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 supplememtal reading:

Q&A with Jennifer Layke: How to Transform the Global Energy Economy by Jennifer Layke and Hayden Higgins, World Resources Institute (WRI), Sep 29, 2016

RedBaron at 03:50 AM on 5 October 2016

DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed

@3 Digby Scorgie,

Who wins? Well it depends on if it is a cooperative effort or not. Right now it isn't a cooperative effort and we are losing, everyone. Not just the fight against AGW, but soil erosion, polution, dead zones in the waterways and oceans, financial markets, human health, ecosystem loss and extinction rates, natural disaster rates and magnitudes, civil unrest etc... You name it, it's all bad and trending worse. Certain things like medicine technilogical advancement are still advancing, thankfully. But even those things are severely hampered by the rest, and could be even better. Our advancements for example in treating cancer is partly offset by an increasing rate of cancer to start with! Imagine if the basic baseline population's health was better and we had these advancements in healthcare both at the same time? So you could claim the effects are spreading far and wide into every aspect of society, even those seemingly unrelated and seemingly improving.

We give Nobel prizes to the scientists that develop a new cancer or diabetes treatment, but what about the the scientist that discovers a way to help avoid getting diabetes or cancer to begin with by identifying an improvement in our food systems that just so happens to sequester carbon and improve soil health too?

We are so compartmentalized and fractured that the cooperation is very limited.

However, the good news is that with cooperation the problem is actually relatively easy to fix IMHO. The real key is in figuring out how to communicate the need for that cooperation and then actually motivating that cooperation. That IMHO is the real "wicked" problem we probably won't solve in time. Even that we know how to fix, but ironically can't even get cooperation there either! That's why it is a "wicked" problem defying a solution.

So pretty likely who wins? Not us. Maybe a new sane generation though.

BaerbelW at 00:45 AM on 5 October 2016

Mars is warming

Updated links to Geissler 2005 and Szwast 2006.

michael sweet at 20:06 PM on 4 October 2016

DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed

Digby @!,

You can never be sure in life that things will be great in the future. We have to work as hard as we can to achieve the goal (reduction of carbon pollution) and hope that the changes from AGW will not cause too much disruption.

The OP describes technology that might be able to help us achieve that goal. Since wind and solar are now the cheapest form of energy, we can hope that investors put enough money into those energy sources to make the difference we need. Coal is already having difficulty competing, even though most governments have not taken hard positions against it.

Digby Scorgie at 19:32 PM on 4 October 2016

DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed

RedBaron @2

Yes, while transitioning to clean energy, we have to change the way agriculture and various aspects of industry are carried out. All of these transitions have to take place simultaneously. While we're trying to do this, climate change will be making it harder and harder for us. Who wins?

RedBaron at 14:34 PM on 4 October 2016

DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed

In my opinion we can't be sure unless we take a multi pronged approach. Looks like the renewable energy guys are doing their part. Next will be to see if we can get the agricultural sector involved, and construction materials and government sponsored ecological restoration projects. Probably will need to get the financial sector involved as well. Too big a problem to put all your eggs in one basket.

Digby Scorgie at 14:10 PM on 4 October 2016

DOE charts show why climate doom and gloom isn't needed

This technology is all very promising, but I can't help thinking we're in a race against time. The technology has to be implemented all over the world in a very big way. While we're doing that, the effects of climate change are becoming worse and worse. How can we be sure we'll win the race before climate change knocks us flat?

RedBaron at 07:57 AM on 4 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

@15 DrivingBy,

Exactly true. This is why athiests, especially atheists that like to wear their atheism on their shirt sleeve, probably would do more harm than good entering into an AGW debate with a religious right holding a deeply held devout religious belief in God. Not all, but a pretty fair % who would listen to someone like Katharine Hayhoe, would instantly become diehard climate change deniers, if they thought believing in AGW requires them to renounce God. You have literally no chance to convince them.

On the other hand, there are literal fire and brimstone consequences for ignoring the "land sabbath". Literally drought famine floods collapse of civilization etc... if that should be ignored. Now an atheist might claim this is a natural result of AGW, and a religious person might claim it is the hand of God dealing out punishment for not being the good steward of the land, but does it really matter? What matters is cooperation between all so this doesn't happen. So an atheist that even hints he might believe AGW is real and that belief is even slightly associated with his belief there is no God, then they would be driving a wedge between instead of cooperating.

On the other hand if the ministers wife tells them

Chronicles 7:14
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

You might be amazed how much more effective that is to get support for any mitigation policies. Rather than fighting against every policy designed to remedy the problem, you would have an army fighting on your side to stop global warming. A very very comitted army that will not stop fighting AGW even until the bitter end.

Jonbo69 at 07:29 AM on 4 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

Katherine Hayhoe is a great communicator and very easy to warm to. She needs to be put out there and given as much public exposure as possible, or at least as much as she is comfortable with, in my opinion.

DrivingBy at 12:24 PM on 3 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

"They sometimes will not listen to any argument that they feel conflicts with what they think the Bible says."

Most people fundamentally dislike and oppose science, though they'll quickly grab any benefits it provides without crediting the process, much less the people which provided them.

Hmm. Electricity is not is the Bible, It's "only a theory" and therefore does not exist. Perhaps the anti-science crowd should be prohibited from using any substance, object or device which is dependent on or was made with electricity.

Unless they're Amish, they'd be both hungry and thirsty real soon.

chriskoz at 08:48 AM on 3 October 2016

Trump and the Republican Party are doing Big Oil's bidding

At the latest rally in PA(2 Oct, 2016), Trump clarified what his credo for US is about. Ignoring teleprompter, he repeatedly roared highly emmotionally loaded slogans, among others:

"You're unsuspecting," Trump said. "Right now, you say to your wife: 'Let's go to a movie after Trump.' But you won't do that because you'll be so high and so excited that no movie is going to satisfy you. OK? No movie. You know why? Honestly? Because they don't make movies like they used to - is that right?"

and finishing with:

"You have 38 days to make every dream you ever dreamed for your country come true," Trump said. "Do not let this opportunity slip away or be wasted. You will never ever have this chance again. Not going to happen again - You have one magnificent chance."

That's not just ignorance of science we're concerned about here. That's simply ignorance of the reality. A nostalgic appeal to "movies of the past" plus a narcistic "dream" and "magnificent chance" but nothing of substance. He might as wwell say to the crowd: put your head in the sand and dream on.

Pepole like to dream, that's why such speach is liked. Even if reality clearly points out the dream to be pure illusion. IMO, the same mechanism applies in a norrower sense to the problem of burning FF which puts us living closer to the dream of living with boundless energy, be able to fly accrosss the ocean, drive your SUV, etc. Even though the reality tells us very loudly now that such lifestyle is unsustainble.

John Hartz at 13:16 PM on 2 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

Katharine Hayhoe is one busy scientist...

Dr. Katharine Hayhoe to Discuss Climate Change with President and Leonardo DiCaprio on Monday by Leslie Adami, KLBK Lubbock, Sep 30, 2016

Climate Noob at 12:43 PM on 2 October 2016

Climate inertia

@Tom Curtis

Thanks for the info. That was a good explanation for a layman like me.

This community is great.

michael sweet at 11:19 AM on 2 October 2016

Sensitivity training

Here is a link to Alan Robock's work. I listened to his AGU talk from 2011. It appears that Pakistan and India would lower global climate about 1.5C. It would also lower precipitation worldwide about 10%. The effects last about 5 years. I imagine the Arctic sea ice would make some recovery but would return to the current state when the climate returned. Overall estimated effects on grain yield range from -25% in China to -15% in the USA. There are a lot of other effects besides lower temperature and less rain, some are nock on effects of lower rain.

SingletonEngineer at 10:35 AM on 2 October 2016

Sensitivity training

This article is much appreciated. It typifies those which make this site so very informative.

chriskoz at 09:19 AM on 2 October 2016

2016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #40

Jim Hansen is working on a new paper, where he will claim that

the temperature in 1940 - 45 is exaggerated because of data inhomogeneity in WW II

In the preview BetterGraph he shows the monthly running means smoothing annual & 11y cycles, as well as annual Jan-Dec averages. A very pretty graph indeed, showing the AGW signal at interplay with seasonal, ElNino and solar cycles. I like Jm's (likely Makiko's) pictures that are easy to read and thought me a lot.

One Planet Only Forever at 09:04 AM on 2 October 2016

Sensitivity training

Art Vandelay @1,

The amount of moisture in the atmosphere is more likely to be a function of how warm the air is than the wind speed evaporation rate.

As the atmosphere warms up there should be more moisture in the air regardless of the rate that wind evaporation creates it.

mbryson at 08:25 AM on 2 October 2016

Sensitivity training

@DrivingBy: I believe Alan Robock (at Rutgers) has worked on the potential climate impact of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. As I recall, the impact could be substantial.

nigelj at 08:23 AM on 2 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

JW Rebel @10, I agree that politics and group identity play a big part in climate change denialism, and that this apples to everyone, religious or otherwise.

I would add the costs of a transition to fossil fuels worries everyone, possibly some people more than others depending on world views and priorities and fears about government impositions. This leads them to attack the science.

However religious conviction is an issue with young earthers and Christian fundamentalists. They see climate change as a threat to some very basic religious convictions as follows. It’s not that they look at the age of the earth as such. Instead, they have a strong conviction that god created the world largely as it is quite recently and that god wouldn’t allow us to substantially change the world. This would make us as powerful as god, which doesn’t fit with the bible as a whole. There are gradations of belief in this, but it sums up a large viewpoint. This is all foreign to me as an atheist who believes in evolution and I don’t understand how they think that way, but they do very deeply.

The best approach may be to argue that humanity has clearly altered the atmosphere with particulate emissions from coal etc, so carbon dioxide is a similar issue, and steer clear of suggesting we have irrevocably altered the climate permanently or interfered with gods plan.

Dcrickett at 05:51 AM on 2 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

Many decades ago, my son played football on his HS team, which brought him into contact with people he would/could never meet in the Chess Club, etc. He was amazed to hear from them that virtually none of them "believed" in Evolution; they "believed" in "what the Bible said."

A week or two later, he heard from them enough to convince him that they knew virtually nothing about Evolution. About as much as what they knew about "what the Bible said."

Many years later, with a brand-new PhD in ChE (Yale), he lived in his old area for a few months. His old team mates (and veterans from rival teams) loved to bend elbows, talk old times, and celebrate a Local Boy Who Made Good. In short order they all believed not only in Evolution but also in Climate Trouble.

There are lessons aplenty there.

DrivingBy at 04:26 AM on 2 October 2016

Sensitivity training

Not to be flip, but if Pakistan tries to nuke India and India responds before their command/control is toast, would that put enough smoke into the atmosphere to get ice recovery for a year or two? Would the effect just dissapear into the noise of year-to-year variance, or would it be larger (say, -1C). Would there be a residual cooling beyond, say, one year?

Of course I'm not hoping this will happen(!), mentioning because such speculation has been in the news recently.

michael sweet at 03:51 AM on 2 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

JWRebel,

In my experience many young earth believers make religion their first priority in any decision. They sometimes will not listen to any argument that they feel conflicts with what they think the Bible says. If you say it is the hottest it has been in 100,000 years you lose them immediately.

Tom, don't you have experience discussing evolution with this crowd? What do you think?

JWRebel at 22:11 PM on 1 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

Fascinating. I would surmise that much of this young earth belief is very thin. It reminds me of youTube videos where they ask Americans at 4th of July parties from whom Independance was declared, etc., and getting no decent answers, not even people teaching at college, until they run into a 70 year old black grandpa from the south who probably never got beyond grade school, and knows the exact story and all the relevant facts. We cannot conclude that all these people do not believe in Independance. Chronology of biblical events is a subject on which no two theologians agree and hardly belongs to some shared core of beliefs. Certainly the murderer on the cross to who Jesus said that he would be in Paradise today was not grilled about any of his mental representations of time lines.

So here's my thesis: I bet there are a lot of these people that can be convinced about atmospheric physics (if you can get them to pay attention) without first having to address "core" beliefs about why paleontology is all about things that do not exist. Their resistance will be more about political and group loyalties than about values they cannot surrender.

Art Vandelay at 20:55 PM on 1 October 2016

Sensitivity training

I foiund an interesting study in Nature a few year's back that adressed the observed phenomenon of a global slow-down in wind speed. Wind speed is important because it governs evaporation rates, so a slow-down due to climate change also represents a potential negative feedback, assuming that the result is less vapour in the atmosphere.

If it's actually possible to accurately measure the total amount of vapour in the atmosphere (troposphere) over time, it should also be possible to calculate climate sensitivity, and additionally, perhaps possible to correct surface or satellite temperature data.

sauerj at 13:15 PM on 1 October 2016

New MIT app: check if your car meets climate targets

Question: Does the chart's CO2/km figures include all the full extent of the manufacturing contributions (with all of the multiple upstream layers of manufacturing) in order to build the vehicle? It would helpful to have a chart with and without the manufacturing contribution included. This way one could determine when it makes sense to replace the existing vehicle in the garage (based on today's improperly priced FF costs).

Of course, all of the unknowns associated with these cost externalities (manufacturing and future operating and future environmental impact) would be put "on the table" and become completely transparent if only we had a carbon fee & dividend system where all economic costs included future environmental externalities would be included. Then, it would be obvious which way to go, and the incentive to go there would be plainly felt and therefore taken.

Since 1990, the US uses 58% less energy per unit GDP. One would expect that carbon emission would therefore be 58% less compared to 1990. Not so, US carbon emission have been a flat line since then. The reduced energy cost (by this improved efficiency) only results in us consuming more stuff, holding FF demand constant. The result is no reduction in carbon emissions. Consider what this means!

Until energy is priced sustainably positive (via a carbon tax, hopefully using the least burdensome carbon fee & dividend approach) everything we do is wrong. In fact, any heroic efforts won't make any positive difference at all; because others will simply use the FF's the hero avoided thanks to their sacrifices helping to keep the price down. Until FF's include external future costs, we will continue down our status quo path. This is because the economy will not be motivated to go down the sustainable path. Subsidies, Command & Control and Cap & Trade will be marginally successful. All are burdensome approaches.

To be effective, I highly recommend others to join the CCL CFD campaign. Join a local CCL chapter today! There is a chapter in every US congressional district. Help get endorsements from local businesses, schools & churches so to help sway your congress person! Make it clear that responsible energy pricing is actually the conservative answer to addressing climate change.

John Hartz at 13:03 PM on 1 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

Katharine Hayhoe has her work cut for her...

Four Fifths Of Evangelical Christians Do Not Believe Humans Cause Climate Change by Harry Farley, Christian World, Sep 23, 2016

michael sweet at 12:36 PM on 1 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

Tom,

i think the prevalence of Young Earthers illustrates the difficulty that Dr. Hayhoe has reaching her audience. I think it is important to point out this issue to people who read this blog who do not reside in the USA and/or are not aware of how many people have this belief. It is difficult to convince someone who thinks the Earth is only 10,000 years old (or 20,000) that snow records prove that it is warmer now than it has been in the past 700,000 years and that warmth is a problem.

nigelj at 10:15 AM on 1 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

I just applaud Katharine Hayhoe’s views, and her ability as a Christian to accept climate science. As a very definite atheist I have my views, but as I have got older I have become less strident and why annoy somebody that is basically promoting the science? This woman is providing some leadership and seems thoroughly pleasant.

She is clearly comfortable with her position and presumably interprets the bible in a way that allows her to do this. Interpretations of the bible vary with a few Christian fundamentalists believing the world was literally created in 6006 BC through to others who simply believe God was a prime mover, and several gradations in between. The message of the New Testament seems to be one of defining greed as a sin, which could be taken to promote environmental conservation.

Tom Curtis at 08:59 AM on 1 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

michael sweet @4, RedBaron @5, in the 2014 gallop poll, 42% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years", with a further 31% thinking "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process", and just 19% thinking "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part i this process"

The first opinion does not necessarilly imply Young Earth Creationism, as it is consistent with a belief in an old Earth in which there have been successive independent creations (a view that emphasises that the Hebrew can be translated as "the Earth became without form, and void"; or with an old earth in which various animals have been created at different times, so as to approximate to evolution by creation (successive creationism); or with the view that the Earth is old, and that life evolved in a God guided process, but that Humans came into an existence due to a deliberate creative act (which is in fact the official view within the Catholic Church).

The 2013 Pew Poll indicates that 33% (32%) of American adults believe that "“humans (animals) and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” Agreement with those questions requires belief in Young Earth Creationism. The poll had a 3% margin of error. The figure drops from 33 to 15% among white, mainline protestants, but rises to 64% among white evangelical protestants. That divergence may explain RedBaron's experience. Alternatively, I note that the majority of Young Earth Creationists now believe the Earth to be at least 10 thousand, and potentially as much as 20 thousand years old. That is, they accept only a qualified 'literalism' and reject Usher's chronology.

In Katharine Hayhoe's case, the more relevant fact may be that among Canadians (2012 poll), 22% agreed that "God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years", while 61% agreed that "Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years".

I am unsure what this has to do with the topic of this post.

RedBaron at 06:20 AM on 1 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

@4 Michael sweet,

As I recall the Gallup poll in question asked whether Man was created in his present form, not the geological age of the Earth. Actually though, it is not my field of expertise. So I will bow to your expertise in polls. Doesn't change a single thing though. I still think it is irrelevant. Katharine Hayhoe understands the science behind manmade climate change; and the teaching of the good steward of the land and responcibility for one's actions doctrines from her religion. There is nothing important for me to argue with regarding her position on AGW.

I see Katharine Hayhoe as one more important ally in moving towards reaching an audience about the importance of mitigation. If she can help change that demographic's opinion on AGW, all the better.

michael sweet at 05:12 AM on 1 October 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

Red Baron,

According to Gallop polls, 40% of Americans are young earthers. That includes the UAH scientist Roy Spencer. Please provide a citation to support your claim that young earthers are uncommon in the USA.

RedBaron at 23:44 PM on 30 September 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

@2 ELIofVA,

I of course can't answer for Katherine. But I can say that regardless of what you may have been told, the vast majority of Christians, EVEN in Texas, do understand the Earth is not literally 6,000 years old. And anyone coming to that conclusion by reading Genesis is simply not understanding Genesis. There are a very vocal minority of YECs in Texas, that are tolerated by the rest of the Christians there primarily due to the realization that their heart in is the right place, and it is not worth arguing over. Very much like one tolerates a grandmother that doesn't really understand new advancements in science and technology. You love your Grandmother anyway and think no less of her at all.

Likewise I believe it is irrelevant how Katherine Hayhoe personally resolves the superficial conflict inherent in certain interpretations of Genesis. She apparently understands science enough to understand AGW is real, and she apparently understands Genesis enough to understand the good stewardship and responcibility for one's actions doctrines found there. It is enough.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Katharine Hayhoe

ELIofVA at 23:02 PM on 30 September 2016

Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 1

I appreciate Katherine Hayhoe's advocacy among evangelical constituents about the truth of climate change. However, I can not figure out how she resolves the differences between the Genesis version of creation and the geologic record of creation. Katherine, if you are reading this blog, could you comment?

Moderator Response:

[JH] Katharine Hayhoe

RedBaron at 20:53 PM on 30 September 2016

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

@ Tom and scaddenp,

#1 I agree it is not a panacea. I have stated as such several times on these pages. I actually think we should be taking a 3 pronged approach. BCCS in agriculture, conversion to non fossil fuel based energy, restoration of natural ecosystems wordwide. Theoretically all 3 potentially could work by themselves given enough time, but each has reasons why none can be done 100% at current technology levels. Also we may not have enough time.

Right now we can't rewild the whole planet because we do not currently have a way to feed ourselves without farmland. That technology is in its infancy with certain hydroponics systems and lab grown synthetic meat. And currently much more energy intensive, energy we currently get from fossil fuels! And it's cost prohibitive as well. Not to mention many species are completely extinct already and restoring those ecosystems given the trophic cascade effect will be costly and difficult. So we can't rewild everything. But there are large tracts of land we can rewild.

Same goes for eliminating fossil fuels. The current energy systems world wide can largely be replaced by renewables and nuclear, but each has it's own limitations and/or is cost prohibitive at current technology levels. This is more feasible than rewilding the whole planet, but still by itself very unlikely to be accomplished 100%. 0% emissions might also not be fast enough due to reinforcing feedbacks. But we certainly can dramatically reduce our dependance on fossil fuels.

BCCS is the most feasible and fastest of all at current technology levels, but alone also unlikely to be enough. I estimate at best if practised perfectly on 100% of all 5 Giga Hectares of agricultural land around the world; it could offset between 62% and 250% of all annual fossil fuel emissions worldwide and would take a minimum of 3-10 years to reach even that rate, based on case studies of farmers in the field already doing it. That assumes a 100% agreement by all farmers governments and consumers and a high learning curve that allows new farmers to learn all in 1 season. Reality of course is much less on all those points. So even that is unlikely to be enough alone. We can however start changing agriculture to these more profitable regenerative models of production.

So in my opinion none of these strategies is likely to work alone, but if all 3 are done to the best of our current ability; ecosystem restoration projects, fossil fuel reductions and biological carbon capture and storage in agriculture; I do contend the problem is very solvable even at this late date.

However, when people make factual errors in descibing how BCCS functions, I will in every case try to correct them. That does not mean my comments should be taken to mean I think BCCS is a panacea. Just correcting misconceptions about how it works. No different than you correcting a AGW denialist stuck on some pseudo science point they heard somewhere.

scaddenp at 17:59 PM on 30 September 2016

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

And apologies for video, but I can read many many times faster than I can look/listen. I find video tiresome, a pain to go back and check if I missed understanding. I can find better uses for 30 minutes of my time.

scaddenp at 17:42 PM on 30 September 2016

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

Red Baron - I will respond to your optimism on soils on another thread in due course. I am travelling to head office and with it a chance to talk to the scientist here most knowledgable on this area.

But to topic at hand, I asked for effective - something preventing any further build up of CO2 in atmosphere and if Tom is correct, then this is not. I am still waiting for the libertarians to put forward any workable proposal for actually limiting emissions to this level. Suppose no non-governmental solution is actually possible? Would you rather see world go to hell in a handbasket rather than yeilding on precious ideological position?

Tom Curtis at 16:56 PM on 30 September 2016

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

RedBaron @159:

"Grasslands no longer sequestering carbon are simply not being managed correctly."

That statement suggests that there is no upper limit on the amount of carbon that can be sequestered in grasslands, a suggestion which is obviously false. At an upper limit, grassland on a soil composed entirely of carbon to a depth of 12 meters will clearly not allow the sequestration of more carbon into the soil. In practical terms, the upper limit will be very far below 100% carbon content. Further, given the rapid replacement of much of the world's grasslands with either horticulture, nor non-intensive pasturage (ie, regimes which you argue, with substantial evidence, are inferior in soil storage to native grasslands with native herds of large herbivores) has contributed less than 20% of the anthropogenic increase in CO2 (that being the total contribution from LUC including deforestation); the saturation level must sequester, if extended over all of the world's natural grasslands, a small fraction of total anthropogenic emissions.

That is not to be sneezed at. If it can only sequester 20% of cumulative anthropogenic emissions - that would be a very large step forward to tackling climate change. It is, however, no panacea, and should not be promoted as one.

pslebow at 13:53 PM on 30 September 2016

Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming

Yes, the 100 horizon for methane is whistling in the dark, presuming there are no non-linearities and tipping points in the near future.

RedBaron at 13:25 PM on 30 September 2016

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

@158 scaddenp,

Its a pity you refuse to watch and see with your own eyes how to do what you stubbornly claim can't be done. I can describe it with either dry references or with quotes, but until you actually see it, you are very likely to not believe in its existance. It's just the way the human mind works.

You are correct that in certain locations forest soils don't hold carbon. Primarily in tropical rainforests. Terra preta was a long ago solution for that. Grasslands no longer sequestering carbon are simply not being managed correctly. LOTS of evidence for that. I posted the vid to show you how much different a properly managed grassland and forest ecosystem looks compared to what most people are familiar with. In this case the forest was temperate decidious. So the way it works is by increasing both the tree growth and generation a second ground layer of plant growth. (collecting more solar energy by photosynthesis) The grassland by optimizing the rapid growth stage of the grass growth curve. (which again increases photosynthesis)

But this thread primarily is about politics and whether there are mitigation strategies acceptable to the right. So I guess the proper evidence to produce here would be a political piece showing that both the right and the left can unite around this strategy. None better than the Washington Post for that!

How America’s most famous farmer can appeal to left, right and center

scaddenp at 12:44 PM on 30 September 2016

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

Life's too short for me to watch to videos, but the question to ask is whether this is a solution that works for non-farmers and what at best it would do in US? (could you sequester all coal and transport emissions).

For example. Here our are emissions are about 50% farm methane, 50% transport fuel (okay small amounts from coal/gas electricity production). Farming does not sequester carbon on our forest-based soils - numerous studies have shown this. I accept grazing can on prairie soils but not here. The only example of carbon gain was a switch to grazing on highly-degraded ex-cropped soil, and only in the short term.

RedBaron at 11:41 AM on 30 September 2016

GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?

@scaddenp,

On another thread you said, "If you can see an effective solution to mitigation of CO2 that the libertarians can live with, then please share in detail on this thread. Fresh ideas are extremely welcome."

That's actually pretty easy. There are right wing Libertain Christians (probably right wing Libertarian athiests too) mitigating AGW in their own small way already. Yes that's right, right wing Libertarian free market capitalists making 6 and 7 figure income annually and mitigating AGW all at the same time.

Don't be confused by the current crop of neo-conservatives currently in power in the US. They are not even conservatives really, just refugees from the left wing. They believe in high taxation and big government every bit as much as the most left wing liberal socialist.

A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate socialists associated with the right-wing of the Socialist Party of America (SP), and its successor, Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA).
Neoconservatism ... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War] ... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center ... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
Notable people associated with neoconservatism
The list includes public people identified as personally neoconservative at an important time or a high official with numerous neoconservative advisers, such as George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Politicians
George W. Bush announces his $74.7 billion wartime supplemental budget request as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz look on.
Jeb Bush (R) – 43rd Governor of Florida (1999–2007) and 2016 presidential candidate[122]
Newt Gingrich (R) – Representative from Georgia's 6th congressional district (1979–99), Speaker of the House of Representatives (1995–99) and 2012 presidential candidate[123]
Lindsey Graham (R) – Representative from South Carolina (1995–2003), Senator (2003–present) and 2016 presidential candidate[124]
Peter T. King (R) – Representative from New York's 3rd congressional district (1993–2013) and New York's 2nd congressional district (2013–present)[125]
Jon Kyl (R) – Representative from Arizona (1987–95), U.S. Senator (1995–2013) and House Minority Whip (2007–13)[126]
Joe Lieberman (I) – 21st Attorney General of Connecticut (1983–89), Senator from Connecticut (1989–2013) and 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee[127]
John McCain (R) – Representative from Arizona (1983–87), Senator (1987–present) and 2008 Republican presidential nominee[128]
Tim Pawlenty (R) – 39th Governor of Minnesota (2003–11) and 2012 presidential candidate[129]
Mike Rogers (R) – U.S. Representative from Michigan's 8th congressional district (2001–15)[130]
Mitt Romney (R) – 70th Governor of (2003–07), 2008 presidential candidate and 2012 Republican presidential nominee[131][132][133]
Jim Talent (R) – Representative from Missouri (1993–2001) and Senator (2002–07)[134]

Government officials

Elliot Abrams (R) – Foreign policy adviser.[135]
William Bennett (R) – Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1981–85), Director of the National Drug Control Policy (1989–90) and U.S. Secretary of Education (1985–88)[136]
William G. Boykin – Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Eliot A. Cohen – U.S. State Department Counselor (2007–09), now Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University.[137]
Jeane Kirkpatrick (R) – Ambassador to the United Nations[138]
Scooter Libby (R) – Chief–of–Staff to Dick Cheney[139]
Victoria Nuland – Assistant Secretary of State, foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.[140]
Richard Perle (R) – Assistant Secretary of Defense and lobbyist.[141]
Karl Rove (R) – Senior Advisor to the President of the United States (2001–07) and White House Deputy Chief of Staff (2005–07)[142]
Paul Wolfowitz (R) – State and Defense Department official[143]
R. James Woolsey Jr. (D) – 16th Director of Central Intelligence, Under Secretary of the Navy and green energy lobbyist[1]

So what does a true conservative, who also happens to be a Libertarian, mitigating AGW at a tidy profit in a free market look like?

Meet the Farmer

Be sure and watch all three episode of Meet the Farmer. A lot of what he talks about are related to food security and government regulations, but interspersed between stories of his battles with the government are a few references to the carbon footprint of his farm. And if you know what to look for, you can actually see causation as to why a system that wasn't necessarily developed for AGW mitigation, actually does mitigate AGW through biological carbon capture and storage (BCCS) and reduced emissions. See if you can spot this evidence.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments