Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next
Comments 4301 to 4350:
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:37 AM on 5 April 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13
Hello, all Skeptical Science readers.
I am using this weekly digest post as a place to make a comment about recent activity on a number of blog posts.
A few years ago, we had a collection of students from KMIDS college in Bangkok that were assigned work that included reading and commenting here at Skeptical Science. It looks like we may be seeing similar activity this month. (We are trying to confirm if it is indeed the same school.)
When this happened before, we wrote a short blog post explaining the situation.
Please try to provide these students (if we have correctly identified them as such) wtih a warm welcome and encourage them to read material here and engage in constructive dialog.
Thanks.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:27 AM on 5 April 2022There is no consensus
Sun:
There is a lot in between the two extremes of "catasrophe" and "no need to do anything". It is not a binary system or "right or wrong" - it is a range of likely outcomes and risks.
We know with pretty much 100% certainty that adding CO2 causes some warming. For doubling of CO2 (from 300 to 600ppm) it is very unlikely that it will be less than 1.5-2.0C. It will also be very unlikely that it will be more than 4.5-5.0C. But that leaves a lot of range of likely temperature effects that will cause serious changes in climate and very likely serious (and expensive) impacts on society. The larger the temperature change and the impact, the more important it is that we take additional action.
The idea that CO2 limits will harm the economy is discussed in this thread at Skeptical Science.
-
Pepper at 11:25 AM on 5 April 2022CO2 lags temperature
The time lag between CO2 and temperature is due to the time offset between warming oceans and continued ocean CO2 emissions. with this cumulative effect Carbon dioxide, therefore it will becomes the main driver of temperature during glacial and interglacial warming. Shakun et al 2012 paper showed that warming was indeed triggered by the Milankovitch cycles and that a small amount of orbital cycle-caused warming eventually triggered the CO2 release, which caused most of the glacial-interglacial warming. So while CO2 did lag behind a small initial temperature change, it led and was the primary driver behind most of the glacial-interglacial warming. According to the Shakun data, approximately 7% of the overall glacial-interglacial global temperature increase occurred before the CO2 rise, whereas 93% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
-
Pepper at 11:20 AM on 5 April 2022It's the sun
Total solar radiation has a huge impact on climate change, according to the scientific article below: Combine the data below with the closure of the ozone hole over the past 20 years, and that in itself could explain global warming. All hot in the last 25 years. They estimate that the Sun was responsible for 45–50% of global warming and 25–35% of global warming in 1980–2000. It may have played a key role in continued climate change over the past century. It also pointed out that the impact of solar on climate change over the same period was much stronger than what some theoretical models had predicted.
-
GraceKanyanat at 11:20 AM on 5 April 2022Sea level rise is exaggerated
Sea level rise is one of the most common topics among the environmental science community and it should be since this topic is a topic that everyone should acknowledge. Sea level rise is caused by global warming which leads to ice and glaciers melting in the polar regions. This caused water to run off to the ocean which causes the sea to be above land.
This is extremely dangerous, especially to people who live near the shore or anywhere in particular since we cannot predict when there will be flooding. According to the graph above, it is safe to say that the sea level has been rising a lot during the past decades which also shows that global warming is getting worse and worse every single day. For me, sea-level rise is an important topic because it affects human lives in a bad way.
For example, flooding can cause damage to our areas of living, and it can also harm our drinking water and the crops that we grow for food or the country to send out for trading or any other opportunities. We can help solve this problem by again raising awareness of people living near the shores to watch out for signs of flooding. We can also help each other lower global warming by burning fewer fossil fuels and using more organic stuff. Please help each other resolve this problem for your own safety.
-
GraceKanyanat at 11:19 AM on 5 April 2022Climate's changed before
Global warming has always been one of the most concerning and dangerous things that humans and the climate can experience. Global warming is when the concentration of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, making the planet heat up.
Although global warming is genuinely concerning, a lot of people all over the world still look over it and do not seem to really care. This might be because people think that global warming is impossible to solve since we still need to use the stuff that is causing the problem, like burning fossil fuels. But for me, I do not think that is the case.
I think that global warming is especially important because it affects us as human beings e.g., extremely hot weather can damage our lungs. Moreover, it affects a variety of biodiversity across the world. An example would be in the polar regions where it starts to get warm which leads to animal deaths. I believe that we can help solve this problem and make the planet a good place to live in again. We just need to put our hands together and fight through it. We can start off by raising awareness and using fewer fossil fuels.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:18 AM on 5 April 2022Climate's changed before
Welcome to Skeptical Science, hmmyes and Fya.
hmmyes: you ask about how much CO2 the climate can handle? The earth-atmosphere system can handle a lot, and climate will always be there - it is simply what is observed, however cold or hot things are. From a human perspective, though, there are an awful lot of climates that earth can tolerate that humans cannot. 18,000 years ago was 4-6 C cooler than now, and cie covered huge areas of current land. Running today's modern civilation in that earth would be very difficult. On the flip side, a 4-6C warming would also be very expensive for humans, if not intolerable. The past changes in climate tell us that 4-6C of change is a big change.
Fya: mass extinctions from things like meteor impacts are indeed a very abrupt and severe form of change, and CO2 wll not have that rapid effect. But the effects of a 4-6C rise in temperatures (the high end of esitmates for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppm) will not be gentle.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:10 AM on 5 April 2022CO2 lags temperature
Welcome to Skeptical Science, Fya.
It is difficult to know what you are responding to here. It helps if you refer to the comment number, or the portion of the post you are responding to.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:07 AM on 5 April 2022Climate change solutions are too expensive
It has taken six years, Grace, but we finally have a comment on this thread!
As you point out, the desire to supply enough energy to meet demand can be helped by reducing demand as well as increasing supply. And the economics need to properly look at environmental costs. Factoring in environmental costs is difficult when the costs will be paid by someone else - or at some time in the future.
In economics. they call these costs "externalities". You can read about it on wikipedia.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:00 AM on 5 April 2022Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
Welcome to Skeptical Science, Grace.
You have correctly identified the issue of rapid cycling of carbon versus slow cycling. Some plants grow and die on an annual cycle. Animals maye live for tens of years, and forests grow and die over hundreds of years. But fossil fuel is coming from sources that were stored away millions of years ago.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:55 AM on 5 April 2022It's cooling
Welcome to Skeptical Science, Sun and anika.
One of the things that you will notice here is that no discussions are ever closed. But you do need to pay attention to when comments were made, as very old discussions may not be active.
Sun: you mention several items, but it is not clear if you are responding to the main article, or comments from others. It helps if you refer to the comment number, or the portion of the post you are responding to. In looking at global temperatures, "global" will assign a weighting to the land temperature record based on the global land area, while sea surface temperatures will be weighted according to ocean area. As for older data: global coverage is much less dense in the 1800s, so for some purposes the older data may be too unreliable to be able to say that it represents "global" conditions.
Anika: you raise an important point. Each individual characteristic (temperature, ice cover, vegetation, etc.) will have short-term variation that makes it harder to see the long-term trend - but when you see similar response in a wider variety of characteristics it becomes much less likely that any single one is "by chance". There is a "big picture" that is more than just the sum of the parts.
-
anika.ag at 02:44 AM on 5 April 2022It's cooling
Global warming is definitely still happening, and there are many factors that show this. Saying that the earth is “cooling” does not make any sense, due to the many indicators that it is such as snow covers, ice melts, and the temperatures over the land and ocean. I really like the quote: The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event...For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.” I think it sums up the entire argument well and makes it very simple for people who still may be confused to understand.
-
GraceKanyanat at 01:41 AM on 5 April 2022Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
In my opinion, I think that burning fossil fuels is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases emissions because more fossil fuels = more CO2 being released into the atmosphere, making the temperature warmer. Though I also think that deforestation is also a huge contributor to GHG emissions, but deforestation might not happen as frequently as burning fossil fuels.
Ok sure cutting down trees can lower the amount of CO2 absorption while animals and humans continue to produce CO2, but can it really make much of a difference since new plants are also being grown every day?
But to take into consideration that animals shouldn’t even be part of the greenhouse gas emissions since many of them are being killed every day to provide people with food. Animals also take a much longer time to grow than plants, so I think that animals shouldn’t really have much of a contribution to the GHG emissions.
I agree with the fact that everyone can help contribute to reducing GHG emissions if we all come together and set our minds to the same goal, which is to minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases. -
GraceKanyanat at 01:40 AM on 5 April 2022Climate change solutions are too expensive
We all know deep in our hearts that climate change will take a lot of effort to reverse. It would take a lot of both time and money to be able to make a single little change, but it will be for the better. As you have said in the text, “solar and wind farms are currently the cheapest sources of new electricity,” I totally agree with your solutions, but can there also be other ways to create electricity like hydropower? Could there also be a change in the lifestyles of people so that we consume less energy?
According to the data from Lazard, “Leveled Cost of Energy Comparison,” also shows that the cost for renewable energy is cheaper than conventional ones yet they are still cost-competitive with conventional energies. I would like to know if it is possible that one day there would be no more conventional energies since renewable energies might come out on top?
I also feel like we will be able to achieve this goal of slowing down climate if we all start caring less about the finances and more about the environment, governments could make policies where fossil fuel will be banned so that there would be less greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. -
Fya at 23:45 PM on 4 April 2022CO2 lags temperature
It redirects focus over to like the greater part of the compelling anticipated from a multiplying of CO2 ought to have as of now occured except that is unrepresented. For this reason, assuming there was a space. Without it, however, input numbers or moderately.
-
Fya at 23:34 PM on 4 April 2022Climate's changed before
There were changes in climate that caused species extinctions, but those changes were caused by physical impact in scale and duration far beyond what we can do by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
-
anika.ag at 15:43 PM on 4 April 2022Ocean acidification isn't serious
Even just a slight change in the pH of the ocean can affect it a lot, this includes all the animals living in it as well. As time goes on the amount of CO2 that humans are emitting through industrial activities is increasing, this means the amount of CO2 that the oceans are absorbing is also increasing, if this continues at the rate that it is going, there are going to be extreme impacts on the oceans and ocean life. Coral reefs will suffer affecting all the animals that rely on them, and many humans who rely on the ocean will suffer as well.
-
Sun at 15:13 PM on 4 April 2022There is no consensus
Dr. David Evans made the statement: "Yes, it's important to get our response right. If the alarmist is correct, then we should cut down our carbon emissions of the planet from overheating. If the alarmist is wrong, it's important not to cut back our carbon emissions or we'll create widespread poverty unnecessary.
-
hmmyes at 15:04 PM on 4 April 2022It's not bad
While it is true that climate change can cause these things to happen or have already caused it to happen. In my opinion, I still think some of these that you provided are just speculations which I'm not denying in any way. I also noticed that there are way more negative effects than positives which is why I support the effort of mitigating climate change and global warming.
-
Sun at 14:51 PM on 4 April 2022It's cooling
if you want to measure trends in temperature there is no reason to weigh land temperatures differently from sea surface temperatures. There was also no reason for you to exclude a third of the Earth's surface from your "logical and mathematical approach". There was also no reason to exclude 21% of the data in time. Including the data from 1871 to 1899 shows that the pattern you claim only have detected in a single cycle does not mean the same go for other periods.
-
hmmyes at 14:34 PM on 4 April 2022Climate's changed before
I agree with the statement. CO2 and global warming are definitely correlated, the more CO2 we have will indeed warmup the Earth. And your rebuttal to the myth is excellent in my opinion, what happened in the past surely doesn't mean that what's happening now is the same. Us humans are changing the climate. Lastly, I do have a question regarding the CO2 level, until how much would think that the climate can handle?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:30 AM on 3 April 2022The Climate Shell Game
A follow up to Eclectic's points @92,
Tesla may be the furthest along the path of development of maximized recycling of lithium-ion batteries.
An internet search on "Tesla lithium battery recycling" will bring up Tesla's claim and recommendations regarding battery recycling. It will also bring up many reports regarding what Tesla's arrangement for recycling looks like. The following quote is from Tesla's Support page regarding Battery Recycling:
"Extending the life of a battery pack is a superior option to recycling for both environmental and business reasons. For those reasons, before decommissioning a consumer battery pack and sending it for recycling, Tesla does everything it can to extend the useful life of each battery pack. Any battery that is no longer meeting a customer’s needs can be serviced by Tesla at one of our service centers around the world. None of our scrapped lithium-ion batteries go to landfilling, and 100% are recycled."
That makes an important point that is not part of the evaluations like the "Determining the environmental impacts of conventional and alternatively fuelled vehicles through LCA" report prepared for the European Commission (linked to by Philippe @91). It is important to maximize the length of use of EVs before ending their life with 'hopes for recycling'.
And that maximum use of things, not just the use of less harmful things, connects to the need for something like 'degrowth of consumer materialism'. J.B. MacKinnon's book "The Day the World Stops Shopping" is one of the more recent presentations about the importance of changing the developed consumer pursuit of More Conspicuous (and incorrectly perceived to be rewarding) Consumption.
For people who already live in ways that are above the level of basic living (having adequate safe air, water, food, ...), pursuing a Better Life means less consumption with the pursuit of all of that reduced consumption being less harmful. That means buying fewer, but longer lasting, things and re-using or re-selling (second-handing) things rather than the hope for full end-of-use recycling of "More Stuff Bought, Used Briefly, and Tossed".
That leads to understanding that it is foolish to believe 'Shell Game types of claims' that the 'solution to harmful over-development is the expectation of future development, by other people in the future, of new things that will be believed to solve the problem'. It is also foolish to expect less fortunate people to just accept that they 'deserve their circumstances' and cannot develop to live more like higher-status people because that would be 'harmful'.
Less harmful consumption and less consumption, and no Shell Games creating harmful misunderstandings, are key parts of the development of lasting improvements for humanity.
-
Eclectic at 20:47 PM on 1 April 2022The Climate Shell Game
Philippe @91 , your link is a rather large chunk to chew on. But it shows the EV's being better than I expected, for their life-cycle. Ones hopes that the growth in renewable-sourced electricity will outpace the EV growth.
There may be further improvement, if the lithium batteries (or the next generation - after lithium technology) have some form of economic recycling. The EV studies did not account for any recycling benefits (but admittedly such recycling has not received much development yet).
Jan ~ you have given many figures of emissions growth, and of "imaginable" percentage reductions that would be needed to reach closer to Nett-Zero-Carbon. These figures are not surprising, and not new. But with or without Pareto Principles, it would be useful if you could contribute an actual physical plan of how to improve the present situation. ~Other than technological advances, I suspect we would be wasting our time if we try to achieve a socio-political revolution in how the rich (us Westerners & similar) can be reducing total energy usage.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 14:08 PM on 1 April 2022The Climate Shell Game
Well this thread has grown ar an amazing rate. To go back to Jan's response at #70:
I see that we agree on pretty much all the important stuff. I certainly wouldn't disagree that an "uncontrolled" transition to EVs could be detrimental. Considering how entranched ICEs are, I see it unlikely that a detrimental transition pace could develop. The full life cycle analysis of EVs impact has been done ans can be found in the most thorough work I have seen so far on the issues it touches. This highly detailed report is worth studying for all who have participated here so far. It concludes that electric vehicles "have significantly lower environmental impacts across all vehicle types."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:46 AM on 1 April 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan @88,
I agree with nigelj's comments and questions.
I will be as succinct as possible while proving a fuller framing for understanding my comment which is admittedly 'not the norm developed perspective'. The focus of my perspective is 'how people create impressions of wealth'. And it is aligned with some, but not all, of what you present.
Anyone who obtains wealth or other impressions of superiority relative to Others in ways that are harmful does not deserve their perceptions of superiority (Law and Order developed to deal with that ... but harmful powerful people can and do pervert Law and Order for their benefit).
The utilitarian 'benefits outweigh the harm' type of evaluation is only valid in cases where the harm (or potential harm) is only experienced by the person/people benefiting. When groups (like nations) are evaluated to benefit from harm done no harm is to be done to anyone outside the group. And the harm to the members of the group needs to be proportional to the benefit obtained. No one in the group should benefit at the expense of harm done to Others. No members of the group should benefit a lot without being harmed a lot.
A related understanding is that anyone who has advantageous circumstances due to past harmful actions does not 'deserve their advantage relative to Others'.
Having that fundamental ethical understanding as the basis for policy development is essential for the policy being developed to produce lasting improvements and corrections of harmful developments.
Kyoto was an example of a presentation of what was required regarding climate change impacts. The backlash to Kyoto exposed the harmfulness of what has developed (socially, politically, economically, and technologically). And the most harmful thing is the power of undeserving people to protect their developed perceptions of superiority. And a powerful way they do that is with misleading marketing that promotes and prolongs harmful misunderstandings and the resulting Shell Games that delayed helpful corrections that would have limited the harm done and would have resulted in a less challenging correction being required today.
A solution, perhaps the only viable one, is for the powerful to collectively penalize the harmful powerful people (actions like imposing costs on developed harmful activities or people no longer investing in fossil fuel ventures and consuming less energy, particularly less fossil fuel, to help speed up the end of harmful unsustainable fossil fuel use). And the less powerful need to learn to support the restriction and penalizing of harmful undeserving powerful people. That can apply to many harmful developments that have made undeserving people powerful and wealthy, not just the climate change impact problem.
People pursuing improvements of their lives need to aspire to be like the people who are perceived to be more valuable members of humanity. And those higher-status people need to providing the better examples of how to live better lives (less harmful, more helpful). And that means all of the wealthiest should be required to be living carbon free life-styles far sooner than any Others. And they should also help others live improved lives less harmfully. And the supposedly superior (wealthier) people who are not interested in competing to set the better examples need to be bumped down to a level of status (and influence and wealth) that is more appropriate for their attitude (the less fortunate can be excused for being more harmful).
Everyone can learn to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. The problem is the people who are tempted to be more harmful and less helpful. They prefer to believe harmful misunderstandings rather than learn that what they developed a liking for is harmful misunderstanding.
-
nigelj at 15:36 PM on 31 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @88
"Gents, whether you like it or not - you will not change the fact that Emissions or GDP per capita is only an imaginary value ........"
Per capita emissions and gdp are not imaginary value. Such a thing is calculated and forms part of my countries statistics database.
However I agree that country by country data is really important, and I did say that. In hindsight I would say per capita emissions are an equally important consideration, not more important. But its obviously an issue for a countries internal affairs.
"The global community's strategy must include tools to measure emission reductions and sanctions for non-compliance. The mandate should also be at the UN level. However, there is no such thing."
Agreed.
"Gents, you really only deal with your feelings here. No hard data. You bend the data into absurd indicators that this world will not cure. "
Not clear what you mean. However I dont think that suggesting high income people should reduce their emissions more than low income people is a "feelings" issue. Its actually simple commonsense. I admit that it would be very difficult to get high income people to reduce their emissions dramatically more than low income people. However it's probably no more challenging than your suggestion "The global community's strategy must include tools to measure emission reductions and sanctions for non-compliance. "
"And praise each other for buying EV.Rename yourself to the EVs and RES fan club."
I don't recall prasing anyone for buying an EV. I did say I was contemplating buying an EV or PHEV. But I recall you said you owned a PHEV and had solar panels on your house. So aren't you a fan PHEV's and RES? Jan, your comments appear contradictory.
If you are not a fan of EVs and RES, what are your preferences please? And why?
"But I haven't found a single reasonable opinion on feasible emission reductions based on IPCC reports. If you do not understand, there is no time for games."
I have promoted EV's, so I conclude you appear to oppose EVs as "feasible emissions reductions". Yes or no? Care to elaborate? Please give simple, clear, unambiguous answers.
If you cant answer the simple questions I have put above and on my previous post, I will not be bothering further discussing anything with you, or reading any of your links. Right now I'm inclined to think you are some sort of troll. This is your last chance to prove me wrong.
-
jan21405 at 13:08 PM on 31 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@ OPOF and Nigelj
Gents, whether you like it or not - you will not change the fact that Emissions or GDP per capita is only an imaginary value and another inaccurate and unnecessary indicator, which has nothing to do with the division of the country's emissions / economic output.
The global community's strategy must include tools to measure emission reductions and sanctions for non-compliance. The mandate should also be at the UN level. However, there is no such thing.
The UN does not need to consider the existence of one person in Canada who behaves wisely and his neighbour across the street who does not act responsibly. This is what Canada should address as a low-level entity responsible for reducing emissions as a country. But the country must take responsibility, which creates "wealth" associated with emissions through its activities.
Another factor in your inaccurate consideration is that GDP in relation to emissions is a misleading figure. GDP generally does not include issues of companies that have HQ (registration) in a given country, but do business globally and thus generate emissions in other countries as well. Therefore, the responsibility for such emissions should lie with the HQ of the company and thus the country in which the HQ is registered. After all, there is GNP for this purpose. And this is how emissions should be recalculated as well. This would add to the reality that may not be felt again by the G7 / G20 countries.
Because many western countries have moved production over the last 22 years, not only to China (mainly), but also to other Asian and African countries.
The last mistake is to divide countries into developed and developing countries. By which metric:
- UN / DESA WESP? (there is also third level - transition)
or
- IMF?Gents, you really only deal with your feelings here. No hard data. You bend the data into absurd indicators that this world will not cure. And praise each other for buying EV. Rename yourself to the EVs and RES fan club. But I haven't found a single reasonable opinion on feasible emission reductions based on IPCC reports. If you do not understand, there is no time for games.
-
nigelj at 07:40 AM on 31 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @79
I don't have a problem with the body of your text as such. I realise it needs to be technical and detailed to some extent. I'm just suggesting that you summarise your views briefly and in simple terms at the top of all that text so we know where you are going. Like an introduction. Your single page China summary helped in that respect.
Putting it another way, I dont want to have to read through a lot of pages to figure out what the main points are. You may think they are obvious and they may be to engineering experts but not the rest of us.
You also didn't answer my questions and points @74 . Not going to read the hundreds of pages in your links hoping the answers are in there.
Regarding your views on China. We all know their trends in coal use are continuing to some extent, and this is not looking good and makes it hard to see how they will achieve their ambitious climate plans. I don't find your graphs a revelation. To meet their gloals they will have to stop this pretty soon and engage in massive replacement of coal fired plant. Time will tell I guess.Rapid transformation of energy grids looks plausible to me in theory. Just look at what America did in five years of WW2 to change its economy. Whether such a thing happens with the climate problem is basically a motivational and political issue. I admit I'm not too optimistic. And the window for even a massive and rapid transformation is getting smaller all the time because some things are just impossible.
I accept your point that a small number of developed or largely developed countries are the main emitters and will have to make most of the changes, but again its not some new revelation. I had to read a lot of numbers to see that this was the basic point you were making.
However while we do talk about countries emissions it's a matter of resolving the Paris Accord issues. OPOF is quite right that what really matters most is per capita emissions and social groups issues.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:20 AM on 31 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan,
Another important consideration is 'history of per capita impacts'. Current day people in a nation often benefit from the harmful ghg impacts of the past by 'the nation or region they were born in or live in'. And that past harm should be attributable to them as something they should make amends for.
Our World in Data Per Capita CO2 Emissions Table presentation provides an excellent way to explore the per capita by nation. Of course, that evaluation misses the identification of harmful high impact regional populations like Alberta inside Canada. And, as mentioned @85, that method of seeking to identify the problem can miss the fact that the real target needs to be the highest impacting people benefiting from fossil fuel use. That can include a very small number of people in a very poor nation with very low per capita impacts. It can also be investors in harmful pursuit of profit activity in a region who do not live in the region.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:49 AM on 31 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan,
I think I see the problem.
You appear to have fallen for the Shell Game claims that Top Total Impacting Nations is the way to identify the major part of the problem.
The problem is undeniably the top 20% impacting people. Comparing 'national totals' is a very incorrect way to look at this issue (And comparing the regional totals within a nation can also miss the key point of the need to target the highest impacting portion of the population - I am very sensitive to this point as I am a low impacting person living in Alberta, Canada, disliking being unfairly identified as a problem because of Alberta's 64 tonne per person annual impacts which are higher than many oil producing nations).
Looking at the TOP20 per capita impacting nations would be the proper way to seek the highest impacting people. But even that misses the problem of the high impacting portion of a lower per capita impacting nation.
-
jan21405 at 00:03 AM on 31 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Eclectic #80
This was the base of my hypothesis in early 2021 - copy/paste from document No. 2 mentioned in my last post.
All the emissions defined here are Emissions from Fossil fuels only.
---------------------
2010 Global CO2 fossil fuels emissions: 33 971 Mt CO2 (EDGAR-AR5 model)
In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40 60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045 2055 interquartile range). .... based on IPCC AR5.
2030 goal = 33 971- 45% (15 287) = 18 684 Mt CO2 in 2030
the value: 15 287 Mt CO2 is slightly over of equivalent of the entire: China + US + India emissions (TOP3 emission providers in the world in 2019)
or
179% of 2019 Total emissions from the rest of the TOP20 countries in the world are responsible for 81% of CO2 emissions. Remember the TOP20 label for all the later considerations in this document.
So looking for solutions in the rest of the 188 countries, which generate only 19% of CO2 emissions, is nice, but it has a very small impact on achieving the goals defined in the IPCC AR5.
2019 Global CO2 emissions: 38 017 Mt CO2, then till 2030 we need to decline the emissions by about 50% from 2019 til 2030 (reach the 2010 target), and reaching net zero around 2050.The annual (linear) declination step must be 1 567 MT CO2 = entire Japan+Turkey. Each year. It's supposed to go down, but on the contrary, it's going up. Every year.
With the existing approach to emissions-reducing, we will achieve only 50% reduction from 2020 to 2050.
This means that we will be outside any safe borders as early as 2037, defined by the IPCC as Pathways with higher overshoot. At the end of 2025, this scenario will either be confirmed or refuted.
In global numbers, we should reach less than 30GTin 2025 if we are to adhere to the IPCC predictions to keep warming up to 1.5C.
(Note from 2022: just thanks to the pandemic we get 35.96Gt in 2020, but in 2021 we were back in increase).
However, this means that the TOP20 countries in the world must reduce their emissions by at least 8GT = 27% of their cumulative value from 2019.
Because the rest of the 188 countries have total CO2 emissions of about 7Gt – so there isn’t a doable plan to ask them for a 100% reduction by 2030 (even for 50%).
Just for your imagination, the 27% decrease from the TOP20 countries:
- it is 71% equivalent of their cumulative Power production emissions
- it is 119% equivalent of their cumulative Industry emissions
- it is 151% equivalent of their cumulative Transport emissions ........................ (Note: as you can see no way for EVs to reach it)
- it is 98% equivalent of their cumulative Transport and Buildings emissions
- it is 125% equivalent of their cumulative Buildings and Others (Agricultural, ...) emissions
Till the end of 2025, we only have 4 years and 7 months remaining. (Note: the document is from 2021)The first bad sign of discomfort will be 34.5Gt at the end of 2025. According to the AR5 report, we need less than 30Gt in 2025 and less than 20Gt in 2030.
I'll be really happy if someone refutes this plan.
Otherwise, it won't be good at all.Pareto principle:
20 (10%) countries are responsible for 81% of CO2 emissions. ...... here we need to try to find major reduction scenarios.
-
Eclectic at 22:49 PM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @81 , thank you for your link to No More Good News on Global Warming. As I am time-poor, I have put it on my To Do list, and I hope I will have the opportunity of letting you know when I have read it.
In the meantime, please think of Einstein and Feynman and other great teachers. ~Execute the Alexandrian solution ! Cut through the Gordian Knot of taxonomies and epistemologies ! Penetrate at once to the heart of the pragmatic solution of the fossil fuel CO2 emissions (and maybe their equivalences as well? ).
In particular , please enlighten our fretful readers about the most efficient solutions to AGW, as you have hinted in your statement regarding the intelligent usage of the Pareto Principle ~ where 20% of the effort can produce 80% of the desired result. This is important information, surely, and deserves immediate attention here. What is the 20% you speak of? Can you not give a decent outline of it, per a single paragraph? Please express the heart of the idea (and minor details can be examined later).
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:45 PM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @ 79:
@Bob Loblaw #77
I'm not a fan of Ivar Giaever (Climate change opinions)
Yet @68 you said:
when you will read all my posts in this thread you will understand my point to Ivar Giaever.
So, you just stuck in his name (twice) because you are not a fan, and had no other point to make? Remember, @77 I said:
No, it is not obvious as to why you bring up his name.
I still don't know why you mentioned him (twice), and now I don't care. Your writing style and approach is discouraging people from reading whatever point you are trying to make.
-
jan21405 at 21:56 PM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Eclectic #80
First of all, it is necessary to unify what kind of data we will interpret:
a) or GHG emissions converted to CO2 equivalent = CO2 + other types of gases enter the atmosphere may/may not be related to the combustion of fossil fuels
b) "pure" CO2 emissions from fossil fuels onlyThen B) emissions are a subcategory of the A) emissions.
All of the above emission values come from qualified estimates (some with a more accurate attitude some with how to say ... based on an estimate from the estimates), there is nothing like 100% true in this area. I'm not writing this because of the Climate denier topic, but in research and interpretation, it's really important to understand how those datasets are created. Otherwise, incorrect/inappropriate interpretations may (and often do) occur.
Many people don't know about it and then compare pears to apples.Therefore, it is necessary to create, adhere to and comment on data according to "data taxonomy" = a classification of the data according to the right categories/subcategories, sources, credibility, ...
General Data taxonomy unfortunately very missing. I suggested to the European JRC that I could handle them. Including the facts described by the positive effects on the exchange of data between UN FAO - EDGAR datasets. Including the negative scenarios that exist today and will be maintained unless they change that. As I mentioned above, the European JRC has responded and is consulting the options. On the contrary, the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization) is silent.
The biggest problem with these qualified estimates is the data inconsistency. E.g. the EDGAR model for defining emissions by individual states and regions (Power production, Transport, Building, ...) is still "active" = today's exported data for 2019 do not match the data you exported from the same model in 2021 for the same year 2019. It is very difficult to qualify the shift in YoY emissions because what was true last year is no longer valid today.
A simplified example:
This is similar to achieving 2.5% YoY Product Sales for a Car company in 2019 (calculated in 2020), but if you want to recalculate this in 2021, you will reach 1.9% YoY only. One would say that the 0.6% is a negligible value. At 35Gt of CO2 emissions, this makes a difference of 0.21Gt, which is more than the annual Transport emissions generation from 21 EU27 countries or more than the annual total of 92 countries for the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. For the average reader, 0.6% means nothing. For a data scientist, this is a data disaster.If you read my simple essay, which is more intended for the average user, you will find the basis of the 80/20 problem explained in a really simple way:
No More Good News on Global Warming
Let me know when you read it.
-------------------------
Used acronyms:
EDGAR: Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research
JRC: EU Joint Research Centre
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAOSTAT: Statistical authority of FAO -
Eclectic at 20:49 PM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @79 : thank you for your further contributions.
What I observe in the articles & comments columns of SkS [SkepticalScience] is that there is a very wide range of readers and participants. This can be seen in the threads and "Climate Myths" articles & commentary during the past dozen years or more.
The majority of commenters are (like me) at a basic level of critical thinking & scientific education ~ let us say, at the level of upper highschool to undergraduate university. Yet there are also many others at a very advanced level of education (like you).
Nevertheless, the SkS website must cater for the whole range. And that includes readers who are too time-poor to devote hours per day in the pursuit of climate knowledge and in the acquisition of well-informed opinions in the practicalities of tackling climate & energy. It is this very group [the large majority, like me] who rely upon the helpful summarizations provided by experts [like you].
One of the markers of true expertise, is the ability to give a concise and lucid explanation of important ideas & concepts. We see that ability in great minds such as Einstein and Feynman.
For all these reasons, Jan, I must again ask you to put aside all the fine details which distract ~ and to provide readers wth the pragmatic core of your understanding of the way forward in climate solutions. In particular, please educate us (in concise form) about the [Pareto] 20% of climate-correcting actions we can undertake to fix 80% of the CO2 emissions problem. Your statement about the 20%/80% , in relation to climate, is intriguingly new to me (and doubtless intriguing to many other readers, too).
-
jan21405 at 18:55 PM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Bob Loblaw #77
I'm not a fan of Ivar Giaever (Climate change opinions)
------------------------------------------
@nigelj @Eclectic and others
100% agree - that the communication here is difficult. From any aspects.
If I may suggest you, try to study the documents I have proposed (see a short list below), which will help you understand that I am not taking numbers out of my pocket here, but that there is serious research behind it. I describe the documents through the mutual stories that interact. There is a lot of visualization because the clean text is an outdated form of interpretation.
I repeat, this problem is so complex that it cannot be described by keywords. So if Skeptical Science is really about Science, then we need to get to a state of understanding at least in the basic domains. My documents will help you with that. Subsequently, we can resume the discussion on specific issues. Based on specific sources and data. Not just based on opinions.
I will be happy to explain the basic principles of the energy lifecycle, but - this SkS forum = an offline and technologically outdated system will complicate it. That needs to be said. I admit that I am not a great writer, such as Dr. Greger, who can enchant the masses only through keywords. This, on the other hand, has a negative impact - because it has created a religion in the field of what is now called Nutrition Science. And he doesn't have to prove anything to his audience.If you have the interest to get some deeper answers mentioned here, you can start with this document reading list in the order (pls download them because Academia.edu portal has for preview just low res extracts):
1. GHG emissions problems in a dark box - Part 05 - Population, Land, Food, Emissions and data disaster
In this document, I address the impact of FOOD systems on anthropogenic GHG emissions. I was prompted to analyze several polarizing articles that appeared to be scientific, but they had little in common as is customary with science. It creates such a fake, dare I say, a manipulative area in which the masses are lost because they cannot understand the depth of the problem.
The emission issue associated with Food systems cannot be declared with a single number that has zero significance. The knowledge that we are composed of approximately 7 x 1027 atoms does not alone allow us to compose a functional human body.
Also, being aware that Food systems cause 1/3 of GHG emissions can't help us understand the core of the problem. It's just a number without expressing complex relationships. This problem is complex, and each new interaction confuses the situation even more.2. GHG [CO2] emissions problem in a dark box - 1st part of the Global warming series
The purpose of this analysis and consideration is to offer a clearer report on how the current efforts to reduce GHG are failing This failure is that much bigger because at a mathematical
level it is not possible to secure the promises of individual countries I hope this will help open your eyes I'm afraid people are too contempt with what someone has drawn Now it's time for a cold shower.3. GHG CO2 emissions - Part 01 China Power production, race to zero analysis
Because China is the main indicator of our worldwide race to zero from all the possible points. Chinese Power industry emissions share 12% of Global CO2 emissions (2019), source
by EDGAR . The Second challenge is a statement of president Xi Jinping at the General Debate of the 75th Session of The United Nations General Assembly: “We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before Source So the challenge is accepted, there is a simple hypothesis:Is it doable to achieve CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve the carbon neutrality before 2060 in China?
The answer is:
“No” for the emission peak before 2030. Technically and mathematically not doable. Even with totally frozen industry.
“No” for the carbon neutrality before 2060. Technically and mathematically not doable. Even when China will freeze its industry for the next 39 years it’s questionable.
The document focuses mainly on the Power Production segment from the CO2 emissions point of view. All the interpretations are again based on publicly available data, including references to them. So everyone can check my interpretations based on free access to data.4. China Power production CO2 emissions issue in single page
Single page conclusion how is impossible to reach Carbon Neutral 2060 Chinese plan by their current attitude
5. GHG CO2 - Part 02 - Transport race to zero emissions analysis in single page
Single page definition of the 20% issue focus on the 80% of emissions decrease
-
swampfoxh at 12:44 PM on 30 March 2022The ‘whys’ beyond the ‘what’ of the severe western U.S. drought
Bill Debuys, in his book, "A Great Aridness" pushes the history of western megadrought back to end of the Last Ice Age (cir 13,000 years ago) and shows a pattern of extreme drought occurring roughly every 1,000 years. I think I remembering his speculating that the Native tribes actually pulled up stakes and left the area altogether, moving to the Mississippi valley. The drought hatched in 1050 apparently persisted until about 1200 CE.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:44 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
In addition to my comment @76,
The comparison of total impacts, production and power impacts, of ICE vs EV at 150,000 km of vehicle use under-estimates the benefits of EVs if the vehicle is driven further. Many vehicles are driven far further than 150,000 km.
-
Evan at 11:08 AM on 30 March 2022SkS Analogy 3 - The Greenhouse Effect is Like a Cloudy Night
Charlie_Brown@17, thanks for your heat transfer lesson.
I certainly agree with you that the system must be in equilibrium, not storing nor generating energy.
Regarding what happens at the top of the atmosphere, I'm not sure it is as simple as you state, nor do I want to get into a discussion that may take me over my head. Although I understand geometrically that radiation is emitted uniformly in all directions, in the direction towards space molecular density is lower than in the direction towards Earth. Therefore, radiation directed towards Earth tends to get intercepted more than the radiation that is directed towards space, which has an easier time escaping the atmosphere. This cools the upper atmosphere, because the more CO2 present the more infrared radiation is created and the more heat escapes to space. Therefore, one of the fingerprints of global warming is that the lower atmosphere warms, and the upper atmosphere cools. Read here for a NASA description of this effect.
I am reminded of the sun. Most people know that from the surface of the sun the sunlight takes only a little over 8 minutes to reach Earth. But how many people know that radiation created at the center of the sun takes about 100,000 years to reach the surface of the sun, because of the density of the inner sun. So there is the added complexity of the density of atmosphere's that also affect radiation heat transfer.
And this is all way beyond the intent of the analogy. I appreciate your comments and I will try to sharpen up the comments in the analogy to make sure they do not mislead.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:51 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @ 68:
when you will read all my posts in this thread you will understand my point to Ivar Giaever.
You have mentioned his name twice, that I can see. No, it is not obvious as to why you bring up his name. In the first case (comment 38), you are discussing "Who is actually a scientist?" In the second case, you are saying "And I don't care if the document was peer-reviewed because..."
You are not expressing yourself as clearly as you think you are. For someone who has arrived here telling other people how they should communicate, you need to up your game. You need to be much more concise, and you need to make your points clearly.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:22 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
jan and others,
The following CBC News item seems to capture the main points about how EVs and grid generation get discussed.
With Nova Scotia's reliance on coal, are electric vehicles the greenest option?
The main points are that even the Nova Scotia grid with a fairly high fossil fuel percentage, and a significant amount of coal, makes EVs a good choice. And it highlights the added reason that the grid will get better quickly.
The following NPR News item ties back to the Shell Game problem, but more precisely to the harmful misleading marketing part of the Shell Game.
Misinformation is derailing renewable energy projects across the United States
The main point in the USA is the ways that harmful promoters of misinformation are delaying the improvement of the electricity generation, delaying he benefits of EVs.
A final point not in either article is that everybody who wants an EV in the next few years will be unable to get one because the production has to ramp up. However, in 10 years time there will be a massive percentage of EVs on the roads everywhere.
A final point is: I find it very disingenuous, almost harmfully biased, to claim that the problem is a developing nation like China (and potentially India would be named next, and maybe the entire continent of Africa) because of some 80-20 made-up rationalization. I agree with targeting the 20% causing 80% of the problem. That would be the 20% of the global population that is the highest personal impacting portion of the population. That would include some people in India and China (likely many among the richest). But it would include a higher percentage of the population of the more advanced nations, because many of the richer people in the more advanced nations failed to reduce how harmful their ways of living and profiting were through the past 30 years, while others were simply developing up to match their examples. The 'legacy harmful leaders by example' are the ones to be targeted for correction. Those legacy richer more harmful people deserve to be targeted ahead of the 'new rich harmful' people who followed the bad examples.
A closing comment. Fossil fuels are a dead-end technology. Future generations cannot continue using a non-renewable technology even if it was not producing other harmful impacts. The ultimate requirement is for policy to be developed and implemented 'everywhere' that will reduce the 'consumerism materialism madness'. The policy needs to be especially focused on correcting and stopping harmful developments even if they are 'cheaper or more profitable or more popular' than more sustainable alternatives. That harmful driving force has created the climate, biodiversity, and other Human Impact threats to the future of humanity. There is no future for that misleading marketing fuelled pursuit of personal desires or competition for impressions of superiority relative to Others.
-
Charlie_Brown at 09:16 AM on 30 March 2022SkS Analogy 3 - The Greenhouse Effect is Like a Cloudy Night
This is a very good discussion of radiant energy transfer. I have only a couple picky technical distinction quibbles with it. I do appreciate your providing a commonly observed example of radiant energy. Very similar to your example is the function of smudge pots in fruit orchards on cold, clear nights. It is not the heat of the smudge pots that keeps the fruit from freezing.
You say that since “the upper atmosphere is also much colder than the ground, so infrared energy absorbed high in the atmosphere is only weakly re-radiated back to the ground.” All energy that is absorbed high in the atmosphere will be re-radiated, half upwards and half downward. More importantly, as CO2 increases, a smaller amount of IR energy is radiated toward space. This is because more energy that would otherwise escape directly is absorbed and half of it gets re-radiated downward. Without greenhouse gases (GHG), the energy doesn’t get absorbed and all of it goes toward space. Thus the “trapping” occurs by not letting as much energy that exits toward space out the top of the energy system.
Clouds don’t store (accumulate) energy unless the cloud is getting warmer. Cloud droplets either reflect radiant energy or absorb and re-radiate it back toward the Earth. Also, greenhouse gases don’t absorb more radiation than they receive, other than any slight imbalance which is manifested as a temperature change. This brings the temperature of GHGs in equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere. GHGs re-radiate energy of specific wavelengths back to the ground. As greenhouse gas concentrations increase, more energy is returned to the ground, warming it. To bring the system back into balance with a warmer ground, more IR is emitted by the ground and all wavelengths. Some of it will be at wavelengths that are transparent to IR and will escape to space. All of this is observable using an atmospheric radiation model. The key is the energy balance. Be mindful of the understanding of stored or accumulated energy.
Forgive me for dwelling on esoteric distinctions. I appreciate the opportunity to practice writing about them. I hope that trying to understand them could prompt others to think about them also. -
Eclectic at 09:08 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan , from your posts #72 and #73 , I discern two points where you could provide useful information to readers.
(A) With regard to the Pareto Principle ~ please describe what you believe are the 20% of necessary changes which will produce an 80% reduction in fossil fuels CO2 emissions . . . and that reduction being over a suitably short time span, of course.
(B) Please clarify why you think making small or marginal benefits in emissions reduction [are] not worth attempting. Here, I realize that your clear explanation of point (A) may well provide your explanation of (B) .
-
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan
I find your posts good value, but I agree with Eclectic its a bit hard following what you say. It would be helpful if you summarised your views briefly in plain language, and without all the detailed numbers and jargon.
Trying to understand the numbers. Surely you dont need 100% renewables grid for EVs to have lower lifetime emissions than an ICE car? So what is the proportion of renewables you need?
I'm guessing that you would need a grid with at least about 20% renewables and 80% fossils fules for an EV to have lifetime emissions lower than an ICE car. That you would need at least 20% renewables to effectively cancel out the embedded carbon in manufacturing the EV. What would you say?
But its not all about emissions. Personally I will buy either an EV or PHEV in a couple of years parlty for climate reasons but also because of reliability and low running costs.
In an ideal engineering world the numbers of EVS and the grid should be in perfect harmony but the "cat is effectively out of the bag" and people might decide they just want EVs right now, and government's can't really tell auto manufacturers how many EVs to produce. The grid would then have to run to catch up with the EVs.
I do vaguely understand your grid stability concerns when lots of people are suddenly charging cars. Frequency and voltage issues and stuff like that.
But perhaps its all somewhat academic. I mean that in a plausible and likely real world scenario, renewables will expand gradually to hopefully be 100% by 2050 or probably a bit later, and EV's will gradually expand as well in approximate synchronisation with the energy grid. I'm picking about 100% by 2050 or maybe even later. It takes time for auto manufacturers to build new plant and most people find EVs a bit expensive. So the natural course of things will control the potential chaos. China will be an outlier because its not really a free market economy.
Sorry if my points arent too clear. Hopefully you get what I'm saying. -
jan21405 at 00:09 AM on 30 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@ Eclectic #71
thank you. Could you be pls. more specific regarding the:
but many of the points you mention are somewhat discursive and without clear focus.
it will help me to better understand your point. I decided to provide my answers in sections, according to the logical units in the communication to which it follows = to increase clarity.
-----------------------------------------
Community conversation improvement (for this portal operator):
the backend of this portal was modern in 2005. If I could suggest, there are already clearer forms that run on OpenSource such as XenForo and similar systems. 3 years ago, I co-launched a portal for Synology users (independent from the Vendor). It costs just 300USD/y (extended license fee). However, it is possible to create different groups, private messaging, resources/blogs, automated quotations, edit the post after sending, notify users, advance search, the moderator can create immediately new thread when the discussion has crossed another topic and no one loses the messages, .... link - when you like to check the conversation improvements for the SkS (I'm not a sw coder).
If you are interested, I can help you with that.
-
jan21405 at 23:42 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@ALL
here is a single slide explanation of Trasport emissions core from last year: GHG CO2 - Part 02 - Transport race to zero emissions analysis in a single page; link
Based on the last EDGAR V6 dataset, nothing is dramatically changed in the Transport emissions. Few interpretations for EU27 countries:
- Germany is responsible for 20.45% of emissions. Germany's 2000-2020 emissions growth is -18% (negative), but during the 2010-2019 period it was +6% increase (the 2020 pandemic year we can't take into account)
- 66.62% of emissions are produced from 5 countries (27 total) - Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland (sorted by emissions)
- Germany is responsible for the same value of emissions as Italy + Poland together
- Poland is growing +37% in the period 2010-2019
The energy mix in these countries is different (2019):
- Germany 78% from Fossil fuels (zero Nuclear from 2023), high carbon grid
- France 48% from Fossil fuels
- Italy 79% from Fossil fuels (zero Nuclear), high carbon grid
- Spain 72% from Fossil fuels, high carbon grid
- Poland 89% from Fossil fuels (zero Nuclear), high carbon grid
So when these 5 countries responsible for 66.62% of EU27 emissions from transport will migrate during a single day all of their ICE vehicles to EVs and on the same day they will migrate energy production to the low-carbon grid, we will get max. 0.9% savings from the Total world CO2 fossil fuels emissions (35,962.87Mt in 2020); based on EDGAR Dataset v6/2021. The Low-carbon methodology used in the NREL study - was mentioned in my posts.
Which doesn't happen.
Btw: the value from the entire EU27 Transport emissions is 695Mt CO2. In comparison with China's Energy fossil fuels emissions 4794Mt CO2, it's just a 14.5% share.
Saving 10% of China's Energy emissions will bring -479.4Mt CO2, which is 69% of the Total Transport EU27 Emissions = or ZERO Transport emissions in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. China grows YoY 2%.
Think about it, if you still think that the uncontrolled exchange of ICEs to EVs is a good idea for reducing Climate change.
That's why I prefer to set a strategy for eliminating emissions through the Pareto principle - look for 20% of sources that will solve 80% of the problems.
However, from some answers here at SkS site, I feel that shooting into the dark aka 80% of the sources, which will solve only less than 20% of the problems, is the only thing I learned here.
No one has invented anything good through chaos yet.
-
Eclectic at 22:26 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
Jan @70 and prior :
Thank you Jan, you have made many statements in this thread ~ but many of the points you mention are somewhat discursive and without clear focus. I mean, to a casual reader such as myself.
For the benefit of the casual reader, would you please be so kind as to condense your overall message into a single paragraph containing the main point (or two) which you wish to present & educate us with. Some of what you have said is self-evident and is not really in dispute; some is already widely known; and some is not very pertinent to this thread.
I would be grateful to learn the point (or points) which you consider particularly valuable to the readers of this thread, in moving the discussion forward.
-
jan21405 at 19:50 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Philippe Chantreau #67
this is my response continued from #69
Section 6 ---------------
Your opinion:
Hall and Lutsey found in 2018 that in all studied European countries, EVs lifecycle emissions over 150,000km were less than ICE, except perhaps in Germany.
Back to the study wording:
As a result of the high efficiency of electric motors and the ability to generate electricity from low-carbon sources, electric cars typically have lower emissions in the use phase compared to similar internal combustion engine vehicles.
They use the term “low-carbon sources” based on their own research: INTEGRATING ELECTRIC VEHICLES WITHIN U.S. AND EUROPEAN EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS (Lutsey, 2017); link. I found there some discrepancies:
a) there is no available term like “low-carbon sources” or “low-carbon”
b) just the “average European grid” or country-specific grid values (Netherlands, Germany, UK, France, Norway)
If I'm referring to something, I should follow the wording.
However, the “low-carbon sources” term was used first time in the NREL study based on a previous study (Brinkman, 2015), which was mentioned by me here #40: Emissions Associated with Electric Vehicle Charging: Impact of Electricity Generation Mix, Charging Infrastructure Availability, and Vehicle Type (McLaren, 2016); link
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/ev_emissions_impact.pdf
where the Daily profile of the low-carbon grid (sources) is based on:
- 97% from ZERO Emissions Fuels
- 3% from the Natural Gas
- 0% from the Coal.
In a timeline, it fits, because in 2016 the NREL study was issued and in 2018 they used the term “low-carbon sources” in the study by Hall and Lutsey, 2018.
So yes, I must agree with the study (Hall and Lutsey, 2018), that:As a result of the high efficiency of electric motors and the ability to generate electricity from low-carbon sources, electric cars typically have lower emissions in the use phase compared to similar internal combustion engine vehicles.
Anyway, the study (Lutsey, 2017) compares the mentioned countries - Netherlands, Germany, UK, France, Norway. And this comparison confirmed my analysis and conclusion that we need to compare apples to apples - energy mix by country and not by continents and never by the single global number. See page 7, Figure 4. Electric and conventional vehicle test-cycle and upstream fuel-cycle emissions in Europe …. Where France and Norway have they have fundamentally different values of CO2 emissions (g/km) for EVs (up to 4-5x less than the Netherlands or Germany or UK). Reason:
Electric vehicles have particularly low CO2 emissions in France and Norway due to the high share of nuclear power in France and hydropower in Norway.This is another example of why we can’t use a single emission number as a useful strategy.
Section 7 ---------------
Your opinion:One could say that just the benefit of cutting on particulates would be enough to give EVs an advantage if CO2 life-cycle emissions are comparable. One could also, as was done earlier, argue that waiting until the generation mix is more favorable is counterproductive in the perspective of a large scale transition. As the generation mix improves, the CO2 equivalent/km of a given EV will decrease over the lifetime of the vehicle.
You need to consider that electricity for 100% transition from ICEs to EVs needs to be produced – it doesn’t exist now.Then you need to calculate complex variables:
- you must create a plant to achieve Carbon Neutral till 2050. I have never seen a complex worldwide plan based on UN IPCC outcomes.
- you must calculate the common energy consumption growth in each country (w/o EVs impact). This will mean that you will need to replace much more energy by 2050 than we produce today. And China is in this area mandatory variable again.
- you must calculate fossil fuels energy production YoY growth in fundamental countries, i.e. China. What will make a heavy impact on your Carbon Neutral calculations.
- you must calculate the energy production for EVs in each country. This energy doesn’t exist now. Note – not just for the passenger cars.
- You must calculate energy production for the transition of combustion energy sources (biomass) to clean energy sources – this energy doesn’t exist now also.
- You must calculate that Climate change has an impact on the possibility to keep efficiency or sustainability for some RES. Then you need to plan exactly what kind of RES you will use where. You can’t do it without Nuke.
- You must calculate that this planet has limited sources for croplands and the population will grow to huge numbers (where).
To be sure – biomass has so negative impact on emissions than fossil fuels.Section 8 ---------------
Your opinion:In China, just the benefits of cutting particulates emissions from numerous discrete sources close to people (like cars) is certainly enough to argue in favor of EVs.
My point:
China is the High-carbon electricity producer - according to the mentioned NREL study. Is there exact evidence that China's electricity production is falling with emissions? Unfortunately, I did not find one from the official Chinese Energy Portal. If I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting it. -
jan21405 at 18:22 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Philippe Chantreau #67
I will divide the answers to your post #67 into several logical sections to make them clear.
Section 1 ---------------
Your opinion:I'm not sure I'm sold on the "driving is regional" argument. In Europe, one can go from the UK to France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany in one day of driving, although rail would be a better option.
My point:
Sure, you are right in this premise. However, from a scientific point of view, we must look at the following aspects:
a) What is the mileage ratio in the region defined by the country vs abroad ratio
b) For the individual car segments (passenger cars, local trucks, foreign trucks, agricultural vehicles,…). This can give us a much better view of the basis of this hypothesis (chaotic or controlled migration from ICEs to EVs). The mentioned Dutch study focused only on passenger cars. I quote: "The car class we focus on is the compact 5-seater. It includes the Volkswagen Golf, Ford Focus, Renault Megane, Toyota Corolla and Opel Astra. We compare EV configurations to a regular petrol car, diesel car, parallel hybrid car and SHEV."
c) What is the current energy mix that is created in each country (starting point of the research). This was taken into account in the Dutch study. It should be borne in mind that some countries are heavily dependent on electricity imports from neighbouring countries. For example, the Netherlands had imports at 18% of their consumption in 2020 (19.8 from 111 TWh); link Then you need consider the import Power sources also.
For a quick look at the energy mix in individual EU countries, you can see this link. However, this source uses older data from 2018. Or in detail on Eurostat datasets – more precise.d) What is the plan of individual countries in terms of the energy mix in the distribution network in short-term and long-term planning. This was taken into account in that Dutch study very lightly. And as I wrote today's reality in the Netherlands is entirely different - so the scenarios from that study are out of real range. The benefit of such a study is therefore only in the idea, not in its conclusions.
e) What is the state of individual parts of the energy distribution grid region (Transmission lines capacity, distribution lines, terminal stations, transformers capacity - their age and efficiency impacts). This is essential for defining sustainable transition ICEs to EVs. It is not possible to connect sources of such huge quantities anywhere. The physically impossible without affecting the sustainability of the Power grid.Every single mentioned information (from a to e) is publicly available. But I understand that it is easier for someone to create an "average value" of emissions in Europe than to do fundamental research. It is impossible to say that every EV can be charged because an electrical outlet is enough what you need for it. Without analyzing the inputs mentioned above, this mistake is just a mistake and a chaotic approach.
Section 2 ---------------
Your opinion:
The European Union is a very integrated region, where the electrical grid is essentially one system.
Partly answered above:
- Yes, in terms of network quality regulation. I mentioned in # 33 that the EU was 1/2021 near Blackout due to the power supply failure that is suspected of having originated in Romania disrupting the Continental Europe Synchronous Area. Its frequency dropped to 48.75 Hz (target frequency 50Hz), which caused the South-East area to be separated from the rest of the grid.
- Not, because of the fundamentally different inputs of energy production sources at the country level. I mentioned the example in # 34 or in Section 1.
These parameters cannot be separated and generalized. Therefore, this is not a scientific approach to analyzing and interpreting a hypothesis.Section 3 ---------------
Your opinion:
Establishing standards can not be done only at the scale of one small country like the Netherlands, and the overall benefit is what must be considered.
My point:
100% agree, but the “overall benefit is what must be considered” must be qualified strictly regionally without the usage of “strange” average fixed value per continent. The UC Berkeley science philosopher Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), observed that scientists frequently tend to ignore data that does not fit into their scientific paradigm.Section 4 ---------------
Your opinion:Furthermore, the one thing that really matters is global emissions; whether we like it or not, that is what makes the radiative forcing.
100% agreeSection 5 ---------------
Your opinion:Any way to lower global emissions is beneficial.
My point:
From a prime perspective, I agree with you.
However, if we really want to heal this planet and we really want to achieve the conditions for a permanent reduction in emissions, then we cannot just generalize it and not deal with it chaotically at all because it suits us in the discussion. If we pretend that there is only one way to reduce emissions and ignore others, we can reach the blind alley stage.
If you are interested, study my latest analysis carefully: GHG emissions problems in a dark box - Part 05 - Population, Land, Food, Emissions and data disaster
link (btw reviewed by 3 independent persons at Academia.edu)Maybe some context will open up your eye. Because the problem is complex. I looked at the dependencies of population growth, emissions generation, the food systems, the agriculture sector and linked them into one story. The biggest problem I am constantly discovering is the inconsistency of the data used for the research. For example, I am in direct touch with the European Joint Research Centre, which manages the EDGAR Emissions Databases for the UN. We have concluded that they will adjust their datasets so that divergent and even inappropriate interpretations of their emissions data do not arise. Unfortunately, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) and their FAOSTAT do not communicate at all. There is a heavy data mess.
I don't force anyone to follow my thoughts.
I'll finish the rest of your post later. -
jan21405 at 16:10 PM on 29 March 2022The Climate Shell Game
@Bob Loblaw #66
when you will read all my posts in this thread you will understand my point to Ivar Giaever.
Especially in a portal which is about the science, as appears SkS also it's necessary read entire thread. Science is (should be) about a complex information gathering. Otherwise, one gets into a situation where he evaluates only part of the available information, which must lead to a wrong conclusion.
