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.

Comment Search Results

Search for climate change

Comments matching the search climate change:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later

MA Rodger at 16:48 PM on 19 May, 2026

Evan @16,
I think you should perhaps have chosen a couple of different words for your comment.

The Keeling Curve is not "accelerating", at least not at the present. It is still rising but at a roughly constant rate. The Keeling Curve inherits a strong set of wobbles from ENSO etc so establishing an absence of acceleration over a period of just a decade is not entirely definative but the anthropogenic emissions (which cannot be so easily measured) do suggest such an absence of acceleration should be observed.

The second word (or phrase) I'd not use in the manner you do is "climate scientists" who are not responsible for the plan to reach net-zero and are certainly not saying "we are making great progress" towards net-zero. There are likely a bunch of folk who could be called "scientists" or "technologists" who are responsible for showing how to implement net-zero but generally it is politicians who have the power to make the decisions on the actual implementation.

Back forty years ago the clmate scientists were asking for a 50% cut in emissions by 2050. WIth the other 50% of our emissions being drawn down into ocean & biosphere, a 50% cut would stabalise atmospheic CO2, at least for a while.

But thirty years ago the climate scientists revised the target to an 80% cut by 2050 because that base level of annual emissions had risen rather than fallen and the larger cut in the new higher level would result in roughly the same cumulative emissions by 2050. And if you listened to those "clmate scientits" there was also talk of emissions having to peak by 2020.

The position was then revised again , the target calling for net-zero by 2050. This was due to two developments. (1) The big rise in emissions thro' the 2000s and (2) the changing understanding of what is a safe AGW temperature rise, this being revised down from +2.0ºC to +1.5ºC. Hey, we don't want Greenland starting to melt down, do we?
Now the concept of "peak by 2020" was always a bit vague. Yes we have 'plateaued' by 2020. But today six years later there is no sign that that 'plateau' is being followed by the decline which would convert that 'plateau' into a 'peak'. Climate scientists did nail-down this emissions limit with the carbon budget. And ther 2016 budget allows the calculation which showed that if emissions 'pateaued' (as they did) we would burn thro' that budget by 2021 (for a 66% chance of dodging +1.5C) or by 2025 (for a 50% chance). 2016 carbon budget

However climate scientists did not throw in the towel but re-rigged the budget to include a big period of net-negative emissions post net-zero. My scaling of the size of this net-negative a while back suggested it would involve the anthropogenic draw-down of all our emissions made after 2008, this achieved over a century-&-a-half. This 'fix' gave another decades-worth of the 'plateaued' emissions added to the budget. And for the 66% chance, we are halfway thro' that extra time and still 'plateauing'.

Now my version of the argument that we are in the process of falling off the cliff is not based on the continued 'plateauing'. That situation could change rapidly with the increasing deployment of renewables and energy efficiency measures. But what I see as the problem is that deployment. Where is it?

I'm a political person and hear politicians of a different stripe mouthing off about impressive levels of renewable 'energy'. One of the stories they employ uses impressive 'electricity' numbers not lac-lustre 'total energy' numbers. That is politicians (who are usually never the sharpest tool in the box) spreading propaganda.
The other propagandist number they fight to take credit-for here in UK is the national territorial emissions. These are impressive-sounding in UK. Emissions halved since 1990. Or they are lower than any time since 1880. And the numbers are even better if you use 'per capita' figures. Waving these numbers is incredibly deceptive. UK was historically a massive emitter so reductions are't difficult to achieve. Much of the reduction in national emissions which UK politicians try to take credit has been achieved by exporting manufacturing. And the other big factor is converting from coal to gas.

Globally things are quite desparate. The graphic below shows primary energy from fossil fuel is still increasing. This doesn't reflect emissions because it is the coal-to-gas thing again. Gas is no solution for net-zero emissions. Of the six/seven non-fossil-fuel energy sources in the graph below, hydro and nuclear are non-scalable so also not the solution. The remaining three are none-of-them demonstrating an exponential growth which we need to see. Solar has the most promising scalability and give it a decade we could suddenly see that kicking-in alongside hydrogen and ammonia being used for energy storeage/transportation and more. But the massive works to get that all done are not evident. Discussion of plans for such massive works are not evident. And the clock is ticking. Primary energy by source to 2024

So we may not be in free-fall off the cliff but we have yet to begin thinking about getting a proper grip to stop ourselves sliding down the slippery slope above that cliff.

A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later

nigelj at 08:00 AM on 17 May, 2026

Evan @13, thanks for your comments. I feel there is some grounds for some limited optimism that we have made real progress with the climate issue. You correctly analyse the keeling curve that theres no sign of the keeling curve flattening off. Its depressing to be sure. However I think its hard to see a change, because we haven't done enough yet to make an impact that would appear above the noise in the system.

And I would contend its highly likely that the building of renewables has reduced the rate of growth of the keeling curve. Putting it another way, but for renewables total atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be higher than currently. Obviously we cant be certain of this, but basic evidence and logic points that way.

So as I previously suggested, I think we have some grounds for limited optimism, and should spread a message that we are making some progress but its not nearly enough.

I agree that some commentators over hype the progress we have made. That is definitely neither accurate or helpful. But if we scare people too much so that the problem looks huge and insurmountable, this will discourage climate action.

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

Prove we are smart @14

"Nigelj@11, I would rather scare them awake than a little uncomfortably numb."

That has generally been my preference. But if you scare people too much, especially if you exaggerate the dangers, or spread a message we are doomed, then you discourage people form taking any climate action.

If I felt we really were doomed, I would say so, and obviously theres no point promoting action to mitigate the problem. We would be stuck purely with adaptation. But I do have some limited optimism we have made a difference, and can make more of a difference. Therefore I think the message should be we have made some progress but not enough, and if we dont make more progress the outcomes will be very serious, etc,etc.

A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later

Evan at 19:55 PM on 15 May, 2026

Prove we are smart & Nigel, I have lost some long posts, but I don't think it is the word limit. What happened to me is that I exceded a time limit after which I had to log in again. I've learned to copy the post into the copy buffer just in case I lose it.

Nigel@11, optimism without a basis for the optimism is a false hope. It may make you feel good, but will do nothing for your children. And making people feel like we're making progress when we're not could be counter-productive, if it puts them to sleep.

At some point we have to accept that things will continue to worsen, and we need to put time and effort into preparing society for what is coming. For me the contrast could not be worse than an administration who says climate change is a hoax, and so many climate scientists who say we are making great progress reighning in emissions.

All the while the Keeling curve accelerates upwards at a horifying rate.

Nigel, I am a positive, happy person. But I am also a research engineer. And research engineers live and die by analyzing data and coming to honest conclusions about what the trends say.

But thanks for your optimism. I hope for the world's sake that I am wrong.

A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later

prove we are smart at 09:02 AM on 14 May, 2026

Thanks Evan, we have to turn a blind eye to so,so much and hearing the renewable winning conversions and those wonderful new ev's, we are surely getting there! We know green washing is used to good effect to subdue the masses. The system must be protected by any means. I understand yours/mine frustration. Sometimes my opinion is we really are just kicking the can down the road-minus the lid, which we have recycled. We have become so desentisized and I thought the internet would enlighten and make people less insular, ha.

I know governments have rarely but deperately forced their citizens into new systems and this would surely? lead to riots for the obvious reasons, however for interest sake, I asked this question,

Should the governments be fixing climate change by enacting themselves a war powers act?
"Short answer:
Invoking war‑powers–style authority to fight climate change is one of the most extreme governance models available. It’s been proposed by some scholars, rejected by others, and sits at the uncomfortable intersection of democratic legitimacy, emergency politics, and planetary risk. Whether governments should do it depends on how you weigh speed vs. democracy, risk vs. rights, and effectiveness vs. legitimacy. You should confirm any political information with trusted sources.

Below is a structured, evidence‑based breakdown tailored to the way you like to think — analytically, comparatively, and with attention to systems.

???? 1. What a “war powers” approach would actually mean
A war‑powers framework typically includes:

Centralised executive authority

Rapid mobilisation of resources

Suspension or bypassing of normal legislative processes

Compulsory measures (rationing, industrial direction, emergency procurement)

Nationalisation or commandeering of key industries

Applied to climate change, this could look like:

Mandated phase‑out schedules for fossil fuels

Forced industrial conversion (e.g., coal plants → grid storage)

Rationing of high‑emissions activities

Emergency funding for renewables, grid upgrades, and adaptation

Restrictions on certain products or sectors

This is not hypothetical — during WWII, the US, UK, and Australia all used similar mechanisms to reshape entire economies within months.

????️ 2. Why some argue it is justified
These arguments come from climate scientists, political theorists, and risk scholars:

A. Climate change is a slow‑moving existential threat
The IPCC describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” that destabilises food systems, water security, and geopolitics.

Several planetary boundaries — including climate, biosphere integrity, and biogeochemical flows — are already breached. * my add-aren't 7 of these 9 boundaries been already breached? *

B. Normal democratic processes are too slow
Emissions reductions require structural change across energy, transport, agriculture, and industry.

Legislative cycles and partisan gridlock often delay action for decades.

C. Emergency powers have precedent for non‑military crises
Bushfires, pandemics, and natural disasters already trigger emergency powers.

Some argue climate change is simply a long-duration disaster.

D. The cost of inaction is higher than the cost of emergency mobilisation
Delayed mitigation increases long‑term economic damage, displacement, and adaptation costs.

???? 3. Why others argue it would be dangerous
These concerns come from constitutional scholars, civil liberties groups, and political scientists:

A. Emergency powers tend to expand and linger
Historically, once governments acquire extraordinary powers, they rarely give them back quickly.

B. Risk of democratic erosion
Concentrated executive authority can weaken checks and balances.

Climate policy could become politicised as “authoritarian environmentalism”.

C. Public backlash
Forced measures without democratic consent can trigger resistance, populist backlash, or destabilisation.

Climate action requires social legitimacy to endure across decades.

D. Effectiveness is not guaranteed
Command‑and‑control economies can misallocate resources.

Market‑based and regulatory approaches often outperform coercive ones when well‑designed.

⚖️ 4. The middle ground: “Emergency governance without authoritarian drift”
Some scholars propose hybrid models:

Climate emergency declarations with targeted powers

Fast‑track permitting for renewable infrastructure

Mandatory national carbon budgets

Independent climate authorities (like central banks for emissions)

Crisis‑style industrial policy without suspending civil liberties

This approach aims to capture the speed of emergency mobilisation without the risks of war‑powers centralisation.

???? 5. The real tension: planetary boundaries vs. political boundaries
Your question hits the core dilemma of 21st‑century governance:

Can democratic systems act fast enough to stay within planetary boundaries?

If the answer is “no”, societies face a choice:

Transform democracy to act faster, or

Accept higher climate risk, or

Adopt emergency‑style governance, or

Invent new institutions that preserve rights while accelerating action

There is no consensus — only trade‑offs.

???? 6. Where this leaves your question
Should governments do it?
Different perspectives exist:

Some argue yes, because the climate crisis is existential and time‑critical.

Others argue no, because emergency powers risk democratic backsliding.

Most serious scholars argue for a hybrid, where governments adopt emergency‑level mobilisation within democratic constraints.

Ultimately, the answer depends on your weighting of:

Urgency

Legitimacy

Risk tolerance

Trust in institutions"

In my opinion number 4 is the go but...

A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later

Evan at 08:50 AM on 14 May, 2026

Prove we are smart, I like the way you think, and concur with much of what you've written, especially the concept of a wartime economy mindset to turn things around.

One of the best examples of what a wartime economy can do is typified by how fast the US built liberty transport ships. These were ships to carry cargo to Europe. Whereas typical liberty ships took a month to complete, the SS Robert E. Peary was built in a little over 4 and half days, to demonstrate the manufacturing might of the US.

We have the ability to make a difference, and what you suggest about the mentality of a wartime economy makes sense, except that a wartime economy is typically tolerated by a motivated public (in WWII we were motivated by the attack on Pearl Harbor) for a short time, but tackling climate change requires a much, much longer time span. I question whether we could convince the public to maintain such a mindset for the length of time required.

But I like many of your ideas!

A look back at ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ 20 years later

prove we are smart at 07:20 AM on 14 May, 2026