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

Settings


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.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  704  705  706  707  708  709  710  711  712  713  714  715  716  717  718  719  Next

Comments 35551 to 35600:

  1. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Murdoch's views would be just commonplace ignorance if he was not such a powerful individual.

    His power may be judged from the fact that Tony Blair called him every day in the week leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He is a powerful man whom even the powerful kowtow to.

    He is a real threat when his misconceptions and confusions become the core agenda of a massive news organisation, and he has the ears of the elite in every country. Correcting Murdoch and his minions is what Skeptical Science is all about, and well done with this post.

  2. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    This 2006 article in The Economist (Aircraft emissions - The sky's the limit) may be dated in some respects; however, its observations on how comparisons of emissions from air travel and other travel modes are worth consideration.

    http://www.economist.com/node/7033931

  3. foolonthehill at 16:15 PM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Rob

    'Again, the solution to the problem is pricing carbon.' No argument from me there buddy.

    'If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?' That is a decision he must make. I would hope that he does so in full recognition of his contribution to climate change. Not taking the job may result in a worse result for the environment - he would be the best judge of that. I just hope that his loan repayments and the company profits don't unbalance his decision process. Less painful decisions are often the simplest to make.

    I am intrigued by the carbon neutrality of many buildings touted by developers. The prospect of greenwashing always seems close at hand. From my limited knowledge, the embedded carbon seems to be conveniently overlooked (such as your friends travel emissions).

    Auckland has numerous buildings that have sprung up recently which quote fantastic efficiencies in their operations. They invariably have replaced similar sized buildings that have stood for many years and that would have continued to do so. Their replacement is justified on the basis that they 'don't function to todays corporate requirements' or 'the floor plate didn't allow sufficient flow' or other seemingly specious factors.

     

    The main reason for replacement seems to be that the newer buildings can command a higher rental for the developer. Is that the best we can hope for in the future?

    Gotta love the occupants of this 'green' building -

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_River_Tower 

  4. Sam martin8679 at 16:12 PM on 15 July 2014
    Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Hi DSL i was referring to giss and hadcrut which both show something pretty similar. Those coloured dots from figure 10.1 are hard to make much sense of without a mean but it looks to me like a mean would have pretty well the same appearance as giss and hadcrut.

  5. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Rob said "If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?"  Maybe it falls under the category of essential travel, which both wili and I left room for. However, you did say earlier that he (or she) was doing it to pay the mortgage and raise the kids. I hope he is training local architects so he can travel less. Where is he located and what countries does he have projects in?

  6. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Rob, I agree that aviation is a hard nut to crack, but it is essential that we do crack it. It is the only major economic sector that is not reducing its emissions, while the other sectors are. Accordingly, under current trends by 2050 tourism could account for 40% of global GHG emissions, and as an indicator aviation presently accounts for 75% of tourism emissions. (See refs A & B below). For the World Cup, aviation GHG emissions amounted to 98% of the total. Refs A through C concern travel habits and impact, particularly on climate. Ref D contains Ref C and other info pertinent to the discussion in this comment thread.

    Ref E is a thorough study of airliner efficiency and emissions over the decades, and the prospects for further improvement.

    @wili referenced a statement by climate scientist Kevin Anderson that an annual reduction of 10% in emissions from all uses of energy is needed, and discussion by others followed. The explanation behind Anderson's conclusion is quite simple and compelling. See Ref F below (video of his 2011 presentation at UK DFID), in which he also answers the question of why his analysis is different than those by others. Here is a summary of that:

    1. EMISSIONS GROWTH RATES ARE NOT LOW-BALLED. Virtually all other climate pathway studies assume a 1-2% per year emissions growth rate to the emissions peak, but the actual rate has been 3-5% per year.

    2. REALISTIC EMISSIONS PEAKING DATES ARE USED. Virtually all other analyses use an emissions peak between 2010 and 2016. The Stern report was 2015; the UK Committee on Climate Change's work is based on 2016; the recent ADAM report for the EU had 2015. Wherever you look, people are assuming very low growth rates to a very early peaking date. "And you can look around you. You can see the emissions that are occurring globally. And you can think, 'Is any of that in any way, shape or form a good illustration of the real world in which we live?' And if not, then you might start to think, 'Why is this analysis different?' Even the UK's Committee on Climate Change, which is doing much more than many countries around the world, embedded a 2017 peaking date for China and India in its report. But no one's ever talked to the Chinese or the Indians about that."

    3. SO, THE PROBLEM IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE WORSE THAN RECOGNIZED, AND TECH ALONE CAN'T FIX IT. Supply technologies cannot be put in place fast enough to bring you off the peak quick enough. "That's not to say better supply technology is not important - in fact, it's a prerequisite to getting to a low carbon future. But, it will not do it in and of itself. You have to have radical reductions beforehand, and technology cannot deliver those, particularly the supply technologies. Perhaps the demand side can do that and certainly behavioral can move you much faster, but you simply cannot put the big supply technologies in place fast enough in the wealthier parts of the world."

    4. SOCOLOW'S WEDGES "ARE THE WRONG WAY AROUND." Socolow "has us starting with small reductions from the pointy ends of the wedges and progressing to larger reductions at the big end. That might have worked if we had started earlier, but because we are so late in addressing climate change we need to get the big reductions almost immediately," and we $can back off decades later to a tapered finish. (See: Socolow et al. 2006).

    Reference G is a link to the conference "Radical Emissions Reduction," held in December at the Royal Society, London. From the webpage a program and a book of the abstracts (101 pp.) can be downloaded.

    --------------

    A. Cohen S., Higham J., Peeters P., Gossling S. (2014). Why tourism mobility behaviours must change. Ch. 1 in: Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches.

    B. Cohen S., James E., Higham J., Gossling S., Peeters P. (2014). Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches. Routeledge, NYC. ISBN: 978-0-415-83937-2.

    C. Gössling S.; Upham, P. (eds) (2009). Hypermobile travellers. Ch. 6 in: Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions.

    D. Gössling S., Upham P. (2009). Climate change and aviation: Issues, challenges and solutions. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Aviation-and-Climate-Change_.pdf

    E. Peeters et al. (2005). Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends. (Netherlands National Aerospace Lab).

    F. Anderson K. (2011). Climate Change: Going beyond dangerous — Brutal numbers, tenuous hope, or cognitive dissonance? Video of presentation at UK DFID.

    G. The Radical Emissions Reduction Conference, Dec. 10-11, 2013. Venue: Royal Society, Carlton House Terrace, London.

  7. Rob Honeycutt at 15:06 PM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Wili...  "Is the economy more important than the planet?"

    What is important is solving the global warming problem. We're going to need a working economy to do that. It's not an either/or choice. We need both. 

  8. Rob Honeycutt at 14:50 PM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?

    No, actually, I don't think you can just relay the work to a local architect since that's already an inherent part of the process. 

    And what I'm talking about relative to carbon neutral buildings is, they build high rises that, with a certain level of mixed use, can generate as much energy as they consume. 

    Again, the solution to the problem is pricing carbon. Creating additional restrictions does not address the fundamental problem.

  9. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Sam, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "half of that."  See IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch. 10, especially section 3, and to the point figure 10.1.  What are you measuring from?  There's been roughly 0.7C warming since 1960 with virtually no contribution from solar variation. 

  10. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    And not only satellites but direct surface observation.  That is, downwelling longwave radiation has been instrumentally measured at the surface (see Wang & Dickinson 2013 for a review of observation-based studies).

  11. Sam martin8679 at 13:40 PM on 15 July 2014
    Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    About the nearly 1 degree that we have already caused- what is the proposed mechanism for the nearly half of that which occured between ~  1910 and 1940? I was under the impression that was not thought to be co2 related warming.

  12. foolonthehill at 13:22 PM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Rob

    'And so, you think my architect friend who is developing carbon neutral high rise buildings around the world should stop doing his work?' 

    Is your friend the only person capable of doing this work? Can he not relay the relevant information to a local architect? 

    (I dont think i'll get into the 'carbon neutral' aspects...)

  13. Rob Honeycutt at 13:02 PM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Larry E...

    "...yet growth in average distance traveled and number of trips are increasing consistently at an unsustainable rate. Airliners today are negligibly more efficient that piston-powered ones of the late 1950s."

    Yes, your first statement is correct but I think that addressing the demand side through carbon pricing would change that trend.

    Your second statement is incorrect. When early jet engines were introduced in the 1950's then were less fuel efficient that prop engines of the time, and those prop engines were not so efficient either. But modern high bypass torbo fan jets are more efficient. And the carbon emissions for long distance travel are actually lower per passenger mile than other forms of transportation.

    "Yes, but scope for improvement is limited..."

    The scope for improvement is limited in the nearer decades. Again, avaition is a big nut to crack. As I linked in one of my first comments, there are ideas like super cooled ducted fan systems that have the potential to be carbon free. As well, there is a lot of work being done in non-food crop biofuels. 

    "For your friends who feel trapped, the need for a smaller house and more frugal lifestyle, is indicated."

    Really? And so, you think my architect friend who is developing carbon neutral high rise buildings around the world should stop doing his work? 

    "Aviation is a great place to start."

    I'm sorry but I'm just going to have to disagree here. When surface transportation accounts for 40% of emissions and when buildings also account for almost 40% of emissions... why would you want to "start" with the industry that generates 6% of emissions? It's a serious question. I don't understand this thinking.

    "A nice touch, but involving a minor lifestyle change."

    My point being that small incentives can go a long way. Don't use a sledge hammer when a smaller tool can get the job done.

  14. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Non-scientist,

    I doubt very much it is his age. Plenty of older people have a healthy curiousity and can change their minds.

    I think ubrew12 is much closer to the mark. He does seem to be extremely, perhaps obsessively, competitve and society wide cooperation of the sort required to deal with climate change gets in the way of his games. I think a lot of denialists are game players who want the fun of putting down opponents. This makes them want to see opponents as dishonest and deserving of mockery and put-downs. Think of people like Mark Morano, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, all malicious game-players addicted to sneering at opponents.

    But I think there is something else. I think billionaires for whom their business is everything can unintentionally attract an echo chamber of flatterers who tell them what they want to hear. Their advisors do genuinely see them as the great man or woman. If you aren't curious and don't seek knowledge from outside your inner circle you can end up out of touch with reality. I think this has happened with Murdoch, with Gina Reinhart and with the Koch brothers.

  15. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Is the economy more important than the planet?

  16. Rob Honeycutt at 12:24 PM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    foolonthehill...  My original post was suggesting that aviation is a harder nut to crack and that there are other issues to address like surface transportation, buildings and efficiency that offer much bigger emissions reductions for far less money. I'm not saying that aviation emissions shouldn't be addressed; it's a very important issue to address. But the question is how to address it in the most effective and timely manner and how we address it in ways that fit into the larger goals of getting to zero emissions in a time frame that keeps us below 2C.

  17. foolonthehill at 12:10 PM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Larry E

    "For your friends who feel trapped, the need for a smaller house and more frugal lifestyle, is indicated." - even wiser words!

  18. foolonthehill at 11:56 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Whilst I have said I agree with wili on many of his points, I am not wholeheartedly behind him. I certainly feel that his last comment doesnt enhance either his position or the conversation. Civility costs nothing.

    Rob - I was more intrigued with your stance on the aviation issue. Your initial post seemed to intimate that the aviation industry was not a concern in the bigger picture. You praised the improvements in fuel efficiency.  I would be keen to know if these improvements have led to a lower overall output of greenhouse gasses into the environment? That would be the result you are hoping for no doubt. 

    From my observations these efficiency improvements are based on stabilising the bottom line in an industry facing fuel price increases. There appears to me to have been a substantial increase in air travel in recent years with the developing nations rapidly adopting our first world tourism fetish. Can we afford to keep on in the same fashion? Or should we be discouraging this growth through all means possible? (note I said discourage - not restrict). I agree with you that carbon pricing will be the major tool in this endeavour. We really need to stop the current practice of hopping on a plane at the merest whim. A cultural change is essential. 

    From a New Zealand perspective we have a national carrier that is investing in the latest fuel efficient aircraft. They, along with our government, are encouraging large increases in long haul traveller numbers from Asia in particular. Great for our economy and GDP figures. But will our shiny new 787-9's reduce the amount of CO2 at the end of the day?

  19. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    @Non_Scientist

    Wow, dude, biased against the elderly much? Fwiw, I am the youngest member (by far) of an crack IT team working in a large East coast datacenter. The average age of our NOC team is about 58 years old, with a few over 60. I imagine most of them are well past that "certain age" to which you refer so smartly. 

    IMO, our groupd is one of th most open minded an well educated teams I've been a part of. Open mindedness abounds here with frequent lively debates about all manner of topics. 

    Maybe you're not meeting the right group of oldies.

    Cheers,

    Jenna

  20. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    WRyan: "reduc[e] CO2 from the easiest targets first ... The real challenge is to make it happen quickly"

    An easy target (functionally ) is reducing and then pinching off air travel (and freight) except for what is truly essential in the societal sense. Humanity did without air travel for centuries until quite recently; we can do so again. The only thing that makes it difficult is that the affluent people of the world feel entitled to do as much of it as they wish, and these people strongly influence 1st-world governments. However, because nearly all air travel is non-essential, if people can't accept substantial sacrifice here, I think there is no hope for containing climate change below a catastrophic level.

    Where to start? Terminate frequent flyer programs (FFPs), because inducements to this kind of travel (whether in terms of "free" trips or elite perks) encourage this source of climate damage. Further, a spin-off is that accumulation of "kilometer" or "miles" encourages additional use of airline credit cards in order to accumulate more. But this amplified credit card use raises merchant's prices for everyone's essentials, including cash customers who are often poor. (A 2.5% CC fee is, say for a business with a 10% profit margin, a 25% hit on the bottom line of the sale that must be covered somehow. A problem when such sales are commonplace.)

    Honeycutt: "They are embracing the problem and are working on solutions." But the IATA's goals are "aspirational," and the scope for efficiency improves is actually quite small. Most gains are one-time ones, yet growth in average distance traveled and number of trips are increasing consistently at an unsustainable rate. Airliners today are negligibly more efficient that piston-powered ones of the late 1950s. The good-sounding comparisons are against the fuel-hog jets of that era.

    Honeycutt: "The industry has every incentive to work really hard to try to use fuel as efficiently as possible." Yes, but scope for improvement is limited, and the higher incentive is for steadily increasing passenger volume and distance traveled. New planes designed for, say, 1940s-era cruising speeds could help somewhat; however, the business model (affordable fares) depends on maximized seat-miles per plane per day, meaning high speeds to amortize the plane's high capital cost and crew cost.

    Honeycutt: "... for long distance travel, aviation has a low carbon footprint compared to other forms of suface transportation ..." But it is "long distance" and ease (effort and especially time) in traveling long distances by plane that is the biggest part of the problem. Longer and more frequent trips become more and more commonplace. Most long distance travel would not happen with out planes.

    Honeycutt: "... a good friend of mine is a lead partner in an architechure firm that does major projects all over the world. He has to fly around the world on a monthly basis. I'm sorry, but it would be utterly impossible for him to do these projects via Skype. I have a number of other friends who are product designers and they frequently have to fly to Asia to work through new products with factories." Seems to me all the rest of us are subsidizing (via climate impacts, with tangible harms as well as with real present or future economic costs) your friends' poorly advised business models or careers. Globalization is a big part of the climate problem, and both aviation and shipping emissions are at the heart of that. Please ask your friends to convert rapidly to a domestic business model. After all, you said they "all want to do the right thing." You added later, "But, they have mortgages and kids and they have to get their respective jobs done each week in order to keep paying their mortgages and supporting those kids." Supposed barriers such as this, population-wide, are what keep us on the BAU track. For your friends who feel trapped, the need for a smaller house and more frugal lifestyle, is indicated.

    Honeycutt: "We don't have to get to zero emissions by 2018." We will wish we had. That isn't possible now (waited to long), but we have to decide that the party is over and it's time to hit the brakes hard. Aviation is a great place to start.

    Honeycutt: "There's a ton of low hanging fruit to get that going. Efficiency is the cheapest ..." We need all the low-hanging fruit we can get. Aviation is among the lowest, and no investment of resources (materials) is needed to accomplish it. It is simple reduction, with immediate benefit.

    Honeycutt: "... a 10 cent surcharge on paper and plastic shopping bags. Almost overnight everyone, and I mean everyone, starting bringing their own bags."

    A nice touch, but involving a minor lifestyle change. Air travel is much different, and getting a truly effective carbon tax on it will be quite difficult (e.g. the EU ETS saga). "No non-essential air travel" needs to be one of the options on the table, so that there is a full playing field before the public for discussion.

    Foolonthehill: "(personal no-fly decision) it is a minor sacrifice I am making for the sake of future generations. I believe I will need to make many more such sacrifices." Wise words!

    Further thoughts: (In a future comment; apology for the length.)

  21. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    JPostma:

    1)  A one dimensional model is a model expanding (most typically) a zero dimensional energy balance model by showing different lattitudes.  What you use is a one layer energy balance model, a model only used in climate science for purposes of instruction.  It is usefull for instruction because it allows the introduction of relevent equations in a simple form, but those equations are not used in one layer models in any actual scientific work.

    2)

    "The problem is that the solar input is not actually -18C, and the Earth shouldn't be modelled as flat (because it isn't flat), and in physics it is wrong to mathematically "destroy" physical factors such as rotation and geometry."

    In physics, it is standard procedure to use simplified models for initial, or approximate calculations.  The classic example is from Newton, who initially calculated the planetary motions based on his theory of gravity using the assumption that the Sun and the Earth were point masses.   So, even if you were actually correct about the use of one layer models (which you are not), your criticism would only be a stipulation that in climate physics, standard methods of physics should not be used.

    3)  Historically, the model that was used to show the existence of the greenhouse effect was the zero dimensional energy balance model, which calculates that:

    T(e) = (S*(1-A))/(f*σ))^(1/4)

    Where T(e) is the effective temperature, S is the insolation at the planets orbit (1361 W/m^2 for Earth), A is the bond albedo (0.3 for Earth), f is a geometrical correction factor (4 for Earth), and σ is the Stefan-Boltzman constant.  

    For rapidly rotating planets with strong redistribution of energy at the surface, f is set at 4 (effectively assuming a constant temperature across the planets surface).  It is calculated as the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to the surface area of a circle of the same diameter (ie, of the Earth's surface area relative to the area of sunlight it intercepts). 

    Uneven heat distribution, such as actually obtains, reduces the effective temperature.  So, if we expanded this model to a one dimensional model, it would predict a cooler effective temperature.  The heat flow from the tropics to the poles therefore warms the Earth on average, even though it always represents heat flowing from a warmer to a colder place.  It cannot heat the Earth to more than the effective temperature, however, and hence the estimate of a 33 C greenhouse effect is an underestimate.  Latent heat also evens out heat extremes, and therefore also warms the Earth, but again cannot warm it above the effective temperature calculated by the zero dimensional energy balance model.  And when I say cannot, I mean that it would contradict conservation of energy if it did.

    4) 

    "A hopefully final clarification: the 1-D, one-layer model is not "my" model, it is "their" model, and I've copied it directly with references as to source.

    "They" use it to justify and explain the origin of the greenhouse effect, but as we have seen, no such model can actually produce anything corresponding to reality for the simple fact that it has nothing to do with reality. You can't "go around saying" that the solar input is only -18C at the surface, and then create some postulates based on that, because the solar input factually isn't that and because if it were that it wouldn't reproduce otherwise known physics at the surface."

    Again, scientists do not use the one layer model (which you incorrectly name) to justify belief in the greenhouse effect.  They only use it as a simple model to explain the greenhouse effect.  When justifying beliefs they use evidence, and three dimensional models that take into account all the complex factors of climate (within the limits of resolution required by limmited computer power).

    First, the evidence:

    Scientists have observed using instruments in planes, balloons and satellites, the upward long wave radiation from the Earth.  Here is one such observation compared with a Line By Line (LBL) radiation model calculation of the upward radiation:

    The area under the curve represents total outward energy.  Because the outward energy at 660 cm-1 (Wave Number) is low, energy at other wave numbers must be higher to allow a given amount of radiation to escape the Earth.  Because the reduced outward radiation at 660 cm-1 occurs everywhere on Earth (as determined by observations for all locations on Earth), overall radiation in other parts of the spectrum must be higher for a given amount of energy to escape.  Because the radiation is thermal, for the radiation to be greater the temperature must be greater.  Therefore, because of the oberved effect of CO2 on outgoing radiation, the temperature of the Earth's surface must be greater than it otherwise would have beeen.

    That is the greenhouse effect - something which has therefore been directly observed by satellite based instruments hundreds of thousands of times. 

    Second, GCMs also show that without well mixed greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's surface would be cooler by about 33 C.  That, again is an underestimate in that the GCM was constrained to not allow expansion of ice sheets (and the consequent increase in albedo).  Further, that even allows for the small remaining natural greenhouse effect from water vapour.  The GCM involved happened to be the GISS model ER, which has a climate sensitivity around 2 C.

    The use of this model to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases shows your continuing use of the one layer model to be the deliberate use of a strawman.  Climate scientists have been using far more complex models than the one you use for decades.  Further, they do not use the model you use for research, but only for teaching.  Your persistence criticizing a teaching aid and treating that as if you were actually criticizing the theories of scientists would be on a par with a polar explorer "proving" that geographers were totally mistaken about the Earth's shape because pictures of the poles do not show large metalic cylinders about which the Earth rotates are represented on globes in classrooms through out the world.

  22. Rob Honeycutt at 09:34 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Exactly. And it really takes far less than people might think to have a significant impact. 

    One small example is, just this past year a law passed in the SF Bay Area for a 10 cent surcharge on paper and plastic shopping bags. Almost overnight everyone, and I mean everyone, starting bringing their own bags when they went shopping.

    I think carbon pricing is going to be similar. Once it's in place, the overall effect is going to be significant even at a low cost per ton.

  23. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    I'm with Rob on this. Constriction on supplyside is too blunt an instrument. Rather like reducing oil production. You get a massive price spike because demand remains high. The poor miss out. Carbon pricing schemes by comparison are fiscally neutral, allow for targeting and distributes money from high FF users to low FF users. You want to kill FF from the demand side, not supply side.

  24. Rob Honeycutt at 09:06 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    foolonthehill...

    Without such sacrifices are we not on a BAU track? Or do you see technology as our saviour?

    You know, it's interesting to me. This is sort of like discussing sea level rise on the other side of the debate. These are non-linear situations. Just as you can't look at annual sea level rise today to determine how much SLR we will see in 2100, you also can't look at BAU emissions scenarios and say that where we're going to be in 2100. All factors are not going to stay the same over time regardless of a personal sacrifice. 

    I do not see technology as the savior. Technology is going to, and in fact already is, playing an important role in solving the problem. But again, efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit and can have the largest impact. Properly pricing carbon into the market holds a hugely important role in solving the problem, since that is going to spur both technological development and make efficiency more cost effective.

    I do think there is going to have to be an overall contraction of the aviation industry but I believe that will come from from carbon pricing having an increasing impact on fares. Believe me, if fares go up 30% less people are going to fly. But I think that is the correct way to approach the problem over any form of restrictions. Why? Because restrictions merely reduce activity without any additional benefit. Carbon pricing means that those who do choose to fly are actually paying into the system. Instead of a vicious cycle ending in collapse, with carbon pricing we create a virtuous cycle where problems can be solved.

  25. Rob Honeycutt at 08:29 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    But... I would still hold that it's the wrong way to get to the goal of zero emissions.

    If you say to industry that they are only allowed to emit 90% of the carbon emissions they put out last year, that's a non-starter. The only way to achieve that is to cut every aspect of modern society by 10%. It means your starting year involves a massive economic contraction because the only way to achieve that is through less economic activity. A 10% contraction in one year would mean that nearly all investment monies would dry up. And then you'd be asking the same thing the following year. And the next.

    This is a recipe for major economic stagnation and potential worldwide economic collapse. That means there is no capital to invest in the solutions that can solve the problem. There is no capital to invest in wind farms or solar panels. No new electric vehicles. No new grid technologies. Everything hits the wall. End of game.

    Both the DDPP interim report and the AR5 RCP scenarios are saying we take the opposite approach. Bend the curve. Do what's actually achievable today, tomorrow and next year, and move the ball forward aggressively. 

    I would suggest the DDPP/IPCC approach has a far greater chance at success. 

  26. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Tom@6 — Yes, the CMIP3 v CMIP5 distinction is important.  Still, from a risk managment perspective, it's worth pointing out the potential scale of change we're talking about.

    Additionally, WGIII clarifies that this projection "includes, in addition, the carbon cycle and climate system uncertainties as represented by the MAGICC model..."  I'm not clear how this squares with the projections from WGI.  But it doesn't sound good...

  27. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    And perhaps you would like to respond to Roy Spencer on the idea that IPCC uses 1D models, which he thought "border on the ludicrous."

  28. Rob Honeycutt at 08:03 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    10% cuts per year, every year, starting now means zero carbon emissions by 2024. - you may want to reconsider that statement. 

    Yup. Brain fart on that one.

  29. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    Just curious then. As Chris says in his article, the 1D model is a teaching tool, not the understood phyics. He points to the papers which deal with the real complexities.

    Secondly, the criticized model does a remarkable job for predicting the radiation, including the spectral signature, measured at both TOA and ground surface. Can a Postma alternative do that?

  30. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Aunt Sally @3, due to the requirement that IPCC working groups issue their reports more or less simultaneiously, and due to the fact that working group 3 calculations on mitigation are dependent on working group 1 projections, working group 3 is currently based on CMIP3 projections of the older type (A1, B2 etc) scenarios.  Based on more current CMIP5 projections of the current RPC scenarios, the RCP 8.5 projections are for 2.6-4.8C above the 1986-2005 average.  That is the 5-95% confidence interval.  Consequently the 4 C "worst case scenario" mentioned in the article is an understatement, but not by as much as quoting the working group 3 figures would suggest.

  31. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    "your position that we need, "...10% cuts per year...' "

    That is Kevin Anderson's position. Hansen has similar figures. If you don't know that the IPCC documents are extremely watered down, political documents, there's not much use in further discussion. Your mathematical illiteracy also suggests that useful discussion has come to an end here.

  32. foolonthehill at 06:57 AM on 15 July 2014
    Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Non_Scientist

    Could you please tell me the location of Shangri-La?

    I do hope that you have found this fabled land - otherwise you will find your future to be rather disappointing considering your attitude towards the elderly.

  33. foolonthehill at 06:46 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Rob.

    10% cuts per year, every year, starting now means zero carbon emissions by 2024. - you may want to reconsider that statement.

    I have to agree with wili on many of his points. With regards to air travel, wili suggested that non essential travel be subject to 'very close scrutiny and huge doses of skepticism' - he never mentioned a specific moratorium. 

    Personally, I have made the decision to stop flying. Doing so makes a massive impact on my carbon footprint. Per capita. I am making a change that has a positive effect.

    This was not easy. I loved air travel - so much so that many years ago, I spent an inordinate amout of money on a transatlantic concorde journey. I felt the monetary sacrifice was worth it.

    Thanks to my 'no fly' decision, I will never again have the chance to embrace my siblings or ailing parents. Many years ago, I made the choice to emigrate to a land on the other side of the planet - I had always assumed I would be able to 'pop back home' to see them whenever I felt like it. In the light of my concerns about climate change, I now consider that this attitude is a flawed one. I now rely on Facetime or Skype for communicaton. I have no intention of forcing such a decision on anyone else but I also have no qualms about telling people of my choice and offering advice and opinions on their personal travel choices. This is my version of wili's 'scrutiny and skepticism'. As you can imagine, this does not go down well with many people. Fortunately, I have broad shoulders and a thick hide.

    I don't feel that my choice has forced me into a 'hair shirt' existance. As pompous as it may sound, it is a minor sacrifice I am making for the sake of future generations. I believe I will need to make many more such sacrifices.  Without such sacrifices are we not on a BAU track? Or do you see technology as our saviour?

     

     

  34. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    JPostma, suffice to say that if you really are trying to say that one-dimensional models are the reason scientists conclude the atmospheric greenhouse effect exists, which is what I read from statements such as

    So, there is no a-priori reason to postulate a radiative greenhouse effect any longer because the models which are typically used to do so, the 1-D models, don't actually have anything to say about the actual physics reality occuring on the surface.

    then you are wasting everybody's time, including yours, coming on here and posting nonsense.

  35. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Clearly, there is more going on here than someone misinformed.  At this point, it's just not credible that Murdoch 'doesn't know' what the vast preponderance of Scientific opinion is.  His inability to accept it indicates it conflicts with his core values.  Many conservatives, when pushed on CC, will same something like 'Earth is huge.  Humans are tiny.  We can't possible affect it'.  That's not a statement of fact: its a statement of a core value.  I believe people like Murdoch Need Earth to be huge, unlimited in extent.  It has to be a place that challenges us daily and forever and never, ever stops doing so.  People like Murdoch will say 'I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.'  What they mean is that the bear is the malevolent, all-powerful 'other' that challenges us to race.  It's mythic in power: it cannot 'run out'.  Hence, they can focus on winning the race and nothing else.  So, the race is between people, and the Earth is just an all-powerful environment that sets up the race.  Whatever else he is, Murdoch is a supreme competitor.  I think his ability to assume the malevolent environment extends in all directions, forever, gives him an edge over other competitors: he can focus all his energy on beating them.  He Needs Earth to be huge and unending.  It's a core value that motivates him, and conservatives like him, and CC inconveniently calls that into question.

     

  36. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Actually, Working Group III of the IPCC AR5 is quoting projections for 2100 GAT rise as much as 7.8º C (above 1850-1900 baseline), or about 7.2ºC above 2000 baseline.  See, for example, Table SPM.1 in the Summary for Policymakers.  Make sure to read footnote 7...

     

  37. Rob Honeycutt at 05:05 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    wili... Reading through some of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) materials, I'm just not seeing anything that suggests what you're saying. The most agressive RCP scenario states,

    RCP2.6 assumes 'aggressive' mitigation strategies that cause global greenhouse gas emissions to start decreasing after about a decade and to reach near zero levels around 60 years from now. This scenario is unlikely to exceed a 2°C increase in global mean temperature since pre-industrial times.

    [My emphasis]

    And if you look at the charts for RCP2.6, even aggressive mitigation still includes putting as much carbon into the atmosphere as we've burned so far since the industrial revolution (see page 15 here). 

    I don't see this agreeing with your position that we need, "...10% cuts per year every year starting right now (even this is to have a chance to stay within 2 degrees C, which he admits is far too high)."

    Think about it... 10% cuts per year, every year, starting now means zero carbon emissions by 2024. That's a completely irrational scenario. It's a non-starter.

  38. Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    On the horrors of the average per capita contributions to AGW for individual countries, a new paper by Ward and Mahowald plots per-capita graphs of  cumulative CO2(e) emissions against GDP with the contribution of each country to temperature rise over various periods marked as bubble size on different graphs. While Australia isn't labelled, being one of the not-very-numerous 'other' countries, it isn't hard to decide which bubble is Australia (ie the light blue bubble 'in transit' over the US bubble).

  39. Dikran Marsupial at 03:52 AM on 15 July 2014
    Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2

    JPostma I would also advise discussing one issue at a time.  Very few of us are able to carry more than one conversation at a time and cover the material in sufficient depth to reach the truth, so you are more likely to do yourself justice by following each issue to its conclusion, rather than starting multiple discussions and running out of energy to follow them up properly.

  40. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    A hopefully final clarification:  the 1-D, one-layer model is not "my" model, it is "their" model, and I've copied it directly with references as to source.

    "They" use it to justify and explain the origin of the greenhouse effect, but as we have seen, no such model can actually produce anything corresponding to reality for the simple fact that it has nothing to do with reality.  You can't "go around saying" that the solar input is only -18C at the surface, and then create some postulates based on that, because the solar input factually isn't that and because if it were that it wouldn't reproduce otherwise known physics at the surface.

    Notably, adding more atmospheric layers to such a 1-D model doesn't actually correct the mistake: the 1-D model and the -18C solar input is the mistake.  The geometry is wrong and the energy levels are wrong.  Any postulates which come from such a model will likewise be mistaken, by heredity.

    So, there is no a-priori reason to postulate a radiative greenhouse effect any longer because the models which are typically used to do so, the 1-D models, don't actually have anything to say about the actual physics reality occuring on the surface.  This has been partially admitted here by C.C. and other commentators.  Thus, is there another method to postulate a raditive greenhouse effect, without referring back to the false physicsof the 1-D models?  Then again, one should also ask why we would continue to assume in a-priori that very postulate that originates in those false models.  Why continue trying to justify it if the premises of its original origin has been discarded?  That goes beyond the remit of science and into something else.

  41. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2

    Thanks Rob...got it.

  42. Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    The army has landed and is storming the cities. You are still calling for negotiations with the enemy, something that may have seemed reasonable a bit earlier, but is now essentially irrelevant to the current situation.

    Kevin Anderson calls for 10% cuts per year every year starting right now (even this is to have a chance to stay within 2 degrees C, which he admits is far too high). Hansen has similar numbers. If you think we can get there through innovation and conservation, well, I'd like to see your numbers. He certainly doesn't, and I'd say he knows a bit more about it than either of us.

    I'll be busy the rest of the day, and perhaps longer, so might not be able to get back to your posts soon. It's been informative chatting with you, though. Thanks.--Wili

  43. Rob Honeycutt at 02:43 AM on 15 July 2014
    Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2

    JPostma... Better to keep your comments limited to one thread, or at least related to the specific discussion points of each article. Everyone follows the consolidated comments thread (found on the menu bar) so no one will miss what you're saying.

  44. Rob Honeycutt at 02:37 AM on 15 July 2014
    Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon

    Wili...  We are certainly not in disagreement on the realities of AGW. We share the exact same concerns. I agree that we are in the process of creating a mass extinction event. I agree with Schmidt and Hansen that we "should not" be putting any more CO2 into the atmosphere. 

    The challenge is how to get there. And, the additional challenge is, how to get there in a way that minimizes human suffering and preserves natural systems. This is where I think we disagree.

    I believe it is extremely important to move forward, not backward. Pricing carbon is moving forward because it will spur innovation. It will help to alter consumer behavior toward carbon-free solutions. Creating limitations on travel is moving backward. It acts to restrict people's capacity to do the things they need to do in order to create solutions. It's a command and control system, and that brings up additional challenges in terms of how the limitations get applied. How do you decide what is acceptable travel and what is not? And more importantly, who makes those decisions and how? That's command and control. That's what militaries do well. 

    I believe the path to achieving the goals that we both agree on is with a well regulated market system. That's what carbon pricing is. That's what the EPA is. I would note that Dr. Hansen has long stumped for a revenue neutral carbon tax. Tax and dividend. 

    Everything I'm reading these days is saying the goal is to get to zero emissions by 2050 in order to have a chance to avoid crossing the 2C threshold. That's an extremely agressive goal and has huge challenges. The most important element on achieving these goals lay in just bending the curve on the emissions path. There's a ton of low hanging fruit to get that going. Efficiency is the cheapest, easiest way to do that. Getting carbon priced ASAP is also extremely important but has political obstacles. Investment in new clean technologies are aggressively under way. Investing in expansion of wind and solar are also happening. 

    You have to remember, BAU is the worst case scenario. That's what happens if we can't manage to do anything to solve the problem. There clearly are people listening to that message. There clearly are a lot of people out there who are working on solutions. I think you're going to be surprized at the innovations that start coming to market over the coming decades. Even in aviation.

  45. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2

    I think my repeated comments on this OP are being removed because they're just copies from the "Postma1" article.

    Hence, please go see the "Postma1" article for my comments on this:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html

    starting here:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html#105276

  46. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    Anyway, lastly, as far as just getting the actual vertical-column energy behaviour correct, setting aside the global climate so that we can just get the fundamentals correct (which of course the 1-D flat Earth models do not), then we need to go the actual equations for heat flow in a column, which would look like this:

    Heat PDE

    One could model down to, say, ~10 meters where the soil temperature is static, up through the surface, and through to several hunfred meters in altitude where the air temperatre is static.  So, all parameters such as density and thermal capacity would be functions of x, Q is a forcing term which would be supplied by sunlight modelled in real time (not averaged!). I don't think there would be a Q from the atmosphere since the atmosphere isn't actually a source of energy - there's no combustion, fission/fusion, or anything occuring in the atmosphere that actually produces heat.  You would need to track the energy content to get the latent heat levels, latent heat release, and latent heat "supply", and things like that, but it could be done.  It would be the correct way to do it at least.  All numerically since there would be no analytical solutions with everything as a function of x etc.

    Interesting thing though about proper heat flow equations like this, is that temperature is never induced upwards in the direction from cold to hot at the hotter end - heat only flows from hot to cold and only cold becomes warmer from hot, i.e. hot doesn't get warmer from cold.  Of course, that gets rid of a bunch of really bad arguments as to what people think the "greenhouse effect" is.  Well, at this point I think it is pretty clear that there is no radiation greenhouse effect - there is just a "latent heat temperature retention effect", and a "temperature gradient effect".

     

     

  47. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    That paper has some good science in it, but I also go on about "philosophy" and "principles" and all this stuff that gets too distracting for a basic science paper.

    But the basic science is there: the radiative surface is not the ground surface, the average of the system should not be found at the bottom, need to account for latent heat, no "higher maximum temperature than maximum insolation" is empirically found. And whatever else I'm forgetting at the moment.

  48. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    See this paper:

    A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect

  49. Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

    So, yes, it is the simple 1-D "energy model" which I am criticizing.  I criticize it because it doesn't correspond to reality (for the simple fact that the Earth isn't flat), and so, at the very least it is a bad thing to teach people because it teaches invalid mathematical techniques pretending to be physics, and at worst, the greenhouse effect concept really is based on it.

    The basic process in these models is to average the solar energy over the entire surface of the planet, thus "destroying" any factors for time and geometry.  Mathematically, this process creates a flat geometry with a solar input at -18C.

    Then the reasoning goes: If solar input is only -18C but the surface is warmer than that, then something else, the atmosphere, must be adding/trapping heat, to bring up the temperature to +15C.  This "raising of the temperature" is the greenhouse effect.

    So, you have the greenhouse effect postulated because solar input is only -18C, while the surface temperature is actually +15C.

    The problem is that the solar input is not actually -18C, and the Earth shouldn't be modelled as flat (because it isn't flat), and in physics it is wrong to mathematically "destroy" physical factors such as rotation and geometry.

    To make the point most simply: solar input at -18C does not reperoduce the physics at the surface that we actually see being induced by sunlight.  Such as, melting ice to water, which requires sunlight input with a flux corresponding to at least 0C, and also mass-evaporation of water to water vapor to create cumulonimbus and other types of clouds, etc, wich requires solar input at a still much higher temperature.  And scalding-hot sidewalks, hot beach sand, and things like that.

    So, these facts being self-evident, we really need to appreciate that these 1-D energy models aren't saying much about the actual physics at the surface at all.  In fact, the basic postulate where we invent the greenhouse effect to create higher temperatures can't really be accepted anymore at all.  The sunlight is creating temperatures that are actually much, much higher than +15C, let alone -18C.  

    And so we also must consider the latent heat of liquid and vaporous water: sunlight is self-evidently more than powerful enough to breach those barriers and fill up those latent heat "reservoirs", and so what happens when those heat energy reservoirs drain back out overnight and at the poles?  Well, I think it's obvious: they're going to keep the surface warmer by preventing it from dropping in temperature before those reservoirs drain out.  However, those heat reservoirs never actually drain out because they're constantly being replenished.  Hence, latent heat is constantly keeping the temperature warmer than otherwise.

    As far as a very simple average of giving the Earth's "effective blackbody temperature", this is fine: 255K, for 240 W/m^2 output.  But the Earth has an atmosphere and only humns think the ground surface is the surface, whereas radiation will find a different surface depending on emissivity, absorption, scattering, etc etc., and so this temperature of 255K should not be expected to be found at the ground surface in the first place.  The atmosphere is itself a/the surface, if you're radiation.

    So, just considering a simple mathematical fact, that the average of a sequentially distributed metric will be found not at either extremity of the distribution, but somehwere inside it, somewhere middlish, then, the average temperature of the Earth will not be found either at the top of the atmosphere, or at the bottom of the atmosphere, but, somewhere between those.  Given that really basic energy equations show that the atmosphere naturally has a temperature gradient (the -g/Cp thing), then, once again we find ourselves in a position where the -18C average should never have been assumed to be found at the ground surface (nor at the top of atmosphere), thus rendering the resulting postulate of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, to make up the difference, superfluous.

  50. Non-Scientist at 01:26 AM on 15 July 2014
    Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem

    Rupert Murdoch is something like 850 years old. At his age, one does not absorb new information or evaluate new ideas, so this is not a surprise. 

    I've had this experience often with people over a certain age; offer information which contradicts what they want to believe and you are met with blank incomprehension, silence, or their repeating whatever they believed when they were 35.  The more articulate will respond with a clever evasion or dismissal, but with 90% of them, rationally considering, weighing and evaluating new information is not ever going to happen.

Prev  704  705  706  707  708  709  710  711  712  713  714  715  716  717  718  719  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us