Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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

Settings

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

Term Lookup

Settings


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

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


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



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 451 to 500:

  1. 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

    Patrick Michaels is not the only one presenting false information. Here (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/) is the NOAA ENSO record. YThe author cherry-picked his start date so as to eliminate the 1998 El Nino event. Since 1999 there has been 0ne lengthy La Nina immediately following the 1998 El Nino event. All 5 of the others have been short and weak. What the author has failed to mention is that the period he chose is the period of the pause in warming. The 2015 El Nino upped temperatures tremendously, but the latest La Nina and current neutral period has dropped temps down to pause level again.

    Hansen made no "prediction" about the warming rate in arctic. "Arctic amplification" is a known effect of the Hadley circulation and had been known well before Hansen's testimony.

    We have not seen "dramatic" warming as the author puts it. Warming has been less than 1C and is well within natural variability as shown by paleo reconstruction of the LIA and RWP.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB]  "Warming has been less than 1C and is well within natural variability as shown by paleo reconstruction of the LIA and RWP."

    That's actually not the case, once the full context of the paleo record is used:

    Last 22,000 years

    Please note that this venue is based on credible evidence for claims and the usage of good principles of the scientific method.  This puts the onus on the person making assertions running counter to accepted science (you, in this instance) to be able to provide citations to credible sources to back up your claims.  Further, threads at Skeptical Science hew closely to the topic found in the OP of each thread.  If what you wish to discuss does not match that topic, use the Search function found in the UL corner of every page here to find a more suitable thread.  Thousands exist.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site. 
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  2. One Planet Only Forever at 01:01 AM on 27 June 2018
    30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

    nigelj,

    I like that quote highlighting the unjustified popularity of claims made in stories like Atlas Shrugged.

    Real world evidence of Bad thinkers who are fans of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman beliefs in the 'magic of people being freer to believe what they want and do as they please' is Alan Greenspan's statement/excuse for his lack of effort to prevent the actions that developed the 2008 financial crisis. He essentially declared that he was unaware that any executive or board member of a financial institution would put short-term self-interest ahead of the objective of sustainably developing a better future.

    The other real world examples of that Bad Thinking by Winners is the type of people that have been 'invited' by Congress to talk to Congress about Climate Science (and the type of people who do that type of Bad Inviting usually have a history of a diversity of Bad Thinking based actions - acting in opposition to the achievement of many of the Sustainable Development Goals, not just the climate change goals).

  3. 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

    The Koch Brothers fund the best junk science money can buy. I think their motives are greed, but perhaps that word is too blunt. Regarding their "libertarianism", there is a famous quote I came across:

    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

    Attributed to the writer John Rogers.

  4. One Planet Only Forever at 14:42 PM on 26 June 2018
    30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

    I do not think the concluding statements are the most accurate presentation of what is going on, but they may be the more politically correct thing to say (quoted below).

    "Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.

    We would have to be incredible suckers to take their bet."

    It is more likely that Michaels and Maue expect a lot of people to be easily tempted to like their claim because it excuses their pursuit of a better present for themselves at the expense of others, especially at the expense of future generations (including the future challenges like extinctions and other environmental impacts, such as water contamination, due to the impacts of fossil fuel extraction, processing, transportation and burning).

    It is very likely that deliberate misleading marketing is developed and presented by the likes of Micheals and Maue because they understand that competitions for popularity and profitability have been repeatedly proven to be won, at least temporarily (all that matters to a selfish person), by abusing the temptation to like misleading marketing.

    And being tempted to like getting away with more personal benefit at the expense of others is not being a sucker - it is far worse that that and should be called what it is (remember that future generations are Others - they do not benefit just because the current generation benefits. Yet may economic evaluations pretend that the people benefiting today are the ones suffering challenges and consequences in the future). Something like the following is more accurate:
    "What Michaels and Maue have done is the expected result of Despicably Deliberately Unethical Bad Thinking by the likes of the Koch Brothers - which is mostly, if not totally, legal because Bad Laws have been created by undeserving Winners and Bad Law Enforcement has happened for the benefit of those Winners - with popular support obtained from lazy/bad thinking people (easily tempted to be greedy - without caring about potential negative consequences to others) by Opinion Pieces that are allowed to be presented without the correction/clarification of the misstatements made presented to everyone who reads the Opinion piece 'Before they read the Opinion Piece'".

    What Michaels and Maue have presented is not 'An Opinion', it is a piece of false advertising paid for by the Koch Brothers.

    However, the lazy/bad thinkers will not be tempted to change their mind by having the unacceptability of their beliefs exposed too clearly. They would likely react by entering the flight or fight mode - most likely the fight mode - rather than start to seriously properly think about understanding things. Mind you, getting them thinking may not change their mind because when a person senses that better understanding an issue will not be to their personal advantage they will also often enter fight mode to protect their developed desired interests.

    That is why I suggest that the solution requires the wealthiest and most powerful to be held to standards of ethics and 'helpfulness to the future of humanity' (achieving and improving the Sustainable Development Goals) that are 'Above the Law - to a higher standard of ethical helpful behaviour than is required by law'.

    The games of popularity and profitability that developed the damaging unsustainable activity have also developed a powerful resistance to being corrected (Bad Selfish Thinking Winning resulting in Bad Laws and Bad Law Enforcement).

    It comes back to one of my favourite quotes of John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" - "“If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

    And that quote ties into a quote from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" with distant motives being understood to be consideration of others especially of future generations (altruistic).

    "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.
    26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."

    Unless global humanity can effectively hold the winners (anywhere and everywhere) to the highest standard of ethics and helpfulness, the future of humanity suffers the consequences.

    I appreciate that brevity is more powerful. At the moment the closest I can get to a concise statement of what is required is "Think about the Global Future - Be as aware and understanding as possible - Act Locally Now to help develop a sustainable better future". That statement applies to all of the Sustainable Development Goals, with action on climate change being one of the most significant goals. But that statement is too wordy to be a winner, and even that over-long statement does not expose the requirement to correct what has already developed popularity and profitability, and the need to change the system so that it produces sustainable good results rather than a string of results of 'Bad Thinking temporarily winning regional popularity for unjustified actions through misleading marketing appeals to greed and intolerance'.

  5. 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

    I will make the same comment here that did over at AndThenTheresPhysics:

     

    …discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16”

    That is a specific case of the “discounting all the evidence that doesn’t fit our narrative” argument. Of course, they also “discount the effect the 1998 El Nino had on temperatures”. Don’t like what you see? Apply a discount!

    Discounting the money they want, my local car dealer is giving away cars for free!

  6. 30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction

    Michaels is using a straw man comparison, because scenario A emissions were always at the outer extreme, and emissions have been lower in reality and close to scenario B, possibly due to the 2008 gfc? Scenario B is what Hansen should be judged against.

    Also If Michael's thinks the "unusually intense" 2015 el nino should be ignored presumably he is happy to ignore the "unusually intense" 1998 el nino and the "global cooling since 1998 myth?".

  7. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    Michael,

    There is well proven technology to remove large enough quantities of bulk CO2 to be significant. It is organic agricultural technology and there are many multiple examples depending on which crop we are discussing. Not only is this technology cheap enough to afford at scale, it actually would yield a net profit over conventional agriculture.

    I discuss it in detail here:

    Can we reverse global warming?

    You are not clear where the carbon would be stored? Lets be clear. There is more carbon missing from our agricultural soils worldwide than extra in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial error. We have more than enough room to store this carbon in the soil.

    As for costs? Higher SOC leads to higher yields and profitability for farmers. There is no cost to pay, only increased net profits to receive.

    So it is clearly big enough. But is it fast enough? Just because the soil sink is by far large enough and couldn't possibly ever get saturated worldwide before running out of CO2 excess, that doesn't mean it would necessarily sequester the carbon at a fast enough rate.

    Back of the envelope calculations for the rate at which we reach "break even" vs current emissions rates gives us 8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr as the break even average if these new carbon farming methods were applied to all arable land worldwide. Real world at scale measured 10 yr case studies of working farms measured 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr increases in SOC. 8 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr is squarely in the range of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. So it is possible.

    This means we have a working model that can ideed fix this problem. Now as far as your exhortation to immediately install renewable energy systems. I actually agree with that 100%.

    Just because the soil sink is large enough and the rate of sequestration fast enough, doesn't mean it won't be a logistical nightmare accomplishing the training and monitoring required to 100% convert agriculture worldwide to these new more modern production systems. And that's even with an eager and motivated farming community. But add the factor that many farmers are resistant to change.......it is almost certain there will be holdouts to antiquated "green revolution" industrialized systems.

    So the real solution won't be keeping emissions the same and sequestering CO2, but rather in reducing emissions a % and improving agriculture a complementary %. Reduce emissions 50% then sequester more carbon 50%. Reduce emissions 80%, then increase sequestration 20%.  Whatever can be done right now as long as both combined = >100%. Then we would be in drawdown. And instead of a negative side effects drawdown into the ocean, we have a beneficial drawdown into our soils. We have working solar, wind, and hydro systems to reduce emissions while still providing the energy we need and we have working agricultural systems to increase sequestration while still providing all the food we need.

    Lets not get all wrapped up in trying to do this all one certain way or all another way. Combined it becomes relatively easy.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] That is off-topic here.  Any wishing to respond may do so, at the link given.

  8. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #25

    J Hansen deserves a medal for his work, and his tremendous commitment. His scenario B predictions have been well substantiated by real world temperatures, and are accurate enough to provide compelling evidence of the increasing greenhouse effect. He himself thought scenario B level emissions was the most likely.  It disgusts me the way people try and falsely distort his predictions, to make them look as weak as possible.

    Fossil fuel interests and libertarian ideologies have indeed dominated and influenced politics and have combined with a strongly emergent and destructive, vicious tribalism. At this rate America will divide into two separate warring countries, the red states and the blue states.

    The ranked choice voting system is compelling, and sounds similar to the single transferable vote system which is used in the Australian Senate, Ireland and Canada. NZ has mixed member proportional representation, which has lead to less partisan divisions and extremes of policy than America, but it can sometimes lead to very small parties having excessive power. STV is a more optimal system, but takes some effort to get your head around it.

    It seems to me like confrontational party political systems are all rather old fashioned and from a time when there was a huge and legitimate battle for workers basic rights. Surely we have moved beyond this? We should be electing parties less on partisan ideology and gut instincts, and more like a board of directors, so parties who have the best qualified people, and a rich diversity of ideas and a real commitment to everyone. Thats all you really need.

    The other problem is money in politics. Wealthy campaign donors, business groups and lobby groups have disproportionate influence. These various sources of influence do not balance out, and imho it looks like extremists particulary of business interests and wealthy libertarian ideologues dominate. The public good is not given proper representation, so the system is flawed.

    Campaign spending should be funded out of taxes, and it would cost nothing in the greater scheme of things, or at least it should be capped. There's nothing in Americas Constitution that forbids this. The first amendment has been invoked to justify private funding of election campaigns, but this seems absurd to me. But the bottom line is the entire political system and its methods of funding is obviously broken, and this is being ignored.

  9. michael sweet at 06:46 AM on 25 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    OPOF and Nigelj,

    I think that we basically agree.  I prefer not to post more on this topic.

  10. One Planet Only Forever at 02:33 AM on 25 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    nigelj and michael sweet,

    I agree that rapidly reducing the burning of fossil fuels is the required action.

    And the consequences of that activity that are not reversible make it clear that what has already been done is unacceptable. A target limit like 1.5 C impact is understandably still going to produce unacceptable consequences. Actions to further correct the harm that has been done to the future generations should be understood to be required.

    Some examples of other consequences that are not reversible are:

    • collapsed structures of over-drawn aquifers. Some aquifer have been drawn down so much that the geological structures they occupied have collapsed, meaning they can not be recharged to their previous capacities.
    • Contamination of ground water/aquifers by leaked liquid fossil fuels. This can be very difficult to 'completely clean up'.

    And CO2 removal can be understood to be required because even 1.5 C impact will result in understandably harmful consequences that the future generations of humanity will have to try to correct or live with.

    And the required actions, including the removal of CO2, undeniably require the richest, most powerful and most fortunate to 'behave the best - be real leaders of development in the required direction', behave better than anyone less successful than they are. The required corrective actions can clearly be understood to be 'at the expense of their potential opportunity for more personal benefit', and they have to be required to 'like that'.

    Getting away with behaving less ethically undeniably results in a competitive advantage. The temptation to win that way will always exist. Effective means to correct people tempted to behave that way is clearly required, the sooner the better.

    And that correction of attitudes will undeniably be required to achieve the required corrections of what has developed and sustainable future development. That correction will require the biggest winners be the most ethical and most helpful. There needs to be effective limits on their ability to abuse excuses like 'what they did cannot be proven to be illegal' (particularly because their winning can lead to bad laws being written and bad law enforcement occurring in their favour)

    Anyone not wanting to lead the pursuit of sustainable development for the future of humanity is welcome to step down from any unjustified higher position in society they may have mistakenly achieved, the sooner the better, until they learn the importance of being better.

  11. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    M Sweet, there actually is technology to suck CO2 out of the air, and costs are cheaper than were thought, according to an article in Nature Journal.  This is a very recent article you might not have come across. I have also seen studies showing there are enough porous rock formations and old oil wells for a huge volume of CO2 storage.

    Having said that, I'm distinctly 'sceptical' and I include it just for information, and in my view it is last resort material. It also seems like it would have enormous political difficulties, because it would require considerable subsidies. We all know what the correct solutions are.

  12. michael sweet at 18:09 PM on 24 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    OPOF,

    There is currently no technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere in bulk.  If technology existed the job is far beyond immense.  It is not clear where the CO2 could be stored.  How could you pay the cost?

    Until I see answers to these questions I see no reason to discuss the effects of removing CO2 from the atmposphere.  The projected cost is so high that I see no reason to think any significant amount will be sequestered. 

    It is worth doing research to see if a technology for CO2 removal can be found.

    Since the ocean is not saturated with CO2, if emissions were to cease the ocean would absorb a lot of CO2 and atmospheric levels would decrease.  That would be bad for the ocean but temperatures would be less of a problem.

    I agree that the future should not be saddled with this problem.  The sooner action is taken the smaller the problem will be.  Installing renewable energy ASAP will lower CO2 emissions.

  13. One Planet Only Forever at 08:52 AM on 24 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    michael sweet,

    I am trying to develop a better understanding as a basis to present a brief statement about the negative impacts of increased CO2 that potentially will not be corrected/reversed by a future reduction of the already created impacts, and the impacts that would take a very long time to correct/reverse.

    I may have been incorrect in believing that the negative impacts on shellfish and corals will eventually be reversed. The increase of CO2 could lead to extinctions of many of these organisms, and extinction is not reversible.

    Instead of my comment@7 stating: "However, removing the excess atmospheric CO2 will not reverse all of the damage done. A lot of the CO2 is absorbed in the ocean where it reacts to change the acidity of the oceans, which will not be reversed by removing the human increase of the CO2 from the atmosphere."

    I would now say something like: "However, removing the excess atmospheric CO2 will not reverse all of the damage done. A large percentage of the excess CO2 created by burning fossil fuels is absorbed in the ocean where most of it chemically reacts resulting in a change of the acidity of the oceans (and that CO2 will start coming back into the atmosphere as the atmospheric CO2 levels are reduced). Many of the impacts of the increased CO2 changes to ocean chemistry - such as extinctions of coral, shellfish and other carbonate life forms - will not be reversed by removing the human increase of the CO2 from the atmosphere. Many other impacts will be very slow to be corrected by removal of the excess CO2. Even a rapid reduction of CO2 back down to 280ppm (or at least down to 350 ppm) would need a continued CO2 removal as the ocean slowly 'gives back' CO2 that had been rapidly absorbed."

    And even that statement does not briefly address everything that is related to this incredibly harmful global geoengineering 'experiment' that 'future generations have to try to live with or correct' that is created by current and prior generations not caring to responsibly limit their ability to enjoy 'their lives', choosing to create problems that caring responsible current day and future humans have to try to correct (rather than correcting their understandably unsustainable and damaging 'Pursuits of Happiness', and fighting against any effort to 'limit/correct their behaviour' as an unfair limit of their freedom to believe what they want to excuse doing what they want to do).

  14. Video: Hansen’s Global Warming Prediction at 30. How did He Do?

    I wonder how the present air pollution, largely from Asia compares with the amount of polution that Pinatubo put into the atmosphere.  Hence what will be the effect when Asia cleans up her atmospheric pollution a her populations are beginning to demand.

  15. New research, June 11-17, 2018

    Overcoming public resistance to carbon tax

    The methods suggested are ways to hoodwink the public, to pull the wool over their eyes.  The solution is far more simple.  Adopt Tax and Dividend as proposed by Jim Hansen.  Resistance evaporates and the public gets a fair deal.

  16. 97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree

    97% is outdated.

    99.84% scientific consensus on AGW

    => The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters

  17. Video: Hansen’s Global Warming Prediction at 30. How did He Do?

    Hansen did rather well, and a lot better than these hilariously wrong sceptics.

  18. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    Nigelj @ 13 ,

    Harrumph . . . my apologies for my poor communication, if it gave you the impression that the Iron Mountain Report qualifies as "interesting".

    The Report can certainly be described as droll satire . . . but (as the old saying goes) --> Brevity is the soul of wit.   And the Report's wit is far from briefly executed: it counts as exceedingly droll, for it is exceedingly long for its purpose.   In comparison: Mr Blair's masterpiece "1984" is not a particularly short novel, but it contains several themes, all masterfully executed and disturbingly relevant to our times.   Very little drollness to be found, apart from the irony (in today's health views) of ordinary Party members using saccharin while their bosses use sugar.  (It brings to mind that recent wonderful comment by a refugee/migrant hoping to go to live in the USA because "I want to live in a country where poor people are fat.")

    And my apologies for digressing.

  19. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    Phil, we call you deniers because you get so many things wrong, and remember all this nonsense you write is easily googled and checked, and so why wouldn't we lose patience with you?

    One example "the earth was 3-5 degrees f warmer than today and co2 was ten to 12 times higher also according to ice core data,,,"

    I have no idea where you get that from. Ice core data only goes back a million years and C02 concentrations were about 300ppm compared to about 400 ppm currently.

    Go back further and using other evidence and the PETM ( paleo eocence thermal maximum) 65 million years ago was 14 degrees celsius warmer than currently and had CO2 concentrations of around 1000 ppm, so less than 3 times more than today. This shows you just how much trouble we are getting into.

    Your claims about the sun are merely suggestions, so without much merit and have been refuted with hard data if you look at the "climate myths" list on this website, and falsely calling qualified people pseudo scientists is particularly ironic given your own rhetoric, but I doubt you would grasp this.

    I have no idea what the mountain report is about, but if Eclectic says its interesting I better have a look!

  20. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    Phil @ 11 ,

    your mention of the Iron Mountain Report is quite refreshing!   What a delightful spoof  --  a piece of exceedingly droll satire.   Though on the whole, it builds on the original ideas of Orwell's "1984" which were really more masterfully created by Orwell himself.

    But I have wandered off-topic from climate science.

    To return : Phil, it is time you made the effort to "be serious".   Please learn some science, and you will cease with the Flat Earth views you have expressed.

  21. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    why am I a denier if in 1100 ad, Eric the red discovered Greenland and it was green ?   the earth was 3-5 degrees f warmer than today and co2 was ten to 12 times higher also according to ice core data,,,,obviously it was not from mankind as fossil fuel burning did not occur until industrial revolution around 1700 ad,,,,,,,I suggest solar activity is the driver ,,,we just came out of a mini ice age and thats why it seemed like the  north pole was melting away ,,,but lets be serious and not succumb to fear pandering by psuedo scientists,,,,it goes very deep ,but I will refrain from the politics starting with the 1967 iron mtn report

  22. One Planet Only Forever at 23:59 PM on 22 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    michael sweet,

    I am aware of that eventual correction. But that is a much long time being corrected, a massive length of time compared to a typical human lifetime, unlike the rate of temperature and climate correction that will occur with a rapid correction of atmospheric CO2 levels. And the damage to shellfish and coral will take even longer to correct.

    I could have added that understanding, but where do you stop, because the details and amount of ocean damage and the duration of correction then needs to be added, and then more about all related impacts due to the ocean damage ....

  23. michael sweet at 23:50 PM on 22 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    OPOF:

    If humans reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere the excess CO2 in the oceans would outgas and the oceans would return to normal pH.  That means that to reduce atmospheric CO2 we have to remove essentially all of the CO2 we have emitted, rather than just the amount remaining in the atmposphere.  A big job.

  24. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    @dudo39

    The podcast does not imply you have to "believe".

    It does not imply all the crude oil is burnt.

    It does not say anything about removing "all" the CO2. 

    Are you sure you are not letting your preconceived and confirmatory biases affect your listening skills? Perhaps you should listen a little harder and with a more receptive open mind to what others are saying, even if you do not agree with them. 

  25. One Planet Only Forever at 14:22 PM on 22 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    dudo39,

    You can become more aware of all of the observations and evaluations and understanding that have been expanding and constantly improving since Arrhenius (and before Arhenius in the 1800's), fairly accurately estabished the fundamentals of what the excess CO2 from burning fossil fuels would do (review the SkS History of Climate Science here - or go to the Resource tab at the top of the page and choose Climate History). 'Belief' is not required when awareness and understanding are possible, which are possible regarding the unacceptabable impacts of the ultimately dead-end pursuit of benefit from the burning of fossil fuels.

    As for removal of all the CO2, that can easily be understood to be the removal of all the excess CO2 that has been created by the burning of fossil fuels, returning CO2 levels to 280 ppm (currently over 400 ppm and rising - see the NOAA history of CO2 levels here). However, removing the excess atmospheric CO2 will not reverse all of the damage done. A lot of the CO2 is absorbed in the ocean where it reacts to change the acidity of the oceans, which will not be reversed by removing the human increase of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

  26. One Planet Only Forever at 14:04 PM on 22 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    The point Wallace Broecker makes about the companies and investors who own the buried fossil fuel resources being very determined to profit from those resources being burned is not limited to companies and investors.

    The promotion and defense of exploiting the Oil Sands of Alberta are the result of lots of Deliberate Bad Thinking by more than the corporate executives and investors. The current Federal Leaders and many of the Provincial Leaders defend/promote the undeniably unacceptable desire. In March of 2017, PM Trudeau stated “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil and just leave it in the ground. The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure this is done responsibly, safely and sustainably.” That is populist misleading claim-making, done for very Bad Reasons. And in spite of being undeniably Bad, it is liked by a significant portion of the Canadian population.

    I have provided more information related to this "Bad Thinking" in a comment on the OP "The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground" Posted on 14 June 2018 by John Abraham.

  27. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24

    The bit by Carlone Lucas is very good and apparently The Greens are the whacky ones ?

  28. Life after PhD

    Congratulations on your PhD, Kaitlin!

  29. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    Thanks for sharing this with us.  Your grandfather is a personal hero of mine and I am proud that Chicago can call him our own.  Best wishes to both of you.

  30. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    A somewhat biased set of statements based on recent (say, last 200 ytears or so) data and knowledge, and ignoring the aparent fact that there aere just too many unknowns on the subject.

    It is also disconcerting, to me, that too many opinions are stated as facts.

    The statement "people don't have to believe...." implies to me that it is necessary to believe in such theories, even if not fully understood: this to me is tantamount to brain washing or indoctrination, since, to me, believing does not explain a thing in science.

    It is implied that all crude oil is burnt, when in fact only about 70 % is burnt.

    Towards the end, something is stated about "removing all of the CO2 from the atmosphere": this could for sure result in the mass extinction of most vegetation and of most living beings on the continents and islands....

  31. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    William, you are very well informed, but I'm a bit unclear on that. My understanding is warm oceans are melting the ice shelf that sits around the edge of the glaciers, and this would cause glaciers to move more quickly towards the oceans. Are you saying with the ice shelf gone,  even if the oceans were cold, this would cause the face of the glaciers to retreat? Or what?

  32. Daniel Bailey at 09:22 AM on 20 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    "perhaps we will be beginning to take global warming seriously"

    Every science body on the planet and the research from the petroleum extraction companies all take AGW seriously. 

    Perhaps you refer to the jaded and wrong public opinion developed due to years of paid lobbying on behalf of fossil fuel interests and wholly-owned politicians voting against the welfare of their constituents...

  33. calyptorhynchus at 09:13 AM on 20 June 2018
    Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    Wallace Broecker is a hero and when scientists and others like him begin to get the recognition they derserve then perhaps we will be beginning to take global warming seriously.

  34. Wally Broeker: Father of “Global Warming”, in a Warning to his Granddaughter

    Excellent video that simplifies the issues down to the essentials and very heartfelt.

    Most climate scientists make a huge effort when speaking in public, but they are not trained in public speaking and rhetorical debate, and in my experience they sometimes lack clarity and confidence. Science is often presented as a series of arguments with the conclusion at the end. I have heard one scientist run out of interview time before he even get to the important points.

    But many perfectly good books have already been written on the climate issue and there are many good structured video presentations. It's not as if theres a magical way of packaging the message that "CO2 is causing global warming" that will suddenly change the denialists minds.

  35. How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?

    The IPCC reports do account for effects of land use change in terms of carbon cover lost and change of albedo. Carbon losses from soil are not so well accounted for but note that deep prairie soils under grazing hold more carbon than forest. Farming in way that increases soil OC rather than deplete it is the challenge.

  36. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    The main problem could be a simple physical fact.  At pressure the melting point of ice is depressed.  At present, the deep, circumpolar water is flowing down the retrograde slopes of Gaciers such as Pine Island and Thwaites and melting ice at the grounding line.  This water is warmer than it used to be.  However, even if we managed to halt this process and the circumpolar water went back to its pre industrial temperature, the suppression of the melting point of ice at the grounding line would likely cause the retreat of these glaciers to continue.  The water, which is a mix of the salty water flowing down the slope and melted ice, flows up the ice ceiling and is super cooled with respect to the shallower depths.  Ice is deposited on the underside of the floating ice but this ice is lost to the ocean every year or so.  Since we are extremely unlikely to reverse our output of CO2 any time soon, we are in double trouble as the circumpolar deep water keeps getting warmer.

  37. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    Very interesting article; very concerning.
    Quick question: If I add up the individual contributors (data since 2012), I don't get the total, what is the missing component? Or are my numbers wrong?
    Contributors: Warming (1.3mm), Glaciers (0.75), Greenland (0.78), Antarctica (0.6) ... Sum of contributors (3.43mm) ... Total given in article (4.5mm).  ... Thanks!

  38. How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?

    Thanks for a very informative post. 

    Is it not also worth considering the net GHG effect of animal agriculture? I.e. not just the basic carbon and methane emissions, but also the loss of potential carbon sequestration from the deforestation necessary to maintain the system?

    .  

    If we look at various types of human land use change, it seems that the majority is for animal agriculture in 2 major forms; the largest being pasture land for grazing cattle, and sheep, etc. and the next largest being the amount of cropland farmed specifically as animal-feed for chicken, pigs and grain-fed factory farm cattle, etc.

    Hence if we could end animal agriculture, restore pastures to forest for greater carbon sequestration, and use the cropland solely to feed the human vegan population, then would it not rank higher as a significant impact on reducing GHG's?

    Certainly higher than energy and transport sectors, which have comparitively little deforestation footprints.

    Just a thought..

  39. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24

    The Pope is also advised by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, with 80 members, appointed for life, and which has been following climate science since about 1980.

  40. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    Scaddenp @4 yes there's not as much area of ice now in N America or continental Europe,  but about half of the sea level rise of mwp 1a appears to be from Antarctica,  and that area hasn't changed much.

    It just looks like theres the potential for breakup of Antarctica to add more to sea level rise than we thought. It looks like Antarctica added 2M per century during mwp 1a, so even if we assumed it added only half that to  current global estimates, that would still be huge.

    J Hansen proposes that much higher numbers are possible, and must have his reasons but I confess I haven't read the details of what he says.

  41. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    Hmm, while accelarating sealevel rise is undoubtedly a worry, it is also worth noting that at time of meltwater pulse a1, there was a great deal more ice to contribute to it and it was in higher latitudes. On other hand, rate of warming is much higher. Still, say 5cm of ice melting off a millions of sq km of ice is probably still a lot more water than 20cm of melt from a thousands of sq km. The higher latitude also means the albedo feedback is more significant.

  42. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    10 meters would flood New York City and most of Florida. 

    (scratches chin)

    Is there some way to speed this up?   

  43. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    Related material: Flooding from sea level rise threatens over 300,000 US coastal homes – study. Climate change study predicts ‘staggering impact’ of swelling oceans on coastal communities within next 30 years.

  44. Should we be worried about surging Antarctic ice melt and sea level rise?

    Great video. So meltwater pulse 1a caused approximately 20 metres total sea level rise over approx. 500 years, that is approx. 4 metres per century! J Hansen is rightly screaming at us to pay attention to this. People would have to be asleep not to see the urgent significance.

    It's associated with a period of abrupt warming of approximately 5 degrees celsius, that happened somewhere over a period of a few decades to a couple of centuries. 

    There are two competing theories of the origins of the meltwater. Firstly its could have been caused by ice sheet collapse over North America, and theres good evidence for this, but this only accounts for about half of sea level rise. Secondly theres very good evidence collapse of ice sheets in the Antarctic accounts for at least the other half, which would be approx. 2 metres per century. So imho maybe its a combination of both events.

    So the bottom line is theres virtually no doubt that sea level rise has been rapid in the past, so ice sheets can destabilise quickly.

    Modern warming is rapid, and could hit 5 degrees celsius by 2100 so is not dissimilar to rates during mwp 1a. We already have recent evidence that melting is accelerating in the antarctic. It just all suggests 2 metres sea level rise by 2100 is very plausible, and probably likely, and you could not rule out more. I don't think it would be exponential acceleration but it would be getting close. This would be devastating, and would totally reshape the planet's coast lines, and would clearly go on for centuries.

  45. jardenblack26 at 00:28 AM on 19 June 2018
    2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24

    Pope Francis taking climate change seriously, and having some mathematical insight, may relate to the fact he attended a technical secondary school and graduated with a chemical technicians diploma (according to wikipedia, I checked out of curiosity).

    Moderator Response:

    [JH] Copying and pasting someone else's post is not acceptable.

  46. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #24

    Pope  Francis taking climate change seriously, and having some mathematical insight, may relate to the fact he attended a technical secondary school and graduated with a chemical technicians diploma (according to wikipedia, I checked out of curiosity).

  47. One Planet Only Forever at 15:00 PM on 17 June 2018
    The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground

    An additional Bad Thinking related to the push to export diluted bitumen rather than upgrade the bitumen into oil or refine it into end products ready to burn is the attempt to 'reduce the appearance of Canada's GHG impacts'.

    By doing the least possible before exporting the product, the GHGs generated in Canada are lowest, allowing Leaders in Canada to make more misleading claims about how "Good Canada is on GHGs".

    I reluctantly agree that the less fortunate should be allowed to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels as a brief transition to sustainable better living. But in many cases the best assistance for the less fortunate is to completely by-pass the fossil fuel burning stage, going straight to decentralized renewable energy production with an interconnecting grid as backup supply in cases where the renewables temporarily suffer a regional failure to meet the needs.

    That means that already more fortunate people should no longer be allowed to benefit.

    As a step towards that correction, perhaps the International community needs to start counting 'all of the GHGs that will be generated by fossil fuels exported by nations with per-capita GDP that is higher than the global average' as part the GHGs generated by that more fortunate exporting nation, as well as in the end user nations. That will double count some GHGs, but the intent is to limit the pursuit of benefit by already more fortunate people, and the double counting is a way to shed a brighter light on undeserving bad thinking alreday more fortunate pursuers of more benefit from fossil fuel burning.

  48. One Planet Only Forever at 14:33 PM on 17 June 2018
    The legal fight to leave the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground

    The development and defence of increased rates of Oil Sands extraction in Alberta are the result of bad excuses developed by bad thinking, thinking that is worse than the kind of thinking that Guy P. Harrison eloquently argues needs to be overcome by increased “Good Thinking” (title of one of his books) increased reality-based, rational, scientific, skeptical, critical thinking. It is more like the thinking of mere children warned about by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” when he states that “If society lets a considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences.”

    I say it is worse than thinking that Guy's Good Thinking is intended to overcome which is because of a lack of awareness by the thinker leading them to make poorer choices. It is worse because the motivation for the bad thinking is socioeconomic winners/leaders trying to create popular bad excuses and form carefully crafted misleading messaging to attempt to increase or prolong their ability to unjustifiably and ultimately unsustainably Win.

    That ability of misleading messages to be appealing is similarly not the result of totally unaware recipients of the messages. People liking those messages are also likely allowing their thinking to be motivated by selfish personal interest (the wealthier or more influential the person is in the socioeconomic system, the less likely it is that they are unaware of the unacceptability of what they are choosing to believe, but selfishness can also be a powerful motivator of Bad Thinking among the less aware).

    The bad thinking by winners/leaders, and many others in the population (portion of humanity) they appeal to, can be understood to be an expected result of people growing up (developing their thinking) in a competitive consumer marketing focused socioeconomic system where popularity and profitability are deemed to be the best measures of value or merit, and where appearing to be the winner is all that matters (consideration for others, especially future generations, are excused away). The system naturally develops encouragement for people to try to get away with behaving less responsibly, less ethically, less helpfully, more harmfully.

    The people willing to try to be less ethical will have a competitive advantage as long as they can get away with it. And misleading messages appealing to selfishness motivated bad thinkers increases the chances of winning that way.

    And there are many things that develop to further encourage understandably bad behaviour: Bad Laws, Bad Legal Decisions, Bad Government policy, Bad Business leadership, Bad Consumer behaviour, Bad Thinking being governed by short-term tribal interests in pursuit of obtaining maximum personal benefit any way that can be gotten away with (almost always at the expense of others, and usually with an awareness that their Winning is to the detriment of others).

    In this pipeline case the legal system was developed with rules that legally defend (justify) understandably harmful behaviour (because all interests should be balanced - in favour of current day benefit for the more influential), and can result in legal decisions in defence of understandably bad thinking. Note that the pipeline promoters have had the ability to keep pursuing an understandably Bad Thought as many times as needed to eventually Win, and then likely have that win be defended forevermore, including the related bad thinking that if at any future time the general public becomes more aware of the unacceptability of the win, that future general public will have to be pay the people who pursued personal benefit from that Bad Thinking what those Bad Thinking people claim to have lost (and that future generation will also have almost no ability to extract wealth in the future from the people who may be discovered to have actually illegally obtained their winning in the past).

    Government leaders also exhibit Bad Thinking because of the temporary regional benefits that understandably bad unsustainable economic development will generate, at the expense of other life, especially at the expense of future generations who cannot continue to benefit that way and get nothing but the future trouble that is created. Leaders exhibit bad thinking when they strive to encourage popular support for such activities.

    The currently developed Oil Sands of Alberta are the result of lots of Bad Thinking. And the current day defence/promotion by the current Federal Leaders and many of the Provincial Leaders is near the pinnacle of Bad Thinking. In March of 2017, PM Trudeau stated “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil and just leave it in the ground. The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure this is done responsibly, safely and sustainably.” That is populist misleading claim-making, done for very Bad Reasons.

    To begin, there is absolutely nothing sustainable about benefiting from burning fossil fuel. The PM cannot rationally claim to misunderstand this point, so, by default, he knows that oil sands extraction is fundamentally unsustainable. Only bad excuses can be made to claim there is anything sustainable about it. And the claim attempts to side-step consideration of the responsibility to safely protect the future generations from the impacts of burning up all that fossil fuel (those responsibility and safety considerations actually being contrary to the stated objective of the current generation benefiting from all of the oil sands being burned up). And that undeniably unacceptable Bad Thinking is made more appealing by explaining that money from the burning up of the oil sands will pay for things like education, health care and assistance to the poor.

    Those claims of the benefits obtained from promoting and defending this activity never explain what happens in the future when no one can practically benefit from fossil fuel burning. And they completely ignore the future challenges and costs that will have been developed, often poorly excused by claiming that growing the GDP today by pursuing unsustainable harmful activity will result in sustained growth of GDP into the future (perhaps by counting the future human efforts to deal with the results of rapid climate change to be 'counted as beneficial economic activity', just as nation rebuilding after wars is a great economic boost, on top of the war-time boost of weapons and war machine production).

    In their defence, many elected leaders are powerfully motivated to get revenue from things like the oil sands because 'lower taxes' is the law (or at least it is so popular it might as well be a law). Their focus on current day revenue can ignore what will happen in the future, because a powerful Bad Thinking portion of the population 'likes that type of leadership - leadership incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives (as JS Mill would refer to it)'.

    And there is more of that type of popular profitable Bad Thinking by Leaders regarding the Oil Sands of Alberta. It is estimated that the current developed Oil Sands have a clean-up obligation that is greater than $20 billion dollars. And bad laws created by bad thinking leaders wanting to encourage the development of the oil sands do not require oil sands operations to fully fund their clean up until decades into the future (coal operators have to provide funds for the full clean-up from the day they start a mine).

    As things like Better Helpful Thinking are developing globally, there may not be decades of revenue from the oil sands, in spite of the glowing evaluations of the future for the oil sands by groups that have a vested interest in prolonging the unjustified popular support for the oil sands. If more oil sands is not sold soon, the near future general population of Alberta and Canada will have nobody who benefited most being obliged to properly clean it up, all that wealth created in the past being worthless/useless in the future.

    And all of this started in the 1990s when Bad Selfish Motives ruled and fuelled the development of more Bad Thinking among leaders/winners in business and politics and in the general regional/tribal population. At that time the unacceptability of the global burning of fossil fuels was well understood by all leaders in business and politics. Yet badly motivated bad thinking prevailed.

    And here we are today, having to try to limit/correct the mess developed by Bad Motives being allowed to develop Bad Thinking and the related Bad Excuse Making that is popular among the Badly Motivated self-interested Bad Thinkers.

    'People having more freedom to believe what they want in pursuit of their personal interest to appear to be the winners in competitions for popularity and profitability' will undeniably develop more Bad Thinking, likely worse than the Bad Thinking that developed and still attempts to defend the Alberta Oil Sands problem.

    I will close with a quote from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" that accurately captured the bad thinking that has developed the oil sands problem. Note that 1987 predates the bad thinking of the 1990s that pushed for expanding oil sands extraction.

    "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.
    26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."

  49. New research, June 4-10, 2018

    It's hard for me to see exponential rise in melting of the antarctic, like a doubling or tripling per decade, given most climate trends are following more of a quadratic trend. But I agree its going to be far more than 3.5mm per year, and I think multi metre sea level rise by 2100 is a real possibility.

  50. New research, June 4-10, 2018

    Apologies.  I must have been having a mathematical melt down.  The story is more like this.  If we are indeed trebbling the melt rate every decade and if this is truly an exponential curve then it means that the melt rate is increasing by about 11.6% each year (1.116 raised to the tenth power equals 2.997).  You then have to raise 1.116 to the eighty second power (number of years remaining in the century)  to see what the melt rate will be at the end of this century.  Clearly a ridiculous answer (I hope).  I think we will find that after a couple of more decades, we won't see a trippling each decade from the previous decade.  It does suggest, though, that we are in for far more than 3.5mm per year for the rest of the century.

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us