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 - Sleepy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 15, 2019, 06:52:15 AM »
Why are you trolling and derailing several threads in here Ken? And please, I don't need to be informed on where to find links to IPCC, you should be aware that if you read my previous replies to you. Why don't you read the replies, particularly where those 'mysterious' graphs emanates from? Then do the most important part; read the sources and papers.

Especially the one in question, it's open access as well:
Global Rules Mask the Mitigation Challenge Facing Developing Countries
Xuemei Jiang
Glen P. Peters
Christopher Green
First published: 22 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001078

You obviously ignored the last line in my previous reply:
<snip>
There's more in that thread if someone wish to read it.

Another easy way to understanding that particular graph from the same thread:
<snip>
Glen Peters wrote a mini thread yesteday on this:
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1126030557593382912

Emissions targets by Rystad?? A couple more replies on the real MAGIC(C):
Roughly twelve years late or so... Remember beeing highly annoyed a decade ago about scientific reticence. Still someone told me just a few days ago, that I can't say that RCP2.6 is dead. A trip down memory lane:

Hansen on scientific reticence and sea level rise. (2007)
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01210n.html

Van Vuuren from 2007 (a paper preceeding the RCP2.6 one from 2011...).
Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9172-9

Adding Fig. 3:  Global CO 2 -eq. emissions (all sources) for the B2 baseline emission and pathways to stabilization at a concentration of 650, 550 and 450 ppm CO 2 -eq.

Edit; also adding Fig. 12 from the Van Vuuren 2011 paper. Emissions for the IMAGE (IM) alternative RCP scenarios.




And:

RCP2.6 is dead and this planet will go past two degrees like nothing since almost everything we build today are built with fossil fuels. Attitudes must change since we can't create energy, so the only option left is to cut back consumption and use renewables and the electric transports we can afford, as wisely as possible.


Unless you know what's going to happen in the future, you can't say that. <snip>
I don't need the future, just IMAGE.  ;D

Edit; and Ken, all your four posts in this thread are off topic.



Here's the one from 2011:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3

2
BP numbers as presented by Robbie Andrews. Americans who are advocating for increased mass transports, may have a problem explaining how to decrease the US per capita energy consumption at the same time?

3
Hello Sleepy,
Are you sure that the graph us not about GreenBAU? I am surprised that the green part is so small. I am sure that degrowth is required.
62% of the pie-chart Incorporated behavioural changes, the blue part would be strictly GreenBAU...
Well if for example I use a smaller ICV vehicle, reduce heating temperature, use my clothes longer... I can save much more than the green part of the graph without using low carb technologies.
Of course you (and everyone) can, but that wasn't the point. The point was that mainly behavioural changes are needed.
Link to the study from the previous page:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/
Also the graphics again:

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: June 13, 2019, 09:20:53 AM »
Getting back to cars...
<snip>

No, maybe the Electric cars thread would be better Bob:
Where do we discuss what’s happening with the traditional auto manufacturers and whether they are succeeding with their transition to EVs... or facing bankruptcy?

You can discuss that here as well, as it's part of the same dynamic.

5
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 13, 2019, 09:10:04 AM »
LOL. Where does that graph you keep posting come from?  It isn't even close to reality.
<snip>
You don't remember?

As some has noted earlier in this thread, RCP2.6 is no longer attainable.
https://news.agu.org/press-release/new-studies-highlight-challenge-of-meeting-paris-agreement-climate-goals/
A short quote and snipping out the top image from the second study with Peters.
Quote
Stone, with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said Peters’ study shows no one country can slip up in the goal to meet climate goals.

“It is hard to argue against their conclusion that we need to start seriously considering options such as the deployment of solar geoengineering, with all of the risks that entails, if the world is serious about achieving the Paris Agreement goals,” he said.

<snip>


Ken,

While I appreciate your perspective, it seems to be out of step with reality.

The first image below was recently tweeted by Greta Thunberg showing that pathways required to limit warming to 1.5C (see below). All realistic pathways rely on negative emissions, which will either require massive reforestation (which means limiting and reversing urban sprawl and other development), or carbon capture technology powered by non-emitting energy sources we currently do not have.

The second set of three images comes from Glen Peters, Research Director at the Centre for International Climate Research. It shows the required emissions reductions for 2C, or to meet the Paris agreement. It shows what is required by the rest of the world if India, China, the Euro zone and the US achieve emissions reductions consistent with Paris.

Caption: a) Global warming under 2 °C with a 75% probability, with negligible development of engineered sinks and land use change (LUC); (b) global warming under 2 °C with a 66% probability and negligible development in engineered sinks and LUC; and (c) global warming under 2 °C with a 75% probability, and with scalable development in engineered sinks and LUC.)

Please note three things, which Glen Peters also recognizes: 1) As far as we know, passing 2C of warming will make it very difficult to avoid catastrophic climate change; 2) The image assumes 2017 as a turnaround date. This did not happen (nor is it expected to happen this year), making the required reductions even more significant; 3) It is likely that the emissions pathways laid out are optimistic, since they rely on IPCC projections which have been proven to understate the risks; and it has recently been confirmed that emissions from the tar sands are up to 64% higher than reported (see https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oilsands-carbon-emissions-study-1.5106809?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar). If this is the case in Canada we can expect that emissions are also higher than reported elsewhere in the world, meaning that we have already emitted more (and potentially much more) than assumed by these pathways.

Last month a "massive analysis" came out stating all of the above in a different way:

"The massive analysis shows that meeting the 2C target is exceptionally difficult in all but the most optimistic climate scenarios. One pathway is to immediately and aggressively pursue carbon-neutral energy production by 2030 and hope that the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon emissions is relatively low, according to the study. If climate sensitivity is not low, the window to a tolerable future narrows and in some scenarios, may already be closed.

... If the climate sensitivity is greater than 3 Kelvin (median of assumed distribution), the pathway to a tolerable future is likely already closed."

Subsequent to this massive analysis, the preliminary results from the new generation of climate models -- which will inform the next IPCC report -- began to be released.

"Early results suggest ECS values from some of the new CMIP6 climate models are higher than previous estimates, with early numbers being reported between 2.8C and 5.8C. This compares with the previous coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP5), which reported values between 2.1C to 4.7C. The IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) assessed ECS to be “likely” in the range 1.5C to 4.5C and “very unlikely” greater than 6C. (These terms are defined using the IPCC methodology.)"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-results-from-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-matter

The median given by AR5 was 3C (or 3K). The difference with the new models is represented graphically below in the third image.

As we are now seeing the new models are giving a value of ECS ranging from 2.8C to 5.8C, with a median of 4.3C.

So what is to be gained by assuming the lower risk scenarios, when, should you be wrong -- as I would suggest the overwhelming amount of evidence now indicates -- we expose ourselves to a tremendous amount of risk?

This seems to me the underlying message of ASLR's posts.





There's more in that thread if someone wish to read it.

6
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 08, 2019, 07:06:57 AM »
Quote
the only viable pathway to American abundance and excellence
Classic GreenBAU. Ignore sustainability. Ignore resource use. Ignore the limits. Ignore those who already died. Ignore the rest of the world.


7
Hello Sleepy,
Are you sure that the graph us not about GreenBAU? I am surprised that the green part is so small. I am sure that degrowth is required.
62% of the pie-chart incorporates behavioural changes, the blue part would be strictly GreenBAU...

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: June 07, 2019, 08:19:13 AM »
Yes, but if there were a disaster, then I fear these embryos of progress discussed in this thread will be equally dead.

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: June 07, 2019, 07:46:54 AM »
Maybe a disaster as well b_l...

I have maintained all along that the quickest way to dramatically impact CO2 emissions is on the individual consumer level.

But how do you get a billion consumers to all voluntarily conserve less?

You don't. You merely get everyone who is concerned about AGW (there are hundreds of millions) to understand how they can do this. And you start with yourself. My car no longer moves on weekends and I have now developed a habit of stopping to do what I need to do on the way home from work. I have virtually eliminated meat in my diet. Eat meat at most twice per week. Still eat eggs and dairy.

Yup, but how to reach these who could mitigate easier and faster than most?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0402-3

10
We're all equal in the United States of Scandinavia. But there are signs of people using more public transports, it's at least something.

Edit; also adding a quote from here:
https://medium.com/swlh/fake-leadership-is-dangerous-when-it-comes-to-corporate-sustainability-plastic-pollution-and-b9b3b2716cd5#---383-709
Quote
Unfortunately most people are overextended and only glance quickly at the corporate friendly headlines — and that’s exactly what politicians and corporations count on. Show “fake leadership” with a few symbolic gestures and the public will feel good knowing that someone is on the job addressing their concerns. But in many ways these promises are more insidious than doing nothing. When big corporations and governments say that they are going to respond to a crisis, it lulls us into a state of complacency. It’s dangerous, because rather than standing up and voicing our concerns with what appears to be a serious lack of engagement, we are quiet, believing that someone else is taking care of the problem.

For the better part of the last 15 years, a hopeful public has been pacified with promises, while the corporate sustainability movement continues to track in a direction that suppresses meaningful regulations, in favour of hope that somehow a market based solution will emerge. For those who see the world through a more cynical lens, it almost seems as if those in control of the narrative, the super elites, are not just steering change in a particular direction but rather, they are disrupting change in a way that can best be described as stonewalling to maintain the status quo.
My bold...

Also adding an image from CCC, I think this is a common distribution among western countries, where mainly behavioural changes are needed.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/

11
The Finnish government takes a tram to the press conference.
https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000006129100.html

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: June 07, 2019, 06:56:47 AM »
Continuing from here:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2687.msg200388.html#msg200388

The preliminary numbers for 2018 are in:
https://www.ssb.no/natur-og-miljo/artikler-og-publikasjoner/klimagassutslippene-flater-ut

Quote
Preliminary figures show that 0.4 per cent more greenhouse gases were emitted in 2018 than the year before. The increase is due to a smaller share of biofuels in road traffic and more consumption of fossil fuels for other modes of transport.

Emissions of greenhouse gases in Norway amounted to almost 53 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents in 2018, which means about 200,000 tonnes of CO 2 equivalents more, than in 2017.

Higher consumption

Emissions from aviation, shipping, fishing, power tools etc. increased by more than 6 per cent compared with 2017. In total, this group accounts for 7.5 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalents. The increase is due to rising consumption of plant diesel, marine gas oils and jet paraffin. According to the statistics Petroleum products , sales of plant diesel, marine gas oils and jet paraffin increased by 8 per cent, 7 per cent and 4 per cent respectively in 2018.

More emissions from road traffic

Road traffic accounted for 9 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalent emissions, which represents an increase of almost 3 per cent from 2017. According to the statistics on petroleum products, sales of petrol and auto diesel were down in the period. The sales figures include biofuels, and the increase in CO 2 emissions is due to a significant reduction in the proportion of biofuels in the fuel mixture. The decline in the share of biofuels is mainly due to a sharp reduction in imported palm oil.

Decrease in oil and gas, heating and energy supply

Emissions of greenhouse gases from oil and gas extraction decreased by over 1% from 2017 to 14.5 million tonnes of CO 2 equivalents. The production of oil and gas on the Norwegian shelf also showed a decline according to norskpetroleum.no . There was also a decline in heating in other industries and households, as well as energy supply.

Ending this with the same comment, behold the mitigation...

13
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 06, 2019, 07:19:12 AM »
Terawatt-scale photovoltaics: Transform global energy
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6443/836
Quote
Solar energy has the potential to play a central role in the future global energy system because of the scale of the solar resource, its predictability, and its ubiquitous nature. Global installed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity exceeded 500 GW at the end of 2018, and an estimated additional 500 GW of PV capacity is projected to be installed by 2022–2023, bringing us into the era of TW-scale PV. Given the speed of change in the PV industry, both in terms of continued dramatic cost decreases and manufacturing-scale increases, the growth toward TW-scale PV has caught many observers, including many of us (1), by surprise. Two years ago, we focused on the challenges of achieving 3 to 10 TW of PV by 2030. Here, we envision a future with ∼10 TW of PV by 2030 and 30 to 70 TW by 2050, providing a majority of global energy. PV would be not just a key contributor to electricity generation but also a central contributor to all segments of the global energy system. We discuss ramifications and challenges for complementary technologies (e.g., energy storage, power to gas/liquid fuels/chemicals, grid integration, and multiple sector electrification) and summarize what is needed in research in PV performance, reliability, manufacturing, and recycling.

Adding Fig2.


14
Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-019-02423-8

One image split in two (snipped out the top and bottom parts) says it all (although current numbers are higher).



15
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: June 06, 2019, 07:06:17 AM »
And how does the above, (including replies 79, 80, 85, 86) match with this?

Terawatt-scale photovoltaics: Transform global energy
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6443/836
Quote
Solar energy has the potential to play a central role in the future global energy system because of the scale of the solar resource, its predictability, and its ubiquitous nature. Global installed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity exceeded 500 GW at the end of 2018, and an estimated additional 500 GW of PV capacity is projected to be installed by 2022–2023, bringing us into the era of TW-scale PV. Given the speed of change in the PV industry, both in terms of continued dramatic cost decreases and manufacturing-scale increases, the growth toward TW-scale PV has caught many observers, including many of us (1), by surprise. Two years ago, we focused on the challenges of achieving 3 to 10 TW of PV by 2030. Here, we envision a future with ∼10 TW of PV by 2030 and 30 to 70 TW by 2050, providing a majority of global energy. PV would be not just a key contributor to electricity generation but also a central contributor to all segments of the global energy system. We discuss ramifications and challenges for complementary technologies (e.g., energy storage, power to gas/liquid fuels/chemicals, grid integration, and multiple sector electrification) and summarize what is needed in research in PV performance, reliability, manufacturing, and recycling.

Adding Fig2.

16
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: June 06, 2019, 06:53:12 AM »
Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-019-02423-8

One image split in two (snipped out the top and bottom parts) says it all (although current numbers are higher).

17
Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-019-02423-8

One image split in two (snipped out the top and bottom parts) says it all (although current numbers are higher).

18
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: June 04, 2019, 02:32:53 PM »
Related to the above.
Hmm, a bit early maybe but if this is a new trend it's good.

A piece by Linus Eriksson, traffic director at Skånetrafiken:
Skåne is entering a new era where the car is no longer the norm. Maybe car shame follows flying shame?
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2019-05-15/skane-ar-pa-vag-in-i-en-ny-era-dar-bilen-inte-langre-ar-norm-foljer-bilskam-efter-flygskam

In just a few months the travel pattern in Skåne has changed. According to Swedavia, the number of air passengers at Malmö Airport decreased by 11 per cent for the first four months of the year. During the same period, travel by public transport in Skåne increased by 1.8 million trips. The regional bus traffic around Lund and Kristianstad increased by 10 percent, the city traffic in Malmö by just over 7 percent, and the Pågatågen by 4 percent.

I think we are entering a new era. Every day, 420,000 sustainable journeys are made with Skånetrafiken, all of which buses and trains are fossil fuel-free. Regardless of what is claimed in the debate, Skåne has a large range of trains and bus services that reach far above the political level of ambition of ten double trips per weekday for resorts with at least 1 000 inhabitants. In places such as Åhus, Höganäs, Broby, Höllviken, the demand is so great that Skånetrafiken runs a bus between every 5-10 minutes.

19
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: June 04, 2019, 10:25:15 AM »
Crossposting this comment by zizek from the Tesla thread:
<snip>
Musk's email to Employees dated May 16 2019
Quote
That is a lot of money, but actually only gives us approximately ten months at the first-quarter burn rate to achieve breakeven. It's vital that we respect the faith investors have shown in Tesla, but it will require great effort to do so.

That is why, going forward, all expenses of any kind anywhere in the world, including parts, salary, travel expenses, rent, literally every payment that leaves our bank account must be reviewed, confirmed as critical and the top of every page of outgoing payments signed by our CFO.

I will personally review and sign every 10th page.

Please examine closely every expense where responsibility is, or probably should be, assigned to your group. If in doubt, assume it is on your plate, so that we don't have anything slip through the cracks.

This will take at least a few weeks to get right. Please don't worry if it isn't correct at first.

This is hardcore, but it is the only way for Tesla to become financially sustainable and succeed in our goal of helping make the world environmentally sustainable.

Thanks again for your excellent work,

Elon
That part in bold is the real problem.

The World will not become environmentally sustainable, when the goal is to get rid of fossil fuel emissions while continuing current economic growth and resource depletion, which will increase our footprint.

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 04, 2019, 08:54:40 AM »
Energy Storage in Hydrogen : Does this beat batteries?
<snip>
Not yet, but we have the Worlds first off grid hydrogen station in Mariestad in operation now, documents attached at the link. The municipality is hoping to reach a fuel cost of 7kr/10km.

Inauguration of the Worlds first off grid hydrogen station in Mariestad on Tuesday (May 28).
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/folj-med-till-varldens-forsta-sjalvforsorjande-vatgasmack
Video at the link, unfortunately in Swedish.

Looks nice, until you start looking at the numbers and realize how many that would be needed.
Document links at the botttom.

Edit; forgot to add the obvious, the winter months here doesn't provide much energy.



21
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: June 04, 2019, 08:29:26 AM »
A follow up to the above and also a crosspost emanating from a comment on SR15 and scientific reticence. A trip down memory lane:

Hansen on scientific reticence and sea level rise. (2007)
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01210n.html

Van Vuuren from 2007 (a paper preceeding the RCP2.6 one from 2011...).
Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9172-9

Adding Fig. 3:  Global CO 2 -eq. emissions (all sources) for the B2 baseline emission and pathways to stabilization at a concentration of 650, 550 and 450 ppm CO 2 -eq.

Edit; also adding Fig. 12 from the Van Vuuren 2011 paper. Emissions for the IMAGE (IM) alternative RCP scenarios.

22
Roughly twelve years late or so... Remember beeing highly annoyed a decade ago about scientific reticence. Still someone told me just a few days ago, that I can't say that RCP2.6 is dead. A trip down memory lane:

Hansen on scientific reticence and sea level rise. (2007)
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01210n.html

Van Vuuren from 2007 (a paper preceeding the RCP2.6 one from 2011...).
Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9172-9

Adding Fig. 3:  Global CO 2 -eq. emissions (all sources) for the B2 baseline emission and pathways to stabilization at a concentration of 650, 550 and 450 ppm CO 2 -eq.

Edit; also adding Fig. 12 from the Van Vuuren 2011 paper. Emissions for the IMAGE (IM) alternative RCP scenarios.

24
The Black Sea is ~436 km² and the global ocean area is ~361 million km². Trying to find evidence for the Genesis flood narrative is the wrong way to do it, Indonesia is currently the only country doing it right with their capital, trying to adapt to the risks presented by science.

25
We, as the global citizens of Earth, hereby CLAIM THE SKY! and Demand the Creation of an Atmospheric Trust.
http://claimthesky.org/

Quote
The global atmosphere is certainly one of our major common assets and should be held in trust and protected from harm for current and future generations. Under the public trust doctrine, all countries are co-trustees in the global atmosphere. A subset of countries can therefore agree to establish an Atmospheric Trust (AT), as an independent agency to serve as trustee.

We, the undersigned, are calling on the V20 to take the lead by creating this Atmospheric Trust (AT) that establishes community property rights over the atmospheric commons. As some of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, the V20 can use the AT as a legal instrument to increase their voice and power in addressing the climate crisis.

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: June 02, 2019, 11:05:49 AM »
From The Independent.
We will not let you get away with it.
(Encoded for size...)

27
Crossposting this by ivica along with my comments.

An effort to raise public awareness about sea level rise, The Royal Institution, published on 2019-05-29, filmed at the Ri on 2019-02-11:

   Sea Level Rise Can No Longer Be Stopped, What Next? - with John Englander

   Q&A part
Thanks ivica.

Edit; What's not discussed in the future part at the end is sustainability and resource use. Nothing really new around SLR and glaciers (for those who follow this) but other than that, it's all sound and a worthwhile watch. Adding the key messages below.




28
An effort to raise public awareness about sea level rise, The Royal Institution, published on 2019-05-29, filmed at the Ri on 2019-02-11:

   Sea Level Rise Can No Longer Be Stopped, What Next? - with John Englander

   Q&A part
Thanks ivica.

Edit; What's not discussed in the future part at the end is sustainability and resource use. Nothing really new around SLR and glaciers (for those who follow this) but other than that, it's all sound and a worthwhile watch. Adding the key messages below.

29
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: June 01, 2019, 09:15:46 AM »

RCP2.6 is dead and this planet will go past two degrees like nothing since almost everything we build today are built with fossil fuels. Attitudes must change since we can't create energy, so the only option left is to cut back consumption and use renewables and the electric transports we can afford, as wisely as possible.


Unless you know what's going to happen in the future, you can't say that. <snip>
I don't need the future, just IMAGE.  ;D

Edit; and Ken, all your four posts in this thread are off topic.

30
Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: May 31, 2019, 08:13:50 AM »
The problem with this question is that it involves the value for ECS but it also has to take into account whether we will take effective action to curb CO2 emissions. I do not think we will act quickly enough to eliminate anthropogenic emissions and expect us to blow past a doubling of ppm from preindustrial (560 ppm) by shortly after mid century at the latest. My uneducated guess is 4C to 5C.

A temperature increase that has been described as incompatible with human civilization.
Indeed. And it's not uneducated at all.
The rosy picture is that current policies gives a median of 3.3°C.

http://claimthesky.org/

31
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: May 31, 2019, 07:40:19 AM »
A question in another thread reminded me of Meadows bathtub analogy.

First an old quote by Donella and then Dennis version from last year in three images.
http://donellameadows.org/archives/on-bathtubs-carbon-dioxide-and-disrespect/
Quote
–August 23, 1990–
...
The real issues here, the underlying fears that trigger our anger, are that on the one hand a bunch of environmental alarmists will force unnecessary changes in our fossil-fuel-powered way of doing things, and that on the other hand a bunch of technological conservatives with heavy stakes in fossil-fuel industries will drive the climate and the earth’s ecosystems into overheated chaos.


32
Yup, and then we also have the worst and unfortunately still present hysteresis, maybe best depicted with Meadows bathtub analogy? First an old quote by Donella and then Dennis version from last year in one image.
http://donellameadows.org/archives/on-bathtubs-carbon-dioxide-and-disrespect/
Quote
–August 23, 1990–
...
The real issues here, the underlying fears that trigger our anger, are that on the one hand a bunch of environmental alarmists will force unnecessary changes in our fossil-fuel-powered way of doing things, and that on the other hand a bunch of technological conservatives with heavy stakes in fossil-fuel industries will drive the climate and the earth’s ecosystems into overheated chaos.

33
Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: May 30, 2019, 10:27:25 AM »
Incrementalism's finest.
https://www.breakit.se/artikel/20346/isabella-lowengrip-ska-fa-fler-att-flyga-privatjet-miljofragan-inte-speciellt-global
Quote
"I will never be Sweden's largest environmental fighter internationally, but I might be a female role model that will sometime run a unicorn company," she recently told Di Digital.

34
The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: May 30, 2019, 07:47:27 AM »
Our footprint growth must stop. Full stop. Adding the four real messages of limits to growth, as presented by Jørgen Randers at the 50th Anniversary Summit of the Club of Rome on 17-18 October last year.

THE CLUB OF ROME CLIMATE EMERGENCY PLAN.
Out now, have at it:
http://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Climate_Emergency_Plan_Final.pdf

35
Attaching the above paper.

36
<snip>shall we talk about the pope's actual statement which I referenced from the vatican ?<snip>
This is ok, all in all, even for an agnostic (like myself):

The signs today are not good. Investments in fossil fuels continue to rise, even though scientists tell us that fossil fuels should remain underground. The International Energy Agency recently reported that investments in clean energy fell again for the second consecutive year, even though experts have consistently demonstrated the benefits to the human environment provided by clean energy from wind, sun, and water. We continue along old paths because we are trapped by our faulty accounting and by the corruption of vested interests. We still reckon as profit what threatens our very survival.

The effects of global inaction are startling. About two weeks ago, several scientific research centres recorded the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – one of the key global causes of global warming linked to human activity – as having reached 415 parts per million, the highest level ever recorded. Around the world, we are seeing heat waves, droughts, forest fires, floods and other extreme meteorological events, rising sea levels, the emergence of diseases and further problems that are only a dire premonition of things much worse to come, unless we act and act urgently.

During your meeting today, you heard from leading climatologists and experts. Their message was clear and insistent. We need to act decisively to put an end to all emissions of greenhouse gases by mid-century at the very latest, and to do even more than that. Carbon dioxide concentrations have to decline significantly to ensure the safety of our common home. You also heard that this can be accomplished at low cost by employing clean energy and improving energy efficiency.

Reason itself makes this clear and should serve as the basis for our common action. Let us
therefore resolve to work together for these ends:
- to value what is important, not what is superfluous;
- to correct our national accounts and our business accounts, so as to stop engaging in activities
that are destroying our planet;
- to put an end to global dependency on fossil fuels;
- to open a new chapter of clean and safe energy, that utilizes, for example, renewable resources
such as wind, sun and water;
- above all, to act prudently and responsibly in our economies to actually meet human needs,
promote human dignity, help the poor and be set free of the idolatry of money that creates so
much suffering.


He's not mentioning NET's so the time frames might be a bit off (unless we actually start using NET's in the scale needed), but he's the pope and not Glen Peters.

Edit; and if he was, he might have added this:


37
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: May 29, 2019, 08:25:11 AM »
On topic.

What can we learn from consumption-based carbon footprints at different spatial scales?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2212

Quote
Background: Current climate change mitigation policies, including the Paris Agreement, are based on territorial greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. This neglects the understanding of GHG emissions embodied in trade. As a solution, consumption-based accounting (CBA) that reveals the lifecycle emissions, including transboundary flows, is gaining support as a complementary information tool. CBA is particularly relevant in cities that tend to outsource a large part of their production-based emissions to their hinterlands. While CBA has so far been used relatively little in practical policymaking, it has been used widely by scientists.

Methods and Design: The purpose of this systematic review, which covers more than 100 studies, is to reflect the policy implications of consumption-based carbon footprint (CBCF) studies at different spatial scales. The review was conducted by reading through the discussion sections of the reviewed studies and systematically collecting the given policy suggestions for different spatial scales. We used both numerical and qualitative methods to organize and interpret the findings of the review.

Review Results and Discussion: The motivation for the review was to investigate whether the unique consumption perspective of CBA leads to similarly unique policy features. We found that various carbon pricing policies are the most widely supported policy instrument in the relevant literature. However, overall, there is a shortage of discussion on policy instruments, since the policy discussions focus on policy outcomes, such as behavioral change or technological solutions. In addition, some policy recommendations are conflicting. Particularly, urban density and compact city policies are supported by some studies and questioned by others. To clarify the issue, we examined how the results regarding the relationship between urban development and the CBCF vary. The review provides a concise starting point for policymakers and future research by summarizing the timely policy implications.

The challenges in one image, Fig3 below. Also adding the three tables.

38
This thread is about science, risks and reality Rich, then opinions.

<snip>
The recent SR 1.5 was a jolt which triggered a step up in activism with Greta, XR and the GND but it's not enough yet.
<snip>
I know we're going to figure this SLR shit out. I don't what the range is going to be, but when we do, it's probably going to impact financial markets that will impact billions of people.
<snip>
It's pretty much figured out already, apart from the replies posted above, you can also read what Rignot has published back towards 2013 regarding Antarctica, there's plenty of posts on that in here as well.
And Greta was talking before SR15 and XR, check the date here:

Another from the "We Don't Have Time" series (posted earlier in this thread).

A message to all adults out there who are busy defending an obsolete lifestyle.





Edit; added the quotes for clarity.

39
Rich, the real joke here is that there's little we can do to stop further melting glaciers even 200 years ahead. We can improve scientific projections of SLR but that's merely about when and how much.

We could step on the FF-brakes but few are interested. RCP2.6 is dead and this planet will go past two degrees like nothing since almost everything we build today are built using fossil fuels. Even if we succeed with a 100% PV/Wind/EV World, attitudes must change because we still can't create energy or the resources we need for maintaining our present lifestyles in the west (including current infinite growth mentality).

The only option left would be to cut back consumption and use renewables and the electric transports we can afford, as wisely as possible. And that's exactly what westerners don't want. That's also why we have a multitude of different failed incremental solutions and a new 2018 emissions record.

Adding an older comment of mine because I like this graph by Levermann.
It has no timescale, just temperature correlated to SLR.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13745.full.pdf
Fig 1E attached.
Quote
Paleo-Evidence
To compare the model results with past sea-level anomalies for
the temperature range up to 4 °C, we focus on three previous periods for which the geological record provides reasonable constraints on warmer climates and higher sea levels than preindustrial: the middle Pliocene, marine isotope stage 11, and the LIG (Fig. 1E).

40
The forum / Re: New participant perspective
« on: May 28, 2019, 06:21:41 AM »
Ironically Rich, the melting season thread around May is probably the worst time and place for new members on the ASIF. It takes a while to understand where people are coming from, and for that there are other threads (like Jim wrote above). Add some(times) cryptic brits, language issues with non native English speakers, individual pet theories, arguing (and worse) along with OT commentary while Neven moderates. It's pretty much the same procedure as every year, James!

41
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: May 27, 2019, 03:52:34 PM »
Inability to adapt on every level will cost.

V1 by JimD:
Quote
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2014, 05:23:05 AM »
Several of the last handful of comments hit exactly on why I started this thread.

Many people just do not have a good understanding of the scope and scale of the global vehicle fleet.  The idea that we can switch to electric vehicles and solve our fossil fuel consumption problem (especially in any meaningful time frame) is mistaken.  Just like the idea of hydrogen cars won't fix it either.

The infrastructure change over time is far too long and, as pointed out, where you get your electricity matters as if it is from a coal plant you are better off driving a gas vehicle.

BAU with our current fleet will not work.  Green-BAU with an electric fleet will not happen in time and would not have much chance of making a difference to the end result.
<snip>

V2 by JimD:
Quote
« Reply #3392 on: February 26, 2018, 04:38:48 PM »
<snip>
The fundamental reason I started this thread years ago was to point out that the answer is 'no cars'.  EV technology is fine and the collective we will advance it a long ways over the next few decades.  But it will not save us - thus my atheism.  A world of a couple of billion ev's just justify's extending the standard infrastructure and human footprint.  EV's as they are being approached, especially by Musk - luxury, are another form of BAU and a denial of our desperate situation.

We must change our way of life and our footprint.
<snip>

V3 by Neven:
Quote
« Reply #6723 on: May 13, 2019, 05:31:14 PM »
<snip>
Anyway, maybe a split is a good idea. I don't like how this thread has become the one with the most replies on the entire forum. So, here's an Electric cars thread for discussing the latest in EV technology and infrastructure. This thread can continue to be used what it was meant for originally: Whether sustainable transportation is a viable option as a Green BAU solution.
<snip>

42
50 years ago I watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon (or rather, next month...). It still feels wierd that so many years have passed and even weirder when I see americans today, cheering for the 'unprecedented' accomplishments of SpaceX.

SLR will get there, whether we like it or not.

43
We are in general, including the experts, notoriously overconfident and optimistic when it comes to predictions.

This article is from 1976, by E.C. Capen and the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2118/5579-PA
Quote
Handling Uncertainty

Our schooling trained us well to handle the certainties of the world. The principles of mathematics and physics work. In Newton's day, force equaled mass times acceleration, and it still does. The physicists, when they found somewhat erratic behavior on the atomic and molecular level, were able to solve many problems using statistical mechanics. The extremely large number of items they dealt with allowed these probabilistic methods to predict behavior accurately.

So we have a dilemma. Our training teaches us to handle situations in which we can accurately predict the variables. If we cannot, then we know methods that will save us in the presence of large numbers. Many of our problems, however, have a one-time-only characteristic, and the variables almost defy prediction.

You may embark on a new project whose technology differs from that used on other projects. Or perhaps your task is to perform a familiar project in a harsh environment. Try to estimate the total cost and completion time. Hard! You cannot foresee everything. And, for some reason, that which you cannot foretell seems to bring forth more ill than good. Hence, the predictions we make are often very optimistic. Even though we see the whole process unfolding and see estimate after estimate turn out optimistic, our next estimate more than likely will be optimistic also.

Also:
https://metasd.com/2012/07/capen-quiz/
Quote
Ventana colleague Bill Arthur has been giving the quiz to clients for years. In fact, it turns out that the vast majority of takers are overconfident in their knowledge – they choose ranges that are too narrow, and get only a three or four questions right. CEOs are the worst – if you score zero out of 10, you’re c-suite material.
  :)

44
Walking the walk / Re: Top climate-friendly actions
« on: May 27, 2019, 04:39:56 AM »
Is the issue about card payment the IT and network that is required ? Or is it the problem that it allows consumption at any time ? I don't get the point.
<snip>
Mornin', no it's not technical issues, they are looking at offering both swish and cards but they need more customers before they can take the next step. Ekobanken is built by their customers and they don't have a large investor behind them. Large investors often lack the required ethics.

45
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: May 26, 2019, 09:29:07 AM »
Inauguration of the Worlds first off grid hydrogen station in Mariestad on Tuesday (May 28).
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/folj-med-till-varldens-forsta-sjalvforsorjande-vatgasmack
Video at the link, unfortunately in Swedish.

Looks nice, until you start looking at the numbers and realize how many that would be needed.
Document links at the botttom.

Edit; forgot to add the obvious, the winter months here doesn't provide much energy.

46
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: May 26, 2019, 05:20:13 AM »
<snip>
This reminds me of the glowing statements pro-hydrogen-powered car people used to make about how hydrogen--it is the most abundant element in the universe.

Entirely true, and entirely irrelevant.
<snip>
Hydrogen got me thinking about the glowing statements presented by our steel industry. The new green companies like SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall are making delusional promises here with HYBRIT and it's a huge area where the sun's energy is not adequate by itself.
Their two main issues:
1. It's about 20-30 years before this technology can be introduced in large-scale industrial production.
2. To produce hydrogen in an energy-efficient way, so that it becomes economically justifiable.

The real issue, apart from the 'natural' calamities the World might see by then, illustrated by this:

47
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: May 25, 2019, 05:00:25 AM »
I've posted those too in the past and I truly wish the World could go back 10-15 years.
My personal wish would be to go back 40.

Edit; The forum was unresponsive earlier this morning and I just wanted to add one more thing:
Stabilizing at any given temperature requires radical emission reductions and NET's.

48
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: May 24, 2019, 04:35:43 PM »
No, I try to live as I speak and try to follow numbers and facts, not fiction or opinions. Also try to maintain a holistic approach and follow wether people are changing attitudes, or not.
RCP2.6 is dead and this planet will go past two degrees like nothing since almost everything we build today are built with fossil fuels. Attitudes must change since we can't create energy, so the only option left is to cut back consumption and use renewables and the electric transports we can afford, as wisely as possible.

----
If someone noticed the presentation I posted with Glen Peters earlier, it was from UFGC19 in Oslo:



Also adding their offical t-shirt.

49
The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 24, 2019, 12:31:15 PM »
Your welcome but no, this lead to those ads:
because I think those working hard on beeing natural (Exxon, BP, Koch et al.) would be the only happy pigs in the barn.
I can remove the links to the Exxon ads, they were just added for fun and I don't think wili is personally offended.

50
Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: May 24, 2019, 10:29:36 AM »
Outlining the risks and challenges for the US.
https://rhg.com/research/capturing-leadership-policies-for-the-us-to-advance-direct-air-capture-technology/

Last year, global CO2 emissions reached an all-time high. Recent scientific research indicates that global emissions need to reach net-zero between 2045 and 2055 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. DAC technology does not make it possible to bypass the difficult work of reducing emissions. We find that even with break-neck electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry, unprecedented improvements in energy efficiency, completely decarbonized power generation, and carbon removal from enhanced natural sequestration, DAC technology will be essential for the US to decarbonize by midcentury. Our analysis indicates that for the US to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 (our “100by45” scenarios) between 560 and 1,850 million metric tons of CO2 will need to be removed by DAC technology and then permanently stored underground annually, depending on the availability of other carbon removal options, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and natural sequestration, and the pace of electrification in the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25