Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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

Recent Comments

Comments 28201 to 28250:

Tom Curtis at 13:34 PM on 19 July 2015

The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

s_gordon_b @83, I would speculate that the temperature indices have been split into those that include an land/ocean index but do not give full global coverage, mostly due to missing polar regions (land/ocean), and those that use various statistical methods to extend the data set to cover all points on the Earth's surface (global). I would also speculate that Karl consists of the NOAA data set updated for the new ocean dataset as specified in Karl (2015), which would suggest that NOAA represents the unupdated data set, even though the latest version of NOAA does include the update SFAIK. On this understanding, NOAA would relate to Karl the way that HadCRUT3 relates to HadCRUT4.

Tom Curtis at 13:22 PM on 19 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

mancan18 @7, two quibbles, and a query:

1) You say:

"However, "a 5% reduction in emissions intensity" does not mean that. It means that the increase in emissions will be 5% less than the rate that emissions were increasing in the early 2000s."

Emmissions intensity can be defined various ways, but is most commonly defined in terms of GDP. Thus, if you reduce your emissions per unit GDP by 5%, you have reduced your emissions intensity by 5%. Given this, the only way to reduce emissions 5% of 2000 levels in 2020 if you do not reduce emissions intensity by more than 5% is to ensure the economy does not grow, or (as it has already grown from 2000 levels) to ensure that it shrinks back to 2000 levels - a very painful correction indeed. However, the rate of increase in emissions will only be 5% less with a 5% reduction in emissions intensity if the rate of increase in GDP is constant. Given the effect of the global financial crisis and it aftermath (still being felt in Greece, and hence the world), that would be a small ambition for government.

2) The LNP is the party unique to Queensland formed by the amalgamation of the Liberal Party and the National Party. In the Northern Territory, a similar amalgamation is called the Country Liberal Party. Federally, however, and in the rest of Australia, the two parties remain unamlgamated and in coallition. The coalition might by reffered to as the L/NP coallition (or just "the coallition"), but internal politics play out quite differently between the amalgamated version in Qld, and the coalition version nationally, so the two should be distinguished.

Final and most crucially, the query. Do you have a source for the coallition's target being just a 5% reduction in emissions intensity? The government documents I have seen have been quite explicit that it is a 5% reduction in emission levels. Further, as the emissions intensity of the Australian economy has fallen by 50% from 1990 levels as of 2014, and about 28% of 2000 levels already, a 5% intensity target would amount to a policy of massively increasing emission intensity and levels from current levels. I am sure that Labor and the Greens would be making considerable hay if such a target was mentioned in L/NP documents.

mancan18 at 11:17 AM on 19 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

@1 and 2 One Planet Only Forever

When considering Australia, one needs to be careful when referring to the actual emission reduction commitments that the current Liberal National Party (LNP) controlled Australian Government makes.

First, the LNP has quite a number of Climate Change deniers as sitting members.

Second, the LNP gets a lot of its advice from people who are Climate Change deniers.

Third, the current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, became leader of the LNP because of his opposition to taking any effective action on Climate Change. He, along with the Greens, torpedeoed the proposed ETS scheme, which had previously been agreed upon by both sides, LNP and Labor.

Fourth, the main reason that this anti-climate change rhetoric became accepted in the Australian electorate was that the Murdoch media, along with the right wing shock jocks, reaches about 83% of the Australian population to spread the usual denier disinformation, without any substantial penetration of the full scientific argument. Despite this, a substantial number of Australians do think climate change is a serious issue and action needs to be taken. As a consequence of this, there is now a Direct Action Policy that is a salve to the concerns of people looking for Climate Change action. The trouble with this is that the LNP Government can now spin that they think climate change is of concern and that they are now acting to reduce emissions by 5%; even though they have only allocated 2.25 billion dollars, less that half the cost of a decent oil platform, to pay emitters to reduce emissions, without any penalty if they don't, and something they should be doing anyway. The policy is a crock.

Fifth, The target of reducing emissions by 5% is also a crock. When you read the LNP literature related to their commitments on Climate Change and listen to the LNP Party members commenting on what they are doing, you hear two phrases: "reducing emissions by 5%" and "reducing emissions intensity by 5%". In the Murdoch dominated Australian media, which is biased towards the LNP at the best of times, the terms get blurred depending upon the spin needed at the time. "Reducing emissions by 5%" is a pretty clear cut, though totally inadequate, benchmark. It means total emissions will be 5% less in 2020 than they were in the early 2000s. However, "a 5% reduction in emissions intensity" does not mean that. It means that the increase in emissions will be 5% less than the rate that emissions were increasing in the early 2000s. Which is a totally different thing. It means that in 2020, emissions in Australia will still be increasing but at 5% less than they were increasing in the early 2000s. It is not a 5% reduction in emissions. It means that emissions will still higher than they were in the early 2000s and will still increasing, only at a lesser rate. It is double speak used to confuse, and due to the Murdoch dominated media, what the current Australian Government says is never put under scrutiny, so it can still say they are acting while doing nothing substantial. In Australia, there are too many vested interests so that no significant commitment will be made. If history is anything to go by, the then LNP Federal Government could not even sign the flawed but precedent achieving Kyoto Agreement in 1997, which actually allowed Australia to increase it's emissions by 8% over 1990 levels. If they had signed, then it would have sent a clear message to emitters and Australia would now be a different place with a more sustainable economy.

So be very careful of any commitments that this current Australian Government makes. Don't expect anything significant and anything they agree to may well be based on it's usual double speak of apparently saying one thing while meaning another.

bjchip at 10:20 AM on 19 July 2015

The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

Looks like the UAH numbers aren't following their revised corrections for diurnal drift... nor the ones made by Po-Chedley.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

I use the trend calc an awful lot. Hopefully it can get updated again. I think its going to be an ongoing project as methods improve.

Perhaps you'd want two versions of the Satellite information ? Can you persuade Po-Chedley et.al. to rework the satellite data regularly?

Thanks

Moderator Response:

[PS] Link activated. Please use the link tool in the comment editor in future.

s_gordon_b at 09:55 AM on 19 July 2015

The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator

I use the trend calculator all the time for personal research, blogging, challenging dopes and dupes in the denialsphere... It's an invaluable tool, but since your latest update I no longer have a grasp of all the data categories. For example, what's the difference between "land/ocean" and "global"? And who is "Karl," with or without "krig"? I would really appreciate it if you would consider adding a legend to the page to remove any ambiguity/uncertainty.

Jim Hunt at 02:14 AM on 19 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

Paul D @4 - You left out "imposed a climate levy on renewable generation". If you're a UK citizen and feel strongly about such matters you may wish to follow my example and give your Member of Parliament a piece of your mind? See for example:

http://www.V2G.co.uk/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-mel-stride-george-osborne-david-cameron-et-al/

not to mention:

https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/622329856924229632

et seq.

As Lord Deben recently put it:

If everybody here made sure that they went to their Member of Parliament between now and August 1st that would make a hugely important impact at this point.

michael sweet at 00:41 AM on 19 July 2015

Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet

Ranyl,

My computer used to have the same issue you have. At the same time I used another computer and it did not have the problem so I concluded it was something in my computer. The issue went away when I updated the operating system.

Bob Loblaw at 00:18 AM on 19 July 2015

Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet

(Actually, it looks like I forgot to choose "open in a new window". The link opens in thr same window.)

Bob Loblaw at 00:17 AM on 19 July 2015

Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet

ranyl:

I'm not sure how you are trying to enter a link, but here is the "easy" way:

start by typing in the text that you want to appear in the post - i.e. the text the link will be hidden behind
highlight the text (select it using the mouse or keyboard)
go to the "Insert" tab, and click on the little chain link button
In the box that appears, enter the URL for the link in the appropriate box. You can also set options to open in the same window or a new window.
Close the box by clicking "Insert".

For example, after I typed this text, I selected it, and then clicked the link icon, pasted in a link to your 16:15 PM comment, changed it to open in a new window, and closed the box. The link is now hidden behind the "after I typed this text" phrase, and it has not moved from where I typed it.

I think a lot of times people don't realize that they should type text first, then select it before trying to linkify it.

If that is what you are doing, I can't help. :-)

wideEyedPupil at 22:30 PM on 18 July 2015

More evidence that global warming is intensifying extreme weather

Is the current uncharacterist cold freeze over North Eastern Australia related to wobbles in the southern Jet-Stream north of Antarctica the way Super Storm Sandy was said to relate to jet stream wobble in the North/Arctic?

John Hartz at 22:10 PM on 18 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

Peter Prewett:

Countries calculate their annual CO2 emmissions in accordance with procedures set forth by the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. For details, go to the National Reports webpage of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Paul D at 18:33 PM on 18 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

OK this hopefully should start things up in the UK.

The UK i believe is the only nation that has legally binding targets for reducing emissions, yet we now have a Chancellor of Exchequer (George Osborne) and a Conservative party that is reversing all the good work done for a number of years now.

They have:

Reduced support for onshore wind farms.
Reduced support for renewables in general.
Reduced tax breaks for low carbon motor vehicles.
Removed the regulations for low carbon housing.
Approved fracking.
I suspect there is more, so my list probably needs updating?

George Osborne in 2011:

“We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminum smelters, and paper manufacturers,”

So IMO it's time for research into legal action being taken here in the UK, since it appears to be clear that the Conservatives intend to break British law by setting up policies that will result in failure to meet legally binding UK targets.

peter prewett at 17:50 PM on 18 July 2015

Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling

I am confused then being old is a good excuse.

Does each country use the same method of calculating co2 levels ??

And have some countries changed the method since the first date, or planning to do so ??

Is it all done by gestimates and what are the error bars +/-100% ??

ranyl at 16:15 PM on 18 July 2015

Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet

Sorry the last sentence should read,

This paper's figure on page 2 of pdf (1461 in journal), show how CO2 hasn't been at 350ppm for 4-5million years, 400pppm for 12million years and 460ppm for 15-20 million yearsm just in case people feel we have a carbon budget.

ranyl at 16:11 PM on 18 July 2015

Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet

Lecutre R Alley

Link Paper,

Thanks JH,

That must make the Ice cliffs at the glaciers fronts higher and that already means trouble in Antartica in a simulation at 400ppm and ~2C warmer bottom water (consistent with early Pliocene, although the 400ppm was from a 2003 paper and 350ppm is more commonly reproted now, and th ebottom waters are rising in temperature), incorportating hydrofracturing and ice cliffs collapse they found sea level rose, ~3-4m in 100 years, 5m in 200years and 17m in ~1000-2000years.

Add in Greenland and the rapid warming coming as we are 470ppmCO2e and several metres of sea level rise by 2100 looks more likely everytime new research is published.

And 2200, only 200 years, Rome been here 2000years or more and that reallt does mean we should be planning to move most of th emajor coastal cities of world fairly soon.

http://www.clim-past.net/7/1459/2011/cp-7-1459-2011.pdf

This papers figure on page 2 (1461 in journal) shows how CO2 has been at 400ppm for ~12million years and 450ppm last 15-20million, just in case anyone actually beliefs in th etotally ficticious carbon budget oftne procliamed.

Dear Moderator,

Why when I put a link in does it always go to the start of the post and not were the cursor is in the text?

Moderator Response:

[JH] I have never experienced the problem that you are encountering re the placement of links. I therefore cannot answer you question. You may want to check the HTML code of your draft comment when this happens next.

Andy Skuce at 12:07 PM on 18 July 2015

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

All of the CMIP5 models have some sort of carbon cycle model. They assume that some fraction of the emissions go into the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere. If they did not, GHG concentrations would rise roughly twice as fast as they are.

What I am talking about in this article are the differences between the average CMIP5 model (there is huge variation between them) and the recently modelled responses. The permafrost feedback is not modelled at all, whereas the terrestrial carbon uptake may well be significantly overestimated in the CMIP5 models.

I didn't deal with ocean CO2 uptake models at all here.

John Hartz at 08:41 AM on 18 July 2015

Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet

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

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Recent Comments