Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Skotty]

You know, I've never done drugs, but sometimes I imagine a world where everyone agrees we need to care for the environment, where there is an unopposed unified push to build green energy on a large scale, significant programs designed to develop ways to manage the environment responsibly without giving up using it to our advantage, etc. If I try hard enough for a moment, I can almost believe it, and it comes with a sensation of euphoria. That is followed by renewed depression as I come back to reality. I have to imagine, that must be what it's like to do drugs.

 

[JRP3]

Drugs are less depressing than expecting humanity to do the right thing

 

[S'toon]

<snip>

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) found that temperatures increased consistently around the globe last year — hitting 1.1 C above the pre-industrial era — with even higher fluctuations in the Arctic.

And the early data for 2017 shows that the earth continues to get warmer.

Those temperature spikes in the Arctic region contributed to Canada's comparatively balmy winter months last year. Combine that "polar equivalent of a heat wave" with the influence of El Nino and the world saw an increase in melting sea ice and the second-warmest year for its oceans, the study found.

The ripple effect of that stretches beneath the surface of the Coral Sea, off Australia's eastern coast. Mass coral bleaching continued there this year, something Australian scientists blamed primarily on climate change, Thomson Reuters reported in March.

<snip>

Full article at:
The world hit its warmest in 2016 — and it's getting hotter: study

 

[electracity]

For depressing climate news, I listen to the Radio Ecoshock. This is a podcast that is essentially an old Canadian hippy mostly interviewing climate scientists.

My impression is that almost no climate scientist believes that staying under 2C is possible in any realistic scenario.

 

[Skotty]

I kind of wish they would put those temperature deltas in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius since the number would look bigger and be in the common measurement for the United States where the greatest concentration of resistance to doing something about climate change is.

 

[dhrivnak]

I kind of wish they would put those temperature deltas in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius since the number would look bigger and be in the common measurement for the United States where the greatest concentration of resistance to doing something about climate change is.

Or maybe we should teach the average American to learn some basic math. Or possibly join the rest of the world.

 

[Skotty]

Or maybe we should teach the average American to learn some basic math. Or possibly join the rest of the world.

Your expectations are set way too high. Don't forget who we just elected President.

 

[ggies07]

A new doc on climate change from the military perspective:

‘The Hurt Locker’ meets ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, THE AGE OF CONSEQUENCES investigates the impacts of climate change on increased resource scarcity, migration, and conflict through the lens of US national security and global stability.

 

[Skotty]

Take the proposed 54 billion military budget increase as a point of interest -- how many solar power plants could be built for this, 100% subsidized by the government? How about, just if subsidized enough for it to be the top choice for power companies?

Update Edit:

For a 150MW photovoltaic station with 20% storage, using EIA 2013 estimates (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf), at $4236 per kW capital cost, that comes to roughly $635 million. 54 billion, subsidized 100%, would be enough to build about 85 solar power plants with 20% storage. And that's 2013. Probably cheaper today. If that increase were kept constant, that's 85 150MW power plants PER YEAR that this could fund. Though would need more Gigafactories, I'm sure.

 

[mspohr]

An interesting perspective.
They postulate a "Moore's law" for CO2 where it halves every 5 years as renewables double.
Also predicts no new ICE cars by 2030.
‘Moore’s law’ for carbon would defeat global warming

‘Moore’s law’ for carbon would defeat global warming

 

[Raffy.Roma]

An interesting perspective.
They postulate a "Moore's law" for CO2 where it halves every 5 years as renewables double.
Also predicts no new ICE cars by 2030.
‘Moore’s law’ for carbon would defeat global warming

‘Moore’s law’ for carbon would defeat global warming

Of course I would be happy that renewables double every 5 years, but I very much doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will half at the same rate. I am sorry but I don't believe to this linear relationship between renewables and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Keep in mind that CO2 stays in the atmoshere for one century!

 

[Driver Dave]

What You Can Do About Climate Change

I do realize this is about the fuel-economy standards that Trump will no doubt cancel, but really the final answer to the question is:

Buy an electric car.

 

[ggies07]

Climate change-fueled jet stream behind brutal floods and heatwaves, says study

The study found that as greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere, those waves have lingered longer over particular regions. "Anything that makes those waves more persistent means the weather is going to be more persistent too, and summer extreme events are associated with these persistent patterns," Francis said.

 

[mspohr]

Of course I would be happy that renewables double every 5 years, but I very much doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will half at the same rate. I am sorry but I don't believe to this linear relationship between renewables and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Keep in mind that CO2 stays in the atmoshere for one century!

Sorry, I was clumsy in my paraphrase. The article postulates that a doubling of renewables would lead to a halving of CO2 emissions and this would help keep us below catastrophic CO2 levels.
From the Science article:
"The Paris goal translates into a finite planetary carbon budget: a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100 and a >66% probability of meeting the 2°C target imply that global CO2 emissions peak no later than 2020, and gross emissions decline from ∼40 gigatons (metric) of carbon dioxide (GtCO2)/year in 2020, to ∼24 by 2030, ∼14 by 2040, and ∼5 by 2050 (3) (see the figure, top). Risks could be further reduced by moderately increasing ambition to halve emissions every decade (see the figure, bottom right). Following such a global carbon law means at least limiting cumulative total CO2 emissions from 2017 until the end of the century to ∼700 GtCO2, which allows for a small but essential contingency (∼125 GtCO2 less compared with total CO2 emissions in the pathway in the figure, top) for risks of biosphere carbon feedbacks (6) or delay in ramping up CO2-removal technologies."

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Sorry, I was clumsy in my paraphrase. The article postulates that a doubling of renewables would lead to a halving of CO2 emissions and this would help keep us below catastrophic CO2 levels.
From the Science article:
"The Paris goal translates into a finite planetary carbon budget: a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100 and a >66% probability of meeting the 2°C target imply that global CO2 emissions peak no later than 2020, and gross emissions decline from ∼40 gigatons (metric) of carbon dioxide (GtCO2)/year in 2020, to ∼24 by 2030, ∼14 by 2040, and ∼5 by 2050 (3) (see the figure, top). Risks could be further reduced by moderately increasing ambition to halve emissions every decade (see the figure, bottom right). Following such a global carbon law means at least limiting cumulative total CO2 emissions from 2017 until the end of the century to ∼700 GtCO2, which allows for a small but essential contingency (∼125 GtCO2 less compared with total CO2 emissions in the pathway in the figure, top) for risks of biosphere carbon feedbacks (6) or delay in ramping up CO2-removal technologies."

Ok this is the Paris goal. Of course I hope that such a goal will be reached. It would mean that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be kept under 450 ppm by 2100.
The efforts of all the Countries all over the world is needed to get such a goal.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Sorry, I was clumsy in my paraphrase. The article postulates that a doubling of renewables would lead to a halving of CO2 emissions and this would help keep us below catastrophic CO2 levels.
From the Science article:
"The Paris goal translates into a finite planetary carbon budget: a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100 and a >66% probability of meeting the 2°C target imply that global CO2 emissions peak no later than 2020, and gross emissions decline from ∼40 gigatons (metric) of carbon dioxide (GtCO2)/year in 2020, to ∼24 by 2030, ∼14 by 2040, and ∼5 by 2050 (3) (see the figure, top). Risks could be further reduced by moderately increasing ambition to halve emissions every decade (see the figure, bottom right). Following such a global carbon law means at least limiting cumulative total CO2 emissions from 2017 until the end of the century to ∼700 GtCO2, which allows for a small but essential contingency (∼125 GtCO2 less compared with total CO2 emissions in the pathway in the figure, top) for risks of biosphere carbon feedbacks (6) or delay in ramping up CO2-removal technologies."

Then consider that this would be only half a solution. In fact the Ocean Acidification issue, which is already bad now that we have a CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of 400 ppm, would worsen when it will get close to 450 ppm.
Think that something else is needed to work out the Climate Change/Global Warming issue.

 

[DragonWatch]

You know, I've never done drugs, but sometimes I imagine a world where everyone agrees we need to care for the environment, where there is an unopposed unified push to build green energy on a large scale, significant programs designed to develop ways to manage the environment responsibly without giving up using it to our advantage, etc. If I try hard enough for a moment, I can almost believe it, and it comes with a sensation of euphoria. That is followed by renewed depression as I come back to reality. I have to imagine, that must be what it's like to do drugs.

You speak for the majority of us. We each have a small foot print that we occupy here on Mother Earth and if you are true to yourself most of the time you can make a positive change for the better. Somehow I have floundered thru life and I hopefully have been making changes for the better. One small example is soccer. In the sixties, soccer was not available as a sport everywhere. Four of us white boys challenged the high school principal who said "no way we could have a team." We were forced outside the school, started a team, stumbled upon a World Cup player (volunteer to be our coach) from England turned newspaper writer, he found thirteen other teams in the LA area and we were off and running. Our team was very diverse other than the four of us (I think the rest of the team felt bad for us and let us play). We won on average by 10 points per game and got to win the championship twice in 1967 & 1968, played in the LA Colliceum ~ audience was our parents and girl friends. The four of us were invited to compete for slots on the first US soccer team, but after graduation all four of us enlisted. Two were shot down and lived to talk about it in Vietnam, the other two of us had a less event filled service time. Bottom line is a positive footprint. All of us putting our prints together has soccer teams all over the place. I was excited to hear about a friends daughter obtaining a soccer scholarship to college, a few years back. It does not get any better than that!

My wife and I have been converting our yard tools to electric over the years, we drove two different Prius' over the last ten years, we put solar panels on our roof ~ "What's in your footprint"? As of today (31Mar17) our MX

 

[Driver Dave]

I don't think the world will change because people are aware enough to understand this simple thing: taking tons of trapped carbon out of the ground and throwing it up the air traps more sun energy and causes things to heat up.

But I do think the world will change when people drive an electric car and think "wow, this is way better than a gas car on so many levels."

Environmental message is not even needed at that point.

 

[ggies07]

I don't think the world will change because people are aware enough to understand this simple thing: taking tons of trapped carbon out of the ground and throwing it up the air traps more sun energy and causes things to heat up.

But I do think the world will change when people drive an electric car and think "wow, this is way better than a gas car on so many levels."

Environmental message is not even needed at that point.

Isn't that ****ing sad though? When you type it out like that its really basic stuff......

 

[Driver Dave]

Isn't that ****ing sad though? When you type it out like that its really basic stuff......

I think sometimes scientists lead with the science, when they should just lead with the common sense first.