I am going to do a glossary for Climate Progress, and I’d like your suggestions as to what it should include.
I’ve been planning to do one for a while. Now it looks like I will be doing a book of best blog posts (see “What is your favorite Climate Progress post?“) — and that certainly needs a glossary.
I’ll cover everything from amplifying feedback to recycled Energy to Solar Baseload to wedges (stabilization). I’ll try to steal borrow liberally progressively from EPA‘s and Wikipedia‘s, but hopefully be less boring. It will posted on the sidebar and constantly upgraded.
Suggestions?
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
It’s not exactly a climate science term or even technical but “cargo cult science” certainly describes denialist “research”. I wish Feynman were alive today to weed the rampant growth of pseudo science.
Be sure to include a bunch of synonyms. For instance, “CSP with Storage (See Solar Baseload)”, or is that the wrong way ’round?
One of the last I learned that you didn’t make up on your blog is “Combined Heat and Power (CHP) (See Cogeneration)”.
CO2 generated by burning (in a car) a gallon of gas
CO2 generated by burning a ton of coal
CO2 generated per kWh of electricity generated by burning coal
CO2 generated per kWh of electricity generated, current avg. in U.S.
CO2 generated per M Btu of natural gas, and per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas, and per kWh of electricity generated via natural gas (in a typical modern plant)
Clouds
Ethical considerations associated with climate change
Inter-generational justice
“Clean coal”
I started one for people who I’ve told about CP and RC. I haven’t gotten far, but here is what I have. Please forgive the bad jokes!
ACES – American Climate and Energy Security – aka Waxman/Markey
AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming
BI – Bad Information aka Breakthrough Institute
CP – Climate Progress http://www.climateprogress.org (maybe not necessary here)
GISS – Godard Institute for Space Studies
GISTEMP – NASA’s global surface temperature dataset
GCM – General Circulation Model or now more often Global Climate Model
Hadcrut3 – Hadley Center combined land/sea global temperatures dataset
HFC – Hydrogen Fuel Cell – Joe may want to leave this one out :-)
RC – Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org
SST – Sea Surface Temperature
Gotta have definitions for Denier Industrial-Complex Kooks (DICKs) and Anti-Science Syndrome (ASS). :-)
Removing the structural violence of current transportation systems — essentially all those based on cars — would significantly mitigate of global warming, improve health, mobility, economies, quality of life.
Structural Violence
http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/structural-violence
Transportation as systemic negligence under the rule of law
Transportation systems based on automobiles are essentially “bull in china shop” systems where cars are way too large, overpowered, and too heavy; and, that delicate china they must somehow dance around and not destroy is human life. This is the conundrum. This is the problem of transportation systems based on cars. These types of systems, when you really think about it make no sense as the purpose of these systems is to serve human life which they do so poorly.
also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
“sowing doubt”
Positive feedback loop
carbon sink
tipping point
Your readers know all these terms – but the average person seems not to. People’s notion of a “tipping point” is very vague. I think most people conceptualize “tipping point” in a similar way to the admonition against crossing your eyes (don’t do it cuz they could get stuck like that). It would help the discussion if these terms and concepts were more widely understood.
ROMM SCALE
Maybe i’m straying from the Glossary Theme, so forgive me, but why not define a numbered scale relating pollution to energy efficiency [GHG pollution, (CO2e) multiplied by heat loss (unused energy) to the biosphere]. PV’s would have the lowest rating as they add almost no ‘new’ ambient heat wherein Nuclear Power and Fossil Fuel power being no more efficient than 30% to 35%, would hold the highest and most destructive value. Now use this number to fix a total value to the annual generation that a Nuke or FF generation system delivers. Nuke Power must be understood as being the most expensive and highest potential (non GHG) pouter on the face of the earth. This would cut through all the hype and focus on the right path to sustainable energy. Just maybe the world can save its sorry self for a greener future generation. This is just the project for our world renowned physicist. Now call it the ‘Romm Scale’ and all will see the catastrophe that haunts life today and the contrasting hope that abounds from, of all places, the sun.
The last thought that may apply here is that all Fossil Fuel is sequestered energy that should stay sequestered.
rlb
PS: The unit of measure could be GHGxH
How about a “reverse glossary” where you have definitions for words you wish existed? Then people fill in (in a respectful, civil and otherwise appropriate manner).
List all forms of energy according to cost (on a common basis) and life cycle GHG emissions to allow direct comparisons. Leave out subsidies (ethanol), corporate welfare (oil drilling depreciation allowance), and any other market perturbations.
How about “manufactured controversy”?
I find ” forcings” to be the most confusing term to the non-scientist. Remember, eschew obfuscation.
“Albedo effect” is worth a mention.
Ditto Jim. “Forcings” is confusing to non-scientists!
What Jim (13) and Maggie (15) wrote.
Dunning-Kruger effect – this wonderful term helps with understanding denialism and scientific reticence – from Wikipedia:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which “…people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it”.
They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence. It also explains why competence may weaken the projection of confidence because competent individuals falsely assume others are of equivalent understanding.
“Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”
more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Null hypothesis: The incumbent argument.
Red noise white noise; don’t ask me I don’t know.
A word for the institutional bias towards incremental changes to the knowledge base. Iterative science?
Slow science (slow cooking): Peer reviewed science is necessarily a slow process. While I abhore the snail like progress of the peer review system, I do not have a better answer.
Remember your most important audience: those people who are interested, but new to the topic.
Be brave: be complete. And readers on other websites will come back to yours, to look things up.
GISS in NASA; NCDC in NOAA.
TSI, GHG, ENSO, PDO, SOI, PV, Met Office
anything funny~~
climate sensitivity; border tax, border tax adjustments; price floors in emissions trading schemes; price ceilings in emissions trading schemes, safety valve, price cap; prisoner’s dilemma; personal carbon offset; offset (in an emissions trading scheme); clean development mechanism, (CDM), also certified emissions reduction (CER); UNFCCC and the two ad hoc working groups that are currently negotiating; Annex 1 country; abatement; mitigation; adaptation; contraction and convergence; rent seeking; carbon leakage; baseline and credit; REDD; Stern review; AAU; el nino; GCM; palaeoclimatology
I’m concerned mostly about the new acronyms. Everyone knows GHG means greenhouse gases. GCMs are “Global Climate Models” or “General Circulation Models.” Most probably recognize ENSO and PDO as “El Niño Southern Oscillation” and “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” respectively. But the others? Here are some, gleaned from your posts or comments, that give me trouble:
CHP I have to keep reminding myself this is not California Highway Patrol but “Combined Heat and Power.”
CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration, not Constant Commercial Service (a rating of radio transmitter tubes)
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
CSP Concentrating Solar Photovoltaic
HFC Hydrogen Fuel Cell (I think of Household Finance Corporation, but of course that’s long gone.)
MTR Mountaintop Removal
ERBE Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
GRACE Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
PETM Permian-Eemian Thermal Maximum
SST Sea Surface Temperature, not Supersonic Transport
These won’t be palatable, but may be worth including: CA, SPPI, WUWT
I’d vote for albedo, Black Swan, climate, decision grid (or tree), evidence, feedback mechanisms, game theory, Heartland Institute, Inconvenient Truth, junk science, Kyoto Protocol, lobbyist, masking effect, National Academies, ocean conveyor belt, peak oil, quality of life, runaway effect, solar influx, tragedy of the commons, uncertainty, venus’ flytrap effect, weather, X Prize, Yucca Mountain, and, zooxanthellae (the poor little, temperature-sensitive alga living in a coral polyp).
ton of carbon vs. ton of CO2
polar amplification
El Nino
ocean acidification
surface temperature
biochar
methane (and the other more “exotic” ghgs)
One topic/term that I feel is not utilized enough or not properly is geothermal. Now, not necessarily like a geothermal plant, but residential and commercial geothermal. The case in which you put tubes (no, it’s not the internet, Sen. Stevens) in the ground around a house or building and you use the ground constant temperature as a heat sink or heat source – use it to cool the house when it’s summer and warm when it’s winter. It uses not that much energy (which I’m sure you can ‘offset’ using solar or such in most places), has a reasonable payback period and other benefits. There’s a company here near Raleigh that does that, which I’m sure you can find on the net. Quick, simple, good ‘physics’ and should have more funding going into it.
Thanks,
Dan
Off the top of my head… cap and trade.
Would you consider linking to all the Crock of the Week videos?…
Reference
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
MYTH: It’s the Sun &/or Sunspots
Solar Schmolar: Debunking the “It’s the Sun” fable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&e
MYTH: Other planets warming prove it’s the sun
Mars Attacks!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHoCb6OBiI
MYTH: “The Hockey Stick” is broken
“The Medieval Warming Crock”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
MYTH: A cold day in ____ proves climate change isn’t happening
“It’s cold. So there’s no Climate Change”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM
MYTH: It’s a natural 1500 year cycle
That 1500 Year Thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8&e
MYTH: They were predicting global cooling in the 1970s
I Love the 70s!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg
MYTH: 30,000 scientists signed a petition
The Great Petition Fraud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
MYTH: Sea levels are not rising, or not like they said
All Wet on Sea Level rise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEXtrLKru-Y
MYTH: Climate change ended in 1998
Party like it’s 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
MYTH: CO2 is not driving climate change
Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don’t hold your breath….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
MYTH: Climate change is good for plants and crops
Don’t it make my Green World Brown: CO2 and plant growth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
MYTH: The climate models are unreliable
This Year’s Model: Climate models and modeling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&e
MYTH: Arctic ice is recovering
Polar Ice Update: Arctic Perennial Ice and Methane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MozcU7woNNQ&e
Ice Area vs Volume: Debunking the “Ice is back to 1979 levels” idiocy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0
MYTH: Weather stations are unreliable
Watts Up With Watts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM
The “Urban Heat Island” Crock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw
MYTH: The “lag” shows CO2 does not cause climate change
The “Temp leads Carbon” Crock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&e
The Big Swindle Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
………………………Freezing………Boiling
deg C….Celsius……………0……………100.
deg F….Fahrenheit………..32……………212.
(212 – 32)deg F = 100 deg C
……….deg F = (5/9) deg C
TdegF = (9/5)(TdegC) + 32
TdegC = (5/9)(TdegF – 32)
Some algebra is worth a thousand words…
Some people would thank you…
Might also be useful to include info/bios on important people and/or institutions, both the folks who get it (Hansen, Gore, etc.) as well as deniers/delayers (Pielke, Inhofe, etc.). Just a thought.
Astroturfing!
“Dance the Dotty”
Glossarys are for definitions rather than lists of acronyms. Acronyms (even common ones such as GHGs) are just bad all round and should be avoided as much as possible.
[JR: I try to use them to inject some humor.]
Well, here are a few more acronyms:
GCR Galactic Cosmic Rays
FD Forbush Decreases
DM Dalton Minima
CWC Cloud Water Content
CCN Cloud Condensation Nuclei
AERONET Aerosol Robotic Network
LIE Lindzen Iris Effect (I’m not sure this one is official.)
MODIS Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
SSM/I Special Sensor Microwave/Imager
DOE Dansgaard-Oeschger Events (I’m not sure this one is official.)
SLR Sea Level Rise, not single-lens reflex
If you do reference C&C – I hope you do – could you please cite the source: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf
Snark Rifle