[dohboi]

Again, vt, right-o!

But, yes, Newf, I don't see how anyone can deny that we are in overshoot.

Meanwhile:

James Hansen has projected that ice-climate feedback may soon create Category 6 hurricanes:

"b]This is how the world ends: will we soon see category 6 hurricanes?[/b]

https://peakoil.com/enviroment/this-is- ... hurricanes

(Just noticed that this is from PeakOil.com, even though I got it from another site--aslr at asif! Good work, PO! )

Meteorologists and scientists never imagined that there would be a need for a category 6 storm, with winds that exceed 200 miles per hour on a sustained basis, sweeping away everything in its path. Until now, such a storm wasn’t possible, so there was no need for a new category above category 5.
…
Jeff Masters, one of the most respected meteorologists in America, has begun to wonder publicly about the potential for a category 6 hurricane. He launched a lively debate among his colleagues with a provocative post in July of 2016 on the Weather Underground – a thought-provoking piece that prompted the Weather Channel and others to weigh in with their thoughts and theories as well.

[Tanada]

The long being that any additional heat is too much for the population we are trying to sustain. So going from oil to electric MAY reduce the effect by 50% or 75% but it’s NOT zero.

Anything multiplied by 7.7 billion is a lot, too much.

It may be painful to hear but there is no escaping overshoot.

Again the heat generated from solar and other renewables is a wash while we burn 100 million barrels of oil and 22 million tons of coal (equivalent to another 100 million barrels of oil) each and every day. That is a lot of heat going out the smoke stacks and exhaust pipes. Worry about the oil and coal not the solar panels.

Its not quite as simple as that. For one thing the solar PV sets or solar thermal pipes tend to be dark colors and tend to gain heat as well as converting photons into useful work. That heat is then transferred to the atmosphere in addition to the portion that is used for water heating in solar water heating set ups. In addition to that every time the electricity form those PV panels goes up or down in voltage or is converted/inverted into AC/DC there is heat loss in the wiring and systems. Thirdly after you account for all of that when you use it to operate your EV you ultimately convert all of that electricity into heat in the form of warmed brake pads, friction heating of the tire sidewalls as they flex while you drive and so on and so forth. Sure the brakes and tires get hot in a conventional car as well, but they get hot for the same reason, they are converting kinetic energy of motion into friction losses in the brakes and material of the tires. Above and beyond that yes your EV does less direct heat dumping into the environment than an ICE vehicle, but that is a long way from being energy neutral. In those cases where a patch of desert has been covered in PV systems in particular, deserts are pretty good at reflecting sunlight where PV systems do the opposite and capture a few percentage points as electricity and a few more as direct heat absorption.

TANSTAAFL!

[vtsnowedin]

The long being that any additional heat is too much for the population we are trying to sustain. So going from oil to electric MAY reduce the effect by 50% or 75% but it’s NOT zero.

Anything multiplied by 7.7 billion is a lot, too much.

It may be painful to hear but there is no escaping overshoot.

Again the heat generated from solar and other renewables is a wash while we burn 100 million barrels of oil and 22 million tons of coal (equivalent to another 100 million barrels of oil) each and every day. That is a lot of heat going out the smoke stacks and exhaust pipes. Worry about the oil and coal not the solar panels.

Its not quite as simple as that. For one thing the solar PV sets or solar thermal pipes tend to be dark colors and tend to gain heat as well as converting photons into useful work. That heat is then transferred to the atmosphere in addition to the portion that is used for water heating in solar water heating set ups. In addition to that every time the electricity form those PV panels goes up or down in voltage or is converted/inverted into AC/DC there is heat loss in the wiring and systems. Thirdly after you account for all of that when you use it to operate your EV you ultimately convert all of that electricity into heat in the form of warmed brake pads, friction heating of the tire sidewalls as they flex while you drive and so on and so forth. Sure the brakes and tires get hot in a conventional car as well, but they get hot for the same reason, they are converting kinetic energy of motion into friction losses in the brakes and material of the tires. Above and beyond that yes your EV does less direct heat dumping into the environment than an ICE vehicle, but that is a long way from being energy neutral. In those cases where a patch of desert has been covered in PV systems in particular, deserts are pretty good at reflecting sunlight where PV systems do the opposite and capture a few percentage points as electricity and a few more as direct heat absorption.

TANSTAAFL!

You are totally wrong on this. The solar panel collects sunlight, AKA heat, from a large area and sends it off to a battery or EV. Yes when the EV drives it releases this concentrated stored energy/heat back out to the environment but it cannot equal more heat then the solar panel captured from the sunlight. It is a wash.

[Tanada]

Sorry not so much. A brand new high efficiency panel is 22% efficient at converting direct sunlight into electricity, the other 78% goes into a combination and heating the equipment up and reflecting back into space. Also panels do not stay new and high efficiency, they get dusty and get debris damage from wind blown grit and they just plain age electronically as well. Sure a good quality panel will be 80% of its nameplate capacity in 20 years but in effect that means it goes from 22% to about 17.5% conversion ration, meaning it collects even more energy into the local environment. In some situations like replacing a flat building tar roof or creating covered parking in an asphalt lot that energy capture is a net plus, but in the raw desert or worse in a pasture field it is decidedly a net negative.

[vtsnowedin]

Sorry not so much. A brand new high efficiency panel is 22% efficient at converting direct sunlight into electricity, the other 78% goes into a combination and heating the equipment up and reflecting back into space. Also panels do not stay new and high efficiency, they get dusty and get debris damage from wind blown grit and they just plain age electronically as well. Sure a good quality panel will be 80% of its nameplate capacity in 20 years but in effect that means it goes from 22% to about 17.5% conversion ration, meaning it collects even more energy into the local environment. In some situations like replacing a flat building tar roof or creating covered parking in an asphalt lot that energy capture is a net plus, but in the raw desert or worse in a pasture field it is decidedly a net negative.

You are just being stubborn. The sun places a certain amount of energy on a area of ground. That a solar panel only captures a portion of that energy does not create any new energy to release to the environment. If you can't see that?

[dohboi]

... Mann and his colleagues identified a key mechanism by which climate change influences extreme weather events that current climate models had failed to capture: a misbehaving jet stream. The team found that climate change was causing the once-meandering jet stream to stay in place, trapping high or low pressure systems in place in the atmosphere, which, in the summer of 2018, led to extreme heat waves, drought, wildfires, and flooding across the United States and abroad.

“In other words,” Mann writes in an email, “the climate models have likely underestimated the impact that climate change is already having on extreme weather events like the devastating events that unfolded in [the summer of] 2018 and they are likely underestimating the future increases in these events.”…

https://psmag.com/environment/are-we-he ... e-scenario

[vtsnowedin]

That the same Michael ,the hockey stick, Mann we all know and love?

[dohboi]

Yes, the much defamed and hounded Mann who was shown to be overwhelmingly right by numerous independent scientific sources.

But if you prefer ignorant, ill-informed snark in this case to careful science...well, isn't that special...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msDcShv_r20

...A series of investigations cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. Detailed analysis by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the critics made unsupported accusations of falsification and manipulation or destruction of data and were commonly mistaken about the scientific issues.[39][40]

Mann was specifically cleared by several inquiries. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and his research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties.[41][42]

The EPA gave detailed consideration to petitions with allegations against Mann from lobbyists including the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Ohio Coal Association: the EPA found their claims were not supported by the evidence.[39][43]

At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[40][44]

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[40][45][46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

[Newfie]

Baha and VT,

What you are missing is that when the light hits the ground it is not 100% converted to heat, more or less of it is reflected back.

In Tanada’s description the conversion of solar radiation into heat is more complete in a solar panel than in a desert.

The solar panel looks more like a black body and the sand more like a mirror.

Remember when we talk about “albedo” and how removing snow cover will expose the dark, energy absorbing Earth below? It’s the same thing, we are covering the light sand with a dark energy absorbing material.

By the same logic we paint our flat roofs with a tar substance with shiny aluminum, to make the roofs more reflective, cooler. That’s why parking lots are a good candidate for solar panels, they are already dark.

[vtsnowedin]

Yes, the much defamed and hounded Mann who was shown to be overwhelmingly right by numerous independent scientific sources.

But if you prefer ignorant, ill-informed snark in this case to careful science...well, isn't that special...

I read the emails for myself and came to a different conclusion.
They have done a lot of covering up and face saving but I will never trust anything the man says or publishes.
But to each his own .
You are quite welcome to take his pronouncements as gospel if you like.

[vtsnowedin]

Baha and VT,

What you are missing is that when the light hits the ground it is not 100% converted to heat, more or less of it is reflected back.

In Tanada’s description the conversion of solar radiation into heat is more complete in a solar panel than in a desert.

The solar panel looks more like a black body and the sand more like a mirror.

Remember when we talk about “albedo” and how removing snow cover will expose the dark, energy absorbing Earth below? It’s the same thing, we are covering the light sand with a dark energy absorbing material.

By the same logic we paint our flat roofs with a tar substance with shiny aluminum, to make the roofs more reflective, cooler. That’s why parking lots are a good candidate for solar panels, they are already dark.

It is still a wash. energy delivered by the sun, collected transported and released in a zero sum game. If the panel takes in move energy then the sand under it would have that extra energy is given up at the point of use.

[Newfie]

No it’s not a wash, you are converting short wavelength energy which is essentially invisible to the atmosphere (and a good portion of that reradistes back out into space) into long wave heat energy which is trapped by the greenhouse gasses.

Visible evidence? You can see the earth from space, it’s radiating reflected energy. If it were a wash then the earth would be a black body and invisible.

[dohboi]

Just in case people don't know, the heat that an ff engine produces directly is vanishingly small compared to the heat that the CO2 it produces will keep in the atmosphere:

"Emissions from burning a lump of coal or a gallon of gas has an effect on the climate 100,000 times greater than the heat given off by burning the fossil fuel itself"

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/fos ... ally-19062

Having said that, even that minuscule amount of heat, relatively speaking, adds up if we are planning to keep growing our economy for ever. I think Ugo Bardi calculated that at a relatively modest 3% GDP global growth rate, just the heat of our engines, even if they are run by 100% reneables, will cause the earth's temperature to be hotter than the sun within 400 year, iirc.

(Sorry, can't find the link for that last study, and I could be off by a percentage or two or by a century or two, but you get the idea...exponential growth, when it's working against you, is a m*** f*** ! )

[Newfie]

Right, in the scope of things what we are talking about is small, not negligible.

[dissident]

That dohboi needs to point out the IR trapping by greenhouse gases indicates that "skeptics" and deniers are utterly uneducated about radiative transfer. The Earth sustains life only because of trace greenhouse gases and their vapourization effect on H2O. Essentially 100% of the atmosphere (N2, O2, and Ar) is totally transparent to IR. Removing greenhouse gases and leaving H2O would in a very short period of time result in all of the H2O freezing out and the Earth becoming an ice hell as the oceans freeze solid.

I have heard denier pundits on TV and radio yap incessantly about how CO2 is a trace gas as if that precludes it from affecting the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans. This utterly moronic opinion is what passes for "skepticism". Deniers and their absurd ignorance don't deserve the time of day. Yet the MSM has historically trotted them out as if their worthless opinions have the weight of scientific fact. The fake stream media has implanted in the minds of the public that global warming is uncertain and some poor signal to noise problem. All by parading f*ckwit deniers lying about how there is no scientific consensus based on facts.

[dohboi]

Good points, dis, as usual.

Meanwhile


A third of Himalayan ice cap doomed, finds 'shocking' report

Even radical climate change action won’t save glaciers, endangering 2 billion people

At least a third of the huge ice fields in Asia’s towering mountain chain are doomed to melt due to climate change, according to a landmark new report, with serious consequences for almost 2 billion people.

Even if carbon emissions are dramatically and rapidly cut and succeed in limiting global warming to 1.5C, 36% of the glaciers along in the Hindu Kush and Himalaya range will have gone by 2100. If emissions are not cut, the loss soars to two-thirds, the report found.

The glaciers are a critical water store for the 250 million people who live in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya (HKH) region, and 1.65 billion people rely on the great rivers that flow from the peaks into India, Pakistan, China and other nations.

“This is the climate crisis you haven’t heard of,” said Philippus Wester of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod), who led the report. “In the best of possible worlds, if we get really ambitious [in tackling climate change], even then we will lose one-third of the glaciers and be in trouble. That for us was the shocking finding.”...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-report

[jawagord]

Meanwhile


A third of Himalayan ice cap doomed, finds 'shocking' report

At least a third of the huge ice fields in Asia’s towering mountain chain are doomed to melt due to climate change, according to a landmark new report, with serious consequences for almost 2 billion people.

Even if carbon emissions are dramatically and rapidly cut and succeed in limiting global warming to 1.5C, 36% of the glaciers along in the Hindu Kush and Himalaya range will have gone by 2100. If emissions are not cut, the loss soars to two-thirds, the report found
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ing-report

Did they read the report correctly this time? Remember the last scary report? Junk science predictions are wildly inaccurate, make for good headlines, bad science and ugly politics!

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says. J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.
He is astonished they "misread 2350 as 2035". The authors deny the claims.
Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and "a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

[dohboi]

Very old news, but yeah, just keep rehashing it...it works for you...

So maybe I can also rehash some old music for your delectation??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq0XJCJ1Srw

[Newfie]

. The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

It added: "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.

The IPCC says the broader conclusion of the report is unaffected: that glaciers have melted significantly, that this will accelerate and affect the supply of water from major mountain ranges "where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives".

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rs-mistake

[dissident]

Given the nonlinear nature of ice sheets, we'll have to wait and see what happens by 2035 with regards to Himalayan glaciers. Recall that people (including scientists) were surprised by the ability of melt water at the top of the Greenland ice sheet to burrow its way all the way to the base of the glacier when this was observed during the early 2000s. Ice sheet dynamics are complex and they do not behave like giant ice cubes. They are basically a fractured quasi-elastic viscous "slurry" that undergoes continuous flow. (For example a WWII bomber that crashed on and Argentinian glacier and disappeared came out 50 years later at the base.)

The IPCC is a political activity and does not guide the science. In fact, the IPCC dilutes science to serve political interests. If you think this is tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, then you are a moron. Saudi Arabia actually gets to revise the policy statements by the IPCC since it is a consensus process involving every country. You want to see BS by consensus, then you see it in the diluted message of the IPCC. A couple of rounds ago the IPCC was forecasting 50 cm of sea level rise based solely on thermal expansion. They did not include any land ice melt since it was "uncertain". This is patent BS. Land ice loss is showing a secular progression with very little variability. Glaciers feel the cumulative temperature effect over a spread over years. So most atmospheric noise is not reflected in the glacier mass balance. The IPCC is still low-balling the land ice loss estimates. For a realistic view one has to turn to Jim Hansen:

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761 ... 1-2016.pdf

Linear ice loss estimates are rubbish. Ice loss is linear only in the initial stages (i.e. weak melt limit) and eventually has to exhibit strong deviations from linearity. Glaciers are not ice cubes. The Greenland ice sheet will eventually destabilize enough to catastrophically collapse down the slopes into the ocean waters. That is far from linearity.