Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A weaseling way of saying that every year they are actually polluting more and more, just less than they told in Paris.

Weaseling?????

Sure, they also(!) have a long way to go, but are you suggesting that e.g. the USA (or the European Union for that matter) can sit on their fat behinds???? That seems to be, as far as the contributions to this thread go, the M.O. (blame others so we can hide behind inaction).

As a matter of fact, since all are contributing to the increasing Carbon budget overflow, we all need to actively reduce emissions! Sooner also means less costly!

One of the (multiple) objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement 2015 is to create a fund that allows developing countries (without the required financial means) to skip short term Coal based energy solutions and use renewable energy as much as possible. When the USA announced to withdraw from the agreement, the government of my country achieved a global "crowdfunding effort" to fill in the budgetary void that the USA created.

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

A weaseling way of saying that every year they are actually polluting more and more, just less than they told in Paris.

India and China as "overachievers": "New Delhi’s ‘gas chamber’ smog is so bad that United Airlines has stopped flying there"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/11/new-delhis-gas-chamber-smog-is-so-bad-that-united-airlines-has-stopped-flying-there/?utm_term=.d2510beec080

The only person who is weaseling here is you, the first thing you say is incorrect and the second off topic.
Yes, smog in India is bad, and they better do something about it, but that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

[LesPalenik]

Yes, smog is bad, but unfortunately there is plenty of other pollution which gets ignored because of all the noise about CO2.

Caroline Power, photographer who specialises in underwater photography, has captured the damage being done to the planet's oceans with a shocking “sea of plastic and styrofoam” image taken near a tranquil Caribbean island. She said witnessing the plastic blanket of forks, bottles and rubbish between the islands Roatan and Cayos Cochinos, off the coast of Honduras, was “devastating”.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/26/shocking-photo-shows-caribbean-sea-choked-death-human-waste/

[Alan Goldhammer]

A weaseling way of saying that every year they are actually polluting more and more, just less than they told in Paris.

India and China as "overachievers": "New Delhi’s ‘gas chamber’ smog is so bad that United Airlines has stopped flying there"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/11/new-delhis-gas-chamber-smog-is-so-bad-that-united-airlines-has-stopped-flying-there/?utm_term=.d2510beec080

And of course the same thing happened in the steel making area of Pennsylvania back in the 1940s and London in the 1950s.  Some of this is a result of local weather patterns and the geography of the area.  We know why this happens and how to correct it (reduce coal burning power plants).  You only have to look at the major investments that China is making in renewable energy to note that they recognize there is a problem with continued burning of coal.  Do we know what the % of coal generated energy will be in 2, 5 or 10 years in that country?  Of course not but I think the fact that they are now the leader in solar panel manufacturing portends where the country is headed.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, smog is bad, but unfortunately there is plenty of other pollution which gets ignored because of all the noise about CO2.

Caroline Power, photographer who specialises in underwater photography, has captured the damage being done to the planet's oceans with a shocking “sea of plastic and styrofoam” image taken near a tranquil Caribbean island. She said witnessing the plastic blanket of forks, bottles and rubbish between the islands Roatan and Cayos Cochinos, off the coast of Honduras, was “devastating”.

Yes, it's a huge problem which is also already finding its way into our food chain (as micro-plastic in animals and plants that we eat), and also a great example that inaction will only make matters (exponentially) worse. That is, unless one actively starts to do something (innovative) to tackle the issue. At a fraction of the cost of earlier proposed systems, a young Dutch inventor, Boyan Slat, started thinking and this is what he came up with:

THE OCEAN CLEANUP - The Beginning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IjaZ2g-21E

And this is the current situation after some croud-funding for the prototypes and research, and attracting venture capital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du5d5PUrH0I

If only CO2 was so easy to get under control ...
Unfortunately, in addition to innovations, CO2 reduction probably also requires a lot of changes in human behavior, which is hard to achieve without the right financial stimulus (read: Carbon tax).

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And of course the same thing happened in the steel making area of Pennsylvania back in the 1940s and London in the 1950s.  Some of this is a result of local weather patterns and the geography of the area.  We know why this happens and how to correct it (reduce coal burning power plants).  You only have to look at the major investments that China is making in renewable energy to note that they recognize there is a problem with continued burning of coal.  Do we know what the % of coal generated energy will be in 2, 5 or 10 years in that country?  Of course not but I think the fact that they are now the leader in solar panel manufacturing portends where the country is headed.

Yes, and China is also investing in more hydropower and nuclear power plants, and they have accumulated know-how and built an industry that exports to the rest of the world. I'm also curious about the prospects of Geo-thermal power generation, once it gets a bit more affordable, or when the traditional sources get more expensive.

Inaction is no solution, getting off one's but and doing something is.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... CO2 reduction probably also requires a lot of changes in human behavior, which is hard to achieve without the right financial stimulus (read: Carbon tax).

You lost me at "tax."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... they are now the leader in solar panel manufacturing...

Ah, yes.. solar panels. I remember it. Back in the 70s and 80s, in my "backward" home country, we already had them on (some of) our roofs. So, 40 years later, just when they are approaching early retirement, we still see them as young athletes, getting ready to break a new world record at the next Olympic Games?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You lost me at "tax."

Sure, but doing nothing will be more expensive ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hot News from the Antarctic Underground

In the article, it says:

At the end of the last ice age around 11,000 years ago, the ice sheet went through a period of rapid, sustained ice loss when changes in global weather patterns and rising sea levels pushed warm water closer to the ice sheet -- just as is happening today

What caused the global warming then?

[Alan Klein]

Weaseling??

Sure, they also(!) have a long way to go, but are you suggesting that e.g. the USA (or the European Union for that matter) can sit on their fat behinds? That seems to be, as far as the contributions to this thread go, the M.O. (blame others so we can hide behind inaction).

As a matter of fact, since all are contributing to the increasing Carbon budget overflow, we all need to actively reduce emissions! Sooner also means less costly!

One of the (multiple) objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement 2015 is to create a fund that allows developing countries (without the required financial means) to skip short term Coal based energy solutions and use renewable energy as much as possible. When the USA announced to withdraw from the agreement, the government of my country achieved a global "crowdfunding effort" to fill in the budgetary void that the USA created.

Cheers,
Bart

China is building 700 of the 1500 coal fired plants planned over the next ten years in 62 nations around the world many which don't burn coal at all today.  Most of the 700 by size of coal used will be in China.  The 1500 overall will add 43% to coal fired plants currently on line in the world and make Paris reduction goals in CO2 impossible.  So much for allowing China to do nothing until 2030. 
(article re-posted from the NYT) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

What caused the global warming then?

Well, obviously not people driving in their Humvees.

There are two main causes that have been identified that end Ice-ages:

1. Volcanic eruptions and weathering that adds CO2 into the atmosphere.
see https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco?t=339 with a clear explanation of how that worked out on "snowball earth"

2. Changes in solar radiation, mostly due to changes in the earth's orbital patterns:
Everything you need to know about Earth's orbit and climate change
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/everything-you-need-to-know-about-earths-orbit-and-climate-cha

QUOTE: Given all of this, we might imagine a "perfect orbital storm" for global warming: when Earth's orbit is at its highest eccentricity, Earth's axial obliquity is at its highest degree, and the Northern Hemisphere is in perihelion at summer solstice.

But that's not what we see today. Instead, Earth's Northern Hemisphere currently experiences its summer in aphelion, the planet's obliquity is currently in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and Earth's orbit is fairly near its lowest phase of eccentricity. In other words, the current position of the Earth's orbit should result in cooler temperatures, but instead the average temperature of the planet is on the rise.

So, when we should be experiencing a cooling from reduced solar radiation, and we are at the same time pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere which predictably traps heat, the conclusion becomes pretty obvious. The current global temperature rise is forced by CO2 emissions, just like it was in the past, but from different CO2 sources.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

How many times have we debunked this silly argument you keep telling here that India and China have to do nothing by 2030. It's simply not true, And China is currently even overachieving vs. what they told in Paris. And don't come back that they are lying or cheating (the other silly argument you keep spreading here), the IEA and others will be able to do consistency checks based on other data and they'll be called out on that. Xi is not going to let that happen now that he is trying to fill the gap that Donald left for him.

You keep saying China bamboozled the world, but my only conclusion is that you are bamboozling the facts because you simply cannot admit China is doing something better then you thought.

See my last post as to what China's is doing.  At least, they're reducing CO2 currently.(down -.07%)  So is the US. (down -2.6%)  Meanwhile the EU is increasing the amount of CO2 by +1.4%.  It seems it's Europe that needs to get to work instead of criticizing America. Regarding India, it increased +5.2%.  The smog discussed in other's posts is just representative of how India will never get control of their pollution or CO2 production.  Does anyone think otherwise? 

[Alan Klein]

Global CO2 emission update for 2016.  The US produced the biggest decline (-3%).   America's CO2 emission was at their lowest since 1992 during a period the economy grew by 80%.  Who needs Paris? Europe was stable.  You guys got to get to work.    Maybe you ought to buy our natural gas.  We're building a lot of LNG (liquid natural gas) plants soon so we can ship overseas. 

"Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.

The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%."

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html

[pegelli]

See my last post as to what China's is doing.  At least, they're reducing CO2 currently.(down -.07%)  So is the US. (down -2.6%)  Meanwhile the EU is increasing the amount of CO2 by +1.4%.  It seems it's Europe that needs to get to work instead of criticizing America. Regarding India, it increased +5.2%.  The smog discussed in other's posts is just representative of how India will never get control of their pollution or CO2 production.  Does anyone think otherwise? 

See my post 177 for my response to the same points you tried to make earlier. Repeating yourself doesn't make you look any better. Looking at 1 year changes is pointless in these matters, looking at long term trends is what makes sense. And there I see the US going down (good), but both in total as well as per capita much above Europe (not so good). Yes Europe needs to get going and get back on the downward trend, but overall we're doing much better then the US. And just for the record (since you're accusing me of that) I have not critisized America anywhere in this thread, so don't cry before you're being beaten, whining doesn't help anybody

[pegelli]

Global CO2 emission update for 2016.  The US produced the biggest decline (-3%).   America's CO2 emission was at their lowest since 1992 during a period the economy grew by 80%.  Who needs Paris? Europe was stable.  You guys got to get to work.    Maybe you ought to buy our natural gas.  We're building a lot of LNG (liquid natural gas) plants soon so we can ship overseas. 

"Global emissions from the energy sector stood at 32.1 gigatonnes last year, the same as the previous two years, while the global economy grew 3.1%, according to estimates from the IEA. Carbon dioxide emissions declined in the United States and China, the world’s two-largest energy users and emitters, and were stable in Europe, offsetting increases in most of the rest of the world.

The biggest drop came from the United States, where carbon dioxide emissions fell 3%, or 160 million tonnes, while the economy grew by 1.6%. The decline was driven by a surge in shale gas supplies and more attractive renewable power that displaced coal. Emissions in the United States last year were at their lowest level since 1992, a period during which the economy grew by 80%."

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/march/iea-finds-co2-emissions-flat-for-third-straight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html

That's good, I just hope that Donald's quest to support the coal industry doesn't make the US switch back to coal fired powerplants, because then your CO2 emissions will go back up as fast as they went down now. We won't see this effect until 2018+, so let's be cautious before declaring victory.

Btw, I already linked to that article in my post # 178 (4 pages back and 4 days ago) 

[Alan Klein]

See my post 177 for my response to the same points you tried to make earlier. Repeating yourself doesn't make you look any better. Looking at 1 year changes is pointless in these matters, looking at long term trends is what makes sense. And there I see the US going down (good), but both in total as well as per capita much above Europe (not so good). Yes Europe needs to get going and get back on the downward trend, but overall we're doing much better then the US. And just for the record (since you're accusing me of that) I have not critisized America anywhere in this thread, so don't cry before you're being beaten, whining doesn't help anybody

Americans drive more because of suburbia and have bigger homes to heat and cool.  We also like bigger cars that use more gas which is a lot cheaper than Europe.    We're looking into buying a 2018 SUV that burns more gas than our current sedan.  Much bigger than we need in space, there's only two of us.  But my wife decided that she now wants to sit up higher that you get in an SUV.  Go figure.  You want me to argue with her?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Americans drive more because of suburbia and have bigger homes to heat and cool.  We also like bigger cars that use more gas which is a lot cheaper than Europe.    We're looking into buying a 2018 SUV that burns more gas than our current sedan.  Much bigger than we need in space, there's only two of us.  But my wife decided that she now wants to sit up higher that you get in an SUV.  Go figure.  You want me to argue with her?

Take a look at the Honda HR-V which is what I drive.  I had a couple of CR-V which is their traditional SUV model.  The HR-V is smaller byt one sits up fairly high.  It also gets phenomenal gas mileage and if you want you can get all wheel drive (which cuts down on gas mileage by about 4%).  I maybe get gas every third week for the suburban driving that I do.

[LesPalenik]

Americans drive more because of suburbia and have bigger homes to heat and cool.  We also like bigger cars that use more gas which is a lot cheaper than Europe.    We're looking into buying a 2018 SUV that burns more gas than our current sedan.  Much bigger than we need in space, there's only two of us.  But my wife decided that she now wants to sit up higher that you get in an SUV.  Go figure.  You want me to argue with her?

That's a serious conundrum. To save the marriage or environment? Tell her that's your sedan is a very reasonable compromise between the big SUV and the Maserati you set your eyes on.  In the meantime, the global winds carry most of the air pollution from the eastern USA across the ocean to Europe. No wonder that the European readers get annoyed.

[Robert Roaldi]

I just wanted to comment on something Alan (Klein) said (and maybe others) about pointing out the beneficial effects of global warming. I presume that this is meant as a way to present "both" sides of an argument, in much the same way that reporters are supposed to provide a "balanced" view. I have a fundamental problem with that concept. When we teach our children that stealing is bad, should we be also be providing reasons why it might be good too? We need a more sophisticated understanding of "balance", I think.

The point of view that human activity is perturbing the climate in a way that may have runaway consequences is what is being studied (aside from the more basic need to understand the evolution of the earth's climate anyway, which is something we should probably do even if humans were having no measurable impact). Even if more rapid than normal (other than natural cycles) heating means that some areas now under snow might end up being good farmland, that may be temporary, since if we keep heating the place even more, then pretty soon (measured in centuries) those new farms may themselves eventually become dustbowls. Then what?

But there are people who are doing exactly what Alan is suggesting. The Netherlands is making long-term plans to deal with rising sea levels. So is the US military. Others are probably thinking about the infrastructure changes that will be needed if the current southern US becomes a dust bowl and North Dakota becomes warm enough to grow papayas. I'm sure someone somewhere is thinking about these things. But that has nothing to do with determining what effect humans are having on the climate, which is the topic under discussion. In fact, the people making plans in North Dakota need to know about climate change too. There aren't two sides to the "argument". In that sense, they're both on the same side.

Also, I did not bring up the issue of New Orleans and Katrina as an example of what happens when we don't listen to the correct expert advice. I only brought it up in the context of planning for rising sea levels, something which is going to affect a lot of coastal cities, it appears.