Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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


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


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...

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

Latest Posts


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 151 to 200:

  1. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    Will some one please run some experiments to prove their theories before we make laws that may be going after the wrong culprit. Stop relying on statistical correlation and statistical models to condemn CO2. A statistical correlation is not a proof.
    Let’s test the Beer Lambert law which is the dominate physical law that governs greenhouse gases and radiation absorption. Lets run an experiment to see how important CO2 is in gw. Bill Nye (the science guy) has already done one experiment with two 1 liter soda bottles one filled with air and one filled with CO2 on a dark table with thermometers installed (and the sun shining). The bottle with the CO2 got very hot. Beer Lambert would predict those results. Let’s rerun the experiment with bottles (current air CO2 and pure CO2) that are 16 meters in diameter (distance of reflected radiation from the table). Beer Lambert law says that they would be the same temperature after thermal mixing. Beer lambert predicts that no mater how large the bottles anything larger than 16 meters would still be the same temperature when the air is allowed to mix (bigger the bottles the longer the mixing time). At 16 meters the mixing equilibrium should not take long – mins vs hrs. A fan in each bottle would eliminate the mixing time variable. The energy comes from the radiation not the gas, when the radiation (of CO2’s frequency’s) is gone the heating stops.
    A lot of assumptions in this experiment: the bottle would need to be made of some thing that was transparent to CO2 frequency’s, natural thermal mixing must not be impaired, the bottles must be insulated from outside heat transfer, albedo of the surface must be the same and sufficient to generate CO2 frequency’s, no water in the bottles, a bottle is probably not the best shape, and sun shining. In other words, just as close to earth’s atmosphere as possible with just the CO2 variable.
    Another way to run the experiment is to take Bill Nye’s bottles 16 meters above the table. Beer lambert law would predict that both bottles would be the same temperature because they are beyond the saturation distance of current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. In this experiment we can make the table as big as we like we just can’t change the albedo. The bottle material of construction in this experiment must not have any albedo effect.
    For water the beer lambert law says the bottles needs to be about 100 meters in diameter.
    Does anyone know of any experiments like this?
    If these experiments prove Beer Lambert law works for CO2 in our atmosphere it shows that Beer lambert is the dominate greenhouse law and CO2 is already saturated (enough) in the atmosphere, more or less (down to 20ppm) will not change the temperature. But this does not change the significant statistical correlation of CO2 to gw. A statistical correlation is not a proof (unless used in a scientifically designed experiment). I would start looking else where for the cause of gw. I would put high priority on things that also correlate to CO2. My bet is albedo.
    I don’t have any ideas on how to prove the “radiation forcing” theory proposed by the IPCC. I have read experiments that demonstrate radiation forcing with light of CO2 frequency’s supplied. The fact that NASA and other researcher have not detected any radiation of CO2 frequency’s in the troposphere makes CO2 specific radiation forcing doubtful.

    Moderator Response:

    [PS] This is extremely confused. You need to read closely how the greenhouse effect work. Experiments in a lab measure the radiative properties of gases, but GHE is something that depends on these and the temperture/pressure in the atmosphere. Because it is critical to many application, the effect of the atmosphere on radiation passing through it has been deeply studied. The observation base used by climate models originated with the USAF (MODTRAN). The increase of radiation warming the surface due to the GHE has been directly measured. See here for most recent experiment. Observation match the theory at multiple levels.

    "The fact that NASA and other researcher have not detected any radiation of CO2 frequency’s in the troposphere makes CO2 specific radiation forcing doubtful."

    Please provide a reference for this statement (Otherwise it is simply sloganeering and not compliant with policy). I suspect you have either misunderstood material or been misled by a misinformation site.

  2. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    Well I think Green New Deal actually typifies a lot of what is wrong with US politics, speaking as arm chair observer living in NZ. Under "it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal" you would applaud the first 4 points as aspirational goals dealing with problems that need to be addressed. No issue.

    The fifth point would be a short precise of what right-wing would call the "the liberal agenda" and frankly would doom it. Now I dont disagree with many of those points but getting a green deal on the earlier points is going to need votes from some of those who would see this item as a serious red flag. Worse, it just plays into the hands of those promoting the idea that climate change is a manufactured crisis pushed by a nefarious conspiracy of international illuminati to undermine capitalism and "freedoms". They would see the Green New Deal as a trojan horse and possibly with some justification.

    There are also points there I think are fundimentally unobtainable and/or undesirable. A changing social landscape is a given. You cannot necessarily fix "deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities". When a mine is exhausted it closes. Mechanised agriculture needs less labour. It would be like trying to mandate a continuation of blacksmiths and lively stables.

    "achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability"

    Come on, that is a frustration matrix - might as well try to legislate on 2nd law of thermodynamics. Try "optimal" instead of "maximal".

    It looks to me like a bunch of good ideas have been torpedoed by ideologues by providing a target-rich document to those who will oppose it. I would be amazed if this could be sold to american people and worse still it may poison the ground for more sensible future proposals.

    Idealogues are the bane of politics no matter what the colour. Now is the time for pragmatistics like no other.

  3. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    OPOF @7,  yes there is a relationship between environmental, social and economic ideas, but mix those goals up in a single document called a Green Plan and we are just handing the GOP an easy weapon to cry socialism or expensive free public healthcare and other inane and misleading but effective scaremongering, then the green goals become discredited by association. It needs to be about strategy.

    I would have had two plans, a green plan and an economic plan. Yes there is overlap obviously, but they are not one and the same thing.

    I do like the fact the Democrats have a Green Plan, something comprehensive,  rather than just a couple of isolated ideas that would get lost among so many other political policies.

  4. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    John McKeon @7, I'm a New Zealand citizen. I take a little bit of interest in American politics because Im interested in politics and its hard to avoid American politics, Trump is in our news virtually every day.

    Carbon fee and dividend is an economic mechanism applied to an environmental problem. There is a substantive difference between that and quality healthcare, minimum wages etc. I'm surprised you can't see this.

  5. A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals

    Red Baron,

    I have read many of your links in the past.  While I do not claim to be an expert at land restoration, I am a professional nurseryman who works the land every day.  (I have retired from teaching school and own a 5 acre nursery).  I find your claims to be very lightly documented.  Your first link here is to a blog post, the second is to press release about a 2002 paper and the third is to a 2008 article in a minor journal that is no longer published.  The post I linked cited recent peer reviewed articles from prominent scientific journals.

    It defies logic to think that soils could absorb all the carbon emitted by land use change, including lands that have been degraded so badly it will take generations to restore them, and all the carbon from fossil fuels.   Substantial documentation is required.  Blog posts and articles from 2002 are insufficient to convince me.

    I do not like to harp on negative stories so most of the time I do not comment on your claims.  That does not mean that I have been convinced, it means we have gone over this before and I do not feel the need to rehash an old argument (it is against the comments policy).  In this case I had recently read what I thought was an informed comment on your topic, citing recent peer reviewed articles,  and thought others might want to hear a different view. 

    While improved land use will certainly help the resolution of AGW, it is not a silver bullet that can remove all CO2 on its own.  Fee and dividend to all citizens is a reasonable idea.  Compension for possible sequestration of carbon by farmers is a separate issue.

  6. One Planet Only Forever at 03:50 AM on 11 February 2019
    2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6


    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.

  7. A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals

    @Michael Sweet #33

    Thanks for the link. Yes I have seen these sorts of analysis before. Too often I see very obvious flaws in studies designed to minimize the perceived potential of this new paradigm.

    Little Known Glomalin, a Key Protein in Soils

    Glomalin, the Unsung Hero of Carbon Storage

    Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

    But that might be obvious to me because it is well within my silo, but it often is not nearly so obvious to a climate scientist whose silo is physics.

    For example. You look at a study and find that NPK fertilizers or biocides are used, then you know they haven't studied this new paradigm at all, but rather are studying the carbon sequestration potential of the old paradigm. That's well known, modeled by the Roth C model for climate scientists, and at least 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the liquid carbon pathway. Usually even a net loss! But with certain improvements can be a fairly tiny net gain. Still, no improvement can compare it to the LCP.

    You would be well in your rights to ask why this is so obvious to me. That's because of the research done on the glomalin producing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and inorganic chemical fertilizers.

    Role of Mycorrhizal Symbioses in Phosphorus Cycling

    You can see the plant AMF symbiosis trades carbon for phosphorus (and other nutrients too). This is what drives the LCP pumping vast quantities of carbon deep in the A and B horizons of the soil profile, rather that the Roth C which models the decay of biomass at the surface O horizon in the soil profile.

    Soil Horizons

    But there is more to it. Because once you add NPK fertilizers to the soil, this symbiosis becomes superfluous, and instead parasitic. Its a feedback mechanism.

    Phosphorus and Nitrogen Regulate Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Petunia hybrida

    But we can turn it back on again too!

    The Use of Mycorrhizae to Enhance Phosphorus Uptake: A Way Out the Phosphorus Crisis

    As long as we use NPK fertilizers to supply plant nutrition, then we have shut down the LCP and instead sequester carbon 2 orders of magnitude slower! But if we instead use this new paradigm to supply plant nutrition, we activate the LCP and soil carbon rises on average rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr!

  8. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    Nigelj, I did write a long response to your latest, but on taking up your suggestions about reading the media link and checking past discussion, I am reminded that you are probably a US citizen whilst I am an Australian equivalent. So my response needed to be held back or modified a lot, because I have only a sketchy feel for political culture in your country. But I did have a question which is worth forwarding to you now:

    "... a carbon fee and dividend ..."

    Would you classify this as an instrument of environment policy or of socio-economic policy? Or both?

  9. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    Meant to say "clearly the economic system relies on the environment for its survival and the economy can influence the environment.....

  10. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    John McKeon

    Thank's for your views. There has already been a lot of discussion on these issues here.

    "How can you separate environmental goals from socio-economic goals?"

    I feel they are just different things entirely. It's virtually self evident. Governments have entirely different departments dealing with these things. They are only part of some integrated whole to the same extent that the justice system, and education system are.

    These are the socioeconomic objectives I referred to in The Green New Deal in clause 15: " providing all people of the United States with—(i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security". The body of the text also referred to minium wages.

    Now come on, the connection between these socioeconomic goals and green objectives (environmental objectives) is pretty tenuous. They are of course sensible goals, and imho the government has at least some part to play, but that is another thing that could be handled separately. 

    "For me the word "Green" as a political designation has always been about the integrated system that our only planet represents to us. Our human economy and political systems are a part of that whole."

    Clearly the economic system relies on the economy for its survival and the economy can influence the environment, so the economy has to be based on sound and sustainable principles. However the Green New Deal didn't actually reference that signifciantly and instead drifted off into talk about miniumum wages and affordable housing. These are separate concerns surely,  and 'socio'economic goals, so a different thing from economic policy as such. The distinction is important.

    "Political resistance to Green politics comes from working people who naturally are fearful of loosing their jobs,"

    Yes, but not only this. Conservatives may have some resistance to ideas about the state being expected to provide quality affordable healthcare (read universal), affordable housing and economic security and so on. Tying this to the climate change objectives may lead to opposition to the climate change objectives, and the package as a whole. I don't like that it would, and I like grand plans, but I'm also a realist.

    Also read the media link I posted.

  11. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    I saw on twitter that Tesla have recently bought a super capacitor company and the comments about the acquisition were that it was a natural fit for them. Super capacitors can charge and discharge very quickly so maybe they’ll be used as an interface between the batteries and the motors/chargers, presumably reducing charge time and improving battery reliability and utility. It’ll be interesting to see if this produces a step improvement for EVs.

  12. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    And I should add that by saying "we have to live within our means" I was in no way implying that people who depend on their threatened job(s) be cast aside as not important. In any change they must be looked after first and foremost.

  13. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    "... a Green New Deal ... include general socio economic provisions [is] really a contradiction ..."

    How can you separate environmental goals from socio-economic goals? A decarbonised economy is going to look very different from what we have now, no matter what way you look at it.

    "[It] ... could alienate some voters."

    There will be political resistance as well as political support, come what may. Don't you think it is better to lay it all on the line and try to engender discussion and support as far as one can manage?
    For me the word "Green" as a political designation has always been about the integrated system that our only planet represents to us. Our human economy and political systems are a part of that whole.

    Political resistance to Green politics comes from working people who naturally are fearful of loosing their jobs, nudged on unmercifully by the financial vested interests who seem to want their investments to be cash cows forever.

    But we only have one planet and we have to live within our means. There are many capitalists and workers who well and truly accept this reality. Let's capitalise on that! :-)

  14. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    What the Green New Deal will be up against here. Somewhat predictable. Sigh.

  15. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6

    The Green New Deal full text here. A very sensible list of environmental and socio economic goals imho.

    One criticism: I don't see how something called a Green New Deal can include general socio economic provisions (specifically the ones at the end of the text). Its really a contradiction, and could alienate some voters. I think they need a separate Economic New Deal.

    And the lack of something like a carbon fee and dividend is questionable, because without this a lot of heavy lifting is placed on government. But it could be hung off this plan.

  16. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    Cities have higher concentrations of C02 from vehicle traffic but I have not seen evidence this is a serious problem for peoples health. However if concentrations of C02 build up inside homes from keeping the windows closed it can cause headaches, and even be fatal if there is absolutely no ventilation.

    However the main toxic effects of increased CO2 concentrations on human health are CO2 causes warming, which can create a pathway towards more ozone production which is toxic for humans, and more atmospheric water vapour, creating acid rain. Of course global warming causes more heatwaves and exacerbates various tropical diseases.

    According to the last IPCC report all the warming since approx. 1980 is attributed to human causes. Free copy can be downloaded here.

  17. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    KateAllatRalPM@10: "Does anyone know the contribution rate for each factor?"

    Here is a great visualization which graphs the various factors which influence the earth's temperature.

  18. One Planet Only Forever at 03:02 AM on 9 February 2019
    EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    KateAllatRaIP @10,

    In addition to Evan's response:

    • The health problems in cities are due to other pollutants from burning fossil fuels (NOx, SOx and particulate matter), not CO2. Ending the burning not only ends the climate change impacts, it ends the other harms of the ultimately unsustainable activity (future generations cannot continue to benefit from burning up non-renerwable resources. The future generations only get the future problems).
    • What can be done to adapt to the reality of human caused climate change? Stop the human causes of climate change quicker to reduce the magnitude of the impacts. And have the portion of the current generation that benefited most from making the problem pay for all the adaptations required for the created climate change impacts.


  19. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    KateAllatRaIPM@10 Earth's orbit varies in 20,000, 40,000, and 100,000 year cycles. This is too slow to explain warming that is occurring at a rate of 0.1-0.2C/decade.

    Volcanoes cause warming by emitting CO2 over time periods of 1000's of years. No volcanoes have been seen doing that over the recent 800,000-year ice-records. But you correctly mention volcanoes as a possible source, which they were in the deep past, which means that you should accept that they cause warming through CO2 emissions. They are simply not a problem now because there have not been any large eruptions in the last million years or so.

    NASA watches the sun very, very closely, because it can be a problem for their satellites and astronauts. In the satellite era NASA has not recorded any solar activity that could account for the current warming.

    Because you accept that volcanoes can cause warming, and because the link between volcanoes and past warming is CO2, then you should appreciate why human CO2 emissions are linked to the current warming by looking at the following graph. Over 400,000 years of ice-core data CO2 goes up and down in a very narrow range of 180-300 ppm. In the last 60 years CO2 has risen 100 ppm, and it is rising 2.5 ppm/year. This is much much faster than volcanoes can emit CO2.

    We are the problem.

  20. Climate's changed before

    Philippe Chantreau @639,

    We do agree that the Toba genetic bottleneck theory is not entirely convincing. The genetic finding is well established, that there were few humans on the planet in those days but if Toba created such a bottleneck it needs better evidence to become established given that there are plenty other factors were at work that could have kept human population low through those times.

  21. KateAllatRaIPM at 17:24 PM on 8 February 2019
    EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    High CO2 level develops health problem in larger cities and its reduction can definitely be good of our hearts and languages but is it really a major contributor to the greenhouse effect and global warming?

    Climate change has been caused by many natural factors, including changes in the sun, volcanoes, Earth’s orbit, and CO2 levels.
    Does anyone know the contribution rate for each factor?

    Also if climate change is inevitable, what can we do to prepare for it?

  22. One Planet Only Forever at 13:41 PM on 8 February 2019
    EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions


    I agree the claim made about ICE being 40% of CO2 emissions is wrong.

    The World Bank data also shows transportation being 20% of CO2 for 2014. And electric power generation is nearly 50% (clearly the largest source of CO2).

    A portion of that electricity would power transportation (mainly trains and city transit trolleys). But to make a total of 40% for transport, about 40% of that electricity would need to be for transport. And even if that was what was evaluated, that should have been stated rather than the lazy claim that all of the 40% was from ICE.

  23. A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals

    Sunspot @21:

    Without population reduction and the complete overhaul of our economic system to eliminate the need for growth, every suggestion here is useless. We can, and will, outgrow the benefits of them all.

    Over the long (centuries) term I agree with you, but in the long term you and I will be dead. In the short (decades) term OTOH, AGW is a clear and present danger. I don't know about you, but I'm planning to live at least another 30 years, and capping the warming by then will at least buy us more time to solve the underlying problem.

    Thankfully, a significant reduction in the rate of warming can be accomplished without overhauling the global economic system, merely by internalizing some fraction of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels in their market price. If the price of FFs is set high enough to make carbon-neutral alternatives competitive, consumer thrift and the profit motive can then build out the global carbon-neutral economy.  That will requires collective intervention in the 'free' (of collective intervention) market for energy. That, in turn, 'only' requires eough votes in the US Congress to enact a revenue-neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff. There are some encouraging signs of growing bipartisan support for just such a measure.  See for more info.

  24. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    >>Globally the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, probably exceeding 40%, is the internal combustion engine (ICE), widely used by the transport sector for propulsion ......<<

    But, acording to:

    ..all transport (which includes aviation) emits some 20% of CO2.

    I suppose we are all getting used to wildly varying figures in the emissions debate, but it doesn't help discussion with deniers when they can point to different numbers and you can't counter them.

  25. Climate's changed before

    "With modern technology, the survival numbers would likely be higher than 10,000 but the mortality rate (the percent of humanity who perish) would be infinitely higher." — How can you say that?Show me a climate event in the past 30 years that has killed at least 1 million people directly. Even in severe droughts we have most people dying from poverty and unable to afford food, NOT lack of food. I can make a bold statement and say ALL climate related deaths in the past 30 years are due to lack of technology awareness or poverty or being careless. There has not been a storm that concrete and steel cannot handle. So my question is, with all the warming we have had in 30 years, no one has died, why should I believe you when you say another 5 degree rise in temperature will kill billions??

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please note that at Skeptical Science there are thousands of active discussion threads on just about every topic related to climate change science.  As such, users are encouraged to confine comments to the topic of the thread on which they are place.  Further, it is incumbent upon those making hyperbolic assertions to then support them with citations to credible sources.

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

    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.

    Off-topic snipped.

  26. Philippe Chantreau at 07:10 AM on 8 February 2019
    Climate's changed before

    MA Rodger,

    I am aware of the Toba bottleneck theory, but there is considerable debate as to the true impact of the event. The genetic bottleneck around that period is a relaity nonetheless, and is found in several other primate species.

  27. Philippe Chantreau at 07:08 AM on 8 February 2019
    Climate's changed before

    rxrankings at 635 "Russia, able to grow wheat in Siberia (previously) thought impossible"

    This is false. The chief crops of neolithic Siberia (8000 BCE and after) included millet, wheat, barley and hemp.

  28. Climate's changed before

    rxrankings @635,

    When you first use the phrase @632 "in the recent past" (which I quote @633) you are referring to humanity "demonstrat(ing) extrordinary resilience to (abrupt) changes in the recent past." I assume growing wheat isn't the sort of "abrupt change" that would provide this "demonstartion (of) extraordinary resilience" you speak of.
    And in terms of "demonstrating" stuff, you demonstrate a poor grasp of the energy requirements needed to melt the Antarctic ice cap. Today's global energy use (132,000TWh) is enough to melt 1,600 cu km of ice. Antarctica has 26,500,000 cu km of ice so melting it in 10 years would be an interesting project. What's your plan for obtaining this level of energy in the next 10 years?

  29. Climate's changed before

    Philippe Chantreau @634,

    Toba has been associated with the genetic bottleneck theory in which proponents see the human population dropping to less than 10,000 people. With modern technology, the survival numbers would likely be higher than 10,000 but the mortality rate (the percent of humanity who perish) would be infinitely higher.

  30. Climate's changed before

    By recent past I meant the examples I gave: "Saudi Arabia, being a desert and able to grow wheat"; "Russia, able to grow wheat in Siberia (previously) thought impossible and probably able to grow enough in the whole country to feed the entire planet". Dinosaurs and Mammoths couldn't grow wheat or travel in Ships to warmer climates, they used to die if it became too hot/ too cold or too dry. Humans book a ticket, crank up the AC, turn on the heater or eat wheat instead of meat. Tomorrow if the whole of Europe turned into an oven and Antarctica melted, it would take less than 10 years for a continent wide migration and resettlement. If we have enough fossil fuels, humanity could survive for centuries on a desert filled planet. Show me the impact of Global warming and I will show you the current technology that can handle it.

  31. There's no empirical evidence

    Hey all, I need some help. Could you please help me debunk the following denial arguments?

    Thank you


    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Looks like gish-gallop of long-debunked stuff. Use the search function on top left to find your way through the myths. (eg enter OISM). Even a google of "David Evans"  will find articles on his failed predictions. However, if you are trying to convince someone whose denial is based on idealogy, (as the web side would suggest) you are likely to only get motivated reasoning and more denial. Ask your antagonist what data would change their mind. If they cannot answer, then you are dealing with a faith position and scientific reasoning will not help.

  32. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    Electric cars in cold climate and heaters draining the battery. Double glazing can reduce heat loss by up to 80%. This would mean less need to use the  heater. Could be an optional extra.

  33. Philippe Chantreau at 02:59 AM on 8 February 2019
    Climate's changed before

    MA Rodger, I think that the worst that happened in human times was the Toba eruption, but I could be wrong. Humans and other mammals show evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the wake of that event although there is controversy as to the true global effect of it. In any case, it was a far cry from anything like major object impacts or large igneous provinces. 

  34. One Planet Only Forever at 01:54 AM on 8 February 2019
    EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    As a follow-up to my comment@3, it would appear that EVs are better than OK compared to ICE vehicles in cold climates.

    In very cold climates diesel engines are never turned off because the combustion cylinders need to be warm to start them again. That would not be a problem for an EV, though the increased range of a hydrogen fuel cell system may be the better option in that sort of condition.

  35. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    Regarding the appeal of EVs, a great orator once put it this way.

    "Resistance is futile."

    If you drive one, you will want one. A few cons, yes. But many more pros!

  36. Climate's changed before

    rxrankings @632,

    When you say "we have demonstrated extrordinary resilience to such changes in the recent past," you presumably do not consider the Triassic as "the recent past." So what "such changes" are you referring to?

  37. Climate's changed before

    "Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods."

    This is the weakest part of the argument. Why should humans fear abrupt changes when we have demonstrated extrordinary resilience to such changes in the recent past? The future looks even brighter, we have the capability to grow food for two or three earths, Saudi Arabia is growing wheat, Russia will soon be able to grow enough wheat for the entire planet. There were just a handful of deaths due the 'polar vortex'. El Nino and La Nina are just weather channel jokes countered by cranking up the AC or the heater. Just what is this event which we cannot handle? Show us from recent past.

  38. SkS Analogy 18 - Cliff jumping and temperature changes

    It appears that the NCDC temperature records page is down due to the government shutdown.  My previous numbers were probably incorrect.

    The NSIDC had this to say about the "record cold" during January:

    "Conditions in the upper US Midwest were colder than any previous winter period in the past two decades. Low temperatures in northern Minnesota and all of Wisconsin on January 30 and 31 were in the -27 to -35 degrees Celsius range (-17 to -31 degrees Fahrenheit). Large areas of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and the Dakotas reached temperatures below -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit). However, few all-time low temperature records were set during the cold snap. Very mild [hot] conditions followed the cold snap in early February."  My emphasis.  source

    Some "record cold", a few records and then warm weather.  The deniers crow about normal cold and the mass media follow along.  In the 1920's this would have been cold but not exceptional.  People have forgotten what cold weather was.  Cliff Mass was right.

  39. Welcome to Skeptical Science

    Thanks, Climate Change is real I believe. Now what can we do about it or what have we done to make it worst. I don't think it matters we need to invent a better Mouse Trap or we want be able to do anything about it. The real truth is if Fossil Fuel has made the Climae change worst than we have to replace it with something Better or we want be able to make any differents. If we have to go back to Horses we would have more Gas poluting the air than now as everyone would have to have a Horse. Plus the problem with Poop building up Mountains of Poop every where.

  40. Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records

    What concerns me is the implications for carbon sinks.

    The land surface is warming at twice the rate of oceans warming and this is already having an effect through drought and fire which is destroying significant areas of forest.

    What will be the effects of ocean warming on the ability of oceans to (a) absorb (b) retain carbon?

  41. One Planet Only Forever at 09:49 AM on 7 February 2019
    2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #4


    The thinking of the likes of William Nordhaus is harmful.

    It presumes that perceptions of wealth and prosperity derived from unsustainable and harmful activity can continue to increase in value into the future.

    And it essentially says it is OK for the current generation to do harm to the future generations based on comparing the harm done to future generations with the 'cost for the future generation to not harm the future'.

    That is like saying it is OK for a neighbour to do something that harms their neighbour as long as they can come up with a claim that 'their cost, or lost opportunity for benefit, if they do not harm their neighbour' would be more than the amount of harm they figure they have done to their neighbour.

    But it is worse because the costs to the future generation are often 'discounted' by people doing these types of incorrect evaluations.

  42. One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 7 February 2019
    A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals


    Obama focused on Healthcare for Americans and climate action corrections for the benefit of the future of humanity. But his priority was health care for Americans and he got it done during the first 2 years.

    With the loss of Democrat control of the House after the 2010 election (and the further loss of Senate control after the 2014 election), there was less that Obama could do on climate action.

    I think the priority on health care was also as a legacy for future government. Note that the Republicans in control of all parts of the governement could not undo health care (they easily undid every climate action that Obama had initiated).

    A significant portion of the American population has developed a lack of concern for the future of humanity. It is possible to get some of those people to support actions that they, or people they know will directly and immediately benefit from now and into the future. But it is difficult to get them to sacrifice in a way that benefits no one they know.

    That is a very narrow worldview. And it is tragic that the supposed leading nation of the world has failed to correct how it develops the attitudes of its population, has failed to lead the development of a population that is focused on improving the global future of humanity.

  43. One Planet Only Forever at 08:25 AM on 7 February 2019
    EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    If the free market competition for popularity and profit had correctly responded to the initial indications of the unacceptability of fossil fuel burning (way back in the 1970s), we would not be needing to have this discussion today. EVs would be very common. And public transit systems powered renewably would be the more common modes of transportation everywhere.

    However, we are not yet discussing the required corrections today. We are still having pointless arguments with people who want to resist any correction of what has developed that would not personally benefit them, and especially not wanting corrections that would reduce the incorrectly developed perceptions of status for themselves and 'their tribe'.

    A significant portion of the popuation in the most advanced nations still do not share the understanding that all human actions need to be governed by the Universal Objective of improving awarenss and understanding and applying that knowledge to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity (doing no harm to the future of humanity, no matter how popular or profitable the harmful activity may be for a portion of humanity).

    Because of the successful efforts of those who have been resisting correction of understanding and actions through the past 50 years, humanity now needs to collectively force correction to occur at a more rapid pace (with actions like significant government interventions), which just makes the resistance to correction 'hotter' because many of the 'undeserved larger perceptions of status relative to others' that have developed during those 50 years will have to be more significantly corrected.

    Some rich and powerful people do not deserve their status. And all of the rich and powerful people know it, and know who the undesrving are among them. It is just a matter of time until enough of the rest of the population clearly understands who among the rich and powerful are undeserving to make the required corrections occur.

    The undeserving among the rich and powerful can be seen to be abusing every psychological marketing trick in the book to delay that inevitable corected future reality. Tragically, they are still able to Win power in supposedly more advanced regions of the planet.

  44. One Planet Only Forever at 08:01 AM on 7 February 2019
    EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    The CBC has an item about EV owners in a very cold place, Winnipeg, Manitoba. It not only dispells the myth that EVs are not suited to cold climates.

    It points out that the need to use the battery power to heat the vehicle reduces the range between repowering. But they never have to worry about their car starting in the cold (ICE vehicles need a block heater and almost new batteries to be sure to start after being in the colkd for a few hours).

    And there is a side benefit for owners of EVs like Teslas who can have a toasty warm car when they get into it after something like a restaurant visit on a cold winter day (they can start the interior warming by using their phone, no engine starting required).

  45. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #5

    As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You!

    I have been a longtime reader but have never posted on this site from my other email registration. John Cox has long been a hero of mine for his commitment to spreading and defending the science of climatology.

  46. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    Yes the slow uptake of electric vehicles has been due to price, range, recharging and possible fears about technological redundancy, but I think there are a couple of other equally important factors:

    1). The cheaper electric cars have had terrible body styling, (and the Prius was not great either). Appearance and style is really important to consumers which was probably a key reason the Iphone was so successful. It might not say much about the priorities humans place on things, but its a powerful factor.

    2) The car companies haven't really marketed and advertised electric cars, possibly because they are reluctant to retool their production lines for electic cars and retrain staff. Governments should force them, or alternatively do the promotional job for them.

    3) There has been media spin that that electric cars are unreliable. They aren't.

    4) Lack of a good enough network of recharging stations. People will not tolerate being stranded, or having to hunt around. However most recharging is actually done at home.

    If you look at smartphones, growth became exponential quite quickly but certain things had to come together for this to happen, and it looks like this included affordable prices with the android phones in particular, good looks, reliability, and functionality. The interesting thing is they took off despite needing to be recharged basically every day, so functionality is clearly more important, and electric cars have multiple advantages in this area, and it will probably just be a matter of a little more time for people to fully digest the advantages.

  47. A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals

    OPOF @35, I work in infrastructure design, and we have codes of practise based on objectives, performance criteria, prescriptive solutions and acceptable design methodologies. Probably you are the same. As a result I also instinctively gravitate towards having a few key objectives like sustainability. It gives a clear focus, and an agreed goal by which all other rules and peoples actions can be judged and developed.  Unfortunately this sustainability goal didn't appear to be very prominent in the Green New Deal.

    We cannot compromise or bury the word sustainability simply because it might annoy a certain political group, or part of that group. That would be a total sell out. And without an over arching goal detailed provisions whether carbon taxes or rules etcetera  become rather hard to analyse, and its hard to sort out what is best.

    The problem is really with America. The Green New Deal would be viable in Europe complete with both the climate the socio economic provisions because the social provisions would have  broad political support even with conservative parties. Although I think the climate provisions need amending. But America has the GOP who are very antagonistic to things like universal healthcare (sigh).  While I dont like it, The Democrats might be better to remove things like universal healthcare and focus more on the climate and sustainability goals. But one assumes  the Democrats do plenty of public polling to test acceptability of social provisions with different political groups. It may or may not be a problem and it would be unwise to assume anything.

  48. Earth’s oceans are routinely breaking heat records


    Current high estimates for sea level rise are 4 meters by 2100 and 5-7 meters per century after that.  It will take a very long time to reach 65 meters of sea level rise.

    For Miami, Shanghai, the Mekong delta, Alexandria and other low places a rise of 1 meter would render the city uninhabitable so thinking of the absolute worst case is not necessary.  Current expert opinion is 1 meter by 2100 is likely.

  49. One Planet Only Forever at 03:19 AM on 7 February 2019
    A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals

    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.

  50. EV’s: Crucial to Reducing CO2 Emissions

    Leaving aside for a moment that anybody who must drive and can afford an EV has a moral obligation to adopt this modernized approach: once you've driven an EV you'll never want to return to a "thrasher" with all the attendant noise, stink and tragically elliptical path from the energy source to the wheels. 

    It's like getting a faster computer, or finding a better roast of coffee. There's no going back; the old way suddenly seems completely unacceptable. 

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


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us