Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

20 hours ago, Jonger said:

I'm realistic. The only solutions people will rally behind are those with as little impact on their lives.

Sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere in Nevada to pull down the levels in England are palatable for most of us. You seem like you have ulterior motives at control...you'll be watching the world burn with that kind of thinking.

Yes tough sell for expensive solutions, fortunately its getting to the point where a push to net-zero isn't going to cost much, may even reduce costs in the long run. From ZekeH's twitter.

 

[Vice-Regent]

On 4/19/2021 at 12:24 PM, Jonger said:

I'm realistic. The only solutions people will rally behind are those with as little impact on their lives.

Sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere in Nevada to pull down the levels in England are palatable for most of us. You seem like you have ulterior motives at control...you'll be watching the world burn with that kind of thinking.

Don't want to dig a deeper hole for my posterity. I know for certain that civilization is destined to go into terminal overshoot.

[Vice-Regent]

The IEA reports:

Global energy demand is set to increase by 4.6% in 2021 – led by emerging markets and developing economies – pushing it above its 2019 level. Demand for all fossil fuels is on course to grow significantly in 2021, with both coal and gas set to rise above their 2019 levels. Oil is also rebounding strongly but is expected to stay below its 2019 peak, as the aviation sector remains under pressure.

The expected rise in coal use dwarfs that of renewables by almost 60%, despite accelerating demand for renewables. More than 80% of the projected growth in coal demand in 2021 is set to come from Asia, led by China. Coal use in the United States and the European Union is also on course to increase but will remain well below pre-crisis levels.

[LibertyBell]

Major announcement for tomorrow, Earth Day, Biden's plan to cut carbon emissions in half by 2030! Also, the plan to produce only electric vehicles by 2035 are estimated to save us about 2.7 trillion dollars.

 

https://qz.com/1999656/biden-plans-to-cut-us-carbon-emissions-in-half-within-the-decade/

[LibertyBell]

19 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

The IEA reports:

Global energy demand is set to increase by 4.6% in 2021 – led by emerging markets and developing economies – pushing it above its 2019 level. Demand for all fossil fuels is on course to grow significantly in 2021, with both coal and gas set to rise above their 2019 levels. Oil is also rebounding strongly but is expected to stay below its 2019 peak, as the aviation sector remains under pressure.

The expected rise in coal use dwarfs that of renewables by almost 60%, despite accelerating demand for renewables. More than 80% of the projected growth in coal demand in 2021 is set to come from Asia, led by China. Coal use in the United States and the European Union is also on course to increase but will remain well below pre-crisis levels.

we need to embargo the shit out of these nations that are using coal.  We need Iran-level sanctions on them

[Vice-Regent]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

we need to embargo the shit out of these nations that are using coal.  We need Iran-level sanctions on them

Such actions would result in the death of millions. I don't think that much blood should be payed for civilization but if it was going to happen anyway I guess go for it.

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Such actions would result in the death of millions. I don't think that much blood should be payed for civilization but if it was going to happen anyway I guess go for it.

they can switch to nuclear, losing coal shouldn't be that big of a deal considering that it's an archaic fuel source.  Coal puts more radiation into the environment than nuclear anyway.

 

[rclab]

On 4/21/2021 at 7:00 PM, LibertyBell said:

we need to embargo the shit out of these nations that are using coal.  We need Iran-level sanctions on them

Good morning LB. I understand your frustration. The danger of embargo/sanction is the tit for tat response. Can we really sanction another nation for using coal until our own use is 0 %. Perhaps the wealthier nations should invest in development/testing of renewable clean energy strategies in the emerging market nations. Perhaps eventually we all would truly practice what we preach. As always ...

[psv88]

Biden did it! Putin and Xi attended the forum. The US is back as a leader. What a great day. 

[donsutherland1]

6 hours ago, psv88 said:

Biden did it! Putin and Xi attended the forum. The US is back as a leader. What a great day. 

This summit is another welcome step demonstrating that the United States has begun to re-engage with the world. The U.S. strategic position was weakened badly from four years of chaotic and demoralizing disengagement.

When it comes to addressing the great challenge of climate change, global cooperation is imperative. Climate change and its consequences are not confined within national boundaries.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

This summit is another welcome step demonstrating that the United States has begun to re-engage with the world. The U.S. strategic position was weakened badly from four years of chaotic and demoralizing disengagement.

When it comes to addressing the great challenge of climate change, global cooperation is imperative. Climate change and its consequences are not confined within national boundaries.

Here's the problem.....the Paris accord is not nearly enough.  It's not even a half measure, it's a quarter measure.  We must apply strong pressure to get all nations to set quicker timelines for the end of fossil fuel consumption.

Talk is cheap.

 

[Jonger]

Just now, LibertyBell said:

Here's the problem.....the Paris accord is not nearly enough.  It's not even a half measure, it's a quarter measure.  We must apply strong pressure to get all nations to set quicker timelines for the end of fossil fuel consumption.

Talk is cheap.

 

We need advancement....and currently the private market is almost exclusively driving the advancement. Elon Musk is single handedly the world leader in speeding this process up.

We can't just stop fossil fuels cold turkey. There needs to be a way to remove co2 from the atmosphere.

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, Jonger said:

We need advancement....and currently the private market is almost exclusively driving the advancement. Elon Musk is single handedly the world leader in speeding this process up.

We can't just stop fossil fuels cold turkey. There needs to be a way to remove co2 from the atmosphere.

I figure companies like Volkswagen, Nissan, GM, Ford, etc. will pick up the slack (they already have nice electric/hybrid lineups.)

We really should be expanding on use of nuclear too, that will pick up a lot of the slack.

One thing about removing CO2 I was wondering about....okay so today, this very day, NASA reported success of that machine they put on Mars that converts CO2 to O2, just like plants do.  Why can't that be scaled up and be used here to convert CO2 to oxygen just like what we're doing on Mars?

 

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Here's the problem.....the Paris accord is not nearly enough.  It's not even a half measure, it's a quarter measure.  We must apply strong pressure to get all nations to set quicker timelines for the end of fossil fuel consumption.

Talk is cheap.

 

The summit was a start. It was useful in that it demonstrated that the U.S. is returning to the global effort to address climate change and that it will be working with other countries in that process. At COP26, it will be important that the U.S. and others provide concrete commitments. Even today's U.S. goal is lacking specifics on how it will arrive there, what measures will be used to assess progress, and what enforcement mechanisms might be used to ensure that the goal is attained.

[LibertyBell]

15 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The summit was a start. It was useful in that it demonstrated that the U.S. is returning to the global effort to address climate change and that it will be working with other countries in that process. At COP26, it will be important that the U.S. and others provide concrete commitments. Even today's U.S. goal is lacking specifics on how it will arrive there, what measures will be used to assess progress, and what enforcement mechanisms might be used to ensure that the goal is attained.

I see China and India seem to be holding back, we really need to get them on board.

I like the idea of rooftop solar, TWC has been doing a series all week about sustainability and it seems like it's taking hold even in northern states like Maine.  It can work anywhere!

The movie 2040 is amazing, a glimpse into a far more hopeful future......everyone should watch this:

https://www.mediavillage.com/article/earth-day-special-2040-on-the-cw-takes-viewers-to-a-utopian-future/

[donsutherland1]

45 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I see China and India seem to be holding back, we really need to get them on board.

I like the idea of rooftop solar, TWC has been doing a series all week about sustainability and it seems like it's taking hold even in northern states like Maine.  It can work anywhere!

The movie 2040 is amazing, a glimpse into a far more hopeful future......everyone should watch this:

https://www.mediavillage.com/article/earth-day-special-2040-on-the-cw-takes-viewers-to-a-utopian-future/

I hope that when COP26 is held in November, China and India will provide more specifics and more ambitious targets. I also hope that the U.S. will come forth with a detailed action plan on how it would achieve its committed reduction and what enforcement mechanism e.g., carbon pricing, would be deployed to assure that it can meet its long-term goal. Shorter-term benchmarks along the way would also be helpful in adding credibility. 

[LibertyBell]

27 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I hope that when COP26 is held in November, China and India will provide more specifics and more ambitious targets. I also hope that the U.S. will come forth with a detailed action plan on how it would achieve its committed reduction and what enforcement mechanism e.g., carbon pricing, would be deployed to assure that it can meet its long-term goal. Shorter-term benchmarks along the way would also be helpful in adding credibility. 

One thing I'm confused about Don, and maybe you could shed some light on this.  NASA has just deployed a machine on Mars that is converting CO2 in its atmosphere to O2 (like plants do), why can't we scale that up and do that right here at home?

 

[donsutherland1]

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

One thing I'm confused about Don, and maybe you could shed some light on this.  NASA has just deployed a machine on Mars that is converting CO2 in its atmosphere to O2 (like plants do), why can't we scale that up and do that right here at home?

 

I don’t know all of the specifics about that machine. For starters, though, Mars has a vastly higher concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere then a the Earth. On Mars, the atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. On Earth, it is a trace gas (about 0.04% of the atmosphere). The technical challenges involved with removing CO2 from Earth’s atmosphere are likely much greater than they are on Mars. I expect that such technology will be improved, though, carbon dioxide removal might eventually become feasible on a meaningful scale at some point in the future.

[LibertyBell]

16 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

I don’t know all of the specifics about that machine. For starters, though, Mars has a vastly higher concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere then a the Earth. On Mars, the atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. On Earth, it is a trace gas (about 0.04% of the atmosphere). The technical challenges involved with removing CO2 from Earth’s atmosphere are likely much greater than they are on Mars. I expect that such technology will be improved, though, carbon dioxide removal might eventually become feasible on a meaningful scale at some point in the future.

I saw something today that made me really sad...... the "What could have been" kind of sad.

It was a documentary on Jimmy Carter and how he was way ahead of the game when it came to climate change and renewable energy.

He was the one who had solar panels put on the White House.

He also had the framework for an early version of what became the Paris Climate Treaty.

What could have been indeed...... at a time when we should've been making those changes already.

If Jimmy Carter had had a second term, all of this would've become reality far sooner.

[Jonger]

On 4/22/2021 at 6:27 PM, LibertyBell said:

I figure companies like Volkswagen, Nissan, GM, Ford, etc. will pick up the slack (they already have nice electric/hybrid lineups.)

We really should be expanding on use of nuclear too, that will pick up a lot of the slack.

One thing about removing CO2 I was wondering about....okay so today, this very day, NASA reported success of that machine they put on Mars that converts CO2 to O2, just like plants do.  Why can't that be scaled up and be used here to convert CO2 to oxygen just like what we're doing on Mars?

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-wave-of-electric-trucks-could-create-millions-of-accidental-environmentalists-11619236828

How a Wave of Electric Trucks Could Create Millions of ‘Accidental Environmentalists’

Auto makers’ powerful new all-electric trucks and SUVs are attracting U.S. customers who wouldn’t otherwise shop for green machines; ‘Tesla to me is a yuppie vehicle’

[Silver Meteor]

On 1/23/2021 at 11:41 AM, LibertyBell said:

rapid increase in winter time temps and also rapid increase of high precip events. and not just much lower ice coverage in the Arctic you're also seeing that on the Great Lakes now.

 

 

If the oceans warmed 30X more than all the energy produced by humans ... gee, might it be possible the warming is being caused by something other than humans? Ya think?

While the World Economic Forum's narrative (a combination of Marxist and Fascist propaganda) gushes forth with the fury of a fire hose, financial opportunities should not be ignored. Gold of course as the world's currencies continue to be debased but also, silver and uranium. I entered the gold market at ~$1200/oz and the silver market at ~$14/oz. So far, so good. But only this year have I entered the uranium market (good so far.)

The uses for silver are insanely numerous, from biocides, to water treatment, to of course electronics and energy. Production has been declining for five years as most of the planet's "easy silver" has already been mined. As this metal becomes more critical to human civilization, fortunes will be made in the years ahead. And speaking of the years ahead, the electrification of Africa and Asia (two continents where the middle classes are growing) will require a staggering amount of electricity. The obvious solution is nuclear power.

Human civilization is not going to stop in fear of global warming, it will only advance as it always has. The "powers that be" (which now includes the corporate news media) will rape you as they always have throughout history unless you take advantage of their game. Gold and silver ... get physical while you can. Uranium is more difficult of course but you can own stock in the few companies that mine it. (I use ticker symbol UUUU.) Whatever you do, I wish you good luck and hope you don't worry yourself to death over what you can't control.

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, Silver Meteor said:

If the oceans warmed 30X more than all the energy produced by humans ... gee, might it be possible the warming is being caused by something other than humans? Ya think?

While the World Economic Forum's narrative (a combination of Marxist and Fascist propaganda) gushes forth with the fury of a fire hose, financial opportunities should not be ignored. Gold of course as the world's currencies continue to be debased but also, silver and uranium. I entered the gold market at ~$1200/oz and the silver market at ~$14/oz. So far, so good. But only this year have I entered the uranium market (good so far.)

The uses for silver are insanely numerous, from biocides, to water treatment, to of course electronics and energy. Production has been declining for five years as most of the planet's "easy silver" has already been mined. As this metal becomes more critical to human civilization, fortunes will be made in the years ahead. And speaking of the years ahead, the electrification of Africa and Asia (two continents where the middle classes are growing) will require a staggering amount of electricity. The obvious solution is nuclear power.

Human civilization is not going to stop in fear of global warming, it will only advance as it always has. The "powers that be" (which now includes the corporate news media) will rape you as they always have throughout history unless you take advantage of their game. Gold and silver ... get physical while you can. Uranium is more difficult of course but you can own stock in the few companies that mine it. (I use ticker symbol UUUU.) Whatever you do, I wish you good luck and hope you don't worry yourself to death over what you can't control.

 

[bdgwx]

I'm really trying to be patient with Dr. Spencer. Afterall he and Dr. Christy did pioneer satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures which is useful. But he just keeps posting misleading articles. 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/

Here he says the warming is only 50% what models predict. That's not true at all. This post is misleading at best because even though the graph is labeled as "Sea Surface Temperature" he's actually comparing observed SSTs with modeled air temperature. The problem...the atmosphere warms faster than the sea surface. Nick Stokes kindly created a graph in which observed SSTs are compared correctly with modeled SSTs. 

Note that "tas" is air temperature and "tos" is sea surface temperature. Is modeling perfect? Nope. Is it as bad as Dr. Spencer claims? Not even close. 

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, bdgwx said:

I'm really trying to be patient with Dr. Spencer. Afterall he and Dr. Christy did pioneer satellite measurements of tropospheric temperatures which is useful. But he just keeps posting misleading articles. 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/

Here he says the warming is only 50% what models predict. That's not true at all. This post is misleading at best because even though the graph is labeled as "Sea Surface Temperature" he's actually comparing observed SSTs with modeled air temperature. The problem...the atmosphere warms faster than the sea surface. Nick Stokes kindly created a graph in which observed SSTs are compared correctly with modeled SSTs. 

Note that "tas" is air temperature and "tos" is sea surface temperature. Is modeling perfect? Nope. Is it as bad as Dr. Spencer claims? Not even close. 

Yes with the right comparison, CMIP5 is close to observations and CMIP6 runs a little warm. Thought Spencers' SST values looked too warm.  Wouldn't discount other errors.

A while ago I estimated the following trends using KNMI explorer for the period 1975 to 2020:

RCP6 globe - 0.218 (Tos, not SST blended so warmer than obs)

RCP6 ocean only - 0.144

HADSST4 - 0.152

Finally how did you make the chart.

 

 

 

[bdgwx]

17 hours ago, chubbs said:

Yes with the right comparison, CMIP5 is close to observations and CMIP6 runs a little warm. Thought Spencers' SST values looked too warm.  Wouldn't discount other errors.

A while ago I estimated the following trends using KNMI explorer for the period 1975 to 2020:

RCP6 globe - 0.218 (Tos, not SST blended so warmer than obs)

RCP6 ocean only - 0.144

HADSST4 - 0.152

Finally how did you make the chart.

 

 

 

I didn't make the chart. Nick Stokes did. I'm guessing he downloaded the netcdf files and did a lot of manual stuff on his side.

He also just mentioned something else last night...50 of the 68 members in Dr. Spencer's graph come from CanESM5 which runs very hot. It appears that KNMI does not yet have all of the CMIP6 data yet.

[LibertyBell]

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/23/22397532/climate-change-summit-biden-xi-jinping-jair-bolsonaro-winners-losers

 

While the summit attendees sent a clear signal that coal is on the way out, they were far more lukewarm on another major contributor to climate change: natural gas. To hit the world’s 1.5 degree Celsius target, we’ll have to rein in methane, a type of greenhouse gas that is especially effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere and dangerous for global warming. While methane can come from a variety of sources, such as agriculture and landfills, environmentalists see regulating the oil and gas sector as the first place to start, by keeping the gas in the ground.

 

Yet the industry seemed to get a pass at the summit — most leaders sidestepped methane and natural gas entirely in their speeches and announcements. Surprisingly, it was Russian President Vladimir Putin who drew the most attention to methane but stopped short of offering concrete commitments to halt plans to build natural gas pipelines. The less focus from world leaders on the oil and gas industry’s methane problems, the better, from the eyes of the industry, because it signals that there won’t be more regulation coming anytime soon.

In the US, addressing methane is critical to meet Biden’s goal of slashing greenhouse pollution by 2030, but Biden has only offered a few clues for how his administration plans to tackle it. The fact sheet from the White House on Biden’s target only gives methane a brief and vague mention, saying, “The United States will also reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, including methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and other potent short-lived climate pollutants.” The nonprofit Clean Air Task Force has urged the US to adopt a target of reducing oil and gas emissions to 65 percent below its 2012 levels by 2025.

Regulation in the US is still coming. Biden’s new EPA administrator Michael Regan promised the administration will roll out more aggressive policies to curb existing and new natural gas methane leaks than the Obama administration and plans to unveil its plans sometime by September.

But the overall silence at the summit still signals that the world is not yet ready to ditch natural gas as quickly as it plans to ditch coal. —RL

Loser: The goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius

The 2015 Paris climate agreement has a topline goal of limiting the increase in global average temperatures this century to below 2 degrees Celsius, but it also has a secondary, more ambitious target of keeping warming below 1.5°C.

Back in 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put out a major report looking at just how hard it would be to meet the 1.5°C target. It found that every degree of warming matters, with higher temperatures extracting a higher human and economic toll. The report concluded that to reach this goal, the world has until 2030 to slash greenhouse gas emissions by half or more from present.

And 1.5°C is hardly a “safe” climate. The world has already warmed by at least 1°C on average, and the effects have been devastating. The longer the world waits to act to limit emissions, the harder it will get.

 

The new US climate target — a 50 to 52 percent cut in emissions relative to 2005 by 2030 — “looks like it is consistent” with the 1.5°C goal, according to a senior White House official on a call with reporters on Wednesday. But according to Climate Action Tracker, a US commitment in line with this target would actually need a 57 to 63 percent cut.

Many other countries have also said they are using 1.5°C as their benchmark for their climate commitments. Rhetorically, it seems there is widespread support for being more ambitious. However, it’s clear there’s a cavernous rift between commitments and actions. Global greenhouse gas emissions have only grown since the 2018 IPCC report. While there was a lull in this growth last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic, emissions are poised to rebound around the world, including in the US, as economies reopen.

So now the world has to make even more drastic cuts to greenhouse gases — and in less time. It’s easy to paint a target years into the future. It’s much harder to take aim today. And right now, that target is nowhere in our sights

 

 

[LibertyBell]

•  

  at 8 PM I was watching PBS
  a new series
  Greta Thunberg
  she must be the smartest human on the planet
  no one is even close
  at 16 in 2019 she was doing a speech off the top of her head to the entire world
  and everyone was transfixed with her because she is smarter than any political leader

  saw the presidential address after that

• saw the presidential address after that

[davidd00656]

Is there any read light novels book related to the weather and climate you would like to recommend.

[chubbs]

On 4/28/2021 at 9:36 AM, bdgwx said:

I didn't make the chart. Nick Stokes did. I'm guessing he downloaded the netcdf files and did a lot of manual stuff on his side.

He also just mentioned something else last night...50 of the 68 members in Dr. Spencer's graph come from CanESM5 which runs very hot. It appears that KNMI does not yet have all of the CMIP6 data yet.

 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, chubbs said:

 

Based on the above complete chart, it appears that Roy Spencer engaged in a deceptive practice on his blog when posting a skewed chart.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/