since changed? All that has changed is the US government. So of all the world's politicians we have a small group effectively holding the world to ransom. (And yes, I know that some politicians in other countries also reject the science — but their governments have not.)

Climate scientists have done their damndest to apprise politicians of the danger. One would have thought the Paris Agreement settled the matter. What can they do now against a very powerful group whose aim is to destroy them and their science? I don't think you can reason with an enemy who has vowed to destroy you.

chriskoz at 14:47 PM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

Rob@50,

I can aswer for JupiterJosh here:

Environmental impact of acid rain, impact of CFC on strat O3, health effects of tobacco smoking, etc. research that impacted policies of politicians encumbered by certain industries.

We all know that and understand each other. What JupiterJosh seems to lack in his understanding is the distinction between the roles in climate mitigation efforts played by scientists, advocates and politicians. He would like climate scientists to play at least both first two (in not all 3) roles. His definition of "skin in the game" aptly applies to politicians who make commercial decisions. Climate scientists are not even qualified for such decisions, to start with, which indicates how unrealistic Josh's expectations are. As for activists, scientists can choose to become them as private citizens only and it would be foolish to mix activism and science. Read Gavin's comment on RC to have a thoughful opinion about it.

chriskoz at 13:53 PM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight

DrivingBy@14,

Energy at a rate of 10K watts per person is not a mistake, even though it may seem high to you. Check the third column of the table of energy use per capita.

For US it is 9538.8. It's less for other countries, average is I believe some 2.5kW. I also think it's hight: myself as a consumer I cannot believe I use as much as 75kW (Australia) but that includes all economy not just residential and your car, which is your personal use. My personal use would definitely be less than 500W (appliances at home, no car - I commute by bicycle) but my low energy footprint means nothing while the civilisation that suppots me revs up 15 times more than that.

Rob Honeycutt at 13:44 PM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

JupiterJosh... Let me ask you this: What other science has required "skin in the game"? Relativity? Quantum theory? Germ theory?

Personally, I'm not seeing a fit.

jupiterjosh at 12:33 PM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

Hi Rob @46, Tom @47, and chriskoz @48. Anthroprogenic — yes, my apologies — if you can't get the little things right, you're never going to sell them on the big things :-)

First to chriskoz @48. I agree with you 100%. I don't think I was clear in my original comment. What I meant to say is that I believe a role above and beyond what is traditionally a scientist's/teacher's role has been thrust upon the climate science community because of the policy ramifications that result from their research. As you point out, it is unethical for a climate scientist/teacher to have a financial conflict-of-interest with their research. But the deniers can employ anyone they want to further their agenda. So if climate scientists do not take on this additional role of engineer/evangelist/promoter/soothsayer, then who will? Who can?

These were my original questions and I still don't know the answer to them. I believe this is the spirit of what Scott Adams was grasping at.

Getting, to Rob and Tom's comments. While I agree that there a some folks holding purse-strings that aught not to, in the U.S. at least, we are where we are. So Rob, do you not at least agree that the transaction being suggested by climate science is for someone holding the purse-strings (politicians, CEO's, etc.) to accept a short-run risk (in terms of being voted out of office by either the public or shareholders should the average person suddenly forget why the climate policy was enacted in the first place) in exchange for the promise of a long-term gain?

I think it is important to also point out that the market *has* put a price on the status quo. If there was no price associated with the status-quo then there wouldn't be a coordinated effort to deny climate change. All that lobbying and TV-time costs money.

This is why climate models look like financial models to me and why it seems like having skin-in-the-game is an important ingredient to convincing someone holding the purse that what you're saying is true. As chriskoz pointed out to me, from the climate scientist's perspective they do have skin in the game in the form of reputation amongst their peers, and this would be enough if they were trying to convince eachother, but I don't think reputation amongst peers is exchangable currency with folks outside of one's peer group. Not having skin in the game certainly isn't the fault of the climate scientist, and as Tom pointed out it certainly isn't for lack of trying (via temperature bets).

But this again brings me back to the original questions in my post. If the climate scientist is unwilling to take on the job of convincing skeptics then whose job is it? If saving the world doesn't pivot on convincing skeptics, what does it pivot on?

As a quick aside/fyi, I think you'd be surprised at how close these climate models are to becoming financial models. Constaining the range of uncertainty is exactly the purpose of a financial model. A financial model attempts to "predict" a distribution of financial outcomes. It does this by (1) specifying a universe of future events, (2) identifying a "cost" function that tabulates the cost of any individual event occuring, and (3) somehow imputing a distribution on the likelihood of those events occurring. The standard climate model does (1) and (3). The only thing the climate model doesn't do is (2). Consider that seasonal weather models are used to price heating-degree-day (HDD) and cooling-degree-day (CDD) financial options. If there was a market for 50-year HDD/CDD options, then climate models (regardless of how mathematically sophisticated and grounded in physics) would drive the options prices.

Moderator Response:

[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is 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.

chriskoz at 11:26 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

My post @10 above is the response to sailingfree@6. Sorry for the omission.

chriskoz at 11:12 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

I don't understand you question. You need to be more specific.

The fact that shorten wavelngth are radiated by hotter objects follows from Wien's law. Later, Plank described the spectral distribution of black body radiation. Intuitively, it means that various molecules of a body are able to emit various quants of electromagnetion radiation, depending on their energy state at that instant. The collective amount of radiation (all quants combined, as emitted from 6.02*10E23 molecules per mole of material) form the continuous Plank spectrum or radiation.

What is unlear here? What do you mean by seeking "quantum electrodynamically" explanation?

DrivingBy at 10:49 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 01 - Ancient Sunlight

That was very well and plainly written, and refreshingly free of the man-is-evil, technology-is-evil, all economies other than government controlled are evil, you're all evil etc etc whinging which suffuses popular coverage of this topic.

Small quibble: stating energy consumption in watts sounds fuzzy: do you mean that we use energy at a rate of 10K watts, or 240KWH/day, or do you mean we use about 10KWh each day? The former sounds reasonable if you consider all direct and indirect energy use.

Humanity as a species has been so successful that we just might eat our way to the edge of the petri dish, but we're not quite there yet.

chriskoz at 10:46 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

sailingfree@5,

the energy goes into atoms WOBBLING [...] which is NOT thermal energy. So the CO2 does NOT get hotter when it absorbs IR.
(comment policy violating emphasis original)

Not exactly. By increasing the vibrational energy, the CO2 molecules become "super-hot" in terms of thermal energy definition, or overall "kinetic energy" definition I refered to in my previous comment to Tom Curtis. Further, by interacting eith other moelcules in the air (by bouncing around), CO2 molecules transfer that energy to the rest of air, resulting in air temperature increase.

chriskoz at 10:30 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

Tom Curtis@7,

In contrast, only energy of translation contributes to the temperature of a gas

That is accurate only for monoatomic noble gases like helium that have the possibility of kinetic energy only from translational kinetic energy of point masses, that their single atomic molecules represent. For any other materials. The so called "kinetic temperature" you're refering to, defines temperature in terms of the average translational kinetic energy of the independent point masses only.

Molecules of all other materials can have other forms of kinetic energy. That includes rotational kinetic energy of vibrating milti-atomic molecules of most other gasses. The zero-th law of thermodynamics (which defines the termperature as the state of energy equilibrium between any two parts of a single "body") includes all kinds of kinetic energy in the material molecules. With such definition of material's "overall temperature", the vibrational energy must also be included. Such definition translates to the everyday understanding that the3 temperature of a gasuous material we measure, includes both translational and vibrational kinetic energy of the material's molecules. If it did not include vibrational kinetic energy, the subsequent laws of thermodynamics would be less intuitive to understand and the energy conservation laws would not be implied therein.

chriskoz at 09:20 AM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

jupiterjosh@45,

You seem to have a problem that "skin in the game" is not part of climate scientists' job, unlike your job.

In addition to the responses by Rob Honeycutt and Tom Curtis - indicating that those scientists often want to put their "skin in the game" as private citizens (with poor results when pitched against cowardice deniers) - I want to emphasise that a typical job of a scientist in general does not involve any betting games or such.

Scientists are like teachers: they sell you the knowledge of e.g. the physics. They don't sell you the products, e.g. the computer programs that are guaranteed to make money like you do. Their programs, as opposed to your program, are the teaching tool and not commercial tool. Cettainly they may become commercial tool when they are sold from one university to the other: then the authors from the original uni put their "skin in the game", in a sense that their program is free of design and implementation bugs.

Have you ever heard of a case when the students (like us in SkS) demanded from the teachers (like climate scientists) to put their "skin in the game" of teaching? Such notion is unheard of. Because all teachers' and all scientists' job desciption does not require them to do that. Their stake is not finance but reputation.

It's arguable if scientists would be inspired for a better job and/or their trust would increase if we forced them to have financial stake in their job description. For once, in case of climate scientists, all contrarians like Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Wili Soon, Dick Lidzen, etc. would have been eliminated from such field. But that's beside my point. My point is that our civilisation developed such ethical considerations around teaching jobs for a good reasons: that the scientific knowledge can be debated and developed unencumbered by any commercial obligations, therefore free from commercial bias.

To give you another perspective, for better understanding the difference between teacher's job and other commercial jobs, consider the case of medical professionals that can be both. Doctors may do research based on their practice and publish the new/breakthrough methods in medical journals and lecture at the unis. This is a teacher's job and they have no stake in it other than their reputation. On the other hand, when the patients come to their office for a medical consultation, they surely put "skin in the game", because they may be liable financially (e.g. sued) for wrong dignosis.

Finally, let's consider if making sicentist/teachers liable financially rather than morally for their job would encourage them to perform better? I doubt. Reputation for many people (especially highly educated and at level 3 of moral development according to Kohlberg) plays far important role, than financial remuneration, as the reward for their activities.

Tom Curtis at 07:38 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

sailingfree, thermal energy, by which I assume you mean heat, in a gas includes the energy of motion as each molecule moves ("energy of translation"), but it also includes the energy of vibration and/or rotation within the molecule. It does not include energy involved in changes energy states of electrons in ordinary atmospheric conditions. In contrast, only energy of translation contributes to the temperature of a gas.

Tom Curtis at 07:16 AM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

jupiterjosh @45, first (a very small point), it is anthropogenic climate change, not anthropomorphic. The former means human generated or caused, the later human formed.

Second, a number of climate scientists and communicators have tried very hard to get direct "skin in the game" in the form of bets on future temperatures. These include Rob Honeycutt himself, the climate scientist who blogs under the name of Eli Rabbet, and others. Generally they have had difficulty finding betting partners from among purported skeptics. Curiously, often purported skeptics are only prepared to bet on terms which presume a warming climate, although the bet Rob Honeycutt is involved in is not among those. Richard Lindzen, for example, is only prepared to bet on odds that assume it is 50 to 1 against a cooling climate in future.

Rob Honeycutt at 06:27 AM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

jupiterjosh... The issue here is, all the data is there. Scientists explain this stuff all the time. Over and over. Repeatedly and ad nauseum. My point is, it's like the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." It requires some willingness to listen on the part of "skeptics" in order for them to actually understand.

There are a lot of people who will go to their graves rather than accept scientific facts. This is just a simple failing of human nature. And in terms of "purse string holders" go, we need to put the purse strings into different hands if the one's holding them now are unwilling to accept facts.

In terms of having skin in the game, (a) I think science operates differently than markets, and (b) we all have skin in this game that involves potentially catastrophic impacts on future generations.

I think it's also important to reiterate the point that climate models and financial models are vastly different animals. The basis of the scientific understanding of anthropogenic (not anthropomorphic) climate change is fundamental physics, not models. Models are there only to help researchers to better understand what's happening and where things are likely going. They're used to constrain the range of uncertainty.

There is definitely no lack of empathy here. Scientists are working very hard to make their complex science clear to the general public. But there is also an extremely well funded effort out there driving confusion on the science as well. And remember, a lie can get half way round the planet before the truth can get its trousers on. (Quote attributed to various people.)

Telling the complex truth amidst a stormy sea of lies is always going to be challenging.

jupiterjosh at 05:26 AM on 26 March 2017

A Perfect (Twitter) Storm

Rob,

First I want to thank you for taking the time to do this write-up. Anyone who is willing to stick their neck out to state something and is willing to open the floor to comments deserves thanks and you have mine.

I feel like climate scientists are being put in a position closer to that of an economist or an engineer because of the policy implications/ramifications that come as a product of climate research. While scientists in other fields do not normally have to assume the mantle of professional soothsayer, the fact that one of your opening comments (provided below) basically says you are unwilling to take on this mantle and that this view is probably widely held amongst climate scientists is very troubling given the importance of anthropomorphic climate change:

Aside from the ludicrous notion that saving the world somehow pivots on convincing "skeptics", Adams' fundamental fallacy is the notion that it's the job of climate scientists to convince "skeptics" that climate change is real.

How I interpret this comment is to say that climate scientists, in general, are not willing to spend time to convince those holding the purse-strings (going with Scott’s assumption that those holding the purse-strings are the skeptics) to make some sort of policy decision based on their prognostications.

So I have two questions: First, if you truly believe that it is ludicrous or futile to try to convince deniers to change policy then why say anything at all; why not aspire to push climate science to some sort of academic backwater to avoid all the attention? Second, if it’s not your job to convince skeptics then whose job is it?

I can tell you that the folks holding the purse-strings assume that it is your job to do the convincing since they are the ones who will feel the immediate impacts of your prognostication (e.g., voted out of office because you spent too much money). You could argue that your prognostications are based on physical laws and the “skeptic” should just take your word for it, but from the perspective of the person holding the purse, your argument is no different from that of a structural engineer who applies basic physical laws to create a schematic for a roadway bridge.

The only difference being that the structural engineer is willing to go the extra step of applying his/her license numbered stamp to the schematic which essentially says, "I certify that if you build it to these specifications, the bridge will not collapse." The climate scientist does nothing besides say “trust me.”

From the perspective of the purse-holder, which model is more believable? The model of the bridge where the structural engineer is willing to stake his/her professional engineering license (and subsequently his/her livelihood) on the belief that his prognostications are true, or the model of the climate scientist who has absolutely no skin in the game and isn’t even willing to simply explain his results?

While I’m on the topic of “skin in the game”, I want to explain to you what skin in the game feels like because I hope it will illustrate why climate models are not taken as seriously as the climate modeling community thinks they should. I happen to be a professional commodities speculator. I build and use mathematical models every day (I am an applied math PhD dropout). Furthermore, I have done the work explaining to others what I do so that other people give me money to make bets based on the outcome of my models.

In a single day I once lost $30,000 of my own money and $450,000 of someone else’s money based on a data error in one of my models. When I realized what had happened I threw up in the trashcan at my desk and was unable to eat for weeks. Since the error was a clear oversight on my part, I thought I would lose my job and I would be finished in this business. I’m still trading, but I never forgot that day. In fact, I still have a job precisely because my error put me in such financial “pain” and my superiors knew I wouldn’t make the same mistake twice.

While I believe in anthropomorphic climate change and that it is imperative that human behavior must be changed, I can’t help but wonder, is the average climate scientist willing to stake his livelihood on the output of one of his modeling runs? Will the scientist stake their home or whether or not they will have a job tomorrow that their models are free from data and programming errors? That’s what skin-in-the-game feels like, and once you can demonstrate to the person holding the purse that you have skin in the game, your model will take on a level of believability above and beyond what it actually does.

So I guess to make a long story short. For the sake of the planet, more empathy may be required on the part of the climate scientist since the scientist is essentially asking of the person holding the purse-strings that they put their money where the scientist’s mouth is.

sailingfree at 02:10 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

More, misunderstanding: How, quantum electrodynamically, do we explain classical black body radiation, where the emitted frequency is a function of its thermal temperature? I am missing something, photons reacting with the thermal energy.

sailingfree at 00:42 AM on 26 March 2017

Elevator Pitches - Chapter 02 - Radiative Gases

Thank you, Rob. For clarification, and do I have it right?:

Heat is thermal energy, that is, whole molecules BOUNCING around, hitting each other. When a molecule absorbs IR, the energy goes into atoms WOBBLING, or electrons jumping, within the molecule, which is NOT thermal energy.

So the CO2 does NOT get hotter when it absorbs IR.

Please comment on the accuracy of my (mis)understanding of the quantum electrodynamics. Thanks

Tom Curtis at 23:50 PM on 25 March 2017

Global warming is increasing rainfall rates

Art Vandelay @10, my understanding is that the primary driver of the increased storm strength is the increased humidity. Storms cause precipitation results in the release of the energy stored as latent heat in the water vapour. That in turn drives the storm. Based on that, we would expect a 4% increase in the energy of storms per 1 C increase in temperature. That is very rough, however, as local humidity is driven by local temperatures rather than global temperatures, and there are other factors involved, some tending to make storms less energetic and/or less frequent.

Art Vandelay at 22:31 PM on 25 March 2017

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #11

Green parties can be enemies of science too, which happens when they exploit enviromnetal issues to peddle political ideology and agendas.

To say that conservative parties are enemies of science is not only a generalisation it's also incorrect, given that Conservatism has underpinned our entire technology era which was and is fueled by science.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Sloganeering snipped. You have posted comments on this website long enough for you to be acquainted with the SkS Comments Policy. Please adhere to it.

Art Vandelay at 22:17 PM on 25 March 2017

Global warming is increasing rainfall rates

Recently, one of our leading climate scientists in Australia was on television explaining that we can expect storms to be more severe due to the additional energy in the atmosphere.

Obviously this makes sense but it also made we think about how much extra energy there must be, and based on temperature alone the answer is about 0.3%, or about 0.5% with vapour feedback.

My question therfore is how does a 0.5% increase in energy result in a substantial increase in the severity of weather events?

Art Vandelay at 22:08 PM on 25 March 2017

Global warming is increasing rainfall rates

It makes some sense that a warming world is relevant to precipitation changes, as is a warmer world.

Regionally, as we transition from winter to spring at mid latitudes there's reduced rainfall and increased evaporation, and the opposite is also true as we transition from summer to autumn.

A future world will be a warmer world with changed precipitation patterns, but as the global temperature begins to fall in response to falling CO2 levels in the atmosphere the additional accumulated vapor in the atmosphere will be slowly reassimilated into the oceans, lakes and glaciers.

John Hartz at 12:40 PM on 25 March 2017

Ice age predicted in the 70s

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments