Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 Next
Comments 28151 to 28200:
-
New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
keithpickering - I don't see anything in the Jacobson et al paper making claims against nuclear based on water usage - do you have a reference for that?
The Decarbonization document seems interesting on a quick look, but I can't agree with some of their base numbers. They assume 2,500GW of renewables (wind/solar) to match 400GW of nuclear, a factor of 6X, whereas Archer 2007 demonstrated that a mere 19 distributed and interconnected wind plants could maintain a reliable baseload power of 33% their average (47% the yearly average), a factor of perhaps 3X, half of what they sate, simply because the same weather pattern wouldn't cover (and potentially nullify) all of the wind farms at once.
Archet et al also discussed techniques for reducing transmission costs by ~20%, with regional concentrators for the wind power and interconnecting to the larger grid from there. But the major impact IMO is in understanding baseload capabilities.
-
MA Rodger at 04:05 AM on 22 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
sunweb @12.
It is a lot of wind turbines being discussed but they have to be judged against the alternatives. This erecting of 600-odd turbines a day would yield the same generation capacity as having to build every fourth day one very very large multi-steam-plant coal power-station. You may feel the 2,400 turbines in 4 days is a bigger ask than on giant coal power-station but perhaps you have less understanding of how big such power-stations actually are.
As a comparison, the daily 600 turbines will contain something like 300,000 tons of material. That's 300,000 tons per day for 18 years.
That's a lot of material but of the same order as the daily materials required to build a giant power-station every 4 days. This web page shows a relatively small power-station (40% the size I'm working to) using 900,000 tons of concrete & 56,000 tons of steel.
And those 1,600 coal power-stations built over the 18 years would still need feeding with coal, a combined total of 55,000,000 tons of the stuff, day in, day out until they can be replaced by a better technology. So is it worth discussing this coal solution being green, sustainable or renewable? I think not.
-
ianw01 at 03:55 AM on 22 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
A very interesting, and dare I say, optimistic paper. However, while filled with lots of numbers, it seems to gloss over the storage and long distance transmission required during calm winter evenings in the northern states. And if this is the path forward it's time to buy stocks in copper and rare earth element producers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:43 AM on 22 August 2015World Bank rejects energy industry notion that coal can cure poverty
PhillippeChantreau,
I totally agree and would add that not long ago the World Bank would have been full of people that would help promote the interests of the likes of the coal barons any way they could get away with.
Many changes for the better are happening.
Even the current global correction of the markets (drops in stock market values) could be a good change if they are a reduction of unjustfied perceptions of value of activities (pursuits of profit) that are associated with or rely on the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (more than just coal).
-
Stranger8170 at 02:12 AM on 22 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
I really found this article interesting.
Since wind turbines and solar panels use so many rare earth elements can we expect that future technologies will overcome the huge environmental impacts of mining them? I know the mining of them in the US is prohibided. From what I've also read, China may not be as forthcomming with them in the future.
-
sunweb at 01:33 AM on 22 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
One of the proposals of this ilk was by Jacobson. Jacobson’s first paper proposed: Starting in 2012 for 50% of the world’s energy we would need: 2111112 machines a year for 18 years which is over 578 machines a day for 18 years which is over 24 each hour, each day, 7 days a week for 18 years http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power-for-the-world/0 and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 In an email discussion with the second author he proposed that since we do it with cars; we can do it with “renewables”. So all the mining, processing, manufacturing, transporting, installing, two or three times a year maintenance. This is green? This is sustainable? This is renewable?
Moderator Response:[RH] You seem to be making a very strange statement that installing renewables is not sustainable or renewable.
-
sunweb at 01:31 AM on 22 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
All the human-made things in our world have an industrial history. Behind the computer, the T-shirt, the vacuum cleaner is an industrial infrastructure fired by energy (fossil fuels mainly). Each component of our car or refrigerator has an industrial history. Mainly unseen and out of mind, this global industrial infrastructure touches every aspect of our lives. It pervades our daily living from the articles it produces, to its effect on the economy and employment, as well as its effects on the environment. Solar and wind energy collecting devices also have an industrial history. It is important to understand the industrial infrastructure and the environmental results for the components of the solar energy collecting devices so we don’t designate them with false labels such as green, renewable or sustainable. This is an essay challenging ‘business as usual’. If we teach people that these solar devices are the future of energy without teaching the whole system, we mislead, misinform and create false hopes and beliefs. I have provided both charts and videos for the solar cells, modules, aluminum from ore, aluminum from recycling, aluminum extrusion, inverters, batteries and copper. Please note each piece of machinery you see in each of the videos has its own industrial interconnection and history. http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/solar-devices-industrial-infrastructure.html
Moderator Response:[RH] I've deleted the contents of this comment because the exact same comment is copied and pasted repeatedly around the internet. This would constitute spamming. Please review the SkS commenting policies before posting again.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:29 AM on 22 August 2015World Bank rejects energy industry notion that coal can cure poverty
This is really making a short story long. Coal has not cured "energy poverty" in 200 years, ans there is no indication that the people who have got rich from coal in the past and are getting rich from coal now have any intention to significantly change their business model so that their focus will be on curing anmything. Not much else to say.
Now, of course, whether or not "energy poverty" is something that can be "cured" is another debate entirely. The reality of the whole concept would have to assessed first. I lived once in a country blessed with both oil and uranium, and some of the people there could have been described as living in "energy poverty." I guess some of the more educated may even have used the word "energy clolonialism" but in a very different way than is mentioned in the OP...
-
jef12506 at 00:29 AM on 22 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Certainaly "renewables" could power us but there is no way to get there from here without destroying the biosphere in the process. A shift of that magnatude would require massive fossil fuel burning, mining, processing, cement, and every other industrial process that is killing us and that would be in addition to all of the industrial processes that we now have happening continuing to function in order to not collapse the global economy.
(snip)
We are at a point in human evolution where every solution to a problem creates an even bigger problem that we will need to solve for later.
So what do we do? LESS!!!!!!
Moderator Response:[RH] Sloganeering snipped. If you're going to make such extreme statements you're going to have to back them with some actual data and figures.
-
longjohn119 at 23:08 PM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Nuclear is nowhere close to 33-40% efficiency .... In fact it's not even double digits
Only 5% of the potential energy in a nuclear fuel rod is used while the other 95% goes to waste making Nuclear Waste waste on more than one level. Then you add the inefficiencies in the mining process, inefficiencies in the refining process, ineffeciencies in the steam boiler and finally the inefficiencies of the turbine generator itself you'd be lucky to hit a 1% efficiency when PROPERLY CALCULATED
-
CBDunkerson at 21:50 PM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
keithpickering, actually from my reading they say that nuclear was excluded because of cost factors and construction time. I didn't see anything about water use of nuclear power... let alone that this was the reason for excluding it.
-
keithpickering at 16:27 PM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
As usual, Jacobson et al. miss the boat by excluding nuclear power from their analyses on the thinnest of excuses. (Water use is the excuse, even though hydropower uses vastly more water than nuclear yet somehow manages to make the cut. In other words, Jacobsen et al. are playing politics instead of science.)
Meanwhile, the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project found that the high-renewables scenario, similar to the plan Jacobson et al. favor, would cost about four times more than the cheapest pathway, which happens to be the high-nuclear pathway. (That's strongly dependent on the future price of fossil fuels, but taking the median in each case.)
It will be interesting to see how the upcoming paper on grid revamping will turn out. The most recent HVDC line in North America, the West Alberta line (opened last March) cost $6 million per mile for a 1 GW line, and that's through relatively unpopulated country where rights-of-way are cheap. At that price, it's cheaper to build a nuclear plant next door that it is to transmit wind power 700 miles.
-
denswei at 12:33 PM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
@ villabolo . re efficiency improvements. Note in the graph that there is a planned reduction in energy consumed of about 33% from todays levels (2.4 TW down to 1.59 TW), or more than 1TW from predicted business as usual levels (in 2050). Most of that saving is from switching to electricity, but some from efficiency improvements.
-
michael sweet at 10:58 AM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Knaugle,
Jacobson et al. "do the math" in their paper. As described in the second pargraph of the OP, approximately 1.6% of land area would have wind generators widely spread out. Farming or other land uses would take place between the generators (the actual land footprint of the turbines is small). If you put the generators in the most efficient places it would take less generators but that is not quantitated (it would also cost less). You could put more wind generators at sea and reduce the onshore wind even more if that is desirable (offshore is more expensive but the wind is more consistant).
Your quote of 25% capacity for wind is too low. Your argument is inconsistent since you used the maximum output for nuclear and the minimum for wind. You need to use comparable estimates for both if you want to make a fair evaluation.
-
villabolo at 08:09 AM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
@ scaddenp #3.
Yes, I should have thought of my answer more carefully. My goal, however, would be for an 80% reduction in fossil fuel energy use within the next 20 years (I know, I'm dreaming).
-
scaddenp at 07:12 AM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
That 16% needs to be seen in context of what proportion of total energy consumption is in residential home use. In NZ, it is about 10% of energy use though I expect it to be higher in places with more heating/cooling needs and/or less transport costs.
-
villabolo at 06:26 AM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
I'm assuming that this paper assumes current electrical uses projected into the future. However there are off grid communities in existence that consume 16% of the electricity normally used in the general area.
This ecovillage has all the anemities and appliances of a middle class house with homes that are conventional looking (no "earthships"). 10 inch super insulated walls, led lighting, underground heating and cooling tubes and passive solar design make this dramatic reduction possible.
With such a massive reduction in electrical and energy usage we'll only need one sixth of our current energy usage for homes. 50 mpg hybrid cars will take care of the rest.
-
knaugle at 04:05 AM on 21 August 2015New paper shows that renewables can supply 100% of all energy (not just electricity)
Still if you do the math, it takes about 1800 Wind turbines rated at 2.5 MWe (capacity factor about 25%) to replace a single 1100 MWe baseload plant (capacity factor >90%). That's a lot of land coverage. That means there are still some significant practical hurdles to get to where this paper suggests. It is not entirely a political problem. Solar, hydro-electric and others all have their issues as well.
-
Christopher Gyles at 03:14 AM on 21 August 2015Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends
Is this as significant a correction as it appears to my inexpert understanding? -
Firgoose at 20:59 PM on 20 August 2015Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends
Interesting topic. I read their study a few weeks ago.
You might call it "The Making of Sunspots 2" but they called it..
"Revisiting the Sunspot Number"
Frédéric Clette, Leif Svalgaard, José M. Vaquero, Edward W. Cliverarxiv.org/abs/1407.3231 with downloadable .pdf
-
bjchip at 13:09 PM on 20 August 2015Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends
Since this revision affects the solar input parameters to most climate models, there will need to also be some rework of those? This is good science. One can expect it to be misinterpreted in the usual places :-)
-
scaddenp at 13:18 PM on 19 August 20152015 global temperatures are right in line with climate model predictions
Sou, dont forget our friend John Kehr, aka TheInconvenientSkeptic, probably ASOFAI-fan, who thinks Milankovitch forcings somehow beat all other numbers.
-
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 12:11 PM on 19 August 20152015 global temperatures are right in line with climate model predictions
Like Jos, a couple of years ago I put together some unusual and "couldn't be more wrong" alarmist predictions from deniers:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html
While within the model envelope, I think that in a strong El Nino year, the surface temperature would be expected to rise above the line. As I understand it, the reason it doesn't is because the forcing estimates were on the low side (eg volcanic aerosols), as well as the PDO being in its cold phase till recently. The next few years will tell more of the story.
-
rugbyguy59 at 11:18 AM on 19 August 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #33
"El Niño Could Rank Among Strongest on Record"
Soon to be heard.. "Warming stopped in 2015" Sigh. -
Steve L at 05:48 AM on 19 August 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #33
Coming Soon section was not updated. Looking forward to another great week of stuff! Thanks and keep up the good work.
Moderator Response:[JH] We are working to correct this section.
-
johngoldner at 07:14 AM on 17 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
There is one physical property of CO2 that is not talked about and that is its weight.
It weights more that air and sinks in air that's why 3 ski patrollers died at Mammoth,CA and in Yellowstone animals are killed there because the CO2 is heavier that air.
In fact, nature O2/CO2 cycle is built around this property. The green leaves, at ground level (where CO2 sinks to), take in CO2 and produce O2. Think of it differently_____NO CO2-------NO O2!
I'm not saying we are not the cause, but I think in another way.
Carbon is the cause, yes. Fine particles of carbon can float in air. That is the cause of many a coal mine explosion. So CO2 sinks in air but C can float in air if the particle size is right.
And what would produce CO2 in the upper atmosphere? Since CO2 can not float up to there!
Highly reactive ozone O3 (produced by UV from the sun) and carbon particles, C+O3 = CO2+O, and then the CO2 sinks down. They also say there is an ozone depletion problem allowing more UV in!
John S Goldner
Moderator Response:[PS] Offtopic. Please immediately familiarize yourself with the Comments Policy. Conformance is not optional. Ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
And you might want to familiarize yourself with the science and observations of gas distributions in the atmosphere once a gas has been become mixed.
-
KiwiInOz at 19:46 PM on 16 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
The real Debt and Deficit Disaster.
-
uncletimrob at 18:59 PM on 16 August 2015The Rap Guide to Climate Chaos
Thanks GWS, I've not seen that before....
-
Magma at 05:52 AM on 16 August 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #33
Sunday August 9 link to Torngat glacier story is missing, should be
Torngat Mountains glaciers shrinking faster, says researcher
Moderator Response:[JH] Glitch fixed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
-
gws at 05:50 AM on 16 August 2015The Rap Guide to Climate Chaos
maybe this one is better?
-
Tom Curtis at 03:16 AM on 16 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Joel_Huberman @4, I made no analysis of the 'sustainable level' of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is because, given sufficient time adapt, any level of CO2 under 1000-2000 ppmv is 'sustainable'; while any level above 280 ppmv will require some adaption. Consequently the idea of a sustainable level of CO2 is not particularly coherent. However, if we are going to use the concept, 310 ppmv is a level that will require minimum adaption by either nature or humanity and can reasonably be claimed to be sustainable. However, for policy purposes, a peak level of 450 ppmv (+/- 100 ppmv) represents the consensus value for a CO2 level to which human society could reasonably adapt and and live with on a sustained basis. At least, that is how I understand the IPCC position.
More importantly for my argument @2 above, the assumed emission levels are those at which CO2 concentrations will fall over time (due to further take up of CO2 by the ocean, and ocean buffering by erosion) so that if we reduced emissions to about 5% of current global emissions now (immediately) emissions would fall over the medium term and stabilize in the low 300's of ppmv. We would not further need to enhance that rate of natural fall by sequestration and geoengineering (although it might still be desirable to do so). (Note that ocean buffering will also restore ocean pH levels, but only over a time line of a thousand years or so.)
If, as is certain, we increase CO2 levels above the current 400 ppmv, we will also need to reduce the sustained emissions to allow for the natural reduction in CO2 level to bring us to a sustainable long term atmospheric concentration. If we continue increasing atmospheric concentration until 2050 (virtually certain), the sustainable level drops down to zero emissions; and beyond that we will need active geosequestration. But if all nations had per capita emissions equivalent to those on the list above, global warming would be a problem that would solve itself with some minor ecological and economic adaption. Ergo, that level, or thereabouts, represents the current sustainable level of emissions.
That the sustainable level of emissions will fall due to the activities of other nations is not the fault of the nations currently emitting at levels that are currently sustainable.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:22 PM on 15 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Tom Curtis @ 2. Thanks for your interesting response. I wasn't thinking about emissions per country, but global emissions, and I was thinking about the fact that atmospheric CO2 is currently about 400 ppm, way above sustainable levels of 350 ppm (according to Hansen and 350.org) or 310 ppm (according to your analysis). Thus the Earth as a whole is already way over budget. Consequently, even Mali could contribute to bringing the Earth back to a reasonable carbon budget by reducing its miniscule CO2 emissions even further.
-
uncletimrob at 20:48 PM on 15 August 2015The Rap Guide to Climate Chaos
Not really my "cup of tea' musically, but the sentiments therin are on track I think.
-
bozzza at 13:10 PM on 15 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Interesting.
Quantitative argument is where it's at and the politicians can only defend bias in the speakers chair for so long until the pertinent figures reveal themselves to the majority of voters and action is voted for!!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:48 AM on 15 August 2015The 1C Milestone
Rob Honeycutt@17, Changing what has to monetarily be evaluated in the marketplace will only partially address the problem. It is more important that the only actions allowed to be prioritized by profitability and popularity are actions that are almost certain to be truly sustainable. That also means curtailing any actions that are potentially harmful no matter how popular they may be among some people, leading that group to try to ensure the activity remains chap and profitable rather than admit the unacceptability of ways of living they got away with developing.
Another thing that trying to price the impacts would fail to value or assign cosy to is the price that should be paid for any consumption of nonrenewable resources. How much it costs to extract and consume these limited resources should include a massive price no matter how abundant the resource appears to be.
Even putting a price on consuming a nonrenewable may not properly limit pursuits of profit. The failure of the marketplace to properly value helium has led to the nonrenewable source being wasted on party balloons rather than be reserved for life saving medical use. And adding to the cost does not ensure that only the most deserving consumption would occur.
-
MA Rodger at 02:22 AM on 15 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza @428.
Do note that ice shelves and sea ice are not the same thing. (And also this thread is properly about ice sheets which is something else again entirely.)
bozzza @429.
While it is possible to consider fitting an upward curve to the graph @426 in place of the linear trend, the cause of the increases in Antarctic SIA/SIE would be worth looking at first.
Like the loss of ice from Antarctica, the increase of Antarctic SIA/SIE is the product of two competing trends. Parts of the ocean are increasingly icy but other parts are losing ice. Also a lot less is known prior to the arrival of good satellite data in 1979. Fan et al (2014) suggests that ice may have been on an earlier downward trend, shrinking markedly up to 1979, strains perhaps of long-term natural variation at work? While other, for instance recently Hansen et al (2015), see large levels of sea ice growth in Antarctica as a by-product of AGW, and perhaps a by-product we should be very worried about.
So, while fitting anything is possible, a reasoned fitment would be preferable to one that simply suits the mood of the author. In that regard, the linear trend provides a simple gauge of the situation, nothing more.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:23 AM on 15 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
Joel_Huberman @1, absent all anthropogenic emissions, the total CO2 content in the atmosphere would decline to about 310 ppmv over about 200 years. The total forcing for 310 ppmv is about 0.55 W/m^2, with an expected equilibrium temperature response of about 0.42 C above preindustrial levels. That is, the equilibrium temperatures will be equivalent to those in the 1960s, and can reasonably be supposed to be "safe" - indeed, may even be beneficial relative to pre-industrial levels. Ergo, over the life time of any reasonable policy projection, restricting emissions to approximately 5% of current levels could be considered sustainable. That being the case, the following nations can reasonably be supposed to never exceed their sustainable emissions levels (the numbers being their ranking in world per capita emissions):
178. Bangladesh
179. Cambodia
180. Cameroon
181. IvoryCoast
182. Kenya
183. Kiribati
184. Laos
185. Burma
186. Sudan
187. Comoros
188. Gambia
189. Guinea-Bissau
190. Haiti
191. Liberia
192. SierraLeone
193. Timor-Leste
194. Togo
195. Zambia
196. BurkinaFaso
197. CentralAfricanRepublic
198. Eritrea
199. Ethiopia
200. Guinea
201. Madagascar
202. Malawi
203. Mozambique
204. Nepal
205. Niger
206. Rwanda
207. Somalia
208. Uganda
209. Tanzania
210. Afghanistan
211. Burundi
212. Chad
213. DemocraticRepublicoftheCongo
214. MaliSo, granted that the world's worst emitter exceeds its sustainable emissions in less than two days, and the world average exceeds sustainable emissions before the end of January, I do not think it is fair to say that all nations begin the year with a deficit.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 00:16 AM on 15 August 2015The 1C Milestone
OPOF @16... Actually, I believe that overconsumption is a different problem. Our core problem is that our main source of energy puts massive amounts of CO2 into the air. While the over exploitation of other resources is an important challenge, it pales in comparison.
I would submit that the solution to both of these issues is to get the externalities of energy generation priced into the marketplace. If we can do that for energy, then doing the same later for resource depletion should be a piece of cake.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:38 PM on 14 August 2015Earth Overshoot Day
It seems to me that, with regard to some resources such as maintaining a safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, every country in the world starts off in a state of deficit on January 1 of each year.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:31 PM on 14 August 2015A Powerful El Niño in 2015 Threatens a Massive Coral Reef Die-off
Thanks, Rob! A very interesting, informative discussion! There's a missing piece of information, however--the horizontal scale for Figure 5. My guess is that the scale should be degrees longitude, at the Equator, across the Pacific, but my guess may be totally incorrect. What should the scale be?
Moderator Response:[Rob P] - Thanks Joel, I inadvertently deleted the information when making that image. I'll fix it later today - I've amended the caption in the meanwhile.
EDIT: Now fixed.
-
bozzza at 18:02 PM on 14 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
@ 426: the trend line could actually be getting steeper right this minute, apparently, ...according to the information in the graph itself [Trend line(regression 1979-2011) = 0.015 p.a.] could it not?
-
bozzza at 17:55 PM on 14 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
Cheers, Jim: I googled "Amundsen Bellingshausen Sea Low" and found one of the first articles, " Study shows acceleration in melting of Antarctic ice shelves" and found the below to be a most interesting paragraph...
"While it is fair to say that we're seeing the ice shelves responding to climate change, we don't believe there is enough evidence to directly relate recent ice shelf losses specifically to changes in global temperature," Fricker said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/study-shows-acceleration-in-melting-of-antarctic-ice-shelves-20150326-1m8uu1.html#ixzz3ilxnuJ5D
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook..there seems to be conflict amongst the talking heads so many thanks for keeping the debate informative!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:49 AM on 14 August 2015The 1C Milestone
mancan18,
An obvious answer to the challenge is the admission that what has currently been developed is a way of living that requires too much energy.
Energy desires, particularly by the already highest energy users, clearly need to be denied no matter how profitable or popular meeting such desires may be.
The simple truth is that many people who are perceived to be the most prosperous are also the biggest problem. Their perceived wealth is not sustainable. Their desires to increase their perceived prosperity in more consumptive ways clearly need to be discouraged, hence the lack of success in reducing global impacts.
Moderator Response:[JH] Excessive white space eliminated.
-
william5331 at 07:12 AM on 14 August 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #31B
So, if during an El Nino, the transport of warm water out of the tropics toward the poles slows down, can we expect increased arctic ice melting the year or two after an El Nino when the transport of this warm water resumes. If so, 2016 should be an interesting year and there would be an explanation of why ice melt is not all that spectacular this year.
-
Jim Hunt at 21:46 PM on 13 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza @424,
For one theory see:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,724.msg60178.html#msg60178
I believe that the current downward fluctuation in Antarctic Sea Ice Extent if likely associated with the influence of our currently strong El Nino on the average location of the Amundsen Bellingshausen Sea Low. -
erich at 20:42 PM on 13 August 2015We are the Asteroid - Scientists’ Heighten Concerns About Global Extinctions
“we are the Asteroid” in several different ways the article didn't mention. At 65M yrs ago clearing the way for mammals, certainly our degradation of ecology, etc is as destructive, and if the Younger Dryas was caused by an asteroid hitting the Laurentide ice sheet, 12.9Kyrs ago, then we were driven to agriculture and Fire land management by an asteroid, with mammoth off the menu. Which is what we are now; genetically a product of Agriculture, we digest milk in adulthood, break down gluten fine, at least most all of us.
I've always been a fan of the Younger Dryas, (quick-short, -10 C for 1000 yrs) Cooling, whatever the cause, as the primary force behind the Megafauna extinction, but now the DNA seems to say it's the Warming periods doing the bulk of the deed.
Megafauna extinction: DNA evidence pins blame on climate change
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27952-megafauna-extinction-dna-evidence-pins-blame-on-climate-change/From over on Soil-Age;
In this new study, I like the explanation of insolation as a trickle charge to our Biomass battery. It puts into perspective the relatively low efficiency of photosynthesis.Human domination of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind
https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/pnas-2015-schramski-1508353112.pdfOver on a Google forum called "Soil-Age", as Walter Jehne says, (and I have been stealing it, adding biogenic aerosols);
"Soil Biology is our only way to rapidly and massively draw down CO2 from the air to offset our ongoing and past carbon emissions, It Could safely and naturally restore the hydrological cycles by increasing biogenic aerosols and cloud albedo that could readily cool the planet by the 3 watts/m2 needed to offset the now locked in greenhouse warming effects and avoid the Storms of Our Grandchildren."After all....how could anyone not feel good about soils?;
Changes in Heart Rate Variability and Effects on POMS by Whether or Not Soil Observation Was Performed
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=42273Soil Cheers & Palpitations,
Moderator Response:[PS] Activated links. Please use the link button to insert links.
-
bvangerven at 20:38 PM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
@Wol: you would be right if there were no alternatives to fossil fuel for energy production.
A carbon tax would not make energy in general more expensive. It would make fossil fuel based energy more expensive. This would have the following consequences:
- it will motivate manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient appliances, vehicles etc.
- it will speed up the replacement of fossil fuel based power plants by renewable energy.
- it will make it more interesting for investors to invest in low carbon or zero carbon technologies.
- the most polluting fuels (f.i. tar sands) with the highest CO2 emission per barrel produced would become the most expensive, and be prized out of the market
Of course, this doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time. That’s why a carbon tax should start low and increase gradually.
-
MA Rodger at 20:21 PM on 13 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
-
bvangerven at 20:04 PM on 13 August 2015Geoengineering is ‘no substitute’ for cutting emissions, new studies show
@Bozzza #3: what exactly do you propose ? To force fossil fuel companies to give back all profits they ever made during their existence , and to put all CO2 that was ever emitted due to their activity back into the ground because you question their right to extract natural resources from the soil ?
Or do you propose to nationalize all existing fossil fuel reserves (and you ask if *I* believe in pirates ???)
I agree with you that a company shouldn’t have the right to extract natural resources, just because they were the first to stake the claim. The natural resources of a country should be under democratic control. But this isn’t the case and it is not going to change.
Either we can have such unrealistic demands that they will never become reality, or we try to find a practical way out, preferably without destroying the economy.
My proposal: “the polluter pays” is a principle that can be enforced legally and has been enforced legally in the past. From the point in time when science comes to a conclusion, for instance about the danger of asbestos, a company can be held legally responsible for the damage they are causing (it doesn’t matter if they claim they weren’t aware of the science, they should have known).
I think there is no case in which the scientific consensus has been so formally and comprehensively documented as for antropogenic climate change. Any fossil fuel company continuing the business as usual after this consensus was published can therefore be sued. I would use this as a big stick to get fossil fuel companies to agree to a carbon tax. The same is true for governments: the science is clear, the government’s task to protect the public against internal and external threats is also clear. They should either take measures to protect the public or face legal charges. -
MA Rodger at 17:33 PM on 13 August 2015Antarctica is gaining ice
bozzza @424,
The Antarctic sea ice area anomaly has gone negative in the last couple of days, the first time that has happened in four years. Prior to that (back in 2011), the SIA wobbled its way positive and negative with a long-term trend upward of 15,000 sq km pa. Seeing this recent return to negative anomalies is a return to that level of trend. It is perhaps the deviation from that long-term trend that would be easier explained, easier than the return to it.This graph (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') shows recent years of SIA up to January 2015 but doesn't really capture that long term trend. I will upload something that does when I have a moment.
Prev 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 Next
