Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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

Recommended supplemental reading:

The troubling reason why Greenland may melt faster than expected by Elahe Izadi, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, July 17, 2015

One Planet Only Forever at 06:17 AM on 18 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

A correction to my post. The EU commitment is a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. This is still not as severe as the 25% reduction the court ruling supported. And it further highlights the weakness of the offerings of action (or perhaps more appropriately described as deliberately weaker action), by the likes of the US, Canada, and Australia.

One Planet Only Forever at 06:07 AM on 18 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Electric cars being judged to be 'better' when running on coal generated electricity based on 'cost' is a fallacy of relying on the free-marketplace to develop decent results. The 'price or value' of things in the marketplace is misleading and incomplete.

In places where electricity is mainly generated from coal burning without CCS, like Alberta, the emissions are generally over 1.0 kg of CO2 / kWh of generated electricity with a cost of about $0.10/kWh. And Tesla's vehicles are among the most efficient at 18 kWh/100 km. This means that running electric cars in Alberta would produce more than 18 kg of CO2 /100 km (cost of $1.80 / 100 km).

By comparison, burning gasoline is 2.3 kg of CO2/l (Density of gasoline is about 0.75 kg/l. CO2 weighs 3.7 times the weight of the carbon in it). And the extraction, refining and transportation impacts add about 40% more emissions. So the total for gasoline would be about 3.2 kg/l. And my Hybrid Accord is gets an average of about 4.3 l / 100 km. That is about 14 kg of CO2/100 km ($5 / 100 km).

So in Alberta it is significantly cheaper to run an electric vehicle than a gas burning hybrid. But it is 'better' to run an efficient gas burning hybrid (not one of those 8 l / 100 km hybrids), and pressure the government into meddling in the marketplace to reduce the emissions of electricity generation.

Some people 'revere' the concept of the free-market'. But, the free action by 'everyone including uncaring greedy people', in the marketplace has to be expected to develop unacceptable results. The free marketplace can only be expected to develop lasting decent results if everyone playing the game is a caring considerate person genuinely striving to best understand what is going on and striving to develop a lasting better future for everyone. That means everyone is focused on limiting what they do, no one attempting to get more benefit from something that can be understood to be less acceptable.

The irrational idealism that is the basis of most economic analysis was most blatantly on display when Alan Greenspan basically told Congress that he had no idea that corporate leaders would ever willingly do something that they could understand had no future, something that would lead to damaging future consequences. He said that when asked how the 2008 global catastrophe had developed under his watch.

Therefore, restrictions of what is acceptable clearly need to be 'imposed'. That could be claimed to be 'interference in the marketplace'. But it is clearly essential for responsible leaders to impose restrictions based on the best understanding of what is going on. And that requires leaders to be responsible.

And that requirement is clearly challenged by the current system based so heavily on cost, profitability, and popularity. It actually would require seeking out those who wish to benefit from trouble-making and keeping them from ever being successful. And that would include not compensating anyone who has invested in or bet on getting away with benefiting from burning fossil fuels. And it would include shutting down unacceptable activity even if it appears to be lower-cost, more popular or more profitable, even if it has only recently been started or built.

I provided a relevant related response in the previous SkS article about economic growth being able to close the emissions gap here.

One Planet Only Forever at 03:36 AM on 18 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

(My previous comment was copy-pasted from a word file, but I forgot to insert the links).

It is important to note that the Dutch ruling requires action relative to 1990 levels, and requires 25% reduction by 2020 rather than the EU commitment of a 17% reduction by 2020. A presentation of National reduction commitments can be seen here.

An interesting point in the table of commitments is that most developed nations make their commitments relative to 1990. However, the the US and Canada present their 2020 reduction targets relative to 2005 levels. And Australia presents its targets relative to 2000 levels.

The US 2005 levels were 17% higher than their 1990 levels. Canada's 2005 levels were 25% higher than in 1990. And Australia's 2000 levels were 15% higher than 1990.

Therefore, the USA pledge to be 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 is rather weak. And Canada's 'matching 17%' is even weaker. And Australia's 5% commitment with a promise to do more if they believe everyone else does even more appears to be a deliberately convoluted attempt to obtain more competitive advantage by doing less than others.

However, the real measure has to be per-capita with an accumulated debt owed by nations with a history of higher per-capita emissions. The current per-capita emissions are here, and an earlier history of per-capita emissions are here.

Reviewing the per-capita emissions data and the reality of the promises being made, it is clear which nations are the biggest trouble-makers (not China or India or Brazil). However, the more important understanding is that the real trouble-makers are individuals, not nations. And some people in places like China and India are among the biggest trouble-makers, though many international investors benefiting from activity in those nations have a history that makes them bigger trouble-makers.

The biggest trouble-makers are the wealthy people who attempt to control the activity in nations through any means available to them, including free-trade agreements and the development of regional popular opinion through misleading message dissemination and financial influence on elections and elected representatives.

It would appear to be beneficial to have the developed best understanding of what is going on, primarily the investigation and evaluation to the impacts of human activity, be used to identify and penalize the most powerful and wealthy people who can be shown to have deliberately fought against the development of better understanding of what is going on and fought against having their opportunities to benefit be limited by that better understanding.

The global community already has the information and research ability to identify these people. The will of global leadership to seek out and severely penalize the biggest trouble-making individuals, not generic political parties, nations or corporations, is an important part of the required change.

Rob Honeycutt at 02:40 AM on 18 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Glenn @52... I suspect this is part of the reason new projects are getting canceled. Lack of backers as lenders and investors see the writing on the wall. There's a good chance those loans and investments might not pan out. When it comes to very large investments like this it takes only a small amount of additional risk to change the financial equation.

KR at 00:43 AM on 18 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

MA Rodger - That's an excellent review of Michael/George White's nonsense on this thread.

Note that I'm quite certain it's George - even a slavish acolyte would tend to avoid the rather obvious mistakes shown (or at the very least make different ones). Gobs of mixed-up math noise propping up his unsupported conclusions - IMO those conclusions preceded and override the evidence for him.

Moderator Response:

[DB] Michael/George White is no longer a participating member of this site.

Glenn Tamblyn at 21:50 PM on 17 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Interestingly, when we compare electric cars with petroleum cars, electric cars are already cheaper to run in terms of cost per kWh driven than petrol cars, even when the source of the electrons is coal. The issue with electric cars has been purchase price and range. Electric cars give perfectly fine perfomance they just haven't done that for enough kms per charge.

So when will people swap? When costs say it works.

But an important point, linked to CBDunkerson's use of the phrase 'junk', is that we don't have to junk them. They junk themselves! They wear out!

The average lifetime of our vehicle fleet is 10-15 years. So the 'economics' question isn't perhaps cost to justify junking. It is cost to justify choices when we re-purchase.

Which is a different question entirely.

Similar factors apply when we consider replacing our power stations with renewables. Most power stations operating today would, in the normal course of events, be shut down by 2050. It is the economics of their replacement that is the central issue.

MA Rodger at 21:45 PM on 17 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

Moderator Response @63.

This may or may not be George Michael we are experiencing on this thread, or an accomplice, or involving accomplices; whoever this entity is, I feel it is not worth allowing them to continue here. I would argue this even if there were no possibility of it being George Michael. I would argue this, but not on any grounds that feature in the comments policy.

This Michael Fitzgerald/Whoever is repeatedly and exasperatingly wrong, or perhaps more correctly 'presenting concealed nonsense.' Where this surely becomes inadmissible is when the concealment is deliberate.

His obfuscation always hovered on the edge. Consider his 'contribution' @60. After beng asked directly twice for the source for his170K (the lower limit of GHG operation), he at last hand-waves at "Tom" and the source can thus be tracked down to an off-handed comment @8 by Tom Curtis. #60 then actually says it agrees with a response to him @57 but this is only evident with a very dedicated reading @60. And the remaining bulk of #60 is pure madness. (It is saying that when feedback begins to apply at some threshold with rising temperature, the temperature leaps up because the feedback suddenly applies to all the original forcing below the threashold as well as the additional forcing above the threashold. And voila, we can arrive at the answer we first thought of.) As I say, pure madness, although this could still be a genuine but very very stupid person who fails to explain themselves clearly.

There may be room for such stupidity at SkS but @61(which also is inconsistent with #60) the intentional concealment cannot be ignored.

There can be no denying that the comment @61 is intentionally complicated to dress up the argument. Thus it unnecessarily breaks into differentiation-by-parts but, in so doing, makes a mistake which mysteriously corrects itself when solved. And after that slip, the laborious 'morphing of ε' gives exactly the same outcome as it did before ε was 'morphed'. This is not just "a mathematical model that doesnt capture actual physics". It is scientific madness, the product of a fool and one who is actually trying to hide his method.

I would suggest such a one has no place here.

Glenn Tamblyn at 21:35 PM on 17 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

I don't think anyone will have to pay to shut them down.

Rather some people will pay because they have shut down! The people who invested in them.

If a FF powerplant with a 40 year payback time is forced to close after just 20 years because it is being out-competed, somebody loses their shirt.

And that possibility is what is starting to register in the financial world. They are becoming wary of investing in such plant precisely because of that percieved risk.

It becomes stranded when it can't service its debts, and there are still debts.

CBDunkerson at 21:13 PM on 17 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Stephen, I don't think anyone will 'have to pay' to shut down stranded assets. For example, at the point where it is possible to buy electricity cheaper from wind and/or solar plants than it is from coal plants, people will do so... and eventually that will mean that individual coal plants will be making less money from selling electricity than they are costing to operate. At that point, the coal plant owners will shut them down to minimize their losses. No 'buy out' involved. This has already happened with natural gas undercutting coal in the US overall and solar undercutting petroleum based electricity generation in Hawaii. If wind and solar declining cost projections prove out, then we will similarly see them replacing coal and even natural gas before end of life. Obviously, "a significant carbon tax" could have caused this process to begin years ago... but it will happen eventually even without legislative support.

Vehicles will probably be a different story. It seems unlikely that electric vehicles will become so much cheaper than petroleum based transportation that it would make economic sense for people to junk their gas burners and switch to electric. Indeed, as electric vehicles proliferate the cost of oil will inevitably fall and keep older vehicles competitive for a long time. Thus, we would need some kind of buy out or incentive to get people to abandon their gas vehicles before end of life.

However, note that vehicles in the scenario above wouldn't really be 'stranded assets' by the usual definition of the term... that only applies when the 'asset' has become a liability / financial loss. If it still has some value to be bought out then it isn't 'stranded'.

Tom Curtis at 14:17 PM on 17 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

PS, sorry but my post @61 was made before I saw your inline @61, or 61 at all.

Moderator Response:

[PS] I deleted other stuff from George, but then on reflection, he said:

"If mathematical proof is insufficient to demonstrate that a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 is impossible, what proof would convince you?"

George, mathematical proof only proves a mathematical postulate. A mathematical model that doesnt capture actual physics is worthless. So to convince me and the rest of science, you need an observation/experiment where your model produces a closer match than existing models. Given the stress-tested nature of textbook physics, I'll back that till you can produce that experiment.

Tom Curtis at 13:32 PM on 17 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

Michael Fitzgerald @60, here are the important temperatures for gases that are currently significant, or have in the past been significant in the Earth's atmosphere. Of these, methane and ammonia were major players (along with nitrogen and CO2) prior to the evolution of photosynthesis approximately 2.4 billion years ago. Neither can survive long in an oxidizing atmosphere, so they have been bit players since then. In the list below, I have distinguished greenhouse gases by bolding them, and underlined the group of gases including the two major components of the Earth's current atmosphere.

Molecule Freezing Point, Boiling/sublimation point

Helium NA, 4.15 K

Hydrogen 13.95 K, 20.15 K

Nitrogen 63.15 K, 77.15 K

Argon 83.75, 87.35 K

Oxygen 54.35 K, 90.15 K

Methane 91.15 K, 111.65 K

NO2 182.29 K, 184.67 K

CO2 194.65 K, 194.65 K

Ammonia 195.42 K, 237.65 K

H2O 273.15 K, 373.15 K

Considering an Earth with a modern atmosphere, and of a similar age to the Earth, but which existed far from any star, the total energy at the surface would be a very evenly distrubuted 0.1 W/m^2, generating a surface temperature of approximately 36 K. That is sufficient to "boil" Helium and Hydrogen, but no other of the gases that constitute the Earth's atmosphere. So, at that temperature the Earth would be a frozen wasteland with a very thin atmosphere of helium and hydrogen, with hydrogen being the largest component. Importantly, because the atmosphere would be so thin, and because there would be no liquids on the surface of the Earth, the formula for the Earth's average temperature would be:

(((Geothermal + (TSI*(1 - albedo))/2)/σ)^0.25 + (geothermal/σ)^0.25)/2

This formula is used because the lack of heat transfer means daytime temperatures would become much hotter night time temperatures, thereby emiting much more energy to space. The result averages out to a lower temperature than that derived using the more common formula (which assumes exactly equal temperatures across the entire globe). The formula will not be perfectly accurate, but will generate a reasonable estimate. The more common formula is also only approximate, slightly overestimating expected temperatures (because there is some temperature variation between night and day, summer and winter and across geographical divisions).

Further, at absolute zero (or 36 K), the Earth's albedo would not be 0.3. Rather, it would be entirely covered by ice and snow, giving it an albedo between 0.6 and 0.9 (depending on the purity of the snow). In my estimates discussed below I shall use the more conservative figure of 0.6.

Using that formula and estimated albedo, we can determine a no feedback estimate of global temperatures. That is, we can determine the final global mean temperature if you really started at absolute zero, and gradually increased TSI up to 1360 W/m^2 (the current best estimate of its value). That temperature turns out to be 150 K. That is, it turns out to be too low to sublimate CO2, let alone to melt ice. Indeed, even with an albedo of 0.3, and with more or less equal temperatures across the globe, the global mean temperature would be around 255 K, not enough to allow unfrozen water at the equator. Given the importance of water in heat transport, and given the importance of the greenhouse effect in equalizing temperatures at the poles (the polar amplification effect), the temperature would in fact be less than that.

Given this we see the decietfulness of CO2isnotevil's challenge. By setting the albedo at 0.3, he has already included all albedo feedbacks in his calculation of the "no feedback" temperature response (255 K). Indeed, he has also included the surface heat transfer feedbacks as well, by using the standard formula. If he is going to include those in the base calculation, he needs to exclude them from the Climate Sensitivity Parameter (λ), reducing it from 0.8 to about 0.5 (ie, twice the planck response). Worse, by framing it in terms of energy in an the TOA, he also excludes any greenhouse effect (forcing or feedback) from the calculation. So, his challenge is for us to find the albedo and greenhouse feedbacks in an equation that excludes them by design.

We also see a fundamental problem with your framing of his challenge. If we indeed started with a cool Earth, and gradually turned up the heat we would still be in a snowball Earth. The same conditions which give us our currently very livable Earth are consistent with one entirely frozen depending on whether you start with cold conditions and warm up, or with warm conditions and cool down.

As it turns out, cooling down from a warm condition, if we reduce the atmospheric greenhouse effect by just 22 W/m^2, the Earth's temperature will cool by 21 C. That estimate excludes any growth of ice sheets, which if allowed would allow the temperatures to plummet even further. Those results mean that averaged over the last 22 W/m^2 of warming, λ = 0.95.

Moderator Response:

[PS] Numerous people on numerous forums have tried to explain physics to George White over years including here. I doubt further efforts will be effective.

chriskoz at 13:02 PM on 17 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #28

Climate change: NSW Farmers Association changes policy, calls for fossil fuels transition

Of particular note, apart from the fact that ruling NLP party in Australia, with science denying PM Tony Abbott, are becoming increasingly alienated from reality, is this particular passage:

The NSW Farmers Association ended its annual conference [...] by voting to remove clauses in its official policy that had called [...] "to explore the scientific veracity and soundness of claims that carbon is a pollutant" and to investigate "whether the activities of mankind are responsible for causing any change" [...] The rejected clauses – inserted between 2008 and 2011 – were "archaic" and the strong support for their replacement "shows farmers really are the forefront of climate change and really care"

Interesting that the denying clauses are as new as 2008, when the denial movement started at the leading to COP 2009. The abolishment of this dnial among farmers is very welcome. Note that this region of NSW hold strong support for National Party which is the ruling party. Due to the changes going on here, I expect the ruling party to change their stance or face diminishing support at the next election.

Stephen Leahy at 12:30 PM on 17 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

CBD agree on US coal. As my article notes shutting down stranded assests will require $ compensation. A carbon tax could fund the buy outs unless the pollution tax is very high making it uneconomic.

Overall a significant carbon tax would help enormously in reducing amounts of new fossil fuel burning stuff being built. Sadly we need that tax yesterday.

MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:18 AM on 17 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

KR,

Perhaps the math will help you see the nature of this problem more clearly. Consider that the Earth from space looks like a gray body whose temperature is the surface temperature and whose emissivity is 240 W/m^2 / 390 W/m^2 = 0.62. From this, we can readily quantify the planets behavior as follows:

If P is the planet's emissions, T is the surface temperature, ε is the effective emissivity of a gray body model of the planet and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67E-8), express P as,
1) P = εσT^4
and quantify the LTE sensitivity as a function of state, λ(P), as the change in T consequential to a change in P. We can do this because the definition of the steady state is when the planet emissions P are equal to the net power arriving from the Sun, thus incremental P conforms to the definition of forcing.
2) λ(P) = dT/dP
Solving 1) for T and differentiating, we get,
3) T = (P/(εσ))^0.25
4) u = (P/(εσ))^0.5
5) T = u^0.5
6) dT/dP = .5/u^.5 * du/dP
7) dT/dP = .5/u^.5 * .5/u * 1/(εσ) = λ(P)
8) λ(P) = (P^-0.75 * (εσ)^-0.25) / 4

For ε = 0.62 and P = 240 W/m^2, λ(P) = 0.3, which is the slope of the SB curve at 255K.

Integrating dT/dP (the sensitivity function λ(P)) from P = 0 to 240 W/m^2 results in T = 288K, which is the expected average temperature of the surface at 240 W/m^2 of input power. The definite integral is the value of 3) at P = 240 W/m^2 since the integral of 8) is 3) and T(P) is 0 when P = 0. While this sensitivity function is relative to input power, it can also be expressed as a function of equivalent surface temperature, T.

9) λ(T) = T^-3 / (4εσ)

At T = 288K, λ(T) has the same value as λ(P) at P = 240 W/m^2. These formulations for λ(P) and λ(T) are exact for any gray body at any emissivity and applying this model to the Earth is consistent with all measured averages, albeit with a sensitivity lower than expected. The only way to morph this behavior is to make ε a function of P or T, which we know to be the case anyway, as increasing GHG's will decrease ε. Up to about 233K (for KR's hypothetical that feedback kicks in at -40C), ε = 1 and gradually decreases until ε = .62 at 288K. If ε is a function of P, and we know that feedback can only directly affect ε, so a change in ε is applied to all P, not just the incremental P.

The sensitivity as a function of state can be be rewritten as one component dependent on P, λP(P), times a dimensionless component dependent on ε, λε(ε), such that λε(ε) = 1 at ε = 1.

10) λ(P, ε) = λP(P) * λε(ε)
11) λP(P) = (P^-0.75 * σ^-0.25) / 4
12) λε(ε) = ε^-0.25

At the current steady state when ε = 0.62 and P = 240 W/m^2, λε(ε) = 1.13 and λP(P) = 0.266 whose product λ(P, ε) = 0.3. For λ(P, ε) = 0.8 keeping P constant, the required λε(ε) is 1.13*(0.8/0.3) = 3.01. The required ε to achieve this is about 0.012 which at 390 W/m^2 of surface emissions results in 4.7 W/m^2 of emissions by the planet, which is obviously wrong as 240 W/m^2 are required. Splitting λ(T) into a temperature component and a dimensionless component dependent on the emissivity leads to a slightly different impossible result.

What this tells us is that a sensitivity λ(P, ε) = 0.8C per W/m^2 is in conflict with the emissivity of the planet, ε and the power emitted by the planet, P. Either the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't apply to the climate or the sensitivity is not 0.8C per W/m^2.

Presumably, this analysis will not convince you that a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 is impossible, so what will? Can you supply mathematical and physics proof that the SB Law is irrelevant to how the climate behaves?

Moderator Response:

[PS] Are you or are you not George White?

[PS] I find it hard to believe there are two people in the world going for this nonsense and I think we can conclude that "Michael" is actually George still trying to flog his unphysical maths. Please do not respond.

MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:02 AM on 17 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

KR, re #57

Thank you, this is what I was asking from you. FYI, the 170K value came from either you or Tom, so since you don't remember saying this, it must have come from Tom. But lets go with your suggestion that feedbacks don't kick in until -40C. The first 167 W/m^2 get us to -40C (233K) leaving 73 W/m^2 to get to 288K. If we assume a sensitivity of 0.75 for the remaining 73 W/m^2, we get to 288K.

There's still a problem with this. If the increase in sensitivity is consequential to an increase in feedback, all of the accumulated W/m^2 of forcing are subject to the same new feedback influences and you should expect a large change in temperature as the feedback kicks in and is applied to the accumulated W/m^2 and a smaller change thereafter as only the incremental W/m^2 matters as long as feedback remains constant. If we assume a step change in feedback at 40C that results in increasing the sensitivity from 0.35 to 0.75 the first 167 W/m^2 now acts like 167*.75/.35 = 358 W/m^2 and the temperature jumps to 281.8K (48.8C per W/m^2), thereafter to increase by 0.75C per W/m^2, resulting in a final temperature of 336.6K which is obviously too high. How can you modify your quantification of sensitivity to account for this?

Stephen Baines at 08:31 AM on 17 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

ubrew 12. Boyce and colleagues have a new analysis that tries to address the many concerns posed by responses to the orginal paper (that were published in Nature at the same time). The new paper is a lot more equivocal about the scale of the change, while still suggesting declines in biomass are common at low latitudes. Changes in upwelling and ventilation due to stratification are built into the advanced earth system models, but I don't believe they come anywhere near to explaining a 40 % decline in phytoplankton biomass over the last century.

I probably should read up more systematically on this line of research and see if I can find a good summary, or draw up one myself. I know there has been some modeling work to try to make sense of the problem, but my sense is that noone understands it very well right now.

It's worth noting that phytoplankton biomass per se is not an important reservoir of carbon, accounting for only 0.5% of what is in the atmosphere according to the IPCC. Decreases in biomass could affect the biological pump, that removes atmospheric CO2 to deep waters over centory time scales. It could also reflect a more efficient biological pump. A chicken-egg situation.

scaddenp at 08:03 AM on 17 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

ubrew12 - my understanding from comment at RealClimate is that some AR5 models include carbon cycle feedbacks. However, the feedbacks are very slow and not likely to have much impact pre-2100.

ubrew12 at 04:12 AM on 17 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

I read a few years ago that ocean phytoplankton populations are down 40% in the last half century, to quote "with unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems and the planet's carbon cycle... rising sea surface temperatures are to blame". This would also act as a 'source' of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels, and would likely intensify throughout this century. Does anyone know: Is this effect accounted for in the IPCC computer models?

CBDunkerson at 03:57 AM on 17 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Thanks Stephen. The 'more efficient replacement' idea seems plausible. The whole 'clean coal via carbon capture' concept often involved the idea of shutting down 'dirty' coal plants to replace them with 'clean' ones... which could, theoretically, mean a decrease in total carbon commitment. Of course, we hear a lot less about this (in the US anyway) now that even the dirtiest, least regulated, coal plants are more expensive than natural gas and sometimes wind/solar.

That said, I continue to be optimistic that many of the 'carbon commitments' being built today will end up as 'stranded assets' that get shut down early rather than reaching their full 'pollution potential'. Indeed, it seems likely to me that there will never be another new coal plant built in the US... it has just become too obvious that they will not be able to make a profit.

witsend at 03:50 AM on 17 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

"...the data show that trees are dying more quickly...". Yes, yes they are. They aren't just dying prematurely in the Amazon, they are dying everywhere around the world, from absorbing toxic pollution. The droughts, heat, violent storms, insects, disease and fungus push formerly resilient trees over the edge. Scientists in China recently predicted a global "massacre" of forests due to pollution. short film "The Silent War on Trees"

donaldinks at 03:05 AM on 17 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

"If you want a pessimistic view,"

... I highly recommend Clive Hamilton's work entitled:
"Requiem for a Species".

http://clivehamilton.com/books/requiem-for-a-species/

Andy Skuce at 01:56 AM on 17 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

wili, I'm not sure, I need to understand the committed emissions work better.

i will note, however, that the published socio-economic model underlying RCP2.6 acknowledges that we will overshoot emissions in coming decades. The model deals with this by assuming negative human emissions by means of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in the latter half of the century.

If you want a pessimistic view, read this piece at Vox by Brad Plumer, which talks about 2000+ proposed coal plants.

John Hartz at 01:18 AM on 17 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Recommended supplementary reading:

Renewables outpace nuclear in economies making up 45 percent of world population: report by Aaron Sheldrick, Reuters, July 15, 2015

KR at 00:44 AM on 17 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

Michael Fitzgerald - In deference to the moderators, I will keep this reasonably short. But I will make the comment, primarily for the benefit of other readers who might find this puzzling.

In the range between a zero atmosphere 255K Earth and actual conditions, there are multiple non-linearities such as the presence of water vapor - attempting a linear extrapolation (as George White does) from the thought experiment is a fools game.
GW's hurricane comments are utterly red herrings, as I pointed out earlier.
The energy balance at TOA is a boundary condition - surface temperatures are a product of TOA energy conservation and the atmosphere. Jumping back and forth as GW does between surface and TOA temps, and expecting the scalars from one to apply to the other, is nonsense.

GW's claims are complicated BS - for a more complete discussion of why, read the threads here, here and here, where his very basic errors were pointed out by many people (in comments that were ignored on his part). If you are actually interested in the science you can do far better than uncritically following an unpublished blogger who is making up their own (unrealistic and silly) physics.

GW plays Galileo, thinking that he's overturned all the last 150 years of climate science, when his (unpublished and unreviewed) claims add up to claiming that 2+2=5, and why doesn't everyone recognize that? The 'Galileo gambit' only works if you are correct. He is not.

---

For anyone truly interested in the science basics, I suggest starting with the RealClimate summary here, and Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming history (with lots of primary references) here. In the meantime, Michael, I will ignore further posts from you until/unless they actually intersect with real physics.

Stephen Leahy at 00:01 AM on 17 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

JH Apologies for the delay in replying:

TomR @5, CBDunkerson @9, Rob Honeycutt @10 I see the confusion this phrase might cause:

“By 2018, no new cars, homes, schools, factories, or electrical power plants should be built anywhere in the world, ever again unless they’re either replacements for old ones or are carbon neutral?

To be perfectly honest I can't remember why "replacements" is in there — I wrote the original piece nearly a year ago. It has been read by the authors of the paper and many others and this is the first time it's come up.

I may have meant replacements of existing ones before the projected end of spanlife. i.e. an existing 20 year old coal plant replaced by a more effecient one to complete its end of life of 20 years.

If that's the case, probably shouldn't have mentioned it. I'd have to re-read the original studies and my mountain of notes to be sure. I don't have time to do that right now.

But thanks for pointing it and should I do another version I will definitely delete or explain the reference. That said, I think the topic of carbon commitments is a very important 'story' to tell and needs much broader airing amongst decision makers and the public.

John Hartz at 23:31 PM on 16 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

Moderation Comment:

From here on out, please avoid the temptation to respond to Michael Fitzgerald.

MA Rodger at 19:06 PM on 16 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

Michael Fitzgerald @53.

Thank you for this comment @53. Unlike previous offerings, it can be read through and the meaning gleaned in one reading.

170K? "Someone said". This is a bit tenuous. It sounds like somebody is adopting an arbitrary "at -100ºC". But what if it was effectively only -40ºC?

Your basic thesis here is that if ECS=3ºC, feedback has to be contributing two-times the warming of the original forcing. (I note you inflate this to 3.3x but I'm pretty sure that is wrong & let's tackle one thing at a time.) So, very very simplisitically, if there is 150Wm^-2 of forcing but the planet has 239Wm^-2 of forced warming, at a ratio of 2:1, dropping that level of external forcing we would run out of feedback by 239-(150/2)=164Wm^-2=(from Stefan-Botlzmann)232K=-42ºC.

Of course, once the mechanisms that actually create the feedbacks are considered, the simplistic use of a 2:1 ratio will (and the ballpark -40ºC may) prove complete pants. I think it will also demonstrate how much of a theoretical thought experiment it is that you are pursuing.

PhilippeChantreau at 13:18 PM on 16 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

Unless of course said position is lacking merit and has already been considered and found to not deserve further consideration. Then continued repetition will obviously lead to more pointed comments.

GeoffThomas at 12:59 PM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

I agree with the moderator on jvd particularly noting post 31, thanks Tom, I see Jvd and many other Nuclear exremeists on http://www.energybusinessnews.com.au and it makes it an unpleasant site as they interpret every article and every post on the articles as requiring their strident answer, - I just don't go there anymore.

Years ago we were talking of virtual power stations, - all forms of generation co-operating to get the best power but focussing on just one prevents that.

And btw, I notice that wave and tidal generation is making some big strides so will be able to be added to the mix more and more and Tidal is interesting in that it can be predicted thousands of years ahead.

Moderator Response:

[JH] Link activated.

Dcrickett at 12:05 PM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

I worked in nuclear power engineering and construction for several years back in the 1980's. I was flabbergasted at the costs imposed by excessive requirements of the various codes, and positively impressed with the QA processes. But my gut feeling was (and is) that it was the "Operation Independence" pushed by the government (especially President Nixon) to hurriedly build Nuclear, full-speed-ahead-damn-the-torpedoes, that did irrepairable damage. Arrogance resulted. And the cost-plus contracts that rewarded sloppy inefficiency. Also damaging was the attitude that there was so much in way of safety factors, redundancy etc that there could be no problems... and severe problems came along anyway. Yikes!

Nuclear is a brittle technology. Even so, most problems resulted not from inadequate safety etc factors but from failure to provide for what caused the problems. Like Baldur's mother, told that her son could only be killed by a wood-tipped spear, got him blessed by the spirit of every kind of tree and shrub that grows upon the face of the Earth. So Baldur was killed by the evil Loki with a spear tipped with mistletoe, a parasitic shrub that grows on trees and not on the face of the Earth.

MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:04 AM on 16 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

To All,

I really wish you all would stick to the science. One thing you can learn from co2isnotevil's posts is that he doesn't constantly berate his opponents for having an opposing position, only attacks the position itself and usually quite effectively. Constantly berating those with opposing positions only makes you appear insecure about yours which only serves to weaken your case.

Michael

Moderator Response:

[JH] Off-topic and insulting.

MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:03 AM on 16 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

KR,

Actually, it was his post here (#35.1) that inspired my question.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/climate-scientists-more-scared-of-an-inquiry-into-the-science-than-they-are-of-climate-change/

Based on your denial that these questions even have answers, co2isnotevil appears right and the answers clearly dispute the accepted sensitivity, and this scares many who believe otherwise. I'm also a physicist and his descriptions of the underlying physics are spot on. The climate is certainly complex, but in the final analysis, its macroscopic behavior must still obey the laws of physics. The many inconsistencies pointed out in the threads you referenced is astonishing, especially how so many laws of physics must be violated to support a high sensitivity. I still have trouble believing how so many smart people can be so wrong in so many ways about something so important, but the evidence presented is powerfully compelling.

One piece of evidence is a plot of monthly average surface temperatures vs. monthly average emissions by the planet, extracted from decades of satellite measurements, where the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is nearly an ideal gray body from space with an emissivity of 0.62 and answers the question about whether an ideal gray body model is sufficient for modeling climate change or at least bounding the sensitivity. The theoretical range of the sensitivity for an ideal gray body model of Earth is in the range of 0.2 – 0.3 and spans most of the estimates from the so called 'consensus of skeptics' and is far from the 0.4 – 1.2 range asserted by the 'IPCC consensus'. There's no room for compromise where both sides can say they were right and that's part of the problem. I predict that a sensitivity significantly less than the accepted lower limit of 0.4 must inevitably be accepted, and when it is, climate science will be disrupted in a way that no field of science has ever experienced and it will be both interesting and scary to watch with many far reaching repercussions.

MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:01 AM on 16 July 2015

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

MA Rodger, #52

I never denied anything about snowball Earth. Of course I understand the evidence that suggests it may have occurred as many as 3 times, the most recent about 500-800 million years ago and others going back billions of years. All I did was offer a possible hypothesis for why they might arise and why they don't persist, which as far as I'm concerned, anything anyone says about this, published or not, can only be speculative, especially given the how much the Sun, orbit, surface and atmosphere has changed over billions of years.

If you know of a reasonable quantification for the sensitivity as a function of temperature, please tell me what it is. This is what I've been asking for all along, yet nothing has been forthcoming except arguments that it doesn't apply because feedbacks change as a function of temperature. I completely agree that feedbacks change, but it's completely quantifiable by starting with the slope of SB and increase it when positive feedback arises and decrease it when negative feedback arises. The problem is that there's no version of this form that can lead to a monotonic temperature increase that ends up at a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 @ 288K. BTW, its perfectly OK to say that the feedback is so negative along the way, that no temperature increase occurs as the input energy increases, but I can't conceive of any negative feedback with this much effect and that can persist over a wide enough range of input power to end up requiring a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 at 288K, plus there's the T^4 issue to deal with. Denying that the test applies only weakens your case for a high sensitivity.

The 170K comes from something someone said about no GHG effect below this temperature. This means that there is no atmospheric CO2, water vapor, or clouds, thus no feedback. If you can quantify a feedback mechanism below 170K, please tell me what it is, but if its positive feedback, it only makes it more difficult to arrive at a function that ends up at 0.8C per W/m^2 @ 288K.

bozzza at 10:57 AM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

@41 and 42, this all comes under the year 11 economics concepts of the problems to do with government intervention into the market place. The more they intervene the more difficult it is to extract themselves.

Government Intervention makes the so-called free-market less efficient: thus picking fossil fuels as the 'winner' all those years ago gave it economies of scale and ,as Bill Gates would say, "Automation of an inefficient process simply increases that inefficiency."

Markets are meant to be robust is another dictum learnt in year 11 economics-> lending the idea that the more governments intervene the harder it is to extract themselves as economies build thmeselves around the initial intervention. If we add the witches wand of Hollywood into the mix we can almost guarantee Americas inability to move away from Nuclear Power due to real-politik which means, of course, it's just not possible from the highest degree of probability at the nuts and bolts level.

People vote and this too counts as government intervention.. it is of course a chicken and egg thing!

wili at 10:12 AM on 16 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

So what does this mean for the 2018 'hard deadline' for any more production of ff-using devices, vehicles, homes, buildings, and plants just reported on?

michael sweet at 09:50 AM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Tom,

I have not been impressed with the material on Brave New Climate in the past.

That said, if SkS had any nuclear thread everyone could post links to the data they thought supported their side and it would all be in one place. Currently we will have to repeat all the posts from the same discussion a month ago again with JvD, since they were posted on a weekly thread and are hard to find (and reargue all the material that JvD posted years ago). Any nuclear thread would allow the data to be consolidated in one place so that we could refer to that thread for all nuclear questions.

I agree that reposting your linked article would be a simple way to get an OP.

Moderator Response:

[DB] User JvD had been banned for multiple and repetitive violations of this site's Comments Policy, including sloganeering and inflammatory, to name a few. Since his return in another User ID form (Joris van Dorp) is also a violation (sock puppet), his current User posting rights have been rescinded.

Tom Curtis at 07:45 AM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Adding to my comment @41, what might be even better is if Barry Brooks and Dana(?) cowrote an introduction to the topic covering the areas of agreement with each then writing a seperate continuation arguing their respective points of view (ie, that nuclear must be a substantial part of a zero carbon energy mix for Brooks; and that nuclear a zero carbon energy mix can be achieved, and should be achieved with no new construction of nuclear power plants - which I take it is Dana's position.

Tom Curtis at 07:39 AM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

michael sweet @40:

"Nuclear has not been demonized, it is uneconomic."

I think it is fairer to say that nuclear has been demonized, but it is also uneconomic. In particular, US reactors built before the Three Mile Island incident (and hence before the dislike of nuclear had any political teeth) were also uneconomic relative to coal in the US.

It may fairly be argued that that is only because it was competing against coal that did not include the social cost; and which could be dug out of the ground cheaply and abundantly with minimal transport costs (and again ignoring considerable social costs). But that also is the cost benchmark solar and wind are expected to exceed, and are on the cusp of exceeding (are exceeding in some cases).

"If you really think that nuclear is worth while, write an OP to support your argument."

It may be worthwhile extending that invitation to Barry Brooks of BraveNewClimate to write that post. If nothing else, he may permit the reposting post to which I directly linked, although it would be better if he fleshed out his arguments. I suspect he would be more than happy to take up the invitation. I am sure this could be made agreeable to the members of the SkS team who strongly disagree with nukes (of which there are at least a few) by noting it would provide a location where discussion of nuclear is on topic, and can be matched by an OP providing the counter argument (giving two locations for such discussion).

michael sweet at 05:19 AM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Joris,

Back to SkS for one thread and already the moderator has had to warn you twice. You win no friends for your pet cause when you violate the comments policy.

It is invariably a waste of time to argue Nuclear power in an unrelated thread. That argument has been made many times, you have added nothing new here (I have made this post at least twice in 2015).

If you really think that nuclear is worth while, write an OP to support your argument. Send it to SkS with suitable peer-reviewed data (links to white papers from the nuclear industry are generally not good enough) I have made this suggestion to at least 3 other nuclear supporters but none of them think the argument in support of nuclear is strong enough to warrent the time to write the post. tThis makes me think that even the supporters of nuclear know in their hearts that nuclear cannot be supported. Go ahead, write the op and show I am wrong.

Your posts that bring up old, debunked nuclear arguments like battery storage of renewable power and the "demonization" of nuclear power do you no credit. They make nuclear look worse.

Nuclear has not been demonized, it is uneconomic. The reactors currently being built in the US are 2 years behind schedule and close to double their budget. Georgia taxpayers are paying for power they may never receive. Norway is ten years behind schedule. 3 in four nuclear reactors worldwide are way behind schedule and grossly over budget— and most of the ones that are not behind schedule had no data available.

In the midwest they are getting ready to shut down existing nuclear plants because they cannot compete with wind. How could they afford a new nuclear plant?

In Florida, where I live, we are paying $1.5 billion for a reactor that never broke ground and another $5 billion for a failed upgrade on another reactor. In California, where I used to live, the San Onofre power plant was shut down after a failed upgrade, billions more in losses. You cite future costs from estimations by the same engineers who are 10 years behind in Norway and designed the failed San Onofre upgrade. I certainly trust their estimates--not!!! Nuclear is uneconomic.

We always have to rehash everything when you show up because nuclear supporters cannot be bothered to write an op suporting nuclear. Nuclear should be banned from all other threads until an op is writen so that we do not have to rewrite everything every three months.

CBDunkerson at 04:33 AM on 16 July 2015

A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

Andy Skuce, there will certainly be a limit to intermittent power penetration without storage and/or long distance transmission... but there is no reason that the remainder has to be made up by fossil fuels. There are many countries with large hydro power resources which could be linked to neighboring countries with wind/solar power to provide stable electricity at lower prices. We can see this currently with Denmarks >40% wind power working symbiotically with hydro power in Norway and Sweden. The same could be done with nuclear, but only France really has high enough nuclear penetration to make it feasible (that is, trading their stable baseload for lower cost wind/solar from neighbors).

Thus, it seems plausible to me that most of Europe, and many other places around the world, could completely decarbonize without needing electrical storage... and again, all indications are that the current free-fall in battery storage costs will continue and make large scale grid storage economically feasible soon. Ergo, lots of reason to think that we could see rapid decarbonization, driven purely by economics, in the coming decades.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments