Climate Change

[SYZ]

At least we (all of us) won't have to deal with the major US roadblock
in the way of climate change turnaround after November 2020.

[Alan V]

At least we (all of us) won't have to deal with the major US roadblock
in the way of climate change turnaround after November 2020.

I very much hope so.  Several of the Democrat candidates have already proposed aggressive climate change plans.

[Alan V]

"Since the start of the satellite era in 1979, the summer Arctic has lost 40% of its extent and up to 70% of its volume, says [Till] Wagner [University of North Carolina Wilmington]. Other scientists calculate the rate of decline at 10,000 tonnes a second. Much of the multiyear ice is now gone. Most of what is left is the younger, thinner layer from the previous winter, which is easier for the sun to melt and the wind to push around. Wagner expects ice-free summers in 20 to 40 years, which would allow ships to cruise all the way to the north pole."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...W5Z5YlfZUw

[Alan V]

Certain gases are well-known to physicists to be heat-trapping gases. To compare the heating potential of these gases, each is given a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) value, or a comparison with the heating potential of CO2 which is assigned the value of 1. Global warming potential equals the potency (CO2e) times the volume in the atmosphere times the residence time in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted from fossil fuel burning, cement making, logging and burning forests, and tilling the soil. Although it is one of the weaker greenhouse gases, the fact that we are pouring such great quantities into the atmosphere, and that it can remain there for hundreds of years, makes it of the greatest concern.

Methane (CH4) is emitted from the production and transport of natural gas, raising livestock, decaying landfills, and agriculture. For instance, bacteria in flooded rice paddies produce methane. The average lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is 12 years, but it oxidizes into CO2 which remains much longer. Methane is 86 CO2e over 20 years, and 34 CO2e over 100 years. The methane concentration in the atmosphere is now at two and a half times the preindustrial level, but its concentration is several hundred times lower than CO2.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted from agricultural fertilizers, burning fossil fuels, industrial processes, and solid waste. It remains in the atmosphere for 121 years on average, is broken down by sunlight, and is 298 CO2e in a 100 year period. N2O is up 15% since 1750, but its concentration is also low.

Tropospheric ozone (O3) only remains in the atmosphere for 50 days.

Fluorocarbons (CFCs and HFCs) remain in the atmosphere for over 1000 years, and are many times more powerful than CO2, but are emitted in trace amounts. HFCs are 1000 to 9000 CO2e, depending on the chemical composition. All are produced by humans.

Water vapor (H2O) is the most abundant – about 10 times more than CO2 – and powerful greenhouse gas (since it is responsible for most natural greenhouse gas warming of the earth), but it only stays in the atmosphere for an average of 9 days before it washes out. However, water vapor is nevertheless a very powerful feedback. As the earth warms from other greenhouse gases trapping heat, more water evaporates and remains in the atmosphere, amplifying the heating.

[Deesse23]

Certain gases are well-known to physicists to be heat-trapping gases. To compare the heating potential of these gases, each is given a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) value, or a comparison with the heating potential of CO2 which is assigned the value of 1. Global warming potential equals the potency (CO2e) times the volume in the atmosphere times the residence time in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted from fossil fuel burning, cement making, logging and burning forests, and tilling the soil. Although it is one of the weaker greenhouse gases, the fact that we are pouring such great quantities into the atmosphere, and that it can remain there for hundreds of years, makes it of the greatest concern.

Methane (CH4) is emitted from the production and transport of natural gas, raising livestock, decaying landfills, and agriculture. For instance, bacteria in flooded rice paddies produce methane. The average lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is 12 years, but it oxidizes into CO2 which remains much longer. Methane is 86 CO2e over 20 years, and 34 CO2e over 100 years. The methane concentration in the atmosphere is now at two and a half times the preindustrial level, but its concentration is several hundred times lower than CO2.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted from agricultural fertilizers, burning fossil fuels, industrial processes, and solid waste. It remains in the atmosphere for 121 years on average, is broken down by sunlight, and is 298 CO2e in a 100 year period. N2O is up 15% since 1750, but its concentration is also low.

Tropospheric ozone (O3) only remains in the atmosphere for 50 days.

Fluorocarbons (CFCs and HFCs) remain in the atmosphere for over 1000 years, and are many times more powerful than CO2, but are emitted in trace amounts. HFCs are 1000 to 9000 CO2e, depending on the chemical composition. All are produced by humans.

Water vapor (H2O) is the most abundant – about 10 times more than CO2 – and powerful greenhouse gas (since it is responsible for most natural greenhouse gas warming of the earth), but it only stays in the atmosphere for an average of 9 days before it washes out. However, water vapor is nevertheless a very powerful feedback. As the earth warms from other greenhouse gases trapping heat, more water evaporates and remains in the atmosphere, amplifying the heating.

I think these passages have to be pointed out. Heres why:

How bad of a greenhouse gas Methane is, is only half the story. The abundance in the atmosphere must be factored in and the total effect must be calculated and compared.
H2O is responsible for ca. 88% of the greenouse effect, because of its superb qualities as a greehouse gas (see absorption spectrtum in Deltas thread) and its abundance in the atmosphere. Co2 is next, by ca. 10%.

Analogy: Fentanyl has a x100 potenty compared to Morphine. Yet when you have close to no Fentanyl in your body but an abundance of Morphine, you will overdose on Morphine.

By the way: The dangerous thing about CO2 is not increasing heat trapped by CO2 directly (by increasing its abundance). Slightly increased temperatures in the atmosphere however (by slightly increased heat trapped due to increasing Co2) make the atmosphere able to hold more H2O vapor which is the real big heat/energy trap.

[Alan V]

The dangerous thing about CO2 is not increasing heat trapped by CO2 directly (by increasing its abundance). Slightly increased temperatures in the atmosphere however (by slightly increased heat trapped due to increasing Co2) make the atmosphere able to hold more H2O vapor which is the real big heat/energy trap.

Climate sensitivity is around 3C, which means for each doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere we will see 3C of warming at equilibrium (equilibrium meaning the effect may be delayed but it's then locked in).  According to climatologist Michael E. Mann in The Madhouse Effect page 58-59, only 1C of that warming is directly from the CO2 itself.  1.5C is from the water vapor feedback and another 0.5C is from the ice/albedo feedback.

[Alan V]

"It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity. But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.) Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming. 'Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,' Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post."

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: 'There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,' he writes. 'Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.' "

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientif...OUGk_tL-pk

[Alan V]

"Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover extent, North American maximum snow depth, snow water equivalent in the western United States, and extreme snowfall years in the southern and western United States have all declined, while extreme snowfall years in parts of the northern United States have increased (medium confidence). Projections indicate large declines in snowpack in the western United States and shifts to more precipitation falling as rain than snow in the cold season in many parts of the central and eastern United States (high confidence)."

From page 207 of the Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I, published in 2018 by the U.S. Global Change Research Program

In other words, climate change means the climate is changing in different ways in different areas, though the long-term warming pattern will ultimately lead to less snow and more rain as a general trend.

[Alan V]

The primary reason the earth has been ice-free for most of its history was because of much greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Between 300 and 34 million years ago, there were no large ice sheets anywhere. However, previously large concentrations of CO2 have slowly been reduced, over very long periods of time, by a process called chemical weathering. The uplift of the Himalayan Mountains is considered the cause for the cooling trend over the past tens of millions of years. So the earth has gradually cooled since 50 million years ago, the ice sheet over Antarctica dates from about 35 million years ago, and the Arctic froze permanently about 3 million years ago.

The chemical weathering of rocks removes CO2 from the atmosphere. This has worked as a thermostat on the earth’s temperature, since weathering increases with more CO2, warmer temperatures, and increased rainfall, and decreases with less CO2, colder temperatures, and decreased rainfall. Plant life also typically acts as a brake on CO2 levels. However, the process of chemical weathering is far too slow to restore the earth’s natural balance in the short run.

[Alan V]

"This week brought news that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels at the Mauna Loa atmospheric observatory in Hawaii have risen steeply for the seventh year in a row, reaching a May 2019 average of 414.7 parts per million (ppm). It was the highest monthly average in 61 years of measurements at that observatory, and comes five years after CO₂ concentrations first breached the 400ppm milestone. But in truth, the amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is higher still. If we factor in the presence of other greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide, we find that the world has already ticked past yet another milestone: 500ppm of what we call “CO₂-equivalent”, or CO₂-e."

https://theconversation.com/why-theres-m...70PACsV-3k

[Alan V]

"In May 2016, a wildfire near Fort McMurray forced more than 80,000 people to flee the northern Alberta city, destroyed 2,400 buildings and burned nearly 6,000 square kilometres of forest. A year later, the fire season in British Columbia broke records as 2,117 blazes consumed more than 12,000 square kilometres of bush. Both have been connected to climate change in two separate research papers published earlier this year by scientists with Environment and Climate Change Canada. 'We are seeing climate change in action,' says University of Alberta wildland fire Prof. Mike Flannigan. 'The Fort McMurray fire was 1 1/2 to six times more likely because of climate change. The 2017 record-breaking B.C. fire season was seven to 11 times more likely because of climate change.' "

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/can-t-be...icVW83_aeg

[Alan V]

"In 2011, renowned scientist Michael E. Mann sued a Canadian think tank that published an interview suggesting his work on climate change was fraud. Eight years later, the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy — which often promotes climate change denial — apologized Friday and wiped the inflammatory interview from its website."

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/06...NPOiUoi-Qs

[Alan V]

"Pope Francis has declared a global 'climate emergency', warning of the dangers of global heating and that a failure to act urgently to reduce greenhouse gases would be 'a brutal act of injustice toward the poor and future generations'. He also endorsed the 1.5C limit on temperature rises that some countries are now aiming for, referring to warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of 'catastrophic' effects if we crossed such a threshold. He said a 'radical energy transition' would be needed to stay within that limit, and urged young people and businesses to take a leading role."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...O7HJIk3wkE

[LostLocke]

At least we (all of us) won't have to deal with the major US roadblock
in the way of climate change turnaround after November 2020.

Huh. I didn't realize until now that most of his likes are from women's breasts.....

[Alan V]

"It's one thing to hear the concerns of those who have suffered catastrophic losses, or even environmental researchers who have been warning this is where we're headed. It's another thing entirely to hear the CEO of one of Canada's biggest insurance companies call climate change an 'existential' threat. 'Climate change is massive, because we protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast,' said Charles Brindamour, CEO of Intact Insurance. He said his company protects 'one in five Canadians.' After seeing a 'five- to six-fold increase' in natural disasters worldwide over the last three decades, Brindamour knew the industry had to adapt. 'We had to totally reshape our business model to make sure we had a sustainable business in the context of massive changes in weather patterns.' Brindamour has made climate change a company priority. Since he took the company public just over 10 years ago, the nature of the risk he insures against has fundamentally changed. And Brindamour said more change is coming. 'In the next 20 to 30 years, the east of the country will become close to 20 per cent wetter and the west of the country will become 20 per cent to 25 per cent drier,' said Brindamour. His company now funds one of the biggest academic facilities on this issue in Canada, the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, a research centre at the University of Waterloo."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/it-s-a-...Y0_pByiEiI

[Alan V]

"Among other findings the IRENA report highlights that:
* Onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, without financial assistance.
* New solar and wind installations will increasingly undercut even the operating-only costs of existing coal-fired plants.
* Low and falling technology costs make renewables the competitive backbone of energy decarbonization – a crucial climate goal.
* Cost forecasts for solar PV and onshore wind continue to be revised as new data emerges, with renewables consistently beating earlier expectations.
Further data from REN21's Renewable Global Status Report show that over one fifth of global electrical power production is now generated from renewables."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmo...7de7825a6b

[GenesisNemesis]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-clima...SKCN1TJ1XN

 LONDON (Reuters) - Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.

A team from the University of Alaska Fairbanks said they were astounded by how quickly a succession of unusually hot summers had destabilized the upper layers of giant subterranean ice blocks that had been frozen solid for millennia.

"What we saw was amazing," Vladimir E. Romanovsky, a professor of geophysics at the university, told Reuters by telephone. "It’s an indication that the climate is now warmer than at any time in the last 5,000 or more years."

 

Everything's totally fine, guys. Nothing to worry about. 

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

i could have told you that and all I ever do is haggle over the rent money

[SYZ]

"Among other findings the IRENA report highlights that:
* Onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, without financial assistance.
* New solar and wind installations will increasingly undercut even the operating-only costs of existing coal-fired plants.
* Low and falling technology costs make renewables the competitive backbone of energy decarbonization – a crucial climate goal.
* Cost forecasts for solar PV and onshore wind continue to be revised as new data emerges, with renewables consistently beating earlier expectations.
Further data from REN21's Renewable Global Status Report show that over one fifth of global electrical power production is  now generated from renewables."

Unfortunately, here in Australia with our major city's vast geographical separation, solar and wind power options
can't compete with coal-fired power generation—both from a reliability and a costing basis.  Of course there's huge
transmission losses over long distances with solar or wind.  The coal-fired power stations near me—Loy Yang A and B
currently (!) provide 30% of the state's electricity.  There's no way that solar or wind can match that in the shorter
term.  We have one other coal-fired power station at Yallourn (also near me), which also produces around 30% of our
power, plus another 7 natural gas-fired stations providing another 24%.  Solar and wind can—theoretically—provide
16% of our power, but only to geographically-adjacent rural towns with capable distribution networks.

According to the Australian Clean Energy Council, wind power provided 7.1% of the country's electricity in 2018.  The
largest wind farm in Australia, at Macarthur in Victoria produces 420MW (megawatts) compared to Loy Yang at 3,250MW.

[Alan V]

"Among other findings the IRENA report highlights that:
* Onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, without financial assistance.
* New solar and wind installations will increasingly undercut even the operating-only costs of existing coal-fired plants.
* Low and falling technology costs make renewables the competitive backbone of energy decarbonization – a crucial climate goal.
* Cost forecasts for solar PV and onshore wind continue to be revised as new data emerges, with renewables consistently beating earlier expectations.
Further data from REN21's Renewable Global Status Report show that over one fifth of global electrical power production is  now generated from renewables."

Unfortunately, here in Australia with our major city's vast geographical separation, solar and wind power options
can't compete with coal-fired power generation—both from a reliability and a costing basis.  Of course there's huge
transmission losses over long distances with solar or wind.  The coal-fired power stations near me—Loy Yang A and B
currently (!) provide 30% of the state's electricity.  There's no way that solar or wind can match that in the shorter
term.  We have one other coal-fired power station at Yallourn (also near me), which also produces around 30% of our
power, plus another 7 natural gas-fired stations providing another 24%.  Solar and wind can—theoretically—provide
16% of our power, but only to geographically-adjacent rural towns with capable distribution networks.

According to the Australian Clean Energy Council, wind power provided 7.1% of the country's electricity in 2018.  The
largest wind farm in Australia, at Macarthur in Victoria produces 420MW (megawatts) compared to Loy Yang at 3,250MW.

Solar PV (photovoltaics) depend on lots of separate on-site home installations.

[Alan V]

"In 2016, a naming controversy between UK government officials and the internet for a polar research ship resulted in Boaty McBoatface’s quirky name, which propelled the autonomous yellow submarine to fame. But it turns out Boaty McBoatface will go down in history not only for its charming name and good looks, but also for its first significant scientific discovery, which will help scientists predict rising sea levels in the future."

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/beloved...SLIQCw8reA

[Alan V]

"In the short-term, the huge increase in meltwater [from melting Himalayan glaciers] could cause flooding. In the longer term, millions of people in the region who depend on glacier meltwater during drought years could experience very real difficulties. Commenting on the research, Dr Hamish Pritchard from the British Antarctic Survey, said: 'What's new here is being able to see how the melting of glaciers across the whole Himalayan range has increased due to climate change. Over one generation, the melt has doubled and these glaciers are now shrinking fast. Why does this matter? Because when the ice runs out, some of Asia's most important rivers will lose a water supply that keeps them flowing through drought summers, just when water is at its most valuable. Without mountain glaciers, droughts will be worse for millions of water-stressed people living downstream.' "

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environ...WXMds8z38M

[Alan V]

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized its plan to relax limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, eviscerating one of former president Barack Obama’s flagship climate policies. The new policy, announced on 19 June, sparked exasperation and dismay among climate scientists and environmentalists."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...fpPOV6p8Bk

[SYZ]

Solar energy for individual Aussie homes is highly priced.

•   A 10.24 kWh Lithium-ion battery pack with a 10 kW steady output is around AU$7,500 to AU$10,000.

•   40 No 250W panels cost around AU$8,000 to AU$12,000.

•   40 Micro panel inverters cost around AU$2,000.

All up cost (depending on labour component?) could be AU$19,500. (US$13,510)

Our annual cost for coal-fired power is approximately AU$1,700, so it'd take us around 11 years just to offset
the supply and install costs of solar—although that doesn't allow for power price variations, depreciation, varying
government subsidies, or inflation.  Which means that (in very simplistic terms) that we don't get "free" electricity
until 2030.  One problem is that in 10 to 15 years time,  both the PV panels and the battery may need replacing.
Some PV panels here have been known to fail after only 5 years—well short of their expected (or claimed) life
expectancy.

—I'd be interested to see how these prices compare with US prices, which I'm guessing would be a lot cheaper
due to supply and demand?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We use only "Clean Coal" here.