Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 21

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 05 Feb 2019, 07:55:18

. 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revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999.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
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13077
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dissident » Tue 05 Feb 2019, 11:16:16

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.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 06 Feb 2019, 15:06:50

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... five-years

Met Office: global warming could exceed 1.5C within five years

Lowest Paris agreement target may temporarily be surpassed for first time between now and 2023

Global warming could temporarily hit 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time between now and 2023, according to a long-term forecast by the Met Office. Meteorologists said there was a 10% chance of a year in which the average temperature rise exceeds 1.5C, which is the lowest of the two Paris agreement targets set for the end of the century.

Until now, the hottest year on record was 2016, when the planet warmed 1.11C above pre-industrial levels, but the long-term trend is upward. Man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are adding 0.2C of warming each decade but the incline of temperature charts is jagged due to natural variation: hotter El Niño years zig above the average, while cooler La Ninã years zag below. In the five-year forecast released on Wednesday, the Met Office highlights the first possibility of a natural El Niño combining with global warming to exceed the 1.5C mark.

Dr Doug Smith, Met Office research fellow, said: “A run of temperatures of 1C or above would increase the risk of a temporary excursion above the threshold of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Predictions now suggest around a 10% chance of at least one year between 2019 and 2023 temporarily exceeding 1.5C.”

Although it would be an outlier, scientists said the first appearance in their long-term forecasts of such a “temporary excursion” was worrying, particularly for regions that are usually hard hit by extreme weather related to El Niño. This includes western Australia, South America, south and west Africa, and the Indian monsoon belt.

They also noted that the probability of 1.5C years would steadily increase unless emissions were rapidly scaled back.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 06 Feb 2019, 15:28:16

Since this topic was briefly discussed upthread here, I thought I'd post this here too:

This peer reviewed study from two researchers in Australia shows that most of the arguements saying we can't go to 100% renewable sources for our energy are based on myths:

http://pubclimate.ch.mm.st/TheFeasibili ... on2018.pdf

The rapid growth of renewable energy (RE) is disrupting and transforming the global energy system, especially
the electricity industry. As a result, supporters of the politically powerful incumbent industries and others are
critiquing the feasibility of large-scale electricity generating systems based predominantly on RE. Part of this
opposition is manifest in the publication of incorrect myths about renewable electricity (RElec) in scholarly
journals, popular articles, media, websites, blogs and statements by politicians.

The aim of the present article is
to use current scientific and engineering theory and practice to refute the principal myths. It does this by
showing that [b]large-scale electricity systems that are 100% renewable
(100RElec), including those whose renewable sources are predominantly variable (e.g. wind and solar PV), can be readily designed to meet the key
requirements of reliability, security and affordability
.

It also argues that transition to 100RElec could occur much more rapidly than suggested by historical energy transitions. It finds that the main critiques published in scholarly articles and books contain factual errors, questionable assumptions, important omissions, internal inconsistencies, exaggerations of limitations and irrelevant arguments.

Some widely publicised critiques select
criteria that are inappropriate and/or irrelevant to the assessment of energy technologies, ignore studies whose
results contradict arguments in the critiques, and fail to assess the sum total of knowledge provided collectively
by the published studies on 100RElec, but instead demand that each individual study address all the critiques’
inappropriate criteria. We find that the principal barriers to 100RElec are neither technological nor economic,
but instead are primarily political, institutional and cultural.[/b]
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 06 Feb 2019, 15:39:08

From the post above:
It does this by
showing that large-scale electricity systems that are 100% renewable (100RElec), including those whose renewable sources are predominantly variable (e.g. wind and solar PV),[b] can be readily designed to meet the key
requirements of reliability, security and affordability
.

That is a pretty amazing claim. I'd need to see some facts and figures along with some completed and functioning prototype projects before I sign off on that one.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9776
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 06 Feb 2019, 15:43:19

Dude, I linked a 13 page academic paper on it filled with facts and figures. Is the linky not working for you or something?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 06 Feb 2019, 23:45:19

Rather then read long tedious papers tonight I went ice fishing with a buddy. We drove out to his fish shanty and then augured through two feet of ice. The smelt were biting pretty good, I lost count after we had fifty in the cooler. :)
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9776
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 07 Feb 2019, 16:59:04

There are 7.7+ Billion humans on this planet. Unfortunately, at LEAST 6 Billion of those humans are only here because we have cheap petroleum fuels for mechanized agriculture, and petrochemical fertilizers/herbicides/insecticides, and we use these things to grow/process/transport/refrigerate/cook the food we eat.

There is currently NOTHING - and I do mean nothing whatsoever - that we can use to replace petroleum fuels and petrochemicals on the scale needed to continue to feed and warm 7.7 Billion humans. In fact there is not even a collection of energy sources and fertilizers, etc. that can replace petroleum.

If in fact the burning of FF's is causing Climate Change - it is in fact possible that that is the case, I have never denied this, only questioned the magnitude of the resulting impacts - that is unfortunate. Because you see, we can't stop and continue to feed and warm 7.7 Billion people without resorting to burning FF's. Renewables are feeble and expensive by comparison.

So look into the abyss. Understand what ceasing to pump and dig FF's and to burn them means. It means 6+ billion humans must starve and perish shivering.

I personally shy away from advocating the death of that many people. I see no way they can survivve without consuming gas and oil and coal and so forth. They'll die without those things. The cure for CC seems way worse than the disease.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby clif » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 06:03:14

The only problem with the usage of fossil fuels to artificially keep 6 billion people alive that the planet cannot support with out the ability to procure said fossil fuels is ........

The amount of fossil fuels is limited. We are no longer finding fossil fuels faster than we are removing them from the crust of the planet, and using them. So at some point we are going to see a decline in the production of fossil fuels, at that point we have a choice to make.

Find a way to find an alternate energy source to replace the declining amount of fossil fuels available for food production and transportation etc necessary for the extra 6 billion people, or hopefully we had planned a decline in population by some humane way IE lowering birth rates enough to keep ahead of declines in food production etc.

Otherwise a very unpleasant scenario seems the only option at that point.

The simple physical truth, usage of a finite source cannot continue for an infinite time period .....

It's a corollary to infinite growth is impossible in a finite planet, both are true.

Thus planning for the time we will lack fossil fuels seems to be the only both humane and intelligent choice we have.

The sooner the better.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 12:53:12

clif wrote:The only problem with the usage of fossil fuels to artificially keep 6 billion people alive that the planet cannot support with out the ability to procure said fossil fuels is ........

The amount of fossil fuels is limited. We are no longer finding fossil fuels faster than we are removing them from the crust of the planet, and using them. So at some point we are going to see a decline in the production of fossil fuels, at that point we have a choice to make.

Find a way to find an alternate energy source to replace the declining amount of fossil fuels available for food production and transportation etc necessary for the extra 6 billion people, or hopefully we had planned a decline in population by some humane way IE lowering birth rates enough to keep ahead of declines in food production etc.

Otherwise a very unpleasant scenario seems the only option at that point.
........
............
.

Yes some very unpleasant options are quite possible but given the great variation in energy use around the world by those seven billion people and the fact that fossil fuels will not suddenly become totally unavailable instead declining by some rate perhaps five to ten percent per year the most likely outcome is that we will adapt to the new reality as it happens. Americans can certainly reduce consumption to European levels and then as innovation deals with the problem reduce it further down to per capita levels of the third world without becoming as impoverished as the third world is today.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9776
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 16:38:43

At this present time, there is no single energy source or collection of sources to replace FF's. clif and vtsnowedin, without disagreeing with either of you, let me ask:

1) Do you advocate abandonning burning FF's without any adequate replacements, causing the death of 6+ Billion humans, because of CC. (Many CC Doomies here on the Forum seem to advocate this.)

2) Do you advocate NO CHANGE to current practices, where reducing FF usage is required by some countries, not required by others, resulting in FF usage moving to someplace else. (Example: The USA ended domestic steel production, but imports steel and exports coal needed to make steel.)(This seems to be the default case, the one we are doing.)

3) Force people to change to low energy lifestyles via taxes, etc. Example: 100% gasoline and diesel tax, doubling motor fuel costs. This will reduce FF use and prolong the limited supplies of FF's.

4) Do you have another alternative? NO, you don't get to postulate a magical new energy source without carbon emissions, you have to stick to current technology.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 16:58:56

KaiserJeep wrote:
1) Do you advocate abandonning burning FF's without any adequate replacements, causing the death of 6+ Billion humans, because of CC?


Do you advocate continue to burn FF causing the death of 6+ billion humans due to CC?

KaiserJeep wrote:) Do you have another alternative? ....


Of course. Switch to carbon free nuclear power sources like solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear etc. If we don’t switch to carbon free energy we are doomed due to CC—therefore the logical thing to do is to go carbon free. It will be very expensive, but it beats destroying the planet.

Cheers!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22665
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 17:18:51

In fact, niether solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear energy are carbon-free. All have fabrication costs as they include materials that release lots of carbon in fabrication (silicon, plastics, aluminum, concrete, etc.). Nuclear also has ongoing carbon emissions as uranium is mined, refined, enriched, and fabricated into fuel pellets using FF energy, and fuel rods are transported using petroleum fuels.

All these power sources are carbon reduced, none are carbon free. Nor can any of these sources exist unless fabricated using FF energy at present.

Even if this were not so, it it not clear to me that these power sources - even collectively - can replace all our usage of FF's.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 21:01:27

KaiserJeep wrote:In fact, niether solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear energy are carbon-free. All have fabrication costs as they include materials that release lots of carbon in fabrication (silicon, plastics, aluminum, concrete, etc.). Nuclear also has ongoing carbon emissions as uranium is mined, refined, enriched, and fabricated into fuel pellets using FF energy, and fuel rods are transported using petroleum fuels.

All these power sources are carbon reduced, none are carbon free. Nor can any of these sources exist unless fabricated using FF energy at present.

Even if this were not so, it it not clear to me that these power sources - even collectively - can replace all our usage of FF's.

First ask is all of our fossil fuel use necessary?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9776
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 21:26:24

Soooo....

I quote something making a claim...

I am challenged to back up said quoted claim with facts and figures...

I point out that said facts and figures are already readily available at links supplied...

Then I am told that the challenger is too busy fishing to bother to look at facts and figures...

And he/she is perfectly happy to then go on and spout their ill informed position, blissfully still unaware of well documented counter positions...

o k a y....

In the famous metaphor, the pigeon at least pretends to play chess...

In this case, they don't even seem to bother, and just cut straight to the shitting on the board and the flying up to the flock to claim victory...

You really couldn't make this stuff up...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 21:42:11

dohboi wrote:Soooo....

I quote something making a claim...

I am challenged to back up said quoted claim with facts and figures...

I point out that said facts and figures are already readily available at links supplied...

Then I am told that the challenger is too busy fishing to bother to look at facts and figures...

And he/she is perfectly happy to then go on and spout their ill informed position, blissfully still unaware of well documented counter positions...

o k a y....

In the famous metaphor, the pigeon at least pretends to play chess...

In this case, they don't even seem to bother, and just cut straight to the shitting on the board and the flying up to the flock to claim victory...

You really couldn't make this stuff up...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

It is late tonight Dohboi so I'm not up to a debate. I'll try tomorrow to get into the facts and figures and give you a more complete response.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9776
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 08 Feb 2019, 22:07:54

User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 09 Feb 2019, 10:45:45

OK having taken the time to read the review. It is a review of other papers not a research paper by itself. let's go back to the quote I originally commented on.
It does this by
showing that large-scale electricity systems that are 100% renewable (100RElec), including those whose renewable sources are predominantly variable (e.g. wind and solar PV),[b] can be readily designed to meet the key
requirements of reliability, security and affordability.

When you get into the paper you find this at the beginning.
The study includes systems where RE contributes the major pro-portion of electricity, but less than 100%, however for brevity we refer to all these systems as 100RElec

So 100% doesn't mean 100% so I could rest my case there.
The review uses studies by one side to refute studies by the other (they reference 27 studies and 138 other sources). They disparage all negative studies as being written by industry insiders and proponents of nuclear power and full of errors while of course all writers of positive studies are above reproach and error and bias free.
Pulling quotes from other papers you leave all context and exceptions behind so can make a much stronger case but an incorrect one.
The authors are Australian and though they pulled data and papers from all over the world the slant was clearly towards future plans for Australia which lies under the Tropic of Capricorn and has the sun directly overhead in summer and still high in the sky at the winter low. Add in the extensive areas of wind swept desert area and the renewable power potential is immense . But even here they (or at least some of the papers do) acknowledge that some backups of as yet un built pumped storage , battery farms, grid improvements etc. will have to be built by 2060 and some of them will be piston engine generator sets supposedly running on bio fuel.
They try to make the case that you can have a 100% (75% actually) REelec grid anywhere in the world and maybe they will do that in Australia but I doubt it for the I-95 corridor of the US East coast and New England with its long winter nights some of them calm and windless.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9776
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Global Warming / Climate Changes Pt. 20

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 09 Feb 2019, 11:21:28

Thanks for the much more thoughtful response, vt.

I think the coasts will have the least problems, since off-shore winds are pretty much non-stop, but it will require development of those off-shore wind systems.

I also think we need to have much more intrusive load management.

In Minnesota, we pretty much shut down the state if we have a major snow event.

The same could be done if we have a major windless/sunless event. Mostly stop travel and most business until there is sufficient energy to safely start things up again. More stringent requirements for energy efficiency on all fronts would also help, if matched with policies that help avoid the famous Jeavons Paradox kicking in.

"The United States, though, has very large offshore wind energy resources due to strong, consistent winds off the long U.S. coastline" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_powe ... ted_States

Storage of various sorts is also developing quickly. And of course, the wind is always blowing somewhere, as is the sun shining. So a combination of load management, enhanced transmission, increased efficiency, more and better storage, and more RE generation should be able to get us pretty darn close. I do think we need to also shrink as well as to decarbonize the industrial economy. But that would probably get us off in a different direction, even further afield from the threads direct topic.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests