Climate Change

[free spirit]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. AIUI renewables cannot currently reliably supply sufficient energy 24/7 everywhere. Are you seriously suggesting that renewables can reliably power somewhere like Murmansk? You know, with the sea frozen so no wave power, and it being dark 24 hours a day in winter being inside the Arctic Circle? Or how about Edinburgh for a couple of cloudy winter days? Sure solar's a great choice for Australia or Texas, but everywhere?

my argument has been pretty clearly spelled out in this thread, as I keep pointing out though, you appear not to get it.

renewables do not need to cover 100% of all power at all times, at least not within my lifetime. Renewables instead have the capacity to massively reduce our annual consumption of fossil fuels, massively reducing the climate change impact of our electricity consumption, and massively reducing the long term costs of that electricity vs either a high nuclear, or no nuclear or renewables grid mix scenario.

No other option has the ability to provide 100% of our electricity supply either, certainly nuclear can't go above about 50% without massive changes to our daily consumption patterns, and even then we'd not be able to get anything close to frances situation without new HVDC cables to places other than France or any other countries already acting to provide grid balancing to france. ie getting nuclear to anything like the French situation would require at least as much additional HVDC connections to the likes of Iceland, Norway etc, and changes to consumption patterns as a high renewables situation.

 

[Dr Jon]

Can we move the energy discussion to a new thread?
Mods?

 

[Quartz]

renewables do not need to cover 100% of all power at all times, at least not within my lifetime.

If you're to do away with fossil fuels and nuclear power, yes they do.

Renewables instead have the capacity to massively reduce our annual consumption of fossil fuels, massively reducing the climate change impact of our electricity consumption,

Very true, though reduction in pollution is a more easily visible result.

and massively reducing the long term costs of that electricity vs either a high nuclear, or no nuclear or renewables grid mix scenario.

That remains to be seen.

No other option has the ability to provide 100% of our electricity supply either, certainly nuclear can't go above about 50%

Nuclear power could easily produce 100% of the world's electricity requirements, let alone Britain's. Yes, new infrastructure would be needed, but it's also needed for renewables.

 

[Dr Jon]

Just spotted Monster Kelvin Wave Is Barfing Heat Into The Atmosphere (via skeptical science)

It seems reasonable to assume that water this warm and this amount of it, is going to dump a lot of heat into the atmosphere, and the resulting weather may not be very pretty for some people

Not just the weather either.
The effect on agriculture & food production will likely be severe this time.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Oh good, looks like West Antarctica glaciers have become destabilised http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...tabilized-big-sea-level-rise-all-but-certain/

 

[Dr Jon]

Aye, scientists now warning of four-foot sea level rise, saying collapse of ice sheets is unstoppable:

oh shit

 

[Crispy]

It is Oh Shit, but it's a centuries-long oh shit.
THerefore, not enough to change anyone's mind on fossil fuels

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

It is Oh Shit, but it's a centuries-long oh shit.
THerefore, not enough to change anyone's mind on fossil fuels

Not on it's own, no. It'll take something like a massive crop failure in the US to really shake things up. Dust Bowl II: Electric Boogaloo.

 

[Dr Jon]

Aye, scientists now warning of four-foot sea level rise, saying collapse of ice sheets is unstoppable:

Er, make that ≥ 15 Feet
Grim News From NASA: West Antarctica’s Entire Flank Collapsing Toward Southern Ocean, At Least 15 Feet of Sea Level Rise Already Locked-in Worldwide

 

[Dr Jon]

Carbon budget blah-blah:

We have to come to terms with two key facts: practically speaking, there is no longer a "carbon budget" for burning fossil fuels while still achieving a two-degree Celsius (2°C) future; and the 2°C cap is now known to be dangerously too high
...
former UK government advisor Professor Sir Robert Watson says the idea of a 2°C target "is largely out of the window”, International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol calls it "a nice Utopia", and international negotiations chief Christiana Figueres says we need "a miracle"

link

Also see: Physical Limits to Food Security: Water and Climate

 

[Dr Jon]

Peter Wadhams on sea ice: once it's gone, it's gone..

 

[Dr Jon]

I see that the Indian Monsoon is unusually hesitant this year.
As temperatures climb into the upper 40's, power cuts have stopped fans and a/c units, leading to rioting in some places.

Abundant sunshine. High 46C

In other news, Russia is evacuating scientists from it's Arctic research station:

'The destruction of the ice has put at risk the station's further work and life of its staff,' said a statement by the Ministry of Natural Resources. 'It is extremely dangerous to leave the station in such a complicated ice situation'

 

[Quartz]

Also see: Physical Limits to Food Security: Water and Climate

That's decidedly chilling.

 

[Dr Jon]

That's decidedly chilling.

Also see: Peak Water

 

[Quartz]

Oh good, looks like West Antarctica glaciers have become destabilised http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...tabilized-big-sea-level-rise-all-but-certain/

An update on this is that it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, not just warm ocean water.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth’s crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

I wonder if there's going to be a large eruption soon.

 

[Crispy]

An update on this is that it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, not just warm ocean water.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

I wonder if there's going to be a large eruption soon.

This exact scenario plays out in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books. Ok, he has actual volcanoes under the W.Antarctic ice sheet so the flood happens quickly for Drama, but it's a world-changing event if it happens. Many meters of sea level rise.

 

[Dr Jon]

Prove that climate change is bollocks and win $30k
link

ETA
Just spotted this on Arctic News

 

[Quartz]

Prove that climate change is bollocks and win $30k
link

I don't think anyone doubts that the climate is changing. As they say, 'The only constant is change.'

 

[joe_infinity]

It looks like there isnt anything particularly urgent to worry about after all:

Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It looks like there isn't anything particularly urgent to worry about after all:<snip>

How do you get to that conclusion from the content of the story?

Maybe the impact is deferred a decade or two, if the mechanism described does what they think it does, but it's worse when it hits.

So the urgency of the need to take mitigating action is not reduced at all.

 

[ferrelhadley]

US Industry and Energy Editor at the Financial Times, based in New York

[URL='https://twitter.com/Ed_Crooks']Ed CrooksVerified account‏@Ed_Crooks

@NaomiAKlein I mean that if that the only way we can save the climate is to end capitalism, many people would choose not to save the climate

https://twitter.com/Ed_Crooks/status/510862444869459969[/URL]

 

[ferrelhadley]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061281/abstract?campaign=wolacceptedarticle

With the extra-ordinary intensity of 170 kts, super-typhoon Haiyan devastated the Philippines in November 2013. This intensity is among the highest ever observed for tropical cyclones (TCs) globally, 35 kts well above the threshold of the existing highest category of 5. Though there is speculation to associate global warming with such intensity, existing research indicate that we have been in a warming hiatus period, with the hiatus attributed to the La Niña-like multi-decadal phenomenon. It is thus intriguing to understand why Haiyan can occur during hiatus. It is suggested that as the western Pacific manifestation of the La Niña-like phenomenon is to pile up warm subsurface water to the west, the western North Pacific experienced evident subsurface warming and created a very favorable ocean pre-condition for Haiyan. Together with its fast travelling speed, the air-sea flux supply was 158% as compared to normal for intensification.

‘Category-6’ Supertyphoon Haiyan in Global Warming Hiatus: Contribution from Subsurface Ocean Warming†

 

[teqniq]

I presume most people who are interested in this will have been aware of the deal between the U.S. and China to cut carbon emissions. Now, however the Repugs are vowing to fuck it all up.

US-China climate deal boosts global talks but Republicans vow to resist

Quelle surpise.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Miami is fucked.

 

[Quartz]

I presume most people who are interested in this will have been aware of the deal between the U.S. and China to cut carbon emissions. Now, however the Repugs are vowing to fuck it all up.

Given that the deal commits America to doing far more than China and sooner - i.e. is very much to China's shorter-term advantage - they're right to be angry as politicians defending their voters' interests. Remember that politicians are primarily concerned about the next electoral cycle, and maybe the one after.

Under the deal, unveiled unexpectedly in Beijing early on Wednesday, China committed for the first time to cap its output of carbon pollution by 2030. Beijing also promised to increase its use of zero-emission energy sources, such as wind and solar power, to 20% by 2030.

The United States agreed to double the pace of the cuts in its emissions, reducing them to between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

However, Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election. And encouraging a lead in cleaner energy is very much to America's longer-term benefit. Fossil fuels are running out. In 50 years' time, someone may say, "You know, the real kickstart of the New American Age was Obama's agreement with China in 2014..."

 

[ferrelhadley]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-sapiens-in-the-world-of-high-co2-concentration.html

 

[MikeMcc]

Given that the deal commits America to doing far more than China and sooner - i.e. is very much to China's shorter-term advantage - they're right to be angry as politicians defending their voters' interests. Remember that politicians are primarily concerned about the next electoral cycle, and maybe the one after.



However, Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election. And encouraging a lead in cleaner energy is very much to America's longer-term benefit. Fossil fuels are running out. In 50 years' time, someone may say, "You know, the real kickstart of the New American Age was Obama's agreement with China in 2014..."

Actually it's the opposite. America is already on track to achieve that target (even if that is primarily due to the fracking boom there), whereas the Chinese commitment is a lot tougher to achieve whilst still striving to grow their economy and improve conditions for their people. SkS have a good article about this that has also been published in the Guardian.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fact-check-china-pledged-bigger-climate-action-than-usa.html

 

[Quartz]

Actually it's the opposite. America is already on track to achieve that target (even if that is primarily due to the fracking boom there), whereas the Chinese commitment is a lot tougher to achieve whilst still striving to grow their economy and improve conditions for their people.

But China doesn't have to do anything now, nor reduce fossil fuel usage until 2030.

 

[MikeMcc]

It does if want's to peak by then, a lot of the increase in energy generation has been by building a lot of fossil fuelled plant. Chinas already impressive nuclear and renewable schemes will need to be increased still further in order to match the demand and start to decommission the fossil fuel plants.

 

[ferrelhadley]