Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rboyd

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: July 16, 2020, 08:23:58 PM »
NASA GISS For June 2020

June: 0.92C above 1951-1980 average (1.18C above preindustrial; 1.38C above 1750)

First 6 months 2020: 1.11C: degrees above 1951-1980 average (1.37 above preindustrial; 1.57C above 1750)

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 22, 2020, 10:22:49 PM »
BP 2020 Statistical Review: 41% - Renewables contribution to the increase in energy demand, the largest of any other energy source

- This report is full of facts and figures about global energy use:

In a year when global primary energy consumption increased by only 1.3%, below its 10-year average of 1.6% per year, renewables were unable to offset even half of the increase. With only a small increase in nuclear, the result was that carbon emissions still increased by 0.5% (ignoring the undercounting of natural gas fugitive emissions).

This is the fundamental problem, even with energy efficiency gains offsetting more then half of global GDP growth the increase in renewables output is not enough to stop carbon emissions from rising. Those emissions need to be falling by 5%+ per year, not rising by 0.5%. That would require 5-10 times the current levels of energy efficiency gains and renewables implementations if governments are not to agree to reduce GDP growth.

Oil consumption increased by 2 million barrels per day (681 mb/d in China) - about 2%

Natural Gas consumption increased by 78 billion cubic meters (US 27 bcm; China 24 bcm) - 2%

Coal consumption fell by 0.6%. Rises in Asia (China +1.8EJ, Indonesia +0.6EJ, Vietnam (+0.5EJ) offset by falls in the US (-1.9EJ) and Germany (-0.6EJ). OECD coal consumption fell to its lowest level since 1965. At some point soon the OECD may run out of coal to cut, which will put a drag on the global reduction in coal consumption.

Renewables share of primary energy consumption:
- US 6.2% (+0.4%)
- Brazil 16.3% (sugar ethanol used instead of oil) (+1.2%)
- EU 11% (+1%)
- CIS 0.1% (Russia etc.)
- Africa 2% (+0.5%)
- China 4.7% (+0.4%)
- Other Asia 2.9% (+0.4%)

- World 5% (increase of 0.5% y-o-y)

Consequences / Re: General Drought Stuff
« on: June 20, 2020, 11:31:41 PM »
My rule now is that if any "official" organization such as the IPCC (and all those that rely upon the IPCC estimates) says "2100" they mean "2050". If they say "2050" its "any time after 2030".

This "soft denial" from the official organizations with their reliance on linear models and underestimations of climate sensitivity serve no one well apart from the status quo elites. The next ten years may finally blow that out of the water as the climate system invalidates all their assumptions with reality.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 20, 2020, 11:26:49 PM »
NASA GISS for May of 1.02C (April 1.14C, March 1.19C, February 1.23C. January 1.17C) above 1951-1980 average.

First 5 months average of 1.15C (1.41C versus 1880-1920 baseline).

The May variance is a drop from the first 4 months, so lets see if we stay at these lower levels in the next few months or jump back to the higher levels. We are in a La Nina ENSO negative (correction from Phoenix), not an El Nino, of course.

As others have noted, still a huge positive temperature variance over Siberia.

If the forecasts are correct China is going to add the equivalent of the US economy in a 10 year period. The scale of the additional energy and material throughput is mind-boggling, and probably a disaster for the global ecology. Same of India meets its forecast growth in the next 10 years.

2.8 billion people doubling their economies in a decade, adding the equivalent of the US+EU28. We have never seen growth on this scale in such a short period. We could be tripping over many ecological tipping points, not just climate change, in the next decade. Will Steffen pretty much agrees that the 2020's will be when the proverbial hits the fan.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 14, 2020, 11:31:06 PM »
Trump admin slaps solar, wind operators with retroactive rent bills

Nothing like retroactive charges to reduce the readiness of companies to invest in renewables!

The Trump administration has ended a two-year rent holiday for solar and wind projects operating on federal lands, handing them whopping retroactive bills at a time the industry is struggling with the fallout of the coronavirus outbreak, according to company officials

The move represents a multi-million-dollar hit to an industry that has already seen installation projects canceled or delayed by the global health crisis, which has cut investment and dimmed the demand outlook for power.

It also clashes with broader government efforts in the United States to shield companies from the worst of the economic turmoil through federal loans, waived fees, tax breaks and trimmed regulatory enforcement.

Bankers and big oil get financial support during COVID, renewables get extra bills!

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 14, 2020, 11:14:22 PM »
Further analysis of the IRENA numbers for 2019:

The yearly compound growth rate in global overall renewables capacity has been falling year over year since 2015, with 2019 signifying a new low. The growth is also more oriented to the lower capacity utilization sectors - exacerbating the effect of the declining capacity growth rate on the growth in renewables generation.

Wind and solar are now about 9% of global electricity generation, at their combined capacity doubling rate of about 15% (doubling every 5 years) they will not fully offset the trend growth in overall electricity generation - i.e. more fossil fuel capacity will be utilized (either new capacity or higher utilization of current capacity) - until the second half of the 2020s (if the solar growth rate does not decelerate further).

Nothing in the industry-level (GWEC and Solar Power Europe) forecasts, which have proven pretty accurate for the past few years, see a change in this in the next few years.

- The compound growth rate of installed capacity for all renewables fell to 7.45% in 2019 from 8.18% in 2018 (and 9% in 2015); doubling rate of approx. 10 years.

- Hydro growth was 1.67% vs 1.72% the year before (and 3.45% in 2015). Hydro is the renewable with the highest capacity utilization rate of the renewables, except for bio-energy

- Wind growth rose slightly to 10.44% from 9.61% the previous year (and 18.58% in 2015); doubling rate of approx. 7 years.

- Solar growth was 19.99% vs. 25.7% the previous year (and 25.07% in 2015); doubling rate of approx. 3.5 years.

- Bio-energy growth was 5.15% vs 6.48% the previous year (and 6.79% in 2015).

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: June 14, 2020, 10:32:55 PM »
China Seen Adding New Wave of Coal Plants After Lifting Curbs

About 46 gigawatts worth of new plants were under construction as of May, the study said. Another 48 gigawatts were under various stages of development, Greenpeace estimated.

About 29.9 gigawatts of new coal power capacity was added last year, making a total of about 1,040 gigawatts, according to China Electricity Council data.

By the end of 2019 US coal fired capacity was 229GW, the above amounts to about 60% of remaining US coal capacity. We are reaching the limit where cuts in capacity in the US and Europe can even offset the additions just in China. These new Chinese plants are the much more efficient ones I assume, so could lead to the retirement of some of the less efficient ones. Overall, perhaps same amount of coal burned but with more electricity produced, and slightly less emissions.

This is about energy security, 94%+ of China coal supply is domestic (and imports are also being reoriented to Russia somewhat while domestic mining capacity is being increased). Same with natural gas (Russia now taking China market share from Australia, Qatar etc.). Same with increased oil imports from Russia. The more aggressive the US gets toward China, the more they will reorient to domestic and "friendly" energy supplies to obviate the chance of an embargo.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: June 08, 2020, 08:31:32 PM »
Demand for gas-guzzling SUVs surges in China as electric car sales plummet

I was worried about this, hopefully not a replay of the 1990s big move to trucks, SUVs and minivans with the collapse in oil prices in that decade. Looks like there may still be a high elasticity for the demand for big ICE cars with respect to oil prices.

At least they are selling a lot more electric buses .....

BYD, in a monthly sales update to the Hong Kong stock exchange on Friday, revealed sales of battery electric vehicles (Bevs) last month had almost halved on the figure reported a year earlier while the number of conventional-fuel SUVs had more than quadrupled by the same comparison.

The Chinese carmaker stated 8,278 Bevs were sold in May, compared to 15,312 in May last year. The twin impact of the Covid-19 crisis and the rise of Bevs combined to reduce the sales of plug-in-hybrid (Phev) models to an even greater extent, with the May figures falling, year-on-year, from 8,031 to just 2,323 last month.

BYD added it sold 635 electric buses last month, compared to just 196 a year earlier but total EV sales more than halved, from 119,082 units in May 2019 to just 46,512 last month.

By contrast, 20,496 of BYD’s conventional vehicles were sold last month, up from 12,021 a year earlier. The number of conventional SUVs sold in the monthly figures rose from 3,440 in May last year to 15,887 last month.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: June 05, 2020, 10:33:06 PM »
Germany doesn't have an oil extraction industry to care about, and looks like the elites have belatedly woken up to the need to get the German car manufacturers into the EV space asap before they become irrelevant. Goes with the 2020 EU28 regulations on car GHG emissions forcing manufacturers into the EV space.

And in the US the subsidies go to .... oil and gas, airlines, and financial and real estate manipulators, while the state continues to cut regulations to make it easier for the oil and gas industry and for the car manufacturers to stay with ICEs longer.

So the US will have Tesla and the Chinese and the EU (Germany and France) will still have many major-league car manufacturers. And probably Tesla more and more dependent on foreign sales (and manufacturing). The US will remain exceptional ... in its reliance on ICE vehicles and the global irrelevance of its other major car manufacturers.

This is called "standing up to China"?, more like intentionally breaking your own leg before a race.

Interesting to see the gains in "soft power" that China is making as it is seen as both successfully combating COVID-19 and is helping out many, many other countries. The displayed incompetence and infighting in the US, together with its partisanship (e.g. trying to get exclusive rights on a German research team's output and reinforcing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela) is doing the exact opposite for that country.

From the Guardian:

Last week, Italy’s foreign minister Luigi Di Maio posted a video of himself on Facebook watching live footage of a plane of supplies and medics from China, noting that China was the first to send aid. Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić said in a press conference this week that he believes in his “brother and friend Xi Jinping”. He said: “The only country that can help us is China.”

The Guardian does try to diminish the positives by using an ex Australian diplomat and a spokesman from the German Marshall Fund (which has the avowed aim of reinforcing US/Europe relations) by calling it propaganda. Yes China will use it as propaganda, but it is based on the reality of their competence in containing COVID-19 and their position as a major manufacturer of critical health supplies (outsourced to them by other countries).

There is nothing wrong with China helping European and other countries, especially now that it has gained the upper hand in containing the coronavirus at home. But it is also clear that [Beijing] sees its aid as a propaganda tool,” said Noah Barkin, senior visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

“Now we see Chinese officials and state media claiming that China bought the world time to prepare for this pandemic,” said Natasha Kassam, a research fellow at the Lowy Institute in Sydney and a former Australian diplomat.
... They actually did Natasha.

If the US doesn't get control of the outbreak quickly their international political position could be seriously compromised. It doesn't help the the "Satan" Putin is also shipping supplies to Italy and other countries. This is blocked by a Poland that will not open up its airspace or its overland routes, seriously undermining the EU.

Populations remember who helped, and who didn't, in a crisis for a long time.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: March 28, 2020, 11:53:21 PM »
The antagonism between the US and China has increased with the pointing of fingers about where patient zero for COVID 19 is from. Plus, the US is increasing its belligerence during the epidemic, with labelling the President of Venezuela as a criminal drug pusher, refusing to reduce sanctions on Iran, trying to blame Iran for helping to spread the virus in a G7 communique which was blocked by other counties, and with rumours of moves by the US against "Iran backed" groups in Iraq.

Oil may be much cheaper now, but it is still the biggest energy security risk for China with respect to conflict with the US. So China keeps a very large electricity generating reserve for emergencies (the low coal plant utilization rate) and plans for greater amounts of transport conversion from oil to electricity (much of it powered by coal).

Geopolitics trumps long term survival! Very depressing.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 17, 2020, 04:02:16 AM »
NASA GISS February Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly of 1.24C

Large anomalies over China and Russia - due to less pollution created during China CVID-19 lockdown?

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: March 10, 2020, 04:23:58 AM »
If oil prices really crack to their longer-term lows at around $10 per barrel, I expect to see lots of new ICE trucks and SUVs cruising the streets, once the COVID-19 issue has passed and people travel back into public spaces.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: March 10, 2020, 04:20:39 AM »
Definition of Luddite
: one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest
broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change.

The rich and powerful tend to get the written history that puts them in a good light, and their opponents in a bad one. The Luddite movement was much more complex and nuanced than generally understood. As much about how the machinery was used by the employers, and the fruits of the extra productivity shared, than being against technological progress itself.

Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them. In truth, the secret of their enduring reputation depends less on what they did than on the name under which they did it. You could say they were good at branding.

The Luddite disturbances started in circumstances at least superficially similar to our own. British working families at the start of the 19th century were enduring economic upheaval and widespread unemployment. A seemingly endless war against Napoleon’s France had brought “the hard pinch of poverty,” wrote Yorkshire historian Frank Peel, to homes “where it had hitherto been a stranger.” Food was scarce and rapidly becoming more costly.

As the Industrial Revolution began, workers naturally worried about being displaced by increasingly efficient machines. But the Luddites themselves “were totally fine with machines,” says Kevin Binfield, editor of the 2004 collection Writings of the Luddites. They confined their attacks to manufacturers who used machines in what they called “a fraudulent and deceitful manner” to get around standard labor practices. “They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 05, 2020, 07:05:41 PM »
The rate of increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels has jumped above those during the Super Nino, according to NOAA.

2015: 2.97ppm
2016: 2.82ppm
2017: 2.15ppm
2018: 2.37ppm
2019: 3.08ppm

CH4 is also back at a rate of increase above 10ppb so far in 2019 (to November).

We also have the reduction in cooling aerosols due to the new shipping fuel regulations, and China's massive drive to reduce air pollution (with the skies even clearer with the Corona-virus related shutdown to much of Chinese industry).

Everything looks lined up for a new jump in temperatures, and this without an El Nino.

Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: March 05, 2020, 06:45:55 PM »
Annual Global Increase In CO2 Above 3ppm First Time Ever in 2019 !

NOAA released its updated numbers for the annual 2019 increase in global atmospheric CO2, after getting the December numbers in (2 more updates for Jan and Feb 2020 before the final number is given) - and its 3.08ppm! Thats with no El Nino present, the highest number ever (in 2015 it was 2.97ppm).

NOAA also released the final Mauna Loa number and its 2.47ppm, but thats just specific to Mauna Loa. The 3.08ppm number is a global number.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: February 29, 2020, 06:49:13 PM »
Looking like the temperature anomaly for February may be as high as January.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 29, 2020, 06:43:41 PM »
Is it windy at Oulu in the winter, maybe they could diversify their renewables?

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: February 29, 2020, 06:28:50 PM »
Dr Sarah Taber on Twitter:
The agitprop surrounding the Wet'suwet'en rail blockage is out of control. There are really folks taking pics of these grocery store shelves & trying to spin them as "bare."
[twitpics of pretty full shelves...]
backstory: 1) Canada decided to build a pipeline across Wet'suwet'en land in British Columbia, which Canada doesn't have authority to do.
2) In solidarity, First Nations groups in Ontario (led by Mohawk nation I believe) blocked a rail line between Montreal & Toronto.
3) Canada's gov't & white nationalists don't see "follow treaty law & reroute the pipeline" as an option so instead they're squealing about how Native people are evil mean terrorists who are going to starve us all. Seems they have to call full shelves "empty" to make this claim.
Claims that "this blockade is starving Canada" are being used to justify why Canada "has" to remove the First Nations rail block [subtext: by violent force if necessary]. It's the making of excuses ahead of time. That's what we're witnessing.


Thread continues at the link....

Next Canadian election is October 16th 2023, so the craziness could continue until then. Lets hope Bernie gets in and starts changing the conversation to getting rid of fossil fuels, our weather vane Prime Minister will easily shift his position to match our southern neighbours.

With the increasing scientific consensus that NG (especially fracked) is as bad as coal, plus all the energy losses in liquefying NG, and the general global NG glut, pipelines to the Pacific are looking more and more stupid. The Chinese will happily get their NG from their domestic wells and their Russian friends.

The full-year 2019 LOTI-GISS temperature rise is 0.98 degrees centigrade above the baseline, which gives me 1.24 degrees centigrade versus late 19th century, BUT the World Meteorological Organization put 2019 at 1.1 degrees centigrade above the late 19th century.

I know that the WMO averages five data sets including Hadley, NOAA and NASA, and that the NOAA interpolation techniques (for areas without measured temperatures) give lower temperatures than NASA GISS and some data sets simply ignore non-covered areas. From the quote below by the WMO, seems like the NASA-GISS gives the highest temperatures, but that may be because it is more accurately including the areas not covered by temperature monitoring locations. If so, the WMO is giving a misleading picture by mixing NASA-GISS with less accurate data sets, as well as not baselining to 1750 for pre-industrial.

It seems that the WMO uses reanalysis data sets to fill in the gaps, would be interesting to see an analysis between NASA-GISS interpolation and this reanalysis to see which is more accurate. The WMO is implicitly stating that NASA GISS is estimating on the hot side.

With NASA GISS vs 1750, 1.24+0.2, we were pretty much at 1.5 degrees last year, and even closer in 2016 (short by only 0.02 degrees). Reporting that may have helped focus policy makers mind's a bit better.

The spread between the five data sets was 0.15°C with both the lowest (1.05°C) and the highest (1.20°C) being more than 1°C warmer than the pre-industrial baseline.

Modern temperature records began in 1850. WMO uses datasets (based on monthly climatological data from Global Observing Systems) from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom. 

It also uses reanalysis datasets from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts and its Copernicus Climate Change Service, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.  This method combines millions of meteorological and marine observations, including from satellites, with models to produce a complete reanalysis of the atmosphere. The combination of observations with models makes it possible to estimate temperatures at any time and in any place across the globe, even in data-sparse areas such as the polar regions.

Policy and solutions / Re: A giant dam around the North Sea?
« on: February 17, 2020, 09:25:39 PM »
Geo-engineering gone insane, and as already stated the supposed "worst case" is not the worst case. Reminds me of King Canute.

Policy and solutions / Re: Trains, Trams, Subways and Buses
« on: February 17, 2020, 08:47:40 PM »
So another strategic Canadian industry sold off and now controlled by a French company. The usual Canadian story, including the US using dirty tricks (to block Bombardiers jets from competing with Boeing, ending up in Airbus taking over that business).

Canadian business can go back to digging up stuff, cutting stuff down, and food production for export. Then building houses etc. for the extra million immigrants every few years. If the nation had built the public transport infrastructure necessary for all the extra millions maybe Bombardier would have been more viable - although there certainly was some incompetence in their management of the transport division.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: February 17, 2020, 08:38:10 PM »
2100 is irrelevant given the path that we are on. Also, the UN IPCC scenarios seriously underestimate the possible rate of CC. I see the 2030s (if not earlier) as the breakpoint when all the technology solutions will be attempted (solar radiation management etc.) in an attempt to continue economic growth. The trends in planetary temperature and atmospheric GHGs is already very disturbing It could also easily be a nasty surprise from all the other effects of continued exponential economic growth that catch humanity out.

Once economic growth ceases the economy will collapse very rapidly and uncontrollably - think 1930s depression. We may then have the worst of all worlds - rampant CC and a collapsing economy. I see the dome in Logan's Run as being another possibility if climate engineering fails.

All those North American retirees moving to Central America (Panama, Costa Rica etc.) may find it a bit too hot (in more than just temperature) and dry for their liking.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 17, 2020, 08:11:56 PM »
Looks like there are alternatives for SF6 in medium voltage uses, but not in high voltage ones. Looks like more research money needs to be spent on the HV applications. But definitely less of a issue that CO2 and CH4.

The rationale for this was that there was no viable alternative. However, as has been made clear this in this paper, this is no longer the case, at least not in the case of MV switchgear. There are alternatives which are technically and commercially viable. With EU regulation No 517/2014 due to be reviewed in 2020, policy makers should campaign for further legislation with the final aim of phasing out SF6. This will further invigorate the research and development of SF6 -free technologies, not only for MV switchgear, but also for HV applications. These measures will represent a significant step in the fight against climate change and also help reestablish Europe as a leader in cleantech

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 11, 2020, 06:23:49 PM »
Oren, thanks for the correction, Ammonia is a very different thing!

I remember reading that NOAA was still using the outdated 28 multiplier for the CO2e of CH4, looked around a lot but couldn't find the reference. Neither any simple statement about the GPWP that NOAA. Thats why I did the calculation.

I really do think that they are using the 28 multiplier as a measure of RF, not even the GWP100 of CH4 which is more up to date. I did get a confirmation of this from AbruptSLR, but would definitely welcome information from somebody more in the know.

This is from the official NOAA website, they never mention the GWP20:

Methane plays an important role in the chemistry and radiative properties of the atmosphere. With a global warming potential of 28 over a 100-year horizon, methane is a potent greenhouse gas (IPCC, AR5). Atmospheric methane has a lifetime of about a decade, and it is ultimately oxidized to CO2. It is one of the greenhouse gases targeted by the Kyoto Protocol, and may well be regulated by the United States in the future. Controlling methane emissions also has implications for air quality, since oxidation of CH4 leads to tropospheric ozone formation in polluted environments.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 11, 2020, 01:10:55 AM »

Does it say that somewhere on the NOAA site?

My understanding from reading the site was that they're first calculating RF for each GHG using numbers from lab experiments/models, and then they convert RF to CO2eq? They are able to do this because they have ppm CO2 and RF, so going from RF to ppm COe would be pretty simple. It seems to me they don't use a GWP multiplier at all, as Ken suggested earlier...

2017 to 2018 rise for CO2 was 2.39ppm, which produced an increase in radiative forcing of 0.031
- 0.031 / 2.39 = radiative forcing per CO2 ppm = 0.01297

2017 to 2018 rise for NH4 was 8.27ppb = 0.00827ppm, which produced an increase in radiative forcing of 0.003
- 0.003 / 0.00827 - radiative forcing per NH4 ppm = 0.36276

An NH4 ppm produces a radiative forcing approximately 28 times that of a CO2 ppm, the 100-year equivalent amount according to the UN IPCC in 2011. The more recent 100-year value is 36. The 20-year value is 86 (direct forcing only).

One further note on climate science and politics: our old friend James Hansen came out with a statement recently in which he reiterated his support for a carbon tax and also nuclear power. The statement is available here:

In it, he also had some less than flattering words about the IPCC:

"The ridiculous climate statement – even from politicians – goes something like: “we have 10
years, 7 months, x days until the carbon budget is used up and we are doomed!” IPCC should be
censured for initiating that nonsense, and wrongly frightening young people. We are already in
carbon overshoot, but that does not mean that the problem is unsolvable.
Instead of despair, we should celebrate how far we have come."

He also recently reiterated his belief that ECS is most likely 2.8-3C.

For those wondering, the temperature anomaly given in ASLR's post previous to this one can be converted to a pre-industrial baseline by adding 0.63C -> ~1.24C.

That Hansen note is utterly delusional "Instead of despair, we should celebrate how far we have come." he says! Like we have come to an emissions level over 60% higher than in 1990, and we should be proud of it? He has certainly jumped the eco-modernist and geo-engineering shark, as per his statements below ... then the sell for nuclear. I used to respect him a lot, very sad.

Massive amounts of power will be needed for drawing down atmospheric CO2, for producing
liquid fuels, and for desalinization, as well as for an electricity-dominant energy system. Young
people will get fracked and gassed, if there is no viable alternative for baseload electric power ... Yes, I know, young people are afraid of hurting their Boomer hippie grandparents’ feelings. Of
course, they meant well when they paraded against nuclear power. It was identified as the next
villain, after the Viet Nam war ended. But what is more important: their feelings or your future?

For the arctic tundra decomposition its a simple calculus:
- If the ground stays dry its an oxygen-rich decomposition that produces CO2
- If the ground is water-logged its an oxygen-starved decomposition that produces CH4

With the 20-year impact of CH4 being about 100 times that of CO2, its an important difference. With increased temperatures, and perhaps a loss of sea ice, a lot of decomposition may take place in water-logged areas as snow turns to rain, and the snow that there is melts earlier.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: February 07, 2020, 11:13:59 PM »
The NOAA CO2e calculation uses the 100-year CO2 equivalent for CH4.

CH4 is degraded out of the atmosphere over a 14 years period, with a 20-year CO2e of about 100, vs 34 for 100 years. Given that we are more than replacing the degraded CH4 every year (the atmospheric concentration keeps going up) we should be using at least the 20-year, if not the continuous, CO2e for CH4. Using the 20-year we are at about 620ppm CO2e - that is an accurate view of the current energy imbalance of the Earth System.

So we already doubled CO2e from pre-industrial (not taking into account climate dimming aerosols) and its only Earth System delayed responses (plus aerosols) which have stopped us from hitting the 2 degrees C increase already. The IPCC scientists assume that the CH4 will be reduced as NG use reduces, but thats not happening given the ongoing coal to NG switching and there is also the problem of natural CH4 emissions increasing as temperatures increase.

Thats how we get to be on the RCP8.5 scenario without the required level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, the short-term effects of CH4 plus feedbacks fill the gap. If the Arctic Sea Ice goes then we will need a new scenario - RCP10 or perhaps RCP WAF (as in "we are f....").

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: February 06, 2020, 12:18:20 AM »
Agreed nanning, a final last gasp of human ingenuity in a vain attempt to assert human preeminence over nature. Collapses (societal, financial etc.) tend to happen from the highest point reached, its why they come as such a surprise.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: February 03, 2020, 11:24:58 PM »
Geo-engineering is simply another excuse for general business as usual / really slow decarbonization. There course could be lots and lots of complications, but the inertia around BAU is so strong I think that this will get done in some form.

Lets remember that in 2014 the UN IPCC assumed a massive amount of carbon capture and storage utilizing untested/unknown technologies to square the growth/FF lobbies/emission reduction circle. Before that they played around with the risk confidence intervals and ignored climate bifurcations to square the circle. This will just be their latest dose of hopium and then perhaps outright risk taking "lesser of two evils" emergency government actions.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: February 03, 2020, 09:09:48 PM »
As AbruptSLR has covered very well, the UN IPCC scenarios are dangerously conservative in their assumptions and we can probably already kiss 2 degrees goodbye unless we cut emissions by 10% a year from today - we are already at 1.2 degrees in a non El-Nino year (2019).

When the next UN IPCC report comes out (2021?) the increase in atmospheric concentrations, anthropogenic emissions and somewhat less conservative scenarios can only be met with bigger assumptions of carbon capture and geo-engineering. I personally assume that by 2025 there will be a full-court propaganda campaign to normalize solar radiation management and even some of the bigger scale carbon capture schemes (e.g. crushing massive amounts of igneous rock and spreading the dust across humid/wet environments - great for the mining industry).

Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: January 27, 2020, 10:29:22 PM »
NOAA Gets Go-Ahead to Study Controversial Climate Plan B - Government climate scientists will study two geoengineering proposals to counteract global warming

The top climate change scientist for NOAA said he has received $4 million from Congress and permission from his agency to study two emergency—and controversial—methods to cool the Earth if the U.S. and other nations fail to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

David Fahey, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, told his staff yesterday that the federal government is ready to examine the science behind “geoengineering”—or what he dubbed a “Plan B” for climate change

“There could be more than $100 million attached to this, I’m told,” he explained.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 26, 2020, 03:17:09 AM »
EU energy chief says 2030 renewables goal may rise as wind industry slams progress

Raising the future (10 years from now) bar whilst missing the current year's one, politicians love targets so far in the future that they will not be in power when judgement comes. Europe will probably miss their 2020 20% target for renewables by 1%.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: January 26, 2020, 02:40:06 AM »
Without the energy from the Sun the Earth's average temperature would be below 0 F, instead of plus 57 F right now, so we don't have to block that much of the Sun's energy to knock temperatures down by a degree or so.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: January 26, 2020, 02:36:18 AM »
China solar installations to slow as subsidy cuts bite: executive

Looks like China will install about 25GW of solar this year, which is a very large reduction from the previous years 40+, even bigger on a cumulative installed growth level (could be as low as a 14% growth rate). If that stays the same, as proposed in the article, then installed capacity will only double in 5 years - not enough to stop increases in Chinese fossil fuel use.

Backed up by this report:

China’s market in transition

Coal prices could fall, reducing the solar prices required to meet grid parity pricing.

At the same time, the majority of provincial, city or industrial-zone support policies will terminate either in 2019 or by 2020 at the latest. Equally impactful will be the introduction of a base price + floating mechanism for the coal benchmark price, from Jan. 1, 2020. Accordingly, the coal benchmark can fluctuate by -15% and +10% annually. A decline of the local coal benchmark price by 15% could consequently challenge the competitiveness of grid-parity projects, and eventually may lead to delays or even the cancellation of such projects planned for next year

In short, it has been a rather eventful year to date as far as the changes in China’s solar PV policy landscape are concerned. AECEA’s full-year demand assessment for 2019 is 20-24 GW, with a 2020 demand forecast of about 23-31 GW

Policy and solutions / Re: Policy and solutions in the Netherlands
« on: January 26, 2020, 12:24:15 AM »
With the Groningen field closing in 2022, and production already down by nearly half, would be in the interests of the Dutch to move to renewables as fast as possible. The alternative is a high degree of dependency upon LNG and Gazprom.

Output at Europe’s giant Groningen gas field plunges in Dec, dents Dutch stocks

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: January 26, 2020, 12:04:19 AM »
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is basically a planned small-scale nuclear winter, just without the bombs and nuclear fallout - just the sun blocking particles in the stratosphere. The research backgrounds of nuclear winter and climate change are very much intertwined.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 25, 2020, 11:31:07 PM »
Fee (for using fossil fuel) and dividend (a progressive per capita payment) forces the market signals while shifting taxation away from the poorer and middle class toward the top 20% (the ones who drive big cars and take lots of business and vacation trips on planes).It would quickly move the car market to EV's and the small and efficient engines and cars you see in Europe. It also benefits local goods which don't have the transport emissions.

So simple, and attractive to the majority, it will never be proposed! Instead, in Canada we get a refundable carbon tax made to be complicated to claim - also, only taxpayers can claim it. The dividend is simply a tax free check that gets mailed out to each adult, no claims necessary.

$100 per tonne of carbon, escalating by $10+ per year should do the trick.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: January 15, 2020, 07:33:04 AM »
The big seawall that they will have to build to surround Hinkley Point (to become Hinkley Island) due to sea level rise will also increase the costs

China IS dependent upon Russia for energy security, and military backup (as well as support for the BRI), for now. Give it another 10 years Russia could easily become a very junior partner.

It takes many years to build up the kind of military knowledge and technology that Russia has, China has only recently become a modern military power. The Russian nuclear umbrella also helps protect China, with the Chinese being able to keep a relatively small nuclear force. China will take what it needs as the senior partner in the relationship, and build its own capabilities with Russian help. The energy links to Russia act as a deterrence to an energy embargo, as they make it easier for China to withstand one.

Over time China becomes less and less dependent upon Russia, and the latter becomes more and more of a Chinese client state unless Putin starts to develop a new non-fossil fuel economy (not a lot of hope of that I think).

PS - Russia has also become a significant food exporter, useful for fulfilling China's growing needs as  its population get richer and eat more meat etc.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but Germany ....
« on: January 13, 2020, 06:53:41 AM »
Sadly, I have to agree about Corbyn being an utter moron with respect to Brexit. Deeply sad, given that it probably blew a chance for the true progressives for many years to come.The defamation campaign was despicable, but the Brexit error was what really counted.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: January 13, 2020, 06:17:10 AM »
Greta and XR etc. have all stated that what they want is the climate issue "dealt with" as a matter of urgency and a reduction in CO2 emissions (net or gross). This opens up the answer of "yes we hear you and take you seriously" followed by Solar Radiation Management (to reduce temperatures) and large scale negative emissions through whatever technologies can be made to work profitably (Bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture of CO2 (DACS), reforestation financialized through offset credits etc.), plus "sometime in the future" plans for industry to go carbon neutral.

Basically an eco-modernist stop-gap to keep the status quo growth and economic structure wheels turning as long as possible. But it can be presented as giving Greta and XR exactly what they want, very hard for them not to praise those providing such an "urgent" solution. Greta's support has already been given (by whomever made the decision to do so) to the plant more trees stuff, which is deeply flawed scientifically. (with start up funding from the big-elite Rockefeller Brothers Foundation) got largely co-opted when they worked with CERES ("a sustainability nonprofit organization working with the most influential investors and companies to build leadership and drive solutions throughout the economy" - i.e. big business and finance) to spend so much time on their disinvestment campaigns which are to all intents and purposes useless. Lots of activist energy wasted, including my own. Same with the climate marches - make lots of spiffy banners, come along, march around (even weld yourself to something and get arrested), feel good, then go home (or jail for a short time). This is the circus part of what the Romans called "Bread and Circuses" to keep the "rabble" general population compliant. Compare that to the treatment doled out indigenous people's explicitly blocking pipeline and other oil and gas infrastructure (like those at Standing Rock), or OWS when it was decided to shut them down (under the Obama presidency).

Al Gore is running a large "sustainable" investment fund with pals from Goldman Sachs etc., pushing the market as the solution to climate change.

Stating a reality that you may not like is not making stuff up, and tossing slurs and insults does not befit you. Skepticism is healthy, especially when someone rises magically from nowhere and is so thoroughly embraced by the groups that are the source of the problem. I do research, try doing some yourself.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 13, 2020, 05:43:33 AM »
Yes, then definitely possible in 2021

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 13, 2020, 12:31:17 AM »
With the Chinese cutting their coal-based aerosols very fast, and then the global shipping fleet moving to low-sulphur fuels, the geography of temperature changes will be very interesting.

Even with the widespread use of scrubbers in the US, there are still significant SO2 emissions from coal in the US, so the reductions in US coal generated electricity will also reduce SO2 aerosols. I remember reading that aerosols create the most negative-forcing in the cleanest skies, so there may also be a non-straight line correlation between emission reductions and climate negative forcing (a reason why the shipping reductions in emissions may have an out-sized impact).

Up to September this year, global methane emissions were up 10.1 ppb, a rate last seen in 2015.

With ENSO-neutral maybe we beat the big positive ENSO year of 2016 but no 1.5.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 12, 2020, 11:51:08 PM »
If that's right what are the odds of an annual average temperature of 1.5 degrees for the whole of 2020? Would that be the required ecological "kick up the ass" that our elites need to start taking some real actions?

- BUT I checked the ENSO thread and the forecast if for ENSO Neutral.

A very good discussion with Noam Chomsky on the lack of action on climate change, a US global dystopia, as well as many other topics.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: January 12, 2020, 10:34:22 PM »
Identity politics is a device for splitting groups that share interests so that they can be better managed and their impact reduced/co-opted/nullified. That's why neoliberal media outlets, corporations and other elites fully support it. It also focuses on the individual, rather than the group, matching the "no society" assumptions of neoliberal economics and ideology - a marriage made in hell.

So yes, lets all waste time calling each other names rather than addressing the people hiding behind the proverbial curtain. Some thoughts:
- An economic and political elite instigated the neoliberal revolution that screwed everyone else including the "boomers" the "millenials", "generation X" etc. etc.
- A working class lesbian has way more in common with a working class straight white man than mega-rich war-criminal loving Ellen Degeneres
- A middle aged working class black man has way more in common with a white 20-year old Barista (who works their ass off for peanuts) than elite-courtier and warmonger Barack Obama.
- 98-99% of the population is born male or female, straight, gay or bisexual and quite comfortable with that reality. So yes, the problems that many transexuals have in our society are real but that does not mean that we all have to be "woke" (and Martina Navratilova is a hero of the lesbian movement not a "transphobic" for believing in the concept of biological sex).

Apologies for the diatribe, bit I spend my days in North American academia and see so much energy being displayed on anything but climate change and economic inequality.

So all you boomers (including straight me) from what I see most young people have a really shitty time of it compared to what we had (unless they have rich parents of course) and they work pretty damn hard. They certainly seem to be doing less "drugs and rock and roll" than I did in my youth. To all you "young" people, cut that boomer shit out and understand that we mainly share interests across the age spectrum.

I will now return to the demise of our civilization due to unchecked exponential growth and ecological destruction ...

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 12, 2020, 10:09:19 PM »
US Energy Consumption Trends - Million Tons of Oil Equivalent (Mtoe)

Sources; BP, IRENA and SEIA.

Primary Energy Consumption (2018) 2,301
 - Oil 920; NG 703; Coal 317; Nuclear 192; Hydro 65; Other Renewables 104

10 years growth rate: -0.4%/2018 growth rate: 3.5%
 - Oil -0.6%/2%; NG 1.7%/10.5%; Coal -4.9%/-4.3%; Nuclear 0%/0.3%; Hydro 2%/-2.7%; Other Renewables 14%/10%.

Share of Primary Energy Consumption
 - Oil 40%; NG 31%; Coal 14% (FF=85%); Nuclear 8.4%; Hydro 2.8%; Other Renewables 4.5%

Other Renewables Only 104 Mtoe (7.3% share of US primary energy consumption in 2018)
 - Hydro 65 (2.8%); Wind 63 (2.7%); Solar 22 (1%); Biomass (0.8%)

Wind and Solar only 85 Mtoe (3.7% share of US primary energy consumption in 2018)
 - Wind growth rate in 2018 was 8% and capacity growth was 7.7%, so long term growth rate in energy output probably around 7-8%.
- Solar growth rate in 2018 was 24% and capacity growth was 20%. SEIA see about the same in 2019, but then falling off toward 15% annual in next five years (reasonable give the effect of an increasing base upon growth rates).

So we assume that US primary energy consumption stays at 0% growth, reasonable given slow US GDP growth. In five years wind output grows approximately 50% and solar doubles = 1.4% extra for wind and 1% for solar - a 2.4% drop in the share of FF energy over 5 years. Throw in some reductions due to the growth in EV sales and maybe a 5% market share reduction for fossil fuels. With a reducing level of NG replacement of coal, and therefore the ability to cheat the emissions stats through undercounting fugitive methane emissions, the reported reductions in US emissions will also stop being over inflated.

Summary - growth in Solar and Wind not enough to make a big dent in US emissions, plus NG growth slowing that will reduce the understatement of emissions growth, with some offset from EVs. The result will be an at best very slow reduction in US emissions (1-2% a year perhaps?).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5