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 planets

Comments matching the search planets:

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

Climate - the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths!

nigelj at 04:48 AM on 1 April, 2024

Two Dog @41

"Finally, on the "cherry picking" of the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think its a fair point to pick 30 years out of 150 in this case. Indeed, the argument above is, as I understand it, that the main and dominant factor in the current warming is human GHG emissions. For that theory to hold, in any period where GHG emissions are increasing year on year, then only a few years "blip" in warming must presumably call the theory into question? (unless we can find another new and temporary factor like air pollution)"

The reason the temperature record has "blips" and is not a smooth line is because the trend is shaped by a combination of natural and human factors that have different effects. However the overall trend since the 1970s is warming. The known natural cycles and infuences can explain the short term blips of a couple of years or so, (eg el ninos) but not the 50 year overall warming trend since the 1970s. Sure there may be some undiscovered natural cycle that expalins the warming, but its very unlikely with chances of something like one in a million. And it would require falsifying the greenhouse effect which nobody has been able to do. Want to gamble the planets future on all that?

The flat period of temperatures around 1940- 1977, (or as OPOF points out it was really a period of reduced warming) coincides with the cooling effect of industrial aerosols during the period as CB points out. This is the period when acid rain emerged as a problem until these aerosols were filtered out in the 1980s.

However the flat period mid last century also coincided with a cool phase of the PDO cycle (an ocean cycle), a preponderance of weak el ninos, and flat solar activity after 1950 and a higher than normal level of volcanic activity. Literally all the natural factors were in a flat or cooling phase. In addition atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were not as high as presently, so it was easier for the other factors to suppress anthropogenic warming.

So for me this is all an adequate explanation of why temperatures were subdued in the middle of last century. Just my two cents worth. Not a scientist but I've followed the issues for years.

Other planets are warming

One Planet Only Forever at 13:52 PM on 7 February, 2024

I recommend a minor update to the first sentence of last paragraph of "Further Details".

"For lots of useful information about Pluto and the other dwarf planets, NASA has a useful resource on its website, including a link to Pluto: Facts."

And some interesting Pluto: Facts are quoted below:

Pluto's 248-year-long, oval-shaped orbit can take it as far as 49.3 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun, and as close as 30 AU. (One AU is the mean distance between Earth and the Sun: about 93 million miles or 150 million kilometers.)

From 1979 to 1999, Pluto was near perihelion, when it is closest to the Sun. During this time, Pluto was actually closer to the Sun than Neptune.

When Pluto is close to the Sun, its surface ices sublimate (changing directly from solid to gas) and rise to temporarily form a thin atmosphere.

So, maybe Pluto would appear to warm rapidly during that orbit event ... but that would explain things in ways that climate science deniers, and the related delayers of harm reduction, would resist learning from.

At a glance - Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?

nigelj at 05:04 AM on 7 December, 2023

"By the end of that century, Eunice Foote and John Tyndall had proved him quite correct through their experiments with various gases..."

Exactly so. It might be good to include a brief statement about how the experiments worked (with canisters of CO2 exposed to a radiant heat source and measurements taken?). I say this because this is really the crucial foundation of things, along with observations of the planets climates and deducations from that.

In order to make sense of the whole complicated issue as a non expert, I have always done this. It seems to we know for a fact from laboratory experiments that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it (simplifying) absorbs heat while oxygen and nitrogen etc,etc do not. Therefore if you add even very, very small quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, even one single molecule, it must absorb heat and thus have at least some warming effect on the atmosphere, and the issue is entirely about how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and what warming effect results in total. This is simple logic.

Arrhenius did some calculations in the 1890s I dont fully understand but they seem robust as they made accurate predictions about warming in the 20th century. While I generally dont like assumptions, it seems safe to assume our current climate calculations are more sophisticated. So I see no need to be scepetical any longer about the greenhouse effect, and the proclamations in the climate myth box that the greenhouse effect contradicts so called physical laws is just ignorance or made up nonsense.

Cranky Uncle: a game building resilience against climate misinformation

peppers at 21:19 PM on 16 June, 2023

I have an ex wife who a year or so later, was 'fond' of me. I have an adversion to the word now!

How do we reconcile these 2 premises:

1. Characterizing another who does not conclude at this juncture, as; someone who is fond of misunderstanding climate science matters.
2. Oxford Dictionary; The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained (the definition of Science bearing no mention of conclusion, and also applies the inference that a conclusion would be an impediment to the process of science).
I dont think you mean to have a conflict with others still observing and testing theories.

Milgram's Six Degrees of Separation famously said that a butterfly can flap its wings in Peking, and in Central Park, you get rain instead of sunshine. As opposed to being settled, you cannot operate a scientific understanding without first not knowing. If you are steering to a conclusion, thats not science nor even close.

To add a bit more meat to the above poetic insertion, I'd like to add 2 observations. On November 22nd 2022 the world hit 8 billion, having increased exactly at the pace and curve of the famous hockey stick graph from 1 billion in the same time span. For a discussion about the planets ability to handle such a change, the clouds and atmosphere contain all the energy and ability to moderate that. However it is impossible to model any of it.

I say we need to observe, experiment and add theories to our incomplete knowledge of our world and of the solar system. More warmth, more moisture, more clouds, more albedo, etc.

Theories do not require immediate citations or proofing, however that would be the next thing sought. For the sake of theory ( not a belief nor desiring antagonizing), if we stay to any natural progression of things, the increase of our species having caused changes, if the natural offset were more warmth, moisture, cloud cover and albedo to offset this, are we interferring with natures response just because we would not want a warmer world, more weather, higher coastlines, etc.?

There is no consensus

Albert at 09:46 AM on 20 April, 2023

"Such low ECS figures would mean the earth's climate should be almost perfectly stable over geologic time (no glacial-interglacial cycles) and we know that's not true."

Rob, believe it or not there are other factors that effect global temperature like, the sun, solar winds, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, transportation and retention and expulsion of ocean heat, volcanic activity above and below water, aerosols, clouds, gravitational pull of other planets, milankovitcg cycles, earth rotation wobble, shifting of poles, etc.

Our current warming cycle started around 1700 as The little ice age peaked negatively and we have been warming sporadically ever since.

its all perfectly normal with many historical precedents in the Holocene and previous interglacials.

1000 years ago Vikings colonised and farmed parts of Greenland that are still permafrost today. How can this be unless Greenland was far hotter than today. etc Etc etc.

But Michael Mann showed us in his model that the medieval warm period and little ice age never existed so all those thousands of scientists that proved they did exist must be wrong.

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

Evan at 06:37 AM on 28 February, 2023

Bob@15, I've been found out. :-)

You are correct that I am simply trying to get people to appreciate the unbelievably delicate balance that defines many of our natural systems.

That planets 100's of millions of miles away can cause sea-level change (by whatever mechanism) on the order of 120m (400') is astounding!

2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

ubrew12 at 04:34 AM on 27 February, 2023

Re Evans@3. The gravitational pull of all solar system objects, on Earths surface, relative to the moon is: Moon 1, Sun 0.4, Venus 6E-5, Jupiter 3E-6, Mercury 4E-7, Saturn 2E-7, Mars 5E-8, Uranus 3E-9, and Neptune 8E-10.

2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

scvblwxq1 at 03:34 AM on 27 October, 2022

The Quaternary Glaciation has two main phases. There is the phase when the Earth's orbit is almost circular like today and it is warmer and there is the phase where the Earth's orbit is more elliptical and it gets less sunlight and is colder. When it is warmer the oceans release more CO2, like today, and when it is colder the oceans absorb more CO2. The colder phase lasts about 90,000 year and the warmer phase lasts about 90,000 years for a total of about 100,000 years for each complete cycle. The Earth's orbit varies like this because of the gravational pull of Jupiter, although the other planets have some effect. This is from Wikipedia, mainly.

2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38

scvblwxq1 at 05:42 AM on 26 September, 2022

The climate that the Earths is in is a long-term ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation or fifth ice age. The climate of the Earth alternates between normal temperatures and ice ages. The cause is the orbit of the Earth changes from a near circle like the present, and it is warmer, but not warm enough to melt all of the natural ice, to a slight ellipse. It then receives much less sunlight and the glaciers grow and advance and that ususally lasts about 90,000 years. The warm, near circular, time periods last about 10,000 years. This is all because of the pull of the other planets, mainly Jupiter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Welcome to Skeptical Science

justice4all at 07:13 AM on 13 September, 2022

As global temperatures rise it becomes more and more apparent that the reduction of our carbon footprint is essential for the planets survival. Temperatures are trending upward due to all the excess carbon in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels and deforestation is also aiding in the extra global carbon output. Forest are mother nature’s carbon filter, but due to forest loss the planet cant keep up. I feel as a society we are capable of amazing feats of science. We need to focus the worlds greatest minds to build and develop atmospheric filters to manually reduce the amounts of carbon in our atmosphere. We are responsible for the extra gasses so we should do our best to find a solution. Thankfully the technology to do this is being developed currently. Just outside Zurich, more than a dozen massive fans are fast at work, cleaning the air of carbon dioxide. So-called direct air capture is the leading edge of what could become the largest environmental industry aimed at saving the planet. The company behind it, Climeworks, is one of the few offering the technology to basically vacuum the atmosphere of carbon. The plant in Switzerland removes about 900 tons of carbon dioxide per year, according to Climeworks policy chief Chris Beuttler. To put it in perspective, globally we are emitting 40 billion tons.

DianaOlick. (2021, July 29). These companies are sucking carbon out of the atmosphere - and investors are piling in. CNBC. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/these-companies-are-sucking-carbon-from-the-atmosphere.html

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #28 2022

One Planet Only Forever at 08:15 AM on 15 July, 2022

“Communication of solar geoengineering science: Forms, examples, and explanation of skewing” is interesting with some points meriting some consideration. I have not thoroughly read the item. But I have read enough to make the following critical observations (making no mention of points I consider worthy of consideration). I will carefully read the entire document to see if my initial impressions presented below need to be revised.

1. The author appears to have sought out examples that fit their desired conclusions. Then they played some games to get a 'best fit'. They provide no examples of the opposite of the type of examples they chose to focus on.

2. The author appears to be unaware that there is an important distinction between solar radiation modification (SRM) and medical treatments (they make many subjective comparisons between SRM and medical treatments - like "This important distinction can be clarified by analogy. Despite its own risks and negative side effects, chemotherapy is sometimes used to treat cancer."). Most medical treatments by something like:

initial rigorous testing on non-humans,

if the non-human treatment passes that initial testing then testing is done on a small number of carefully selected humans,

if that testing is passed then testing is done on a larger and broader population,

if that testing is passed then testing is done on an even larger and broader population.

And medical treatment tests are often done for a long periods of time to potentially discover unanticipated long-term consequences. COVID-19 vaccine testing was an exception to the longer-term testing of other medical treatments because of the clear evidence of the risk of significant harm done by COVID-19 infections.

There do not appear to be any non-planetary objects to meaningfully experiment SRM on. There are not hundreds of planets to have the second testing run on. There are not thousands of planets to have subsequent testing done on. There is this only one planet that, without humans messing it up by behaving like an asteroid, should be habitable for humanity for 10s of millions of years.

It is absurd to suggest that it is acceptable to run a global experiment on the planet. It is especially absurd to suggest the ‘need for, and benefit of, an SRM global experiment’ because leaders will not do what needs to be done (disappoint a portion of the global population that believes it is superior). Global Leadership needs to rapidly end the continued forcing of CO2 and other ghgs into the atmosphere )(which is an unacceptable global experiment that is not ‘mitigated’ by additional global scale experimentation).

3. The conclusions by the author regarding reasons for concern about how scientific presentations on SRM may be interpreted fails to mention the potential for political leaders (policy-makers) to be tempted to consider the potential for SRM to be a ‘solution’. The author appears to be unaware that some policy-makers have already exhibited a willingness to seek excuses for increasing harm to be done to future generations by the global leadership of the current generation failing to effectively reduce the harm being done. Some political game players may even selfishly consider it acceptable to delay the reduction of harm done, do more harm, because ‘future generations should be able to develop and use SRM’.

That said, climate science is complex. And the diversity of action plans in response to the undeniable harm being done deserve consideration - never losing focus on the need to limit the harm done, and never forgetting how unexpectedly harmful human actions can be.

Pollution's Staggering Death-toll

peppers at 01:54 AM on 9 June, 2022

Climate change is about the planets temp. rise, and pollution is only vaguely related. Not less important.

Addressing the Climate Crisis: ~~Evolution or~~ Revolution¹

nigelj at 10:42 AM on 9 March, 2022

Evan. I've read Flannerys excellent book.

Indeed we cant persist in persuing perpetual growth for two reasons:

Firstly I already pointed out @37 "Degrowth is also obviously inevitable to some degree sooner or later, because the planets resources are finite and there is huge population pressure on them. "

The fact that economic growth ( and also population growth ) has to slow down and stop eventually is obvious. It will be forced to slow down and stop by circumstances of rising costs of mineral resource extraction and demographic changes. Its not going to happen tomorrow but it will probably happen on multi decades to century timescales.

Secondly our generation is essentially eating all the cheese and not leaving much for future generations. Its an ethical issue. I believe we should stop economic growth in a deliberative way to at least give future generations a better resource base to use.

But the devil is in the detail. If we stop growth too rapidly we 1) compromise our own lives 2) lock poor countries into a low quality state of development and deprive them of things we have, 2) risk causing a massive destbilisation of our own economies.

Economic growth has to be phased down carefully.

The same might all apply to population growth. A smaller global population would obviously improve all environmental problems ( various studies suggest that from 2 billion - 5 billion people is ideal). But if population shrinks too fast you get a huge bulge of dependent elderly people and not enough young people to support them.

I believe these are hard realities that cannot be simply ignored.

And more devils in the detail. Even if we stop economic growth in a few decades, future generations will still run out of some non renewable resources. Remember we are talking about possibly 9 billion people before population size stabilises and starts to fall. So all we are doing by stopping economic growth is delaying the inevitable shortages, and such shortages are unlikely to be catastrophic. It will just force people back to simpler lifestyles.

Therfore its complicated, and we have to weigh up carefully the impacts on us and future generations and avoid kneejerk reactions dismissive of the resource problems, or the other extreme of suggesting we should panic and immeidately run off and join a commune and embrace hair shirt lifestyles.

I believe much of it comes down to doing things that are commonsense: For example adopting a circular recycling economy, reducing waste, prioritising "family planning", not being extravagent consumers, etc,etc. But adopting a "hair shirt" very low tech. lifestyle is definitely not going to be on my radar, because it doesn't make a lot of sense, and I've read a lot about it and chewed it over.

Google Joseph Tainters work. It's well worth a read. He's written extensively on development of societies, growth, collapse theory, sustainability, and simplification, and is highly respected.

Addressing the Climate Crisis: ~~Evolution or~~ Revolution¹

swampfoxh at 09:08 AM on 9 March, 2022

nijelj

Tim Flannery. In his book, The Weathermakers, asserts that mere years ago we were already using two planets of resources. If true, how can we persist in pursuing perpetual growth, even at a low rate, and still overcome Flannery's concerns about our apparent finite planet?

Addressing the Climate Crisis: ~~Evolution or~~ Revolution¹

nigelj at 08:22 AM on 8 March, 2022

I have some comments on this "degrowth" idea. Degrowth can be defined in two parts. Firstly a reduction in rates of economic growth to zero growth. And secondly negative growth which is essentially a reduction in consumption levels. But lets just call them both degrowth for simplicity sake.

Degrowth has multiple consequences. It usefully reduces environmental pressures but it can also cause personal hardship, economic recession / depressions and cause poverty and job losses. This is basic economics. Also refer to the writings of the anthropologist Joseph Tainter. Obviously this depends on how much degrowth and how fast and there is probably a rate of degrowth that the economy can adapt to ( and which I think is desirable) but if you go beyond this the entire economy could collapse quite severely.

Japan has had very low rates of economic growth for decades ( and is doing ok as a society). It looks like we could live with something like zero economic growth, phased in slowly, although I believe poor countries have to be allowed to grow. More rapid and substantial degrowth could be problematic.

Degrowth is also obviously inevitable to some degree sooner or later, because the planets resources are finite and there is huge population pressure on them. Rates of economic growth have been falling steadily in developed countries over the last 50 years from about 6% to about 2.5%, driven by resource scarcity and demographics and market saturation (according to the experts). But deliberately engineering degrowth is another matter, and would obviously not be an election winning policy. If degrowth happens at a moderate pace as a consequence or side effect of carbon taxes that would be ideal.

Do COP26 promises keep global warming below 2C?

Wol at 12:03 PM on 17 November, 2021

swampfoxh: Beat me to it.

Once again only passing references to population: it appears to be a taboo to even mention it and even then it's a "too hard to solve" problem so is just swept under the carpet.

Meanwhile, while I've been typing that sentence and correcting a typo another 30 lifetime comsumers have entered the food chain.

Population numbers are the fundamental cause of almost all the planet's problems, from migration through water access to climate warmingThe only countries that have attempted even temporary limits have been China (One child policy) and India (a free transistor policy) so far as I know.

There is, frankly, no answer to this.

If you've ever wondered why we've never seen evidence of aliens from the trillions of planets out there it could well be that civilisations evolve to an industrial revolution and it kills them in three or four hundred years.

It's planetary movements

Eclectic at 05:56 AM on 1 April, 2021

Likeitwarm : if I may add to Rob Honeycutt's comment :-

Your thinking seems muddled and confused.

A rise in temperature can cause a rise in atmospheric CO2. And a rise in CO2 can cause a rise in temperature (the last 200 years being an excellent example of that . . . and you can find other examples in the paleo history). But I suspect you already knew that.

Just to put things in perspective : the planetary temperature has been falling gradually for about 4,000 years ~ a fall of roughly 0.7 degreesC. The recent Medieval Warm Period [MWP] and the Little Ice Age [LIA] have been very small blips (around 0.3 degrees up or down) on that background decline. So the MWP and LIA have been insignificant in comparison with the overall trend since the peak of the Holocene.

But the modern temperature has now risen far above the MWP and is probably even slightly higher than the previous plateau of the Holocene ( 5-10,000 years ago ). And it is still rising fast. The onset of next major ice age (glaciation) was due in around 15-25,000 years' time . . . but is now postponed far beyond that time span.

Sadly, the movement of the planets Jupiter and Saturn have nix to do with the Earth's climate. But they may have some influence on your personal life, Likeitwarm ~ if you yourself believe in Astrology. (Are you a Cancer or a Capricorn perhaps . . . or more likely a Taurus ? Or perhaps all three ? )

It's planetary movements

MA Rodger at 21:19 PM on 29 March, 2021

Likeitwarm @Elsewhere,

You link to comment presented in Semi (2009-unpublished) 'Orbital resonance and Solar cycles' specifically p48 which says:-

The "wave" of approximate period of 934* years, which could also probably be anti-correlated with Sun spin rate, seems to match the climatologic events of Medieval optimum and Global warming, and also the Little Ice age of Maunder minimum, and similar periods in earlier ages (fig. 81)...
If this is right, now the Solar activity could drop a little, but will approach a larger maximum arround year 2050, not disturbed by the peak anomally, and then drop to a next little-ice-age arround 2400 AD. The time-lag between the spin rate change and activity change is still uncertain...

The periods of low scalar angular momentum (and higher Solar activity) roughly correspond to human civilization thriving: 1450BC Egypt, 600BC Greece, India and China, 200AD Rome and China, 1200 Medieval optimum (population growth in Europe), 2000AD (present "technical boom"). The periods of high scalar angular momentum (and lower Solar activity) correspond to crisis periods of human civilization.

According to this connection**, the current warming rate should slow down a little now, but will grow to local maximum arround year 2040, from which point it should drop to next little ice age arround year 2430 and to next warming arround year 2900. [**This referring to the paper's Fig 81 which plots the scalar sum of angular momentum of 9 planets and Sun with the climatologic data from Moberg et al (2005) which presents a 200-year NH hockeystick.]

This is all about a "wave" in the Scalar sum of Angular momentum and the page also presents a NOTE saying:-

NOTE: It was remarked, that Scalar sum of Angular momentum is a nonsense, which it is...

I think I would have to agree with this NOTE. Angular momemtum is considered maintained in a closed system and any heat-related effects that may work beyond a close system (the sun loses 130 trillion tons of mass a year through nuclear fusion) wouldn't make a great deal of difference to that, processes which themselves may show variation but again not significantly even if the sun's position relative to the solar-system's barycrentre were a factor (which Semi [2009-unpublished] asserts is when peak Scalar Sum of Angular Momentum occur).
Further to the NOTE, Semi (2009-unpublished) also does not set out this as an overall finding as it is unmentioned in either the abstract or conclusions.

Of course, that does not stop the swivel-eyed denialists. I note one of the two papers referencing Semi (2009-unpublished), Holmes (2018) 'Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change ' is cites Semi (2009-unpublished) as apparently showing "Yoshimura is in evidence throughout the climate system, and in proxy records, on all time-scales," (Yoshimura [1978] being cited to support a 55-year barcentric solar-system cycle but with zero actual mention of Earthly climate in that paper).

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #9, 2021

nigelj at 07:26 AM on 14 March, 2021

Sunburst @12

"You must, however, consider the Big Picture in that "global warming" really isn't global unless the upward temperature trends are happening everywhere, and I have pointed out several regions where exactly the opposite is happening."

No. The world doesn't have to be warming at every place for the world to be warming as a whole. All that has to happen is the planets average temperature goes up. This is self evidently possible even if some small areas are cooling. By analogy a simple traditional wood fire could be getting hotter and hotter measured with temperatures in the chimney even if you spilt your iced drink on a small part of the fire causing one corner of the fire to cool for a little bit. I've already explained all this @7 and you havent disproven it with any data. You have pointed out a couple of regions where you allege without hard evidence theres cooling but you neglect the many more regions that show warming. You provide no proof that areas of your alleged cooling are greater than areas of warming. And as people point out you confuse a warming trend with weather so you havent demonstrated any actual cooling trend anywhere at all on the planet.

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

Sunburst @13

"Well, you are free to believe whatever you want. But I'm sure that most Americans who have seen skyrocketing heating bills and frozen water mains for the past 5-10 winters would tend to say it's a cooling trend and not just cold weather. "

Or is it because electric companies are simply charging more money for other reasons? Maybe they are building new infrastructure. Maybe they are getting greedy. Maybe there is maineinance work. Again you provide no reliable evidence of why prices are skyrocketing or even "if" they are sky rocketing.

And 10 years does not constitute a climate change trend. Its generally accepted we need 30 years of data to be certain the climate has changed in a fundamental way and its not just short term natural cyclical variability. This is why it was only decided in about the 2000s that burning fossil fuels was definitely causing climate change. So even if the global climate WAS cooling for 5 -10 years (it isn't) this doesnt prove very much.

" At any rate, it would simply be wrong to deprive those people (including myself) of the fuels they need in order to get them through the winter seasons despite all of the "global warming" we are experiencing."

Strawman. Nobody is depriving anyone of fuel.

The Big Picture (2010 version)

CowboyMC at 01:57 AM on 6 October, 2020

According to this recent article, "A slightly overall warmer temperature, a mean surface temperature of about 5 degrees Celsius (or about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) greater than Earth, together with the additional moisture, would be also better for life.". So it looks like we need to be warmer. See article here: https://scitechdaily.com/some-planets-may-be-better-for-life-than-earth-researchers-identify-24-superhabitable-exoplanets/

Sea-level rise likely to swallow many coastal mangrove forests

MA Rodger at 19:58 PM on 21 June, 2020

Slarty Bartfast @2,

You are evidently not the real Slartybartfast, the designer of planets from Hitchhiker's Guide the the Galaxy because he would not make the profound mathematical error and logical error which you make on your blog post.

Firstly, in your calculations, you use the 'linear' coefft of thermal expansion which is the linear expansion of a solid, something which involves expansion in all three directions. The value for water is given in tables solely to allow the easy calculation of the differential rate of expansion when a volume of water is held in a container. Thus your 0.66mm/yr SLR (from the linear coefft of 69e-6/deg C) due to 0.9Wm^-2 global energy imbalance should be 2mm/year (from the volumetric coefft of 207e-6/deg C although note this coefft does vary with temperature, pressure and salinity). As most of the energy imbalance does end up warming the oceans, the actual thermal expansion component of SLR isn't greatly lower than that value (as the graphic in the Moderator Response shows).

Secondly, you fail to make the explicit point (although you do manage to demonstrate it) that the melting of ice is a far far more thermally efficient means of raising sea level. Thus if the 0.9Wm^-2 global energy imbalance were solely applied to melting ice, it would result in 130mm SLR pa. We are saved from this SLR as the global energy imbalance is spread over the whole world while glaciers and ice caps are concentrated in a few particular regions. As the world around the planet's ice warms, that ice does attract an increasing percentage of that imbalance, resulting in SLR far in excess of the limit you impose using solely the land area of ice fields.

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #10

MA Rodger at 03:47 AM on 10 March, 2020

Jim Eager @17,

While Venus doesn't have any on-going compression to provide a heat source, that is not true of all the planets. Jupiter is said to be still undergoing gravitational compression.

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

MA Rodger at 20:20 PM on 9 March, 2020

Responding to the question posed @392 (not being sure if the commenter is still 'with us', but the question remains),

The point of a greenhouse effect is that it elevates the temperature of the planet above the temperature it would be without a greenhouse effect. Thus (and apologies for using SI units here) the start point is the actual surface temperature of the different planets minus their blackbody temperature. And it is not the percentage of CO2 but the volume of CO2 that should be considered because 100% of naff-all is still naff-all.

(Note this is an overly simplistic analysis as a greenhouse effect can be reliant-on or boosted-by the presence of other gases. For instance, on Earth the greenhouse effect would be 25% of current values if the CO2 warming wasn't boosted mainly by water vapour and clouds for the remainder. And it is not just greenhouse gases that can play a role.)

From this Venus fact sheet & this Mars fact sheet:-

Venus Mars Earth

Surface teperature 737K 210K 288K

Blackbody temperature 226K 210K 254K

Greenhouse effect 515K 0K 33K

Atmospheric pressure 92bar 0.006bar 1bar

CO2 (by weight) 96% 96% 0.06%

CO2 content 88bar 0.006bar 0.0006bar

So the answer to the question "how Mars and Venus have basically the exact CO2 concentrations that are magnitudes above ours; and have drastically different temperatures?" is that the strength of the greenhouse effect is reliant (simplistically) on CO2 content and not CO2 concentrations. The table presented here simplistically sets out why Mars and Venus have "drastically different temperatures". The Mars/Earth difference is another (and more complex) story.

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Dakota at 15:41 PM on 9 March, 2020

Ok. I am new to this thread. I wonder if someone could help me with a CO2 concentration problem? I was researching CO2 levels on other planets to compare those to Earth along with surface temperature and atmospheric pressure so I can understand how they all interact. The CO2 concentration on Earth is .041%; the average temperature is 59F; and the atmospheric pressure is 14.7psi. Lets go to Venus now: CO2-96.5%;average temp+864F; atmosperic pressure-1363psi. And lastly Mars:CO2-95%;Temp- -81F; atmospheric pressure-.088psi. Can someone explain how Mars and Venus have basically the exact CO2 concentrations that are magnitudes above ours; and have drastically different temperatures? Thanks if anyone can explain this to me.

How much would planting 1 trillion trees slow global warming?

RedBaron at 14:36 PM on 26 February, 2020

US started planting trees in the 1920's and there are at least as many now as the pilgrim days or more.

What is different is the prairies. Most of them have been plowed under, especially the tallgrass prairie.

You can look on Google Maps all you want, but just because you see an area without trees doesn't mean there was a forest there before. In most cases it was prairie.

Unplowed Tallgrass Prairie: Rarer Than Old-Growth Forest

This is important because grasslands are the planets cooling system, not forests.

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

You are seeing the reason why right now in Australia. Above ground biomass always returns to the atmosphere eventually either by decay or my fire.

Whereas a large % of the carbon (~40%) fixed by grasslands is stored deep in the soil profile. And a high % of that carbon (~70%) enters the geological long cycle and does NOT enter back into the atmosphere for thousands or even millions of years.

Then there is also the albedo effects, where trees absorb much more radiation and grasses reflect more due to averaging a much paler green coloration.

The US easily plants as many or more trees than they log and have been doing this for about 100 years. So already many trees planted have already grown up and been logged again, and replanted again.

However, as I said before, this does not mean the US isn't contributing to AGW. They certainly are. But the primary ways are because of fossil fuel emissions and plowing up and destroying the biome responcible for cooling the planet...grasslands.

COP25: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Madrid

Johnb at 10:45 AM on 18 December, 2019

I had hoped to acknowledge that Climate Change is dependent on but different to the Greenhouse effect. I understood that the additional heat/solar energy retained in Earth's atmosphere increased turbulence which in its turn disrupted established weather patterns, transferred some of that additional,energy into the planets oceans to allow for thermal expansion, ice melt, stronger cyclones etc. etc. it is the work of Fourier, Tindall & Foote and Arrenhuis that provided the basic science for the retention of a quantum of solar energy in the planets atmosphere. I'm obviously missing something if they are independent of each other.

Climate Scientist reacts to Donald Trump's climate comments

prove we are smart at 21:16 PM on 15 November, 2019

Donald J Trump is the antithesis of a responsible and selfless world leader.He is the extreme example of many politicians, in many countries. A common cause is the catalyst to unite people, this climate blog and others worldwide are informing the ordinary people about our planets biospheres increasing tragedy. I want to be so hopeful we can unite to solve it. When,how and who is the question.I think i copied this quote from this climate blog-is this the reason why we are not still seeing the danger of inaction " Rapid reduction of carbon emissions is still excluded from consideration by policymakers because it is deemed to be too economically dislocating. The fact that the present political path of 3°C or more of warming would result in a world overwhelmed by extreme climate impacts, leading to outright chaos, is avoided. The dominant neo-liberal framing of progress, through globalisation and deregulation, suppresses regulatory action which would address the real climate challenge because it undermines the prevailing political–economic orthodoxy."

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

Philippe Chantreau at 04:29 AM on 12 November, 2019

Alan Lowey,

You have this wrong. There is a large, well established body of litterature in astronomy and mathematics, going back well over a hundred years, that shows how planets influence each other's orbits. This body of litterature is full of precise calculations that you have not shown to be wrong. It is incumbent on you to show how all these scientists and mathematicians before you were wrong, not the other way around. You are the one who needs to show some work because you are the one making wild incoherent claims.

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

MA Rodger at 16:10 PM on 11 November, 2019

In the circumstance, the LINZ webpage being cited @23. 25 & 29 may be worth quoting from.

"What about the planets? Venus exerts the greatest gravitational pull on the Earth of all the planets but, at just 0.0054% of the effect of the Moon, makes no real impression. Despite being the largest planet, Jupiter's greater distance means that its influence is ten times smaller than Venus. So the Moon and Sun are the only celestial bodies that have any significant gravitational impact on the Earth."

There is a difference between a planet having a "significant gravitational impact on the Earth" (with respect to tides) and a planet having a significant gravitational impact in the Earth's orbit. It is the tidal influence of Jupiter that is "ten times smaller" than Venus's. A tidal influence is an inverse cube relationship. The orbital gravitational influence is the better-known inverse square relationship. And thus the orbital influence of Jupiter is greater than that of Venus.

Of course, the complex interaction between the orbiting planets is such that all are part of an orbiting system of significant stability. Moving one of them in its orbit can have unexpected results. Thus you can, for instance, find papers (see article here) describing the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit being most sensitive to the orbit of Saturn even though for Earth, Saturn's gravity varies perhaps 8-times less than Venus's, 13-times less than Jupiter's.

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

Philippe Chantreau at 04:49 AM on 11 November, 2019

In case anyone is wondering, the LINZ quote cited by Alan in post 23 figures in the section of the LINZ web site titled "The cause and nature of tides"; it treats exclusively of oceanic tides and the comment about gravity of other planets pertains to oceanic tides, not orbital alterations of the Earth.

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

Alan Lowey at 20:10 PM on 10 November, 2019

The author states:

"Jupiter and Saturn affect Earth's orbital dynamics"

This is in complete contrast to the professional article "The Cause and Nature of the Tides" by the Land Information of New Zealand (LINZ). This states quite clearly:

"What about the planets? Venus exerts the greatest gravitational pull on the Earth of all the planets but, at just 0.0054% of the effect of the Moon, makes no real impression. Despite being the largest planet, Jupiter's greater distance means that it's influence is ten times smaller than Venus. So the Moon and Sun are the only celestial bodies that have any significant gravitational impact on the Earth."

I'm guessing that your reply will be something like:

"Jupiter's gravity, despite being just 0.00054% of the effect of the Moon, has feedback loops which amplifies this near invisible influence, to create sea level changes of 120m."

The numbers just don't stack up. Even if they were anyway near close, there's still another logical error. Jupiter's gravitational influence would be acting all the time, not just on a 100,000yr cycle.

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

Alan Lowey at 18:16 PM on 10 November, 2019

The new physics explanation is that a strong gravitational attraction exists between the inner cores of planetary bodies and the Sun, when they are on the same 'plane of angular momentum'.

This new physics scenario can then be applied to the Moon orbiting the Earth. The King tides, referred to in the intro text, would therefore be due to the Earth and Moon aligned on the 'local plane of angular momentum'.

Another way of describing the Glacial tides would be to say that they are caused by King tides due to the alignment of the Earth, Sun and planets on the plane of angular momentum.

The language makes it sound much more complicated than it really is. A visual simulation model would convey this new physics idea without any problem at all.

Geologists and climate change denial

Lithium Valley Rocks at 10:10 AM on 11 October, 2019

So I ask the question of causes of past climate nudges.... solar intensity, cosmic impacts, super vulcanism, tectonic forces, supercontinant creation/disintegration, chemical weathering of rocks.... so I don't recall any of these happening in the last 100 years, yet all the indicator of such an influence are present. Humans are impacting the planets systems to the same extent as a comet impact on a huge oil field or permafrost methane hydrate province....

Which past event corolates to what we are seeing today?

CO2 effect is saturated

GwsB at 19:49 PM on 3 September, 2019

In the discussion about the effect of CO2 on the climate there are certain images which may be said to incorporate the essential part of the arguments. Such iconic graphs are the driving force in changing one's view of the world. A good example is the sun with the planets rotating around it. This stopped all phantasies about what happens at the edge of the (flat) earth. This iconic image made it possible to sail Westward in 1492 in order to reach India.

For CO2 the iconic image is the rippled increasing graph of the CO2 concentration as measured at Mauna Loa from 1960 onwards, sometimes extended over the past thousand years by observations from tree rings and ice cores to obtain the "hockey stick". For the influence of CO2 on climate the iconic graph is given in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (last updated 23 August 2019)

Caption: "Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space."

The graph shows that the effect of water vapour, H2O, is much greater than the effect of CO2. It also shows the saturation of the absorption due to CO2. The first argument (about water vapour) is valid. We can't do anything about the concentration of H2O though, except perhaps by increasing the temperature. So we will just have to accept this effect. The second argument (about saturation) is also valid. The absorption at wavelength 4 - 4.4 μm is 100% over most of the region, and so too at 12-15 μm. In comparison with H2O the peaks of CO2 are very steep and the wings have little effect. It is only the thin peaks at 2 μm and at 4.9 μm which will grow significantly if the concentration of CO2 is increased.

The basic physics is simple: A photon of light at a wavelength of 14 μm is passed from one CO2 molecule to the next performing a kind of random walk until it exits the atmosphere. There are two exits, outer space and the earth. Saturation means that a photon starting from the earth has very little chance of exiting to outer space. It is almost certain to exit the atmosphere to the earth, where like shortwave radiation it will be re-emitted at a different wavelength. Even if the new wavelength with probability a half lies in an absorption band of CO2 or H2O, this only means a stay of execution. In the end the photon will escape to outer space through one of the long wave gaps in our atmosphere.

The graph in Figure 2 in Zhong & Haigh (2013) is perhaps more precise, but the vertical scale runs over twelve orders of magnitude, (twelve orders of magnitude is from one mm to a million km, or from one gram to a Megaton). The result of this scale is that I am not able to comprehend the significance of the graph. Figure 5b, bottom, gives the difference between the radiative flux for the present level of CO2 (389 ppmv) and a level increased by a factor 32 (12500 ppmv). The total negative impact is almost cancelled by the positive impact around 15 μm. This impression is reinforced by Figure 6a where the graph is practically horizontal beyond 400 ppmv. In Figure 6b we see an increase in the slope beyond ten thousand ppmv. In that graph the horizontal axis is logarithmic and runs up to a million ppmv, which is a pure CO2 atmosphere. These results are based on models and therefore should be taken with a pinch of salt.

The conclusion is: The direct impact on the temperature of the earth of the increase in CO2 from the present level of around 400 ppmv is relatively small. This is due to saturation at the bands where CO2 absorbs long wave radiation.

Is the graph above misleading? It is described as "(Illustration adapted from Robert Rohde.)". Clicking on Robert Rohde results in the message: www.globalwarmingart.com refused to connect.
If anyone knows a better graph I would be very happy to obtain a link.

There is a nice course on climate denial presented by the University of Queensland https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:UQx+Denial101x+1T2019/course/ The course is free of charge and contains a huge amount of good information on climate change. Unfortunately the course does not address the topic of the absorption of CO2 at specific wavelengths. Neither does the basic rebuttal by dana 1981.

The near saturation of CO2 at present levels makes it difficult to convince people to vote for a cut in CO2 emissions or for a tax on such emissions.

Residence Time and Prof Essenhigh

Eclectic at 00:19 AM on 26 August, 2019

Daveburton ,

I appreciate your comedic comments about wires and feedbacks. Although they belong in an earlier lesson than Homeostasis 101.

Likewise, Dr Spencer's Simple Model provides farcical amusement, thanks to its disconnect with reality — why yes, its curve fits reality at least in part . . . just as the Aristotelian model of the planets is a moderately good fit to the observed motion of the planets across the night sky, at least in part!! But unlike our Spencer, our Aristotle had a decent excuse for his blunders.

Daveburton, when I mentioned sitting back and observing "another 40 years or so" , I was of course not alluding to the future experience of someone as unimportant as me (or possibly you). Or perhaps you were just pulling my leg about "that", too.

No . . . I was alluding to something far more important: namely the human race. And here we get to the crunch, Daveburton, the really important point about Spencer's far-too-simple-to-be-scientifically-useful model.

# What do you think was the actual underlying reason for Dr Spencer to publicize his strange little "Simple Model".

( Not for comedy, I suspect. Nor for the edification of genuine climate scientists.)

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #27

Bob Loblaw at 13:18 PM on 26 July, 2019

scadednp has it right: billev's "questions" are getting tiresome.

Gases all absorb at very specific wavelengths. It's a fundamental aspect of spectroscopy. In comment 30, I pointed to a vendor's page on gas analyzers. By choosing the appropraite wavelength, different gases can be measured because they absorb at different wavelengths. Gases emit at different wavelengths, too - and this is how looking at distant planets can tell us their atmospheric composition.

Whaever billev thinks his "questions" apply to, it's not reality.

Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’

nigelj at 17:23 PM on 8 May, 2019

OPOF @5, I think a zero growth economy is absolutely inevitable sooner or later, and I'm not alone. There is a huge literature and this is thought provoking.

It's very hard to see how we can keep on increasing rates of output of industrial goods every year on a finite planet. There is also a case to deliberately embrace zero growth to conserve resources for the future. Japan has had close to zero growth for years and it hasn't hurt them.

Having said that, there could be growth in the services sector as this is separate from the planets resource base. Recycling can also prolong some level of growth but this has limits. And I believe the earth has enough resources for everyone to lead a comfortable life, assuming we get population growth down and minority groups are not permitted to monopolise resources too much. And obviously third world countries are entitled to growing their economies.

And your other points make sense, but are not specifically related to gdp growth as such.

I was really pointing out to Dan that I don't believe we can continue business as usual rates of resource use and have never suggested we can, just that we have to be realistic about what is possible in terms of expecting people to adjust their lifestyles.

Why results from the next generation of climate models matter

nigelj at 06:58 AM on 5 April, 2019

Regarding the article. The evidence does indeed point at a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees and its good the new models are helping refine this. The problem is this spread of climate sensitivity numbers is still quite large and 3 degrees is still not hugely certain. Politicians will look at this spread of numbers and be bewlidered and uncertain: and they hate that. It's really important that climate senstivity is pinned down so you can say you are 95% sure it's a certain number.

Regarding Direct air capture. I agree with OPOF. I think this probably has a place and enough potential to draw down some limited atmospheric CO2, but its going to have big problems doing more than this. These machines are still expensive and use a lot of specialist materials that are not in infinite supply.You will also have to find places to store the carbon, which will also require a lot of transport, and you will need unprecedented global cooperation.

While something is obviously possible, sucking all the carbon from the air obviously looks like it would require tens of thousands of machines, perhaps millions, and would strain the planets resources and economy beyond the limit. I think the use of massive levels of direct air capture to suck all the excess CO2 out of the air is lord of the rings fantasy stuff. So using this technology as an excuse to go on burning fossil fuels looks delusional. There is a difference between well reasoned evidence based technological optimism and pure wishful thinking.

The temperature evolution after 2016 suggests hotter future

nigelj at 10:50 AM on 20 March, 2019

MA Rodger @21, thanks. The Scarfetta paper (2010) claims there exists a 60 yr climate cycle related to motions and gravity of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, and he makes the claim it will cause global cooling from 2000 - 2030. This idea has all been dealt a rather lethal body blow by the last 4 years temperatures, right in the wrong place in his cycle! So yeah fairyland stuff, and spurious correlations perhaps, or just some very weak insignificant relationship.

New research, February 4-10, 2019

Philippe Chantreau at 13:20 PM on 3 March, 2019

Your "initial question" is nothing but a rethorical trick. It is asking for something both impossible and unnecessary and runs counter to any kind of logical thought process. I'm sure some can be fooled by such courtroom methods. If I have studies showing how smoking damages airways, their lining, the cells' DNA, how it promotes inflammation and platelet activation, how it is associated with a variety of conditions, I do not need a study also showing health outcomes of smokers who quit vs. those who continue in order to know that it will be beneficial to quit, would it be only to stop the ongoing damage. That is basic logic. Such studies will simply quantify exactly how far that benefit extends, how quickly it manifests and other such details, which may be useful but unnecessary to know that quitting will be beneficial. If there were several planets to experiment with, your rethorical question could be answered with great precision, but that's obviously not the situation. As it stands, it is sophistry.

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

nigelj at 05:14 AM on 25 February, 2019

"CO2 lags temperature by an average of 800 years during the most recent 400,000-year period, indicating that temperature is the cause, as the cause never comes after the effect."

Well this is of course wrong. It's well known that while changes in the planets orbit caused the initial warming, CO2 caused most of the warming as a feedback mechanism here.

However its wrong in other respects as well. I read this article on some research that the 800 year lag is only a couple of hundred years, and it has some interesting explanations on how the feedback mechanism worked in the antarctic region here.

The point being that this is one example of many where alonewrock is not only deluded, but is so out of touch with more recent research and data.

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #6

BeezelyBillyBub at 08:45 AM on 11 February, 2019

Never trust a priest or a physicist. Don't believe in things you don't understand.

*Earth's Oceans Lost In Space* - Nature Communications 2016
https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/10512

*Greenhouse Gases Boil Oceans Away* - Motherboard 2016
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/53dgmx/greenhouse-gases-could-eventually-heat-the-planet-enough-to-boil-the-oceans-away

Planets with too much carbon dioxide could lose oceans to space - New Scientist 2016
https://www.natureasia.com/en/research/highlight/10512
> Ocean loss due to vapor drift takes millions of year, but will happen likely sooner.

Stephen Hawking, All of Earth's oceans boil away into nothing - Inverse 2017
https://www.inverse.com/article/33729-stephen-hawking-trump-climate-change-venus-syndrome
> Everybody says his deathbed message is wrong, he can't defend himself.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF EARTH'S LEAKING ATMOSPHERE - ESA 2016
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/58028-the-curious-case-of-earth-s-leaking-atmosphere/
> Most interesting, earth leaks 90 tons/day into space at the poles. When magnetic poles flip, we can end up with as many as 7 poles roaming the earth all at once, lasting as long a thousand years, taking decades to pass overhead. This is especially interesting if crustal rebound affects gravity which may affect molten flux which affects magnetic flux. Or whatever.

> Another interesting factor is lower stratospheric mid-latitude ozone depletion in conjunction with magnetic field weakening. While the Antarctic ozone hole is mending the lower mid-latitude stuff has never stopped depleting, and that's where the majority of this stuff is. We never could detect the decline there until we got some new fancy ass space junk up there.

We’re Boiling the Ocean Faster Than We Thought - Intelligencer 2019
By Eric Levitz The Intelligencer > boring 2019
> Illustrates we're not as smart as we like to think.

Several billion years ago Venus had oceans and atmospheric oxygen - Daily Star 2019
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/environment/news/welcome-the-age-climate-change-1699726
> The author is a physicist. I trust him, a little.

Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind - PNAS 2015
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/31/9511.full.pdf
> No trees no air. The vacuum of space sits down on Gaia's face.

Earth will not be fine without us...

unless you are subterranean bacteria.

cut 'n paste this post to people who say:

EARTH WILL BE FINE WITHOUT US

I used all caps cuz young people hate that

This is so new, I didn't watch it yet.

https://youtu.be/HtqKdBqvkus

*The Vomitorium* https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMBRo_pT8k6JXI0kWPgGEdg/discussion

*The Dumpster*
https://lokisrevengeblog.wordpress.com/

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

One Planet Only Forever at 03:50 AM on 11 February, 2019

nigelj,

I share John McKeon's challenge of assertions that the environmental sustainability of human activity should be considered and acted upon separate from corrections to achieve social and economic sustainability.
That is not exactly how the issue is often described in comments here, or the general public discussion, but there is good reason for phrasing it that way.

The Green New Deal should be understood to be an update of the socioeconomic New Deal implemented by the Roosevelt Administration to correct the harmful developed results of the socioeconomic-political games that had been played. And a similar socioeconomic problem has redeveloped. As such, environmental sustainability can be understood to be appropriate to add to the required socioeconomic corrections of today. And the environmental corrections need to be done in a way to does not compromise efforts to correct the social problems that have developed.

The best understanding of the required corrections of what has developed and the governing objectives for new developments is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They are the latest developed understanding in a string of global collective efforts to understand what is required for the future of humanity (the history of development includes the decisions to form the UN which succeeded to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - see more about this in my comment @35 on the SkS re-post of “A New Green Deal must not sabotage climate goals”).

The SDGs are a robustly established and indivisible compendium of Goals (Objectives) that must all be achieved and improved upon for humanity to have a better future. They include environmental, social, economic and political elements. I presented them in that order for Good Reason:

without a sustainable environment on this or any other planet there can be no sustainable society
without a sustainable environment and society there can be no sustainable economic activity
and a political system Tribe trying to win leadership is unsustainable if it does not develop and defend sustainable global environment, society and economic activity.

Tragically what can be seen to continue to be happening is the prolonging of, and temporary regional expansion of, Political Tribalism built on interests that are contrary to improving awareness and understanding and the application of that knowledge to achieve and improve on the SGDs. And the incorrect application of marketing science to produce misleading social, economic and political marketing is a major problem that needs to be corrected. And it will not be corrected by compromising the corrections that are understood to be required just to 'get along with people who are determined to not be corrected'.

The collaborative global effort to develop a sustainable better future for global humanity started after WWI with the League of Nations (and similar efforts were developing before that time to varying degrees but they lacked the true understanding of “Humanity as a robust diversity of humans living in ways that sustainably fit into a robust diversity of life” and “Global - we developed to live on a finite planet” the larger yet still small worldviews of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and even the Reformation with its broadening of diversity of religious views and freeing people from unjustified Rule by unjustified Leaders can be seen as part of the efforts).

Even the more global efforts been tragically combative because of temporary regional winning by 'Tribal political groups with developed interests that are contrary to improved understanding and the application of that knowledge to develop a sustainable improving future of global humanity'. The combativeness and harmful failures are the result of the developed socioeconomic-political tribal groups that decide to focus on competing for impressions of superior status relative to others and fight to conserve those impressions. They even develop perceptions that Their Tribe is a victim because the required corrections will reduce their incorrectly developed perceptions of status relative to others.

I have recently been reading two books that highlight the need for everyone to have a more comprehensive and correct understanding of what is going on (there are many other books related to this, but I am reading these two right now). Common basis for discussion and debate is essential. And that common basis does not exist regarding discussions about the corrections that climate science has identified are required for humanity to have a future. The highest level common basis is required.

My developed understanding (open to improvement by Good Reasons) is:
The Universal (Highest level) Objective is:

Improving awareness and understanding and applying that constantly improving knowledge to develop a sustainable constantly improving future for humanity.
The understanding of the viable sustainable future for humanity is: A robust diversity of people sustainably fitting in to the robust diversity of life on this, and other, amazing planets.
Another way to understand the Universal Objective is from the perspective of Future Generations: What sustainably helps the future generations into the distant future?

The lack of progress in developing the required corrections and new developments is due to the success of people who strive to compromise the awareness and understanding in regional populations to incorrectly and harmfully develop 'Combative Tribes of fearful and angry people who are determined to oppose the improved understanding of required corrections and new developments - tribes that powerfully resist correcting developed things that undeniably need to be corrected'.

I have just started reading “I'm Right and Your an Idiot” by James Hogan, after finishing a book that comprehensively presents the case that socioeconomic-political systems can develop unjust and harmful results for “Others”. And system corrections often appear to be the only way to end the harmful actions. And those system corrections involve not allowing any In-Group to continue to be unaware of, or incorrectly understand, the perspectives of All Others, especially correcting In-groups that develop hatred for specific Out-groups (like bullies target their victims, rather than engaging with the entire population, and often believe they are the victims of actions of Others who try to correct them).

A related book is “The Opposite of Hate” by Sally Kohn. It is about the way that people you would consider to be decent and kind if you met them can be motivated by basic desire for inclusion and status to join 'In-groups with desires for status relative to Others' and become intensely combative and harmful to Others socially, economically and politically (yes, how the Nazi's in Germany got the population to do the horrific things they all participated in. But also how the horrors of Rwanda happened in a population that had been 'getting along fine with their diversity', and how it would be possible for the same to happen in any supposedly advanced nation today).

The book highlights the importance of Systemic Thinking or Holistic Thinking, seeing the larger picture, having a larger worldview. Her book presents the case that a history of systemic actions have developed In-groups among the current population with incorrect perceptions. Those incorrect In-groups fail to understand the harmful systemic history that developed the current situation. And they fail to consider the perspective of the Out-groups they have a developed disliking for (or just a lack of concern for, which can be just as harmful). They resist improving their awareness and understanding. They focus on defending and increasing the perceptions of self-image or Status of their In-group.

A larger worldview (consideration of all of humanity now and into the far future) is challenged by harmful people who encourage people to join them in an In-group that believes itself to be a victim when Others (not their in-group) try to correct the incorrect beliefs and perceptions of status relative to others that their In-group has unjustifiably developed.

That type of In-group does not care to improve its awareness and understanding of what is going on when that improved awareness would be contrary to their interests. They divisively polarize themselves away from that improved understanding. Those In-groups can develop a powerful dislike/hate for those not in their In-group. And they can get angrier if the facts of their incorrectness get pointed out. This can be seen to be happening regarding the need to rapidly curtail the burning of fossil fuels. The In-group of people who have developed incorrect perceptions of their status relative to others as a result of flaws in the socioeconomic-political systems want to maintain their developed undeserved perceptions of status.

There is an In-group that is undeniably correct. And it should 'correct Others'. The corrective actions will justifiably negatively affect developed perceptions of status of that group of Others. However, it can be expected that those corrective efforts will result in the 'Others that need to be corrected' perceiving themselves (their In-group) as being harmed by the corrective efforts. The undeniably harmful and incorrect In-group will easily develop a powerful incorrect belief that they are 'the victims'. And to maintain the perception that they are Victims, they deliberately resist improving their awareness and understanding. They deliberately do not want to understand the perspective of those correcting people who are clearly not in their In-group. They especially resent having it pointed out that their desired actions are harmful to the future of humanity (because they believe that the best future for humanity will develop if they are freer to believe what they want and do as they please - doing harm to Others while excusing the harm done any way they think they can get away with like claiming the unsustainable perceptions of wealth from burning fossil fuels will solve the future problems created by that unsustainable and harmful activity.).

From that perspective, the concern for the future of humanity, it is correct for the objectives to be clearly what is best for the future of humanity, achieving and improving on all of the Sustainable Development Goals, not compromising the future of humanity just because an In-group has developed interests that are harmful to the future of humanity.

A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals

One Planet Only Forever at 03:19 AM on 7 February, 2019

I understand that the wording of the letter could be improved. But the statement that “Fossil fuel companies should pay their fair share for damages caused by climate change, rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers”, is a valid criticism of a Carbon Tax (even with a dividend) or Cap and Trade. These mechanisms do not 'penalize the investors and executives' pursuing profit from fossil fuel burning. Profit and bonuses would still be made in those industries which would incorrectly motivate resistance to the understood required corrections.

Some people also criticize statements like this letter, particularly social statements of the need for the corrections to be done in ways that improve the conditions of living for the least fortunate, as being divisive because the statements made are not acceptable to everyone. That presumes that everyone needs to accept that everyone else is justified in their beliefs, that no beliefs are incorrect or harmful. That is clearly a potentially harmful 'systemic' misunderstanding that can be related to the incorrect belief that Good Results will develop if everyone is simply freer to believe what they want and do as they please without being governed to ensure their actions do no harm to any others.

There have been many documents published through the decades exposing how 'free pursuit of personal interest' has developed damaging results, including the development of powerful resistance to correcting the damaging developments.

I have read: the letter, this article regarding the letter, the New Green Deal, and the Leap Manifesto (an understanding developed by Canadians that is similar to the New Green Deal developed by Americans).

I see them all being closely aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which I have an understanding of, including understanding their origin.

The SDGs are the result of global development of improved awareness and understanding. That effort has led to many things including the understanding of the need to create the League of Nations, which was eventually understood to be failing to achieve the objective that was understood to be required. The failure of the League of Nations resulted in the creation of the UN. And the UN's first major effort succeeded in creating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It has been a struggle to have that understanding honoured by global Winners. And, in many other ways the UN has struggled to achieve the understood to be required objective. However, in spite of those struggles the UN has persisted. And it has succeeded in continuing to develop improved understanding of what is required to achieve the required objective. And one of the most recent presentations of that improving understanding is the SDGs.

A particularly important element of the SDGs is reducing the harmful climate change impacts on future generations by current day human activity. More rapidly reducing the rate of impact reduces the magnitude of negative impact on the future generations. And reducing the negative future impact makes it easier to sustainably achieve many of the other identified required goals (SDGs) for the benefit of the future of humanity.

The missing link in 'debates that get nowhere' regarding the corrections required that have been identified by climate science is a lack of common sense regarding the Universal Objective of human activity. In spite of a potential robust diversity of views it is possible for debate and discussion to result in Good Conclusions as long as all parties have a shared common understood objective and a desire to improve awareness and understanding (their own and of others).

My developed understanding (open to improvement by Good Reasons) is:
The Universal (Highest level) Objective is:

Improving awareness and understanding and applying that constantly improving knowledge to develop a sustainable constantly improving future for humanity.
The understanding of the viable sustainable future for humanity is: A robust diversity of people sustainably fitting in to the robust diversity of life on this, and other, amazing planets.
Another way to understand the Universal Objective is from the perspective of Future Generations: What sustainably helps the future generations into the distant future?

That understanding does not care what any individual's personally developed desires and interests are. It only cares that every individual's actions do not harm Others or the Future of Humanity. And the aspiration is that people would strive to help Others and the Future of Humanity. A logical conclusion would be that the more rewarded a person is (in status relative to others) the more they would be expected to be helpful, the less acceptable it would be for them to be harmful.

That understanding requires corrections of many developed world-views or perception of image/status. Resistance to the losses of impressions of image or status that the corrections would produce is not a reason to water-down or compromise the presentations of understandings from that perspective. Compromising that understanding would be like misrepresenting climate science in order to increase the popular support for what is being claimed.

As an engineer with an MBA who has been paying close attention and tries to understand what is going on, I have learned the importance of maintaining a Universal Objective that limits the options for people pursuing personal interests (all that happens is people pursuing personal interests developed by the socioeconomic-political environment they experience). I understand the need to set hard limits on what is acceptable, not allowing potential popularity or profitability of an alternative to compromise the Universal Objective. And I understand that some engineers have allowed temptations for popularity and profit to compromise their adherence to the Universal Objective. So I understand that even being taught the importance of always being governed by the Universal Objective (and improving understanding related to the Universal Objective, including improving the Objective) is no assurance that people will care to be governed by it (many will dislike it intensely- because it imposes limits that are contrary to their developed personal interests).

So I understand why people who should 'Know Better' can deliberately resist improving their awareness and understanding in ways that would limit their ability to justify doing what they have developed a desire to do. And I understand that everyone can be easily motivated to improve their image or perception of status relative to others (including defending the status of a tribe they associate with), and try to enjoy their life any way they can get away with, including ways that are understandably harmful to Others (just finished reading “The Opposite of Hate” by Sally Kohn which reinforces and improves that understanding).

I understand how easy it can be for undeserving Winners to gather popular support for understandably unacceptable pursuits of personal interests of their “In-Group” - their tribe (or collection of tribes as is the case with a political party that Unites the Right Tribes, with Right being understood to be tribes resisting correction of unacceptable things that have developed). So I understand how important it is to not compromise the understanding of the Universal Objective just to 'get along' with someone who resists being governed by that Universal Objective.

It's the sun

S0urce at 21:43 PM on 26 January, 2019

This is a response to MA Rodger's answer in the Other Planets are Warming.

I failed to finish the comment @1251, but the reason why I found the argument interesting is because everyone can in an easy way, and with rather simplistic material, prove for themselves that the Sun has in a 40 year period gone from being "yellowish" to a pale-white metallic color. This change in color represent a change in temperatur which we can call X. If the data doesn't show X change in temperatur during this period; is the data wrong or is the empiricall method used missleading?

Climate science comeback strategies: Al Gore said what?

nigelj at 06:49 AM on 14 November, 2018

prophtch44 @1, one thing it's not 100K ( $100,000 (American)) for solar panels. About $10,000 will get the average home owner a good solar panel array and a tesla backup battery pack is about $10,000. This is easily googled. so perhaps your 100K was a typo.

It's the cost equivalent of one ensuite bathroom, to put it in context.

And another thing. Experiments have been done literally hundreds of times with CO2 in a canister with a light source applied and a warming effect has been measured. The planets temperature can also only be explained by the greenhouse effect. This is the basis of the whole issue. It's incredibly unlikely any of this would ever be overturned, virtually zero chance.

But yeah everyone should keep an open mind in general.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

MA Rodger at 20:49 PM on 18 October, 2018

Eclectric @260,

My personal position is that I do not recall reading Nikolov & Zeller before. There are certainly within it some worrying constructions within their model, that is worrying for a science faced by deluded AGW contrarians. (It may be diferent if you are researching exoplanetry climate.) Particularly worrying is the idea of the density of an atmosphere being a (or indeed 'the') contributing factor to the greenhouse effect. There is also the acceptance of the 37% result from Volokin & ReLiez which I consider to be badly wrong. (That is the idea that all airless rocky planets, if without an atmosphere like our Moon would have an average surface temperture 37% less-than a temperature calculated globally using the S-B equation j=σT^4.)

But Nikolov & Zeller do present good accounts of the literature of lunar and Martian temperatues and also calculate a Martian temperature in a reasonable manner, something I've not seen elsewhere.

Volokin & ReLiez I do remember as I did some simplistic calculations to unpack their 37%. I can repeat these with more confidence since Williams et al (2017). What I don't recall is their use of the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment data (as used by Williams et al) to check their Moon calculations. That is a useful calculation.

-----

Setting out the simplistic calcs that show the 37% value is misused for the Earth (& Mars as well):-

The 37% does occur on the Moon. Thus using S-B to calculate the lunar average temperature yields 270K, an over-estimation of some 70K. Only a small portion of this 70K is due to the zonal temperature range (hot tropics, cold poles), perhaps 5K of the 70K. The rest is due to the diurnal range. The Moon with a 708 hour 'day' has a very large diurnal range. Averaged across all zones, the range is 90K to 360K. It is this diurnal range that drops the remaining 65K below the S-B estimate. An Earth stripped of its atmosphere with a 24 hour day will have a smaller diurnal range (perhaps 40% of the lunar range). This is the point where Volokin & ReLiez "briefly explore" the issue. They examining the heat storeage of the planet surface thro the night, feeding conclusions back into their simplified modelling and find hardily any difference (0.3K) due to the 24 hour day. Somewhere they have forgotten Hölder’s Inequality (errors due to averaging a non-linear function) from which that 65K derives. The Moon's temperature between any single 29½ hour period (those used by Williams et al) varies up to a maximum of 114K while the Moon over the full 708 hours varies 267K, thus the 114/267=40%. If the Earth's 24 hour 'day' waggles temperature by only 40% of the Moon's 708 hour 'day', the Hölder’s Inequality shrinks massively, back-of-fag-packet perhaps from 65K to 10K.

Now, magically, add on the zonal 5K and subtract the 15.7K non-greenhouse zonal-heat-transfer effect (this value from Volokin & ReLiez) and the Earth non-GHG temperature returns to the S-B estimated value. This then magically returns us to a 255K non-GHG Earth and thus the 33K GH-effect we all know & love.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

MA Rodger at 21:11 PM on 17 October, 2018

JC @258,

Thank you for finding Nikolov & Zeller (2015). These exoplanet scientists often come up with interesting work but it is not an area I follow. You will note their Appendix B providing a calculation of the Martian average global temperature based on measurements taken from Martian probes.

The lunar temperature they use is reliant on Volokin & ReLlez (2014) who check their modelled value against the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment data which is also the data presented by Williams et al (2017) which I mention @257 as the source of my calculated average lunar temperature.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

JC at 05:05 AM on 17 October, 2018

LINK

Here page 11 you have an estimate of the average temperature of the Moon: 197,35 +/- 0,9 ° K. This corresponds to your 200 ° K!

I think for the rest of your remarks (review the value of the Moon albedo ?).

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

JC at 17:55 PM on 6 October, 2018

I seek explanations figures on the 3 planets from a universal law of the greenhouse effect. For the moment I only read studies for each planet as if we could isolate the greenhouse effect of CO2 and unify its effects. However, CO2 must react well to energy wherever it is and heat accordingly.

I am also a scientist (but not a climatologist or physicist) and the greenhouse effect does not seem clear to me at all, moreover no one can explain it simply. We are dealing with vague explanations.

As for the hiatus, it is visible, as is the current drop in global T °. But that's not the subject of this discussion.

As far as I am concerned, and in agreement with the studies of Leroy Ladurie, I realize that the current phase of warming follows the regularity of the last four thousand years.

Thank you for all the documents on the greenhouse effect, that's what I'm looking for. I would read them carefully. Thanks again.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

MA Rodger at 21:24 PM on 5 October, 2018

JC @232,

You appear to be using misconceptions of the operation of GHG on other planets to argue that CO2 is not driving climate change. I think that makes you commenting off-topic.

But to continue awhile here, there is no disagreement that Mars has a higher pressure of CO2 in its atmosphere (6.0mbar) than there is in Earth's atmosphere (0.6mbar) although you calculation is overly-complicated and wrong to suggest the atmospheric CO2 content on Mars is 2.165e19kg or 7,000-times greater than the value for Earth. The ratio will be less than the 10:1 ratio of CO2 pressures as Mars is a smaller planet. (NASA give the total weight of the Martian atmosphere as ~2.5e16kg suggesting a CO2 content of ~2.4e16kg, a ration of 7.7 to 1.0.)

Also, the impact of GHGs on the Martian surface temperature is small but it is not zero as your "GHE : 0 W/m2 !!!!!!!!!" implies. How do you obtain the zero value?

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #26

sophiewilson0191 at 22:04 PM on 6 July, 2018

Some people consider climate change a big threat .

Do you think it is better to fix Earth than exploring space and using billions of cash just to have a picture of some planets. It is not like we can easily build an empire of than planet.

We still lack technology to explore more of that planet.

Climate Change May Have Claimed A Significant Victim – The Barents Sea

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

Atc at 13:29 PM on 16 March, 2018

Eclectic @100 ,
on the question of money...
For me to respond to this part, I will really have to go off topic. It now goes into the realm of politics.
Money and politics corrupt everything. Certainly it holds true for governments and universities. I’ll just leave it here.

If you were new to the field of Earth's geography, why would you not .... position of Flat Earth...
I wouldn’t go that far. I would have to read the Old Testament in Hebrew. And understand it in the context of the people at the time it was written. Dead Sea scrolls for instance. And then I would investigate the older Sumerian culture. Figure out whether or not if there is any truth to the idea that the story of Genesis already existed there. By the time I am done with that I probably wouldn’t be around to answer the question of whether it is mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament a “flat earth” theory.
Simply state that it is not round. Then just go down the list of ancient cultures until you find Eratosthenes. Once I am convinced by his arguments, I can now move forwards; that the earth is round. I am not going to rely solely on the consensus. Unless of course they show me that their arguments were also based on Eratosthenes’. In other words, I need a paper trail.
Don’t just tell me that we have multiple lines of evidence. I need to look at how each evidence stands on its own. If the individual evidence cannot stand on its own, throw it out. See what you are left with. If it is not testable and not verifiable, it is not evidence for me. Unfortunately in climate science, a lot of what they say is not testable nor verifiable. Correlation is not causation. It is a necessary condition but not sufficient. This is the part I am still having a problem. If I can get pass this part, everything else will fall in place. I am referring to CO2.
This part is hard to explain. It’s going to be in a very roundabout way. Let me try.

When Newton explained gravity he first started by fitting his observations to a curve, in this case a quadratic. The motions of the planets fits this curve very well for the time. Now he has to explain what is it that makes the planets follow that curve. He called it a force. So that’s the theory.
It was good. But still he doesn’t know what was this force that can act through space. That’s just left like that for 200 years. At some point they started seeing problems with the Perihelion Motion of Mercury. Basically what’s happening is that they got better with their observations. Newton’s first curve fit is not that good anymore at explaining the observations. It is not off by much. Now Einstein steps in. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.7370.pdf His model is more refined and is a better fit. “Gravity, Einstein asserted, is caused by a warping of space and time—or, in a language we physicists prefer, by a warping of spacetime. The Earth’s matter produces the warpage, and that warpage in turn is manifest by gravity’s inward tug, toward the Earth’s center.
The inward tug is not the only manifestation of spacetime warpage; the warpage is much richer than that. As we shall see, it curves space, it slows the flow of time, and it drags space into tornado-like motions — at least that is what Einstein’s general relativity predicts.”

We are no more closer to understanding gravity. It went from a force to a warping in space-time. There is, however, a better correlation between observation and the models. But the question went from what’s this force that acts at a distance to what’s this warping of space-time. The story does not end here. Then came Vera Rubin. “She uncovered the discrepancy between the predicted angular motion of galaxies and the observed motion, by studying galactic rotation curves. A significant discrepancy exists between the experimental curves observed, and a curve derived from theory. The theory of dark matter was postulated to account for the variance.”
There is something else now not explicable about some kind of matter. It interacts with this world through gravity but nothing else that we know of at this point. This is still a work in progress. It is faster now. Newton to Einstein 200 years, Einstein to Rubin 50 years. the mystery continues

So if I haven’t lost you yet, what we see happening is that we have at the planetary scale Newtonian mechanics, atomic and subatomic scale Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and now dark matter theory at the galactic scale. At each scale, a different set of curves has to be fit.
And fit they do. The curve fitting is what I would call the correlation. The various explanations, theories, are the causation ( a force, a warping of space-time, dark matter). What we see here is that these theories change, the causation changes.

Don’t start nit picking. The purpose of this history is to show that at least in physics on this subject we can easily follow how the theories change. How they are verified by better observations and what difficulties they run into that requires modification of the theory.

What I would like to see is a similar attempt in climate science. Like I said earlier I am stuck on CO2 right now. What I would like to see is how they went from CO2 and temperature correlation to catastrophic man-made global warming.
This is what I have found so far. It does not of course answer the questions. But it’s a start to see if I can get to the CO2 explanation.
Is that CO2 vs temperature correlation the first order fit? How was it determined that CO2 that is 400 ppm is primarily due to human activity? How are the catastrophic predictions done?

Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report
T. P. Barnett*, K. Hasselmann+, M. Chelliah#, T. Delworth@, G. Hegerl&, P. Jones**, E. Rasmusson++, E. Roeckner+, C. Ropelewski##, B. Santer@@ and S. Tett&&

*Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California.
+Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany.
#National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Washington, D.C.
@Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey.
&JISAO, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
**University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
++University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
##International Research Institute, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York.
@@Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
&&Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, U.K. Meteorological Office, Bracknell, United Kingdom.
Corresponding author address: Dr. Tim P. Barnett, Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Dept. 0224, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0224. E-mail: tbarnett@ucsd.edu
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Vol. 80: , Issue. 12, : Pages. 2631-2660
(Issue publication date: December 1999)
Received Date: July 13, 1999
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)0802.0.CO;2
Excerpted
“This paper addresses the question of where we now stand with respect to detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate signal. Our ability to estimate natural climate variability, against which claims of anthropogenic signal detection must be made, is reviewed. The current situation suggests control runs of global climate models may give the best estimates of natural variability on a global basis, estimates that appear to be accurate to within a factor of 2 or 3 at multidecadal timescales used in detection work.”

If you guys can find the follow up paper to this, it would be much appreciated. This is dated 1999. It’s now 2018. It should be very informative.

And why would you wish to pay more for electricity in future years ...

I think you should ask the Germans how they are doing without nuclear power. Then ask how they are doing with green power. From the clean energy website https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts, we see that currently clean energy is 33%. Fossil fuel is 50%. Nuclear is 10%.
So by 2022 nuclear will be gone. Then after that progressively wean himself off of fossil fuel.

The other piece of information we need is the cost. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germany-ponders-how-finance-renewables-expansion-future
Weaning a major economy off fossil fuels, while phasing out nuclear power at the same time, comes at a cost. Major investments are needed, not only to transform the power sector, but also to find sustainable solutions for transport and heating. Shifting these sectors to clean electricity as their primary source of energy – a process referred to as sector coupling – will further increase demand for renewable power. Many oberservs believe Germany's current system is not up to the task of financing this new phase of the Energiewende.
With general elections looming later this year, the debate over a general overhaul of Germany’s much-imitated system for renewables support – shouldered by electricity consumers – has gathered pace.

I think you should read the rest on your own.
This is the most optimistic scenario one can get for a country with a strong economy. They are able to make their consumers shoulder the cost. What the heck are the other countries going to do?

2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #4

nigelj at 06:03 AM on 28 January, 2018

Climate change is making the planets climate more tropical. The tropics have more diseases. Warmer climates have more biodiversity, so more animals and bugs, and warmer climates are ideal for laying eggs.

Some basic form of universal healthcare makes sense. Because nobody in their right mind wants to see desperate sick people unable to afford even basic healthcare, and a healthy workforce benefits employers as well.

Government have a fundamental role in environmental protection, because free markets don't look after the environment, because of the tragedy of the commons problem.

But not everyone thinks that way. This is because not everyone thinks.

Battered by extreme weather, Americans are more worried about climate change

scaddenp at 06:09 AM on 23 November, 2017

Let's distinguish carefully between natural forcings (things that change the planetary energy balance and thus climate of natural origin) and internal variability (modes of weather variation due to uneven heating of a wet planet - ie ENSO, PDO etc. This is internal redistribution of heat, not a change in planetary energy balance). Climate is defined formally as 30 year average of weather because shorter time periods are dominated by internal variability. The temperature readings are absolutely a combination of internal variability and long term forcings but internal variability is chaotic and cant be predicted more than few months in advance.

If you want to see how well you can account for the temperature record using just forcing + ENSO, then see the excellent series here. Unlike various mathturbation exercises fitting climate to planets, moon, no. of athetists in world etc. this uses part of the record to determine the fit parameters and then then uses those to predict the other part. However, this cannot be used to predict the temperatures in next decade because ESNO in the future is unknown (and seems to be unknowable).

Reflections on the politics of climate change

chrisblandis at 07:58 AM on 12 November, 2017

The author here has presented a very tendentiuos view on climate change and why people believe in it or not. Like most things in life, nowadays, everyone wants to be reductive - make everything a simple answer, reason or solution - however, the world and the people that inhabit it are extraordinarily complex.

As a democrat, a former catholic, and graduate from Columbia, I can tell you that I am skeptical for the following reasons. First, we live in a universe that we barely understand. Scientific beliefs one day are often proven completely wrong years later. Science is constantly discovering: "the more we live, the more we learn... the more we learn, the more we realize the less we know." Scientists cannot with any certainty predict the course of a hurricane or the weather, for that matter, let alone predict the overall course of our planet's global weather in the future. Computer models show many possible outcomes based on "information we know" but we know LESS than what we actually know, that's why we can't even predict the weather or storms courses accurately. The mystery of life still outweighs science. Next, NASA reported in 2008 that Mars and other planets have been heating up since we began recording their temperatures... are humans to blame for this as well? This information is rational and scientific and should be included in our assessment of the earth's climate changes. The earth and universe have been around for 4.5 billion years, going through a vast number of extraordinary climatic events and extinctions and rebirths... scientific man has been around for 400 yrs. If we reduce this to minutes... if the earth existed for 60 minutes, man's existence is a fraction of a second... to think that we know the earth's cycles or where our solar system is traveling as we speed through the universe... is absurd. With all that said, maybe, maybe, there is a correlation between man and the warming of the planet, it could be part of the reason, or not. 30yrs scientists noted the correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease and told warned people to stop eating eggs, butter and red meat... now science has come out and said "oops, it's more complicated that that," and now eggs and butter are being added back into our diets. Correlations aren't facts...they can be coincidental. Personally, I think that it can't hurt to try to reduce our emissions and be more conscious of our environment, but i do take issue when people try to shove theory down my throat as fact, and demonize or ridicule people if they are skeptical. Skepticism... is good. If we just accepted everything without question - we would never learn or grow. Is the earth getting warmer... yes. Are we to blame solely? Who the F knows. You don't and neither do I.

Other planets are warming

liua at 01:47 AM on 15 October, 2017

Hi there. I found this claim very interesting and I was intrigued how this claim could support the idea that climate change in natural and not caused by anthropogenic factors. However, I think that it is crucial to taken into account the atmospheric conditions as well as the orbital eccentricity of each respective planet as these can vary greatly so we cannot use these planets as exact analogues for Earth to explain our temperatures.

Additionally, I have checked with the external references cited in the author’s piece. The original researchers have only created models in predicting a potential increase in temperature on Jupiter as a result of the whirlpool and sunspot activity on this planet. I also want to point out that although the luminosity of the planet’s may change, this is not proportional to the temperature of a planet or celestial object.

Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes

Rob Honeycutt at 06:30 AM on 27 September, 2017

Rbrooks... If you apply this to issues that haven't been sufficiently researched, you usually end up with the wrong answer, and that's not science. The conclusion that the earth is flat is, and never was, a claim based in science. It was science which revealed the truth to us.

I'm curious why you would want to start from Novak's paper? There is nothing, on the surface, that suggests the paper is credible. I've not read it yet so I don't know for sure, but what I do know is this:

1) The source is suspicious. "lasersparkpluginc.com" somehow doesn't suggest to me this is coming from a reliable source.

2) This is not a published paper and therefore likely it's not peer reviewed.

3) The subtitle straight up rejects what has been established science for over 100 years: "There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming"

Honestly, don't you think it would be more reasonable to start from work that is well established and thoroughly reviewed by leading experts around the world? I mean, if a student wants to learn about the planets in our solar system we don't start by trying to teach them the earth is flat. Right?

Climate's changed before

scaddenp at 09:26 AM on 22 September, 2017

Scott, the first important thing to understand is that climate is a reflection of the energy balance. If that changes for any reason, climate changes. Climate does not change by itself. CO2 was much much higher in the past, but the sun was fainter. We only got polar caps when CO2 dropped below a level for it to get cold enough. In the Pleistocene, CO2 dropped to point where the slow orbital cycles (Milankovich cycles) could drive an ice-age cycle due to variations in insolation happening at around 65N. Before that (the last time we had CO2 above 400ppm), you had icecaps but not ice ages.

Could they melt again? They will. The sun as a mainline star, is very slowly increasing its output and has been doing so since formation. At some point, a billion or so years into future, it will be too hot for liquid water. Eventually, as its fuel is exhausted, the sun will expand and probably consume all the inner planets - 5 billion years into future from memory.

A volcanic eruption on the scale of the Deccan traps could also push so much CO2 out that it warms the climate though that might be the least of our worries.

Climate denial is like The Matrix; more Republicans are choosing the red pill

Tom Curtis at 14:28 PM on 23 July, 2017

chriskoz @14, I think you have misinterpreted Nikolov and Zeller (2014). Their full equation for planetary temperature with no atmosphere (T_na) is give by equation (14) {(4a) in Nikolov and Zeller (2017)}, and does indeed include terms for the Cosmic Ray Background Radiation (Rc), geothermal heating of the surface (Rg) and regolith heat storage (η_e). However, they state:

"Similar to Eq. (10), here one can also safely assume R c = 0.0 if S o > 0.15 W m−2 and R g = 0.0 in most cases. This reduces Eq. (14) to (11a) with the regolith thermal enhancement factor..."

They then give equation (16) as the reduced form without either the (negligible) effect of the cosmic background radiation or geothermal heating, and it is the equivalent of equation (16) {equation (4b) in Nikolov and Zeller (2017)} that is used in Nikolov and Zeller (2017) (which also discusses the reasons for ignoring geothermal and background microwave heat sources). In both papers they give the threshold at which R_c and R_g can be ignored as an insolation >0.15 W/m^2, ie, nearly a hundred thousandth of that at Earth.

The regolith thermal enhancement factor represents storage of incoming solar energy by surface rocks (the regolith). Heat storage and conduction in the outer rocks is in fact an important factor and is responsible for maintaining night time equatorial temperatures on the Moon at around 100 K, rather than around 2 K as per the background radiation. So, while I cannot confirm their treatment of it, I can confirm that it is a legitimate factor. It is negligible on Earth only because of the far greater heat transport by ocean and atmosphere - factors neglected in the hypothetical T_na which assume no ocean, atmosphere, or surface ice, or vegetation (and that albedo is consequently equivalent to that of the Moon).

Where I can say emphatically that Nikolov and Zeller are in error is in their attribution of the cause of the extra 90 K of surface warming they find. To begin with, the calculation of the effective radiative temperature {(Te), Equation (3) in Nikolov and Zeller (2014) and Nikolov and Zeller (2017)} assumes the surface temperature to be equal at all points. That is not the case on Earth, which would require near infinite thermal conductivity for it to be the case. As unequal temperatures allow the radiation of more thermal energy for the mean surface temperature, that means the greenhouse effect causes more than 33 K warming to the Earth's mean surface temperature. That is, part of the additional 90 K warming estimated is due to the GHE.

The largest part of it, however, is due to the thermal transfers by atmosphere and ocean that greatly restrict the temperature extremes on Earth, and reduce them still further in the upper troposphere. Needless to say, it is not due to a "pressure induced thermal enhancement".

Curiously, there is a pressure induced thermal enhancement of a type involved in the surface temperature of planets with atmospheres. It is, however, a component of the greenhouse effect. In particular, in planets whose atmospheres are optically thick enough, the surface temperature is a function of the altitude of the temperature of effective radiation to space, and the adiabatic lapse rate. The adiabatic lapse rate is, in turn, largely a function of the pressure gradient in the atmosphere.

As has been explained ad nauseum to a variety of deniers, however, adiabatic processes can explain the slope of the thermal gradient with altitude, but a slope by itself does not explain the temperature at any particular location. To explain the temperature, you need the temperature of a point on that slope. That point is the effective altitude of radiation to space. With no greenhouse gases, the point of effective radiation to space is the surface, resulting in no thermal enhancement. With greenhouse gases, that point is lifted above the surface with a consequent enhancement of temperature.

Planet Hacks: Stuff

chriskoz at 10:39 AM on 21 July, 2017

"stuff a biggest culprit for overheating planets"
(should be the planet)

A typo/mispronouncement. We know only one Planet, on which "stuff" is made. If any such planet exists somewhere else in universe, it's so far away that we won't be able to locate it needless to say interact with it within the same timespace.

Casual language in this series (understandable as direted at yong people) should not be too casual so as to become incorrect.

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #28

Doug_C at 05:00 AM on 17 July, 2017

I find this easy to believe based on recent summers here. I live in southern BC with family just across the border in Washington state.

In 2015 my relatives in Washington were on evacution notice for two months as there were massive wildfires surrounding the town where they lived. The largest just to the south of them was over 200,000 acres. The smoke from those fires blew up into Canada and was so dense at times it was like fog. It made life very difficult and most people spent as little time outdoors as possible.

I spent most of my youth in central BC and now watch as much of that territory is on fire. I can go on the BC Forest Service wildfire maps and check homes where I used to live which may not be there much longer. My brother and his family along with 17,000 other people in BC have been evacuated and may not have a home to go back to.

This is the new "normal" and the very scary thing is that it will keep getting worse as we continue to burn even more fossil fuels and force the climate into an even more hostile state.

At the same time all this is happening the federal Trudeau government has approved the twinning of the Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta to Burrard inlet in Vancouver which will be able to carry 800,000 barrels of dilbit a day. Allowing almost 300,000,000 barrels a year of tar sands crude to be sent to market and burned by this one route alone. This being allowed by a national leader who claims to understand the science and risk of climate change and agrees that we need mitigation.

The power of carbon dioxide to alter a planets surface conditions is incredible, our twin planet just a few tens of millions of miles closer to the Sun has the hottest planetary surface in the solar system almost certainly due to its 97% CO2 atmosphere.

But we don't need to get anywhere close to that to make the Earth unihabitable for most of the life here. Just change the climate faster than most species can adapt or migrate and trigger the kind of changes in the oceans that have led to massive dieoffs both in the sea and on land.

Massive forest fires on land will be the least of our worries if in the future the oceans go anoxic and begin producing the kind of poison gases that likely occurred during the Permian and possibly other extinction level events.

For an existential emergency, so many appear to be incredibly complacent.

Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs

One Planet Only Forever at 07:08 AM on 5 July, 2017

nigelj@27,

I agree. And I should have put a larger quote from the interview into my comment@24.

What I disagree with was the suggestion that because of aggression being a permanent part of human character, humanity should move to live on other planets and space stations in case the aggression goes so far unchecked that an entire planet/location is wiped out.

As you mention, the aggression can be effectively managed. My main point is that until humanity effectively limits the winning by unacceptable behaviour it does not deserve to spread onto other locations because the real problem has not been sustainably addressed, it is being spread out with none of the added locations safe from the feared fate.

Also, a group of humans that allows aggression to dominate is not humanity. It is inhumanity or savagery. And inhumanity or savagery does not deserve to have a future.

But on further reflection I would add that aggression is not the major problem. The major threat to humanity is the cult of faithful followers of the damaging dogma that 'a better result will be produced if everyone is freer to believe whatever they want to excuse what they want to get away with doing'. The members of such a cult clearly would expect to benefit from such a belief being enforced/promoted in law and culture. The aggressive, selfish, wicked, mean-minded people will undeniably have a competitive advantage in any game, especially ones with winning based simply on popularity or profitability (no rational consideration of distant motives required). Those people will clearly push against Good Reason restrictions on what they can get away with. And they can easily tempt others to side with them about how unfair it is to restrict their ability to get away with something they want to get away with (or make it more expensive and transfer wealth to the ones who do less of the unacceptable activity), especially if that something has been allowed to become more popular and profitable in spite of the Well Reasoned understanding that it is unacceptable.

Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs

nigelj at 07:41 AM on 4 July, 2017

Doug_C @25, yeah I agree about the underlying physical science realities and risks. This is my underlying thinking and has been for years. I do think we are at huge risk of undermining the only planet we have, and we absolutely cannot count on escaping to other planets etc.

However I have turned into an envionmental pragmatist or moderate in some ways. I can see the business perspective as well, and that we have to be realistic and fair to everyone. We need the business sector.

To me its a case of how do we promote economic growth and mining etc, but how do we do this responsibly with minimal impact? Its a hard road technically, and I'm treading a middle ground ideologically, and will not be popular for that, but I see few options.

I think we can "have our cake and eat it" if we are smart, and just a bit fair minded.

But you are dead right any economic or real world policies have to fit within the physical limits of the environment. That's a good bottom line. Of course the debate is how you quantify all this.

"How do you get government that is supposed to represent society in general and the private sector to cooperate to protect the basic integrity of the planet we all depend on for survival when the clear imperative in many cases is to have the greatest benefit for the private sector no matter the cost to us all."

It's a big problem. The pendulm has swung too far to corporate neoliberalism. A healthy belief in free markets has been wrongly interpreted to mean no control over markets at all, and profit as the only criteria which is clearly not workable. Profit is important, but so is maintaining stability of the underlying system.

Such a thing as genuinely totally free markets is actually impossible, unless we want no government and total anarchy. The term only ever meant free from arbitrary and illogical control. Markets have to have rules and boundaries, or they dont function and cause irreparable harm. And this is really about issues around health, safety, environmental concerns, and financial stability.

Politicians need to wake up to these obvious realities. They are there to make planetary systems workable and stable, not to pander to narrow, selfish and destructive interests.

Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs

One Planet Only Forever at 00:37 AM on 4 July, 2017

A different presentation of my comment @23 would be:

Global society needs to re-establish the value of Good Actions based on Rational Consideration of Distant Motives, a culture of Independently Verifiable Good Helpful Character winning over the culture of Created Perceptions Unjustifiably Boosting Impressions of Personality.
The objective is to get everyone to understand the importance of participating in helping to improve the future for all of humanity: being good to yourself personally (eating a balanced diet and getting a variety of exercise), helping (not harming) locally and globally, in the short and long term. And that means understanding that a person does not deserve admiration or respect just because they appear to be wealthy or impressive (and understanding that some wealthy powerful people do not deserve their wealth or power).

A related understanding is that the marketplace/money games need monitoring and correction to ensure that genuinely helpful actions are the valued activities, and harmful activities are effectively deterred. People need to grow up wanting to be helpful and being rewarded for the help they can deliver, rather than growing up focused on 'Making Money and Putting on Shows of Wealth and Grandeur (including taking on debt, or stealing, or doing something understandably unsustainable or harmful - things that would be counter-productive if everybody else decide to try to get away with them like those drivers who try to cut in near the front of a long line of traffic waiting to make a turn.)'. Leaders/Winners need to be held accountable to act to achieve that result.

I disagree with Stephen Hawking's thoughts in a recent BBC interview that “... aggression was "inbuilt" in humans and that our best hope of survival was to live on other planets.”

Humanity collectively can learn how to work to improve the future for all of humanity, a robust diversity of it, fitting in sustainably as part of a robust diversity of other life 'on this or any other planet'. Until humanity learns how to do that, stops allowing too many people to grow up mere children, it has no future anywhere.

The establishment of the Sustainable Development Goals is evidence that humanity can figure out how to be more certain that it has a future.

SkS Analogy 9 - The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets

Ger at 15:22 PM on 1 July, 2017

1. More blankets == more warmth? The source of heat is yourself, more blankets is a better isolation with less losses, not more warmth. (unless you put the blankets on fire).

2. More blankets means warmer inside, cooler outside? It doesnt cool down outside because you emit less heat into. It's cool down because the cold layer outside is also loosing heat to outside your bedroom. It doesn't heat up as fast as before. Neither will it get any warmer inside than your body temperature.

And in point 3. you go 'off the rails' just because you took the analogies from the wrong point of reference (inside instead of outside). Rate is very important in establishing an equilibrium. Especially when the heating/cooling is a cyclic process. No matter how high the amount of CO2 is in the atmosphere, if no equilibrium can be reached the system goes banana's. See other planets with an atmosphere e.g. a Venus.

Mars is warming

Ncrdbl1 at 09:52 AM on 25 April, 2017

So you start off by saying there is no way to prove that Mars is warming. Then you go forth trying to explain why teh ice caps are shrinking.

Very simple reason, the temperature has moved above the freezing point. There is no other reason you can give to explaiin what us happening.

In layman's term it is WARMING.

You just do nto want to accept it because it will mean anotehr factor in play with our own planets which cause temperatures to change.

Most likely reason that could effect both planets ice caps???? SOLAR ACTIVITY.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on science vs. denial

One Planet Only Forever at 07:39 AM on 25 April, 2017

This post and the comments got me thinking, and revisiting things, a lot more than I initially thought I would.

One of the most comprehensive and significant Emergent Truths is that the future of humanity requires leadership towards achieving the internationally developed and agreed Sustainable Development Goals (which includes aggressive action to limit climate change impacts form human activity). And it is indeed many Political people (including politically motivated Business-minded people), not Science people, who are failing to do what Ethical Leaders need to do for the future of Humanity.

John Adams (2nd President of the USA) said “The preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country.”

What is now undeniable is that many current developments have been pushed very far in understandably inappropriate directions. Those understandably unacceptable pursuits Won, and continue to Win, because of the lack of awareness and lack of responsible evaluation of the appropriateness of an activity. Evaluation should be determining that an activity is a development that sustainably improves the future for all of humanity. Popularity and profitability clearly do not produce that evaluation. As a result, there is damaging over-development and powerful support for it. Those who have Won, or want to Win more, through inappropriately directed over-development refuse to admit that their perceptions of prosperity or opportunity are unjustified. They demand 'proof to their satisfaction' of the unacceptability of their desires and beliefs.

The lack of winning by people with Good Ethical Objective/Purpose is the real problem.

But the comments lead me to more thoughts.

My understanding is that Star Trek presented the value of a robust diversity of people working collectively to better understand how to make things better. The United Federation of Planets was a diverse mix. And the Prime Directive in their exploration for New Life and New Civilizations was not to Conquer, Exploit, or Melt Them into Oneness. It was to avoid interfering in the development of alien civilizations (exceptions were made when there was evidence that one group was doing harm to Others or when help could reduce suffering). The Nemesis of the Federation, the Romulans and the Klingons, were presented as Empire Pursuing Mono-Cultures, lacking broad diversity.

The fundamentals of Start Trek can be understood to be similar to simple key points regarding “what life is all about” that have been developed and presented repeatedly throughout the history of humanity. It is a lesson constantly re-learned as the unethical reality of Winners re-emerge after too many people fail to honour this Good Purpose/Best Objective in all of their thoughts and actions.

Einstein also said “Only a life lived for others is a life worth while.” and “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

And Sagan said “Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”

Lord Acton made a related point “Everything secret degenerates, nothing is safe that does not bear discussion and publicity.”

Human history is full of quotes that reflect those understandings of Good Purpose or Objectives and the importance of honest pursuit of understanding guided by a Good Objective or Purpose. The internationally established Sustainable Development Goals are an integrated set of objectives that have been developed through the pursuit of better understanding that is consistent with those fundamental Good Objectives/Purposes. Yet we see a powerful nation like the USA having its leadership being Won by people whose actions can be seen to be contrary to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (including attempts to discredit or disrespect climate science and reverse actions that would have helped).

It becomes essential to understand what keeps humanity from developing and sustaining a stronger consensus of better understanding regarding how to improve the future for all of humanity.

Unethical Creators of Perceptions have been winning competitions for popularity and profitability.
They can get a competitive advantage from not caring about Others (Winning by appealing to the tendency of people to be Selfish, Tribal, Nationalistic, Xenophobic).
They have a competitive advantage of not caring about the future (Winning by appealing to the tendency of people to be Greedy).

To cynically quote the Marquise de Sade “It is infinitely better to take the side of the wicked who prosper than of the righteous who fail”. A related more ancient quote of Anacharsis (c. 600 BC) is “The market-place is a place set aside where men may deceive and overreach each other.” (these are not new realizations).

Mortimer Adler presented what is required of Leaders from his understanding of Aristotle. “In Aristotelian terms, the good leader must have ethos, pathos, and logos. The ethos is his moral character, the source of his ability to persuade. The pathos is his ability to touch feelings, to move people emotionally. The logos is his ability to give solid reasons for an action, to move people intellectually.”

Clearly, many smart people have learned how to abuse the power of pathos to influence people who are content to have a lesser degree of logos if it suits their desire to benefit from an understandably unacceptable ethos.

Unethical smart people continue to be able to Win competitions for popularity and profitability, to the detriment of others, particularly to the detriment of the future of humanity. As one of the many developed better understandings of what is going on, the 1987 UN Report “Our Common Future”, bluntly points out:
“25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.”

Donald Trump has stated he is a fan of “Getting even, Getting revenge”. He has little to fear from his actions that undeniably delay or diminish efforts towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, creating larger negative consequences for future generations, because the future generations Cannot Get Even.

Leaders must clearly be measured by how responsibly they lead to the improvement of understanding and the required changes to develop a better life for all in the near and distant future (which undeniably requires improving the future for a robust diversity of all life on this amazing planet, pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals, not fighting against them).

The need for scientists to step up and try to overcome the misleading marketing efforts of Winning unethical leaders, in the most influential nation and many other supposedly “more advanced” nations on this amazing planet, who Fail to provide responsible Good Leadership (preferring to be modern day likes of the thinking of the Marquis de Sade), is tragic proof of the continuation of the long human history of failing to sustainably develop better understanding from previous tragedies of historic proportions.

Constantly improving the future for a robust diversity of life on this amazing planet has to matter more than many competitors for popularity and profitability would care to have it matter. Developing and sustaining that awareness and understanding is undeniably essential to most rapidly protect and improve the future for humanity. Climate Scientists have a major role in that effort. However, what is missing, a missing link, is overwhelming well-informed support for Winning by Ethical Leaders (and as in Sports: for the Good of the Game, assessing penalties for unethical pursuers of Winning).

Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera

curiousd at 09:18 AM on 19 April, 2017

Note to Tom Curtis comment 37. I had always assumed, say for two years or so, that I could never understand anything that button revealed, as it would have something to do with the program source code. It was only when I determined by integrating one of the outputs by using a digitized result with an underlying width which by accident extended between 5 wn to 2000 wn and got a significantly larger OLR than was given in the MILA output, and then found I was within 2% of the MILA output if the underlying interval was limited to 100 wn to 1500 wn. that I realizedsomething was wrong.

By user output I meant what the user sees in the window that appears when you click on the URL for MILA. Then I looked at that button and found that the actual integration was limited to 100 to 1500 wn and that the emissivity was0.98 The way I found this out, and that indeed the information was revealed by that button, was described earlier in the thread, Tom Curtis, which you might have looked at more carefully before accusing me of a false claim.

Regarding comment 38. Here is how I get the upward intensity as a finction of emissivity and altitude.

For the zero altitude in band intensity I go to the SpectralCalc black body calculator APP and calculate the in band radiance for 288.2 degrees and the emissivity I put in. I use a wave length range of 500 to 850 wn which completerly includes the bending mode band of CO2.

For CO2 the bending mode range is contained within the 500 to 850 wn range. The band from 100 wn to 500 wn is completely transparent if CO2 is the only green house gas, which I also put into SpectralCalc. The same is true for the window between 850 wn and 1500 wn. Therefore, since CO2 is completerly transparent for 100 wn to 500 wn, and 850 wn to 1500 wn I also obtain those intensities using the SpectralCalc Black Body Calculator as described above in this post. The upward intensity for a CO2 only atmosphere, will be the same for all altitudes for those two outer widows, as observed at ground level, and therefore I just add them at higher altitudes to the output I get for the 500 to 850 band.

For the 500 to 850 band I use the "Atmospheric Paths" APP of SpectralCalc. This gives either transmittances or radiance outputs. Here I use the radiance output. The way this works is that there is a virtual source at ground level, for which you can put in a temperature of 288.2 degrees and an emissivity of choice. Again, I choose an atmosphere with only CO2, major isotopologue. A complication is that the U.S. Standard atmosphere is used in the scale factors. Therefore a scale factor of one does not correspond to 400 ppm of CO2, since back in the 70s the CO2concentration was less than this. For 400 ppm you must therefore use a scale factor of 1.212. The U.S. standard atmosphere is default for the SpectralCalc atmospheric path sections.

Here is my only non standard step: I use instead of 400 ppm a concentration of 1.7 times 400 ppm or 680 ppm. This corresponds to a scale factor of 1.212 times 1.7 or 2.06. Why do I do this? I am in effect using the "diffusivity approximation" as described in great length both in Pierrehumbert's text and Grant Petty's text. The idea is that if one does not wish to integrate the output radiance to obtain diffusive flux, one can approximate the result of integrating that radiance by multiplying the in band radiance by pi and simultaneously replacing all paths involved by a straight line path going at angle theta relative to vertical. Here I quote from the pages within Pierrehumbert that are not available in the URL http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

Quoting from Pierrehumbert p. 191: "...if the radiation field remains approximately isotropic, the decay rate is the same as for unidirectional radiation propagating at an angle theta such that cos theta = 1/2, i.e. 60 degrees..." Then "..the choice of cos theta = 1/2 is by nomeans a unique consequence of the assumption of isotropy....(under certain conditions) cos theta = 2/3 and this would ve an equally valid choice within the limits of the isotropic approximation..."

Petty staes on page 214..."The most commonly used value of (symbol for one over cos theta) is 5/3"

Note that my 1.7 factor is 1.666 or 2.3 rounded off and my angle is 54 degrees, not 60 degrees.

Furthermore in The Physics of Atmospheres by John Houghton third edition he states on pp. 11 - 12 that for Schwarzchild's Equation, to a good approximation the intensity may be replaced by the diffuse upward flux if B(T), [B(T) is the symbol for the black body emission per unit solid angle per unit area of a surface at temperature T] is replaced by pi B and the incremental increase in altitude dz is replaced by 5/3 dz."

At one time I went through the procedure of replacing vertical angle paths by paths at 54 degrees using a spread sheet. But I realized that exactly the same result is obtained by keeping the path vertical and replacing the concentration q by 1.7 q. Mathematically this must be the case since all the expressiont for transmittance in Pierrehumber involve the set of symbols F (q, theta) = q/cos theta. In the bottom of page 229, Pierrehumbert, his equation for the transmittance between pressures p1 and p2 is one minus the equivalent width where the equivalent width of a single Lorentzian line is one over delta (delta is he range of wave number considered)

time 2 times the square root the hitran line strength for a Lorentzian at at the base of the atmosphere times a different "strong line strength LS". The strong line strength contains together the set of symbols F = q/cos theta. This can be expanded to give the Curtis-Godsen approximation. I have tested whether the transmittance values I get from SpectralCalc and transform to angled paths at 60 degrees using a spread sheet are identical to the transmittance of a vertical path with q' = 2q . The agreement is exact!

Say I chose theta to be 60 degrees. Since for a vertical line cos theta is one, and 2q/one equals q/cos 60 degrees what I do is exactly equivalent to the "diffusivity approximation"

Bottom line....what MILA does is actually integrate over all angles. I use this approximation instead. The techical consultant at SpectralCalc tells me that what I am doing is an approximation to doing this a better way, where he would have used a "fouth order quadrature" whatever that is. He also told me that the same thing is true for the radiant atmospheric path APP as for the transmittance paths in Schwarzchild Equation, i.e. by multiplying the path length by 1.7 or by multiplying the concentration by 1.7 I can approximate the best way of going from intensity to diffuse flux which would use a "fourth order quadrature".

It works!! See post 8 above. The Science of Doom describes the method in their section on the "Greenhouse Effect" "The Equations"

You should also know that if you use atmospheric paths that are too long you get an error message in SpectralCalc to the effect that you have exceeded the one million point limit. Also, their are angled paths already available in SpectralCalc but they are real paths which are strongly refracted, and you need idealized paths that go in straight lines to use this approximation.

Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera

curiousd at 23:47 PM on 11 April, 2017

Hi M A Rodger,

Look at http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf

Unfortunately the thorough discussion of the various angles one might use under different circumstances on page 191 in my text does not appear to be in this. However, page 190 does have the statement after equation 4.69 "For strong lines the equivalent width is...." Note that within the radical is the symbol L sub S for the "strong path". Note that in equation 4.67 the set of terms q(p)/ g cos theta appear together. The q(p) is not a constant as it is for CO2 up to 100 km, but if I multiply by 1.7 the factor 1.7 being constant comes outside the integral. This complication does not come about for the CO2 case since q is constant and comes outside the integral.

I am assuming that SpectralCalc correctly takes care of the integral of q(p)dp between pressures.

BTW..One of the limitations of both MILA and Spectral Calc is that both have no ability for the user to resolve altitude steps less than 1 km. Of course, both MILA and SpectralCalc have a length resolution much less than this in the underlying program. For MILA I think I recall from the button for the underlying program that the length resolution is one centimeter. MILA is free, SpectralCalc is amazingly reasonable and Modtran6, which I have also purchased is expensive! But with Modtran six, one has a resolution in length at least down to a meter, a wavenumber range way more than I would ever need, and it deals with scattering. But although I am quite familiar with SpectralCalc I can now only do rudementary things with Modtran6, just because I have not studied the program very much. It is breaking in a new GUI interface, other wise I never would have purchased this package.

Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera

MA Rodger at 20:20 PM on 11 April, 2017

curiousd @19.

It seems we discuss a work by Pierrehumbert. It would be good to be sure we are discussing the same work so a proper reference would be good. The work you reference should be listed here although likely it will be this work you offer up for discussion. (By the way, my initial thought @14 had been solely to provide the links, not to comment on them.)

Models are unreliable

Glenn Tamblyn at 14:25 PM on 14 March, 2017

SemiChemE

Although we don't have multiple planets to run experiments on, we do have a long history of climate on this planet. Paleoclimatology is able to estimate climates going back 100's of millions of years. And one recent meta-study put all this together to estimate what climate sensitivity actually was from that history

Thus graph is adapted from the PALEOSENS study. The study looked at several dozen papers that had estimated climate forcings and sensitivities over various geological ages. It harmonised the methods they had used to produce a common method of estimating sensitivity to a radiative forcing, due to CO₂ or anything else. Then John Cook applied the accepted forcing from CO₂ - 3.7 W/M² per doubling of CO₂ to get ECS.

The different periods are LGM - Last Glacial Maximum, 20,000 years ago. Pleistocene/Pliocene - millions of years ago. Miocene/Eocene 10's of millions. PETM (Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum) was a period 55 million years ago where a rapid warming event occurred, The Cretaceous is the end of the age of the Dinosaurs up to 65 million years ago, and the Phanerozoic is the entire period back to 420 million years ago.

As you can see none of these studies suggest particularly low values for ECS. A few do suggest higher than 3 and there are several outlier studies that John hasn't included that do suggest even higher values.

To me the Earth has run the experiments for us and these are the results. ECS of less than 2 seems very unlikely.

A second aspect we learn from paleo studies is about speed. The LGM was probably 5 C colder than now as a global average. The warming (and retreat of the ice sheets) took around 10,000 years. so 0.05C/century. Now temps are rising at of the order of 1 C/century and that might increase. CO₂ varied over the same period, rising by around 100 parts per million (ppmv) from 180 to 280. Thats 1 ppm/century. Today CO₂ is rising at around 1ppm every 20 weeks.

During the PETM, temperatures spiked up by around 6 C, a small extinction event happened and an ocean acidification event. A sediment core sample from Svalbard from this period puts the rate of change of CO₂ concentrations then at only 1/10th tha pace of today.

To find a geological period where CO₂ concentrations rose probably faster than today we have to go back 252 million years, to the end-Permian Mass Extinction event. A vast volcanic event lasting 10's and possible 100's of 1000's of years in Siberia included periods where CO₂ levels may have risen faster than today. The end-Permian event saw 75% of families of species on land go extinct, 96% in the oceans.

Where changing climate is concerned, 'Speed Kills'.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

michael sweet at 11:04 AM on 19 February, 2017

The Master:

Interesting choice of names.

Answering your points in order, your words in italics:

"All energy the Earth receives from the sun is returned to space." Some energy is absorbed by the surface and not returned to space for a period of time. That can range from a day or two up to centuries. A great deal of ice has melted from Greenland and the Antarctic the past few years. The heat to melt that ice came from the sun. It will not be returned for centuries (or more likely thousands of years) when the ice freezes again. On average over a very loong period of time all the energy is re-emitted but for shorter times (like the life of a human) some is absorbed and raises the temperature of the Earth. At other times more energy is emitted than absorbed as the Earth goes into a glacial period.

The surface of the moon is .+200C during the day but it is -200C at night The average temperature is not 200F as you claim. The temperature of the moon is as predicted by scientists. The colder average temperature of the Moon shows that the Earth is heated by greenhouse gases. This has been known by scientists since 1850.

" Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation clearly states that a body’s ability to absorb heat energy is equal to its ability to emit that heat ." At 5 kilometers above the surface the temperature is about 30C less than at the surface. If the surface emits IR radiation proportional to its temperature some of that energy will be absorbed by CO2 at 5 km. Since the CO2 is colder than the surface it cannot radiate the energy outward as fast as it absorbs it, even though it follows Kirchhoff's law. You need to pay more attention to the temperature of the emitting and absorbing surfaces. Mistakes like this make it appear that you have not thought through the physics enough yet.

"If, instead of a blanket, we set the environment to a saturated C02 level of 100%, the heat loss would be the same as if it was at zero." Many videos on You Tube show that bottles filled with CO2 heat up faster than bottles filled with air. The heat loss is lower when the atmosphere is CO2.

You have me with an example of heat flowing from a cold area to a warmer area, but that statement is not used in the argument so it is moot.

In general it is easier to discuss your misunderstandings of the scientific arguments if you limit your arguments to one problem at a time. Once that issue is resolved we can move on to the next misunderstanding. When there is a long list like yours the replies become difficult to read.

Temp record is unreliable

Tom Curtis at 16:08 PM on 28 January, 2017

Bulthompsn @399, I am not aware of anybody here "blowing off" human error when discussing Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST). Certainly the scientists who analyze it do not. Indeed, the take great care to analyze potential sources of error, and to quantify the resulting uncertainty in their estimate of GMST, as shown in this graph from the Berkely Earth Surfact Temperature project (BEST):

Note, that the grey shaded zone (the 95% confidence interval of the annual GMST estimate) shrinks rapidly from 1850 to 1880, and that post 1950 is very small relative to the decadal change in GMST. Other teams do not typically show uncertainty on the graphs, but do publish the uncertainty with the data and in scientific papers discussing methodology.

Nor are the satellite records more accurate than the surface records. That is not just my opinion, but that of Carl Meares, head of the team that produces the RSS satellite temperature records, who said:

"A similar, but stronger case [regarding trends] can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!)."

(My emphasis, source)

This can be seen by comparing the size of the error in the trend estimate for RSS TLT vs HadCRUT4 for the period 1979-2012:

Indeed, the satellite record requires more adjustments from a more disparate original data set than is required for the surface record. This is something people pushing the accuracy of the satellite record never see fit to mention, but that it is the case is obvious when you have a look at (already partially adjusted) satellite data (top panel):

For further information see here, here, here, and here (the start of a four part series).

Finally, IMO, anybody who subscribes to a conspiracy theory of science ("This presumes that these current results are not being doctored") has thereby invalidated any claim they may have made to be informed, or rational on the topic.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 25 October, 2016

curiosd, my original post @25 was much longer, although probably not much more useful. Essentially, I suggest you plot the weak line fit and formula 63 in addition to the strong line and Malkmus model fits. As I understand the text, all four should be close approximations so that if you have an outlier, you will have identified that you implimentation of the outlier will contain a mathematical error. Failing that, you have to alternatives. If you print a plot of your output, some other of the regular commentators here may be able to identify the error. However, better would be to seek advise directly from one of the three individuals named @22. Finally, here is an alternative version of the text of Principles of Planetary Climate. The page numbers of the relevant section are about 30 less than in the printed version. It may be that some small difference in wording in the alternative may give you a clue. I doubt that this is particularly helpful, but I am afraid it is the best I can do on this topic.

New study undercuts favorite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’

RedBaron at 11:54 AM on 22 September, 2016

@15 John,

I wish I could find the link to the actual study and/or hypothesis and/or model they used. I have a whole lot of issues with statement like what that team of researchers made, but without actually seeing the assumptions that they made first, difficult to really comment. About 1/2 of what they base their conclusion on I agree with. About 1/2 is complete bollocks. For example:

Efforts to increase food production usually focus on closing the yield gap, i.e. minimising the difference between what could potentially be grown on a given area of land and what is actually harvested. Highly-developed countries already have a very small yield gap, so the negative effects of climate change on potential yield are likely to be felt more acutely in these areas.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-climate-global-food-demand.html#jCp

This is completely wrong. Industrialized countries have a huge yield gap of at least 50% or more simply due to the way we raise commodity grains to feed animals. It is a highly inefficient use of land. A forage/integrated system far outproduces the monocrop/CAFO model of production. It's not even close really. What often happens is conversion rates are used, and commodity grains do produce a high feed conversion rate. However the amount yields is a tiny % of total biomass produced, and that monocrop total biomass produced is a tiny % compared to perennial biomass production when comparing same to same. It is maybe 500 to 1000% difference or more. It's not even close. Since about 1/2 the cropland in highly developed countries is devoted to this very inefficient production model, and the rest of the land is not much better, the claim is completely false. So any conclusions drawn from that false premise also have no basis.

Now some of their claims are spot on to be sure. However, that's a big enough flaw to ruin the whole thing.

There is another flaw too.

Food production takes up almost half of the planet's land surface and threatens to consume the fertile land that still remains, scientists warn. The global impact of farming on the environment is revealed in new maps, which show that 40 percent of the Earth's land is now given over to agriculture.

By the time you subtract out mountains, swamps, rainforests and deserts etc. That doesn't leave much at all. Are we going to clear and plant the last few wilderness areas and national parks we have left? Will we subject them to mass "cides" like we already have on almost 1/2 the planets land surface too? That's a huge huge disaster in the making. You think it's bad now. That really could literally collapse the entire biosphere irreversably.

That definately needs to be the road not taken.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature

Tom Curtis at 15:07 PM on 22 August, 2016

victorag @100:

1) "many" means "a large number of", and "large", like "big" and "small", is always specified relative to the population under consideration. Thus even while "a large x" is always larger than "a small x", for any given value of x, we cannot infer that a large mouse is larger than a small elephant, and large mountains (such as Everest) fit very comfortably on the surface of small planets (such as Earth). "Great" is a superlative, that amplifies the meaning of the term qualifed. Thus "a great many" is a larger quantity than "many". It follows from this that "a great many leprosy sufferers" will be a much smaller number than "a great many South Americans" and "a great many AGW skeptics" is almost certainly a larger grouping than "all climate scientists"

If we do not want to take this standard view on the use of the English language, we would have to say that a great many people live in Fordwich, even though its population is just 0.004% of that of Greater London, and it is "the smallest community by population in Britain with a town council".

This is just basic English, understood by any native speaker; and understandable by anybody competent in English. Yet you want to maintain your rhetorical point against these basic facts of grammar, even though to do so you point to a list of scientists (the majority of whom are not climate scientists) whose population is about a sixth that of Fordwich, and which represents and about a 12th of the number of "skeptical" climate scientists I indicated to exist based on statistical data.

As I said, this is really basic English. Let us put that aside, however. Based on statistical evidence, there are about 720 "skeptical" climate scientists from among a population of about 30,000. That in itself is strong evidence that those 720 odd "skeptical" climate scientists maintain their position because of non-scientific biases (something of which we have independent evidence), and that the consensus position therefore can reasonably be characterized as the position of climate science.

2) "While many skeptics have very obvious biases, if their arguments are sound, their bias can safely be ignored."

The presumption that their arguments are sound is hardly warranted. Nils Axel-Morner for example (who is on your list) has doctored the photograph of a tree to use as evidence against sea level rise. This, of course, does not mean that all of their arguments are unsound. Each must be judged on its own merits, but you are not entitled to assume the soundness of any of their arguments just from their existence as you have done.

3) "". . . logically, the claim that "GMST did not follow the predicted path given AGW" is also a theory." Again: no, not at all."

Actually, yes. In fact, true by definition of "theory":

"theory
A theory T is a set of all sentences in some language K that are implied by T itself [Boolos+Jeffrey1989-cl p.106].
A theory always contains all valid sentences of K, as these are implied by any set of sentences of K. Thus, for example, every theory contains ∀x (x=x) as this is valid in every language. These sentences can be thought of as the basis of the theory, and that the theory, which by definition is closed under the operation of implication, can be constructed by applying implication successively using the sentences already in the theory.
Note that in general there are true sentences in K that are not in a particular theory T. In particular, for every theory of any language that includes the language of arithmetic, there are true statements that are not in the theory"

You may want to insist that there is a distinction between "theories" in logic, and those in science, but given that science accepts logical implication and requires that their theories not be inconsistent, scientific theories are just a subset of logical theories - specifically, that subset of scientific theories whose proof is established by a certain rigorous empirical process. If, then, that "GMST did not follow the predicted path given AGW" is not also a scientific theory, you need to insist that its truth is not established by scientific empirical methods (in which case it is irrelevant to science). Alternatively you need to assert a very strong observation sentence/theory distinction, which strong claim has been multiply refuted (see the Duhem Quine Thesis)

4) "The passages I quoted are statements regarding basic principles of science that are universally applicable."

I doubt you would get any philosopher of science to agree with that, and you would certainly not get a consensus agreeing with it. For a start we are talking about burden of proof, and "proof" is a very slippery word. Presumably you (and Minhinnick) do not mean logical proof, for if you did not empirical claim can satisfy the burden of proof, and therefore all ontology must be rejected, including the claim that there exists an external world, or indeed any claim that your self exists (unless "self" is taken to mean "a locus of thought"). If we allow it as proof on balance of probabilities, we face similar intractable difficulties because in the end all probabilities are relative, as Popper is at great pains to point out in Logic of Scientific Discovery. Further, if you mean "provide cogent evidence that" then the assymetry between proof of existence and disproof of existence disappears; and with it any justification for the different burdens of proof.

Other planets are warming

Jacksan at 02:47 AM on 21 July, 2016

In response to comment no.29, user MagickWizard, who totally nailed it, I will complement your question and give some NASA evidence, in order to get the skeptics think more profoundly about this subject and conect some dots.

Yes, the Solar System is not in a fixed space! We are NEVER in the same place in the Universe! And YES, we are passing through a very high energy interstellar cloud, that NASA knew of since the 70's(!) but the general public only knew about around 2009(!!!) - "On Christmas Eve, 2009, the startling hypothesis that our Solar System, the Sun and all its planets, are moving into a potentially dangerous and destabilizing interstellar energy cloud, was resoundingly sustained." - (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-e-joseph/passing-into-the-energy-c_b_405086.html )

Various quotes from the same source previously mentioned: "“We have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system. This magnetic field holds the interstellar energy cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all,” says Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. " ;

"In fact, most scientists had either minimized the possible significance of the interstellar energy cloud or dismissed the whole notion of its existence altogether. But not Dr. Alexei Dmitriev, the esteemed Russian space physicist";

"Dmitriev’s conclusions, based on his team’s analysis of Voyager data, that the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are inexplicably excited — immense storms, mammoth eruptions, plasma arcs jetting from the planets’ surface to their moons. He reasoned that this turbulence is caused by an external injection of energy into the planets’ atmospheres: to wit, an interstellar energy cloud which the leading edge of the Solar System has now entered."

For more information about this intense high energy cloud and how it's being studied, check NASA own page http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/news/ribbon-explained.html

I also have another source, please check it out: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/
highlights: "The solar system is travelling through much stormier skies than we thought, and might even be about to pop out of the huge gas cloud we have been gliding through for at least 45,000 years.";

"The fact that the wind is shifting over the span of mere decades means that the interior of the cloud is either unusually turbulent, or that the solar system is a mere 1000 or so years away from punching its way out."

"“While there had been hints that something was changing in the environment of the sun, when we finally put all the historical data together it became clear that one can make a strong scientific statement that this change has actually occurred,” says Frisch."

And if you want to read Dr. Dmitriev research translated, please read it here: http://aetherforce.com/planetophysical-state-of-the-earth-and-life-by-dr-alexey-n-dmitriev/

What makes this even more interesting is the fact that in 2006, NASA warned people of an impending huge solar storm for the next solar maximum (2012)... How can they make this prediction 6 years in advance?! Interesting, like they knew something was going to make this solar cycle very abnormal and something is messing up with our Sun - http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/10mar_stormwarning.html But, for this, we can only speculate...

Question everything and always do your own research and take your own conclusions.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

Glenn Tamblyn at 08:33 AM on 20 June, 2016

Mike

You might find this article interesting, discussing the structure of planetary atmospheres and the GH effect. Notice how Jupiter (and Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) all have lapse rates in their tropospheres.

Note also the discussion of likely gases in their atmospheres, including Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulphide, both GH gases.

And consider something else. A GH Effect doen't have to just depend on incoming sunlight. Any heat source that can add significant amounts of energy into an atmosphere which is optically thick in the infra-red and thus capable of being roughly adiabatic will produce a GH effect.

So in the case of the gas giants, they do have an internal GH effect because of clouds and GH gases, changing their inner tempeature due to the fact that they produce large amounts of heat internally. Whereas for the inner planets, internal heat is minimal but solar is significant - the heat source doesn't matter. So of all the planets, Mars has the least GH effect because:

Internal heat is insignificant
Solar is relatively weak
Its atmosphere isn't very optically thick
Convection is weak.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

Mike Hillis at 21:51 PM on 17 June, 2016

Tom Curtis 131

The atmospheres of rocky planets, including Earth and Venus are very thin, and have reached quasi-equilibrium a long time ago. Ergo, no net conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, and no overall warming of the atmosphere by gravitation. End of story. Your explanation is a non-starter, and shows all the accumen demonstrated by various inventors of perpetual motion machines (which it would allow, if valid).

Quasi equilibrium is not equilibrium. Small motion, even brownian motion, is enough. All small parcels of gas, even single molecules, generate heat on the way in and release it on the way out. Gas moves in, compresses, heats up, releases heat to the neighboring gas at lower elevation, moves back up, cools, absorbs heat from neaghboring gas at higher elevation, moves back down, etc. If you don't understand how vertical movement of gas generates heat and transfers it in a downward direction, then you probably don't understand why Death Valley is so hot, or why the San Gabriel and Santa Ana winds heat up as the elevation decrease, even at night. These are called katabatic winds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind and happen all over Antarctica. In the extreme, as on Venus and Jupiter, they explain everything. Taken to the extreme extreme, near the core of Jupiter, the temperature is 20,000 K. and the Kelvin Helmholtz theory isn't even necessary (that theory requires permanent compression....not needed).

Please no talk about perpetual motion machines. The solar system has been in motion for only 4.6 by, and that's a long time but not perpetual. Tidal forces and the friction it gererates will eventually stop the rotation of Venus, but until then, the motion, all motion, within its atmosphere, will continue to generate heat katabatically.

Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect

Tom Curtis at 17:47 PM on 17 June, 2016

Returning to Mike Hillis @ 121:

"The greenhouse effect doesn't explain why the dark and sunlit sides of Venus are the same temperature, and why the poles are as hot as the equator."

Actually, it has been predicted since Svante Arrhenius in 1896 that increasing the greenhouse effect will warm the poles more than the equator, in winter more than in summer, and it has also been shown that the greenhouse effect warms nights more than days. Carried to extremes, these features easilly explain why Venutian nights should be as warm as days, and polar regions as warm as tropical regions in the lower troposphere. In contrast, no presentation of the theory you appeal to purports to show the same thing.

"This does"

The blog post for which you provide a link appeals to a paper showing temperature hotspots at high altitudes to prove that the adiabatic lapse rate applies throughout the entire atmosphere. That is, it appeals to a paper that falsifies its claim as proof of that claim. It further claims the existence of the adiabatic lapse rate (where it exists) is proof of their preferred theory (of which more in a later post) even though it is a well known feature, and an important feature of the standard greenhouse theory since Manabe and Wetherald (1967), and a well known feature of all atmospheres in regions dominated by convection long before that.

"Venus is not like earth, in that its atmosphere directly absorbs sunlight on the way in, via the H2SO4 clouds."

In fact measured solar flux on the Venutian surface is between 35 and 40 W/m^2 at the surface (see figure 6). On the other hand, global mean net solar flux (accounting for differences in latitude, season and the day night cycle) in only about 8 W/m^2. Both of these are substantially smaller than is the case on Earth, due to the thick cloud, but they are more than sufficient to generate an adiabatic lapse rate in the Venutian troposphere (as is proven by its existence). If all solar heating was dissipated in the clouds, as you claim, the surface would be cooler than the clouds, just as the tropopause is cooler than the stratosphere due to the heating of ozone in the stratosphere by UV radiation on Earth. That is, if you were right about this point, the very precondition for validity of your preferred (in not understood) theory would be false.

"The reason the temperature everywhere on Venus is the same is, gravity is the same all around Venus."

The only way gravity 'generates' energy, and hence raises temperatures, is the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy by masses falling towards the surface. For an atmosphere in equilibrium, there is no net infall of material, and hence no net energy conversion from potential to kinetic forms. The atmospheres of rocky planets, including Earth and Venus are very thin, and have reached quasi-equilibrium a long time ago. Ergo, no net conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, and no overall warming of the atmosphere by gravitation. End of story. Your explanation is a non-starter, and shows all the accumen demonstrated by various inventors of perpetual motion machines (which it would allow, if valid).

The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change

Glenn Tamblyn at 11:01 AM on 20 May, 2016

billev

Proof that CO2 causes temperature change. Perhaps rephrase that. Proof that CO2 influences the planets energy balance, and that in turn changes in the energy balance then change temperatures.

The earths energy balance is heat flowing in from the Sun and heat flowing out to space. If those two flows don't match, the amount of energy here on Earth can change. If heat in is greater than heat out, heat here on Earth builds up. And the size of these energy flows is staggering. A rate of around 121,500 trillion watts in and out. AN energy flow in of that magnitude, if it wasn't balanced by a flow outwards, is enough energy to boil the oceans dry in less than a 1000 years. Even a small imbalance in these flows can cause significant changes.

So something that can influence the flow of energy out to space, restricting it in some way, would have a profound impact.

The following graph is from a paper published in 1970. It is measuring the energy flowing out to space from a point on the Earth below, from near Galveston in Texas. To understand the graph, think of it like a rainbow. It is plotting the energy flowing to space for a range of different wavelengths in the infrared region, infrared 'colours' if you like. So the amount of energy flowing out to space is proportional to the area under the curve.

There are to curves. One is a calculation from theory, the other was a direct measurement, taken by the Nimbus 3 satellite in 1969, the first time this sort of measurement could be taken from space. Today such measurements are everyday occurances. One graph has been shifted up for clarity, actually the two graphs match almost perfectly, such was the state of this science in 1969.

Remembering that the energy flowing to space is proportional to the area under the graph, look at the big notch. That is less energy reaching space than would be expected. That is a disruption of the outward heat flow that sets the Earth's energy balance. And that is caused by CO2. There is the Greenhouse Effect and the impact of CO2 all in one observation.

The Earth is over 30 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be because of it.

Republicans' favorite climate chart has some serious problems

Tom Curtis at 13:50 PM on 21 February, 2016

FrankShann @3, in logical terms, a set of propositions, x, predicts another set of propositions, y, if and only if y can be logically deduced from x. This is the fundamental relationship that underlies all explanation. Of course, sometimes we are not able to predict events from a set of propositions, but only the statistical distribution in which the event lies, or in other words, the probability of its occurence. Being human, we will often claim that something "explains" something else, when it only explains why the event is highly probable - but that does not alter the fact that fundamentally, explanation is logical deduction.

The sole difference between prediction and retrodiction is that the former is explanation before the event, and the later is explanation after the event. Logically, this is irrelevant to how impressive the explanation is. One explanation is superior to the other based on simplicity (ie, the number of entities and relationships invoked), the preciseness of the conclusion of the successful deduction, and a priori probability of the premises. Nothing else, including the time it was made, enters into the fact. We are not less impressed by Newton's deduction of Galilean kinematics from his laws of motion, nor of Keppler's laws of planetary motion from his laws of motion plus the law of universal gravitation because they were after the event - and nor should we be.

The reason we are suspicious of retrodiction is the suspicion that they are ad hoc, ie, that they relly on premises added after the event to make the prediction fit, and at the cost of the simplicity of the premises used. However, the inclussion of ad hoc premises can be tested for either before or after the event. Therefore, provided we exclude ad hoc premises, prediction is no better in a scientific theory than retrodiction. Indeed, that is necessarilly the case in science. Otherwise we would need to preffer a theory that made correct predictions into the future but entirely failed to retrodict past observations over a theory that both predicted and retrodicted past and future observations with a very high degree of accuracy but occasional failures. Indeed, as we cannot know in advance future success, science is built on the principle that successful retrodiction in the best guide to successful prediction.

Given the above, your suspicions of CMIP5 models is based on an assumption that the change between them and earlier models is from the addition of ad hoc premises. That is in fact contrary to the case. The earliest climate models, due to lacking perfect resolution, needed ad hoc adjustments to close the energy budget. They needed ad hoc values for the rate of heat absorption by the ocean because they did not model the ocean. The very earliest models required ad hoc assumptions about the ratio of increase of different GHG because they did not have the capacity to model all GHG. As computer power has been improved, these ad hoc assumptions have been progressively removed. In terms of the elegance of prediction, CMIP5 models are vastly preferrable to the older models - but that is the crucial criteria.

If we prefer the predictions of Hansen (88) as a test of the validity of climate science - we are being unscientific. The model used in Hansen (88) did not include aerosols, did not include all GHGs, used a swamp ocean, did not include a stratosphere, and was not able to be run enough to generate an ensemble of predictions (a necessary feature for generating the probabilistic predictions of climate). In short, it was a massively ad hoc model, especially when compared to its modern incarnation. Therefore, if we are interested in science rather than rhetoric, the successful retrodiction by CMIP 5 models should impress us more than successful (or unsuccessful) predictions of Hansen (88).

Nor is the development from more use of ad hoc premises to less either unusual or a problem in science. In fact it is typical. Newton started predicting the motion of planets using the ad hoc premise that planets were point masses. Later that was improved upon by the ad hoc premise that planets were empty shells with all their mass distributed evenly at their surface. Only as computational power and mathematical techniques have improved has it become possible to model planets as genuine 3-D objects with variable mass concentrations in Newton's theory. This was not a basis of rational criticism of Newton's theory, and nor is the primitive nature of the model used in Hansen (88) a valid criticism of climate science. But just as we would not prefer continuing to use point masses in prediction in gravitation, nor should we preffer the predictions of Hansen (88) over the retrodictions of CMIP5.

It's the sun

Glenn Tamblyn at 20:49 PM on 18 February, 2016

RockfordFile

I just skimmed the first 20 or so papers. Most seemed to be straight science on details of climate. A focus on sun climate links at regional scales, high atlantic/arctic/greenland patterns, solar impacts on the stratosphere, projections of past and future solar activity etc. or simply exploring things like variability of the Indian Monsoon. Nothing challenging the basics of CO2's role, just exploring subordinate mechanisms.

Except for 3 red flags:

The Soon and Connelly's paper,

One from Adelaide University :-( concluding "This heating then explains why the earth’s temperature record so closely tracks solar flare counts. Fundamentally then it is implied that the Earth’s climate is controlled by a non-conservation of energy process." - WTF!

A withdrawn paper. Claiming that Surface Air Temperatures for rocky planets can be predicted from just Top of Atmosphere Insolation and surface air pressure.

So broadly, standard detailed, regional mechanism, climate research. Not extraordinary or paradigm changing. Just the obvious that not all the details of the science is settled. Which of course it isn't.

Again a giant version of the 'the science is settled' strawman argument.

But too detailed to try and rebut in depth.

Other planets are warming

sjw40364 at 10:40 AM on 10 February, 2016

Response to anyone ignoring those newly discovered sources pumping energy into the atmosphere:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025

Of course no studies have been made - it's newly discovered and despite claims of knowing of its existence for years - falsified every text book they had on the subject.

"UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.

"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun."

You all talk of irradiance as if it is the sole factor. You try to justify outer panets wind speeds because there is no heat from the sun - then try to justify Venus's and earth's wind speeds because of heat from the sun. Make up your minds please. You talk about internal heat sources of planets while at the same time ignoring that the Heat from Saturn's north pole was 10 times more than predicted.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080103_prt.htm

The source of the heat is not a mystery - it's just ignored in conversations is all.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20110420.html

Just as those connections exist between the planet and moon - they exist between the sun and the planets. Right now we can only detect earth's solar connection.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/

"NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft, launched less than 8 months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power. The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field....

..."The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the Sun," says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras....

..."THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck."

Just as they will be ignored in this conversation.

Other planets are warming

PhilippeChantreau at 14:27 PM on 20 October, 2015

Flux ropes eh? That seems to be in the same category as the recently discussed profession of "IR astronomer." Please provide scientific references explaining specifically what are flux ropes.

The solar wind is nothing new. Suggesting that one can warm up the long term climate of a planet with a change in solar wind is like suggesting that one can heat up a tea kettle by throwing hot stones at it. Eventually you could, I guess, but the barrage of stones required would be quite interesting. We're not seeing that at all. Tom Curtis gave you the numbers, do you realize what they mean?

I will add that handwaving my climate baseline remark does not make it go away. If all solar planets are to be considered as having seasonal variations according to their orbit around the sun, as they should, then it is indispensable to have a long enough base of obervation to determine whether or not what is being observed is due to seasonal variation or not. In order for any observed variable to be determined to have a significant departure from normal, a long enough time serie must be acquired to define normal. You make no logical case at all against that idea, you don't even try and just hand wave. I'm sorry but that's not convincing.

If we are to assume that some planets do not have seasonal variations, we need to have some serious basis for that, grounded in physics. You have any reference defending that idea? I would also like to see some scientific reference explaining why it is reasonable to assume that we can detect a climate change on a planet whose climate is barely hypothesized. I would also like to see an equally serious reference as to why any weather event on a planet whose climate has not been oberved through a full orbit can be ascribed to a "warming climate."

Skeptics on Earth argue that the rash of 1 in 1000 years weather events we saw on a regular basis over the past few years are not due to a warming climate. And yet here we are, with another type of "skeptic," who asserts that other planets phenomena, whose frequency is completely unknown to us, must be due to a warming climate. Something is clearly wrong in the "skeptic" camp.

A multitude of weather phenomena have become observable on other planets only because we have recently acquired the means to observe them. There is absolutely no way of telling whether these phenomena happened regularly before or not. One going with logic should assume that the likelihood of a phenomenon only recently observed to have sarted happening just when we became able to observe it is extremely low. Why would that be? Because it comes in handy to defend a pet theory?

If you discover something just because you started looking, that thing was probably happening all along. Therefore its existence does not constitute a change. Do you realize you're even arguing against yourself?

I must agree with Tom Curtis on this one. You select snippets from news stories, fail to look into their true significance, and automatically assume that they support your theory, while said theory is itself ill defined and rather free of constraints from basic physics.

What is your theory anyway? That high energy particles warm up the planets, including Jupiter? Jupiter, whose magnetosphere is so large that its bow shock with the solar wind is 75 radii away? Really? No thermodynamics problem there?

I'll add that, before condescending onto others about thermodynamics, you should perhaps verify that the ideas you defend do comply with them. For example, take the amount of energy from a star that would be required to heat up a giant gas planet, orbting far from the star, in a way that can be noticed from another planet closer to the star. Then attempt to quantify what effect that amount of energy would have on the small rocky planet, 300 times less massive and much closer to the star. Would that effect be something subtle enough that a significant portion of the intelligent beings populating the rocky planet would deny its existence? Methinks this all doesn't add up...

Other planets are warming

Tom Curtis at 10:52 AM on 20 October, 2015

sjw40364 @33:

1) The water discovered on Mars was discovered by an orbital platform that has been orbiting Mars since 2006. The observed phenomenon from which water flows have been observed were seen over that entire period. Consequently the situation is that water was found by the first observing platform that was capable of doing so. To infer from that that Mars global temperatures are increasing follows the same logic of an explorer who, on first discovering the Mississipi concluded it was evidence of an imminent Noachian flood.

2) On the outer planets, at least, higher windspeeds are associated with cooler temperatures. That is because heat introduces turbulence that decreases the velocity of the wind. On Earth, things differ because increased temperatures increase absolute humidity, and hence the energy supply for storms - but that mechanism is not available on Venus. Ergo, it is more likely that increased windspeed on Venus is associated with cooling temperatures than the reverse.

There is no data showing any possible connection between temperature change in the interesting phenomenon on Jupiter or Saturn. The connection you form is of the nature of a leap of faith. You desire that all planets be warming, so you infer from any change (or entirely new observation) that it is evidence of that warming with no effort to tie the two phenomenon together.

3) Finally, NASA has not come up with "a new source of energy". The effect of the solar wind on the magnetosphere has been known since at least 1965. The 2009 NASA article to which you refer merely discusses improved understanding on what modulates that energy transfer. It has no significant bearing on the (already known) existence of and scale of the energy transfer.

With regard to that scale, it is extensively discussed by Tenfjord and Ostgaard (2013). They show a total cumulative energy transfer to the ionsphere over the period 1997-2010 of 889,000 x 10^14 Joules (W(Ut)), representing approximately 60% of the total energy from the impacting solar wind (W(Usw)). Averaged over the Earth's surface and the time interval involved, that represents 0.00035 W/m^2. That in turn is an overestimate of the forcing as approximately only 10% of energy transfered to the thermosphere (let alone the ionosphere) makes it to the lower atmosphere, the rest being radiated to space.

Note, further that this energy is not new energy. The solar wind did not spring into existence yesterday. Consequently there is no basis from this data to conclude that changes in the solar wind are warming or cooling the Earth. There is every reason to conclude it is absolutely inconsequential to the climate.

Your reasoning is shown to consist of taking some unanalyzed (by you) data from the news and simply assume that it automatically applies in support of your theory (without analysis) and that it is very significant (again without analysis and in very stark contradiction to the facts). Frankly, I am no impressed.

Other planets are warming

PhilippeChantreau at 13:22 PM on 19 October, 2015

Response to sjw40364 from inappropriate thread: I looked at all the links provided, and not a single one of them alludes to a warming of the climate of the planets mentioned. Suggesting that any of these articles indicates a warming climate on the planets considered indicates that sjw did not read or understand the articles.

At best, the Venus and Mars articles underline how we can attempt to better understand their climates, emphasizing that we don't understand them well.

Climate on Earth is defined by a baseline of 30 years. For Mars, Jupiter and other planets going outward from the Sun, 30 orbits translates into respectively 56, 356, 884, 2522, 4947 and 7435 years. That is what would be required to establish a baseline, if we had instruments capable of reliably measuring enough climate parameters. Then we would need proxies to establish the true existence of any significant departure from normal conditions. We are not even fully understanding weather events happening on these planets.

The argument that other planets are warming is one of the most ridiculous ever spewed by fake skeptics.

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

mancan18 at 17:08 PM on 29 August, 2015

Tom Curtis @13

I am well aware of the works and the scientific approach of Roger Bacon and also that Aristotle was not just some simple philosopher who didn't study any science using empirical evidence. I am also aware that Greek philosophers like Erastothenes did make observations and used them in empirical ways, like for instance, estimating the circumference of the Earth. Yes, my statements were simplistic, but that was because I did not want give a full account of the development of modern empirical science. As for Newton, I am also aware that he spent more time on religious works and alchemy than he did on the scientific and mathematical studies that caused the revolution in the science that now underpins the modern world. The development of modern science is not a black and white affair where suddenly alchemists become chemists, or astrologers become astronomers. My main point is that at the cusp of the 17th century the study of science was done mostly by deeply religious men and was more used to verifying what was in the Bible, than about what the real world was actually like. It is true that if it weren't for the observations of Brahe, Kepler would not have been able to refine the Copernican theory. In fact, Brahe was so much a believer in the Ptolemic view of the motion of the planets because of his religious beliefs and his faith in the teachings of Aristotle, that he developed his own geocentric theory to account for the anomalies of planetary motion rather than simply accepting the Copernican view. As for Kepler, he spent most of his life trying to fit the planets into a geocentric model where the orbits fitted the platonic solids. He abandon his ideas because the actual observations, Tycho Brahe's observations, of the real world did not fit his theory. It was only then that he introduced ellitical orbits into the Copernican model. This was truly a new way of thinking for the time, as he had to abandon deeply held beliefs that he had gained through his religious faith. The vast majority of scientists of this time were highly religious and their scientific efforts were to enhance religious belief and glorify the church. This period is truly unique in that at the beginning of the 17th century, science was done mostly by religious men and used more to verify the prevailing religious orthodoxy. By the end of the 17th century, science was more focussed on the real world and what was actually being observed, i.e. done for its own sake. The Galileo story is just a part of that narrative, and yes he did have contray views to what was generally accepted at the time. However, most of what was accepted was because it verified the religious teachings of the church. Galileo's assertions were not based on religious orthodoxy, although it was obvious from his treatment that there were some religious figures who were sympathetic to his views.

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

mancan18 at 09:18 AM on 29 August, 2015

M Tucker at @5 and Ger@6

I think you will find that at the turn of 16th and 17th century when Galileo lived, that there was little scientific evidence for any theory. Science at that time was more philosophical, based on the thinking of Aristotle. This way of thinking came from the Greeks who preferred to philosophise. They used to just sit around and think about things rather than make actual observations and do experiments to collect data that supported their theories. The prevailing scientific method at the cusp of the 16th and 17th century was to only propose theories that reinforced the Bible. The vast majority of the "scientists" at the time studied in monasteries or were alchemists trying to convert lead into gold. Copernicus was a monk and proposed his heliocentric theory as an alternative to the Ptolemic biblical geocentric theory only as an interesting thought exercise which he saw as a much simpler explanation. He supported his heliocentric ideas with geometry but was too afraid to publish until he was on his death bed. It is no coincident that the spread of the Copernican theory to scientists like Galileo was only possible due to the recent invention of printing. This allowed ideas and findings to be spread more widely. Galileo at least made observations and collected evidence. His work on falling bodies was certainly unique since the prevailing Aristolitean scientific view at the time was that heavier objects fell faster that lighter objects. And we already know that through his observations of Jupiter and the Moon through his recently developed telescope, he gathered evidence of the correctness of the Copernican theory. This correctness was further refined by Kepler, also a deeply religious man, through proposing that the planets moved in elliptical orbits, a position that took him 20 years to come to using the highly accurate data collected by Tycho Brahe, who incidently still believed in a biblical geocentric theory. The whole issue, heliocentric versus geocentric, was finally put beyond all doubt later in the 17th century by Newton, incidentally another deeply religious man, with his Theory of Gravity and the invention of Calculus using the co-ordinate geometry that had recently been proposed by Descarte. Galileo was one of the first scientists who used a modern scientific approach (hypothesise, propose a theory, create experiments, observe, collect data, and test) to justify his ideas. This is quite unlike the many so called "scientists" at the time who were more philosophers who conducted few expirements, collected little supporting data and preferred to use the bible as evidence to justify for their ideas. Galileo was a modern scientific thinker unlike most of his contemporaries. The Galilean story just shows that all scientific ideas are the meticulous work of many scientists pursuing a common truth.

Theories, where the observations and evidence are contry, are thrown out. Theories, where observations and evidence are supporting, are further refined and become increasingly accepted as scientific truth until there is only one scientifically indisputable piece of evidence that can falsify the theory. In climate science, the contrarians have not found a single piece of evidence that disproves the fundamental scientific idea that rising greenhouse gases will warm the planet. Also, they have not proposed a single coherent alternative scientific idea, nor provided a single piece of indisputable evidence that explains why the current warming is happening. All they have provided are some interesting distracting talking points, which, so far, have only served to further reinforce the idea that AGW and CC is actually happening.

Just asking. What are the views of the primary scientists who actually collect the data from the primary sources (i.e those on the ice flows gathering the ice core data, those collecting the glacial retreat data, those gathering the sediment data, those collecting the carbon dioxide data, those actually creating and verifying the climate models etc.)? Are there any contrarians amongst the primary scientists who actually collect the data, or are the contrarians only found amongst the secondary scientists who use the data collected by others, in an effort to debunk the basic AGW and CC proposition?

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

shoyemore at 17:37 PM on 27 August, 2015

M Tucker

I think Dana's statement that Galileo's conclusions were based on empirical evidence is defensible. After all, he was actually observing the Moon and planets through a telescope.

However, I too would cast doubt on the statement that Galileo was supported by "many scientific contemporaries". They were just not many scientists around! As far as I know, Jesuit astonomers like Father Clavius, who was respected by Galileo, were willing to compromise on Galileo's theory by treating it as a method of calculation of orbits rather than physically true. However, Galileo was just not the compromising type.

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:18 AM on 17 July, 2015

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?

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #27

MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:33 AM on 15 July, 2015

Moderator (RH)

Thanks for the reference. One error is defining the current steady state as the zero feedback result. The 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of net solar input must be after feedbacks have been accounted for, otherwise more than 1 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of input violates COE. This is also a multi-decade to multi-century average that varies little from year to year going as far back as we have accurate records, so certainly any feedback that operates on time scales of decades to centuries must alreadly be accounted for in the steady state average and this includes GHG, cloud and weather related feedback.

It's also interesting that the steady state average includes seasonal transitions which, relative to surface reflectivity from ice and snow, emulates the transitions in and out of ice ages, albeit on a much shorter time scale. Another test could be crafted to more precisely calculate the most predominant non GHG related component of temperature changes between ice ages and interglacials based on seasonal differences in the response to solar input (i.e. feedback from growing/melting ice/snow).

The incorrect quantification of feedback didn't seem to affect the specific analysis (I didn't dig too deep), but the sensitivity claimed was 3 W/m^2 per K, which in the units used by the IPCC is a sensitivity of 0.33 K per W/m^2 which is below the IPCC's lower bound of 0.4C per W/m^2 and approximately equal to the SB sensitivity at the planets emission temperature of 255K.

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique

MA Rodger at 03:44 AM on 4 July, 2015

Evan Jones @107.

Okay. Your stated purpose here at SkS? "To elicit independent review. To answer all questions and field valid questions."

So let us have a sight of what the dickens it is we are supposedly reviewing and asking questions about!! While the suggestion of Rob Honeycutt @108 would be "consistent with (the) scientific method," I'm sure even on planets like Wattsupia or Climateetcia that indulge in trial-by-numpty, the folk are allowed a sight of the object under discussion.

The Carbon Brief Interview: Thomas Stocker

uncletimrob at 19:09 PM on 11 June, 2015

This article (and I have no opinion of it's accuracy) Why our brains don't process the gravest threats to humanity , suggests that we cannot understand or comprehend threats to our survival a long way into the future. Perhaps this is more prevelant in warming/change denialists? An interesting article anyway, and worth a read.

CO2 is not the only driver of climate

CBDunkerson at 22:41 PM on 10 April, 2015

ClimateTool, in addition to the posts pointing you to other sections of the site, short answers to your questions are;

1: The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is directly tied to atmospheric temperature (e.g. "relative humidity" is the amount of water vapor in the air relative to the maximum amount possible for the current temperature). Thus, temperature increases from CO2 will lead to more water vapor... and corresponding additional warming. Thus, water vapor is a significant positive feedback in global warming, but cannot 'initiate' the warming itself.

2: Your question itself contains a fallacy. There is no conflict between, "'Science by consensus' versus the time tested steps of the Scientific Method". There is concensus on AGW because application of the scientific method over the course of the past 100+ years (since Arrhenius proposed the AGW theory in 1896) has overwhelmingly shown it to be accurate. Nor is there any "lack of cross discipline discussion". Oceanographers, botanists, zoologists, astronomers (studying atmospheres on other planets), and scientists in various other fields have all independently found evidence matching what climatologists have shown.

We must defend science if we want a prosperous future

OfNoAccount at 17:54 PM on 7 April, 2015

I am old enough to have passed the obstacle of counter-intuitive propositions being closer to the way things are than the common sense consensus establishes.
The observations and deductions made from them and the mathematical modelling of them was bread and butter for my generation. Heliocentrism, elliptical orbits and so forth were scientific orthodoxy. But they are all wrong in fact. The sun is moving rapidly, the planets are going around it corkscrew wise and none are actually undergoing Newtonian motion at all. The material universe is not matter, energy and space. If we exist at all it is in a space/time continuum pervaded by the presence of stuff of which we are made and which can only be located by probability functions and field vectors and these omit the vast majority of the existent which we think of as having fallen into black holes or have to use poetry to name as dark matter and dark energy.

By now, however, I have a different problem. I am not confident that what is being published as science is truthful. A vast proportion of the purported science is opinion and/or interpretation which fails to be matched by the data and analysis which is used as the reason justifying publication and demanding serious consideration.

In my youth, original science was done in Universities and pathways were followed for the intrinsic interest or importance by passionate investigators who distinguised between findings and theories easily and automatically. Now it is done by Santa's little helpers in the employ of impersonal institutions who have ulterior motives for directing which questions to pursue and vested interests in either positive or negative results depending on the significance of their economic interests or academic status or public esteem.

Good work is hidden as commercial in confidence secret or so geopolitically sensitive as to be state secrets - (military mathematicians disappear from the maths community never to be heard of again, a personal experience).
One comentator wonders if climate denial should be outlawed as immoral, I match that by recommending the opposite that human induced biosphere threatening global warming from use of fossil fuel urgency is like calling out fire in a darkened cinema.

Where does responsibility for this lie and how might this be addressed?

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

Tom Curtis at 20:42 PM on 3 April, 2015

Leto @56, the most stunning use of these principles I know of actually comes from amateur astronomy. In a new technique, amateur astronomers take thousands of images of the object they are interested in. They then use computer programs to "average" the images. The result is an image far sharper than any of the individual images used, and indeed sharper than they could achieve with the same exposure time using conventional techniques. For example, these three images were taken on a 16 inch newtonian telescope:

And this is one of the individual images from the "stack" used to create the Jupiter image above:

The truly amazing thing here is that not only does averaging bring out a far higher resolution image, but without the introduction of noise by the atmosphere, all the images in the stack would be identical, and no image improvement would be possible. So, in this case not only does averaging eliminate noise, and allow a far higher resolution than is possible by the original instruments, but the noise is in fact necessary for the process.

It hasn't warmed since 1998

Albert H at 07:44 AM on 27 March, 2015

Hi. The year 1977 was the last year that the global temperature was ~the 20th century average of 13.9D C. - 21 years later, 1998 the gt was ~14.5. The 21st centruy average is so far 14.44D C. - 2005, 2010 and 2014 beat the 1998 temperature by a margin-total of just 0.1D C. -w/2014 being 14.6D C (warmest ever - with a measurement magin of error of 0.1D C ??)

Today's rate of CO2 emissions has increased over the last century. The oceans of today that are "accumulating" heat existed back in the 20th century as well, yet the rate of change over 21 years was 0.6D C and the rate of change over the past 17 years (since) is only 0.1D C.

2/3rds of the globe is ocean. Oceans are warming, per your statements, yet the 2/3rds of the planets atmosphere, above the oceans are only warming by 1/9th the rate, of previous warming.

It would seem to this engineer in my 45th year as an engineer, that the atmosphere has reached a warming saturation and that all the heat trapping GHGs can't seem to provide any additiona warming in the atmosphere no matter how much the "plate" at our feet warms (accumulates) or how much CO2 enters the atmosphere.

Something is not adding up. It would appear we need more heat-in to warm pass the curent highs we have been seeing. The highs can be beat by 0.01 or 0.03 degrees C but they will not increase by 0.6 without more heat input, it would seem.

2015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #11B

One Planet Only Forever at 07:16 AM on 16 March, 2015

Tom @12,

I agree. It is probably more appropriate to name the better alternatives to burning non-renewable gas the 'least consumptive ways of obtaining useable energy from the almost perpetually available energy sources', which would include tidal which is not solar related.

Humans simply need to adapt to living within the means of this amazing planet, and use that knowledge to live within the means of other planets. Regions with insufficient access to that type of virtually eternal energy supply are places humans should not bother trying to live in. And based on the history of locations inhabited that leaves just Antarctica as a place only for scientists and adventurers to explore. Why try to set up any other type of human habitation in a place like that?

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

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results