Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Next
Comments 6751 to 6800:
-
BaerbelW at 22:27 PM on 6 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
gseattle @11
I recently became aware of a new study published in The Lancet (link to open source article) which looks at populationg growth and they see the peak at around 9.7B in 2064 and then slowly falling to 8.8B by 2100. Here is the press release from July 14 about the article.
-
gseattle at 19:44 PM on 6 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2019.html
Growing at a slower pace, world population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100
17 June 2019, New YorkThe world’s population is expected to increase by 2 billion persons in the next 30 years, from 7.7 billion currently to 9.7 billion in 2050, according to a new United Nations report launched today.
...
The study concluded that the world’s population could reach its peak around the end of the current century, at a level of nearly 11 billion.
Roughly:
2B / 30 yr = 66,670,000 / yr = 182,648 / day = 7,610 / hour = 127 new people on earth per minute
Quite a few -
BaerbelW at 17:43 PM on 6 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
gseattle @18
The best way to get in touch with Skeptical Science is via the "Contact Us" link shown at the bottom of each page. One of us will see your message in our inbox and either respond or forward it as needed.
-
gseattle at 15:39 PM on 6 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
In the Comment policy it says: "If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error,
you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread".
Unfortunately I need to bring this up, I'd prefer to discuss it by email but I emailed John and didn't hear back.
A portion of what I wrote above was deleted by moderator DB. At minimum, I need to know what portion was supposedly sloganeering. His comment was not specific but I think it might have been the idea that some of my text is presumably covered in #34 but I can't find mention of amoc or slowing there. Can I be allowed to know what I said was considered bad?
To summarize it, I mentioned that part--and I believe I used links but it's deleted now--like to the European Space Agency (ESA) on that, and then brought it right back to Greta, saying basically I want her message to be as sound as possible, expressing my well-wishes "I want her respected with a great future", and then I went back to the species question which is always a cornerstone of her message, I wrote some words to try to spur your community into presenting a scientific paper for the species claim, I showed IUCN's official extinction numbers, and then I suggested a route forward for Greta which I'm afraid to repeat now since it was deleted, I thought it was a pretty reasonable idea.
The moderator DB said:
[DB] Off-topic and sloganeering snipped. Please up your game and cite reputable sources, in-context.
That's quite a set of sins there and I don't understand what I presumably did wrong your honor.
The other thing is I am always trying to be civil, the Comment policy disallows ad hominem, critique of another person's motives, labels such as "denier", and an inflammatory tone, so I'm wondering, why are they allowed to violate those terms against me continuously above?
-
gseattle at 14:51 PM on 6 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Ah, got it. Thanks for the explanation. I'm red-green colorblind, can barely tell the difference between this and this so that's part of the confusion over that, had no idea it was a link. Military said the red-green thing is in 1/10th of whyte males some time ago. Plus it didn't seem to turn up on Google for some reason: "Most Used Climate Myths" site:skepticalscience.com ... Sorry for that problem.
-
michael sweet at 10:56 AM on 6 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka:
According to your reference, "The facility evaporates water from the treated sewage of several nearby municipalities to meet its cooling needs." That means treated sewage is used to cool the power plant. The power plant is not used to treat the sewage.
With current shortages of water in Arizona they would drink the treated sewage instead of using it to cool a power plant.
-
Preston Urka at 07:15 AM on 6 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
michael sweet - it seems no discussion of economics: the value of dispatchable power vs intermittent energy, or the distinction between average cost and marginal cost, or the distinction between the cost of a single plant vs a total grid system - these are simply not allowed.
Since this is outside the permissible discussion topics here, I just won't make any further economic arguments for nuclear.
Post @202 is not about using waste heat to power industry, but about using heat (as in primarily, skipping the conversion to electricity and back again).
An example of using waste heat to power industry is Palo Verde used to treat sewage.
"It is uneconomic to run since a reactor requires many more operators than a traditional ship. Military vessels do not care about the extreme cost." - what, a bald statement without a citation? I might give you that the military is insensitive to cost, but you have not presented evidence for this conclusion. Ditto your _belief_ that this is a tempting terrorist target.
Of course, there are exceptions: a rather opinionated, belief-ridden statement "Nuclear power is uneconomic." from @206, without citations or calculations lives on. Taking construction cost and time-to-build, you put it through your arithmetic machine and end up with ... I mean it looks like you have a point, but one does have to keep close a bunch of pre-conceived notions about economics and power grids and then finish the thought for you for an actual conclusion to be reached.
To have the privilege of discourse where almost any thought is censored, well ... if that is the site you guys want, you are welcome to it.
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaints are prohibited by this site's Comment Policy and therefore have been struck through. In addition, you are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is also prohibited by the policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
michael sweet at 02:35 AM on 6 September 2020New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
This article provides the abstract of 47 peer reviewed articles that describe how to convert the economy to 100% renewable energy. Many of them give specific plans for building out a 100% renewable system to provide all energy to either a large country or a continent.
This link is useful to find references to support renewable energy or simply as a source of background reading to inform the reader. If you want to read beyond the abstract use Google Scholar to look for free copies. If you are reading challenged you can simply read the titles of the papers and figure they show what the title describes. This list is probably up to date in 2019.
Hat tip to Postkey who pointed me to this article.
-
Eclectic at 02:32 AM on 6 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Gseattle @ #13 (now recently shuffled to #15 )
the Climate Myths you are looking for, have a prominent link just below the top left corner of this page; of the Home page; and indeed of almost every page of this website.
see :- MOST USED ... Climate Myths ( in bright red ink)
And it is worth repeating ~ the Dr Ed Berry you have mentioned via your earlier link, is completely misrepresenting the scientific facts. His climate ideas are wacky pseudo-science. As far as I know, he may be a fine gentleman . . . kind to children . . . generous to charities . . . but his arithmetic on atmospheric CO2 is crazy-wrong. A sad case, to be sure! Even worse ~ there's a strong suspicion he's getting the science wrong deliberately (it is hard to believe someone with his tertiary degrees could get it so very wrong accidentally ). And I am sorry to see he has misled you with his nonsense. But never too late for you ~ you can go to Climate Myth 34 thread, and learn the real science.
-
John Hartz at 00:36 AM on 6 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
I inadvertently deleted the following post:
gseattle at 15:36 PM on 5 September 2020
What is the human percent CO2 percentage? As shown (and ignored), sources seem to range 1% to 5%. I went with the apparent maximum estimate, 5%. This says "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere". But the source?
It is invalid to deny science and claim CO2's jump from 1880 can only be human. The reason for this is because of the massive effect of the ocean sink together with ocean slowing over the last 200 years now being studied. The ocean is said to store 50 to 60 times the CO2 of air but its capacity has diminished. Shown above, the air CO2 rise from 1880 is partly from nature, no other way to explain it.
"The oceans as a whole have a large capacity for absorbing CO2, but ocean mixing is too slow to have spread this additional CO2 deep into the ocean. As a result, ocean waters deeper than 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) have a large but still unrealized absorption capacity, said Scripps geochemist Ralph Keeling".
IPCC: "oceans [...] contain roughly 50 times the quantity of carbon currently contained in the atmosphere". In the past, it was considered 60 times (see Arhrenius, Callendar and/or Revelle).
This has the highest estimate I could find for total anthropogenic CO2 in gigatons since the industrial revolution. The number should be 1374 rather than 1370.
Doha infographic gets the numbers wrong, underestimates human emissions
If there's a higher number somewhere, a link to a specific page containing it would be helpful. I always like to use numbers that will favor the side of anyone who might want to argue the point when reasonable, and web pages they can like, when possible. Except in the case of 200 species per day, which is 100% unscientific.
This says 1 ppm CO2 per 7.77 Gt for the calculation. (James Hansen)
NOAA: 414 latest (NOAA's measurement while NASA's 2020 value is lower and just a model). Another source might be https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2, daily, etc.
Unfortunately couldn't find the string "Most Used Climate Myths" anywhere on this domain, perhaps use a direct link instead. MA found 1,617Gt (CO2) in Global Carbon Project, there's an xls file on the page at that link, seven tabs, perhaps he calculated it, didn't say, a description/walkthrough of the intended process may help. Reading further at realclimate on that large page, author stefan vilifies 5%, implying he knows, and then places it at 110% "the best estimate for the anthropogenic share of global warming since 1950 is 110 percent" and the source offered is another page written by stefan which cites his source as a Tweet by Gavin Schmidt which points to a 2015 Bloomberg article which does not provide any value for human vs natural CO2 at all. Typical confusion. Curiously, no one corrected .58 above, it should be 1.67/yr (still less than Greta's up to 73,000/yr). Numerous points made by gseattle have gone unopposed, they have to logically be regarded as likely solid logic and scientifically sound unless eventually opposed using science (rather than scorn). The message everywhere from climate alarmists when presented with facts seems to be, you must believe or we're going to get mad and use ridicule/scorn. Information being treated like blasphemy, that's anti-scientific.
No, really, be kind to opponents on this thought-battlefield and let your weapons be scientific facts, actual content with references in a calm way. Ad hominem is not science. Attempts to devalidate an opponent by labeling one as bad or wrong or not understanding anything isn't science nor educational to any who might read this in generations to come, nor correct. The chances are very good if any of us knew each other personally we could get along just fine and like and respect each other even with differences of opinion, all of my friends are wrong about everything and I still love them (a bit of levity there, in case it isn't obvious that was nervous humor, pending copyright).
-
MA Rodger at 22:36 PM on 5 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
gseattle @13,
You are quoting the fake scientific paper of a climate change denier to misrepresent the IPCC. The denier and the IPCC do not reach any significant 'agreement'. Indeed, the denier shows this. You do not.
You quote the first sentence of the abstract yet the second sentence is entirely wrong. Barry (2019) Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2 which begins its abstract saying:-
"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today's atmospheric CO2." [My bold]
The IPCC would give the size of the natural 'inflows' of CO2 into the atmosphere over a year as being roughly 210Gt(C). And the IPCC would give the 'inflows' of anthropogenic CO2 today as being roughly 10Gt(C). So the ratio between these two numbers is roughly 5%. Yet it is not a very informative value. And do note that the second sentence in that abstract is flat wrong.
210Gt(C) would raise atmospheric CO2 by roughly 100ppm. With the annual CO2 cycle in the atmosphere showing a peak-to-peak value of just 5ppm, it is obvious that there are 'outflows' operating to balance these natural 'inflows'. And year-to-year, with the variation in the pre-industrial CO2 level pretty-much flat, it is evident that the natural inflows & outflows balance almost perfectly.
Through the industrial period, the rising CO2 levels is entirely due to anthropogenic emissions. And the rising CO2 has also increased the natural 'outflows' so that today about 55% of anthropogenic emissions are diverted out of the atmosphere by natural processes. This includes 'outflows' into the ocean which are evident by increasing ocean acidity. Thus it is not 100% of the CO2 rise that is man-made but 220%.
;;;
You balk at the spreadsheet data presented by the Global Carbon Project (linked @12) and instead present a tertiary reference to another spreadsheet which is almost ten years out-of-date (so add about 300Gt(CO2) to the values given for today's values) and now provides broken links to its data sources. The 1,374Gt(CO2) value for FF 1850-2011 concurs with the GCP value which gives 1,364Gt(CO2). The 1,832Gt(CO2) value "to end of 2010" is not so obvious but presumably includes LUC emissions. (Note, unlike pre-1850 FF emissions, pre-1850 LUC emissions are significant if included.)
Moderator Response:[BL]
Michael Sweet has kindly provided a link to Climate Myth #34, which you can see on the Recent Comments page, but the comment is on the Climate Myth #34 thread.
Here is a link to Michael's comment. Please take further discussion to that thread.
-
michael sweet at 21:27 PM on 5 September 2020Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Gseattle:
Here is a link to climate Myth 34.
Moderator Response:[BL] Michael Sweet's comment is the result of an increasingly off-topic discussion on this thread:
2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Hopefully discussion will continue here, but readers may want to read the other thread for context.
-
Eclectic at 19:00 PM on 5 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Gseattle @13 ,
It appears you have not read the information available here in Climate Myth Number 34. And you have not read information provided by the IPCC.
Instead, your quotation about the IPCC "[which] agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent [etcetera]" . . . is taken from a website by the science-denier Mr (or Dr? ) Ed Berry. Sorry, Gseattle, but that statement by Ed Berry is carefully designed to mislead those (such as yourself) who are ill-informed and have given little thought to the CO2 situation.
Berry is trying to deceive you (and at the same time deceive himself). Berry is not a climate scientist ~ he is one of those intelligent crackpots who are little better than Flat-Earthers.
Gseattle, if you are serious about educating yourself, then start by reading Climate Myth Number 34. Then you will begin to understand why Ed Berry's climate arguments are of the "nutcase" type.
And you might finally grasp why your own CO2 assertions are based upon a fundamental logical error ~ you have confused CO2 accumulation with CO2 inflow/outfow ( = flux ) . Which is rather like a businessman who has confused profit with turnover.
In short, please take your CO2 comments to Myth 34 thread. (Where it will be On-Topic. )
-
gseattle at 15:33 PM on 5 September 2020Greta Thunberg's TEDx talk
On Greta's "up to 200 species going extinct every single day" from climate change (73,000/yr), since they can't name a single species extinct from climate change (ever) to any definitive level, this is an effort to find a scientific paper backing the claim. No success yet but here are some of the bread crumbs. Earliest "200" is 1995:
2004, UN Environment Programme, TUNZA for YOUTH
. . . "It is estimated that between 150 and 200 species become extinct every day"
. . . No citation or reference. Page removed in 2009.
1997, Encyclopedia of World Problems & Human Potential, Decreasing diversity of biological species
. . . "150 to 200 species"
. . . "World Bank and Worldwatch Institute, and reported to the Rio+5 conference in 1997, estimated 150 to 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours"
1997, J. John Sepkoski Jr., Biodiversity: Past Present and Future
. . . "range to 150 species etinctions per day (Ehrlich and Wilson, 1991)" [extinctions typo in paper],
. . . although Sepkoski adds "[total species] figure is misleading, however, because no official list of described species exists"
1995, Adam Rogers of United Nations, [Book] Taking action: An environmental guide for you and your community
. . . "every 24 hours, an estimated 150 to 200 species of life become extinct" (in the preface)
. . . No citation or reference.
1991, PAUL R. EHRLICH and EDWARD 0. WILSON, Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy
. . . no mention of extinctions per day as Sepkoski said.
1989, WV Reid and K Miller, Keeping options alive: the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity
. . . "potential loss of" ... "50 to 150 species per day". Contains "climate change" 27 times.
1989, WALTER V. REID, How many species will there be?
. . . "potential loss of" ... "50 to 150 species per day". Included in a larger IUCN report containing "climate change" 11 times.
. . . "An estimated 25 percent of the world's species present in the mid-1980s may be extinct by the year 2015".
1988, Edward O. Wilson Harvard University, Biodiversity
. . . "By the end of this century [year 2000], our planet could lose anywhere from 20 to 50% of its species (Table 6–1)"
1979, Norman Myers, The sinking ark : a new look at the problem of disappearing species
. . . "at least 1 million by the end of the century"
. . . That's 137 per day starting in 1980.
1979, Norman Myers, Conserving our Global Stock
. . . "present century, about one species per year"I want Greta Thunberg to do well, best bet is to drop the silly '200 species' thing and focus on living, threatened species instead. It's serious, the numbers are large.
-
michael sweet at 04:54 AM on 5 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Daniel Bailey:
On the forced variations thread at RealClimate a nuclear argument like the last 30 posts above has been going on for several years. Unsupported claims and the opinion of people informed only by their reading on the internet are constantly repeated month after month.
I do not like to have these post at SkS go unanswered. At some point we need to say that everyone has had their say and given their references and leave it alone or the thread will go on forever. If references were required and repetition not allowed the argument would soon end since there are few papers to support the nuclear argument.
Moderator Response:[BL] This discussion is now deep into repetition. Future posts that repeat previous points will continue to be heavily moderated.
For those that have not carefully read and understood the Comments Policy, please review it before commenting again. In particular:
Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
-
michael sweet at 04:34 AM on 5 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka at 216:
This is another post where you state your unsupportted ideas. Since you have no training, experience or education in nuclear power or power systems this post is entirely sloganeering. You are simply cherry picking data to fit your arguments. If your arguments had any weight you would find some references to support them. This is a completely unscientific post.
At 217: Every point you make is started "I believe". You have only one reference from 2012. Experience in wind power worldwide since 2012 shows that your reference is incorrect. Once again you are simply sloganeering. This is a completely unscientific post.
218: Here you actually have citations!!! Unfortunately, all are to news articles (including one at WUWT!!!) and not peer reviewed articles. You primarily discuss grid expansion costs. Fortuantely, this is covered in the peer reviewed literature cited upthread. If you had carefully read the background you would know that grid expansion typically costs 10-15% of total costs. This turns out to be a reasonable cost. Here is another link to a peer reviewed paper that discusses grid costs. Nuclear supporters used to make this argument several years ago until it was proven incorrect. Please try to catch up to current knowledge. Citing outdated papers and debunked arguments makes you look bad.
At 219: The point is that your claim that low carbon intensity in Sweden is due to nuclear was deliberately false.
At 220: Everyone wants to reduce the carbon intensity of economies. The peer reviewed literature indicates that the best way to achieve this goal is by building out renewable energy as fast as possible. This link contains the abstracts of 47 papers that describe how to provide 100% of energy to the entire economy world wide using renewable energy. They come from 13 different research groups with 91 different authors. This list demonstrates a consensus among energy system researchers that renewable energy is the way to go. (Hat tip to Postkey. You need to describe why your link is useful to be compliant with the posting rules.)
Your claims that renewable energy cannot supply 100% of world power are supported only by your opinion as someone who has no education, training or work experience in power systems and is completely informed by reading on the internet (and who cites WUWT as a reliable source). Coonstantly repeating your unsupported opinion is sloganeering.
Please cite one paper that suggests it might be possible to supply even half of world energy using nuclear power. Such a paper does not exist. According to Abbott 2012, it is impossible to supply a significant amount of world energy (more than 5%) using nuclear power.
Moderator Response:[BL] Responses to moderated comments deleted
-
Preston Urka at 02:32 AM on 5 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
michael sweet @215
Following up to my point in @216 (hydro vs. non-hydro)
"I think we agree that a system that is 58% renewable and 40% nuclear has low carbon emissions primarily because of high renewable content." can also be read as:
Sweden has low-carbon emissions (in electricity) primarily due to 80% dispatchable low-carbon generation, assisted by 18% intermittent low-carbon generation, for a total of 98%.
It is not the RE% penetration that determines emissions; it is the carbon content generation that determines emissions.
Moderator Response:[BL] Followup to a now-moderated comment deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
wilddouglascounty at 02:29 AM on 5 September 2020Siberia’s 2020 heatwave made ‘600 times more likely’ by climate change
I wish these types of articles would be more careful with the way they describe the observed changes. Instead of saying that the observed extreme weather event "...would have been “almost impossible” without human-caused climate change" they should say that it "would have been almost impossible without increased carbon emissions from human activity."
The problem with saying that "human-caused climate change" is that it's a short distance away from saying that the extreme weather event was caused by climate change. But climate change is a change in the average number of weather events, in the same way a baseball player's hitting average goes up if he hits the ball more frequently. In other words, the hitting average does not "cause" the player to hit better--the improved number of hits increases his batting average. Just as the player's improved performance has its causes: steroids, better coaching, more practice, less stress in his personal life, etc., the increased number of extreme events has a cause: increased carbon emissions from human activity.
By saying "increased carbon emissions from human activities" instead of "human caused climate change" you get to the true causes of the changed weather patterns, and avoid saying the equivalent of the nonsensical phrase: "Joe's improved hitting average caused him to hit 2 singles and a home run in last night's game."
-
MA Rodger at 19:27 PM on 4 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Gseattle @8 & @10,
You venture into consideration of atmospheric CO2, a subject area in which you evidently have very little understanding. I would add that levels of atmospheric CO2 are not directly a factor in the rate of species extinctions.
The pre-industrial atmosphere contained some 280ppm CO2. The increase from 280ppm to today's 412ppm (this a current annual global average) is almost wholly directly due to human emissions. The rate of increase in CO2 has been accelerating through the industrial period and is now running at +2.5ppm/year.
I don't recognise the numbers you present for (what I assume you consider to be) accumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions in that @10 you talk of 1,370Gt and this being in some way equivalent to 177ppm.
The Global Carbon Project assess anthropogenic emissions from Fossil Fuels since 1750 as 441Gt(C) = 1,617Gt(CO2). If such a quantity of CO2 were added to the atmosphere it would increase atmospheric concentrations by 207ppm.
Additional to FF emissions are the anthropogenic emissions from Land Use Change. The Global Carbon Project assess these LUC emissions back to 1850 and thus arrive at a total for anthropogenic CO2 emissions (FF + LUC) of 645Gt(C) = 2,361Gt(CO2), a quantity which would increase atmospheric levels 303ppm if added to the atmosphere.
Global Carbon Project assess the level of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from human activities through the industrial period amounts to 277Gt(C) = 1,106Gt(CO2) and which would (and indeed does) increase CO2 levels by 130ppm. The ocean & land sinks that have drawn CO2 from the atmosphere through the industrial period are show to account for the difference between the all-emissions 303ppm & the emissions-plus-sinks 130ppm.
None of this atmospheric CO2 business is in any way controversial outside the febrile and ridiculous reasonings of climate chage deniers. As the RealClimate item you reference @8 proclaims:-
"The basic facts about the global increase of CO2 in our atmosphere are clear and established beyond reasonable doubt."
For reasons that cannot be explained by me, you chose to ignore this message and instead choose to quote from a piece of climate denial being debunked by the RealClimate item.
-
Eclectic at 16:28 PM on 4 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Gseattle @10 ,
you are talking nonsense [ auf Deutsch = Unsinn ] if you assert that only 5% of the growth of atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times is caused by humans. That shows you lack an understanding of reality.
Please go and read Most Used Climate Myths 34 (accessed via the top left corner of this page). When you have educated yourself in that basic science, then perhaps you will be better placed to comment on more complex questions ~ such as the rate of species extinction.
-
gseattle at 15:32 PM on 4 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Well shucks, I disagree on misinterpreting anything but now I have to make a bunch of clarifications, my fault not for the reason one might think, it was a tactical error to use that website, confusion, the human CO2 portion is still 5% or less. I'll explain.
First, I'd say even if population suddenly became 4 billion, climate would continue changing but extinctions would reduce, with fewer species at risk because extinctions are directly due to more people.
CO2 is not killing creatures, climate is not killing creatures, people are killing creatures with guns, traps, bulldozers, dams, pesticides et al.
U.N. says 11 billion by 2100, no? So why did my friend state it not as 11 but only 9? What's the source? Mine is the U.N.
Yes deforestation is bad and that's a fine point to make but that's due to the new 150 people per minute for needed farmland because those new people need to eat, the extra people are the root cause being ignored and the cause of extinctions.
Everyone can read what NOAA said on covid and decide for themselves.I too considered Die Welt to be wrong back when I saw that. They multiplied .04 x .05 and got .0016 instead of .0020. But my math doesn't come from it, their .04 is not my .04. And the .04% part of theirs is true. Last I saw, NOAA's CO2 is 414 ppm which is .000414 or .0414%, or rounded .04%. My ".88 ppm average per year" is not in dispute to my knowledge. Is it? 123/140=.88. My statement "our CO2 is .88 ppm x .05 = only .04 ppm per year average" is not a trick, it is simple math. Actually is .044. Therefore the way to criticize my point is to focus on that reasoning, under a scalpel.
Additional info on 95% natural CO2 ... The trouble is, I can't find IPCC, NOAA or NASA openly stating the percent anthropogenic CO2, in fact just about everyone official seems to want to avoid damaging the narrative by openly stating a percentage. If human CO2 were big they would shout it out, they are not shy. My numbers were based on a source somewhere else I forgot to make note of, seemed acceptable as a source bc it was decrying the horrors of CO2, 38 Gt human and 770 Gt natural, or 0.04935 human. I rounded that up to 5%. Is there a source saying human CO2 right now is a lot more than 5%? If so, somebody please show it. This alarmist said 36 / 750 (4.8%) and cited this but I don't see those numbers there. skepticalscience: 29/750 (an even smaller human portion, 3.9% in one place) Some claim human is only 3%, some even 2%, forbes even 1%, I doubt those. I'd like to know where people's numbers are coming from. Either way, I think I am being generous to your side using 5% since other sources have lower human CO2 figures.
So the fact that human CO2 is 5% or lower appears to be indisputable.
Going at it a different way: I read all human CO2 since the industrial revolution is 1370 gigatons total. Is this right or wrong? If right, then converting to ppm, it is only 177 ppm total over 140 years. I was surprised to find that out, hard to believe. So let's do a thought experiment:
Assume all 177 ppm human CO2 remained in the atmosphere over the last 140 years.
Then of today's 414 ppm, 237 ppm of that would have to be from nature. (414 - 177 = 237)
Original was 291.
Increase is 123.
But human total over time is 177, higher than 123.
Ergo, by pure logic, something is causing even natural CO2 in the air to rise.So natural CO2 has gone up. Does that not mean some sort of factor is being badly missed? Should we not care?
The most logical explanation for increasing natural CO2 would be ocean slowing, AMOC slowing for example. Tons of science on it. Not on the public radar, should be. You can say natural CO2 from melting glaciers and fresh water causing ocean slowing. Or it could have all been set in motion by ... "Over the last 200 years, the magnetic field [of Earth] has lost around 9% of its strength (ESA)".
But the editor's highlight on this page is Greta. I'm focusing on her achilles heel hoping to heal it. I want her respected with a great future, not mocked. So the more important point is, quoting what I said:
"... no known species extinct from those tiny changes underlying climate change, instead only 869 total since 1500 and all due to the crush of humanity, hunting, new farmland, pesticides etc (IUCN), or .58 species per year.
Everyone can agree .58/yr (actual) is less than 73,000/yr at 200 per day (imagined)"Summary: Greta Thunberg needs to drop that silly '200 extinct species per day' or 73,000 per year, it has no basis, a mockery of science, reduces team climate awareness numbers, I think even average people sense it is ridiculous. Best to distance yourselves from it by speaking against it. Future humans will look back wondering who on earth ever thought that fantasy was a good idea. I'm sorry this msg was so lengthy.
Solution: What Greta should do is focus instead on living, threatened species, a number people can understand.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic and sloganeering snipped. Please up your game and cite reputable sources, in-context.
-
Preston Urka at 14:02 PM on 4 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
@217 - here are examples of plant costs vs system costs
Feb 2016 - re-dispatch-costs-german-power-grid
Some researchers argue that new north-south connections would never have enough capacity to absorb the growing wind power generation in the north and the decreasing conventional capacity in the south – where many nuclear power plants will go offline in the next seven years.
Question: Why are these costs not allocated to the cost of Wind? Nuclear, as above, does not need these transmission lines. Wind (as a plant) costs less. Wind (as a system) costs more.
Feb 2019 - German grid firms see extra costs to meet renewable power target
Total spending of 70 billion to 79 billion euros over 12 years would be shouldered by consumers via higher grid fees, which account for about a quarter of their electricity bills.
Between a quarter and half of power demand in southern Germany will have to be met by renewable generation in the north, where plants now generate double the north’s needs.
Observation: If Germany were using nuclear in the south, the transmission would not be built (saving the 70-79 billion Euro); and excess wind would not need to be built in the north (i.e. a higher return on assets).
July 2019 - just 35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts in 6 months
Hardly any new wind turbines were built in Germany in the first half of the year. Turbine makers call it a “punch in the gut of the green energy transition” and blame environmentalists.
Just 35 wind turbines were build with an output of 231 megawatts. ... "a decline of 82 percent"
But when in 2021 thousands of wind turbines come to the end of the 20-year subsidy period of the Renewable Energy Act, more wind turbines will be demolished on balance than new ones will be added, the wind industry fears.
Observation: Environmentalists don't like wind now and the wind industry needs enormous subsidies or they will take their marbles home (my sparring partners on SkS firmly disapprove of subsidies).
michael sweet/MA Rodger, did not one of you mention how fast, fast, fast the wind industry is and how it is only growing? - I take the decline of 82% wind, not as the fault of wind, and not due to the success of nuclear, but as proof of the value of the incentives governments set up. If the market favors wind, wind will be built. If the market favors nuclear, nuclear will be built. The difference is, at the system level, nuclear has been empirically been shown to reduce carbon emissions. Wind has only been shown to do so at the plant level, and Jacobson and his fellow travellers extrapolate that to the system level.
August 2019 - Grid expansion in is gaining, but not enough for intermittent RE
... the integration of renewable energy is improving. [However, _coal_ (note Preston addition)] power stations in southern Germany, which remain unused during the summer months, are recommissioned in the winter.
The commissioning of the Thüringer Strombrücke ... has helped significantly relieve the pressure ... 190-kilometer-long .... 5 gigawatts (GW) ........ However, this has not done much to reduce the overall costs of the grid interventions.
[TSO] estimate that by 2030, the price tag on grid expansion will clock in at 62.5 billion euros.
But when the last nuclear power plants are taken off the grid in late 2022, the north-south divide in generation capacity and electricity consumption will become even more pronounced than before. The Federal Network Agency estimates that demand for reserve capacity will then reach a record high of 10,647 MW.
... authorities have ... prohibited ... decommissioning of 27 power stations. The operators [want to retire] 110 plants ,,, capacity of 22,000 MW ... because ... operation is no longer financially viable.
Question:
- Why are these costs not allocated to the cost of Wind? Wind drives it (or lack of wind) and
- Do you begin to see the scale of support for Wind?
- 110 assets are useless, but authorities want at least 27 dud assets kept - it is not because Wind is so great!
- Do you see that the operators can't support costs when politicians confuse marginal and average costs?
- Even a 5 GW transmission line (yes, that is a truly big one!) does not reduce costs much.
- Do you see the Germans could avoid a) the cost, and b) the coal if they just kept the nuclear plants open?
Moderator Response:[BL] Sloganeering deleted
-
Preston Urka at 13:18 PM on 4 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
the false argument
"People like you who make false arguments that renewable energy cannot work delay required progress." - michael sweet @212
- I will try not to take your comment that I make false arguments too seriously.
- I do believe that intermittent RE can 'work' - but my definition is different from Jacobson 2009.
- Wind and solar PV will provide a significant (up to c.f., so ~30%, which is significant) amount of electricity.
- I will even go so far as to say that Jacobson 2009 is not completely hopeless technologically, but will never succeed economically or politically due to the simply bone-crushing costs it imposes. Emulating France is just too easy for financiers and politicians (assuming they take emissions seriously)
- Nuclear will provide the rest of electricity. (or the world will use high-carbon natural gas)
- Nuclear will provide process heat for industry. (or the world will use high-carbon natural gas)
- Nuclear will provide synthetic fuels for transport and agriculture. (or the world will use high-carbon natural gas)
- I believe intermittent RE is OK, per Lion Hirth, at penetrations up to their capacity factors.
- I do not believe that intermittent RE can meet demand load without:
- bulk storage (i.e. cycle times on the order of days and weeks - vs the ancillary roles now provided)
- demand management
- some significant geography or population demonstrating intermittent RE empirically
- But, I do not believe bulk storage is possible. Not at the scale we're talking about. A 24 GWh pumped hydro station is one thing. A global system with storage on the order of TW-hours is another.
- But, I believe demand management can solve only 10-15% of the puzzle.
- We don't have an electricity grid just because.
- We have an electricity grid to support the whims and desires of the humans using it.
- I believe that laymen (and politicians):
- confuse the marginal costs of electricity with the average costs of electricity
- (incorrectly) equate intermittent energy with dispatchable power
- (incorrectly) extrapolate a single plant's cost to system cost
- and thus to these laymen/politicians nuclear appears expensive. Once they get their heads on right, or the implementation costs of nuclear come down such that the above are more obvious, and if low-carbon (vs. RE penetration) is the goal - countries will emulate France - low-carbon, dispatchable power with low average system costs.
- Lastly, I do not believe in betting based on optimism. The entire planet is at stake - what do the rest of us get if your supposition is wrong: "Different systems of energy storage than what is used today will have to be developed." - michael sweet @212 - If you (the reader) answer YES to any of these questions below, then you are either honest and reporting the past (and thus must be lying) or are lying and just predicting the future. At best a MAYBE - we, in the present are incapable of knowing the future. Again, you want to make the bet - what are the payoffs?
- Will we suddenly make some new scientific breakthrough on gravity? (pumped storage, mine-shaft storage)
- Will we suddenly make some new engineering breakthrough on friction? (compressed air, flywheels)
- We know the charges, masses, densities, and electrochemical potentials of all the elements and all the smaller molecules (and larger just means lower specific density). Are we going to make batteries, not 2x better, but 10x or 100x better?
Moderator Response:[BL] sloganeering deleted.
-
Preston Urka at 12:55 PM on 4 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
michael sweet @212
hydro vs non-hydro renewables
I stated Sweden has 21% non-hydro renewables; 49% nuclear. (I was not "[making] make something look good by leaving out critical information]). Note that michael sweet @212's source states Sweden has 18% non-hydro renewables (between 18% and 21% I think we can forgive each other for not rounding properly) - we appear to agree!
I left out hydro because Eclectic @174 chastised me for talking about hydro:
"Future rivals to Nuclear do not include "hydro" (because relatively little room for large expansion in dams). Similarly not including wave energy or tidal flow or geo-thermal energy ~ which have their own "Pudding" problems."
I believe (but forgive me if I am wrong) that my argument in @198 specifically includes "dispatchable hydro and geothermal" as being empirical use cases lowering emissions.
I acknowledge that Sweden, on the face of it, is not as strong a case as France, but think on this: once having taken advantage of their geographic luckiness by implementing hydro, Sweden makes the most of the balance with nuclear.
cherry-picking
I chose several countries to represent the low-carbon, high-penetration dispatchable renewables, several (well, the few) countries/+Ontario to represent low-carbon high-penetration dispatchable nuclear.
I have invited you to inform this forum and myself of a low-carbon, high-penetration intermittent (or non-hydro if you prefer) renewables country. Cherry-pick to your heart's content! Show us low-carbon!
lack of citations
I provide raw data. Better than a citation. Anyone can download and analyze it. Are you claiming that the IEA's data is not valid? https://www.iea.org/countries/
Are you claiming my analysis is wrong? I have simply looked up the relevant data, copied the chart to a spreadsheet and calculated either fractions or % - excepting E&H per capita emissions. There I took the E&H emissions, divided by the IEA provided population and converted to a fraction. No mystery.
the argument
I provide empirical data of real countries with low-carbon emissions. If they were not geographically lucky, it appears due to the penetration (or to include Sweden, the balance of penetration) of nuclear.
You provide a theoretical construct of Jacobson 2009. Fine. But empirical results beat theoretical suppositions. Again, show us your cherry-picked low-carbon, high-penetration intermittent renewable empirical example. Shut me up with a HAH! in your face Preston!. Or, keep on with 'it could be done', 'it might be done', 'it has possibilities' .....
the wrong argument
Again your argument is (very, very brief description) 'nuclear bad and RE upcoming'. What you don't mention in all of @212 is about the low-carbon abilities of intermittent RE.
(I paraphrase michael sweet @212 here for brevity). Let me (for the sake of this post only) agree with your points:
- "Nuclear is uneconomic" - ok, but it reduces emissions.
- "Nuclear needs subsidies" - ok, but it reduces emissions.
- "Only France has 50%" - ok, but it reduces emissions.
- "France is moving to renewables" - ok, current nuclear reduces emissions; will France reduce emissions further by moving to renewables?
- "Renewables are cheap" - ok, but intermittent renewables don't appear to reduce emissions much.
- "Renewables are growing" - ok, but intermittent renewables don't appear to reduce emissions much.
Originally I wrote low-carbon potential of intermittent RE - yeah, it has lots of potential. Where is the empirical evidence?
Moderator Response:[BL] More repetition deleted. Any further discussion need to provide a new perspective.
-
michael sweet at 07:44 AM on 4 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
MARodger:
Your reference is better than mine. I found on Wikipedia that they shut down a reactor in Sweden in December 2019 and plan to shut down another in December 2020. Each reactor is about 10% of Sweden nuclear capacity. That means that in 2020 they will generate about 36% of electricity using nuclear and in 2021 only 32%. Presumably in a short time they will replace that with renewables. There are no plans for new reactors.
The reason given for shutting down the reactors was economic. That probably means that wind is cheaper than nuclear in Sweden.
I think we agree that a system that is 58% renewable and 40% nuclear has low carbon emissions primarily because of high renewable content.
How does the pudding argument apply when people no longer want to keep the pudding they have?
-
Postkey at 00:40 AM on 4 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
“LONDON, 19 February, 2020 − Virtually all the world’s demand for electricity to run transport and to heat and cool homes and offices, as well as to provide the power demanded by industry, could be met by renewable energy by mid-century.
This is the consensus of 47 peer-reviewed research papers from 13 independent groups with a total of 91 authors that have been brought together by Stanford University in California.”Moderator Response:[RH] No link only comments.
-
MA Rodger at 22:16 PM on 3 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Michael Sweet @212,
The 'fueling' of Swedish electricity generation is more correctly 40% Hydro, 18% Other Renewables, 40% Nuclear, 2% FF.
These numbers also will inform the comment @210 where a "vital point" was the low Swedish emissions which were presented only as "appear(ing) causal with (Sweden's) use of nuclear power."
There is also some blather about UK Nuclear @210. 33% of UK electricity is renewables and increasing by the year, while 21% is Nuclear which is set to halve in the next few years. In terms of end-user power, those percentages equate to 5.5% renewable and 3.5% Nuclear. So the UK still remains 90% dependent on FF.
Moderator Response:[BL] Portions related to comment 210 deleted, as those contents have been subject to moderation..
-
michael sweet at 19:59 PM on 3 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka:
It is easy to make something look good by leaving out critical information.
Sweden generates approximately 50% of its electricity from hydropower. That is a greater share of generation than nuclear. That is why its carbon production from the electricity sector is so low. You have deliberately left this out to give the misleading impression that nuclear power is the main reason Sweden has low carbon emissions from electricity.
You have set up a completely artifical standard to judge electrical systems. You cherry pick the countries you analize. You provide no citations to support your ideas. Since you have no education, training or work experience in electrical systems you are simply sloganeering again.
Nuclear power has been built for 60 years. Every nuclear reactor ever built world wide was built with large government subsidies. Nuclear has never been successful enough to buuild out in large amounts. Only France has more than 50% of electricity from nuclear power. France has announced they are going to lower nuclear and focus on renewable energy. Nuclear power is decreasing because not enough plants are being built to replace old, retiring plants.
By contrast, renewable energy has only been economic for about 5 years. It has already been built out enough to provide 10% of world electricity. Every year more renewable energy is built.
There will be some problems as the energy system is changed to completely renewable energy. Different systems of energy storage than what is used today will have to be developed. People like you who make false arguments that renewable energy cannot work delay required progress.
Nuclear is uneconomic. There is only enough uranium to power the entire economy for 5 years.
Moderator Response:[BL] Repeated points deleted. Information about Sweden left to maintain context for following comment by MAR.
-
michael sweet at 19:34 PM on 3 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Urka at 208:
You claim that the APR1400 reactors are approved for construction in the USA. It is common for rector designs to be customized for specific installations. According to this white paper:
"KEPCO’s winning bid for the construction of the UAE reactors was spectacularly low, about 30% lower than the next cheapest bid. Nuclear reactor design has evolved, but since Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) – a subsidiary of KEPCO – realised that the cost of key improved safety design features would make the APR1400 less competitive, they chose not to include them. Having done so, KEPCO was able to dramatically undercut its competition for the UAE bid, with the Chief Executive of the French nuclear corporation Areva, Anne Lauvergeon, comparing the Korean reactor to a car without airbags and seat belts.⁶"
It appears that the Barakah reactors were built without safety features required in the USA and EU. These safety features were removed from the design to save money. The approved APR1400 design has the required safety features. Nuclear plant builders do not care if their reactors are safe.
One of the removed safety features is additional reinforcing to resist terrorist attacks. Who could imagine that terrorists would attack a nuclear plant in the Middle East??? Houthi rebels in Yemen claim they have already shot missiles at the Barakah plant. Here is an article from NBN media discussing the lax safety at Barakah.
The fact remains that KEPCO has no additional orders for these reactors. Apparently, no-one else in the entire world wants to build unsafe nuclear reactors in their country.
Moderator Response:[BL] Personal opinions deleted.
-
Preston Urka at 13:36 PM on 3 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
My belief is that the relevant criteria for an energy grid that does not drive climate change is a low-carbon dioxide emission energy grid.
Of course, RE being low-carbon energy resources may contribute to a green energy grid effectively. The evidence I use in @198 (IEA data, 2017-2018, my apologies for not noting that) shows that nations which have high penetrations of dispatchable RE, dispatchable nuclear have been able to achieve a low-carbon energy grid.
I believe the evidence also shows that no nation (as yet, it could happen, but as of yet, it hasn't - so why don't we take the approach we know works?) with high penetrations intermittent RE has been able to achieve a low-carbon energy grid.
Your response, michael sweet@199, ignores the relevant factor emissions. Your observations might be interesting, if, and only if, the relevant criteria were intermittent RE penetration. These observations are not an argument, because they don't address emissions.
Should you win the lotto because you are a good person? Irrelevant - you win the lotto because of a random draw that had nothing to do with you except that you bought a lucky ticket.
France will have more RE - so what? The vital point is France has much lower emissions than Germany NOW, and it appears causal with their use of nuclear power.
Denmark has 47% RE electricity - so what? The vital point is Sweden has much lower emissions than Denmark, and it appears causal with their use of nuclear power.
You clearly find the % penetration of RE fascinating. I find neither the % penetrations of intermittent RE nor nuclear interesting. I find the low-carbon countries interesting. Then I ask, how did they do it?
- Some countries got lucky due to their geography! - geography is not scalable
- Some countries built nuclear! - scalable - this is a solution to pay attention to
- There does not appear to be a 3rd answer.
Even the UK is doing better than poor old Wind_and_Solar_Germany!
tot e&h only - 2017/18 IEA data again
Germany 8.2 3.6 36% non-hydro renewables; 13% nuclear
Europe 5.9 2.1 Europe, not the EU
UK 5.3 1.2 32% non-hydro renewables; 20% nuclearThe British green energy transition has proven cheaper and more effective than Germany’s because of factors including its use of market mechanisms and its embrace of nuclear power, argues Philip Plickert in an op-ed for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.- note: Not a peer-reviewed article!
You can see from the table that the UK appears similar to Germany, but the real trick is that the UK burns less coal than Germany - that's it - they simply send less CO2 into the atmosphere!
Also better than Denmark! despite not having whatever % intermittent RE penetration one wishes to rhapsodize over. If the UK stopped burning natural gas, they could get to French or Swedish levels.
Moderator Response:[BL] repeated declaration of beliefs constitues sloganeering, which is contrary to the comments policy. This has gone far enough.
-
nigelj at 13:05 PM on 3 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
gseattle @8
"[2] NASA: 1880 to 2020 CO2 increased from 291 ppm to 414 ppm = +123 ppm. 123 / 140 years = .88 ppm average per year. 95 percent come from natural sources. Therefore our CO2 is .88 ppm x .05 = only .04 ppm per year average. "
You are very mistaken in your conclusion. The page you link to says: "Die Welt presented a common number-trick (deception, nonsense) by climate deniers, (as follows): In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent........"
The 95% carbon dioxide added by natural sources is largely from the biosphere, and volcanoes etcetera and has been largely constant over the last 100 years and is absorbed back into natural carbon sinks, so it cannot explain the increase from 291 ppm to 414 ppm. Only human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation explain it, because these has been ever increasing activities, and not all the CO2 is absorbed back into carbon sinks. If you refer to the list of climate myths on this website page at the side, you will find some detailed explanations.
"That's why NOAA pointed out the covid shutdown didn't make a dent in CO2 levels at Mauna Loa Observatory, because nature's portion is so vast."
No that is not the reason. NOAA are saying the effects of covid on CO2 levels cant be detected atmospherically because they are masked by the quite large cyclical variation of CO2 you get within one or two years due to seasonal changes and el nino. If the covid shutdown went on for say 5 years you would see a change in atmospheric levels.
So you have misinterpreted things quite badly.
I agree population growth is a problem in terms of virtually all environmental impacts, but I think that manipulating this trend is unlikely to do much to stop either the climate change problem or species extinction, as follows. Population started to slow since the 1960s as countries have entered the demographic transition which has favoured smaller families, and as governments have sometimes pushed population growth rates down deliberately. There may be more that can be done to slow population growth, but it would seem unlikely that people will stop having children and more likely that they might settle on 1 - 2 chidren.
This means the population trends still lead to about 9 billion people or so by the end of this century, so this would not have any significant effect on slowing down the climate problem or biodiversity loss, this century anyway. And by then the damage will have been done.
So its important we change our sources of energy, and reduce deforestation and change how we farm.
-
Preston Urka at 13:02 PM on 3 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I made a mistake in post #208 - the flipping back and forth between pages really makes it quite hard, but the best I can do - I mean to state post #196 of michael sweet's, not post #198.
-
Preston Urka at 12:58 PM on 3 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Dear Reader - I hope you made it this far - 10 posts and a page later - but in post #198 michael sweet at 20:32 PM on 8 August, 2020 stated: "... [the Barakah nuclear power plants, using the APR-1400 designs] would be illegal to build these plants in the USA or EU."
This is flat out incorrect and wrong. Please draw your own conclusions as to michael sweet's care and diligence in his research and arguments.
Statement from the NRC on September 19, 2019:
Moderator Response:[DB] Ad hominem snipped.
-
gseattle at 12:01 PM on 3 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Not yet bc I don't know how to contact Greta, would if I could, she's on facebook but I dropped fb. If she started seeing people in numbers saying hey, where's the science on that, it seems to me the only likely way she would take note of it.
Tricky to talk about, one risks being seen as not caring about the environment, and it's all so complex, but the only way we can solve anything is being willing to open our eyes to the real problem, the extra 150 new people on earth every minute [1]. Currently the message is: Oh no, our CO2 is destroying this world. But our CO2 portion of the increase is only 1/20th of 1 part per million per year. [2]
For anyone interested, today I ran into this free paper providing an overview of the various extinction models: Emergence of a sixth mass extinction? John C Briggs 2017 Oxford Still trying to wrap my head around the methods and find an actual complete formula.
[1] 150 new people on the planet every minute based on United Nations population numbers and projection for 2050.
[2] NASA: 1880 to 2020 CO2 increased from 291 ppm to 414 ppm = +123 ppm. 123 / 140 years = .88 ppm average per year. 95 percent come from natural sources. Therefore our CO2 is .88 ppm x .05 = only .04 ppm per year average. That's why NOAA pointed out the covid shutdown didn't make a dent in CO2 levels at Mauna Loa Observatory, because nature's portion is so vast.
So our part of the CO2 increase is only 4 hundredths of 1 part per million per year. And the temperature increase is only 0.0071 degrees C average per year over 140 years, based on total 1.0 C (NASA). And there is no known species extinct from those tiny changes underlying climate change, instead only 869 total since 1500 and all due to the crush of humanity, hunting, new farmland, pesticides etc (IUCN), or .58 species per year.
Everyone can agree .58/yr (actual) is less than 73,000/yr at 200 per day (imagined).
Thank you kindly for that BBC article Nigel, I wasn't aware of it. Says this for example, and might a key to what went so wildly wrong:
Hubbell's point is that if you increase a habitat by, say, five hectares, and your calculations show that you expect there to be five new species in those five hectares, it is wrong to assume that reversing the model, and shrinking your habitat, eliminates five species.
The full version of this has a formula and I don't understand it yet: Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss, Stephen P. Hubbell and Fangliang He, 2013, Nature
[links are all designated to open in a new tab or window]
-
John Hartz at 00:38 AM on 3 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
gseattle: Have you shared you concerns with Ms Thunberg? (I doubt she will see them here on this comment thead.)
-
nigelj at 15:25 PM on 2 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
I think its unfair to blame Greta for quoting a number of species extinctions that is an often quoted number in reputable publications, and she did not say it was all caused by climate change.
This number of 150 - 200 species going extinct per day is based on modelling, and the modelling may be flawed as in this BBC article. That said, the article suggests the correct number is still very high.
And I think its important to realise it takes a lot to make a species completely 100% extinct, and is very hard to measure such a thing in the real world, but we do know with good certainty that many species are on the brink of exinction or with very low numbers, so they have to be protected, and so are of no immediate use to humanity and are very vulnerable to extinction. This is almost as worrying as extinction.
In other words lets not split hairs and lose sight of the fact that human activities are having a massive negative impact on the biosphere and climate.
-
gseattle at 13:16 PM on 2 September 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Found an earlier 200 species claim, seems to be the first ever:
1995, Adam Rogers of United Nations, [Book] Taking action: An environmental guide for you and your community
... "every 24 hours, an estimated 150 to 200 species of life become extinct" (in the preface)
... No citation or reference.Didn't find a formula at ipbes, still trying to locate clear species estimate models. The creators of one model, Stephen Hubbell and Fangliang He … wrote in 2011: “extinction rates overestimate extinction”. That’s an understatement because the Rogers claim could have 1 in 5 extinct by now (over 1.8M) and IUCN says only 869 known extinct since 1500. Causes are always from the crush of humanity, hunting, pesticides etc, not climate.
That book by Rogers mentions 'climate' 42 times but doesn't cite climate change in connection with extinctions, it says:
The predominant causes for the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of biological resources include large-scale clearing and burning of forests, destruction of coral reefs, destructive fishing practices, overharvesting of plants and animals, the illegal trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, indiscriminate use of pesticides, draining and filling of wetlands, air pollution, and the conversion of wildlands to agricultural and urban uses.
Many of these causes are themselves symptoms of much deeper problems. In many cases, the root causes for the loss of biodiversity are found in basic economic, demographic and political trends. These root causes include consumption and consequent market demands for commodities such as tropical hardwoods, wildlife, fibre and agricultural products. Population growth is another key factor [gseattle: Bingo!!] . The growing human population, even without proportional economic growth, places increasing demands on natural resources and ecosystem processes that are already impoverished and stressed. Settlement policies, such as those in Brazil, promote the movement of the growing unemployed labor forces to frontier regions.There are 150 new people on earth every MINUTE (even accounting for deaths) based on United Nations population estimate and 2050 projection. Tiny Bangladesh has more people than Russia. I'd suggest the best thing we can do to protect the climate is offer people $300 for voluntary sterilizations as a token thanks for caring about the planet. We're up against corporate boardrooms who lust for all those new consumers and care only about stock price going up.
The grossly exaggerated extinction claims are not a sensible way to promote climate awareness, it is off-putting for people who think rather than just enjoy bathing in fear, it is criticized even by some who created models, has zero connection to reality, is wildly incorrect (a Yale article asks why), yet thanks in part to Greta, wound up in a blender with climate and has legs, parrot legs. Alarmists would like to be seen as the ones who are scientific but to do so, since the claim evidently was created out of thin air instead of a scientific paper, it would be wise to jettison it in the campaign, seriously, this is sound advice. The false connection with climate came into existence out of sloppy thinking and a dose of intellectual dishonesty. This is not hyperbole, emotion or speculation, I've gone through at least 93 scientific papers on climate, for example, many of them on species, and those are only the ones I've saved, I did my homework. Greta didn't.
Those of you who visit this website, being thoughtful, now that you know these things, have an opportunity to nudge the climate campaign toward sanity. Greta is being mocked by around half of the top 100 videos about her, it doesn't have to be that way, but she must be corrected, informed of this and make herself willing to re-align with truth, she should apologize publicly, confess, concede that point, she's falsely scaring people with that bogus distraction away from real problems. I want her to grow up to be someone we can trust.
In summary, the 200 species extinct per day claim is 100% nonsense, an embarrassing mockery of real science.
Be nice, let your weapons be scientific facts.
-
MA Rodger at 22:33 PM on 1 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Preston Ukra @204,
The link you quote from, dated 19/8/20, says "nuclear operators will begin the process of gradually raising unit 1's power levels, known as power ascension testing [My bold]" suggesting that to-date the electricity supply is no more than early testing. Indeed, the quote you provide continues to say that Barakah-1 "is expected to enter full commercial operation later this year" so it is not yet properly operational.
The link also quotes the director general of the World Nuclear Association, saying: "This is a great achievement for all those working at Barakah. Today the UAE joins the growing list of countries choosing nuclear energy as part of their commitment to a cleaner and more sustainable future. What the UAE has learned and achieved should be repeated around the world so that more people can benefit from the value and benefits that nuclear energy offers. [My bold]" Until some of that 'repetition' starts to appear, the "Pudding Test" which is what I set out @197 will not have been passed by nuclear.
-
michael sweet at 07:25 AM on 1 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
You say "[in my post 199] You just can't read the links and caveats can you?"
At post 199 I was responding to your post 198. Your post 198 has no links to read. I note that your post 202 also has no links to support your arguments. I cannot read links that are not provided.
Your post 202 consists primarily of your fantasy use of nuclear waste heat to power industry. I note that you concede that zero current nuclear reactors use their waste heat. Since you cite no peer reviewed papers, or even industry white papers, and you claim no education, training or experience in the design or running of nuclear plants, idle speculation about possible use of waste heat is sloganeering so the moderator has deleted it.
You additionally mention your fantasy that nuclear power could be used in shipping. Only one freighter has been built wiith a nuclear power plant. It is uneconomic to run since a reactor requires many more operators than a traditional ship. Military vessels do not care about the extreme cost. In addition, you would need approximately 50,000 reactors to power the world fleet of freighters. Imagine the disasters as 50,000 atomic powered ships sink, are abandoned or are overpowered by terrorists worldwide!
Your posts and arguments are identical to Engineer Poet at RealClimate. Why have you changed your handle?
Nuclear power is uneconomic. It currently costs more for operation and maintenance of a nuclear power plant with no mortgage than to build a new renewable energy plant with a mortgage. As MARodger points out, it takes 10-20 years to plan and build a nuclear plant versus 2-5 years to plan and build a renewable plant.
Moderator Response:[BL] Please tone it down a bit, leave the moderating to the moderators, and refrain from speculating about the identities that people may use on other blogs.
-
Preston Urka at 03:18 AM on 1 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Note to Moderator (I have to post here as SkS doesn't respond to emails)
I ask you to amend this post _michael sweet @196_ with an update to correct misinformation as future readers may not find a subsequent post correcting it. The misinformation is clearly a highly prejudicial statement which severely misleads any reader.
I ask you to leave his statement: "It would be illegal to build these plants in the USA or EU." so that future readers will be able to assess his care and attention in marshaling his arguments.
The update I suggest is the following:
With respect to the Barakah APR1400 reactors, the US NRC has found "VI. Issue Resolution A. The Commission has determined that the structures, systems, and components and design features of the APR1400 design comply with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the applicable regulations identified in Section V of this appendix; and therefore, provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public." - In other words, the reactors would be legal in the US.ps - apologies for poor formatting of @204
Moderator Response:[DB] Moderation complaints again snipped.
-
Preston Urka at 03:16 AM on 1 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
MA Rodger @197
Yes, it takes time to build an NPP (or any other power plant). -
John Hartz at 00:51 AM on 1 September 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
Speaking of heat and nuclear power plants...
Climate change—particularly intense heat—is advancing so rapidly that it poses physical as well as credit risks to America’s aging nuclear fleet, a new report from Moody’s Investors Service finds.
“Our plants are fairly hardened to severe weather,” said David Kamran, a projects and infrastructure analyst at Moody’s and the lead author of the report. “But climate change is moving quickly.”
America’s nuclear power plants produce roughly 20% of the country’s electricity and represent more than half of all of its carbon-free power generation. After the earthquake and tsunami that caused a meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission asked domestic plants to conduct their own assessments of risks from climate change and other natural hazards. A 2019 Bloomberg review of correspondence between the commission and owners of 60 plants concerning those assessments found that 54 of their facilities weren’t designed to handle the flood risk they now face.
Nuclear Plants Face More Heat Risk Than They’re Prepared to Handle by Leslie Kaufman, Finance, Bloomberg News, Aug 19, 2020
-
gerontocrat at 21:15 PM on 31 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
This paper from 2014 states "Current rates of extinction are about 1000 times the background rate of extinction. These are higher than previously estimated and likely still underestimated"
_________________________________________
But for me the scariest figure comes from the 2018 WWF Living Planet Index 2018 report produced in association with the Zoological Society of London
"The main statistic from the report is the global LPI which shows a 60% decline between 1970 and 2014 (Figure 1). This means that, on average, animal populations are well under half the size they were in 1970."
https://livingplanetindex.org/projects?main_page_project=LivingPlanetReport&home_flag=1
This report is produced one every two years. I expect the 2020 report to be equally dismally distrurbing.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Nogapspermitted at 20:21 PM on 31 August 2020Climate TRACE to track real-time global carbon emissions
Very useful to be able to locate these global emitters, and it will be interesting to see with what accuracy the places and gases can be traced.
-
Preston Urka at 13:36 PM on 31 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
michael sweet @199 per your comment
"Nuclear supporters frequently claim data from 1999 to support nuclear in 2020. Here Preston Urka uses outdated and incomplete (and uncited) data. Previously he compared 2019 solar costs in the UAE to nuclear costs from 2009. It is easy to make something look good using outdated and incomplete data."
You just can't read the links and caveats can you?
I clearly state where my data came from - is it the best data - no, but it is what I had available. I note the discrepancies. Your comments really are not in the spirit of courteous discourse.
I note you also have used Wikipedia (in preference to IEA data no less! where the data is available!!!).
---
"Nuclear supporters like Preston Urka are claiming nuclear can supply a portion of electricity only. Electricity is only about 20% of all power."
First, the IEA disagrees with you about 20% of all power. I suggest you re-research that number. With electrification of industry, transport, etc this share will just increase.
Second, I will let you in on a secret - EV batteries work just as well on electricity from NPPs as from RE! - I know! Who knew???? It also turns out that other appliances and tools are the same. Amazing!
Third, nuclear produces a lot of heat.
- Process heat is useful in industry.
- About 70-90% of their total energy use is process heat.
- Using process heat directly is more efficient than generating electricity and using electricity to generate heat.
- Note there are no current cases, but the technology is engineering, not ground-breaking science.
- Process heat can also be used to create synthetic fuels for transportation and agriculture (in addition to EV-type juice).
- Process heat can be used directly in transportation.
- The US Navy has the greenest submarines in the world!
- I believe many on this website are Australian - you guys should stop buying those nasty, carbon-dioxide emitting diesels. The idea that you will convert a green French submarine into a dirty emissions scow is horrifying!
- The Russians have green icebreakers!
- Large cargo ships (currently burning bunker oil and accounting for 1-3% of global emissions) can easily be converted to nuclear - using existing military designs - or some of the newer micro reactors.
- Wind? - no, no process heat from wind. Need to lose energy in converting electricity to heat.
- Solar PV? - no, no process heat from solar PV. Need to lose energy in converting electricity to heat.
- Solar CSP? - Yes, but solar CSP tends to be in sunny arid deserts. For example, one of the biggest US chemical plants is Dow Chemical in Midland, Michigan. It is not in a sunny desert, but a cloudy northern climate.
- Pipe the coolant north! - a 1000 km from the Mohave to Midland? (Not sure on this distance michael sweet, better check me!) - not a great idea, efficiency-wise.
- Move the plant south? - ok, but you just blew the carbon budget.
- Close the old plant, and open a new southern plant? - ok, but you just blew the carbon budget.
- Again, I believe this website has an Australian connection - How many 10MW+ Solar CSP plants are in Australia? Are any of 10MW+ solar CSP plants providing process heat to Australian industry? 1MW? - I mean 1MW is just a large diesel generator. And solar is soooooo cheap!
- Lastly, nuclear process heat can go from 350 C to 1200 C - a huge range of industrial process (most of which start around 600).
- Solar CSP - well, from 250 C to about 650 C - just where process heat starts going good.
- ammonia starts at 400 C
- glass starts at 500 C
- cement starts at 800 C
- thermo-electrolysis to produce hydrogen at 850 C
- aluminum starts at 940 C
- silica glass starts at 1000 C
Lastly, I have never claimed, in this forum, any other forum, or in person that nuclear can supply electricity only.
Moderator Response:[DB] Off-topic, sloganeering and empty rhetoric snipped.
-
Preston Urka at 12:54 PM on 31 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
I use the data I can get ahold of; (easily accessible) IEA data goes out to 2017/2018.
total energy electricity and heat only Germany 8.2 3.6 36% non-hydro renewables; 13% nuclear Europe 5.9 2.1 Europe, not the EU Denmark 5.5 1.5 62% non-hydro renewables; 0% nuclea Sweden 3.6 0.7 21% non-hydro renewables; 49% nuclear France 4.4 0.5 10% non-hydro renewables; 86% nuclear As we can see, Danish total energy emissions per capita is slightly lower than Europe. I clearly stated Europe (not the EU) and I clearly stated per capita numbers, not absolute. I clearly stated IEA data and the dates.
When car-crazy France has 1.5 tons per capita less total emissions (than the European average) and bicycle-loving Denmark only 0.4 tons less - yeah - it is slightly lower. So MA Rodger - I am not 'badly wrong'.
Danish E&H is better, but really not comparable to Sweden (a third! of the European average) or France (a quarter! of the European average).
Danish per capita emissions in E&H (where Wind/Solar/Nuclear currently compete) are blown out of the water by Sweden (under half! of Danish emissions) and France (a third! of Danish emissions). Germany is left in the dust on both measures of emissions.
2017-2018 IEA data
total is the cross-sector emissions in t/capita- https://www.iea.org/countries/Germany
- https://www.iea.org/countries/europe
- https://www.iea.org/countries/Denmark
- https://www.iea.org/countries/Sweden
- https://www.iea.org/countries/France
-
Doug Bostrom at 03:45 AM on 31 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
Per gseattle's question, a casual search finds that Thunberg's Twitter feed of early last year references a draft report from IPBES.
You can find IPBES and a complete description of methods and practice here:
https://ipbes.net/
The document is here:
https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/2020-02/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers_en.pdf
In that we read:
An average of around 25 per cent of species in assessed animal and plant
groups are threatened (Figure SPM.3), suggesting that around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss. Without such action, there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction, which is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years.I've not gone to the full report to see if any of the underlying material specifically establishes a numeric loss rate but it seems a matter of simple arithmetic to produce the number Thunberg mentions.
The "1996-1997" conjecture as to Thunberg's figure sourcing isn't accurate and isn't even a particularly good rhetorical tactic. Given the time needed to assemble the spurious list leading up to that, surely energy could be better spent?
-
MA Rodger at 23:33 PM on 30 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
gseattle @1,
I would recommend Google Scholar where a few searches will surely throw up some of the literature, which of course will yield further references & on Google Scholar a list of papers citing any 'finds'.
I note Pimm et al (2014) 'The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection' who calculate current rates of extinction of known species in terms of extinctions per million species per year. Note that the number of species is a problem (there are perhaps 8.7 million terrestrial species) and that the cause of a recorded extinction is not always AGW which has been running for a far shorter period than the extinction data. So digging out a global number relevant to today's AGW will not be a simple 'look-up' in the appropriate bit of literature. Best of luck.
-
gseattle at 22:23 PM on 30 August 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35
A cornerstone of Greta's message is the extinction of "up to 200 species going extinct every single day" as in her climate change TEDx talk (at 4 min). Elsewhere this is often "150 to 200 species". There may be over 130,000 web pages expressing up to 200 species per day going extinct from climate change if this search using quotes (to require each term) is really indicative of it: "climate" "200 species" "extinct" "day".
So, the source of the information should be available as a peer reviewed paper. These are related results of research, the best science of the day by the most prestigious scientific experts in the field, and it's all I have so far.
Does anyone know how to check whether the items that are scientific papers were peer reviewed? And/or by whom? Also does anyone know the source of the 200 species figure by Greta Thunberg? I imagine it was around 1996-1997 by some famous scientists. Do appreciate any help.
2004, UN Environment Programme, TUNZA for YOUTH
... "It is estimated that between 150 and 200 species become extinct every day"
... No citation or reference. Page removed in 2009.
1997, , , http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/142901
... "150 to 200 species"
... "World Bank and Worldwatch Institute, and reported to the Rio+5 conference in 1997, estimated 150 to 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours"
1997, J. John Sepkoski, Jr., Biodiversity: Past, Present, and Future,
... "range to 150 species etinctions per day (Ehrlich and Wilson, 1991)" [extinctions typo in paper],
... although Sepkoski adds "[total species] figure is misleading, however, because no official list of described species exists"
1991, PAUL R. EHRLICH, EDWARD 0. WILSON, Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy
... no mention of extinctions per day as Sepkoski said.
1989, WV Reid K Miller, Keeping options alive: the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity
... "potential loss of" ... "50 to 150 species per day". Contains "climate change" 27 times.
1989, WALTER V. REID, How many species will there be?
... "potential loss of" ... "50 to 150 species per day". Included in a larger IUCN report containing "climate change" 11 times.
... "An estimated 25 percent of the world's species present in the mid-1980s may be extinct by the year 2015".
1988, E.O. Wilson, Harvard University, Biodiversity
... "By the end of this century [year 2000], our planet could lose anywhere from 20 to 50% of its species (Table 6–1)" -
MA Rodger at 19:08 PM on 30 August 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
The carbon-intensity of the EU countries mentioned @198 are shown here for 1990-2016. The Danish numbers would be significantly lower by 2019 due to increasing wind-generation, perhaps down to 111gCO2/kWh which is a lot lower than the EU average (which itself is falling, perhaps 250gCO2/kWh by 2018). Thus, even if Danmark is a bigger user of electricity per capita relative to the EU average, portraying the Danish generation as just "slightly lower" is badly wrong.
Prev 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Next
