Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[chubbs]

6 hours ago, dseagull said:

Fascinating article.  Equally terrifying if it were to verify.  Unfortunately, most of us have read and consumed a myriad of similar "scary" articles that have not verified over the past 3-5 decades.   While this could be the tipping point, this article is only highlighting one of many potential studies that have resulted in any number of potentially devastating outcomes.  

 

This is where sensationalism comes into play.   There also exists a tipping point for where people no longer pay attention to every single prediction or publication.   CNN is still somewhat mainstream, although part of a dying type of "journalism."   Similar to the "boy who cried wolf," many media outlets have overplayed their hands with sensationalism (in an effort to gain clicks or views for advertising profits,) and as a result, reach fewer and fewer members of an audience that is growing skeptical.  

 

Having offered that perspective, I will admit that I am inclined to believe that ocean currents and the rate at which gyres are able to reach and maintain stability, PROBABLY have the most rapid and drastic effects on the climate of our earth.  Our oceans (as sinks,) and mediums of thermal energy, are responsible for the vast majority of weather on earth.  When the red flags go up, we need to invest resources to determine all possible outcomes. 

 

This sudden of a climate disaster is more in line with other types of geological extinction events.  Many scientists have always theorized that this very scenario is responsible for most of the sudden climate swings, not unlike an impact from a large meteor or other space object.  

 

If this sort of cataclysmic even were to verify, there is unlikely any way to prepare for it effectively.  The tipping point, would ultimately become an extinction event for a large swatch of the world's population.  

 

Or... this could be just another sensational study and article, following a host of others.  This doest mean that we should write it off, but rather delve into the scenario, and scrutinize it carefully.   It has very meaningful merit, regardless.  

Yes, media is doing a lousy job informing the public on climate science. Science has a good handle on the likely temperature changes vs man-made CO2 emissions. There is no scientific debate than man-made emissions are changing the climate at a rapid rate. The big uncertainty is how will the Earth's systems respond. We are conducting a big science experiment in that regard. Nothing in nature or man-made is designed for the climate we are rapidly headed for. Change is going to continue to accelerate as we pull away from our historical climate.   The funny thing is. A world without fossil fuels is looking better and better from an economic standpoint. We are giving ourselves climate angst for no reason, other than we are uncomfortable facing the facts.

[LibertyBell]

16 hours ago, dseagull said:

Fascinating article.  Equally terrifying if it were to verify.  Unfortunately, most of us have read and consumed a myriad of similar "scary" articles that have not verified over the past 3-5 decades.   While this could be the tipping point, this article is only highlighting one of many potential studies that have resulted in any number of potentially devastating outcomes.  

 

This is where sensationalism comes into play.   There also exists a tipping point for where people no longer pay attention to every single prediction or publication.   CNN is still somewhat mainstream, although part of a dying type of "journalism."   Similar to the "boy who cried wolf," many media outlets have overplayed their hands with sensationalism (in an effort to gain clicks or views for advertising profits,) and as a result, reach fewer and fewer members of an audience that is growing skeptical.  

 

Having offered that perspective, I will admit that I am inclined to believe that ocean currents and the rate at which gyres are able to reach and maintain stability, PROBABLY have the most rapid and drastic effects on the climate of our earth.  Our oceans (as sinks,) and mediums of thermal energy, are responsible for the vast majority of weather on earth.  When the red flags go up, we need to invest resources to determine all possible outcomes. 

 

This sudden of a climate disaster is more in line with other types of geological extinction events.  Many scientists have always theorized that this very scenario is responsible for most of the sudden climate swings, not unlike an impact from a large meteor or other space object.  

 

If this sort of cataclysmic even were to verify, there is unlikely any way to prepare for it effectively.  The tipping point, would ultimately become an extinction event for a large swatch of the world's population.  

 

Or... this could be just another sensational study and article, following a host of others.  This doest mean that we should write it off, but rather delve into the scenario, and scrutinize it carefully.   It has very meaningful merit, regardless.  

I have always believed that the planet has these kill switches tipping points built in as a natural check on out of control population growth (by any species really.)  Think about it this way-- if natural kill switches didn't exist would we be here today? Probably not.  If natural kill switches didn't exist would life even be sustainable long term on the planet without existing creatures consuming all the natural resources the planet has?  Probably not.

Finally, and here is something truly amazing.  The fastest rates of evolution happen right after a mass extinction event, as nature and the planet seek to fill in the niches that have been left empty.  In a near miraculous rate of evolution it has been conclusively proven that it took no more than 100,000 years (not even a million!) for rapidly evolving mammals to fill every niche left empty by the extinct dinosaurs.  Not only that, but the key to their success was flowering plants, which also rapidly evolved after the K-T event.  And these flowering plants provided the highly nutritious nuts that the mammals needed to develop complex brains that also rapidly evolved and eventually lead to us.  All of nature and the planet is beautifully connected.  Even plants are much smarter than we think they are, the trees of the Amazon regulate their own rainfall and entire forests and fungi communicate and network and work together to preserve the whole.  The resiliency of nature is truly astounding and you can see glimpses of the grand plan not only in how it bounces back from mass extinction events but also how the planet self regulates to prevent any one species from becoming too dominant and using up all the planet's natural resources.

This is the Gaia Theory in action!

[Wannabehippie]

17 hours ago, dseagull said:

Fascinating article.  Equally terrifying if it were to verify.  Unfortunately, most of us have read and consumed a myriad of similar "scary" articles that have not verified over the past 3-5 decades.   While this could be the tipping point, this article is only highlighting one of many potential studies that have resulted in any number of potentially devastating outcomes.  

 

This is where sensationalism comes into play.   There also exists a tipping point for where people no longer pay attention to every single prediction or publication.   CNN is still somewhat mainstream, although part of a dying type of "journalism."   Similar to the "boy who cried wolf," many media outlets have overplayed their hands with sensationalism (in an effort to gain clicks or views for advertising profits,) and as a result, reach fewer and fewer members of an audience that is growing skeptical.  

 

Having offered that perspective, I will admit that I am inclined to believe that ocean currents and the rate at which gyres are able to reach and maintain stability, PROBABLY have the most rapid and drastic effects on the climate of our earth.  Our oceans (as sinks,) and mediums of thermal energy, are responsible for the vast majority of weather on earth.  When the red flags go up, we need to invest resources to determine all possible outcomes. 

 

This sudden of a climate disaster is more in line with other types of geological extinction events.  Many scientists have always theorized that this very scenario is responsible for most of the sudden climate swings, not unlike an impact from a large meteor or other space object.  

 

If this sort of cataclysmic even were to verify, there is unlikely any way to prepare for it effectively.  The tipping point, would ultimately become an extinction event for a large swatch of the world's population.  

 

Or... this could be just another sensational study and article, following a host of others.  This doest mean that we should write it off, but rather delve into the scenario, and scrutinize it carefully.   It has very meaningful merit, regardless.  

The link to the full study that Don posted above is very interesting, once you get past some of the high level math that they discuss in it.

 

[bluewave]

The study still seems incomplete since global warming wasn’t included and the amounts of fresh water entering the Atlantic leading to a simulated collapse were much higher than current levels.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2416631-atlantic-current-shutdown-is-a-real-danger-suggests-simulation/

However, to produce this collapse, the researchers had to run the model for 2500 years. And they had to add a huge amount of freshwater – less than in previous simulations, but still around 80 times more than is currently entering the ocean as Greenland’s ice sheet melts. “So that is absurd and not very realistic,” says van Westen.

Moreover, the simulation didn’t involve any global warming. The team now plans to rerun the simulation to include it.

 

[chubbs]

11 hours ago, bluewave said:

The study still seems incomplete since global warming wasn’t included and the amounts of fresh water entering the Atlantic leading to a simulated collapse were much higher than current levels.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2416631-atlantic-current-shutdown-is-a-real-danger-suggests-simulation/

However, to produce this collapse, the researchers had to run the model for 2500 years. And they had to add a huge amount of freshwater – less than in previous simulations, but still around 80 times more than is currently entering the ocean as Greenland’s ice sheet melts. “So that is absurd and not very realistic,” says van Westen.

Moreover, the simulation didn’t involve any global warming. The team now plans to rerun the simulation to include it.

 

Blog article on study. Including an update at the end that clarifies the implications of the model simulations.

Update 10. February: In the reactions to the paper, I see some misunderstand this as an unrealistic model scenario for the future. It is not. This type of experiment is not a future projection at all, but rather done to trace the equilibrium stability curve (that’s the quasi-equlibrium approach mentioned above). In order to trace the equlibrium response, the freshwater input must be ramped up extremely slowly, which is why this experiment uses so much computer time. After the model’s tipping point was found in this way, it was used to identify precursors that could warn us before reaching the tipping point, so-called “early warning signals”. Then, the scientists turned to reanalysis data (observations-based products, shown in Fig. 6 of the paper) to check for an early warning signal. The headline conclusion that the AMOC is „on tipping course“ is based on these data.

In other words: it’s observational data from the South Atlantic which suggest the AMOC is on tipping course. Not the model simulation, which is just there to get a better understanding of which early warning signals work, and why.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course

[bluewave]

33 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Blog article on study. Including an update at the end that clarifies the implications of the model simulations.

Update 10. February: In the reactions to the paper, I see some misunderstand this as an unrealistic model scenario for the future. It is not. This type of experiment is not a future projection at all, but rather done to trace the equilibrium stability curve (that’s the quasi-equlibrium approach mentioned above). In order to trace the equlibrium response, the freshwater input must be ramped up extremely slowly, which is why this experiment uses so much computer time. After the model’s tipping point was found in this way, it was used to identify precursors that could warn us before reaching the tipping point, so-called “early warning signals”. Then, the scientists turned to reanalysis data (observations-based products, shown in Fig. 6 of the paper) to check for an early warning signal. The headline conclusion that the AMOC is „on tipping course“ is based on these data.

In other words: it’s observational data from the South Atlantic which suggest the AMOC is on tipping course. Not the model simulation, which is just there to get a better understanding of which early warning signals work, and why.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course

The AMOC shutting down is not the same as the Gulf Stream shutting down. 
 

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/gulf-stream-collapse-amoc/

There is evidence that [the AMOC] has slowed down, and even collapsed, in the past… If the AMOC collapses — but there is no direct evidence of this — it would be a serious issue for the region [of the Greenland and Norwegian Seas]. It would probably introduce some cooling to a region that otherwise would be warming now… But the larger Gulf Stream circulation would continue operating, largely as before.”

https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/will-the-gulf-stream-really-shut-down/#:~:text=People conflate the Gulf Stream,WHOI physical oceanographer Robert Todd.

 

Researchers agree the AMOC will likely slow over the next century, and there’s evidence that a slowdown may have already begun, although it’s not clear if the observed changes are due to climate change or reflect more natural year-to-year variation. An abrupt shutdown like the one featured in news stories is much less certain.

But even if the deep-water portion of the AMOC did shut down, the Gulf Stream would continue to flow. As noted by MIT physical oceanography professor Carl Wunsch in 2004, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.” Neither will happen, even in the most extreme climate change scenarios.

“The Gulf Stream will not shut down, but it is not immune to climate change,” Todd says. He has collected data showing that the current is warming and shifting closer to the coast, which could expose marine life to sudden temperature increases and have profound implications for fisheries. The rate at which it transports water may also change. But it will always continue to flow.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

20 hours ago, bluewave said:

The AMOC shutting down is not the same as the Gulf Stream shutting down. 
 

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/gulf-stream-collapse-amoc/

There is evidence that [the AMOC] has slowed down, and even collapsed, in the past… If the AMOC collapses — but there is no direct evidence of this — it would be a serious issue for the region [of the Greenland and Norwegian Seas]. It would probably introduce some cooling to a region that otherwise would be warming now… But the larger Gulf Stream circulation would continue operating, largely as before.”

https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/will-the-gulf-stream-really-shut-down/#:~:text=People conflate the Gulf Stream,WHOI physical oceanographer Robert Todd.

 

Researchers agree the AMOC will likely slow over the next century, and there’s evidence that a slowdown may have already begun, although it’s not clear if the observed changes are due to climate change or reflect more natural year-to-year variation. An abrupt shutdown like the one featured in news stories is much less certain.

But even if the deep-water portion of the AMOC did shut down, the Gulf Stream would continue to flow. As noted by MIT physical oceanography professor Carl Wunsch in 2004, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.” Neither will happen, even in the most extreme climate change scenarios.

“The Gulf Stream will not shut down, but it is not immune to climate change,” Todd says. He has collected data showing that the current is warming and shifting closer to the coast, which could expose marine life to sudden temperature increases and have profound implications for fisheries. The rate at which it transports water may also change. But it will always continue to flow.

 

 

"But it will ALWAYS continue to flow" does not seem very scientific.... how can anyone ever say that it will "ALWAYS" flow?

 

[bluewave]

3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

"But it will ALWAYS continue to flow" does not seem very scientific.... how can anyone ever say that it will "ALWAYS" flow?

 

The Gulf Stream is driven by the earths rotation. This is a great video on the differences between the AMOC and Gulf Stream. Even the more sophisticated models that try to model an AMOC slowdown or collapse aren’t very realistic since they lack numerous elements of the actual climate system.  
 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

25 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The Gulf Stream is driven by the earths rotation. This is a great video on the differences between the AMOC and Gulf Stream. Even the more sophisticated models that try to model an AMOC slowdown or collapse aren’t very realistic since they lack numerous elements of the actual climate system.  
 

 

 

Question is can anything happen to the Gulf of Mexico to stop the Gulf Stream?  And can climate change eventually affect the earth's rotation somehow-- or would we need an even bigger disaster, like a meteorite/asteroid strike or big earthquake or tsunami to alter it?

[Typhoon Tip]

On 2/10/2024 at 4:09 PM, LibertyBell said:

I have always believed that the planet has these kill switches tipping points built in as a natural check on out of control population growth (by any species really.)  Think about it this way-- if natural kill switches didn't exist would we be here today? Probably not.  If natural kill switches didn't exist would life even be sustainable long term on the planet without existing creatures consuming all the natural resources the planet has?  Probably not.

Finally, and here is something truly amazing.  The fastest rates of evolution happen right after a mass extinction event, as nature and the planet seek to fill in the niches that have been left empty.  In a near miraculous rate of evolution it has been conclusively proven that it took no more than 100,000 years (not even a million!) for rapidly evolving mammals to fill every niche left empty by the extinct dinosaurs.  Not only that, but the key to their success was flowering plants, which also rapidly evolved after the K-T event.  And these flowering plants provided the highly nutritious nuts that the mammals needed to develop complex brains that also rapidly evolved and eventually lead to us.  All of nature and the planet is beautifully connected.  Even plants are much smarter than we think they are, the trees of the Amazon regulate their own rainfall and entire forests and fungi communicate and network and work together to preserve the whole.  The resiliency of nature is truly astounding and you can see glimpses of the grand plan not only in how it bounces back from mass extinction events but also how the planet self regulates to prevent any one species from becoming too dominant and using up all the planet's natural resources.

This is the Gaia Theory in action!

The Universe/'cosmological superstructure' has built in "kill switches" too - their called Fermian Paradox explanations.  And the god-like brilliance of that design ...?  the victims always trip that switch on their own.

ha

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The Universe/'cosmological superstructure' has built in "kill switches" too - their called Fermian Paradox explanations.  And the god-like brilliance of that design ...?  the victims always trip that switch on their own.

ha

 

It does seem quite ironic doesn't it?

The universe, it seems, has a cosmic sense of humor....

[ChescoWx]

the below is not a joke....think she was surprised by today?

[dseagull]

5 hours ago, ChescoWx said:

the below is not a joke....think she was surprised by today?

It's an extremely concerning example of the level of propaganda consumption and delusional hysteria.   Sadly, climate change is only one facet of this mental health epidemic.   Even worse, is that the narrative is ever-changing, and excuses for weather events (whether it's today's snowfall or maybe an above average seasonal snowfall next year,) are easily developed if they don't fit the agenda.   It's sad, because many people take the bait, hook/line/sinker...

[chubbs]

A report on batteries came out recently. Would be concerned if I worked in the fossil-fuel industry or any industry based on use of fossil fuels.   Climate and energy technology are going to continue to change rapidly, whether we are ready or not.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/cp/141643938

https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/12/xchange_batteries_the_battery_domino_effect.pdf

[chubbs]

Per this study, steep SST gradients near Gulf stream and downstream of East Asia act as winter thermostats under climate change. The SST gradients evolve slowly producing uneven winter warming: relatively cool hiatus decades followed by decades with rapid warming. One more factor to throw into the pot when discussing our winter weather fortunes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43686-1

 

 

[hazwoper]

On 2/10/2024 at 6:21 AM, chubbs said:

Yes, media is doing a lousy job informing the public on climate science. Science has a good handle on the likely temperature changes vs man-made CO2 emissions. There is no scientific debate than man-made emissions are changing the climate at a rapid rate. The big uncertainty is how will the Earth's systems respond. We are conducting a big science experiment in that regard. Nothing in nature or man-made is designed for the climate we are rapidly headed for. Change is going to continue to accelerate as we pull away from our historical climate.   The funny thing is. A world without fossil fuels is looking better and better from an economic standpoint. We are giving ourselves climate angst for no reason, other than we are uncomfortable facing the facts.

THIS^

Coal has already, for several years now, been more expensive to produce electricity when compared to solar (even without incentives).  Energy prices continue to climb and that is why every large corporation has been investing heavily in renewables for their demand needs.  They lock in cheap energy for 25-30 years and 30 years from now the technology to repower those systems will be ten fold better.  Battery tech is increasing tremendously with large scale storage projects coming online all the time.  Off shore wind, which until recently made little financials sense, now, because of better turbine tech AND battery storage, will be a huge part of our energy future.

Renewables are the future, regardless of whether fo9lks want to believe in man made climate change.

[csnavywx]

I'm less sanguine on this than others due to a complete lack of consideration for profits, power density, grid infrastructure or firming costs in virtually all of the analyses. Cost of raw hardware components and the initial margins are always talked about, because they're favorable. In reality, they end up being quite cheap *at first*, but quickly run into firming cost issues as soon as saturation increases. Regardless of whether you like it or not (I sure fuckin don't), we're trying to transition in an almost completely market-based manner and the market is overwhelmingly concerned about returns. Ask GE or Siemens how that's going for them recently with cratering profit margins. Hell, with battery farms, most of the returns at this point aren't even in what you would expect -- power arbitrage. It's in ancillary services! Returns in general were a lot easier in a low inflation, zero-interest-rate environment. Zero consideration is also given to rebound effects. Slow decarbonisation is a trap, as the incremental additional capacity will get used up on growth. Efficiency savings will be spent elsewhere and typically result in *more growth*. You need decarbonisation in large chunks.

[hazwoper]

44 minutes ago, csnavywx said:

I'm less sanguine on this than others due to a complete lack of consideration for profits, power density, grid infrastructure or firming costs in virtually all of the analyses. Cost of raw hardware components and the initial margins are always talked about, because they're favorable. In reality, they end up being quite cheap *at first*, but quickly run into firming cost issues as soon as saturation increases. Regardless of whether you like it or not (I sure fuckin don't), we're trying to transition in an almost completely market-based manner and the market is overwhelmingly concerned about returns. Ask GE or Siemens how that's going for them recently with cratering profit margins. Hell, with battery farms, most of the returns at this point aren't even in what you would expect -- power arbitrage. It's in ancillary services! Returns in general were a lot easier in a low inflation, zero-interest-rate environment. Zero consideration is also given to rebound effects. Slow decarbonisation is a trap, as the incremental additional capacity will get used up on growth. Efficiency savings will be spent elsewhere and typically result in *more growth*. You need decarbonisation in large chunks.

I get it, but even the utilities themselves are already transitioning away from gas powered peakers to BESS.  LIPA has already released PPAs for BESS projects to completely replace all of its gas peakers.  The transitioning is happening, although it certainly won't happen overnight or at the speed we need for it to make a massive impact on our CO2 emissions in the near term. 

Being in the industry I have seen first hand what the lending rates have done to the market, but the IRA with its 10-year 30% ITC which for the first time ever includes BESS projects has helped to elevate a lot of that pain.  Not all of it of course.

[ChescoWx]

On 2/9/2024 at 2:25 PM, hazwoper said:

Ohhhh....so you're a scientist.  Gotcha.  LOL.

The science is settled for your information.  The release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels that have been held up in the earth's crust since well before the dawn man are ABSOLUTELY, 100% increasing global temperatures.  Its settled science Mr. Scientist.

Of course true science is never called or deemed settled!! It must and should always be questioned!! Climate change is real and constant and will never change.

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, csnavywx said:

I'm less sanguine on this than others due to a complete lack of consideration for profits, power density, grid infrastructure or firming costs in virtually all of the analyses. Cost of raw hardware components and the initial margins are always talked about, because they're favorable. In reality, they end up being quite cheap *at first*, but quickly run into firming cost issues as soon as saturation increases. Regardless of whether you like it or not (I sure fuckin don't), we're trying to transition in an almost completely market-based manner and the market is overwhelmingly concerned about returns. Ask GE or Siemens how that's going for them recently with cratering profit margins. Hell, with battery farms, most of the returns at this point aren't even in what you would expect -- power arbitrage. It's in ancillary services! Returns in general were a lot easier in a low inflation, zero-interest-rate environment. Zero consideration is also given to rebound effects. Slow decarbonisation is a trap, as the incremental additional capacity will get used up on growth. Efficiency savings will be spent elsewhere and typically result in *more growth*. You need decarbonisation in large chunks.

Yes the free-market system isn't going to ditch fossil fuels on its own, at least not quickly. The incumbent has large competitive advantage. Everything from installed infrastructure, favorable laws and regulations, to brainwashed media and bought politicians. However, we wouldn't have solar, wind, and EV without past government support.  I'd argue that government support is likely to increase, now that commercial success has been achieved. Who wants to be left behind? For instance in the US, IRA has spurred record-breaking investment in the past year.

 

I suppose we could pull the rug out from under clean-energy technologies in the US, but China, Europe and others would plow ahead without us. On a global basis, investment in clean energy technologies has become much larger than fossil fuel investment. I expect the gap to continue to widen. There are tipping points in economics also.

[csnavywx]

20 hours ago, hazwoper said:

I get it, but even the utilities themselves are already transitioning away from gas powered peakers to BESS.  LIPA has already released PPAs for BESS projects to completely replace all of its gas peakers.  The transitioning is happening, although it certainly won't happen overnight or at the speed we need for it to make a massive impact on our CO2 emissions in the near term. 

Being in the industry I have seen first hand what the lending rates have done to the market, but the IRA with its 10-year 30% ITC which for the first time ever includes BESS projects has helped to elevate a lot of that pain.  Not all of it of course.

The IRA was definitely a much-needed stick save. Agree there. It could be worse. We could be Europe or the UK! They're now mired with sticky inflation, flat to negative growth and cratered PMIs persistently sitting in the 40s. We have largely escaped that (though we still have some sticky inflation which will keep rates elevated for at least a while longer).

Hell, Europe had *negative* risk-free rates for a while. That was a trip. And incidentally, a goldilocks environment to do renewable investment. That quickly unwound with the pandemic and then the war.

I'd prefer to see large baseload nukes preserved and expanded where possible and income-based supports for where firming costs are getting high (cough, CAISO, cough). Fee-and-dividend type system would go a long way, too. 

Chart is somewhat informative (it's not perfect, but it is what it is).

We definitely don't want to fall into the trap that Europe has fallen into as that comes with all kinds of embedded geopolitical risk.

 

(North American PPAs only -- the bottom was in '19/'20, this takes it back to 2017 or so pricing.)

Src: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/north-american-solar-wind-power-prices-continued-ascent-in-2023-report-80219261

[Ed, snow and hurricane fan]

I used to drive nuclear reactors in the Navy.  I know, scary.

But nuke plants and natural gas plants would be the cleanest source of electricity that didn't depend on wind levels and insolation.  Methane is 2 waters per one CO2.  Granted, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, but not to the extent CO2 is.  Navy standard nuke plants, not 1970s lowest bidder US plants or Soviet plants, not built in tsunami zones (and simple things like not putting the backup DGs in the basement so storm surge from hurricanes benefitting from record MDR temps) would be safe.  Nuke waste is another issue, but fear of waste 2000 feet below the water table in tunnels in the desert is more emotional than scientific.

[Typhoon Tip]

Actually … no. If I read that right, it’s incorrect. 

WV heat capacitance is ~1.9. CO2 is ~.8 

but the problem is,  when CO2’s heat trapping capacity is added to the atmosphere, it causes the water vapor to increase the evaporation rate, which adds more water vapor mass to the gaseous medium; this accelerates the total heating.  

[so_whats_happening]

On 2/12/2024 at 7:04 AM, LibertyBell said:

Question is can anything happen to the Gulf of Mexico to stop the Gulf Stream?  And can climate change eventually affect the earth's rotation somehow-- or would we need an even bigger disaster, like a meteorite/asteroid strike or big earthquake or tsunami to alter it?

Probably nothing to actually stop it as it is a wind driven current but what could potentially slow it down would be lessening that temperature within the origination spot, GOM. It would need to be mass amounts of heat removal or tons of fresh water input both of which are rather hard to achieve in a timespan to consistently happen. So you get ebbs and flows where some seasons are warmer and some seasons cooler so there is some regulation of overall gulf stream motion but not full stoppage.

If we have giant asteroid/ meteor or the earth stops spinning we would much bigger issues to worry about. I do find it interesting though that the gulf stream would take a more southerly route if AMOC shuts off I guess this does make sense though as there would be nothing really to help 'finish' the current around Iceland if there is little to no sinking occurring in this region. Would mean the Atlantic waters south of 50N would warm rather drastically over years.

Interestingly enough there doesn't seem to be much of a Labrador current or a Canary current over the last few years. Maybe we start to see a more pronounced current in these regions again instead of this highly weakened state?

[chubbs]

Like batteries, solar is ramping rapidly as costs continue to drop on a well established learning curve. Under this recent forecast, solar will be roughly 10% of global energy use in 2030. This forecast also follows the IEA net zero scenario which has 1000 GW of yearly solar AND wind installation by 2030. Moreover solar could do better, forecasters have been underestimating solar growth since solar forecasting began. Solar exponential growth wouldn't have to continue too much longer beyond 2024 to rapidly turn down fossil fuel use.

 

[bluewave]

Criticism of these recent AMOC model studies from the leading experts in Sweden.

 

 

Researchers: "Stop sounding the alarm about the Gulf Stream!"

PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 17, 2024

Earlier alarms that the Gulf Stream may be about to collapse - with an extreme cooling in Sweden, among others as a result - are now being criticized by several of Sweden's leading experts in the field.

- I was a bit shocked, says climate scientist Frederik Schenk.

Last week there was a new Dutch study on the Gulf Stream that made big headlines around the world. It described what could happen if the large and important AMOC ocean current system, of which the Gulf Stream is a part, collapses.

A collapse could have devastating consequences for the climate, and the Dutch researchers described an extreme and rapid cooling in Sweden.

"Outright misleading"

Now several of Sweden's leading researchers are criticizing some of the conclusions. Not least because the latest study is a model.

- To hastily draw conclusions based on isolated observations, indirect reconstructions or model simulations is not only risky, it is downright misleading, says Léon Chafik, oceanographer and climate scientist at Stockholm University.

His and his colleagues' research on the Nordic branch of the Gulf Stream instead shows that it is strengthened in a warmer world .

- It may indicate a potential resilience of the Gulf Stream that has not been noticed before.

"I was a little shocked"

Frederik Schenk at the Bolin Center for Climate Research also reacted to the findings.

- Not least the extreme temperature difference surprised. This is not what previous studies have shown.

The researchers in Utrecht have not included global warming, which is likely to moderate cooling, in their model. And there are studies that indicate that the warming we have had and will have would likely completely trump a cooling in northern Europe in the long run.

This does not mean that a systemic collapse of the ocean currents would not be serious. However, the Earth's southern hemisphere is not expected to cool down, but on the contrary to become significantly hotter, which could threaten both the Amazon and some of the world's most populous areas south of the equator in completely different ways.

[LibertyBell]

17 hours ago, chubbs said:

Like batteries, solar is ramping rapidly as costs continue to drop on a well established learning curve. Under this recent forecast, solar will be roughly 10% of global energy use in 2030. This forecast also follows the IEA net zero scenario which has 1000 GW of yearly solar AND wind installation by 2030. Moreover solar could do better, forecasters have been underestimating solar growth since solar forecasting began. Solar exponential growth wouldn't have to continue too much longer beyond 2024 to rapidly turn down fossil fuel use.

 

We're already past peak fossil fuel usage aren't we?

 

[chubbs]

6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

We're already past peak fossil fuel usage aren't we?

 

Hasn't peaked yet, but rate of increase has slowed. Will peak by 2030 according to IEA. Need to speed things up to hit climate targets.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/iea-energy-peak-fossil-fuel-demand-by-2030/

[Typhoon Tip]

On 2/20/2024 at 5:43 AM, chubbs said:

Like batteries, solar is ramping rapidly as costs continue to drop on a well established learning curve. Under this recent forecast, solar will be roughly 10% of global energy use in 2030. This forecast also follows the IEA net zero scenario which has 1000 GW of yearly solar AND wind installation by 2030. Moreover solar could do better, forecasters have been underestimating solar growth since solar forecasting began. Solar exponential growth wouldn't have to continue too much longer beyond 2024 to rapidly turn down fossil fuel use.

 

The problem ( the way I see it ) so far with all these fossil fuel offset methods, is that humanity is not (apparently) doing so for the right incentive.  The roll-outs so far are overwhelmingly and quite obviously motivated out of a capitalist's vision, an aspiration and opportunity for profit grabbing - creating wind and solar enterprises.    

This needs to change.

The incentive needs to be rooted in correcting what caused the problem, not attempting to create gains out of losses - gain vs loss in this context is not money. The cost is the ability to be alive. Instead, costing 50K for suburban sub-colonial-sized homesteads to install panels won't work.  Saving humanity from a certain wholesale set back, if not an extinction event won't work that way for a litany of obvious socioeconomic limitations vs the untenable circumstance of population vastness.  

Humanity is not connecting with the problem; if they did, this would be all but free, spatially comprehensive, and urgently implementing. GW --> CC is an existential threat, the immediacy of which escapes the 'humanity brain'.  The ET is clearly not ubiquitously understood, or believed, ... perhaps some sort of mentally untenable, all the above.  It is or may be, intellectualized, but the scale and degree of the planet's future portrait escapes and isn't perceived as an ET - therefrom, not enough flight or fight response in the collective sense. 

Whatever mechanism triggers mode changes in the larger group behavior, in this case ... species scaled, until that happens  ... formulating enterprises out of an existential threat is tantamount to ransom. Shy of that only wasting time.

 

[LibertyBell]

12 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

The problem ( the way I see it ) so far with all these fossil fuel offset methods, is that humanity is not (apparently) doing so for the right incentive.  The roll-outs so far are overwhelmingly and quite obviously motivated out of a capitalist's vision, an aspiration and opportunity for profit grabbing - creating wind and solar enterprises.    

This needs to change.

The incentive needs to be rooted in correcting what caused the problem, not attempting to create gains out of losses - gain vs loss in this context is not money. The cost is the ability to be alive. Instead, costing 50K for suburban sub-colonial-sized homesteads to install panels won't work.  Saving humanity from a certain wholesale set back, if not an extinction event won't work that way for a litany of obvious socioeconomic limitations vs the untenable circumstance of population vastness.  

Humanity is not connecting with the problem; if they did, this would be all but free, spatially comprehensive, and urgently implementing. GW --> CC is an existential threat, the immediacy of which escapes the 'humanity brain'.  The ET is clearly not ubiquitously understood, or believed, ... perhaps some sort of mentally untenable, all the above.  It is or may be, intellectualized, but the scale and degree of the planet's future portrait escapes and isn't perceived as an ET - therefrom, not enough flight or fight response in the collective sense. 

Whatever mechanism triggers mode changes in the larger group behavior, in this case ... species scaled, until that happens  ... formulating enterprises out of an existential threat is tantamount to ransom. Shy of that only wasting time.

 

Humans are extremely resistant to change, this is what it comes down to.