Comments not related to petroleum in this thread, please.
Thanks.
472 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, October 18, 2018”
Is anybody surprised?
‘BAD NEWS’: CO2 EMISSIONS TO RISE IN 2018
“Energy sector carbon emissions will rise in 2018 after hitting record levels the year before, dimming prospects for meeting Paris climate treaty goals, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) said Wednesday.” BTW, “Even taking into account voluntary national pledges to slash carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels, the planet is currently on track to warm by an unlivable 3 C to 4 C by century’s end.”
We don’t need no stinking feedbacks.
Just think back to James Hansen sitting in front of Congress in the 1980’s giving the alarm. Now we are putting about 2.5 times the rate back in the 1970’s and methane is on the increase (even though it is supposed to decay quickly). So in order to get back to the time period the warnings were first coming out, we have to cut fossil fuel use by at least two thirds, against a rising demand and rising population. Now if those 1970 ‘s and 1980’s warnings were valid, that much carbon output to the atmosphere is still a problem. Add to that the increase in temp when the Asian dimming fades back (we never got back all the solar radiation even in the US and Europe).
Even if both Europe and the US were to go carbon free, China is putting out more than both combined do now. China is also helping other countries to burn coal.
BTW An average 3C is more like 6C to 8C or higher in the northern latitudes. Good luck permafrost, goodbye Frosty.
“We don’t need no stinking feedbacks.”
No, we don’t. But…
“There are fault-lines in the IPCC report. Among them is that its dire warning of coming catastrophe, though devastating, could well be conservative. A number of scientists point out that the report fails to fully acknowledge the role of amplifying feedbacks as highlighted by Hansen.”
“THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE OF THE IPCC IS AN INEVITABLE RESULT OF THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS TRYING TO GENERATE A DOCUMENT THAT THEY ALL AGREE WITH. AS A RESULT, IT TENDS TO EXCLUDE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AROUND THE UNCERTAINTIES OF WHEN AND HOW SELF-REINFORCING FEEDBACKS MIGHT CROSS TIPPING POINTS LEADING TO RUNAWAY EFFECTS.”
I read somewhere there were 132 scientists for SR15.
Though I am sure there were thousands who published the papers used.
Thankfully, they have agreed that anthropogenic emissions are a factor in climate change. We have scientific consensus about the scientific discoveries of the 1800’s. Yippee!!
One does not present a lot of uncertainty or lack of knowledge in a government paper. The agenda would have no chance of moving forward.
My point exactly, we are on a 3C trajectory if the feedbacks are not included. They can be ignored or diminished in the mind and on paper, but that is not reality.
…we are on a 3C trajectory if the feedbacks are not included.
Arthropods are no longer unable to reproduce at 3 °C, terrestrial food webs in the tropics crash completely, All coral reefs are completely wiped out even without considering the impacts ocean acidification!
And there are people who still believe there will be 12 billion happy little humans living on this planet by the end of the century! As long as we don’t mess with the status quo economic system…
Good luck with that little fantasy!
7.6 billion people and many of them surrounded by the concrete and machine cacophony we call civilization. Not the grand symphony that is nature. They grow up warped by their surroundings. It’s tough to care when one does not here the music or see the beauty.
Even in Maine, a large state with a population of under two million, is a shit hole in parts, particularly the south. Nothing but traffic, noise, ugliness. Everyone continues happily riding their loud trucks through construction zones and sitting in stopped traffic playing with their cellphones.
It’s tragic to see how New Englanders have destroyed their idyllic 18th century cities.
The bizarre mental disconnect in American urban planning never ceases to amaze. For example:
The boom in small electric vehicles continues in crowded Asian cities.
Apparently the argument goes that American cites were built with much wider roads because they were built in the car era, unlike cities in most of the world. And despite being so wide, there is less room for space saving vehicles. Or something.
American cites were built with much wider roads because they were built in the car era, unlike cities in most of the world. And despite being so wide, there is less room for space saving vehicles. Or something.
Sounds like a prime example of Trumpian logic to me! ☺
I LIKE that Gogoro scooter, that would suit me well! I have been thinking that scooters and quadrimotos are ripe for electrification. The second scooter is a totally different type, basically a motorised skateboard with a steering handle. The issues with it are due to selfish users who are blocking walkways with discarded rentals rather than road use.
NAOM
Notanoilman the problem is that the sidewalks are too narrow.
You should see the ones near me – where there are any that is 😉
NAOM
I remember reading years ago that San Francisco was the most beautiful city in the U.S.
I had to go into the city yesterday to deliver a guitar that I sold. I haven’t been there in a couple of years (it’s only 70 miles from here). I was appalled at how ugly everything was up close. Trash everywhere, angry people blowing their horns, bicycles weaving in and out of traffic in the dark with no lights. We ate dinner in a grubby little restaurant, $200 for my wife, my daughter and I, mediocre food.
I’m pretty sure that living like that is mentally, physically and morally inferior to being surrounded by nature, even nature disrupted by agriculture.
$200 for 3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bloody Nora! You could get a pretty good meal for 1/6 of that around here.
NAOM
I live close to SF and rarely go in there. So many downtown cities are just nasty. Downtown Seattle and Portland have similar problems. But other parts of these 3 cities are just outstanding. A couple miles can make a huge difference.
Healdsburg, or Middletown?
I’ve rambled those valleys for decades, lived in Sonoma and Yolo counties!
Yep, lived in Marin and Sonoma.
Healdsburg is a bit over the top (was very cool) as it has become a major destination.
Middletown? Has Harbin: https://harbin.org
Harbin got burnt up in the big fire last year.
A couple of weeks since the IPCC report and as far as I can tell it might as well not have been issued – no change in policy, no indication among the fossil fuel cheer leaders that it even existed, no change in attitude among the general populace (the report that beer might double in price had a much bigger reaction here). To meet the IPCC requirements Brazil would pretty much need to stop all future oil developments and start reforesting the Amazon. Who’s going to volunteer to explain that to the new president there, who looks likely to be another total narcissistic nutjob.
Well we saw more trolls here. UK seems to be taking some slow steps, California and a few other places have brought their programs forward. Maybe we will get some luck in a further 10-20 years.
NAOM
Luck? Luck would imply a large negative fast natural feedback suddenly arising out of the depths that no one knew about. That would give us more time (or more complacency).
I have thought of several but would like to here other thoughts on what might act as a super negative fast feedback. Have fun with it, anything goes.
Only one natural counter force to warming (not a negative feedback, more just a major countervailing force) that I can conceive- and that is a major outbreak of volcanic activity. I don’t know how many Pinatubo’s it would require. I ain’t holding my breathe.
Cooling is short term from volcanic aerosols, CO2 from volcanic activity is long term warming. Quite schizophrenic.
How about a super mutant kudzu that grows over most of the land surface of the planet and is impervious to herbicides or burning.
Or a super algae that covers most of the ocean then dies sucking down that CO2, then repeats.
A super-pandemic that causes everyone to become an environmentalist or nature lover. Not much would get done after that, the paper work and endless studies would hold up all other activity. The world is saved. 🙂
Elon Musk clones himself a thousand times, takes over the world then ships most of the population to other planets and the Moon, just to be safe. Side effect, low earth population that is afraid of technology and spends most of it’s time hiding from the Musks and Company for fear of being shipped off to space.
(OK, not quite natural, but we are products of nature and it would be a hoot)
Two forms of insect that breed incessantly radiate from other insect forms. One that love to eat rubber hoses such as brake lines and another that loves to eat the insulation used on electrical wiring. Maybe a third, a fly that has a metallic coating, loves to swarm, especially on radio transmitting antennas and electronic systems. Goodbye cellphone communications and lots of shorted out electronic equipment. The more they eat the more they wreck civilization and lower emissions (nothing works).
What I had in mind was something with (pre)historic precedent, like
The “Onotong Java Event”
A variation on Vonnegut’s Ice-9 that converts all fossil fuels to an incombustible form.
Sargassum seaweed, blue green algae (cyanobacteria) and other algal blooms.
Luck would be a series of weather events obviously caused by climate change that wiped out each and every Republican.
George
The difficulty with reducing fossil fuels, is that Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc have lots of oil and gas which they can use now and sell at great profit with little investment.
They cannot afford to leave this oil and gas in the ground and there are plenty of buyers.
Saudi Arabia and Russia would collapse without the oil and gas revenue.
What would you do if you had to provide hospitals, schools, universities and roads in these countries?
Push temperatures up 3 degrees average, 6-9 degrees peak and see if they collapse then.
NAOM
I agree Hugo. The nature of human beings has this behavior baked in the cake. Much the same can be said for other big fossil fuel producers- USA, Canada, Australia, and on. Not to mention consumers of it like China, India, Korea and Japan. They arn’t about the close shop.
What would you do if you had to provide hospitals, schools, universities and roads in these countries?
Maybe get my ass in gear and invest heavily in alternative energy systems!
“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity ”
Albert Einstein
Cheers!
Fred
Russia and Saudi Arabia should certainly invest more in renewable energy. However they make their money from selling oil and gas and will continue to sell as long as people buy.
Yeah! Was talking to my sister who just returned from a business trip to Saudi Arabia, they are putting some serious money into transitioning to reneeable energy! How else are they going to keep their 100,000 head of dairy cows producing the highest quality dairy products in the world?!
This is one very crazy world we live in…
Cheers!
Russian, Saudi, and Iraqi leaders have very little interest in schools and hospitals (at least for the common folks anyway)- they’re kleptocracies. I’d wager that more will get spent on New Mega Yachts for the elite than on New Hospitals.
I would destroy the oil industry, that’s what I’d do. But then I actually care about the survival of humanity. The dictators of Saudi Arabia and Russia don’t.
The lack of public response to the report is because most people see it as fear mongering and they don’t appreciate being talked down to. Don’t get me wrong, climate change is real, humans have an impact, but there’s still alot left to figure out before we go messing up our economy over it.
The lack of public response to the report is because most people see it as fear mongering and they don’t appreciate being talked down to.
Just curious, did you actually read the report?!
If so, where exact;y is it talking down to anyone? And could you be so kind as to specify what parts of it you would consider to be fear mongering and why?
BTW, FYI, the report is probably overly conservative and quite watered down so as not to unduly frighten the general public!
And last but not least, there won’t be any economy to worry about if we continue on our current path. Unfortunately. to actually understand why that might be the case, it does require some familiarity with basic high school level scientific concepts.
Fred, I interpret “messing up our economy” as reducing the fossil fuel industry. You know, the paycheck thing. Get paid today, don’t worry about tomorrow’s disaster.
Speaking of reducing fossil fuel here is the Bloomberg EV prognostication for 2018 to 2040. Conservative but better than the IEA.
Two of the factors that may not have been accounted are EV’s can have greater longevity than ICE and the car as service movement. Both will affect the number of sales needed in the future to meet demand. Oh yeah, one more, increasing fees on polluting vehicles over time to meet pollution and climate change standards. Lack of liquid fuels could be a final compounding factor.
My earlier simple exponential growth showed ICE cars starting to reduce in actual sales numbers by 2023 and 100 percent EV’s representing new car sales somewhere around 2032. Probably the upper boundary value.
I actually think hyperexponential growth of EVs and solar is possible. My exponential model gives the same result as yours.
But there is a possibility of the following dynamic:
— it becomes clear that EVs are winning
— people start heavily disapproving of fossil fuel burning
— politicians seize the chance to throw ICE cars an anchor by banning them, subsidizing expanded EV production, etc, so EVs grow even faster than the usual exponential curve
Here’s hoping.
No, I have not read the report but I seen the news reports about it.
Yeah, I figured as much!
Maybe go read it and then come back and make some fact based comments about it.
Until then you won’t really know what you are talking about. And sorry, but saying you heard about something in the news really doesn’t cut it!
“The lack of public response to the report”
Climate change events speak louder than reports.
In North Carolina, hurricanes did what scientists could not: Convince Republicans that climate change is real
WILMINGTON, N.C. — It took a giant laurel oak puncturing her roof during Hurricane Florence last monthfor Margie White to consider that perhaps there was some truth to all the alarm bells over global warming.
“I always thought climate change was a bunch of nonsense, but now I really do think it is happening,” said White, a 65-year-old Trump supporter, as she and her young grandson watched workers haul away downed trees and other debris lining the streets of her posh seaside neighborhood last week, just as Hurricane Michael made landfall 700 miles away in the Florida Panhandle.
there’s still alot left to figure out before we go messing up our economy over it – no there isn’t, that was the whole message of the report.
Don’t get me wrong – that has to be the most condescending phrase ever invented, so it’s doubly annoying you use it when complaining about being talked down to, which is the most ridiculous denier excuse yet. Is there some app that generates that sort of rubbish now?
The IPCC piece has been included as a question in many of the debates for US House seats around the country this week. Generally, the Republican candidate’s response has been that the climate has always been changing and we can’t be certain how much CO2 contributes, while the Democratic candidate talks about how we need more renewable energy.
It came up in the debate for the US Senate race out of Nevada tonight too: “Do you agree with the UN report, and what should the US do to protect the planet?”
I just finished an exercise, using Google Maps satellite view and their MyMaps feature to create a list of all the solar PV installations on the island that I could find by looking at the satellite pictures. I have a couple of interesting observations.
1) there is a huge amount of rooftop space that is NOT being used for solar PV, suggesting that a lot more could be installed without affecting other uses for the land.
2)A very large portion of the population lives very close to sea level. There are 13 parishes with the capital city being the fourteenth parish and the only one with no rural portion. The capital city is on the shoreline as are nine of the parish capitals. Only three of the parish capitals are not on the shoreline and only one of the three is at a significant elevation. Of the nine parish capitals that are on the coast only three or four have elevated land (more than a few feet above sea level) with the rest having the whole town within a few feet of sea level.
3) A lot of critical infrastructure is within a few feet of sea level including, the island’s only oil refinery, all the non renewable electricity generating plants, the island’s only cement factory, the two international airports, the central bank, warehouses, the ports (obviously), many civic centers (courthouses, tax offices and other government offices), police stations, army barracks, hospitals and schools.
This just happens to be the specific case of the island of Jamaica but, it is pretty much the case all over the world. Most of our civilisation exists and most of the planet’s population lives, within a few feet of sea level. Ignoring the science of global warming will have extremely dire results, if there is any substance to the science. Any body with any instinct for risk assessment should realize, this is not a risk our civilisation should be taking!
Indeed. We’re going to lose the coastlines *regardless*. I think they’ll find a way to protect Boston, NY, and Philadelphia (all of which are not *that* hard) just as they’ll find a way to protect London, but when you start getting into stuff like New Orleans or Miami, there’s no chance, and I think the will to protect places like Jacksonville Florida is lacking.
Maybe sacrificing one of these cities will finally get people serious about addressing the problem.
We are going to run this experiment and we are going to run it HARD!!!!
I hope our grandchildren have a world on the other side. If not, I guess we weren’t smarter than yeast.
Let the good times roll!
“We are going to run this experiment and we are going to run it HARD!!!!”
Yep. And yet my 30 somethings do want kids.
[note- I didn’t procreate them, just swooped them up along with my wife]
While these guys and gals can hit a twelve month forecast pretty well, a twelve year projection not so much. Remember these are the folks that have prompted the production of the graphic below. I’m looking forward to the 2018 update since the 2018 edition of their WEO is now out but, Hoekstra has not produced an updated graphic yet.
Having highlighted Hoekstra’s work, I’d venture to suggest that agencies like the IEA and the EIA are somewhat in a state of denial as to the pace of renewable energy adoption, solar in particular. At the very least that was the case up until 2017. I won’t even bother to go back as much as ten years. Instead let’s look at the 2010 WEO projections for annual PV capacity additions per year. These jokers (the IEA) were actually projecting in 2010 that annual PV capacity additions would decline from the level in 2009, to about 5 GW in 2015, before rising to about 10 GW for the year in 2020. The last time less than 10 GW was added to world PV capacity was in fact 2009, the year that projection started from. The actual capacity added in 2010 was roughly double the 2009 figure, the actual capacity added in 2015 was ten times greater than the 2010 WEO projection for that year and the capacity added in 2017 was ten times the projection for 2020!
These are not minor miscalculations and if other reporting agencies are equally as wrong, I suggest that the outlook for CO2 emissions reductions going forward is considerably better than any of these agencies are forecasting. Consider that adding 100 GW of solar capacity should produce similar emissions reductions as adding about 20 GW of nuclear plants so, the global PV industry currently has the capacity to deliver emissions reductions equivalent to twenty 1 GW nuclear plants every year! This does not take wind into consideration.
While the world is continuing to build electricity generating plants that use coal as fuel, I would like to suggest that many of these plants are going to become stranded assets as cheaper sources of electricity keep them out of the market in the future. I am looking forward to a time when CO2 emission begin to decline in earnest. I guess I’m just a glass half full kind of guy!
1865 — US: Hello, Central?: Kiowa & Comanche sign treaty agreeing to go onto reservation, ceding Central Texass to Dow Chemical.
“Maybe we should not have humored them when they asked to live on reservations. Maybe we should have said, No, come join us. Be citizens along with the rest of us.”
— Acting President Ronald Reagan during a trip to Moscow, when a student asked about US treatment of Native American
Just 36 hours ago, political journalism site Politico rocked the energy world with a story claiming the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had quietly killed a plan to force bailouts for ageing, uncompetitive coal and nuclear power plants, with inside sources cited.
Last night pv magazine got word from a second source which supports the claim. The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) states its sources are also saying coal and nuclear bailout plans are on hold, at least temporarily.
According to ACORE Chief Executive Greg Wetstone: “We believe the media reports to be credible and consistent with our intelligence, stemming from conversations with officials at [the] DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] and the White House.
ACORE credits extensive lobbying of the administration from a surprising quarter – as well as renewable energy groups – for the about-turn.
“The change in posture reflects important progress in the efforts of ACORE and our members and allies – including the oil and gas groups we partnered with in opposition to the bailout – to educate key officials about the destructive economic repercussions of undermining competitive electricity markets,” added Mr. Wetstone.
Good news, they are starting to eat each other now. Eventually no room at the top for any of them.
There are a lot of aging coal plants in the US, at or past their life limits.
Arctic ice area and extent are just about starting to hit new daily lows (similar to 2016). Refreeze is especially low on the Russian side with seas from Bering and Chukchi round to Barents staying ice free or very low so far. That side is also staying warm with anomalies up to 10C. The Canadian side is staying relatively cold with more refreeze and or ice being pushed into the Greenland Sea and Canadian Archipelago (I’m not sure what is cause and what is effect and how much of the warming is from the air versus the water which picked up a lot of heat over the ice free summer, both from direct insolation and warm currents from the Pacific and Atlantic). Antarctic is starting to see high, positive anomalies now so global ice minima might start seeing new daily low records now too.
Five year averages of monthly Arctic sea ice area for September.
Sorry, I am a bit lost as to what those graphs are showing.
NAOM
Basically there is an open sea route now along the Russian side of the Arctic for several months of the year. Also the Kara Sea is taking until March to freeze over completely.
Slip sliding away.
Those charts are the ice areas in the seas clockwise along the Siberian coast. Black is this year. From: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf
It looks like some of the peripheral seas will be going ice free all year before the basin goes ice free in the summer. The thick ice has gone and the centre of the ice back seems to be getting pushed towards Canada, and without the thick ice plug now moves into the Archipelago, Baffin Bay and the Greenland Sea (in the last two it can probably melt out fairly easily when it hits warmer water. The cold point in the Arctic is also moving away from the North Pole and more towards Greenland so the Russian side is seeing very high temperature anomalies over open water. There are +5C anomalies forecast for later this month in the Arctic, mostly from 10 to 20+ anomalies over the Siberian side – actually back above freezing along the coast in a couple of areas, (plus 3 to 4C in Antarctica).
Arctic isn’t cooling off like it should do.
I am getting the feeling that this is like the Voyager probe. When it was leaving the solar system there was a lot of doubt about whether it was despite the instruments telling that there was a change. Are we seeing the same with signs like that graph? That we have already reached the tipping point and it is downhill from here whatever we do.
NAOM
Things are changing quickly and the ice will disappear, so we’re past that tipping point. I think the question is what sort of new steady state there is – worst case might be if the jet streams in the northern hemisphere disappear and there is a single Hadley cell and equable climate there. There could still be three in the southern hemisphere, which is a state I think the earth has seen before, but either way that would be weather chaos for us.
Maybe it’s warmer on the Russian side because that’s where they dump all of their spent nuclear waste, including complete submarines complete with fuel.
Here’s what’s going to happen: Every year for the foreseeable future, scientists, activists, and citizens concerned about climate change will have a discussion in one form or another about geoengineering. There will be editorials and vague proposals in journals; there will be think pieces on the need not to do it, but to talk about it. These will increase in volume and urgency as our situation becomes ever clearer, perhaps starting right now, with the release of the latest and most dire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
But then, one day, you will look up, and the planes will be in the sky. They will be dumping tiny aerosol particles designed to deflect bits of sunlight back into space.
But it will happen, and buried in chapter 4 of the new IPCC report is the reason why: it’s cheap, and it’ll probably work.
We have this same conversation about intentional, large-scale tinkering with the climate to counteract our ongoing, less-intentional tinkering with the climate because climate change is scary, and it is dangerous, and because we are paralyzed. But the dark not-really-a-secret of solar radiation management, as the primary idea is known, is that it is absurdly cheap.
Maybe a few billion dollars per year could retrofit some planes and send them into the stratosphere, where they would endlessly dump out sulfate aerosols until the planet starts to cool. And by most scientists’ estimates, it would cool the planet. Those simple facts are the driving force that will turn our never-ending conversation cycle of scary-but-necessary-but-dangerous-but-crucial into planes in the sky.
“Geoengineering Is Inevitable”
I agree. Someone (organization) will get to it. Might be the liberal democracies, might be the authoritarians, or might be the theocrats. Maybe the Kochs, or the Musks, the Putin, or the Pope.
Or the UN, the OECD, OPEC, or the untouchable caste of the world with their backyard Soot Generators (insert trademark here).
With or without the popular vote, scientific consensus, or engineering proof of concept.
The advertising campaign slogan-
“Afterall, we’ve been geo-engineering for over 10,000 yrs already”
Seriously, the article should be read. I think its dead on.
Doesn’t stop ocean acidification, probably messes up the monsoons, might not be quite as easy as it sounds, probably a limit to how much can be achieved, and you can never stop once started.
Not to mention that “the chief cause of problems is solutions.”
A better idea would be to focus on reducing flash flooding around the world. Why? because flash floods release a lot of carbon from the soil, and making it harder from plants to establish themselves in coming years.
The soil contains a lot more carbon than the atmosphere, and has lost huge quantities of it since mankind started agriculture.
The problem with most geoengineering schemes is that they don’t bring any local benefits with them. So only a global government can make them happen. But there are lots of projects that can have positive effects both locally and globally.
The American Southwest used to be an arid grassland, but huge areas were ruined by poor farming practices and city planning. For example in Tuscon the goal of the infrastructure is to maximize runoff, even though the city has to beg from the federal government for subsidized water. Even the most dessicated areas make no attempt to keep the water on the land, and build infrastructure to speed runoff at all costs.
Rain collection projects tend to focus on retaining water, but they also add a lot to the carbon content of the soil.
Hello, we are already doing geo-engineering as a side effect of burning fossil fuels. If you want to stabilize temperature for a few years just get rid of the catalytic converters on ICE vehicles. No massive outlay of cash needed on that one. Just think of the fuel we would save and the money. (sarc)
Cart before the Horse:
Why would anyone with a brain think of using geo-engineering as long as fossil fuels were being burned. Tugging on both ends of the rope gets one nowhere, in this case everything just gets worse.
When burning fossil fuels becomes illegal, then we can think about geo-engineering.
To inject SOx into the upper atmosphere causes reduction of the ozone layer. Sounds nasty and stupid as well as detrimental to life on the planet. Let’s put sulfuric acid up in the sky and see what happens, duhhh. Oh yeah, you have to keep doing it or the effect wears off and zoom the temperature rises like a rocket.
The Effects of Volcanic Sulfur Dioxide on the Ozone Layer However, after two months, most SO2 is converted to sulfuric acid by reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH). This condenses into aerosols in the atmosphere. This is known as the aerosol effect. Nitrogen oxides (NOx =NO, NO2, NO3, and N2O5) react with the surface of the aerosols to form nitric acid (HNO3). Normally, NOx reacts with ozone-depleting Cl and ClO to form less ozone-depleting compounds. However, because the sulfuric acid aerosol removes NOx, the ozone layer becomes more sensitive to Cl and ClO. In this case, the ozone concentration decreases.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein
Probably figure out how to put an additive in jet fuel so all those passenger jets would spread aerosols as they go. Probably excused as compensating for the CO2. Real life chemtrails. I bet all those conspiracy theorists who believe in chemtrails wouldn’t complain about these.
NAOM
“Johan Rockström, coauthor of the recent Hothouse Earth study, said the IPCC report was likely to stimulate discussion of these extreme emergency measures.
“I think this will raise solar radiation management to the highest political level. We currently have no framework for this,” he said. “I’m very scared of this technology but we need to turn every stone now.”
James Hansen said the tipping point in public opinion was more likely to come at a slightly higher temperature, but by then it may already be too late.
“2C would force geoengineering on today’s young people. Geoengineering, if global temperature passes 2C, would start, at the latest, once ice sheet collapse begins,” he told the Guardian. “Unfortunately, because of the inertia of the system, geoengineering then would probably be too late to prevent locking in the eventual loss of coastal cities.”
It’s interesting to note the effect artificial nitrogen fixing has had on the atmosphere. Before the Haber-Bosch process was invented there was a strong correlation between nitrogen rich soil and carbon rich soil, because nitrogen fixing came from carbon based life forms in the soil.
Since the Green Revolution kicked off the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers, farmers have lost interest in maintaining high carbon content in soil, preferring instead to just dump nitrogen on poor soil. Land degradation doesn’t matter as much any more. And since the chemical companies made money selling the nitrogen, nobody that matters is around to speak up for soil conservation.
Farmers also spray herbicides on their fields to prevent undesired plants from growing. That further exposes the soil to UV radiation and weathering, as well as actively suppressing carbon fixing.
All that carbon the soil used to contain is now being released into the atmosphere. It’s happening on a vast scale.
“Since the Green Revolution kicked off the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers, farmers have lost interest in maintaining high carbon content in soil, preferring instead to just dump nitrogen on poor soil. ”
This isn’t really fair, I think. “Dump” is dismissive of the work farmers do. I’ve done a very little farming, and I can attest to the horrid difficulty of maintaining carbon (organic matter) in the soil. You have to move lots and lots of material into the fields, which is onerous on the farmer. N fixation has been a godsend (says the atheist) to farmers, including small ones like me , and it has permitted the current ramp-up of population, and the necessity of huge farms to keep all them mouths fed and now we’re fucking stuck with it.
“N fixation has been a godsend (says the atheist) to farmers”.
Great line!
I saw recently that Bill Gates has funded a startup to the tune of $70M, named PivotBio, whose goal is extend N2 fixation capability to grasses like corn and wheat, through genetic engineering.
I looked them up and can’t tell from the information they have published whether to take them seriously. I realized they are headquartered just 1 block from a grocery store that I frequent.
Well strictly speaking we use those farms to feed farm animals. The problem is meat eating more than overpopulation. I suspect the solution will be synthetic meat, which has a much small footprint.
But whether I’m being nice enough to farmers or not, the fact remains that modern agricultural methods are accelerating the release of soil carbon into the atmosphere.
I agree, and my point is there’s nothing you can do about it, and it ain’t the farmers’ fault. If we’re going to feed 7.6 fucking billion people, then we’re going to use synthetic N and phosphates and pesticides, period.
Hickory: the genetically engineered N2 fixation prospect is pretty exciting stuff, but don’t tell that to the ignorant public. Also, the population will just grow larger.
Agree Micheal B. The N2 fixation would be very useful in a post fossil age, helping to blunt the loss of fertilizer if it pans out. I am pretty skeptical on the project viability, but wouldn’t rule it out.
That, and it has doubled the population of homo sapiens.
Nope. Because *that does not help*.
One of the things people have missed… global warming isn’t actually the biggest problem with CO2 pollution. *Ocean acidification is*. The collapse of the ocean food chain is the catastrophe which we cannot survive.
So we can’t do ANYTHING which will worsen ocean-acidification.
You want a functional geoengineering project, you have to find one which will reverse ocean acidification. Good luck!
Agreed 110%!
If we don’t fix ocean acidification we lose all the coral reef ecosystems and that will have a domino effect throughout every marine ecosystem.
As you said, good luck with that!
CLIMATE CHANGE DOUBTERS ARE FINALISTS FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
“Finalists for the EPA’s Science Advisory Board include researchers who reject mainstream climate science and who have fought against environmental regulations for years. Among them is an economist from the conservative Heritage Foundation whose work was cited by President Trump as a justification for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. Another downplays the dangers of air pollution. Several scientists are from energy companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., and the list includes a researcher who argues that more carbon dioxide is good for the planet.”
Among these is William Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton University, who helped Pruitt develop the red-team concept and heads the CO2 Coalition, which received $150,000 in funding from the Mercer family in 2016 to suggest that more carbon dioxide would benefit humans.
“The front-runner for the presidency, Jair Bolsonaro — a far-right congressman who has said Brazil’s environmental policy is “suffocating the country” — has promised to champion his country’s powerful agribusiness sector, which seeks to open up more forest to produce the beef and soy that the world demands. He has dangled the possibility of pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. But even if he doesn’t, his campaign promises could have dire consequences for the Amazon, and therefore for the rest of the planet. Stretching across two million square miles, most of it in Brazil, the Amazon acts as a giant sink for the carbon dioxide emissions that the world as a whole produces.”
Notable quotes:
“Don’t forget nature because today the global destruction of nature accounts for more emissions than all the cars and trucks in the world.”
“We can put solar panels on every house. We can turn every car into an electric vehicle but as long as Sumatra burns we will have failed. ”
“If we don’t stop the destruction of our natural world nothing else will matter”
1998 — US: Global Warming?? Earth Liberation Front (ELF), committed to “economic sabotage & guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation & destruction of the natural environment,” torches the Vail Mountain ski resort in Colorado, causing $12 million in damage.
Most infrastructure, chemicals and fuels will burn, along with the forests, if we allow civilization to collapse. Most animals of any size from mouse level up will be eaten. Radioactive leakage will be the norm rather than the rare event.
It’s not a pleasant fact, but I would imagine something similar has happened on most planets with advanced species. In theory, all species not useful (useful meaning domesticated meat-providing animals along with beasts of burden and such) to the intelligent species would be eliminated, either on accident or on purpose, in favor of a natural progression of dominance for the advanced species.
Life never happened anywhere else.
Maybe we should cherish the whole thing more.
“Life never happened anywhere else.”
How do we know?
NAOM
Enrico Fermi, the pioneer of modern discussions of aliens, talked about “interesting” aliens, meaning aliens we might theoretically detect. That is what SETI is about. Mushrooms a billion light years away aren’t that “interesting”, even if they exist. We’ll never detect them.
If long lived alien civilizations are reasonably common, they should be here. Even at sub-light speed, colonizing the galaxy should be possible in a million years. That means under reasonable sounding assumptions Earth should have have been visited or settled hundreds of times by aliens. The galaxy is big and the planet is old. But no evidence of alien visits exists.
Also a lot of ideas about detecting aliens on other planets have been checked out. For example, the megaprojects of a large scale civilization would probably produce detectable infrared radiation. But none have been found yet.
It is an unsolved puzzle. Maybe there are no aliens. Maybe there are, but none are “interesting”. For example, intelligent life could be common but unstable — extremely prone to wiping itself out before it starts interstellar expansion.
Maybe we just suck at detecting “interesting” aliens. I don’t think we could detect a clone of human civilization at any serious distance. There are some theories about advanced aliens keeping a low profile, but I don’t think they are “interesting”.
If only one in every 100,000,000,000 stars in the universe had a planet capable of developing and supporting life, then there would still be about 200,000,000,000, that’s two hundred billion, planets with life.
That’s still only two or three planets with life per galaxy, so a planet with life would likely never know of another planet with life. That’s likely the reason you think life has never happened anywhere else. But it is extremely likely you are wrong. The odds are, life has developed millions, or even billions of times in the universe.
Hey, it’s really a big universe.
From an evidence based approach, life elsewhere is only mental conjecture.
We can sometimes barely communicate with each other and cannot communicate with almost 100 percent of life here. Even if life existed elsewhere in the solar system odds are we could not communicate with it and it would not be of our type of intelligence.
So what would be the point? Finding more life we can destroy?
From an evidence based approach, no life elsewhere is only mental conjecture.
NAOM
The point is not to find life. We will never do that due to the massive distance between stars that possibly contain life. No, Fuck No, we are not trying to find life. We are just not going to do that.
The point is, overwhelmingly, that life exists out there, life has evolved millions of times, even billions of times. But the distance is just too great. We will never communicate with that life.
To say that we are the only life is just stupid, fucking stupid.
Ron:
I can’t help thinking, reading your comment, that statistics aren’t reality. We don’t know that there is or isn’t life outside of the places we have looked. You can say that there is as high probability based on what we know of statistics, biology, whatever. But we don’t know.
And it doesn’t matter except for some kind of intellectual satisfaction.
Oh Fuck! Of course we don’t know. But to say that we are the only life in the universe is just down in the dirt stupid. I mean fucking stupid!
That is my point.
Okay?????
Because the odds are many billions to one that we are not the only life in the universe.
Hi Ron,
If, or insofar as, the universe is alive with its ‘forces’ that make it what it is, so then perhaps life is practically everywhere inasmuch as it can be in pockets where it can flourish.
My point, IOW, is that maybe the universe can’t help but bring forth life as what it, itself, is– alive– self-similarity and all that.
IOW again, perhaps the physical laws or forces are essentially, ‘living’.
So maybe we can answer the question of whether life is elsewhere in the universe or not by simply looking at what’s right under our noses.
Sure, life could exist in many forms, ones we can’t even imagine now, maybe even under conditions that are way outside of what carbon based DNA type life can exist.
However, the belief in alien life is much like homeopathic medicine. Sure there may be some molecules in the solution from the original medicine, but they are as we say in the analytical chemistry business, below the detection limit. Any positive effects of the homeopathic medicine are more likely from positive thinking, the placebo effect, than from any real activity of the compound.
Believing in alien life is also from thinking, not from any evidence other than a simple minded logic chain, if we exist so must they. At this time, alien life is below our detection limit. So merely a mental or mathematical exercise.
Unless of course one has seen a flying saucer. Then one could surmise, if one exists so might others.
For all we know, life could exist as patterns imprinted upon space itself. Dark Life as the cosmologists would call it.
But beside living rocks, living rivers or living forces, the most powerful force on earth could be contained right under the Living Bra!
Just remember where your mitochondria came from.
The Life Force
When we peer at the universe, we apparently pick up indications that the laws of physics don’t just work here on Earth.
So, if so, and since biology ‘follows’ chemistry which follows physics which follows universal ‘forces’, perhaps there is life elsewhere as a simple matter of what naturally follows– a law of nature if you will.
It is possible that a species elsewhere had or has a home planet close enough to another that it discovered– observed– that life was not exclusive to its own planet.
Two questions that come to mind are; what does a species do with that kind of answer and, referring to us; what do we do with a question we may never find the answer to through observation?
Here on Earth we appear to be knocking out life on our own planet, so maybe we already know one answer. Maybe if life was finally observed by us to be elsewhere other than this planet, we might value it even less.
I have a little more time for stupid pointless activities.
For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 10 to the 11 to 10th to the 12th stars in our Galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10 to 11th or 10 to 12th galaxies.
With this simple calculation you get something like 10 to the 22nd to 10 to the 24th stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places.
Okay, lets split that number and say there are 10 to the 23rd stars in the universe. If only one star in every one hundred billion stars support life, then there are still one trillion stars that can support life.
But that still means only about one or two life-supporting planets per galaxy! That means each life-supporting planet is separated from other life supporting planets by hundreds, even thousands of light years. And perhaps separated by millions of years in time.
Bottom line, the odds of us ever contacting, or being contacted by other life in the galaxy are billions to one. However, that being said, the odds are that there is other life in the universe is still billions to one. That is, the odds of other extraterrestrial life in the universe is billions to one that there is. But we will never know for sure.
And of course there is that speed of light thing, dismissed by most, but the barrier that doesn’t seem to go away.
Single cell life is probably all over the place, complex cells not so much, intelligence very rare and short lived and with an even tinier window for civilization, radio transmissions and space travel. I think there’s a theory that the universe is really relatively young so life is likely to get more abundant going forward.
We are constantly bombarded and covered by pollen, mold, viruses and bacteria plus their proteins and waste products. Our antibody systems deal with them, mostly.
Are any of you resistant to pollen, fungus, viruses or bacteria from an alien planet? Let alone not allergic to their specific proteins? Toxins?
I doubt if finding life on other worlds is safe for either group.
Well, glad to stimulate the discussion about life. I really appreciate everyone’s take on it.
You can be sure it worked as stimulation when you get the honor of riling up Ron- “But to say that we are the only life in the universe is just down in the dirt stupid. I mean fucking stupid!”
Thats the most stupid I’ve been all day, as best I can tell. My wife might care to differ.
To clarify my statement-
‘Life is only on earth-
for all practical purposes.
And almost all other purposes as well.’
ps- wake me up when we achieve contact
Hickory,
There is another approach: The only life we know of is here on Earth; we might wonder if there’s something special about here.
Let’s look at the question from the chemical standpoint: The medium for life on this planet is water, H2O. No water, no life. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe and oxygen ranks in the top few, and looking not just at Earth but also out into the outer Solar System we see that water is very common indeed, as ice on planetary surfaces and as liquid and vapor in atmospheres of gas giants and in the interiors of some of their satellites.
Life itself is built on carbon in the water medium with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen as major components–can’t have proteins without nitrogen–and if we add sulfur and phosphorus we can build nucleic acids. And all those elements are among the most common by far of the elements found in the Universe. Carbon itself is likely to be involved because you can build extensive and complex networks with it: it can bind to itself without limit, Tinker-Toy wise, and no other element can. This means you can build complex structures that can incorporate those other common elements along with iron and magnesium and calcium and vanadium…
In other words, life is made of the most common elements in the Universe and exists in a medium made of the commonest element combined with one of the next commonest. The rules of combining these critters are clearly known and very basic.
The overall judgement, as the I Ching would say: Life ought to be widespread, from the chemical point of view.
We’re finding that the sort of habitat that would allow the goings-on referred to above–the presence of liquid water on surfaces as well as beneath–is likewise pretty common on planets and likely satellites that have been examined so far.
The over-overall judgement: Life should be widespread throughout the Universe. I’d agree with George Kaplan that it’s likely to be one-celled, and I’d guess prokaryote.
Yes, good points, and I’m in complete agreement with you and Ron about the statistical likelihood of favorable sites in the universe being abundant.
However, does putting all the ingredients together, even a billion times, necessarily mean that you will get life? On this I am much less certain.
Did life begin here on earth just one time, and then proliferate from there, or did it arise independently at multiple times and locations on earth? The answer to that question has bearing on the bigger question, I believe.
I prefer to believe that it happened just once, and only here. And that is because I hope that people would be more likely to cherish this place, if they thought it was the only place.
Rather, people by and large seem to think its OK to trash this place, since it is not necessarily unique. That is my ulterior motive for proclaiming this is the only place-
With a very thin layer of soil that we all derive our life from.
Hickory/Synapsid,
If there is also free energy present, those elements will be randomly pushed to combine into more complex, stable, molecules that store some of the energy. This process will be continuous but slowly because it is random .
If ever a catalyst were to be produced, the process of complexity building would be sped up.
If ever a complex of molecules were produced that contained two identical halves that split, an incipient process for life would be in place.
Being alive is deliberately gathering the energy necessary to maintain your entropy lower then your surroundings.
Maintaining life is being able to deliberately generate similar islands of deliberately maintained low entropy.
Good comments, Paul and Synapsid…
Life is an observed phenomenon. That we just so happen to only observe it here on this planet doesn’t necessarily stand to reason that this should be the only place where it is.
To add; complex life– enough to create what we might consider a technological civilization– may be a fleeting– to put it mildly– phenomenon and one that will, in all likelohood, not be in sync (vis-a-vis WRT the information sent from it) with our own so that we can discover it. And in fact, we have already lost, in exceedingly-short time-frames, here on Earth, previous civilizations– all of which were relatively-primitive (so to speak) and ostensibly incapable of ‘interstellar communication’ (although, consider the Atacama desert’s Nazca Lines– see my subsequent post in this subthread).
So if technologically-advanced civilizations– to say nothing of complex enough life capable of such– are relatively-rare and fleeting, it may be that so will be others elsewhere in the universe.
So trying to catch some semblance of a fleeting civilization and across vast expanses of space and time appears to add to the near-impossibility that current science can answer certain kinds of questions. Perhaps if advanced civilizations lasted millions of years… but that would contradict what is observed here on Earth.
Perhaps if advanced civilizations lasted millions of years… but that would contradict what is observed here on Earth.
Yes, it most definitely would.
Attached image of Nazca Lines’ spider…
Hi Ron.
How much longer, if we agree, will the Nazca Lines last, compared to Western civilization’s artifacts and/or capacity for electromagnetic spectrum signaling and surveying) and would this kind of thing make (more or less) sense as a form of interstellar communication, so to speak, such as when our civ disappears? Extra thoughts?
Even if one trillion planets in the Universe support life that would still mean only one or two planets per galaxy support extraterrestrial life. That would mean it is extremely unlikely that life exists on any planet within several hundred light years from earth.
Communication from that distance would be impossible.
Also, it is extremely unlikely that those lines are of extraterrestrial origin.
That seems to make sense and I offered the Nazca Lines as possible beacons (as in, ‘Hey anyone/anything out there!? There’s life here on Earth in case you were wondering/looking this way!’) for any potential extra-terrestrials looking this way, rather than of any extraterrestrial origin.
It appears well fit for that purpose to have done so and in the places they did.
I prefer to believe that it happened just once, and only here.
― Hickory
“Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
― Francis Bacon
People once preferred to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. That has been proven wrong but they can still believe that humans are the center of the universe and the only life. After all, God so loved the world that blah blah blah. In other words man is still the center of the universe. That cannot be proven untrue.
Lucky you.
Now Ron, you step over the line of funny when you start calling me a God believer.
But yes, I stand by my belief that earth, and life, is ‘the special’. Until proven mundane.
Well, I don’t believe one way or the other. I just look at the odds.
In the few seconds of the big bang, all the laws and forces of the universe came into existence. Also all the particles suddenly popped into existence. These laws and particles were just right for the evolution of stars, the evolution of galaxies, and everything was just so that these stars would cause fusion of all the lighter atoms, and that they would explode, forming in that explosion, all the heavier (than iron) atoms in the universe. And from these exploding stars, second generation stars would form, and rocky planets. That’s
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and likely several times that number of planets.
All this just so rocky planets and the elements that make life possible could evolve. It would seem totally absurd that out of all this, only on one planet life would life evolve. But as I said, I don’t believe either way, all I can do is state the odds.
Atmospheric CO2 on the rise again. Where will it peak this time?
Daily CO2
October 18, 2018: 406.03 pp
October 18, 2017: 403.14 ppm
July 11, 2039 484 ppm Mona Loa NASA/Scripps Observatory
Researcher warns of possible reprise of worst known drought, famine
Well, that’s one way to put a damper on population growth…
Too bad that it will disproportionally affect the less privileged inhabitants of our planet long before it hits the wealthy!
As they say, life ain’t fair!
We could stop feeding the rich folk, you know the ones that make over $10,000 a year.
The British Empire doesn’t always get mentioned with Mao and Stalin for the great famines but it might have one of the biggest death counts of all if combining India, Ireland etc.
With all the news about the recent IPCC report, here’s a story about the Australian Federal Government’s view of things:
When the lights are on and the cameras are rolling, most government Ministers know that they must at least pretend to believe in and care about the impacts of climate change.
It’s only when they’re alone, and they think they’re safely hidden away from the media’s cameras and microphones, that the unseemly reality is revealed.
The new Environment Minister, Melissa Price has been accused of belittling and insulting the former President of Kiribati and renowned climate advocate Anote Tong at a Canberra restaurant this week.
She reportedly said that he was visiting Australia solely to squeeze money out of the Coalition Government and that this was typical behaviour for leaders from the Pacific Islands.
Minister Price denies the allegations, as well as the claims that she then went on to tell former President Tong to name his price, so that she could whip out her chequebook then and there.
This curt approach is certainly unacceptable from an MP in a foreign policy sense, but it does fit the pattern of a government more concerned with bolstering the coal industry than assisting our Pacific allies with the existential impacts of climate change.
One wonders how an administration like this gets elected when it is pretty clear that many Australian state government have radically opposed views and the Australian population seems fairly enthusiastic about renewable energy. Australia is ninth in the world for total PV capacity installed and fifth in terms of installed capacity per capita (2014 data), with a high likelihood of moving one place up to eighth in terms of total installed capacity, ahead of France, by the end of 2018. Australia has the highest penetration of household, rooftop solar of any country in the world by a long shot, having twice the penetration of the next highest country, Belgium according to data for 2014. See:
IMHO if the Australian electorate can somehow replace their current coal friendly, federal government with one more in line with what appears to be the mindset of the majority of the Australian population, Australia could transition to largely renewable electricity generation in less than a decade. The next couple of years should be very interesting as Australia adds several gigawatts of utility scale solar capacity.
One wonders how that administration got elected in Australia? Well, technically, *it didn’t*.
The Lib/Nat COALition won with Malcolm Turnbull in 2016 with a tiny majority, and he was promising to take climate change seriously and promote renewable energy. He broke those promises, and then he was ousted by extremist right-wing lunatics within his party, including Morrison, for not being pro-coal ENOUGH. Turnbull quit his seat and it was just won by an independent on a 20-point swing against the Libs.
There are constant calls for Morrison to call a general election at this point, as it’s clear he has never had the confidence of the people. Polling shows they’d lose 25 seats, and they currently have a majority of… zero, supported by 3 independents.
What Do We Do When the Science Gets Scary: Climate Change and the End of Civilization?
Pumped hydro works around here and apparently Australians are already planning to power the country with a renewable/pumped hydro system.
With most coal and gas power stations slated for retirement over the next 15 years, Australia’s hills and mountains provide the ideal backdrop for a 100 per cent renewable solution. 3D GIS technology is helping a team from the Australian National University map a solution that could change the landscape of Australia’s energy future.
A jumping, flashing ad right next to where I am reading is distracting, grabs my attention. Does it make me click on it? Yes, through Nuke Anything.
If hydro is in places that are rocky/ barren then OK, plenty of sites like that. If there is abundant vegetation or farming, no way. BTW the video is not informative.
NAOM
Really, you have been using a computer this long and don’t know how to hold down CRTL and hit plus once or twice to expand the text and move the ad out of sight?
I am sure that the Australian energy planners will take your advice into consideration.
Of course the vegetation and farming won’t exist anyway, over a much broader space, if we keep burning coal for power.
The use of Ctrl-+ takes the use of 2 hands and the raising of 2 arms. Using Nuke Anything only requires the twitching of a finger that is already resting on my mouse 🙂
NAOM
Quite commendable, kvetching and conserving energy at the same time. Me, I can use one hand to do it and not raise my arm.
CONSERVE ENERGY. DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
When it is 30C and 87% humidity, doing as little as possible is good 🙂
Modern bioenergy will have the biggest growth in renewable resources between 2018 and 2023, underscoring its critical role in building a robust renewable portfolio and ensuring a more secure and sustainable energy system, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest market forecast.
Renewables will continue their expansion in the next five years, covering 40% of global energy consumption growth, according to the IEA’s Renewables 2018 market analysis and forecast report. Their use continues to increase most rapidly in the electricity sector, and will account for almost a third of total world electricity generation in 2023. Because of weaker policy support and additional barriers to deployment, renewables use expands far more slowly in the transport and heat sectors.
While the growth in solar PV and wind is set to continue in the electricity sector, bioenergy remains the largest source of renewable energy because of its widespread use in heat and transport, sectors in which other renewables currently play a much smaller role.
“Modern bioenergy is the overlooked giant of the renewable energy field,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “Its share in the world’s total renewables consumption is about 50% today, in other words as much as hydro, wind, solar and all other renewables combined. We expect modern bioenergy will continue to lead the field, and has huge prospects for further growth. But the right policies and rigorous sustainability regulations will be essential to meet its full potential.”
The focus on bioenergy is part of the IEA’s analysis of “blind spots” of the energy system – issues that are critical to the evolution of the energy sector but that receive less attention than they deserve – such as the impact of air conditioners on electricity demand, or the growing impact of petrochemicals on global oil demand. Assuming strong sustainability measures are in force, the report identifies additional untapped potential for bioenergy to “green” and diversify energy usage in the industry and transport sectors.
I remain skeptical based on the reasoning put fort in a comment further up. If these people can be so wrong with their PV forecasts, how much credibility can any of their forecasts that are affected by PV growth have?
What are the IEA smoking? I want to avoid it! They must really hate the planet. 50%, corn alcohol? Are they serious? Renewable energy that requires huge amounts of fossil fuels to produce. I can’t…oh. I give up!
NAOM
To show how absurd the IEA projections are, I have repeated an exercise I did last year. My computer is indicating that the spreadsheet was last modified on September 11 last year. For the spreadsheet aficionados out there, I took the percentage contributions of wind and solar for the year 2017 as my starting point (first row). I used the most recent year over year percentage growth for each quantity as my starting point as well (14% for wind and 39%). I then picked a somewhat arbitrary percentage to reduce the growth rate by each year (6% for wind and 11% for solar). Each year the values for solar and wind are then increased by a declining percentage. The result is the chart below.
Barring a black swan event, I think the projections I am presenting are reasonably conservative. I have assumed that growth rates will decline rather than accelerate but, with both wind and solar approaching a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) below that of any plant powered by FF, that may not be a reasonable assumption. Yet the scenario presented has the contribution to the US generating balance of wind and solar combined exceeding 50% by 2032 and approaching 91% by 2050! This projection has both solar and wind growing by less than 5% per year by 2035.
I would like someone to explain to me why the projections from the IEA are any better than the one I have presented? They do not seem very optimistic about EVs either, with no room for the possibility of disruption in any of their projections.
Here is a global look at EV growth and annual power consumption (if we don’t make more efficient EV’s than currently produced).
However, if we continued to use ICE with efficiency across the whole fleet of 30 mpg, that would use 50,000 TWh of fuel energy instead of 6000 TWh of energy for transport. Aside from the fact that there would not be enough oil to supply the demand.
All just conjecture of course when extrapolating that far into the future. Personally I suspect that we will need far less vehicles and far less power in 2050 having hit some limits to growth and encountered environmental disasters.
Gone fishing,
Year 1 =2018? Looks like a fairly reasonable projection, perhaps a bit optimistic, but what we need to achieve to reduce environmental damage.
This needs to be coupled with an aggressive ramp up in solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear to replace coal and natural gas for electric power, greater use of heat pumps, better building design with passive solar and high levels of insulation and building envelop integrity, more efficient use of all resources, better education for all people, but especially women as more highly educated women have fewer children, along with equal rights for women worldwide and access to healthcare. The general target for TFR should be about 1.5 for the World average, hopefully reached by 2058.
We are at about year three in my formula, within the thickness of the line I used. Year 9 (2023) there should be about 43 million EV’s on the road. Year 15 (2030) 583 million. Crosses one billion in year 17.
IEA models are pre-DG Revolution. 99+% of Wind is Centralized – subject to corrupt Investor Owned Utility Model resulting in 2-3x retail price, PV is Distributed – at under a Nickel kWh why would people commit to energy/economic Slavery? We are having a lot of unnecessary complications with a head Inspector in a Fla county. IMO it’s since they have no control and the Sun is not taxed yet. If Enphase gets this IQ8 Grid/Battery free or agnostic microgrid system right there will be grid defection starting mid 2019.
Hey Longtimber- that Enphase IQ8 is very exciting stuff! Hopefully it will pan out and be useful for systems already installed. Compatible with Solaredge? I suspect Solaredge won’t be too far behind with something similar. Enphase HQ is just 30 miles away from me. Both companies are excellent in my opinion.
Here is a description of the IQ8 at work- https://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/residential-solar/what-i-saw-at-enphase-mind-blown
Takes me back…
While the pesky EV crowd continue chanting their godawful save-the-planet mantra, what happens during the next few months in Brazil will actually impact the future of the Paris Agreement and, indeed, the global climate.
BRAZIL’S ELECTION COULD DEAL A CRUSHING BLOW TO COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE
The US is far from alone in failing to live up to its commitments under the Paris agreement. It ranks alongside Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Ukraine as “critically insufficient” in terms of meeting the pact’s baseline goals, according to Climate Action Tracker, a Berlin-based project that monitors national emission plans. China, Canada and Japan are listed as “highly insufficient,” while Mexico, Australia and Brazil rank as “insufficient.”
In what would constitute a major setback for the agreement and the world, Brazil may soon rate even worse. Bolsonaro’s brash, offensive rhetoric and fawning admiration for the American president have earned him the nickname “Brazil’s Trump.” And he helped confirm that moniker by copying Trump’s contempt for the Paris accord and calling for Brazil to pull out of it.
“I think we are headed for a very dark period in the history of Brazil,” said Paulo Artaxo, a climate-change researcher at the University of Sao Paulo, to Science magazine. “There is no point sugarcoating it. Bolsonaro is the worst thing that could happen for the environment.”
Bolsonaro does not embrace climate denial as ardently as Trump. Instead, he has argued that the challenge should be seen as a demographic and family-planning problem. But he also echoed the American president’s insistence that international agreements regarding climate change infringe on national sovereignty and therefore should be rejected.
Meanwhile up north in the Arctic watershed region, dying birds, toxic wildlife and increases in cancer due to toxic sludge from tar sands oil extraction continues with no stoppage in sight. Enter into the dark side of Canada, if you dare.
Although Canada has record low deforestation rate, it had a worldwide lead in deforesting primary forests. Of that degradation, more than a fifth — 21.4 per cent — occurred in Canada, the study found. That’s more than any other country. Russia, in second place, accounted for 20.4 per cent of the damaged or destroyed virgin forests, while Brazil, site of the Amazon rainforest, accounted for slightly more than 14 per cent.
The great trees of Merry Olde England are no more. Ancient woodland in Britain is being felled at a rate even faster than the Amazon rainforest, according to new research today. It shows that almost half of all woods in the UK that are more than 400 years old have been lost in the past 80 years and more than 600 ancient woods are now threatened by new roads, electricity pylons, housing, and airport expansion.
The rate at which the UK has lost ancient woodland is one of the fastest in the world and compares unfavourably with the Amazon. Studies suggest that the Amazon has lost 15% of its area in the past 30 years and perhaps just 2% before that in the previous several thousand years.
The deforestation is worldwide and precious species are at risk all over the world. Fragmented areas do not do well. We are in a time when “developing” countries are making their play for economic increase, which sadly means they will model the destruction that occurred previously in the “developed” countries.
People tend to forget the losses of previous generations very quickly and accept them as normal. There is no normal, only amnesia on a grand scale. Focusing upon stopping losses in Indonesia or further losses in Brazil or Africa is a great endeavor. But not rebuilding the great forests and wildlands that were lost, some not long ago, while continuing the destruction in one’s own country does not show a picture of much depth of thought and other people might look upon it as hypocrisy rather than amnesia and acceptance.
From my quote: “China, Canada and Japan are listed as “highly insufficient.” BTW As of June 2015, more than 40 coal-fired power plants are planned or under construction in Japan. And, Canada’s Tar Sands: “The most destructive project on Earth?” Does that make you happy?
Sure, I can read and comprehend.
Doug asked” Does that make you happy? ”
None of that is about me Doug or about you, if it was about me I would change it. People keep harping on Brazil and Indonesia and the US, but then I think what is it that people are not talking much about. Canada came to mind, then Europe and others. My own thoughts of Canada are a place of wild rivers, long canoe trips and vast natural areas. But that is biased by my travels there and where/why I went there years ago. A more honest look was needed.
Let’s call it a shot at bringing the amnesiacs back from forgetfulness and a personal journey into greater realization.
I grew up in a big chemical production area. The pollution was tremendous and pollution in general was horrid. Now that the air is clearer in appearance and the rivers don’t run in colors most people think that their regions are unpolluted.
Far from it, it’s just gone more stealth.
Having worked in the chemical industry most of my adult life, some companies really do try their best to contain pollution and prevent spills. Partly because of laws. Others look for ways to get away with things or press politicians to reduce the laws. Hiding the pollution in rural areas is a big thing now. Out of sight out of mind and who pays attention to a few rural people or some indigenous people?
But the giant finger of blame has to also point at the consumer who blithely purchases far beyond what needs dictate and has not a thought for what the effect of that is upon the world. We are long past the world of not knowing and into the world of purposeful ignoring and selfish desire.
An acquaintance of mine drives more than 60,000 miles a year. I keep encouraging him to at least get a hybrid vehicle but to no avail. Probably half of that is for recreational purposes. It looks like this year I will drive less than 3000 miles. I cannot even compensate for one person overdoing it even if I did not drive at all.
The only reason tar sands in Canada is happening is because the world decided that vehicles should be about half as efficient as they could be and that EV’s should be delayed about 15 years. Also that renewable energy, conservation and efficiency were not as important as developing more mines, more oil wells and more natural gas wells. It was a huge decision made by no one in particular but by many in concert and mostly promoted by the populace in general through their actions and inactions. The general population here only complains when the price of gasoline goes up, not about the total abuse of the situation.
I have a small house that uses little energy and I improve that each year.
Yet how can I compensate for even one McMansion with a pool, a hot tub, thousands of watts of lighting, a big boat and RV in the driveway and every gadget under the sun (whose energy is ignored)? My paltry attempts at conserving energy and collecting solar energy are overrun very quickly, yet like some insane badger I keep going on.
A world and economy based on sheer gluttony and a growing population aimed at duplicating that to some degree.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not judging those people, they just followed the social meme preset by business and government. Now we know that is not the way, yet the big car, big house, big debt life is still looked up to by many, still a goal for many more. A vision of disaster. I just like to get a somewhat realistic picture of what is going on and the magnitude of the occurrences.
We made the decisions, but let’s not forget the scope of the decisions nor accept the status quo in our own neighborhoods, counties, states and countries.
Oh, want to stop the devastation from palm oil plantations, or at least slow it down? Don’t buy products that use palm oil. Peak palm oil, ehhh.
The big money is getting out. Coal plants are now leaning on governments for support.
It’s time to support the markets — they’re on our side at this point.
Don’t know for sure that I’m part of “the pesky EV crowd” that continues “chanting their godawful save-the-planet mantra” but I strongly suspect that I am so, I will respond.
I was raised by parents who loved the outdoors and nature type excursions were always a part of family vacation type activities. I’ve been to the highest peak in the island, Blue Mountain Peak (2,256 metres (7,401 ft.)) several times and went without my immediate family only once. Every time I make the trip to the peak, I am disheartened by the environmental degradation that seems to get worse every time. When my sister visited the island earlier this year, I posted pictures of empty potato chip bags, cookie bags and soda pop bottles that were strewn along the trail way up in the hills above the city on a nature trail hike we took part in. I cannot look at nature and ignore the pollution that is taking place. I am just as concerned about all these things as the next person.
Having said that I don’t see our current situation changing course voluntarily any time soon, as you have pointed out repeatedly. However, I do not believe that there is nothing that can be done to slowdown this train wreck that is global warming. On the contrary, I believe that efforts were started long ago but, certain interests who saw these efforts as an existential threat to their fortunes have spent considerable amounts of time and money, seking to ensure that all efforts to reduce CO2 emissions were stopped in their tracks. The result has been a deluge of global warming denialism (especially in English speaking countries) and a unending stream of anti-EV and anti-renewable rhetoric, designed to foster the exact same situation we are in now.
I also am of the view that the strength in numbers of scientists and people who “get it” will ultimately prevail. Our civilisation has been a constant stream of technological disruptions ever since agriculture was “invented” and there is nothing to suggest that there is any group out there that will be able to hold back the tide. Maybe the efforts will all turn out to be too little too late but, the alternative is to press down on the accelerator as the vehicle of civilisation hurtles towards the brick wall that faces it. I want to hit the brakes and my area of expertise is electricity. I’ve also been fascinated by machines my entire life, as my older sister once told me, “if it didn’t have wheels, wings or propellers” yours truly wasn’t interested, even as a toddler. As a result I try to focus my attention on ways our civilisation can reduce CO2 emissions as it relates to electricity generation and transportation. I leave it to others, with other areas of expertise to address other matters like ecosystem degradation, pollution, soil degradation and over population.
I am 56 years old and my father lived until he was 95 so, if I were to live to the same age as my dad I could still be alive in 2050, 32 years time. If things get as bad as the latest IPCC report suggests they might, billions of people will probably die, mostly of starvation but any of the four horsemen (of the apocalypse) could strike. I have no way of guaranteeing that I will not be one of those to die a painful or otherwise horrible death so, I will persist in advocating for stuff that I think will make the liklihood of having to suffer a horrible death lesser rather than greater.
I will compose a post supporting my reasons for optimism later.
EV will flip faster than people expect. There will be a tipping point where fuel stations start to close because of lack of business. It won’t be for a few years yet but it will come. They won’t be able to afford those expensive sites in the cities. With less fuel availability more people will decide electric is easier and so the spiral starts. Then, as demand falls, things like the tar sands will find it getting too expensive to keep going. However this will not be overnight but it will come.
NAOM
One of the greatest things about running on electric (I have a plugin hybrid for a bout 6 months now) is saying good bye to gas stations.
I will miss the smell a little bit, must admit. But I can purchase a small jar of toluene/benzene/ turpentine mix to get my fix.
With an all EV- no more piston worn ring, vacuum leak, drive belt failure, spark plug cable replacement, oil change, carburetor rebuild, clutch job,…..
Servicing regenerative brakes might be more complicated than the old ones I suppose?
Servicing regenerative brakes might be more complicated than the old ones I suppose?
Nope! Regenerative braking is simply using the electric motor as a brake by turning it into a generator and putting power back into the batteries. AFAIK the actual brake components are exactly the same as a regular car, they just tend to last a lot longer because they are not used quite as much.
Like about 95 percent not as much. I hardly use my brakes at all.
Fuel stations are *already* closing, for three reasons:
— essentially unprofitable, gasoline is a “loss leader” to bring people into convenience stores.
— complying with regulations against oil spills is expensive
— almost anything is a more valuable use of the land
They’re already disappearing from center cities (land worth more for other things), and from the countryside (doesn’t bring in enough drive-by traffic to the convenience store to cover the costs). The suburban sites will be the next to go as demand falters (the suburbs are, of course, where electric cars are being adopted first and in largest numbers). Sites next to major freeway exits will last longer.
Closing fuel stations and installing charging stations is an accelerator. As it becomes easier to fuel an EV than IfCE then people will start to see an advantage.
NAOM
With an EV it is like having a gas station at your home, just fill up in your garage each night. Pretty convenient. I went on a 140 mile trip, no interstate and got 20.5 kW/hr per 100 miles. My battery is 78 kWhr so for a full battery and that kind of driving (mostly 40 to 55 mph) and weather (dry and about 55 F) the range would be 380 miles on a full charge. My average so far is roughly 23.5 kWhr/100 miles, so on average about 332 miles of range for a full charge. (Mostly 40-60 F weather and not much rain).
50F=10 C
Another nail in the coffin for IfCE liquid fool…er… I mean fuel supply stations.
NAOM
PS Is there a word I can use that will equal gas and petrol so that a comment makes sense on both sides of the pond? My natural instinct is to say petrol for car fuel but North Americans call it gas.
NAOM,
Just use petrol, we all know what you mean, I try to use gasoline, rather than “gas”, but I see I used “gas station”, which is commonly used in the US, sorry about that, “petrol station in the garage” would have been clear to all (or most) readers.
Thanks.
How is it that a person could have a zero bill for the month from the electric company, yet drive 1000 miles with their plug-in car ?
The answer is solar PV on their roof.
Just do it!
In case you missed this- great tool for looking at solar PV cost effectiveness vs the utility, by state-
Excellent efficiency on that high performance car! Keep us posted about cold weather/snow performance. Sounds like a winner so far.
A recent longer trip on interstate the efficiency was a bit lower (temps 35 to 50 F or 2 to 10 C), highway posted speed was 70 mph (112 kph) and I drove around 65 mph (104 kph). Average energy used per 100 miles was 26.5 kWhr (range for model 3 about 294 miles at interstate speeds vs 374 miles at 40 to 50 mph).
Note that I do not drive the car for performance, but for efficiency, slow acceleration and braking, steady speed as far as possible.
Still doing really well. Did you use the heater?
Have any data for around town and slower highway speeds (45 to 50 mph)?
Gonefishing,
Tried to minimize heating, but also trying not to make my wife regret buying the car so we eventually settled on 67 to 68 F in the car, used recirc to reduce heat load, there are seat heaters but front of thighs got cold, a blanket in winter might help.
A trip at slower speeds (probably about 40-55 mph with an average of roughly 50 mph) with no heat used and 40 to 50 F outside temps, I got about 205 Whr per mile, the battery pack is about 78000 Whr so 78000/205=380 miles of range. Average for all miles driven to date is 241 Whr per mile. I preheat the car when plugged in at home about a half hour before using the car to about 60 F, this is to reduce battery wear and tear, the battery will heat itself, but this seems a waste of battery capacity. I also schedule charging just before leaving, to try to warm the battery pack through the charging process.
Around town, where I live that is 25 to 45 mph, is maybe 200 whr/mi at best (no heat or ac, dry roads and 50 to 60 F outside temps), so maybe 390 miles range if 100% of my driving was like this and I ran pack down to 0% SOC, realistically I would probably never go below 5% so probably 370 miles from full battery to 5% would be the maximum realistic range (at low speeds under 45 mph).
Yeah, that’s great.
Can you preheat the cabin using house power? And…what options do you have for scheduling when you charge?
Nick,
Yes can preheat using app on smartphone, a scheduling feature is built into car, it would be a nice addition to the app n the smart phone, for now the schedule has to be set up in the car, but if it is always the same. the car can just be plugged in and it will charge to whatever level you have set up.
Maximum battery life is attained by charging to 75% to 80% of capacity, which is plenty for use during the week for weekend trips where no superchargers are convenient (mostly true where I live), I sometimes charge to 95% to 100% just before leaving. Minimizing time spent charged fully to 100% capacity also helps prolong the battery life cycle.
Earlier I posted a comment to the effect that I believe that there are things that can be done to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in a relatively short time frame, that these things will eventually be done and that I will try to play my part in advocating that they do get done.
There are a couple of blog style news site that I visit every day for news on EVs and PV. For EVs my go to site is Inside EVs. For PV it is PV Magazine‘s news page. Just this past week there have been fourteen stories I have filed in the “positive news” category.
All these stories indicate to me that the editorial board of PV magazine is open to the idea of 100% renewables (obviously!) and is signalling strong growth in installations, falling prices and more ambitious targets and forecasts. The outlook of PV Magazine with respect to PV and other renewables is far more optimistic than the IEA appears to be and historically the IEA’s long term PV forecasts have been abysmal so, I am far more inclined to see what is reported in PV Magazine as what is actually likely to happen. After reading all this optimistic leaning news, it is a bit hard to swallow the “no can do” and doom and gloom that tends dominate around here. Some good stuff is happening and I want to help spread the word.
As a follow up to the comment above, I also visit the Australia basedRenew Economy every week day, for the latest news on happenings in Australia. The latest stories of note are:
This has been repeated Monday according to the All Regions chart over at the Open NEM web site. More than 1 GW from utility scale solar at mid day looks to be the order of the day for the coming Australian summer season.
In a comment further upthread, I wrote “IMHO if the Australian electorate can somehow replace their current coal friendly, federal government with one more in line with what appears to be the mindset of the majority of the Australian population, Australia could transition to largely renewable electricity generation in less than a decade.”. From the last link above, it appears the Australian electorate might be fixing to do just that!
Meanwhile, Lest We Forget
Coal-fueled power plants provide almost 40% of global electricity. Coal consumption is declining in the U.S., but most emerging geographies are reliant on coal for their energy. India and other Asian countries are still using more and more coal.
Not really. India’s got some screwy stuff going on, but the major reports recently are that coal is (a) unprofitable (b) unpopular (c) non-functional in heat waves, and as a result both private companies and state governments are racing to install solar and wind to replace it. The national government is putting up severe restrictions on coal imports to try to use up an excess stockpile of local coal, while simultaneously trying to close local coal mines without putting people out of work.
There’s also screwy provincial-kickbacks vs. national-policy stuff going on in China. And Japan is a case of financial firms won’t fund coal, but government is still trying to support it.
The financials are unstoppable, though. Only way a coal plant gets funded now is through strongarm governments doing 100% taxpayer funding.
After reading all this optimistic leaning news, it is a bit hard to swallow the “no can do” and doom and gloom that tends dominate around here. Some good stuff is happening and I want to help spread the word.
There is no doubt that many good things are happening and I for one certainly aplaud them.
However on the flip side of the coin I see a big problem with the retrograde politics of populism that will stand in the way of addressing serious issues that are barely on the radar of most people. PV and EVs won’t fix the Amazonian ecosystems, witness Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. Or ocean acidification and the wiping out of
all coral reef systems. Those are the kinds of issues that make me feel more that a bit doomerish. We are in desperate need of forward thinking paradigm shifts and we get Trump and his supporters. The Growth Economy, uber alles. Ain’t gonna work…
Don’t get me wrong! I am as concerned about the things you mentioned as you. Unbridled population growth is something that weighs heavily on my mind, especially when I have to travel to or through working class (ghetto) communities in my neck of the woods and witness the multitudes of very young mothers and idle young men that are likely the fathers of the teeming masses of very small children running around. (It’s ironic that they are called working class communities when on of the obvious things about them is that a very large portion of the residents are obviously unemployed!)
I also mentioned hikes into the mountains to the north east of the capital city where I live. I see evidence of slash and burn land clearing methods in areas with very steep terrain, this on an island that experiences heavy rain when it does rain, exposing denuded hillsides to a serious risk of erosion. I see this and wonder what kind of desperation drives people to risk such severe erosion of the thin hillside soils they so obviously depend on?
Do you remember the picture of a large open storm water channel (known here as gullies) that was being used as a garbage dump by people living and working nearby? I did a search but, wasn’t able to find the thread I posted it to. I raised the point when I posted that picture that the people disposing of their garbage in this way, were not concerned that tons of non bio-degradable solid waste would just be washed down into the ocean with the next heavy shower of rain!
“Those are the kinds of issues that make me feel more than a bit doomerish”, so please forgive me for focusing on areas that I feel I can make a difference in, it is how I maintain some semblance of sanity in this crazy world. Hopefully Trump and his supporters will face some formidable checks and balances, come Nov 6!
I agree with your attempt at maintaining some semblance of sanity in these times of insanity. And yes, I do remember the picture you posted of the storm channel filled with plastic. I could post similar pictures from Brazil.
But then I just read this article over at Phys.org, thanks to Doug’s link about Alaska.
Fish give up the fight after coral bleaching
October 22, 2018, Lancaster University
Such changes in behaviour may well be the driver behind more obvious changes such as declining numbers of fish individuals and species. The finding has the potential to help explain the mechanism behind population declines in similarly disrupted ecosystems around the world.
“Our work highlights that animals can adjust to catastrophic events in the short term through flexible behaviour, but these changes may not be sustainable in the longer-term,” added co-author Prof Andrew Baird of Coral CoE at James Cook University.
Yeah, I’m pretty doomerish myself. If some fraction of human civilization is to survive, however, we have gotta stop burning fossils.
“Last year, the share of coal in the power sector sat around 38 percent. It pains me to tell you this, but that is the exact same percentage that it was in 1998. In two decades, almost zero progress has been made.”
The only story that counts is the amount of coal, gas and oil burned. Oil consumption is now 100 million barrels per day. Gas consumption is up by 25 trillion cubic feet since 2008.
Coal consumption increased last year and is higher than when to Paris agreement came into force.
An article highlighting some items in the KSA PR budget. It looks to be a bit of a ‘shrinking pie’ scenario playing out over there among the elites. I’m sure there’s a lot of hangers-on.
“Saudi Arabia pays UK firms millions to boost image”
Guess what folks? How about 1.2 C rise in 70 years? With the rate accelerating, what can New Jersey expect in 30 or 40 years. Hello North Carolina, here we come with occasional blasts from the ever warming Arctic to remind one of the good old days.
N.J. is one of the fastest warming states in the U.S. Here’s what that means
According to the AP analysis, the average monthly temperature in New Jersey rose nearly 2.19 degrees Fahrenheit from 1988 to 2017.
That level of warming is striking when compared to the nationwide average, which rose 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the same time frame.
In fact, the AP found that New Jersey was the third-fastest warming state in the nation, coming behind only Alaska and Vermont. Overall, New Jersey was 2.23 degrees Fahrenheit warmer between 1988 and 2017 than it was from 1901 to 1960.
The Garden State is in a prime spot for accelerated warming according to David Robinson, the New Jersey state climatologist. Warmer air has the potential to hold more water vapor, and New Jersey’s abundance of water makes the increased humidity a reality. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise dissipate. New Jersey is caught in a vicious cycle: More heat means more humidity, and more humidity means more heat.
Check out your state on the included map.
BTW, NJ is one of the top installers of PV, should cross past 3 GW installed by end of year. About 80 percent is behind the meter.
According to the map, South Florida has barely warmed at all. Sorry, but having lived there for the last quarter of a century I find that a bit hard to believe! This year alone we had summer temps starting in late March till at least early October. I’m pretty sure the ocean has been warmer as well.
Btw, just checked the temp in Hollywood Fl local time 7:00 AM and it is 80 degrees.
Maybe Florida was hot early last century? That’s the problem with averages. Good thing you have all that ocean to stabilize your temps? Or maybe the AMOC slowdown is heating you up.
Hey, you don't have my problems. Dropped below freezing twice in a week and is supposed to go below freezing again this week. It's so cold around here most of the leaves have fallen off the trees and people are not swimming in the lake anymore. Even the birds are leaving. Freaking sunlight is getting weak, must be that Grandee Solar Minimum I hear about.
Maybe another ice age?
If I stop commenting here, send up an expedition to chip me out of the ice. On second thought, forget it, you don't have the clothes or the snowshoes and dog sleds. Shorts don't cut it.
GoneFishing,
Whereabouts are you posting from?
Northeastern US
GoneFishing,
Thanks.
My first year of grad school was in Connecticut and I did a little field work in the White Mountains. Beautiful country, but I dislike mosquitoes and (!!!) black flies.
GoneFishing,
I meant to ask: Is the maple-syrup industry in Vermont suffering from the warming? I’d expect it; I’d also expect the corresponding industry in Quebec is enjoying a burst of production.
But those are expectations.
I haven’t personally heard anything, I think most of the problem is still in the future. As with anything natural, weather variability plays a key role. I read a while back that the forests would shift northward, but again, in the future.
GoneFishing,
There’s been a lot of work on latitudinal shift and shift to higher altitudes and both are ongoing. What’s happening is what DougL referred to a short while back: shifting is faster than anticipated.
What caught my eye a year ago was changes in the Rockies. At their southern end, in New Mexico, the ponderosa forests aren’t reseeding in after fires; instead they’re being replaced by oak and juniper moving up from lower drier conditions–that is, the ponderosa belt is still the higher of the two but it’s moving up. A similar pattern is showing along the Front Range on the east side of the Rockies and farther north. After range fires ponderosas, at the eastern edge of their range there, are being replaced by grass. The forest is retreating westward into the mountains and the grassland is expanding into its place. Colorado State has a program to try to re-establish the forest by planting ponderosa seedlings but the seedlings aren’t growing. This is the same pattern we see during the thermal maximum after the end of the last ice age, best studied in SW Minnesota. During the maximum forest retreated to the E and NE in the region and was replaced by grassland; after the maximum as conditions became cooler and moister forest re-advanced and grassland retreated westward. What we’re seeing now is going on much faster though.
Yeah, I have read studies done on mountainsides in Central America where changes are occurring.
The Northeast is a mess. With 400 years of cutting, development and fragmentation, interspersed with preservation, one never knows what trees one will find in an area.
The hemlocks were heavily cut for their bark, used for tanning. Regions like the Lehigh Valley were cut to bare ground, partly to supply wood for the canal boats (broken up at the bottom of the run, crazy stuff). The stories go on and on.
Now the biggest problems (beside some development) is disease and variable weather.
I suspect that the paper birches and sugar maples will fade from the mountains near me as temperature rises.
I find old growth hidden down in the ravines, too hard to log I guess. Also some areas that were owned by the rich have old growth trees.
One of the more unique areas, the nation’s last remaining major virgin holly forest, containing specimens as old as 300 years, will succumb to increasing storms and sea level rise.
It’s only a few feet above sea level and on a barrier island separating ocean and bay.
Luckily, places like New York and Pennsylvania have preserved large areas of forest land in various ways. I have been in counties with about 90 percent forest cover. Not sure of their status lately but probably similar. I have seen other semi-wilderness areas fall to development and the last preserved stretches with development right up to the very edge.
Farms and towns fragment what were large forested areas, leaving the forests to the steep hills and mountain areas.
Trees near me are doing well, lots of nut trees to feed the wildlife. I thought for a while that the woodcutting for heating would be a problem, but strong winds in storms seem to take down a much larger number of trees than people over the last decade.
Just saw about an acre of forest cleared near me so somebody could put their poop in the ground. 🙁
The pollen record of forest in E’n North America shows that as the late-Pleistocene ice sheets expanded the forests shifted in various directions–the assemblages fragmented and some species moved S and SE, others SW; there were various permutations. It wasn’t the case that the various belts moved S’ward as units. In Great Britain and NW Europe the story was the same, and the older pollen record allowed us to compare the assemblage of the Holocene to those of the previous interglacial as well as one or two earlier ones. The general species mix was similar but the assemblages weren’t the same from interglacial to interglacial though they were similar. Part of the cause was the earlier interglacials were warmer than the later ones.
The idea of a climax forest developing over time is useful but not necessarily complete. Work done in the 1960s and -70s showed, for instance, that the eastern white pine was still expanding its range in SE’n Canada, as it had been throughout the Holocene.
Hey, you don’t have my problems. Dropped below freezing twice in a week and is supposed to go below freezing again this week.
Except for that fact that I’m not in Florida at the moment but Germany and heading back to Hungary where temps do tend to dip well bellow freezing…
So not a whole lot of sympathy for you, in your block of ice!
Chchcheers!
Just looked up the forecast for Budapest. All week in the 50’s, 60’s and up to 70 one day. Low temps 50, to 40,s F. Oh, I feel for you.
Trust me on this one, it will get really cold in in Hungary soon and I will be in the hills and not in Budapest. Even now where I am in Germany it is overcast and the wind has been blowing all day. Not exactly shorts kinda weather.
Not below freezing yet for sure, but I’m still not feeling a lot of sympathy for your freeze… Anyways I’ve also lived in upstate New York so I’m not exactly unfamiliar with cold weathet.
Cheers!
Best weather in the world, period
Best weather title I believe goes to Vista, California.
When I lived there between 1951-1956 ( I was very young then!) the population was about 1500. Now it is over 100,000.
OECD PREDICTS UNSUSTAINABLE RISE IN USE OF RAW MATERIALS
“The Paris-based think tank said Monday that with a growing global population and rising living standards, the amount of raw materials used each year will increase to 167 gigatons by 2060, from 90 gigatons today. The OECD says increased extraction and processing of wood, oil, gas, metals and building materials “is likely to worsen pollution of air, water and soils, and contribute significantly to climate change.” In a report presented during a meeting in Yokohama, Japan, the OECD says carbon emissions from burning of fossil fuels and production of iron, cement and other materials could almost double to 50 gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2060.”
But don’t worry, EVs, currently amounting to 0.4 percent of world’s vehicle fleet, will fly to our rescue. Luckily, they don’t require raw materials: asphalt (or cement) roads and parking lots, cobalt for batteries, etc. Maybe the 83 million people being added to Earth every year will all buy one?
So don’t worry about the Amazon rain forest, it’s toast anyway according to phys.org and the OECD.
So buy your EV now and enjoy the ride, it probably will be your last car. At least the last one that runs.
BTW Doug, all new cars will be EV’s about a year before the US becomes uninhabitable.
.
There’s a difference between being anti something and not seeing it as God’s perfect solution to every problem facing mankind. Believe it or not, I think EVs are (potentially) great, perhaps not totally wonderful when charged by dirty coal fired generators and when their batteries rely on cobalt mined by starving kids in the Congo. What the Fuck, these are easily ignored issues. So, all together now: Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare — EV EV EV EV…..
That’s just too stupid to respond to other than:
Rama lama ding dong to you.
Cobalt use is being reduced with the goal to be 0 cobalt.
NAOM
Yes, we all know that battery chemistry and materials are changing and will change even more in the future. Only idiots, fossil fuel promoters and sociopaths would try to stop the renewable/EV energy transistion. But we have a lot of those around.
Typical cons are saying they still produce CO2 because the power is made from coal. Other ones say that there are not enough materials to produce the cars needed (as if they know the future demand or even the materials used). My one neighbor just tried those on me when I mentioned EV’s. It’s such common trash talk but hey, almost 1/3 of Americans voted for you know who. So expect this kind of thing from at least 1/3 of the people.
A guy I met out in public one day started telling me that the there was no loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean. He threw a hissy fit and stomped off when I disagreed with him. It’s like a religion to some people and no one must disagree. They hear this stuff on the radio and that is that for them. You know the kind of radio programs I am talking about.
The ploy that Doug is pushing is another typical one that anyone interested in EV’s thinks they will solve all the problems. Of course that is not true or even close to true, about the people I mean. No one thinks EVs or any one non-polluting method will solve all the problems.
Washing hands prevented the transfer of a lot of disease but did not cure all disease. Still one should wash their hands, especially before performing surgery.
Now, I am not denying that either of these claims have some merit but, the people who decided to pick them up and run with them obviously have an agenda that is more about protecting their businesses from disruption than any public interest.
We could look at it another way. People want cars, especially in rapidly growing developing economies. China and India alone contain roughly a third of the global population and the continent of Africa has another 1.25 billion There is a Wikipedia entry: List of countries by vehicles per capita that is quite interesting. The bottom third of the list is dominated by African countries but there are countries like India at number 133, Egypt at 134, the Philippines at 144, Pakistan at 160 and Bangladesh close to the bottom at 190. According to this Jul 29, 2014 article at http://www.greencarreports.com , 1.2 Billion Vehicles On World’s Roads Now, 2 Billion By 2035: Report. Since some vehicles are owned by companies and some people own more than one car (The Sultan of Brunei allegedly owns more than 7,000) I think it is safe to say that more than 6 billion people on the planet do NOT own a car!
Just as the world is adding 83 million more bodies to the population each year, according to the Wall Street Journal, Car Sales to Top 90 Million Globally for First Time (If it’s behind a paywall, search for the headline with Google and follow the link) Whether anybody likes or not it seems the world will be stuck with adding 90 million cars or so each year. I have not heard any talk of a shortage of raw materials to make these cars so, why would there necessarily be a shortage of materials for EVs, if the battery production capacity were to grow along with growing EV production? As a matter of fact, some manufacturers (VW comes to mind) have developed vehicle platforms that are essentially the same for battery electric vehicles and ICE powered vehicles. Assuming the availability of enough batteries and electric motors, why would manufacturers be able to make as many ICE powered vehicles as they want but, not be able to make EVs?
The bottom line is that, it is very likely that some 90 million plus cars are going to be manufactured each year. Is that sustainable in the face of Peak Oil if they are mostly powered by the ICE? Would you rather more of the vehicles manufactured be EVs or less? This year is on track for well over a million of those new vehicles being plug-ins, at least partially electrically powered. Do you agree that robust growth in market share by EVs would be better than tepid or no growth in market share? Frankly I see projections of 70% market share for ICE powered vehicles in 2030 as pure flights of fancy! The idea that 60 million plus vehicles with ICE power plants will be manufactured and sold each year, when global oil production is likely to be undeniably in decline, strikes me as absurd! What do you think?
Well, I’ve watched the Norwegian plug-in electric vehicle market share (new car sales) go to roughly 40% in 2017. In other countries they seem to be a niche market — so far. In Norway they are “fueled” by hydro, which seems sensible. I’ve driven my niece’s EV and it’s a solid form of personal transport. Otherwise I know SFA about them. Maybe they’ll stave off the collapse of civilization for a few years.
Staving off collapse for a few years is what I see being attempted, although mostly it’s couched in terms of continuing growth. I think it’s quite possible we are following the base case limits to growth but only by employing the high technology route (I can’t remember the name they used) as exemplified by EVs, horizontal fracking etc. In that case collapse came a bit later but was much faster because everything had been used up earlier.
The green revolution might have been the first example – lots more food, lots more people and therefore lots more pollution and faster exhaustion of wildlife, groundwater, soil and energy resources. I don’t see a technocopia solution from where we are, especially when combined with the current rampant late stage capitalism and associated greed. In addition the limits to growth study didn’t have “the environment” as a big enough impact, and now it’s clear that climate change is going to be at least as big as resource limits, if not more so.
Oh, I see a technoutopia solution, but unfortunately — since Al Gore had the Presidential Election stolen in 2000, which was our last chance to save everyone — it’s only going to be a solution for the portion of the population which manages to be located in the right place. We’ve now baked in too many disasters for the population of Florida or Bangladesh to survive.
And nobody’s going to welcome the refugees. OK, maybe people will welcome a few of the really smart refugees, but not most of the refugees.
IN ALASKA, EVERYONE’S GRAPPLING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
In the Arctic and sub-Arctic, climate change is accelerated and its effects are profound. This is primarily the result of what is known as the “albedo effect”: As we lose reflective ice and snow due to warming, more heat-absorbing dark ground and water are exposed. Thus, local warming gets even more extreme.
Meanwhile, the state’s coffers are enriched by money from oil and gas extraction – which are both primary sources of climate change, an irony that has not gone unnoticed by those struggling to craft long-term plans for Alaska. With 6,640 miles of coastline, Alaska is an ocean-dependent state. Due to loss of sea ice that protects soft soils from seasonal storms, huge stretches of this coastline are washing into the Bering Sea. For communities at risk of erosion, all other concerns pale in comparison. At stake are not only structures and money, but also traditions, a sense of place, and even lives.
I have lived in interior Alaska since 1976. This is the warmest early winter we can remember. Here it is three weeks into October and no snow cover. Back when I drove dogs I there was enough snow to begin in October. My diary says”12 degrees at 6:03 am … ran dogs around [Goldstream] valley ~ 6 miles. Trail bumpy.” That was 25 October 1997. Temps now are freezing and above. At this very moment the sun is just above the horizon and shining into my southern window. This used to be a rare thing. Normally there are thick clouds over Fairbanks all winter.
This is a nice blog if you like following Alaska weather trends.
JOACHIM RONNEBERG: NORWEGIAN WHO THWARTED NAZI NUCLEAR PLAN DIES
“Joachim Ronneberg, the Norwegian resistance fighter who sabotaged Nazi Germany’s nuclear weapons ambitions during World War Two, has died aged 99. In 1943, he led a top-secret raid on a heavily-guarded plant in Norway’s southern region of Telemark. The operation was immortalised in the 1965 Hollywood film Heroes of Telemark, starring Kirk Douglas.”
“After the explosion, the men escaped into neighbouring Sweden by skiing 320km (200 miles) across Telemark – despite being chased by some 3,000 German soldiers. With a wry smile, Ronneberg described it as “the best skiing weekend I ever had”.
For those anti-EV people who think that running an EV off the grid produces as much carbon as an ICE, here is a nice tool to help them. Pick Scranton Pa if you want to see how an EV does running on coal.
MELTING PERMAFROST BELOW ARCTIC LAKES IS EVEN MORE DANGEROUS TO THE CLIMATE, NASA WARNS https://www.space.com/41533-abrupt-permafrost-melting-carbon-climate-impact.html Within my lifetime, my children’s lifetime, it should be ramping up. It’s already happening but it’s not happening at a really fast rate right now, but within a few decades, it should peak.
I also recently read a paper that said rapid thaw would allow up to twice as much GHG to enter the atmosphere than a slow thaw, but can’t find the link now.
So there you have it: it’s melting earlier than expected, it’s melting faster than expected, there is more potential CO2 to be released than expected, the faster it melts the more CO2 gets into the atmosphere, and it’s effectively irreversible (i.e. a really hot summer isn’t compensated by a cold winter). And next year all the new research will say it’s even worse than that.
Research on permafrost has historically been quite uncertain (and why your quotes contain rhetoric like “could”, “should be”, “might be”, etc) due to the Arctic being a vast area with little human settlement, let alone developed infrastructure, therefore obtaining a sufficient amount of scientific data from the region to be useful is challenging, to put it mildly. We’ve also only had the ability to study some of these things through remote sensors for a few decades, at best. Basically, we need some of the research funding to go toward auditing past assumptions about permafrost creation and destruction to see how well they hold up as additional data comes in.
Welcome back Alex! You’ve been mighty quiet lately! Just curious as to your opinions on my “positive news category” comment further up? Do you think any of these “new”developments are good for the economies they are occurring in?
Here I think:
21st-century modeled permafrost carbon emissions accelerated by abrupt thaw beneath lakes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6093858/ Abrupt thaw accelerates mobilization of deeply frozen, ancient carbon, increasing 14C-depleted permafrost soil carbon emissions by ~125–190% compared to gradual thaw alone
And,
ARCTIC GREENING THAWS PERMAFROST, BOOSTS RUNOFF
“A new collaborative study has investigated Arctic shrub-snow interactions to obtain a better understanding of the far north’s tundra and vast permafrost system. Incorporating extensive in situ observations, scientists tested their theories with a novel 3D computer model and confirmed that shrubs can lead to significant degradation of the permafrost layer that has remained frozen for tens of thousands of years. These interactions are driving increases in discharges of fresh water into rivers, lakes and oceans.”
SAUDI OIL CHIEF SAYS OPEC’S IN ‘PRODUCE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN’ MODE
“Al-Falih said plans to diversify the economy will continue, but oil and gas expansion will also remain a priority. In addition to its crude investments, Saudi Arabia intends to partner in liquefied natural gas projects abroad and start trading LNG in the future. Global gas consumption is growing, he said, and oil demand will reach 120 million barrels a day in 30 years, from 100 million currently.”
Saudi Arabia will continue to expand it’s oil and gas production.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih should come onto this website, he obviously has not heard from Islandboy that oil and gas are yesterday’s news.
Seriously he obviouly believes that OPEC will produce 50 million barrels of oil per day.
I would like to see the breakdown of that 50 million by individual members.
“he obviously has not heard from Islandboy that oil and gas arewill be yesterday’s news” in the not too distant future.
There! Fixed that fer ya! 😉
“Global gas consumption is growing, he said, and oil demand will reach 120 million barrels a day in 30 years, from 100 million currently.”
Yeah right! And if you believe that, I’ve got an island in the Caribbean you might wanna buy!
Hi DougL.
I’ve noticed that Saudi Aramco is advertising in Rigzone for Geoscientists. They want them for E & P unconventional. I bet they’d jump at an experienced and versatile geophysicist.
Lots of sand for the fracking there, that’s a plus.
As long as they have the right type of sand 😉 I can name one village, in the UK, that sells sand to them.
NAOM
NAOM,
Do you know what that sand is used for? Could be filtration or glass blowing or something else?
Now I’m excited. Where is the village?
(OK, where’s my geologic map of Britain? Need age of formation containing the sand, average grain size, degree of sorting, composition…)
Belemnites, huh? That dates it to the latter half of the Mesozoic. I’ve never found a belemnite; their fossils are abundant where they’re found at all but I’ve never worked in such an area.
Thanks.
Should have added that they were in the spoil which is mostly mud so that puts them on the layer above the sand. Because it is all dug up the layering is gone. ISTR you are in the correct area. You can find belemnites, small amonites and other fossils in many of the sand/gravel/clay workings across Bedfordshire.
NAOM
GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL THAT HAS LASTED 14 YEARS WILL SOON BE THE WORST IN HISTORY
“There has been an uptrend of the areas of the slick during the last two years,” Oscar Pineda-Garcia, an adjunct professor at Florida State University who also operates a company that charts oil spills, told the AP. The oil is so thick in some areas of the Gulf that people have had to wear respirator masks because the fumes are overwhelming, Pineda-Garcia added. Worse yet, the leak is likely to continue for the rest of the century as there is no clear way as of yet to cap the remaining wells.
Not to worry oil people, the planetwide destruction will continue, according to BP and the IEA. EV’s will barely make a dent in the consumption of oil far into the future.
According to this article a co-existence will occur between EV’s and ICE’s.
Of the 98 million vehicles built this year 2 million will be PEVs there are more ICE vehicles on the roads today than last year that is why oil consumption is going up.
99% of vehicles today are ICE and they can last for 20 years.
“99% of vehicles today are ICE and they can last for 20 years.”
Enjoy your last one then. 20 year old operating cars are rare, most only make it to 12 and some to 15. I posted the data previously. Putt, putt, putt, dead. All the people around you will be charging along in their BEV’s while you look for a rare service station to fill up.
With current global growth rate of BEV, the crossover point where ICE car sales start to drop is 2023 and all new cars will be BEV by 2032. Consumption of liquid fuel will fall even faster as ICE manufacturers try to drastically improve efficiency to compete with the BEV. They won’t be able to, but suckers will buy them not realizing they cost them twice as much in the long run.
I assume you like buying a vehicle that costs twice as much and breaks down a lot, which means an ICE. I also assume you like to waste energy and pollute (ICE again).
Some BEV pay for themselves in lower cost of fuel and maintenance in ten years, so the car is free compared to the ICE cars. More and more BEV will do that as prices come down. End game is BEV will be about 1/4 the cost of ICE over their lifetime use. BEV motors are now getting past the million mile range.
Gonefishing
I do not like buying ICE vehicles I bought one 18 years ago and it is still going strong. The next vehicle I buy will probably be a plugin hybrid.
I take it you have not done the analysis of the number of electric vehicles sales needed for global oil demand to stop rising? and when do you think we would reach that?
For global oil production to peak requires more than just ICE vehicle sale falling. It would require at electric vehicle sale to reach at least 60 million.
These are the targets of electric sales the car companies hope to reach
Tony Seba Charts Out The Disruptive Path Forward To EVs & Out Of The I.C.E. Age
Every single time there has been a 10x improvement in technology, there has been a market disruption. Tony estimates these factors combined will result in 95% of all passenger vehicle miles being driven by on-demand, fully autonomous vehicles by 2030. That’s a mere 12 years and a few more grey hairs down the road for most of us. Surprisingly, he expects 40% of the cars in 2030 to still be privately owned, with the remaining 60% being comprised of fleet vehicles that will drive 95% of passenger vehicle miles at all hours of the day and night for pennies.
This, my friends, is what Tony calls “The end of the ICE age,” which I absolutely love, resulting in a few fun predictions for the fully autonomous future:
95% of all passenger vehicle miles being driven by on-demand, fully autonomous vehicles by 2030
Fleet goes down by 80% … which still leaves 2x the capacity needed for rush hour.
Annual demand for new cars will collapse immediately by 2021 (or after the first fully autonomous vehicle goes into production)
No more car dealerships
No more vehicle service stations
No more auto insurance (for individuals, at least)
The average family will save $6,000 per year on transportation
90% decrease in personal transportation-related CO2 emissions
No more parking in cities which frees up valuable real estate in cities and presents a major opportunity to redesign our cities for humans
The way things are going before long most fossil fuels will go to power air conditioners. Already 70% of Saudi Arabia’s electricity is used for air conditioning which currently comes from burning oil. How long before a billion Chinese buy an air conditioner that relies on coal, gas or oil to keep it running?
Or they could discover high tech items like awnings and insulation.
Hugo said “I take it you have not done the analysis of the number of electric vehicles sales needed for global oil demand to stop rising? and when do you think we would reach that?”
Global oil demand is not fully dependent upon ground vehicles such as cars and trucks, it is used for many things. I would say at most 70 percent for all types of transport. Hard to determine the demand of oil from just car sales, but it is a large percentage.
Right now:
The total global number of cars is increasing by about 2.5 million units per year. The total plug-in sales will reach 2.3 million next year and over 3 million the year after that. So I suspect in reality ICE’s will stop increasing mid 2020. Since ICE’s will have to get higher mpg to compete at all, especially since more countries are instituting a carbon tax, their use of oil will shortly stop rising and fall quickly after that as BEV’s take over.
In my graph I used about a 40 percent initial growth rate in a logistic formula. In reality growth rate of plug-ins is closer to 60%, last May hit 75% yoy. So I was actually very conservative.
“For global oil production to peak requires more than just ICE vehicle sale falling. It would require at electric vehicle sale to reach at least 60 million”
Huh, the replacement rate of ICE is very close to the production rate now, so if EV’s hit 60 million then ICE’s would be more than 60% below replacement rate.
Gone Fishing
It is no wonder you have such an optimistic view of when vehicle oil demand will peak.
You have confused increase in sales with increase in the number of vehicles on the road.
look at the exel sheet for all vehicles.
Your error is not a minor one but totally off the board.
The number of vehicles on the roads of the world is increasing by something in the region of 50 million vehicles per year. In 2018, 2 million of those will be electric the other 48 million will be diesel and petrol.
I see what you mean, OICA gives about 40 million increase in passenger cars in 2015. I think I overestimated the death rate of cars, may be longer worldwide. 12 years in the US.
EV production will cross 50 million in 2026 so I guess my earlier number of 2023 being the crossover point was a little soon unless other factors take over.
I don’t count total vehicles because EV’s are primarily passenger cars at this point. Trucks and other large vehicles will come later but comprise a smaller number.
Also any projection of ICE vehicles or needs to take into account the reduction in oil availability, environmental laws and car sharing (car as a service) all of which reduce the number of ICE’s or total number of vehicles.
We will see if Tony Seba is right about all new vehicles being EV by 2025. Sounds a bit optimistic to me but there are far too many factors in play to discount this as an upper boundary.
I think there may be a new “sickness” that may shorten the life of IC vehicles and perhaps EVs at the same time.
Complex electronics.
A lot of the electronic components in automobiles are custom made for the industry, sometimes for specific manufacturers. When one of these components fail if the original manufacturer is no longer required to keep them in stock the cars simply won’t run, or stop or whatever the component controlled.
If a lot of these cars are being shipped to 3rd world countries there may not even be the ability to diagnose the problems much less fix them.
Yep, all those ICE computers and electronics will not be supported as they fade into non-existence.
Here is an article about ICE car computers from before the day of the EV. “It would be easy to say the modern car is a computer on wheels, but it’s more like 30 or more computers on wheels,” said Bruce Emaus, the chairman of SAE International’s embedded software standards committee.
Even basic vehicles have at least 30 of these microprocessor-controlled devices, known as electronic control units, and some luxury cars have as many as 100.
I think it would be great if electric vehicle sales hit 50 million in 6 years. I think the likelihood of that is very small. How did you get to 50 million in 2026? Did you simply extrapolate a 60% increase in sales from 2017 to 2018 and copied and pasted for the next 10 years?
It is one thing for a company like Nissan which produces 50 or 60 variants of cars and vans to develop 1 or 2 electric vehicles. That investment was a small proportion of the R&D and factory refitting. To think that nearly every single company will close down half their engine plants and retool half their factories in 6 years is very unlikely.
Many companies do not even have one electric vehicle. Ford has big plans but many will be hybrid.
If sales did hit 50 million that would mean of the 110 million vehicles sold 60 million would still be diesel and petrol.
“To think that nearly every single company will close down half their engine plants and retool half their factories in 6 years is very unlikely.”
They may have little choice. See my comment towards the bottim of this thread about Tesla report healthy profits for the most recent quarter. BMW, Audi, Porsche and Mercedes do not have anything ready for market to counter Tesla at current production volumes. Look for one or more of the four I just listed to start closing factories and laying of workers within about six months or so. They cannot withstand the decreased sales Tesla is forcing on them for much longer.
Hugo- “Many companies do not even have one electric vehicle. Ford has big plans but many will be hybrid.”
Well, those Ford plans are big news. Hybrids are an incredible bridge tool to all-electric.
I have a plug-in hybrid built by Chrysler and 2/3rds of my miles are electric (from solar panels on my roof), and 1/3rd petrol thus far.
Excellent vehicle, no regrets on its purchase, and no regrets on going to the gas station much less often.
Our next vehicle purchase will be all electric.
You know what a logistical function is? It runs exponential then goes nearly linear and finally reduces slope until it peaks (saturates). Very useful for modeling production and sales in disruptive markets.
I originally gave you your answer in my first comment but you missed it completely. Now all you can do is moan and groan and make unsupported claims like “I think it would be great if electric vehicle sales hit 50 million in 6 years. I think the likelihood of that is very small. How did you get to 50 million in 2026? Did you simply extrapolate a 60% increase in sales from 2017 to 2018 and copied and pasted for the next 10 years?”
Actually I used 50% for that one and my logistic curve started with a conservative 40%. Either way, not much difference in that time span.
Use the data or make things up, your choice. You have nothing to support your negative assertions, growth has been high and getting higher. Your buggy whip factory analogy (they won’t close down the ICE manufacturing) is unsupportable. GM is planning 20 EV’s by 23, China has a lot already. VW and others are moving along on EV’s. If they can’t sell ICE’s why would they continue producing them? For fun and giggles?
I gave you your answer in my first comment, you missed it entirely. Between 2023 and 2032.
Sure there is pushback against EV’s. Car manufacturers can make money on them, electric producers can make money, they fit well into the renewable energy growth, but oil companies fear them. Oil production will be in low demand once EV’s get in place.
In the US each EV displaces at least 500 gallons of gasoline per year. It takes one barrel to produce 26 gallons of gasoline, so that is 19 barrels per year per car. When there are 50 million EV’s on the road, the demand falls by 2.6 million barrels per day. When there are 100 million, 5.2 million barrels per day and in 2030’s when the market is saturated, almost no oil demand from cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, etc. Even a lot of the diesel use will be substituted.
That is the problem, the ever cornucopian oil industry that thinks it has 140 years of technical reserves left will collapse due to the high cost, high maintenance of ICE vehicles.
Want a perfect historical example of how fast this happens. Study railroad history and see how fast diesel-electric locomotives took over from steam locomotives. Lower cost fuel and vastly lower maintenance plus less support infrastructure for diesel-electric doomed the steam locomotive. Even though the diesel electric was not as powerful, it had MU capability and better traction, thus giving it more flexibility, lower cost and less need for employees. One engineer could control several locomotives electrically.
Sound familiar, EV’s have lots of advantages, cheaper fuel and much lower maintenance costs as well as higher performance (will be great for big trucks, all that torque at near zero speed).
Also they don’t generate pollution.
So whatever is making you think that ICE’s can stand up to EV’s and won’t be produced, is just in your mind. They have gone from amateur status to superior road vehicle in a decade. Soon they will just be another car, which is all they really are, a car, just a better one.
Oh yeah, you haven’t thought about efficiency changes. Yes, ICE cars can be more efficient but so can EV’s. They are not near their peak possible efficiency yet.
I made some charts of this back in February.
See the charts at bottom of page for an even lower initial rate of EV production. Logisitic with initial 30 percent growth (far lower than now) starting in 2015.
Also fuel use by ICE chart.
However they are not realistic since initial growth rate is much higher.
@Hugo
Audio is launching an ESUV, at the moment, Tesla is building a factory in Singapore and increasing USA production. There are more, these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Don’t underestimate the exponential. When other companies see their breakfast, lunch and dinner are being eaten, movement will take place.
NAOM
Passenger vehicle growth rate is 3.6% per year. Total plugin vehicles on the road have increased by 61% per year from 2014 to 2018, they are likely to grow by 30% from 2018 to 2030, by 2037 plugin vehicles will be half of total passenger vehicles on the road and by 2050 all passenger vehicles are likely to be plugin, with likely 95% of miles driven on battery power.
Vehicle Miles Traveled is the important factor, and it’s growing more slowly:
VMT across the Great Recession caused the reduction.
Well, here’s the longterm trend. We can see that VMT growth has been declining for a while. Now it’s below the population growth rate, meaning that per-capita VMT is declining.
Yep, VMT rose 4% to 2017 since the recession. Funny how the 2018 number is included during 2018.
VMT since 2007
Well, the chart I provided does include 2018 – the X axis is labeled with every other year.
It shows growth year-over-year, which is more meaningful than the absolute numbers.
I agree that the recession, and the following recovery, have an impact. No question. But, there’s also a clear longterm decline. We can see it from 1993 to 2005. Now, the recession caused a drop, and the recovery had a “snap-back” (aka “dead-cat bounce”), but it’s now back on the long-term trend: The growth in 2018 is only .5%, less than population growth.
Not sure how a partial result from an incomplete year shows a trend. But OK, keep us posted on this trend, even though it is just for the US, right?
And, as we saw above, the average growth since 2006 was only .6% (roughly a full business cycle). It seems pretty clear that US VMT has dropped to zero per capita growth.
Hi Nick,
Not sure that is true for the World, do you have VMT for the World? Agree for US, and possibly Europe, VMT is growing slowly, but China and India, South America, and Africa, maybe not.
Good question. I don’t think there’s anything like the FHWA stats for the world.
FWIW, I believe that VMT is growing more slowly than fleet size because of congestion. I’ve read anecdotal accounts of people in China and India who buy a shiny new four wheel vehicle because they can now afford it, but don’t drive it very much because the streets are so crowded. IOW, the roads are at capacity. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if adding more vehicles actually reduced VMT!
Have you ever seen the traffic in Cairo, or New Delhi? Truly, truly scary. You either take your life in your hands, or get nowhere, or both.
Nick,
I agree VMT may decline, but I think it will be due to the expansion of TaaS (Transportation as a Service) and eventual self driving cars (probably 5 to 10 years away). Also simple ride sharing apps could easily be devised where one joins a carpool app and rides to work can be arranged for a small fee. Kind of like ride sharing uber or lyft, but just for those who want to car pool.
Higher future oil prices may make this a reality, before self driving cars become a real thing.
Never thought I’d be agreeing with the CEO of the largest Nuclear Power operator (Exelon) in the US, but here goes-
“The CEO of the nation’s largest nuclear operator on Monday renewed his call for a price on carbon emissions, saying it would be preferable to current state subsidies for nuclear plants or a federal plant bailout contemplated by the White House.”
‘Regardless of the White House plan, Crane said Exelon would like to see a nationwide price on carbon that would preserve nuclear plants on environmental grounds.’
As the Trump administration wrestles with whether to buy Saudi Arabia’s belated and befuddled explanation for the death of Jamal Khashoggi, a thoughtful Saudi tells me: “Morality aside, the critical question is the sanity of our very own Caligula.”
…
If the crown prince loses power it could be either by the gentle hand of his father or, like Caligula, at the violent hand of cooperation between disgruntled princes and praetorians.
…
What this would mean for U.S.-Saudi relations is anyone’s guess. Surely, however, if Mr. Trump has the ability to influence events, the first scenario is far preferable to the second.
In Florida race, climate change divides DeSantis and Gillum
David Knowles
The heat is rising in the Florida governor’s race.
During Sunday night’s contentious debate between Democrat Andrew Gillum and Republican Ron DeSantis the two candidates expressed markedly different positions on whether human-caused climate change is real and a mounting threat to the state.
CNN moderator Jake Tapper pressed DeSantis over conflicting comments in which the candidate said he isn’t a climate change denier but doesn’t want to be known as a believer in climate change, either.
“What I said is I don’t want to be an alarmist. I mean, I want to look at this and do what makes sense for Florida,” DeSantis said. “So, for example, for the people of Northwest Florida, I will be there for you. You guys are resilient. You’re fighting. [Hurricane Michael] was a terrible storm, and we will rebuild. But I also think you just have to look at facts. The fact is, you look at South Florida, we need to do resiliency. You have more water; you have flooding. So as governor, that’s something that I’m going to take on full throttle. But what I don’t want to do is do things like Andrew [Gillum] wants to do, which is a California-style energy policy that will cause our electricity rates to skyrocket.”
Gillum, who declares on his campaign website that he “believes that climate change is a real and urgent threat,” responded by taking a shot at Gov. Rick Scott, who has largely avoided any mention of climate change during his tenure, as well as in his Senate campaign against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.
“What Florida voters need to know is that when they elect me governor they’re going to have a governor who believes in science, which we haven’t had for quite some time in this state,” Gillum said. “I’m not sure what is so California about believing that the state of Florida ought to lead in solar energy. We’re known as the Sunshine State. At the very least what we can do is be a global leader here. We’ve got to teach the other 49 states what to do and what it means to have a state that, quite frankly, leans into the challenges of the green economy and builds one and at the same time builds an economy that lasts.”
“Climate here means different things to different people,” Democratic strategist Steve Schale told Yahoo News. “For some, it is an environmental issue; for others, like those impacted by red tide, it is an economic issue; and for others yet, like those in Miami Beach and towns like my hometown, St. Augustine, it is a problem where flooding is stressing infrastructure. So I don’t know that climate on its own is a winnable issue — but candidates who are able to draw the connection between climate and these other issues can make climate a winning issue.”
Y Combinator issues a request for geo-engineering startups because climate change is real and we’re all going to die
Panic is setting in and the parasites see profit in it.
Won’t the dispersion of sulfates in the atmosphere reduce the amount of light available for photosynthesis?
Yes, and PV and also cause acid rain while not reducing ocean acidification rate.
Don’t these guys know that EVs will save the planet — all by themselves?
WITHOUT CHANGING HUMAN DIETS, IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO HALT GLOBAL WARMING
“The global food system’s environmental impact is large and growing. Nearly a quarter of all planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions come from food production and associated land-use change. And as incomes rise and more people move to cities, consumption of meat and dairy — foods with outsized climate impacts — is on the rise. The world population is expected to approach 10 billion people by 2050. With this projected increase in population and shifts to higher-meat diets, agriculture alone could account for most of the emissions budget for limiting global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. This level of agricultural emissions would render the goal of keeping warming below 1.5 C impossible.”
The first major science study to connect greenhouse gases to stronger and longer heat waves was in 2004. It was titled “More intense, more frequent and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century.” Study author Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said Friday that now it “reads like a prediction of what has been happening and will continue to happen as long as average temperatures continue to rise with ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. It’s no mystery.”
Nobody suggests EVs solve all problems, just one piece of a comprehensive solution which would include lower total fertility ratios, changes in diet and agricultural practices, rapid expansion of wind and solar along with more insulation and passive solar building design , more use of heat pumps to heat both buildings and water and expansion of a high voltage DC grid with a widely interconnected international grid system so that electric power can be more easily moved both North and South and East and West. This is an abbreviated list, no doubt there are problems not addressed. There are many problems and many solutions. No silver bullet.
Yep, meat and eating in general produces greenhouse gases. Here in the US we can save about 40% of that or more just by not wasting food. Changing the way we do agriculture in general could save a lot of fuel and mineral resources. In fact it has been shown that eating organic vegetables increases fertility. Lots of opportunities to improve life in general.
New T-short slogan: Eat a rat, it ate your veggies.
“Don’t these guys know that EVs will save the planet — all by themselves? ” That is more true than you would want to believe. Only simple one variable linear thinking does not take into account the multiple interlinked effects of a major societal change. The goodness of EV’s with Renewable energy will spread energy and environmental awareness across the board, creating a new paradise on Earth. Just send large donations to New EV Paradise, Box 666, Mephisto, PA 69693.
( More than 90 percent of all donations will be used to buy EV’s and Renewable Energy).
More EV’s, Less Cows, More Grumpy People!!!! The new vision for Mankind.
Do I have to give up Ice Cream? Damn. Now I am grumpy.
Do I have to give up Ice Cream? Damn. Now I am grumpy.
Not gonna worry until I have to give up beer! Then I’ll be real grumpy!
Trouble brewing: climate change to cause ‘dramatic’ beer shortages
Extreme weather damage to the global barley crop will mean price spikes and supply problems, according to new research.
Dow—
-608.01(-2.41%)
Wow! Early bird watching, and things go south.
Well, look how long the Dow was rising. Have to go down sometime so the rich guys and make fortunes on the upswing. Just one more way the rich get richer.
Ever notice that the stock market falls during Republican control? Or is that just lately?
Maybe it’s related to the deficit. Republicans fight like crazy to ward off deficits during Democratic admins. As soon as they get power they jump on tax cuts and run up the deficit.
Whatever it is, it’s crazy to keep repeating it.
Crazy? Have you seen the president they have gifted us?
Some thoughts from H. G. Wells
A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men’s lives should not stake their own. H. G. Wells
Man is the unnatural animal, the rebel child of nature, and more and more does he turn himself against the harsh and fitful hand that reared him. H. G. Wells
While there is a chance of the world getting through its troubles, I hold that a reasonable man has to behave as though he were sure of it. If at the end your cheerfulness in not justified, at any rate you will have been cheerful. H. G. Wells
Tesla reported its third-ever profit in its eight years as a public company.
The electric car-maker blew past expectations for revenue and earnings, reporting adjusted EPS of $2.90 per share on revenue of $6.82 billion. This exceeded average analyst expectations of losses of 15 cents per share on revenue of $6.32 billion. The company brought in an adjusted $516 million for the quarter.
The period ending September 30 “was a truly historic quarter for Tesla,” the company said in a statement. “Model 3 was the best-selling car in the US in terms of revenue and the 5th best-selling car in terms of volume.”
For those of us who have been tracking Model 3 sales closely, this did not come as a surprise!
The Tesla 2018 Q3 earnings report is in, and as CEO Elon Musk had predicted, the company recorded a profit. And, at $2.90 a share, not a tiny one either. So now, with Tesla bulls ebullient and bears barely able to lift the goal posts they seem to so often be moving, we turn our attention to the quarterly financial call with analysts. Like last time, we will listen live and fill you in on the most notable bits, crossing our fingers for information about what to expect from the company with regards to progress and products.
Musk had promised the “short burn of the century”. Maybe this is it. EPS of $2.90 per share, versus analyst expectations of losses of 15 cents per share has got to have hurt the shorts, a lot!
EV and ICE population study with two different growth rates. ICE at 3 % and EV at initial 30 percent.
The ICE rate is about what is happening today but the EV rate is well below current growth rate so will probably cross each other much earlier.
ICE population, 3 percent growth rate, fuel use with no efficiency change and with 3% increase in fuel efficiency for the first 25 years. Plotted against EV 30 percent initial growth as shown in above graph.
is that car sales, or cars in service? if cars in service, how long of a lifespan are you assuming for each?
As it says, it’s a population growth study, nothing to do with lifespan. ICE cars are growing at around 3 percent now. EV’s at about 50% per annum. See graphs below for a more accurate estimate.
EV versus ICE with 50% initial EV growth rate (logistic curve).
ICE fuel consumption with and without efficiency increase against an initial 50% EV production rate rise starting 2015.
The stars are dying, the universe is dimming. How much of what we can see or detect is still bright?
Universe is fading away, say astronomers The number of stars being created has been in decline for about the last 6bn years, and there is little chance of a surge in productivity in the future. The conditions for making stars are less favourable now and most of the ingredients required, including hydrogen and helium, have already been used up.
It’s harder to sell war with Iran because they’re bad guys (who am I kidding, selling war to American’s is easy) when your own goons in the region are dismembering journalists on foreign soil. Must be some real stunned minds down at KSA General Intelligence Presidency.
Dud: noun- a thing that fails to work properly or is otherwise unsatisfactory or worthless; adjective- not working or meeting standards i.e. faulty.
Let’s not confuse a dud device with a hoax device. A dud device fails to function properly. A hoax device is designed not to function properly; to wit, it is an intentional dud.
My money is on that the sender intended them to work (not a hoax device) but they did not (because he made dud devices). He made and sent duds. Effective IED deployment requires a bit of a learning curve, and this dude was likely not on it.
“In a few cases, the flaws were substantial, the investigators said. In others, the defects were more subtle. But there’s still no way to know at this point whether the deficiencies were intentional — to make convincing hoaxes — or simply the result of bad design or construction, the sources said.”
Incompetent as well as bonkers, reminds me of his hero.
1806 — Germany: Ego-philosopher Max Stirner lives. Theorist of individualist anarchism, currently a foundation for post-left anarchy, author of The Ego & It’s Own (1844), opposed by Karl Marx.
“The great are great only because we are on our knees. Let us rise!”
The utility says if voters approve the measure eliminating monopolies, it will not add renewable energy resources beyond the state’s requirements. Those requirements, if a separate ballot measure passes, would require the state to generate 50% of its power from renewables by 2030. But NV Energy says it has its sights set on 100%.
Sounds to me sort of like the actions of a spoiled child! “If I don’t get things my way, I’m taking my marbles and going home!”
NIPSCO’s upcoming IRP is more evidence that coal generation is steadily declining in the U.S. despite efforts from the Trump administration to save it.
In Indiana, as elsewhere, the issue is economics. The youngest generating units at NIPSCO’s 1900 MW Schahfer plant were built in the mid 1980s, and the utility’s analysis found that keeping them on the system would be more expensive than replacing them with new wind, solar and batteries.
NIPSCO’s current preferred resource plan — Scenario 6 below — would see it retire all four units of the Schahfer plant in 2023 and the last coal unit at its Michigan City plant in 2028.
Credit: NIPSCO presentation
Eliminating coal from its portfolio would actually be the cheapest option, NIPSCO reported. Taking all the Schahfer and Michigan City units offline by 2023 — Scenario 8 above — was the lowest cost resource plan, but it presented “unacceptable” reliability risks to the utility.
Coal’s inability to compete persisted even when NIPSCO modeled scenarios friendly to the resource. At the request of the Indiana Coal Council, a trade group, the utility analyzed a situation with high natural gas prices, no price on carbon, and a flat fee for delivered coal.
In that scenario, retiring coal faster was still cheaper than keeping it around, and the least cost plan was still more expensive to consumers than NIPSCO’s preferred scenario.
Isn’t coal supposed to be big business in Indiana?
3… 2… 1… Trump subsidy to keep the coal plants online.
NAOM
Nevada in 2030 and beyond? A good place to collect and distribute solar energy and other renewable energy but too much heat and not enough water. I would not be too concerned with fossil fuel power generation after 2030 in that region. Population is low and will most likely get lower. To give you an idea, Reno is the fastest warming city in the US at 1.4F/decade. That rate is likely to increase in the near future.
Nevada could be a renewable energy capital but not a place where many can live. Air conditioning is one thing but lack of water is much tougher. Looks like the Colorado River supply is in deep trouble.
The Australia solar PV industry broke a whole set of new records in September. September data from the APVI and Clean Energy Regulator shows accelerated growth in utility scale solar, particularly benefiting rural and regional Australia.
And over the last quarter, a total of 1.56GW was registered with the Clean Energy Regulator – more PV capacity than in the entire record year of 2017.
Here are seven jaw-dropping records and fun facts Australia’s solar sector has been busy notching up…
1. Australia now has over 10.1 GW of solar installed, capable of delivering 14.6 TWhrs and meeting more than 5.5 per cent of Australia’s energy demand.
2. Total new solar registered for the month of September exceeded 725MW – the largest volume of new solar power recorded for a single month…….
The chart below just about says it all! Australia’s PV capacity will probably exceed that of the France by January 1, 2019 but, will they install enough to bump the UK into eighth position in terms of national installed capacity?
Black coal and brown coal generated 70% of Australia’s electricity this year and gas pushed that figure to close to 80%.
Islandboy your optimism is commendable but hardly grounded, solar produced 0.9% of Australia’s consumption.
In South Australia solar and wind uptake has been disproportionately higher. This has led to grid instability and blackouts. South Australians are quote, paying the high price for erratic wind and solar. Renewable companies have no obligation to ensure reliability of their power, backup or grid stability.
Rather than rely on Wood Mackenzie for my news on Australia, I prefer the perspective of Australians, living in Australia who have a stake in this. I have not read anything quite like this on reneweconomy.com.au but, thanks for the link anyway. I will forward it to Giles Parkinson over at Renew Economy to see what he thinks!
Incidentally are you denying that utility scale solar in Australia appears to be taking off? My view is not what coal consumption and CO2 emissions are right now. What is important is what is likely to happen to them if current trends continue.
islandboy
Wood Mackenzie appear to be pro wind and solar, but their job is to be honest about the problems that these intermittent power sources create.
They are paid to look at problems and find solutions rather than just flag waving which anyone can do.
Hugo, have you ever watched a Tony Seba presentation on youtube? Here is his most recent, which also happens to be the shortest I’ve seen at a little over 37 minutes:
If you have never looked into Seba’s messaging, it’s difficult, bordering on impossible, to come to grips with the messaging of technology disruptions. The graph I posted above is a harbinger of a disruption about to happen and that is the point I am trying to make. I am getting ahead of the curve and looking at what is likely to happen in the future based on recent trends.
Wood Mackenzie is typical, a classic example of what Seba describes at 3min 21 sec into the video linked to above, as “the experts and the insiders and even some futurists who don’t get it” and always dismiss opportunities. If you’ve never watched a Seba video, please watch the one above and then get back to me. There are two of Seba’s big four “Clean Disruptions” that have been the center of the debate in this thread, namely solar PV and EVs.
Islandboy
I have watched a video of his. It simply is not the real world.
Look at Co2 by source and country, The graphs are heading to the sky. Oil consumption 12 million barrel higher than 2005. Gas consumption increasing massively. Even coal stubbornly up.
The chances of reducing Co2 by 75% by 2050 is zero. Just enjoy yourself we are all going to die anyway.
Oh well! I guess I better just party like it’s then end of the world. Forgive me for being hopeful!
PS. Going back to 2014, who’s projections have turned out to be more accurate, Seba or Wood Mackenzie, the IEA, the EIA and the rest of the usual experts?
Be hopeful all you like. The world is full of hopefull people. Make The Future Great Again. Makes some hats if it makes you feel better.
Unfortunately Hugo is correct on this, IMHO-
“The chances of reducing Co2 by 75% by 2050 is zero”
As someone said earlier- we are going to run this experiment hard!
And of course Islandboy is right.
We should be working on transition like there is no tomorrow, without it.
The chances that we will be producing much CO2 in 2050 are diminishing by the day.
What if Pagani and Liua are right and the current amount of carbon in the atmosphere is enough to achieve 4C? Adding another 2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent carbon to the system sounds like suicide to me.
Or Hansen: Our best estimate for the fast-feedback climate sensitivity from Holocene initial conditions is 3 ± 0.5°C for 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing (68% probability) . Slow feedbacks, including ice sheet disintegration and release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by the climate system, generally amplify total Earth system climate sensitivity. Slow feedbacks make Earth system climate sensitivity highly dependent on the initial climate state and on the magnitude and sign of the climate forcing, because of thresholds (tipping points) in the slow feedbacks. It is difficult to assess the speed at which slow feedbacks will become important in the future, because of the absence in paleoclimate history of any positive (warming) forcing rivaling the speed at which the human-caused forcing is growing.
Looks like the slow feedbacks are already engaged and moving fairly quickly.
Then there are limits to growth, droughts in some areas, floods in other, chaotic weather to make farming very difficult, increased demand on the natural system crashing ocean life and removing forests.
No real forests by 2050 at this rate. No fish either.
So running this experiment hard in it’s current form won’t last very long at all. 2050 and after is a place not to be if that is the case.
Ok, 2040 anyway.
I suspect people will be burning coal til the ocean swamps their pit.
Then they’ll cut down the trees they are hanging on to.
Hickory,
Coal output will peak, it will become expensive then it will be rapidly replaced by wind and solar power which have been falling rapidly in price. Coal will not be able to compete, nor will oil or natural gas when they peak as well. Peak dates Oil 2024, Coal 2027, natural Gas 2030 all +/- 2 years for World output. I would say zero fossil fuel emissions is doable, 75% less by 2050 is conservative.
Hugo, fossil fuels will peak by 2030, they will become very expensive and alternatives will ramp up rapidly as they will be cheaper and better.
Hugo,
It looks like that .9% figure for solar is just for utility solar. Australia is unusually oriented towards customer solar.
The Wood Mac presentation is a year old – things have changed. Also, it’s a podcast. Podcasts and videos are for entertainment. If you want to present something serious, provide a written presentation or at minimum a transcript.
Nick G
You don’t think the discussion was serious? What fact did they put forward that was not accurate?
As a secondary note: podcasts and videos are a terrible way to disseminate hard information. There are no footnotes, no references, no links, just very slow discussions. There is a very low Return of Information On Time Invested. When you read the transcripts for such presentations you often see that there’s much less information than you thought: listening to voices and watching faces captures your attention, but generally doesn’t really contain the kind of specific, quantitative information that you really need.
“podcasts and videos are a terrible way to disseminate hard information”
“Videos are for entertainment.”
Did you make the same comment about the Tony Seba links and hoorays or did I miss that?
I haven’t commented at all on the Tony Seba presentations.
I haven’t watched them, partly because they seem too speculative to be the basis of serious planning, and in part because…video is a terribly slow way to transmit information.
It’s pretty cool to look at the satellite images of single family unit neighborhoods in Adelaide. Rooftop solar is amazingly popular.
I dunno if it’s just me but it seems like it’s more popular with people who live on the North side of the street than the South side. Maybe because they put panels on North facing roofs and think they don’t look nice on the street side?
Plastic Bottles, 2007, 60″ X 120.” From Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait. Depicts two million plastic beverage bottles: the number used in the US every five minutes.
Chris Jordan’s subject matter, in the artist’s words, is “the immense scale of our consumption” (Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption). It is the life cycle of commercial products, the habits of the individual consumer and the social implications of systems of consumption: power, excess and waste.
Last night I ordered takeaway curry from my favourite restaurant and handed over to the manager a bag with 3 re-usable containers – two for curries, one for rice. Receptacles accepted and utilised without comment.
A far cry from a few years back when I tried to order tortilla soup at Mission Burrito in Houston TX and hand my container across the counter. Get that out of here! the manager had a bit of a freak, like I was spreading anthrax powder. Thinking does change.
As I said, these views are not surprising from a Tesla employee. But check out what Maryann Keller, an august auto analyst for four decades, wrote on LinkedIn on the very same day. Keller is the author of the 1989 book “Rude Awakening” about the rise of Japanese automakers in the United States. Her piece is entitled, “Electric Vehicles Will Destabilize the Automotive Industry.”….[snip]
Her analysis reaches a level of panic as she describes how established automakers will soon lose what makes them special – the characteristics of their engines and transmissions. “Never before has the global automotive establishment confronted such fundamental and imminent challenges,” she concludes.
Meanwhile,
TRUCK SALES SKYROCKET
The broad category of trucks includes pickups, SUVs and minivans. It now accounts for about two-thirds of new vehicle sales in the U.S.
Does not change the fact that the industry is ripe for disruption. Maybe skyrocketing truck sales make it even more so, by delaying the day of reckoning for the likes of Ford and GM. The longer they wait to go “all in”, the worse the outcome is gonna be. Disruption rules!
“Disruption rules!” Yes, and climate change plus increases in global population will see to that.
I kinda agree with both of you.
But at the end of the day, disruption does rule! I’m back in Hungary at the moment and have been seeing a few EVs here and there. Less than what I saw in Germany. My brother who lives in Munich will be picking up his brand new Nissan Leaf next month so I might get to check it out before I return to Trumpland!
However as beautiful as Budapest is, the automotive traffic is beyond horrendous. Fortunately they have a great public transport system.
But long term I don’t get the impression that Budapest is much more sustainable than São Paulo. Too many people using too many resources.
I’d say that less than 1% of Europeans have a true understanding of the fact that their current life styles are not sustainable long term. They will be disrupted for sure! As will all of us, some sooner, some a little later but there will be no escape from the realities of future disruption.
Cheers!
2020 Ford F-150 hybrid to be built at Dearborn Truck Plant
“The longer they wait to go “all in”, the worse the outcome is gonna be”
General Motors calls for National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) program in the US
General Motors supports a nationwide program modeled on the existing ZEV program and provides these framework recommendations:
Establish ZEV requirements (by credits) each year, starting at 7% in 2021 and increasing 2% each year to 15% by 2025, then 25% by 2030.
Use of a crediting system modeled on the current ZEV program: credits per vehicle, based on EV range, as well as averaging, banking and trading.
Requirements after 2025 linked to path toward commercially viable EV battery cell availability at a cost of $70/kWh and adequate EV infrastructure development.
Establishment of a Zero Emissions Task Force to promote complementary policies.
Program terminates when 25% target is met, or based on a determination that the battery cost or infrastructure targets are not practicable within the timeframe.
Additional consideration for EVs deployed as autonomous vehicles and in rideshare programs.
In comments being filed today on the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, the Trump Administration’s proposal to freeze fuel economy regulations, General Motors proposes the establishment of a National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) program to support a 50-state solution, promote the success of the US automotive industry and preserve US industrial leadership.
Some people are not very happy about half or quarter measures. GM calls for garbage ‘National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) Program’ that would let China keep the EV lead
Now don’t get me wrong. What they are proposing is better than nothing, but if the government wants to save the U.S. auto industry, they would need to implement a much more aggressive mandate that would force them to accelerate their electrification plans at all levels.
Otherwise, they will find themselves in 2030 with an EV production capacity of 25% of their volume while 100% of customers will want electric vehicles.
Are they telling the stock market to expect a GM that is 25% the size of GM today? Because that’s what I’m hearing.
EVs can be SUV, pickup truck, or car. In 2020 Tesla will start producing the Model Y (small SUV), no date yet for the pickup truck, maybe Ford will do it first 🙂
Disruption? These guys are coming out of the woodwork.
“Jair Bolsonaro is poised to win the Brazilian presidential runoff on 28 Oct., currently polling with 58 percent of the vote. He holds strong policy positions in opposition to the environment, indigenous rights and traditional land claims. Bolsonaro has pledged to open the Amazon to economic exploitation, greatly expand energy production, abolish Brazil’s environmental ministry, relax environmental licensing and regulation, open indigenous reserves to mining, and back out of the Paris climate accord.”
Speaking of disruption: A fireman and a clown walked into a brothel…
I assume this isn’t good news for the forest cover of the Amazon.
Escalating deforestation. Good thinking.
Biodiversity and watersheds are for pussies.
Why pick on just Brazil and the Amazon?!
As far as I can tell North America and Europe wiped out their native forests long ago and Asia and Africa are doing a bang up job of destroying their own forests in their respective necks of the woods, (no pun intended)…
Humans don’t yet seem to understand that they too depend on nature but I have a hunch they will find out the hard way.
Cheers!
Hi Fred. I was referring to the pending election of Bolsonaro, and the policies of a man like that likely being unfavorable to careful stewardship of the nations resources.
“Why pick on just Brazil and the Amazon?!”
Maybe its because the Amazon represents over half of the planet’s remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species. [Wiki]
Maybe its because Bolsonaro has pledged to open the Amazon to economic exploitation, greatly expand energy production, abolish Brazil’s environmental ministry, relax environmental licensing and regulation, open indigenous reserves to mining, and back out of the Paris climate accord.
Yeah, I know all that!
I composed a long reply which I can’t seem to post from where I am at the moment. Maybe I’ll try again later
Cheers!
More train wreck porn from the genius down at TESLA
Tesla Faces Deepening Criminal Probe Over Whether It Misstated Production Figures
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents are examining whether Tesla misstated information about production of its Model 3 sedans and misled investors about the company’s business going back to early 2017, people familiar with the matter say. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/business/tesla-fbi-probe/index.html
The Keeling Curve measurements seem to be showing almost 1 ppm higher than predicted for the past couple of months. There’s usually some noise but deviations are generally smaller and/or shorter. Could be all the typhoons in the Pacific mixing air from the north maybe.
Hi George, I’ve been watching that data also. Good question…. perhaps one of the brighter bulbs could chime in and offer context, because, to put it mildly, I’m not a climate scientist. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
It’s the change of season, it bottomed out at 405 and is now 406, modeling the rate seen last year.
Methane Hydrates are melting.
As oceans warm the methane frozen for thousands of years is starting to be released.
These processes will certainly increase in effect, I cannot see how we can stop it now.
Yes, just a couple of the many positive feedbacks. The earth system is very sensitive to temperature changes.
“As the methane is released from deep waters it is robbing the oceans of life supporting oxygen.”
Please provide evidence that methane is robbing the ocean of oxygen rather than temperature increase.
Studies of how Methane hydrates will react and are reacting to ocean warming is being conducted by many scientists. They all point to increased melting and increased oxygen depletion.
No chemical fact, methane does not react with oxygen. What happens is that bacteria consume the methane and produce CO2 as a waste product. Neither modeling study takes into account the biological activity, distribution in the oceans, or changing distribution over time.
The studies assume methane is absorbed and eaten in the water column, no leakage to atmosphere. Also the study span is 2000 to 3000 years, a very long time. Surprisingly they say oxygen from the atmosphere is only 45% replaced. Strange with such a high surface to depth ratio of exposure as seen in the ocean. I think they are assuming permanent stratification.
Also the studies just say “if 50% or 100% of methane hydrates dissociate” but give no mechanism for the dissociation. The only mechanism would be heat which would probably not happen if there is not a large atmospheric intrusion by methane. Therefor end of story.
Now the dominating factors are oxygen depletion due to increasing temperature rise, a fast change, and oxygen depletion due to plankton blooms especially diatoms. As deep low oxygen water reaches the continental shelves, the low oxygen content removes iron from the sea bottom. This enrichment feeds diatom blooms which then sink downward taking removing oxygen as they go and then fall to the bottom in a feedback cycle. More heat produces less oxygen, less oxygen produces more diatoms. An ongoing and massive change that is happening now.
Methane hydrates are a slower exacerbating system that is driven by biological action and heat over a long period of time (for the deep hydrates).
Problem for both of these systems is that the biology of the oceans is depleting. As the oceans go dead, only the physical processes will drive the process and without the biology a lot of the methane will reach the surface or be retained in the ocean at saturation level.
But again, without the methane reaching the surface temperature will not rise far enough to release the deep methane hydrates. Biological activity and distribution is a limit to conversion of methane to CO2. The whole process can go awry due to H2S production. H2S is a very toxic gas. Anaerobic methane oxidation is the first step as the methane proceeds upward through the soil. Anoxic waters prevent the methane oxidation to CO2, but sulfates in the sea floor allow production of H2S. That story has a very deadly ending.
Complete nonsense, methane oxidizes into CO2 in seawater (and in the atmosphere), adding to the carbon dioxide levels in both realms. One molecule of methane oxidizes to give one molecule of carbon dioxide. Grade 8 chemistry.
CH4 + O2 –> CO + 2H2O
2CO + O2–> 2CO2
OCEAN OXYGEN DEPLETION DUE TO DECOMPOSITION OF SUBMARINE METHANE HYDRATE
“The released methane causes oxygen depletion via oxidation; however, its global impact is yet to be quantitatively investigated. We have projected the potential impact of oxygen depletion due to methane hydrate decomposition via numerical modeling. We find that the global methane hydrate inventory decreases by approximately 70% (35%) under four times (twice) the atmospheric CO2 concentration and is accompanied by significant global oxygen depletion on a timescale of thousands of years. In particular, we demonstrate the great expansion of suboxic and hypoxic regions, having adverse impact on marine organisms and ocean biogeochemical cycles. This is because hydrate decomposition primarily occurs in the Pacific Ocean, where present-day seawater has low oxygen concentration. Besides the decrease in oxygen solubility and reduced ventilation associated with global warming, the process described in this study is also important in oxygen depletion.”
I doubt any number of papers will convince you otherwise so won’t waste space by including references to them. BTW Analysis of individual profiles implies that the dissociation of gas hydrates occurs according to temperature and pressure (depth) at hydrate phase boundary. A quantity, named as virtual oxygen utilization (VOU), is calculated to account for the depletion of dissolved oxygen observed in seawater. I worked on ships in the Arctic where oceanographers were observing this take place so tend to agree with the science. I’m not saying that there aren’t parallel biological processes taking place as well but methane oxidizes into CO2 (in the ocean) — period.
Too bad you forgot your chemistry. Look up the kinetics of dissolved methane decomposition at ocean temperatures and ocean oxygen concentrations. You might want to explain where the energy to cross the activation energy of the reaction comes from. Got a match? Lots of UV?
It’s biology me boy. Bacteria solved all those problems long ago with much better methods than your faux chemistry.
Since you do not seem to grasp the concept , I won’t waste high level studies on you, here is an eighth grade level explanation of how the ocean really works. Methane rising up from the sediments is, to a large extent, consumed by microorganisms that live in the upper layers of the sea floor and in the water. Anaerobic bacteria – bacteria that can survive without oxygen – are active in the ocean floor. They process the methane with the help of sulphate (SO42-), thus producing hydrogen sulphide anions (HS-), hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and bicarbonate (HCO3-).
Aerobic bacteria – which need oxygen – are active in seawater. Together with oxygen (O2) they convert methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide and water (H2O). The methane therefore slowly breaks down during its journey from the seabed up through the seawater. The greater the depth from which the methane rises, the farther it has to travel and the less methane reaches the upper water layers and the atmosphere.
God complex
“A person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of their error or failure, even in the face of irrefutable evidence” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex
What a fucking “genius”.
I don’t read the non-petroleum threads very often, so forgive me if this has already been posted.
I wonder to declining sperm counts in men might have a moderating effect on population growth.
LOL It takes only a single sperm to fertilize an egg. Don’t worry my lovelies, my count is down to 50 million per ml. 😉
Yes, it’s war plain and simple, completely surrounded by deadly enemies. Men need to train and arm their sperm, but mostly they need massive numbers to cross the defenses. It’s a suicide mission. Millions die for each that reaches the egg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FChNBd1pQVs
In a more serious note, low sperm count is often a sign of major health problems and/or toxicity.
Dogs might be easier to study.
Study demonstrates rapid decline in male dog fertility, with potential link to environmental contaminants
We are surrounded by potentially disruptive chemicals and byproducts of those chemicals. Who knows what the long term effect of pesticides, herbicides, animal fatteners and antibiotics do to our systems? I guess he price of not dying of plague, typhoid fever, and a lot of other diseases is having to be inundated by unknowns.
Mysterious source of greenhouse gas methane in ocean explained
According to WHOI geochemist Dan Repeta, the answer may lie in the complex ways that bacteria break down dissolved organic matter, a cocktail of substances excreted into seawater by living organisms.
In a paper released in the November 14, 2016 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, Repeta and colleagues at the University of Hawaii found that much of the ocean’s dissolved organic matter is made up of novel polysaccharides — long chains of sugar molecules created by photosynthetic bacteria in the upper ocean. Bacteria begin to slowly break these polysaccharides, tearing out pairs of carbon and phosphorus atoms (called C-P bonds) from their molecular structure. In the process, the microbes create methane, ethylene, and propylene gasses as byproducts. Most of the methane escapes back into the atmosphere.
I don’t have numbers but there’s been a lot of attention to the East Siberian Shelf as a setting where methane coming from the sea floor does reach the atmosphere.
Going on my failing memory here: The Shelf is continental shelf and the water isn’t very deep but there’s still methane coming up from beneath the drowned permafrost layer that caps the organic source. The water column is short enough, especially inshore, that not all of the methane is consumed. Now that I think of it, I don’t know if that’s coming from hydrate or just buried organics. Hmm.
Well, the Shelf covers a lot of area so the amount of methane may prove to be significant. I’m wondering now how much methane is released during meltout in lakes in the boreal forest of North America and Eurasia, and maybe from tundra lakes too; there was a paper recently presenting larger figures for such than had been expected. Reservoirs as well.
I should quit while I may still be ahead.
There is no question that shallow methane hydrates and ocean covered permafrost will and is expelling methane. The deeper clathrate takes a greater amount of temperature change to initiate, it’s a moving boundary system and dependent upon ocean circulations. The shallow systems are increasingly subject to wave action mixing now that ice is becoming minimal or absent in many areas of the Arctic for months at a time.
Here is a survey of the methane hydrate Arctic Ocean.
One thing that needs to be kept in mind. During the large temperature rise and afterward of the PETM, land life did quite well and mammalian life diversified during that time. Sea life did not do as well. That implies either there was not much methane hydrate to destabilize or it did not to any significant degree. There may be some good news for the long term.
Gonefishing
You are correct, the shallow methane hydrates are being effected already. Those that are next to land permafrost which is already melting.
What should concern us the most is the decline of oxygen in water, this will effect us the most as fish is the staple diet for hundreds of millions of people.
There was a 2011 paper that predicted the Arcic was change from a sink o a source in the mid 2020s. That is probably conservative based on recent research. There was something a couple of years ago that showed the Arctic Ocean was actually neutral overall for Co2 (which was a surprise) and wasn’t becoming a bigger sink as the ice retreated (contrary to some earlier expectations). In the near term these are much bigger issues than the ocean dead zones.
Cold regions should be more of a CO2 sink than warm regions. We better hope the oceans continue to be a sink or we are totally fucked for a very long time. Physics says the ocean should be less of a sink with warming waters. If the thermohaline circulations slow or are stopped, stratification will increase and the oceans will stop being a sink. Of course that will also play havoc with the weather systems.
The big hope is the oceans will absorb the CO2 in a relatively short time (thousands of years) and temperature will fall back. That is a simple minded one dimensional assessment ignoring albedo changes, major biological changes, ocean current changes and carbon releases. You will see this type of fast reduction in models. Once the plankton pump slows and stops, the thermohaline slows or stops, the extra radiative forcing from loss of snow and ice heats the polar region causing massive loss of carbon, the simple minded model results look like drawings by a pre-schooler.
With over 40 positive feedbacks, we are hanging our trust on a carbon cycle we don’t understand to keep temps down below 4C (no one believes the 2C story do they?). When the system is this complex, should we trust the “science” or should we just assume that our science is unable to grasp reality and hit the emergency brake now?
Driving into a dark tunnel or down a dark road with no headlights is about what we are doing. Stopping or going very slowly are the only safe ways to approach it. So far we have slowed a little but are still in extreme danger (if one considers the global human/ecosystem as worth saving from permanent damage or total destruction).
Oh BTW, that hope of the temperature dropping and things resuming as before in 5000 to 10,000 years is shot in the foot because by then the Arctic will be receiving 5 to 10 watts/m2 more sunlight just from orbital forcing. Try refreezing under those conditions. Goodbye snow, goodbye Greenland Ice sheet, hello dark waters and land. Hello lower albedo and no more chilling from 10,000 feet high of ice sheet plateau.
Anyone willing to wait one thousand years to see if the modelers are right about CO2 removal or that methane release is not a problem?
Gone fishing,
The Earth system is indeed complex, I agree that models which attempt to understand the Earth System are imperfect, and the uncertainty is reason to reduce any further impacts as rapidly as is feasible.
Anyone notice that the current thermohaline circulation is not enough to equilibrate ocean temperature? The ocean is already stratified. Now as the polar-equator temperature differential decreases, so does the circulation.
Guess what folks, it’s a hot time in the first few hundred meters of the ocean and the deep water won’t be sucking up all that CO2.
Of course there is always diffusion and conduction.
We’re saved!! According to the USGS the Arctic Ocean is absorbing over 200 times the carbon dioxide needed to counter any warming from oceanic methane releases.
Ocean Absorption of Carbon Dioxide More than Makes Up for Methane Emissions from Seafloor Methane Seeps The ocean waters near the surface of the Arctic Ocean absorbed 2,000 times more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than the amount of methane that escaped into the atmosphere from the same waters, according to a study by the USGS Gas Hydrates Project and collaborators in Germany and Norway. The study was conducted near Norway’s Svalbard Islands, above several seafloor methane seeps.
Now that we know that one of the big threats is stopped in it’s tracks we can go back to peak oil, renewables, water problems, population, pollution, wacko leadership and much more. Someone should send up biodegradable balloons to celebrate this new USGS finding.
One down, a few hundred to go.
Hmm, no mention of CO2 emission from the ocean or if the level of absorbance had increased. Are we being gimmicked here? CO2 is a circular system, if methane adds to that system (even at a smaller rate) then it’s still an addition?
Do you have any opinion on when ocean food chains, in the context of ocean acidification and fishing practises etc, will contract to the point that they no longer provide protein services to human populations? I believe WHO states approx 14 to 16% of protein comes from oceans. It’s worth noting that some regions consume a much higher % than others.
It’s a train crash in progress. The small and subsistence fishermen are already losing out. Fishing fleets have had to expand exponentially and are taking more low quality catch. The demand is exceeding the supply, so we are heavy into the descent.
The ever growing ignoring of fish and crustacean depletion will cause a crash even without acidification. Just as the whitetail deer and the Canada goose was essentially exterminated from the eastern US, the fish population will also be, meaning sea bird and mammalian sea life will disappear also. Unlike the eastern US, effective policy to stop the killing and replenish the animal life is not possible on the oceans. Not without war.
Total collapse could occur within the next decade or two. We can deal with the energy and materials problems but the ever massive pressure of population on the natural food system is not being restrained.
No wonder people concentrate on the royal family and the kardashians
Knowing what will happen to their children is too painful
What?! You don’t like eating jellyfish?
Even though marine ecosystems are already undergoing drastic changes, the oceans will continue to provide a source of protein for a long time to come, just not in the form of large, tasty, pelagic fish such as Tuna!
Jellyfish contain about 6g of protein per 100g of weight. No fat!
Abstract
Food Chem. 2016 Apr 1;196:953-60. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.09.094. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
Nutritional composition and total collagen content of three commercially important edible jellyfish.
Khong NM1, Yusoff FM2, Jamilah B3, Basri M4, Maznah I5, Chan KW6, Nishikawa J7.
The study aimed to evaluate nutraceutical potential of three commercially significant edible jellyfish species (Acromitus hardenbergi, Rhopilema hispidum and Rhopilema esculentum). The bell and oral arms of these jellyfishes were analyzed for their proximate composition, calorific value, collagen content, amino acid profile, chemical score and elemental constituent. In general, all jellyfish possessed low calorific values (1.0-4.9 kcal/g D.W.) and negligible fat contents (0.4-1.8 g/100 g D.W.), while protein (20.0-53.9 g/100 g D.W.) and minerals (15.9-57.2g/100g D.W.) were found to be the richest components. Total collagen content of edible jellyfish varied from 122.64 to 693.92 mg/g D.W., accounting for approximately half its total protein content. The dominant amino acids in both bell and oral arms of all jellyfish studied includes glycine, glutamate, threonine, proline, aspartate and arginine, while the major elements were sodium, potassium, chlorine, magnesium, sulfur, zinc and silicon. Among the jellyfish, A. hardenbergi exhibited significantly higher total amino acids, chemical scores and collagen content (p<0.05) compared to R. hispidum and R. esculentum. Having good protein quality and low calories, edible jellyfish is an appealing source of nutritive ingredients for the development of oral formulations, nutricosmetics and functional food.
Not that jellyfish will save us either, if we continue to add those 83 million humans per annum to the planet, as we have been doing till now!
It looks like this year we will only add about 81.7 million humans to the planet.
The jellyfish will thank us!
The ocean waters near the surface of the Arctic Ocean absorbed 2,000 times more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than the amount of methane that escaped into the atmosphere from the same waters, according to a study by the USGS Gas Hydrates Project and collaborators in Germany and Norway.
Really?! That may sound great until you look at a graph such as the one below!
When the average layperson doesn’t get it, that is not all that surprising. That most reporters and pundits, in the mainstream media are scientifically and mathematically illiterate is old news, pun intended. We also have to deal with the political and economic agendas of the vested economic interests of the fossil fuel industry and their paid lackeys!
However we should set the bar a few notches higher for scientists of the USGS, or has Trump gotten in there as well?. They should be able to connect the dots and see the bigger picture! Not to mention understand a logarithmic scale and its implication.
Has everyone lost their minds or do they all have their heads stuck up their asses?!
.
Yes, we know, we know, we know.
If one looks a little deeper then much of this USGS Gas Hydrates Projects begins to look suspiciously like a fossil fuel funded project…
Gas Hydrate Project
The USGS Gas Hydrates Project focuses on the study of natural gas hydrates in deepwater marine systems and permafrost areas. The primary goals are:
Evaluate methane hydrates as a potential energy source
Investigate the interaction between methane hydrate destabilization and climate change at short and long time scales, particularly in the Arctic
Study the spatial and temporal connections between submarine slope failures and gas hydrate dynamics
The Gas Hydrate Project conducts multidisciplinary field studies, participates in national and international deep drilling expeditions, and maintains a laboratory program focused on hydrate-bearing sediments.
Yep.Suck the hydrates out and burn them before they can destabilize. Insane.
Looking at current events, the word ‘Insane’ seems to have lost its impact a bit…
Insane the new normal?
How about TotallyFreakingAssbitingCrazy?
Or is that over the top?
Maybe just saying that is sure BAU of them might describe it better.
Maybe just saying that is sure BAU of them might describe it better.
Yep, pretty much!
There are three options in tackling climate change. Only one will work
Mayer Hillman
Remarkably, public expectations about the future indicate that only minor changes in the carbon-based aspects of our lifestyles are anticipated. It is as if people can continue to believe that they have an inalienable right to travel as far and as frequently as they can afford. Indeed, there is a widespread refusal by politicians to admit to the fact the process of melting ice caps contributing to sea level rises, and permafrost thawing in tundra regions cannot now be stopped, let alone reversed. The longer we procrastinate, the greater the certainty of environmental degradation, social upheaval and economic chaos.
National leaders are unable to reconcile the expectations of their electorates for higher living standards by burning fossil fuels, with the absolute need to live within the planet’s finite environmental capacity. Nor, in democracies, can they move too far ahead of public opinion.
Oh, and BTW, barring some miracle, the third option is likely not going to work either… My condolences and deepest apologies to future generations!
Most people are familiar with the legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This age-old rule prevents individuals from avoiding prosecution by claiming that they did not know their conduct was illegal.
Unfortunately this principle applies in spades when it comes to continuing to ignore the fact that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, simply cannot be broken without paying the very severe consequences, which are: The complete extinction of life as we currently know it on this planet. We are all on a global suicide mission!
At this point it probably won’t change the final outcome but we could start by prosecuting the CEOs of these companies.
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
&lNational leaders are unable to reconcile the expectations of their electorates for higher living standards by burning fossil fuels, with the absolute need to live within the planet’s finite environmental capacity.
I’m so tired of this nonsense. It’s time for people to realize that fossil fuels are NOT necessary for higher living standards. EVs are better. Passive Houses are better. Planes with batteries and synthetic fuels will work just fine.
Sure, we need to reduce fossil fuel consumption quickly. We might need to carpool for a few years…the horror!
So how do you allocate responsibility between the company with emissions vs their customers whose demand pays for the companies output?
Similiarly, some people have expressed dismay at the USA selling weapons to Saudis for use against the Yemenis, but those same people think nothing of driving up to the mountains for pleasure. The fuel the burn may not be from S. Arabia, but it is helping to keep the price of oil up in the world and thus keeping the Saudi weapon purchasing capability high.
Selling oil is fine.
Lying about it’s costs (pollution, war casualties, economic insecurity, corruption and inequality etc) is dead wrong.
So how do you allocate responsibility between the company with emissions vs their customers whose demand pays for the companies output?
The same way I allocate responsibility between drug pushers and drug addicts! I prosecute the drug pushers and try to treat the drug addicts. Of course once the drugs are simply not available then the addicts go cold turkey regardless, painful as that might be!. The drug pushers need to do some really hard time!
And since most of our politicians are complicit with the drug pushers they need to be locked up as well for crimes against humanity!
The rest of us need to grow a pair and fight these bastards any way we can and put them all out of business! Capice?!
Here is where I am going to offer a different perspective on that Fred-
-people lose their choice when they have a drug addiction.
-people can choose to use less oil. free will. less convenient. more expensive. but it a choice. and therefore we all have responsibility for the consequences.
A much harder question is the responsibility of the tax payer for the bombs his/her nation sells or drops on another. Just to say I didn’t vote for those bastards doesn’t mean you didn’t pay.
I draw a big distinction between drug sellers and drug pushers.
People who simply sell drugs should be made legal and regulated. People who market, lobby and lie for drugs should be given life sentences without parole.
A somewhat interesting article/analysis if you like current events and what IEDs made by that dude who seems mentally ill look like on X-ray.
The failed bombing attempts on leading anti-Trump voices.
“Once that last threshold is crossed (i.e. people are killed on account of Trump’s hate speech) – the Media should resort to treating him as they treat any other terrorist. They should stop relaying his exact words or images and ONLY editorialize on his statements in a way that degrades his standing in society. A simple way to do this is to discuss an issue in detail and say that Trump spouted his usual unproductive rhetoric on the issue. This will IMHO shut Trump up forever.”
Republicans like Trump the way he is. He helps to fulfill their hate lust.
He helps them to forget that they are all (offspring of) immigrants.
He helps them to live in a world of denial- that they are enablers of and complicit with domestic terrorism.
They will find media sources that fit their belief system.
According to https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.arc-lea.t2anom world anomaly at the moment is 1°C and northern hemisphere is 1.4°C. There are lots of different baselines against which anomalies are measured but I think they use the 1979 to 2000 average (below) which is about 0.6°C above the 1850 to 1900 ‘pre-industrial’ number. Therefore as far as I can see we’re currently just about past the IPCC limit for the world (and above 2°C for the NH). It’s predicted to cool down for the rest of the week, but there’s also El Nino predicted by https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/ at above 70% until next June.
After using catalytic converters and other anti-pollution devices the rate rose to 1.5C per century. Once Asia and others clean up their acts, expect 2.5C/century.
Gone fishing,
So increased CO2 had no effect? Or only was responsible for 0.5 C of 1.5C? Not what the data indicates (using multilinear regression on ln(CO2atm) and Sato data from GISS to represent aerosol loads) where aerosol change from 1980 to 2011 suggests about 4% of the rise in temperature was due to reduced aerosol. The aerosol effect is more limited than you seem to think. Regression on ln CO2 and Sato aerosol data (annual average) vs BEST land ocean data from 1850 to 2011 (end of Sato data). Adjusted R squared is 84% over the 1850 to 2011 interval.
Regression is a linear least squares on LO Temp (Y) vs ln(CO2), aerosol (X)
“So increased CO2 had no effect? Or only was responsible for 0.5 C of 1.5C?”
How did you come to that conclusion from what I said? You misinterpret all the time in your comments. Sometimes I think you do not have much real world experience or worked in actual physical sciences.
Compounds that block or reflect sunlight, reduce heating, got it. When one removes the pollution that blocks the input energy, then the actual full temperature rise from GHG comes into play.
Maybe you just don’t know how strong the actual effect of GHG’s are because the effects are blocked or partially blocked.
You were probably too young to see it. You could see the air, every city had a big grey dome over it. The whole horizon (longest view through the atmosphere) had a brown ring. It stank.
As a spectroscopist I have used electromagnetic energy from radio waves, infrared, optical, UV up to X-rays for analysis. I know how these work and I know the physics of interactions with various materials including GHG.
I also know if you put a filter or a reflector between the source and the detector that the energy input will change.
Hey, guess what? Look at 1940 to 1980. Heavy pollution across all industrialized nations. Then see what happens when environmental controls start coming into place? Boom, up goes the temperature.
Had nothing to do with CO2, had to do with other pollutants blocking or reflecting the radiation. CO2 was absorbing infrared all along, just did not have as much to work with.
Still does, just not as much in USA/Euro land.
Try this experiment. Go outside, feel the sun on your face, now put a piece of white paper between your face and the sun. It should feel cooler, tell me if it doesn’t. Not sure why you have not noticed that it is cooler in the shade than in direct sunlight. Maybe you did, but never made the leap to conclude that lower energy input means lower temperature.
You may someday, if you try hard, realize 70 percent of the earth energy is controlled by the atmosphere. It’s not just CO2, there is more than one variable in play.
Gonefishing,
Try reading some papers on the subject. There are a number of effects to consider with aerosols. They can effect cloud cover, both low clouds and high clouds. The soot can be deposited on snow, reducing albedo and increasing warming. The net effect of fossil fuel aerosol emissions, is expected to be increased warming.
Note that I have used the data to come to my conclusion, if 1940 to 1980 had the effect you assume, it should show up in the data.
Also see page D18104 for a short discussion of the Sato data:
However, there are empirical constraints such as the AERONET observations analyzed by Sato et al. [2003]. Contrary to the claim of Reddy et al. [2005], Sato et al. [2003] did not filter the AERONET data with single scatter albedo retrievals.
I agree aerosols will have an effect, but on a global scale the effect is not as large as you think.
The polluted urban areas are a small part of the globe. The interaction between aerosols and clouds is complex, not quite as simple as an awning.
It’s far more complicated than you think. Even the IPCC shows minus 1.5 w/m2 for aerosols.
Reduction of SOx is a major factor to increase the amount of light reaching the surface. In order for GHG’s to warm the atmosphere, they need the visible light to be converted to lower energy long wave infrared. The light must strike matter to do that. Once that increase occurs, the GHG’s, dependent upon energy input, reflect more of the LW energy back into the atmosphere instead of space. Global temperature then rises from increased input and increased GHG effects. But it is all dependent upon input.
Reflective fogs are a problem too, but one factor that is not often talked about is the atmospheric chemistry of methane. Once NOx is reduced by environmental laws on combustion, the methane increases. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and warms the planet quickly.
So the combination of more transparent air, less reflective clouds, lower NOx, higher methane and increasing GHG overall makes for an increasing temperature rise. Increasing the transparency of the atmosphere to visible light will increase the heating rate, changing the chemistry will also do that and of course more heat increases all the other feedbacks. When the aerosols such as SOx and NOx are depleted, then the true rate of GHG heating will be revealed. Now it appears that GHG heating is greater than aerosol cooling, due to increase in GHG concentration.
Here is a case where older knowledge is again coming to the forefront with new research. Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen Global Warming
New research is helping quantify just how big that effect might be
Other research has also supported the idea that aerosols have influenced global temperatures as a whole. Another 2016 paper, also published in Nature Geoscience, suggested that about a third of all the warming that occurred over land areas over the past 50 years was masked—temporarily covered up, in other words—by aerosol pollution.
Collectively, the research indicates that greenhouse gas emissions have had an even greater effect on the climate so far than it appears—it’s just that part of it has been obscured by the presence of air pollution. As the air gets cleaner, those masked effects will start to make themselves known.
on page 620 they estimate -0.9 W/m^2, and I agree it is quite complex.
When we add the effect of black carbon (about 0.04 W/m^2) the total effect of aerosol is about -0.86 W/m^2.
Note that some of the aerosols are dust, and natural sources such as volcanoes and forest fires, though the proportions are not well measured.
Also consider Chapter 10 of AR5 and figure 10.5 on p.884.
From 1951 to 2010 forcing from anthropogenic sources that are not well mixed greenhouse gases (GHG) is estimated at about -0.25 C. If we assume all of this is aerosol effects (radiation, clouds, and black carbon on snow), then elimination of anthropogenic aerosol emissions would result in a 0.25 C increase in temp, on top of increases from GHG and other fast feedbacks.
Global dimming:
A new aspect of climate change
A review of the published information on
secular changes in Eg! up to 2000 concluded
that globally the decrease averaged
0.51 ± 0.05Wm–2 annually, equivalent to a
reduction of 2.7% per decade, and now
totals 20Wm–2 – seven times the error of
measurement. Decreases in Eg! were found
in all but two of the published results from
the 39 individual series of long-term measurements
tabulated in the review; at 28 sites
the global dimming was statistically significant
with an average reduction of
0.55Wm–2 per year. Only one of the two
increases reported for individual series was
statistically significant (Stanhill and Cohen
2001).
The degree of global dimming varied
markedly with latitude as shown in Fig. 1 –
the maximum decrease, exceeding 1 Wm–2
per year, occurring in the midlatitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere, the earth’s most
densely populated and industrialised zone.
However, significant reductions in Eg! were
found even within the empty polar circles,
0.36Wm–2 per year in the Arctic and
0.28Wm–2 per year in the Antarctic; both
these reductions were based on an analysis
of data from all of the pyranometer stations
in the two polar regions.
I have reproduced the model in its simplest form (5 year centered averages presented).
Coefficients (intercept, CO2 (ln), SOI, Aerosols, LOD, TSI)
-17.082
2.954
0.080
-2.355
-0.032
0.087
And when you learn what the word aerosols means, we can talk further.
From NASA: The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface.
The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.
Climatic Effects of Aerosols
The additional reflection caused by pollution aerosols is expected to have an effect on the climate comparable in magnitude to that of increasing concentrations of atmospheric gases. The effect of the aerosols, however, will be opposite to the effect of the increasing atmospheric trace gases – cooling instead of warming the atmosphere.
The warming effect of the greenhouse gases is expected to take place everywhere, but the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas. No one knows what the outcome will be of atmospheric warming in some regions and cooling in others. Climate models are still too primitive to provide reliable insight into the possible outcome. Current observations of the buildup are available only for a few locations around the globe and these observations are fragmentary.
Understanding how much sulfur-based pollution is present in the atmosphere is important for understanding the effectiveness of current sulfur dioxide pollution control strategies.
Gone Fishing,
And your point? The data from Sato measures the effect of Aerosols.
You seem to think you know more than the geophysicists and geochemists that study climate change, I have no illusions that I understand this better than the experts. T
Interesting presentation. Not sure how much a comparison of Northern and Southern hemisphere makes sense as much of the Northern Hemisphere land mass is at higher latitudes (where polar amplification tends to increase the average temperature), for the Southern hemisphere the reverse is true.
Some of the dimming may be due to more cloud formation simply due to warming, some of the cycles in relative warming rates may be more related to changes in ocean circulation over time, rather than the dimming and brightening story. When looking at the Aerosol Optical Depth data and comparing it to changes in temperature, the effect seems relatively small at the global level.
Believe what you want, the temperature and SOx data match quite well.
The solar data from China shows a loss of ground level radiation increasing from the time they heavily industrialized.
Yes, sulfur pollution causes more persistent clouds.
Yeah, there is lot of handwaving in the climate change community. There is little hope of any real progress when they are all wanting to be right about their little part of the puzzle.
Too bad they never take a system approach to the planet and look at the bigger picture. They niggle about a half watt here or a watt there, when the real changes involve tens of watts per m2.
Oh yeah, this global average crap is not where the action is at. But I have beat that drum in the past and the mules still don’t pull.
Gone fishing,
You can believe what you want as well. The climate scientists do try to look at the whole system, but there are large areas of the science that are not well understood, the system is quite complex. The climate scientists look at the planet on a 2 x 2.5 degree horizontal grid and 40 atmospheric vertical layers, this is couples to an Ocean model with 32 layers on a 1 x 1.25 degree horizontal grid, often the AOGCM is coupled with a carbon cycle model, many of these do not include modelling for permafrost or ice sheet dynamics over time as these processes are less well understood.
The dimming due to aerosols is included in the models, despite what you seem to think.
The changes in radiative forcing are net changes for the entire planet averaged over an entire seasonal cycle. So you are making apples to oranges comparisons.
Hansen and others have said the net increase in radiative forcing (over a short period that captures fast feedbacks) is about 3.7 to 4 Wm-2 for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial (roughly 560 ppm), this does not include ice sheet changes, changes in land forms due to a warming climate and permafrost melt (all of which are expected to be longer term processes). The mainstream consensus is about a 1.8 C transient climate response (almost immediate temperature change as atmospheric CO2 doubles over a 100 year period) and a 3 C equilibrium climate response as the Ocean gradually reaches some equilibrium temperature over a 300 to 500 year period. Local effects might be 10 watts or more (severe volcanic eruption) and certainly seasonal effects can be larger than that. If we want to look at the Global system, the average temperature and how it has changed over time is just a simple starting point.
Arctic areas around Greenland and Canada are predicted to be much colder than normal in the next month.
Canada, Europe, Russia look nice and toasty along with much of the ocean. Alaska is getting a reprieve from their heat waves. Nice in the US too.
Thanks Bob, looking forward to it. I don’t ski anymore so warmish is good.
I watched a segment on One America News where they explained the IPCC report is just a bunch of lies designed to destroy America’s energy dominance. Notice how this is the new phrase Republicans are using in campaigns now this year: energy dominance vs. energy independence.
When it comes to fossil fuels America is neither dominant nor independent.
And to be clear, fossil fuels are not synonymous with energy!
Most Republicans are dumber than a bag of rocks and the rest are immoral unethical POS!
As a newly minted citizen of ‘The Good Country’ I am now actively trying to spread the word and hoping to get others to join! I consider being a part of it, to be the antithesis, of narrow close minded Ultra Nationalism and populism. Neither of which propose any real solutions to our global predicaments.
While alternative energy and EVs, by themselves, are definitely not going the save the world, perhaps finding a path forward towards a new paradigm and vision is something we can all take part in.
Interesting concept Mr Ambassador- but I’ll not sign on unless I can learn enough to be convinced that this project puts more emphasis on freedom for religious and ethnic minorities, democracy over authoritarianism, protection against hate crimes, protection for free journalism, and the like.
(ex- why does Hungary rank so high with such a hater leader in office?)
Also, what sense of certainty do you have that this organization, who seeks to have a voice at the table of international affairs, won’t be co-opted by those with a specific agenda, such as religious fundamentalism?
“Driven by zero-sum thinking, the rigid, inflexible, ideological thinking and obsessive need of our collective human ego to be absolutely and imperatively “right”, is rapidly driving our Nation and our American democracy toward collapse.”
I have no intention of trying to convince you or anyone else, one way or another. I have provided a link for anyone to explore. If it is not something that makes sense to you or if you have doubts. That’s fine.
(ex- why does Hungary rank so high with such a hater leader in office?)
The reasoning behind the ranking of all countries is clearly explained on the website.
Also, what sense of certainty do you have that this organization, who seeks to have a voice at the table of international affairs, won’t be co-opted by those with a specific agenda, such as religious fundamentalism?
I have no sense of certainty about anything, though given the kind of values expressed by the founders and those who have signed up so far I find that rather unlikely.
Cheers!
don’t mind me Fred, I’m just more pissed at humanity than usual this morning. Not sure if its the deficit in kindness or the excess in hate.
Either way, its souring my normally glorious and rosy outlook.
No worries!
“its souring my normally glorious and rosy outlook.”
They sound easy but they aren’t, much better to elect far thinking and enlightened leaders like Bolsonaro to sort things out, no … wait, er.
Now wait a second, you get paid 20 dollars a ton for removing CO2, and we get to pay higher electricity prices because the CO2 produced by burning the bio-waste has to be captured underground?
Why not just pay wind turbine, PV installations, and EV owners instead since they “remove” all that current and future CO2 that did not have to be produced and save money to boot? That would move things a bit faster and actually solve the problem.
As the trees grow they become more valuable (even as just firewood) than the $20 per ton and guess what happens to the trees (if they don’t just burn)? Hopefully lumber, but much will be burned for heating.
1000 trees *2.5 tons/tree *$20/ton is $50,000.
As firewood we are looking at up to $200,000. Once they are grown they can/ will be burned. So much for storing carbon.
As lumber they could store for up to another 200 years and might be much more valuable if they are the right species.
We would be better off oxygenating the ocean. Giant aquarium bubblers for the ocean. 🙂
Things will not get this bad, but it’s nice to know the boundaries of the system. Yes, the sun is brighter now, but I don’t think we have enough carbon available to disrupt the system this far (fossil plus natural). Of course the earth does, so let’s hope volcanism stays low for the next 100,000 years or so and cloudiness does not diminish.
Extreme Global Warming May Have Caused Largest Extinction Ever
The upper part of the ocean may have reached about 100 degrees F (38 degrees C), and sea-surface temperatures may have exceeded 104 degrees F (40 degrees C). For comparison, today’s average annual sea-surface temperatures around the equator are 77 to 86 degrees F (25 to 30 degrees C).
“Photosynthesis starts to shut down at about 35 degrees C…
The study includes an online calculator as a reference for policymakers and stakeholders to determine the “cost implications of potential policy actions” by county.
Behind paywall in The Times:
Humans to blame as 60% of world’s wildlife is lost Wildlife populations have fallen globally by an average of 60 per cent since 1970 and loss of habitat is the biggest cause, conservationists have said.
…
“Exploding human consumption” is blamed for much of the decline, with the report saying that vast tracts of wildlife habitat had been lost to palm oil and soy plantations and the construction of dams, mines and roads.
…
Overfishing and the introduction by humans of invasive species are the next biggest factors. Pollution and climate change were growing threats.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2018 We are pushing our planet to the brink. Human activity—how we feed, fuel, and finance our lives—is taking an unprecedented toll on wildlife, wild places, and the natural resources we need to survive.
On average, we’ve seen an astonishing 60% decline in the size of populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in just over 40 years, according to WWF’s Living Planet Report 2018. The top threats to species identified in the report link directly to human activities, including habitat loss and degradation and the excessive use of wildlife such as overfishing and overhunting.
The report presents a sobering picture of the impact human activity has on the world’s wildlife, forests, oceans, rivers, and climate. We’re facing a rapidly closing window for action and the urgent need for everyone—everyone—to collectively rethink and redefine how we value, protect, and restore nature.
From 1970 to 2014, 60 percent of all animals with a backbone – fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals – were wiped out by human activity, according to WWF’s Living Planet report, based on an ongoing survey of more than 4,000 species spread over 16,700 populations scattered across the globe.
“The situation is really bad and it keeps getting worse,” WWF International director general Marco Lambertini told AFP news agency. “The only good news is that we know exactly what is happening.”
For freshwater fauna, the decline in population over the 44 years monitored was a staggering 80 percent. Regionally, Latin America was hit hardest, seeing a nearly 90 percent loss of wildlife over the same period.
—
For corals, it may already be too late. Back-to-back marine heatwaves have already wiped out up to half of the globe’s shallow-water reefs, which support a quarter of all marine life.
Even if humanity manages to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius – mission impossible, according to some scientists – coral mortality will likely be 70 to 90 percent.
A world warming at 2C would be a death sentence, a major UN report concluded last month.
One congressmen was heard to murmur-
“thats what zoos are for”
you can guess what party
He didn’t say, “That’s what an arc is for”?
But then again, that would concede the risk of global flooding.
I was walking around in the park behind the Széchenyi Spa in Budapest today and came across this old stone engraving above a nice little pond filled with lilly pads which I found to be more than a bit unusual. Especially given that this is the end of October and they were preparing the ice skating rink nearby.
Picture below, The information on the inscription seems to say:
Can’t quite make out the beginning of the first line but …’KUT’ means WELL.
1257 M 75 °C (I assume that is the water temperature at that depth.) since there are lilly pads the surface must be cooler 😉
Dissolved in 1 L of water, 1774.53 mg
Of:’ásványianyag tartalom’, basically means mineral content. (could be a lot of things in there…)
The baths nearby at the Spa date to early Roman times!
.
Nice historical find Fred and geothermal too!
Yeah, Budapest has great potential for harnessing geothermal energy!
Hungaryʼs first combined geothermal heat and power plant in Tura, in Pest County northeast of Budapest, is currently at the commissioning phase, with the official start of operation planned for November, according to reports.
That was a year ago. Better late than never!
Cheers!
More bad news on the coral front.
Great Barrier Reef Under Threat of Mass Bleaching Again in 2019
GoneFishing says:
10/27/2018 at 4:22 pm
Some people are not very happy about half or quarter measures.
GM calls for garbage ‘National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) Program’ that would let China keep the EV lead
It’s too bad, because GM knows how to make a good EV. They just don’t know how to support and sell them.
They’re a big organization, and some people inside it are committed to EVs, and some hate them (think people with long career experience with ICEs).
Dealers are a special problem: their business model depends on profits from repairs, and EVs are much lower maintenance. You can’t get a dealer to sell you an EV for love nor money.
That, of course, is a primary reason Tesla doesn’t do dealerships.
The Chevy Volt has more lines of code than the space shuttle. That was a decade ago. That’s Scary even Today.
The shuttle’s not quite the best comparison – it was powered by a a specialized IBM computer that was developed before, and was slower than the original 1981 PC XT (well, 5 redundant computers, actually). The engineers were risk averse and figured they shouldn’t mess with a system that worked. OTOH, it meant that the shuttle, near the end of its life, was maintained with parts bought by NASA on eBay.
The Volt has more lines of code than an Air Force tactical fighter – around 10 million!
I have a Volt and will certify in court that most of the lines of code (no doubt written by a 19 year old skateboarder) are dedicated to flashing lights, unnecessary messages, unintended radio operations and just plain irritating me.
I love the powertrain, tho.
The Volt has functioned well over time though, correct?
Compared to other hybrids.
I would guess that hybrid control systems are more complicated than pure electric ones?
Yes, to both.
GM wanted the Volt to be a tech halo car, so they went out of their way to make it perfect. Sadly, they didn’t work that hard at selling them: halo cars are just to look good, not to sell.
The argument that aerosols are very important can lead to the argument that CO2 doesn’t matter.
Look at Global GISTEMP LOTI from 1920 to 1945 (few volcanoes during that period relative to 1880 to 1920) and the rate of temp increase is 1.61 C/century. For the 1968 to 2017 period we get 1.78 C per century which leads to the argument that atmospheric CO2 does not matter.
I think the aerosols are less important than some scientists argue for. Likewise the AMO may influence global rates of warming but that is secondary to the CO2 and other greenhouse gas forcing (and the related fast feedbacks from clouds and water vapor, etc) in my opinion.
“The argument that aerosols are very important can lead to the argument that CO2 doesn’t matter.” False premise. You have it backwards anyway.
This is not a popularity contest of who is more important than the other. The existence of reflective chemical systems does not change the physics of GHG’s.
Are you implying that CO2 can decide to not take part in the physical system?
Dennis,
What climate scientists KNOW is that since the Industrial Revolution, humans have pumped more and more aerosols into the air which have counteracted global warming to a significant degree. Using models, they’ve estimate aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the Earth’s surface. In fact, without the presence of these aerosols in the air the planet would now be about one-degree C hotter than it is (One big problem is that most aerosols are bad for human health.) Of course, aerosol particles do not stay in the atmosphere for long, and most GWGs stay in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, so accumulated heat-trapping gases will overpower any temporary cooling due to short-lived aerosol particles. In any case, it doesn’t matter what you or I THINK. This is what the science is telling us.
Should I add as a footnote the fact that with decreasing coal and oil (especially diesel) aerosol levels will quickly drop? This is one of the reasons widespread adoption of EVs would/will be a mixed blessing. Think how many aerosols would disappear from the northern hemisphere if China and India suddenly converted to solar powered EVs.
Hmm. Aerosols are accidental geo-engineering. I share your fear of deliberate geo-engineering (what can go wrong?), but it does seem to support the idea.
BTW, we humans unfortunately will never know truth directly. It will always be a question of what we think the physics/science is. We may come to consensus. We may be confident in our models of reality. But, we’ll always be relying on what we think is the truth.
Cogito ergo sum.
“We may come to consensus. We may be confident in our models of reality. But, we’ll always be relying on what we think is the truth”
Reality? Reality is easy compared to achieving understanding.
Nahhh, there are many things we can measure directly, repeatedly and prove. Look at all the things we are able to do successfully. Right down to the structure of molecules and atoms up to the structure of the universe. Building flying machines like they are humdrum now.
We just are not up to extremely complex, interdependent non-linear systems like the earth system (which combines both physics, chemistry and biology as well as some astronomy). There are limits to our knowledge, math and sensing capabilities.
Still, we have enough knowledge to mostly know what we are doing wrong, yet not enough will and courage to change on a large scale, so further knowledge and ability is useless and frustrating.
No, we do not need certainty to act, not in the presence of extreme danger. We need to stay ahead of the danger, but now find we are in it’s midst and we are the danger. That is reality enough.
I agree. That’s what I was referring to, when I talked about consensus and confidence.
OTOH, it’s not really true that we know enough. We need to know much more about human psychology, sociology and poltical science. We need to understand how to manage psychopathic billionaires, propaganda, rumor and fear, etc.
We certainly know enough to take action. But we could certainly use more knowledge to allow us to be more successful.
IPCC AR5 Chapter 7 estimate for aerosol RF is -0.86 Wm-2
So without the aerosols we would have 2.9 Wm-2 of RF instead of 2 Wm-2, since 1850 to 1899 (average for that period) we have had about 1 C of warming, without the aerosols it might have been 1.5 C. That is what the science says as of 2013. Note tat there is wide uncertainty in the aerosol estimate from 0 to 1.8 Wm-2, so potentially it could be no effect to the 1 C that you estimate.
This is all I’m saying:
CLIMATE IMPACTS FROM A REMOVAL OF ANTHROPOGENIC AEROSOL EMISSIONS
“To keep within 1.5 or 2° of global warming, we need massive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, aerosol emissions will be strongly reduced. We show how cleaning up aerosols, predominantly sulfate, may add an additional half a degree of global warming, with impacts that strengthen those from greenhouse gas warming. The northern hemisphere is found to be more sensitive to aerosol removal than greenhouse gas warming, because of where the aerosols are emitted today. This means that it does not only matter whether or not we reach international climate targets. It also matters how we get there.”
This agrees with the estimate I gave of 0.5 C, but in reality I realize it will be larger when climate reaches short term stability (ocean warms to equilibrium in 300 to 500 years), possibly another 0.25 C, in a sense if we use 4 Wm-2 as equivalent to doubling of CO2 which will lead to about 3 C of warming (when oceans reach equilibrium temperature), we are currently at about 3Wm-2 from GHG, so this suggests 3/4 times 3 or 2.25 C of warming from current levels of GHG, some of these GHG are shorter lived (methane mostly) so possibly reduction of methane emissions could offset some of the increased warming due to reduction of SO2, also some of the aerosols are natural (forest fires and volcanoes) so it is unlikely that aerosol forcing will be reduced to zero.
Not sure if forcing from various aerosols have been well measured.
Is this the last Open Non-Petroleum thread or something?
Just curious…
Probably not the last
This is the doofus WW at the WUWT blog, claiming there is very little warming in California:
Is anybody surprised?
‘BAD NEWS’: CO2 EMISSIONS TO RISE IN 2018
“Energy sector carbon emissions will rise in 2018 after hitting record levels the year before, dimming prospects for meeting Paris climate treaty goals, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) said Wednesday.” BTW, “Even taking into account voluntary national pledges to slash carbon emissions caused by burning fossil fuels, the planet is currently on track to warm by an unlivable 3 C to 4 C by century’s end.”
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-bad-news-co2-emissions-iea.html#jCp
We don’t need no stinking feedbacks.
Just think back to James Hansen sitting in front of Congress in the 1980’s giving the alarm. Now we are putting about 2.5 times the rate back in the 1970’s and methane is on the increase (even though it is supposed to decay quickly). So in order to get back to the time period the warnings were first coming out, we have to cut fossil fuel use by at least two thirds, against a rising demand and rising population. Now if those 1970 ‘s and 1980’s warnings were valid, that much carbon output to the atmosphere is still a problem. Add to that the increase in temp when the Asian dimming fades back (we never got back all the solar radiation even in the US and Europe).
Even if both Europe and the US were to go carbon free, China is putting out more than both combined do now. China is also helping other countries to burn coal.
China’s Emissions: More Than U.S. Plus Europe, and Still Rising
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate-change.html
BTW An average 3C is more like 6C to 8C or higher in the northern latitudes. Good luck permafrost, goodbye Frosty.
“We don’t need no stinking feedbacks.”
No, we don’t. But…
“There are fault-lines in the IPCC report. Among them is that its dire warning of coming catastrophe, though devastating, could well be conservative. A number of scientists point out that the report fails to fully acknowledge the role of amplifying feedbacks as highlighted by Hansen.”
https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/43e8yp/the-uns-devastating-climate-change-report-was-too-optimistic
“THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE OF THE IPCC IS AN INEVITABLE RESULT OF THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS TRYING TO GENERATE A DOCUMENT THAT THEY ALL AGREE WITH. AS A RESULT, IT TENDS TO EXCLUDE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AROUND THE UNCERTAINTIES OF WHEN AND HOW SELF-REINFORCING FEEDBACKS MIGHT CROSS TIPPING POINTS LEADING TO RUNAWAY EFFECTS.”
I read somewhere there were 132 scientists for SR15.
Though I am sure there were thousands who published the papers used.
Thankfully, they have agreed that anthropogenic emissions are a factor in climate change. We have scientific consensus about the scientific discoveries of the 1800’s. Yippee!!
One does not present a lot of uncertainty or lack of knowledge in a government paper. The agenda would have no chance of moving forward.
My point exactly, we are on a 3C trajectory if the feedbacks are not included. They can be ignored or diminished in the mind and on paper, but that is not reality.
…we are on a 3C trajectory if the feedbacks are not included.
Arthropods are no longer unable to reproduce at 3 °C, terrestrial food webs in the tropics crash completely, All coral reefs are completely wiped out even without considering the impacts ocean acidification!
And there are people who still believe there will be 12 billion happy little humans living on this planet by the end of the century! As long as we don’t mess with the status quo economic system…
Good luck with that little fantasy!
7.6 billion people and many of them surrounded by the concrete and machine cacophony we call civilization. Not the grand symphony that is nature. They grow up warped by their surroundings. It’s tough to care when one does not here the music or see the beauty.
Even in Maine, a large state with a population of under two million, is a shit hole in parts, particularly the south. Nothing but traffic, noise, ugliness. Everyone continues happily riding their loud trucks through construction zones and sitting in stopped traffic playing with their cellphones.
It’s tragic to see how New Englanders have destroyed their idyllic 18th century cities.
The bizarre mental disconnect in American urban planning never ceases to amaze. For example:
The boom in small electric vehicles continues in crowded Asian cities.
https://electrek.co/2018/10/17/gogoro-electric-scooter-battery/
Meanwhile American cities are trying to ban them claiming they take up too much space.
https://gizmodo.com/electric-scooters-are-reportedly-already-creating-probl-1829829223
Apparently the argument goes that American cites were built with much wider roads because they were built in the car era, unlike cities in most of the world. And despite being so wide, there is less room for space saving vehicles. Or something.
American cites were built with much wider roads because they were built in the car era, unlike cities in most of the world. And despite being so wide, there is less room for space saving vehicles. Or something.
Sounds like a prime example of Trumpian logic to me! ☺
Very interesting business model, that electric scooter battery swap is!
Thanks for that article link, here again-
https://electrek.co/2018/10/17/gogoro-electric-scooter-battery/
I LIKE that Gogoro scooter, that would suit me well! I have been thinking that scooters and quadrimotos are ripe for electrification. The second scooter is a totally different type, basically a motorised skateboard with a steering handle. The issues with it are due to selfish users who are blocking walkways with discarded rentals rather than road use.
NAOM
Notanoilman the problem is that the sidewalks are too narrow.
You should see the ones near me – where there are any that is 😉
NAOM
I remember reading years ago that San Francisco was the most beautiful city in the U.S.
I had to go into the city yesterday to deliver a guitar that I sold. I haven’t been there in a couple of years (it’s only 70 miles from here). I was appalled at how ugly everything was up close. Trash everywhere, angry people blowing their horns, bicycles weaving in and out of traffic in the dark with no lights. We ate dinner in a grubby little restaurant, $200 for my wife, my daughter and I, mediocre food.
I’m pretty sure that living like that is mentally, physically and morally inferior to being surrounded by nature, even nature disrupted by agriculture.
$200 for 3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bloody Nora! You could get a pretty good meal for 1/6 of that around here.
NAOM
I live close to SF and rarely go in there. So many downtown cities are just nasty. Downtown Seattle and Portland have similar problems. But other parts of these 3 cities are just outstanding. A couple miles can make a huge difference.
Healdsburg, or Middletown?
I’ve rambled those valleys for decades, lived in Sonoma and Yolo counties!
Yep, lived in Marin and Sonoma.
Healdsburg is a bit over the top (was very cool) as it has become a major destination.
Middletown? Has Harbin:
https://harbin.org
Harbin got burnt up in the big fire last year.
A couple of weeks since the IPCC report and as far as I can tell it might as well not have been issued – no change in policy, no indication among the fossil fuel cheer leaders that it even existed, no change in attitude among the general populace (the report that beer might double in price had a much bigger reaction here). To meet the IPCC requirements Brazil would pretty much need to stop all future oil developments and start reforesting the Amazon. Who’s going to volunteer to explain that to the new president there, who looks likely to be another total narcissistic nutjob.
Well we saw more trolls here. UK seems to be taking some slow steps, California and a few other places have brought their programs forward. Maybe we will get some luck in a further 10-20 years.
NAOM
Luck? Luck would imply a large negative fast natural feedback suddenly arising out of the depths that no one knew about. That would give us more time (or more complacency).
I have thought of several but would like to here other thoughts on what might act as a super negative fast feedback. Have fun with it, anything goes.
Only one natural counter force to warming (not a negative feedback, more just a major countervailing force) that I can conceive- and that is a major outbreak of volcanic activity. I don’t know how many Pinatubo’s it would require. I ain’t holding my breathe.
Cooling is short term from volcanic aerosols, CO2 from volcanic activity is long term warming. Quite schizophrenic.
How about a super mutant kudzu that grows over most of the land surface of the planet and is impervious to herbicides or burning.
Or a super algae that covers most of the ocean then dies sucking down that CO2, then repeats.
A super-pandemic that causes everyone to become an environmentalist or nature lover. Not much would get done after that, the paper work and endless studies would hold up all other activity. The world is saved. 🙂
Elon Musk clones himself a thousand times, takes over the world then ships most of the population to other planets and the Moon, just to be safe. Side effect, low earth population that is afraid of technology and spends most of it’s time hiding from the Musks and Company for fear of being shipped off to space.
(OK, not quite natural, but we are products of nature and it would be a hoot)
Two forms of insect that breed incessantly radiate from other insect forms. One that love to eat rubber hoses such as brake lines and another that loves to eat the insulation used on electrical wiring. Maybe a third, a fly that has a metallic coating, loves to swarm, especially on radio transmitting antennas and electronic systems. Goodbye cellphone communications and lots of shorted out electronic equipment. The more they eat the more they wreck civilization and lower emissions (nothing works).
What I had in mind was something with (pre)historic precedent, like
The “Onotong Java Event”
A variation on Vonnegut’s Ice-9 that converts all fossil fuels to an incombustible form.
Sargassum seaweed, blue green algae (cyanobacteria) and other algal blooms.
Luck would be a series of weather events obviously caused by climate change that wiped out each and every Republican.
George
The difficulty with reducing fossil fuels, is that Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc have lots of oil and gas which they can use now and sell at great profit with little investment.
They cannot afford to leave this oil and gas in the ground and there are plenty of buyers.
Saudi Arabia and Russia would collapse without the oil and gas revenue.
What would you do if you had to provide hospitals, schools, universities and roads in these countries?
Push temperatures up 3 degrees average, 6-9 degrees peak and see if they collapse then.
NAOM
I agree Hugo. The nature of human beings has this behavior baked in the cake. Much the same can be said for other big fossil fuel producers- USA, Canada, Australia, and on. Not to mention consumers of it like China, India, Korea and Japan. They arn’t about the close shop.
What would you do if you had to provide hospitals, schools, universities and roads in these countries?
Maybe get my ass in gear and invest heavily in alternative energy systems!
“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity ”
Albert Einstein
Cheers!
Fred
Russia and Saudi Arabia should certainly invest more in renewable energy. However they make their money from selling oil and gas and will continue to sell as long as people buy.
Yeah! Was talking to my sister who just returned from a business trip to Saudi Arabia, they are putting some serious money into transitioning to reneeable energy! How else are they going to keep their 100,000 head of dairy cows producing the highest quality dairy products in the world?!
This is one very crazy world we live in…
Cheers!
Russian, Saudi, and Iraqi leaders have very little interest in schools and hospitals (at least for the common folks anyway)- they’re kleptocracies. I’d wager that more will get spent on New Mega Yachts for the elite than on New Hospitals.
I would destroy the oil industry, that’s what I’d do. But then I actually care about the survival of humanity. The dictators of Saudi Arabia and Russia don’t.
The lack of public response to the report is because most people see it as fear mongering and they don’t appreciate being talked down to. Don’t get me wrong, climate change is real, humans have an impact, but there’s still alot left to figure out before we go messing up our economy over it.
The lack of public response to the report is because most people see it as fear mongering and they don’t appreciate being talked down to.
Just curious, did you actually read the report?!
If so, where exact;y is it talking down to anyone? And could you be so kind as to specify what parts of it you would consider to be fear mongering and why?
BTW, FYI, the report is probably overly conservative and quite watered down so as not to unduly frighten the general public!
And last but not least, there won’t be any economy to worry about if we continue on our current path. Unfortunately. to actually understand why that might be the case, it does require some familiarity with basic high school level scientific concepts.
Fred, I interpret “messing up our economy” as reducing the fossil fuel industry. You know, the paycheck thing. Get paid today, don’t worry about tomorrow’s disaster.
Speaking of reducing fossil fuel here is the Bloomberg EV prognostication for 2018 to 2040. Conservative but better than the IEA.
https://bnef.turtl.co/story/evo2018?teaser=true
Two of the factors that may not have been accounted are EV’s can have greater longevity than ICE and the car as service movement. Both will affect the number of sales needed in the future to meet demand. Oh yeah, one more, increasing fees on polluting vehicles over time to meet pollution and climate change standards. Lack of liquid fuels could be a final compounding factor.
My earlier simple exponential growth showed ICE cars starting to reduce in actual sales numbers by 2023 and 100 percent EV’s representing new car sales somewhere around 2032. Probably the upper boundary value.
I actually think hyperexponential growth of EVs and solar is possible. My exponential model gives the same result as yours.
But there is a possibility of the following dynamic:
— it becomes clear that EVs are winning
— people start heavily disapproving of fossil fuel burning
— politicians seize the chance to throw ICE cars an anchor by banning them, subsidizing expanded EV production, etc, so EVs grow even faster than the usual exponential curve
Here’s hoping.
No, I have not read the report but I seen the news reports about it.
Yeah, I figured as much!
Maybe go read it and then come back and make some fact based comments about it.
Until then you won’t really know what you are talking about. And sorry, but saying you heard about something in the news really doesn’t cut it!
“The lack of public response to the report”
Climate change events speak louder than reports.
In North Carolina, hurricanes did what scientists could not: Convince Republicans that climate change is real
WILMINGTON, N.C. — It took a giant laurel oak puncturing her roof during Hurricane Florence last monthfor Margie White to consider that perhaps there was some truth to all the alarm bells over global warming.
“I always thought climate change was a bunch of nonsense, but now I really do think it is happening,” said White, a 65-year-old Trump supporter, as she and her young grandson watched workers haul away downed trees and other debris lining the streets of her posh seaside neighborhood last week, just as Hurricane Michael made landfall 700 miles away in the Florida Panhandle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-north-carolina-hurricanes-do-what-scientists-could-not-persuade-republicans-that-climate-change-is-real/2018/10/17/45136c56-d0ac-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html
there’s still alot left to figure out before we go messing up our economy over it – no there isn’t, that was the whole message of the report.
Don’t get me wrong – that has to be the most condescending phrase ever invented, so it’s doubly annoying you use it when complaining about being talked down to, which is the most ridiculous denier excuse yet. Is there some app that generates that sort of rubbish now?
The IPCC piece has been included as a question in many of the debates for US House seats around the country this week. Generally, the Republican candidate’s response has been that the climate has always been changing and we can’t be certain how much CO2 contributes, while the Democratic candidate talks about how we need more renewable energy.
It came up in the debate for the US Senate race out of Nevada tonight too: “Do you agree with the UN report, and what should the US do to protect the planet?”
I just finished an exercise, using Google Maps satellite view and their MyMaps feature to create a list of all the solar PV installations on the island that I could find by looking at the satellite pictures. I have a couple of interesting observations.
1) there is a huge amount of rooftop space that is NOT being used for solar PV, suggesting that a lot more could be installed without affecting other uses for the land.
2)A very large portion of the population lives very close to sea level. There are 13 parishes with the capital city being the fourteenth parish and the only one with no rural portion. The capital city is on the shoreline as are nine of the parish capitals. Only three of the parish capitals are not on the shoreline and only one of the three is at a significant elevation. Of the nine parish capitals that are on the coast only three or four have elevated land (more than a few feet above sea level) with the rest having the whole town within a few feet of sea level.
3) A lot of critical infrastructure is within a few feet of sea level including, the island’s only oil refinery, all the non renewable electricity generating plants, the island’s only cement factory, the two international airports, the central bank, warehouses, the ports (obviously), many civic centers (courthouses, tax offices and other government offices), police stations, army barracks, hospitals and schools.
This just happens to be the specific case of the island of Jamaica but, it is pretty much the case all over the world. Most of our civilisation exists and most of the planet’s population lives, within a few feet of sea level. Ignoring the science of global warming will have extremely dire results, if there is any substance to the science. Any body with any instinct for risk assessment should realize, this is not a risk our civilisation should be taking!
Indeed. We’re going to lose the coastlines *regardless*. I think they’ll find a way to protect Boston, NY, and Philadelphia (all of which are not *that* hard) just as they’ll find a way to protect London, but when you start getting into stuff like New Orleans or Miami, there’s no chance, and I think the will to protect places like Jacksonville Florida is lacking.
Maybe sacrificing one of these cities will finally get people serious about addressing the problem.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica
Face facts.
We are going to run this experiment and we are going to run it HARD!!!!
I hope our grandchildren have a world on the other side. If not, I guess we weren’t smarter than yeast.
Let the good times roll!
“We are going to run this experiment and we are going to run it HARD!!!!”
Yep. And yet my 30 somethings do want kids.
[note- I didn’t procreate them, just swooped them up along with my wife]
While these guys and gals can hit a twelve month forecast pretty well, a twelve year projection not so much. Remember these are the folks that have prompted the production of the graphic below. I’m looking forward to the 2018 update since the 2018 edition of their WEO is now out but, Hoekstra has not produced an updated graphic yet.
Having highlighted Hoekstra’s work, I’d venture to suggest that agencies like the IEA and the EIA are somewhat in a state of denial as to the pace of renewable energy adoption, solar in particular. At the very least that was the case up until 2017. I won’t even bother to go back as much as ten years. Instead let’s look at the 2010 WEO projections for annual PV capacity additions per year. These jokers (the IEA) were actually projecting in 2010 that annual PV capacity additions would decline from the level in 2009, to about 5 GW in 2015, before rising to about 10 GW for the year in 2020. The last time less than 10 GW was added to world PV capacity was in fact 2009, the year that projection started from. The actual capacity added in 2010 was roughly double the 2009 figure, the actual capacity added in 2015 was ten times greater than the 2010 WEO projection for that year and the capacity added in 2017 was ten times the projection for 2020!
These are not minor miscalculations and if other reporting agencies are equally as wrong, I suggest that the outlook for CO2 emissions reductions going forward is considerably better than any of these agencies are forecasting. Consider that adding 100 GW of solar capacity should produce similar emissions reductions as adding about 20 GW of nuclear plants so, the global PV industry currently has the capacity to deliver emissions reductions equivalent to twenty 1 GW nuclear plants every year! This does not take wind into consideration.
While the world is continuing to build electricity generating plants that use coal as fuel, I would like to suggest that many of these plants are going to become stranded assets as cheaper sources of electricity keep them out of the market in the future. I am looking forward to a time when CO2 emission begin to decline in earnest. I guess I’m just a glass half full kind of guy!
1865 — US: Hello, Central?: Kiowa & Comanche sign treaty agreeing to go onto reservation, ceding Central Texass to Dow Chemical.
“Maybe we should not have humored them when they asked to live on reservations. Maybe we should have said, No, come join us. Be citizens along with the rest of us.”
— Acting President Ronald Reagan during a trip to Moscow, when a student asked about US treatment of Native American
Reports of death of US nuclear and coal bailout may not be exaggerated
Just 36 hours ago, political journalism site Politico rocked the energy world with a story claiming the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had quietly killed a plan to force bailouts for ageing, uncompetitive coal and nuclear power plants, with inside sources cited.
Last night pv magazine got word from a second source which supports the claim. The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) states its sources are also saying coal and nuclear bailout plans are on hold, at least temporarily.
According to ACORE Chief Executive Greg Wetstone: “We believe the media reports to be credible and consistent with our intelligence, stemming from conversations with officials at [the] DOE [U.S. Department of Energy] and the White House.
ACORE credits extensive lobbying of the administration from a surprising quarter – as well as renewable energy groups – for the about-turn.
“The change in posture reflects important progress in the efforts of ACORE and our members and allies – including the oil and gas groups we partnered with in opposition to the bailout – to educate key officials about the destructive economic repercussions of undermining competitive electricity markets,” added Mr. Wetstone.
Good news, they are starting to eat each other now. Eventually no room at the top for any of them.
There are a lot of aging coal plants in the US, at or past their life limits.
Arctic ice area and extent are just about starting to hit new daily lows (similar to 2016). Refreeze is especially low on the Russian side with seas from Bering and Chukchi round to Barents staying ice free or very low so far. That side is also staying warm with anomalies up to 10C. The Canadian side is staying relatively cold with more refreeze and or ice being pushed into the Greenland Sea and Canadian Archipelago (I’m not sure what is cause and what is effect and how much of the warming is from the air versus the water which picked up a lot of heat over the ice free summer, both from direct insolation and warm currents from the Pacific and Atlantic). Antarctic is starting to see high, positive anomalies now so global ice minima might start seeing new daily low records now too.
Five year averages of monthly Arctic sea ice area for September.
Sorry, I am a bit lost as to what those graphs are showing.
NAOM
Basically there is an open sea route now along the Russian side of the Arctic for several months of the year. Also the Kara Sea is taking until March to freeze over completely.
Slip sliding away.
Excellent maps and graphs on arctic ice here-
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
Thanks, bookmarked.
Those charts are the ice areas in the seas clockwise along the Siberian coast. Black is this year. From: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf
It looks like some of the peripheral seas will be going ice free all year before the basin goes ice free in the summer. The thick ice has gone and the centre of the ice back seems to be getting pushed towards Canada, and without the thick ice plug now moves into the Archipelago, Baffin Bay and the Greenland Sea (in the last two it can probably melt out fairly easily when it hits warmer water. The cold point in the Arctic is also moving away from the North Pole and more towards Greenland so the Russian side is seeing very high temperature anomalies over open water. There are +5C anomalies forecast for later this month in the Arctic, mostly from 10 to 20+ anomalies over the Siberian side – actually back above freezing along the coast in a couple of areas, (plus 3 to 4C in Antarctica).
Arctic isn’t cooling off like it should do.
I am getting the feeling that this is like the Voyager probe. When it was leaving the solar system there was a lot of doubt about whether it was despite the instruments telling that there was a change. Are we seeing the same with signs like that graph? That we have already reached the tipping point and it is downhill from here whatever we do.
NAOM
Things are changing quickly and the ice will disappear, so we’re past that tipping point. I think the question is what sort of new steady state there is – worst case might be if the jet streams in the northern hemisphere disappear and there is a single Hadley cell and equable climate there. There could still be three in the southern hemisphere, which is a state I think the earth has seen before, but either way that would be weather chaos for us.
Maybe it’s warmer on the Russian side because that’s where they dump all of their spent nuclear waste, including complete submarines complete with fuel.
Geoengineering Is Inevitable
Dave Levitan
https://earther.gizmodo.com/geoengineering-is-inevitable-1829623031
Here’s what’s going to happen: Every year for the foreseeable future, scientists, activists, and citizens concerned about climate change will have a discussion in one form or another about geoengineering. There will be editorials and vague proposals in journals; there will be think pieces on the need not to do it, but to talk about it. These will increase in volume and urgency as our situation becomes ever clearer, perhaps starting right now, with the release of the latest and most dire Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
But then, one day, you will look up, and the planes will be in the sky. They will be dumping tiny aerosol particles designed to deflect bits of sunlight back into space.
But it will happen, and buried in chapter 4 of the new IPCC report is the reason why: it’s cheap, and it’ll probably work.
We have this same conversation about intentional, large-scale tinkering with the climate to counteract our ongoing, less-intentional tinkering with the climate because climate change is scary, and it is dangerous, and because we are paralyzed. But the dark not-really-a-secret of solar radiation management, as the primary idea is known, is that it is absurdly cheap.
Maybe a few billion dollars per year could retrofit some planes and send them into the stratosphere, where they would endlessly dump out sulfate aerosols until the planet starts to cool. And by most scientists’ estimates, it would cool the planet. Those simple facts are the driving force that will turn our never-ending conversation cycle of scary-but-necessary-but-dangerous-but-crucial into planes in the sky.
“Geoengineering Is Inevitable”
I agree. Someone (organization) will get to it. Might be the liberal democracies, might be the authoritarians, or might be the theocrats. Maybe the Kochs, or the Musks, the Putin, or the Pope.
Or the UN, the OECD, OPEC, or the untouchable caste of the world with their backyard Soot Generators (insert trademark here).
With or without the popular vote, scientific consensus, or engineering proof of concept.
The advertising campaign slogan-
“Afterall, we’ve been geo-engineering for over 10,000 yrs already”
Seriously, the article should be read. I think its dead on.
Doesn’t stop ocean acidification, probably messes up the monsoons, might not be quite as easy as it sounds, probably a limit to how much can be achieved, and you can never stop once started.
Not to mention that “the chief cause of problems is solutions.”
A better idea would be to focus on reducing flash flooding around the world. Why? because flash floods release a lot of carbon from the soil, and making it harder from plants to establish themselves in coming years.
The soil contains a lot more carbon than the atmosphere, and has lost huge quantities of it since mankind started agriculture.
The problem with most geoengineering schemes is that they don’t bring any local benefits with them. So only a global government can make them happen. But there are lots of projects that can have positive effects both locally and globally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZhG_vxLCR8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1_ImV8U6Lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO16g4LgBjI
The American Southwest used to be an arid grassland, but huge areas were ruined by poor farming practices and city planning. For example in Tuscon the goal of the infrastructure is to maximize runoff, even though the city has to beg from the federal government for subsidized water. Even the most dessicated areas make no attempt to keep the water on the land, and build infrastructure to speed runoff at all costs.
https://www.google.de/maps/@32.1722473,-110.9748493,3a,75y,222.97h,73.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIZW5KbHMZxo2Q8AlP-tDJA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Rain collection projects tend to focus on retaining water, but they also add a lot to the carbon content of the soil.
Hello, we are already doing geo-engineering as a side effect of burning fossil fuels. If you want to stabilize temperature for a few years just get rid of the catalytic converters on ICE vehicles. No massive outlay of cash needed on that one. Just think of the fuel we would save and the money. (sarc)
Cart before the Horse:
Why would anyone with a brain think of using geo-engineering as long as fossil fuels were being burned. Tugging on both ends of the rope gets one nowhere, in this case everything just gets worse.
When burning fossil fuels becomes illegal, then we can think about geo-engineering.
To inject SOx into the upper atmosphere causes reduction of the ozone layer. Sounds nasty and stupid as well as detrimental to life on the planet. Let’s put sulfuric acid up in the sky and see what happens, duhhh. Oh yeah, you have to keep doing it or the effect wears off and zoom the temperature rises like a rocket.
The Effects of Volcanic Sulfur Dioxide on the Ozone Layer
However, after two months, most SO2 is converted to sulfuric acid by reaction with hydroxyl radicals (OH). This condenses into aerosols in the atmosphere. This is known as the aerosol effect. Nitrogen oxides (NOx =NO, NO2, NO3, and N2O5) react with the surface of the aerosols to form nitric acid (HNO3). Normally, NOx reacts with ozone-depleting Cl and ClO to form less ozone-depleting compounds. However, because the sulfuric acid aerosol removes NOx, the ozone layer becomes more sensitive to Cl and ClO. In this case, the ozone concentration decreases.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gcp/studentpapers/1996/atmoschem/huff.html
GoneFishing,
Thanks for this. The whole paper is valuable.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein
Probably figure out how to put an additive in jet fuel so all those passenger jets would spread aerosols as they go. Probably excused as compensating for the CO2. Real life chemtrails. I bet all those conspiracy theorists who believe in chemtrails wouldn’t complain about these.
NAOM
“Johan Rockström, coauthor of the recent Hothouse Earth study, said the IPCC report was likely to stimulate discussion of these extreme emergency measures.
“I think this will raise solar radiation management to the highest political level. We currently have no framework for this,” he said. “I’m very scared of this technology but we need to turn every stone now.”
James Hansen said the tipping point in public opinion was more likely to come at a slightly higher temperature, but by then it may already be too late.
“2C would force geoengineering on today’s young people. Geoengineering, if global temperature passes 2C, would start, at the latest, once ice sheet collapse begins,” he told the Guardian. “Unfortunately, because of the inertia of the system, geoengineering then would probably be too late to prevent locking in the eventual loss of coastal cities.”
It’s interesting to note the effect artificial nitrogen fixing has had on the atmosphere. Before the Haber-Bosch process was invented there was a strong correlation between nitrogen rich soil and carbon rich soil, because nitrogen fixing came from carbon based life forms in the soil.
Since the Green Revolution kicked off the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers, farmers have lost interest in maintaining high carbon content in soil, preferring instead to just dump nitrogen on poor soil. Land degradation doesn’t matter as much any more. And since the chemical companies made money selling the nitrogen, nobody that matters is around to speak up for soil conservation.
Farmers also spray herbicides on their fields to prevent undesired plants from growing. That further exposes the soil to UV radiation and weathering, as well as actively suppressing carbon fixing.
All that carbon the soil used to contain is now being released into the atmosphere. It’s happening on a vast scale.
“Since the Green Revolution kicked off the widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers, farmers have lost interest in maintaining high carbon content in soil, preferring instead to just dump nitrogen on poor soil. ”
This isn’t really fair, I think. “Dump” is dismissive of the work farmers do. I’ve done a very little farming, and I can attest to the horrid difficulty of maintaining carbon (organic matter) in the soil. You have to move lots and lots of material into the fields, which is onerous on the farmer. N fixation has been a godsend (says the atheist) to farmers, including small ones like me , and it has permitted the current ramp-up of population, and the necessity of huge farms to keep all them mouths fed and now we’re fucking stuck with it.
“N fixation has been a godsend (says the atheist) to farmers”.
Great line!
I saw recently that Bill Gates has funded a startup to the tune of $70M, named PivotBio, whose goal is extend N2 fixation capability to grasses like corn and wheat, through genetic engineering.
I looked them up and can’t tell from the information they have published whether to take them seriously. I realized they are headquartered just 1 block from a grocery store that I frequent.
https://www.pivotbio.com/
and an article on it- https://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2018/10/02/pivot-bio-gets-70m-led-by-bill-gatess-fund-to-replace-fertilizer/
Well strictly speaking we use those farms to feed farm animals. The problem is meat eating more than overpopulation. I suspect the solution will be synthetic meat, which has a much small footprint.
But whether I’m being nice enough to farmers or not, the fact remains that modern agricultural methods are accelerating the release of soil carbon into the atmosphere.
I agree, and my point is there’s nothing you can do about it, and it ain’t the farmers’ fault. If we’re going to feed 7.6 fucking billion people, then we’re going to use synthetic N and phosphates and pesticides, period.
Hickory: the genetically engineered N2 fixation prospect is pretty exciting stuff, but don’t tell that to the ignorant public. Also, the population will just grow larger.
Agree Micheal B. The N2 fixation would be very useful in a post fossil age, helping to blunt the loss of fertilizer if it pans out. I am pretty skeptical on the project viability, but wouldn’t rule it out.
That, and it has doubled the population of homo sapiens.
Nope. Because *that does not help*.
One of the things people have missed… global warming isn’t actually the biggest problem with CO2 pollution. *Ocean acidification is*. The collapse of the ocean food chain is the catastrophe which we cannot survive.
So we can’t do ANYTHING which will worsen ocean-acidification.
You want a functional geoengineering project, you have to find one which will reverse ocean acidification. Good luck!
Agreed 110%!
If we don’t fix ocean acidification we lose all the coral reef ecosystems and that will have a domino effect throughout every marine ecosystem.
As you said, good luck with that!
CLIMATE CHANGE DOUBTERS ARE FINALISTS FOR US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
“Finalists for the EPA’s Science Advisory Board include researchers who reject mainstream climate science and who have fought against environmental regulations for years. Among them is an economist from the conservative Heritage Foundation whose work was cited by President Trump as a justification for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. Another downplays the dangers of air pollution. Several scientists are from energy companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., and the list includes a researcher who argues that more carbon dioxide is good for the planet.”
Among these is William Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton University, who helped Pruitt develop the red-team concept and heads the CO2 Coalition, which received $150,000 in funding from the Mercer family in 2016 to suggest that more carbon dioxide would benefit humans.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/climate-change-doubters-are-finalists-environmental-protection-agency-science-advisory
Meanwhile,
WHAT’S AT STAKE IN BRAZIL’S ELECTION?
“The front-runner for the presidency, Jair Bolsonaro — a far-right congressman who has said Brazil’s environmental policy is “suffocating the country” — has promised to champion his country’s powerful agribusiness sector, which seeks to open up more forest to produce the beef and soy that the world demands. He has dangled the possibility of pulling out of the Paris climate agreement. But even if he doesn’t, his campaign promises could have dire consequences for the Amazon, and therefore for the rest of the planet. Stretching across two million square miles, most of it in Brazil, the Amazon acts as a giant sink for the carbon dioxide emissions that the world as a whole produces.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/climate/brazil-election-amazon-environment.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fclimate&action=click&contentCollection=climate®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront
Notable quotes:
“Don’t forget nature because today the global destruction of nature accounts for more emissions than all the cars and trucks in the world.”
“We can put solar panels on every house. We can turn every car into an electric vehicle but as long as Sumatra burns we will have failed. ”
“If we don’t stop the destruction of our natural world nothing else will matter”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99AwWQ-M2_M
1998 — US: Global Warming?? Earth Liberation Front (ELF), committed to “economic sabotage & guerrilla warfare to stop the exploitation & destruction of the natural environment,” torches the Vail Mountain ski resort in Colorado, causing $12 million in damage.
Most infrastructure, chemicals and fuels will burn, along with the forests, if we allow civilization to collapse. Most animals of any size from mouse level up will be eaten. Radioactive leakage will be the norm rather than the rare event.
It’s not a pleasant fact, but I would imagine something similar has happened on most planets with advanced species. In theory, all species not useful (useful meaning domesticated meat-providing animals along with beasts of burden and such) to the intelligent species would be eliminated, either on accident or on purpose, in favor of a natural progression of dominance for the advanced species.
Life never happened anywhere else.
Maybe we should cherish the whole thing more.
“Life never happened anywhere else.”
How do we know?
NAOM
Enrico Fermi, the pioneer of modern discussions of aliens, talked about “interesting” aliens, meaning aliens we might theoretically detect. That is what SETI is about. Mushrooms a billion light years away aren’t that “interesting”, even if they exist. We’ll never detect them.
If long lived alien civilizations are reasonably common, they should be here. Even at sub-light speed, colonizing the galaxy should be possible in a million years. That means under reasonable sounding assumptions Earth should have have been visited or settled hundreds of times by aliens. The galaxy is big and the planet is old. But no evidence of alien visits exists.
Also a lot of ideas about detecting aliens on other planets have been checked out. For example, the megaprojects of a large scale civilization would probably produce detectable infrared radiation. But none have been found yet.
It is an unsolved puzzle. Maybe there are no aliens. Maybe there are, but none are “interesting”. For example, intelligent life could be common but unstable — extremely prone to wiping itself out before it starts interstellar expansion.
Maybe we just suck at detecting “interesting” aliens. I don’t think we could detect a clone of human civilization at any serious distance. There are some theories about advanced aliens keeping a low profile, but I don’t think they are “interesting”.
If only one in every 100,000,000,000 stars in the universe had a planet capable of developing and supporting life, then there would still be about 200,000,000,000, that’s two hundred billion, planets with life.
That’s still only two or three planets with life per galaxy, so a planet with life would likely never know of another planet with life. That’s likely the reason you think life has never happened anywhere else. But it is extremely likely you are wrong. The odds are, life has developed millions, or even billions of times in the universe.
Hey, it’s really a big universe.
From an evidence based approach, life elsewhere is only mental conjecture.
We can sometimes barely communicate with each other and cannot communicate with almost 100 percent of life here. Even if life existed elsewhere in the solar system odds are we could not communicate with it and it would not be of our type of intelligence.
So what would be the point? Finding more life we can destroy?
From an evidence based approach, no life elsewhere is only mental conjecture.
NAOM
The point is not to find life. We will never do that due to the massive distance between stars that possibly contain life. No, Fuck No, we are not trying to find life. We are just not going to do that.
The point is, overwhelmingly, that life exists out there, life has evolved millions of times, even billions of times. But the distance is just too great. We will never communicate with that life.
To say that we are the only life is just stupid, fucking stupid.
Ron:
I can’t help thinking, reading your comment, that statistics aren’t reality. We don’t know that there is or isn’t life outside of the places we have looked. You can say that there is as high probability based on what we know of statistics, biology, whatever. But we don’t know.
And it doesn’t matter except for some kind of intellectual satisfaction.
Oh Fuck! Of course we don’t know. But to say that we are the only life in the universe is just down in the dirt stupid. I mean fucking stupid!
That is my point.
Okay?????
Because the odds are many billions to one that we are not the only life in the universe.
Hi Ron,
If, or insofar as, the universe is alive with its ‘forces’ that make it what it is, so then perhaps life is practically everywhere inasmuch as it can be in pockets where it can flourish.
My point, IOW, is that maybe the universe can’t help but bring forth life as what it, itself, is– alive– self-similarity and all that.
IOW again, perhaps the physical laws or forces are essentially, ‘living’.
So maybe we can answer the question of whether life is elsewhere in the universe or not by simply looking at what’s right under our noses.
Sure, life could exist in many forms, ones we can’t even imagine now, maybe even under conditions that are way outside of what carbon based DNA type life can exist.
However, the belief in alien life is much like homeopathic medicine. Sure there may be some molecules in the solution from the original medicine, but they are as we say in the analytical chemistry business, below the detection limit. Any positive effects of the homeopathic medicine are more likely from positive thinking, the placebo effect, than from any real activity of the compound.
Believing in alien life is also from thinking, not from any evidence other than a simple minded logic chain, if we exist so must they. At this time, alien life is below our detection limit. So merely a mental or mathematical exercise.
Unless of course one has seen a flying saucer. Then one could surmise, if one exists so might others.
For all we know, life could exist as patterns imprinted upon space itself. Dark Life as the cosmologists would call it.
But beside living rocks, living rivers or living forces, the most powerful force on earth could be contained right under the Living Bra!
Just remember where your mitochondria came from.
The Life Force
When we peer at the universe, we apparently pick up indications that the laws of physics don’t just work here on Earth.
So, if so, and since biology ‘follows’ chemistry which follows physics which follows universal ‘forces’, perhaps there is life elsewhere as a simple matter of what naturally follows– a law of nature if you will.
It is possible that a species elsewhere had or has a home planet close enough to another that it discovered– observed– that life was not exclusive to its own planet.
Two questions that come to mind are; what does a species do with that kind of answer and, referring to us; what do we do with a question we may never find the answer to through observation?
Here on Earth we appear to be knocking out life on our own planet, so maybe we already know one answer. Maybe if life was finally observed by us to be elsewhere other than this planet, we might value it even less.
I have a little more time for stupid pointless activities.
Stephen Hawking on Life in the Universe
http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html
Just a couple of points.
How many stars are there in the universe?
For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 10 to the 11 to 10th to the 12th stars in our Galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10 to 11th or 10 to 12th galaxies.
With this simple calculation you get something like 10 to the 22nd to 10 to the 24th stars in the Universe. This is only a rough number, as obviously not all galaxies are the same, just like on a beach the depth of sand will not be the same in different places.
Okay, lets split that number and say there are 10 to the 23rd stars in the universe. If only one star in every one hundred billion stars support life, then there are still one trillion stars that can support life.
But that still means only about one or two life-supporting planets per galaxy! That means each life-supporting planet is separated from other life supporting planets by hundreds, even thousands of light years. And perhaps separated by millions of years in time.
Bottom line, the odds of us ever contacting, or being contacted by other life in the galaxy are billions to one. However, that being said, the odds are that there is other life in the universe is still billions to one. That is, the odds of other extraterrestrial life in the universe is billions to one that there is. But we will never know for sure.
And of course there is that speed of light thing, dismissed by most, but the barrier that doesn’t seem to go away.
Single cell life is probably all over the place, complex cells not so much, intelligence very rare and short lived and with an even tinier window for civilization, radio transmissions and space travel. I think there’s a theory that the universe is really relatively young so life is likely to get more abundant going forward.
We are constantly bombarded and covered by pollen, mold, viruses and bacteria plus their proteins and waste products. Our antibody systems deal with them, mostly.
Are any of you resistant to pollen, fungus, viruses or bacteria from an alien planet? Let alone not allergic to their specific proteins? Toxins?
I doubt if finding life on other worlds is safe for either group.
Well, glad to stimulate the discussion about life. I really appreciate everyone’s take on it.
You can be sure it worked as stimulation when you get the honor of riling up Ron- “But to say that we are the only life in the universe is just down in the dirt stupid. I mean fucking stupid!”
Thats the most stupid I’ve been all day, as best I can tell. My wife might care to differ.
To clarify my statement-
‘Life is only on earth-
for all practical purposes.
And almost all other purposes as well.’
ps- wake me up when we achieve contact
Hickory,
There is another approach: The only life we know of is here on Earth; we might wonder if there’s something special about here.
Let’s look at the question from the chemical standpoint: The medium for life on this planet is water, H2O. No water, no life. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe and oxygen ranks in the top few, and looking not just at Earth but also out into the outer Solar System we see that water is very common indeed, as ice on planetary surfaces and as liquid and vapor in atmospheres of gas giants and in the interiors of some of their satellites.
Life itself is built on carbon in the water medium with hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen as major components–can’t have proteins without nitrogen–and if we add sulfur and phosphorus we can build nucleic acids. And all those elements are among the most common by far of the elements found in the Universe. Carbon itself is likely to be involved because you can build extensive and complex networks with it: it can bind to itself without limit, Tinker-Toy wise, and no other element can. This means you can build complex structures that can incorporate those other common elements along with iron and magnesium and calcium and vanadium…
In other words, life is made of the most common elements in the Universe and exists in a medium made of the commonest element combined with one of the next commonest. The rules of combining these critters are clearly known and very basic.
The overall judgement, as the I Ching would say: Life ought to be widespread, from the chemical point of view.
We’re finding that the sort of habitat that would allow the goings-on referred to above–the presence of liquid water on surfaces as well as beneath–is likewise pretty common on planets and likely satellites that have been examined so far.
The over-overall judgement: Life should be widespread throughout the Universe. I’d agree with George Kaplan that it’s likely to be one-celled, and I’d guess prokaryote.
Yes, good points, and I’m in complete agreement with you and Ron about the statistical likelihood of favorable sites in the universe being abundant.
However, does putting all the ingredients together, even a billion times, necessarily mean that you will get life? On this I am much less certain.
Did life begin here on earth just one time, and then proliferate from there, or did it arise independently at multiple times and locations on earth? The answer to that question has bearing on the bigger question, I believe.
I prefer to believe that it happened just once, and only here. And that is because I hope that people would be more likely to cherish this place, if they thought it was the only place.
Rather, people by and large seem to think its OK to trash this place, since it is not necessarily unique. That is my ulterior motive for proclaiming this is the only place-
With a very thin layer of soil that we all derive our life from.
Hickory/Synapsid,
If there is also free energy present, those elements will be randomly pushed to combine into more complex, stable, molecules that store some of the energy. This process will be continuous but slowly because it is random .
If ever a catalyst were to be produced, the process of complexity building would be sped up.
If ever a complex of molecules were produced that contained two identical halves that split, an incipient process for life would be in place.
Being alive is deliberately gathering the energy necessary to maintain your entropy lower then your surroundings.
Maintaining life is being able to deliberately generate similar islands of deliberately maintained low entropy.
Good comments, Paul and Synapsid…
Life is an observed phenomenon. That we just so happen to only observe it here on this planet doesn’t necessarily stand to reason that this should be the only place where it is.
To add; complex life– enough to create what we might consider a technological civilization– may be a fleeting– to put it mildly– phenomenon and one that will, in all likelohood, not be in sync (vis-a-vis WRT the information sent from it) with our own so that we can discover it. And in fact, we have already lost, in exceedingly-short time-frames, here on Earth, previous civilizations– all of which were relatively-primitive (so to speak) and ostensibly incapable of ‘interstellar communication’ (although, consider the Atacama desert’s Nazca Lines– see my subsequent post in this subthread).
So if technologically-advanced civilizations– to say nothing of complex enough life capable of such– are relatively-rare and fleeting, it may be that so will be others elsewhere in the universe.
So trying to catch some semblance of a fleeting civilization and across vast expanses of space and time appears to add to the near-impossibility that current science can answer certain kinds of questions. Perhaps if advanced civilizations lasted millions of years… but that would contradict what is observed here on Earth.
Perhaps if advanced civilizations lasted millions of years… but that would contradict what is observed here on Earth.
Yes, it most definitely would.
Attached image of Nazca Lines’ spider…
Hi Ron.
How much longer, if we agree, will the Nazca Lines last, compared to Western civilization’s artifacts and/or capacity for electromagnetic spectrum signaling and surveying) and would this kind of thing make (more or less) sense as a form of interstellar communication, so to speak, such as when our civ disappears? Extra thoughts?
Even if one trillion planets in the Universe support life that would still mean only one or two planets per galaxy support extraterrestrial life. That would mean it is extremely unlikely that life exists on any planet within several hundred light years from earth.
Communication from that distance would be impossible.
Also, it is extremely unlikely that those lines are of extraterrestrial origin.
That seems to make sense and I offered the Nazca Lines as possible beacons (as in, ‘Hey anyone/anything out there!? There’s life here on Earth in case you were wondering/looking this way!’) for any potential extra-terrestrials looking this way, rather than of any extraterrestrial origin.
It appears well fit for that purpose to have done so and in the places they did.
I prefer to believe that it happened just once, and only here.
― Hickory
“Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
― Francis Bacon
People once preferred to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. That has been proven wrong but they can still believe that humans are the center of the universe and the only life. After all, God so loved the world that blah blah blah. In other words man is still the center of the universe. That cannot be proven untrue.
Lucky you.
Now Ron, you step over the line of funny when you start calling me a God believer.
But yes, I stand by my belief that earth, and life, is ‘the special’. Until proven mundane.
Well, I don’t believe one way or the other. I just look at the odds.
In the few seconds of the big bang, all the laws and forces of the universe came into existence. Also all the particles suddenly popped into existence. These laws and particles were just right for the evolution of stars, the evolution of galaxies, and everything was just so that these stars would cause fusion of all the lighter atoms, and that they would explode, forming in that explosion, all the heavier (than iron) atoms in the universe. And from these exploding stars, second generation stars would form, and rocky planets. That’s
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars and likely several times that number of planets.
All this just so rocky planets and the elements that make life possible could evolve. It would seem totally absurd that out of all this, only on one planet life would life evolve. But as I said, I don’t believe either way, all I can do is state the odds.
Atmospheric CO2 on the rise again. Where will it peak this time?
Daily CO2
October 18, 2018: 406.03 pp
October 18, 2017: 403.14 ppm
July 11, 2039 484 ppm Mona Loa NASA/Scripps Observatory
Researcher warns of possible reprise of worst known drought, famine
https://news.wsu.edu/2018/10/11/reprise-worst-known-drought-famine-possible-wsu-vancouver-researcher/
Well, that’s one way to put a damper on population growth…
Too bad that it will disproportionally affect the less privileged inhabitants of our planet long before it hits the wealthy!
As they say, life ain’t fair!
We could stop feeding the rich folk, you know the ones that make over $10,000 a year.
The British Empire doesn’t always get mentioned with Mao and Stalin for the great famines but it might have one of the biggest death counts of all if combining India, Ireland etc.
With all the news about the recent IPCC report, here’s a story about the Australian Federal Government’s view of things:
Minister Price is not right
When the lights are on and the cameras are rolling, most government Ministers know that they must at least pretend to believe in and care about the impacts of climate change.
It’s only when they’re alone, and they think they’re safely hidden away from the media’s cameras and microphones, that the unseemly reality is revealed.
The new Environment Minister, Melissa Price has been accused of belittling and insulting the former President of Kiribati and renowned climate advocate Anote Tong at a Canberra restaurant this week.
She reportedly said that he was visiting Australia solely to squeeze money out of the Coalition Government and that this was typical behaviour for leaders from the Pacific Islands.
Minister Price denies the allegations, as well as the claims that she then went on to tell former President Tong to name his price, so that she could whip out her chequebook then and there.
This curt approach is certainly unacceptable from an MP in a foreign policy sense, but it does fit the pattern of a government more concerned with bolstering the coal industry than assisting our Pacific allies with the existential impacts of climate change.
One wonders how an administration like this gets elected when it is pretty clear that many Australian state government have radically opposed views and the Australian population seems fairly enthusiastic about renewable energy. Australia is ninth in the world for total PV capacity installed and fifth in terms of installed capacity per capita (2014 data), with a high likelihood of moving one place up to eighth in terms of total installed capacity, ahead of France, by the end of 2018. Australia has the highest penetration of household, rooftop solar of any country in the world by a long shot, having twice the penetration of the next highest country, Belgium according to data for 2014. See:
FactCheck Q&A: is Australia the world leader in household solar power?
and
Why does Australia have higher solar penetration than other countries?
and
Australia has potential to be world wind leader
IMHO if the Australian electorate can somehow replace their current coal friendly, federal government with one more in line with what appears to be the mindset of the majority of the Australian population, Australia could transition to largely renewable electricity generation in less than a decade. The next couple of years should be very interesting as Australia adds several gigawatts of utility scale solar capacity.
One wonders how that administration got elected in Australia? Well, technically, *it didn’t*.
The Lib/Nat COALition won with Malcolm Turnbull in 2016 with a tiny majority, and he was promising to take climate change seriously and promote renewable energy. He broke those promises, and then he was ousted by extremist right-wing lunatics within his party, including Morrison, for not being pro-coal ENOUGH. Turnbull quit his seat and it was just won by an independent on a 20-point swing against the Libs.
There are constant calls for Morrison to call a general election at this point, as it’s clear he has never had the confidence of the people. Polling shows they’d lose 25 seats, and they currently have a majority of… zero, supported by 3 independents.
What Do We Do When the Science Gets Scary: Climate Change and the End of Civilization?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pg3RnPBXRY
Pumped hydro works around here and apparently Australians are already planning to power the country with a renewable/pumped hydro system.
With most coal and gas power stations slated for retirement over the next 15 years, Australia’s hills and mountains provide the ideal backdrop for a 100 per cent renewable solution. 3D GIS technology is helping a team from the Australian National University map a solution that could change the landscape of Australia’s energy future.
http://geoinformatics.com/3d-gis-technology-australia/
A jumping, flashing ad right next to where I am reading is distracting, grabs my attention. Does it make me click on it? Yes, through Nuke Anything.
If hydro is in places that are rocky/ barren then OK, plenty of sites like that. If there is abundant vegetation or farming, no way. BTW the video is not informative.
NAOM
Really, you have been using a computer this long and don’t know how to hold down CRTL and hit plus once or twice to expand the text and move the ad out of sight?
I am sure that the Australian energy planners will take your advice into consideration.
Of course the vegetation and farming won’t exist anyway, over a much broader space, if we keep burning coal for power.
The use of Ctrl-+ takes the use of 2 hands and the raising of 2 arms. Using Nuke Anything only requires the twitching of a finger that is already resting on my mouse 🙂
NAOM
Quite commendable, kvetching and conserving energy at the same time. Me, I can use one hand to do it and not raise my arm.
CONSERVE ENERGY. DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
When it is 30C and 87% humidity, doing as little as possible is good 🙂
NAOM
In line with a discussion between Nick G and Dennis in the previous non-petroleum thread centered around biofuels versus synfuels, the IEA recently published (Oct. 8) their Renewables 2018 market analysis and forecast from 2018 to 2023 from their press release:
Modern bioenergy will have the biggest growth in renewable resources between 2018 and 2023, underscoring its critical role in building a robust renewable portfolio and ensuring a more secure and sustainable energy system, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest market forecast.
Renewables will continue their expansion in the next five years, covering 40% of global energy consumption growth, according to the IEA’s Renewables 2018 market analysis and forecast report. Their use continues to increase most rapidly in the electricity sector, and will account for almost a third of total world electricity generation in 2023. Because of weaker policy support and additional barriers to deployment, renewables use expands far more slowly in the transport and heat sectors.
While the growth in solar PV and wind is set to continue in the electricity sector, bioenergy remains the largest source of renewable energy because of its widespread use in heat and transport, sectors in which other renewables currently play a much smaller role.
“Modern bioenergy is the overlooked giant of the renewable energy field,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “Its share in the world’s total renewables consumption is about 50% today, in other words as much as hydro, wind, solar and all other renewables combined. We expect modern bioenergy will continue to lead the field, and has huge prospects for further growth. But the right policies and rigorous sustainability regulations will be essential to meet its full potential.”
The focus on bioenergy is part of the IEA’s analysis of “blind spots” of the energy system – issues that are critical to the evolution of the energy sector but that receive less attention than they deserve – such as the impact of air conditioners on electricity demand, or the growing impact of petrochemicals on global oil demand. Assuming strong sustainability measures are in force, the report identifies additional untapped potential for bioenergy to “green” and diversify energy usage in the industry and transport sectors.
I remain skeptical based on the reasoning put fort in a comment further up. If these people can be so wrong with their PV forecasts, how much credibility can any of their forecasts that are affected by PV growth have?
What are the IEA smoking? I want to avoid it! They must really hate the planet. 50%, corn alcohol? Are they serious? Renewable energy that requires huge amounts of fossil fuels to produce. I can’t…oh. I give up!
NAOM
To show how absurd the IEA projections are, I have repeated an exercise I did last year. My computer is indicating that the spreadsheet was last modified on September 11 last year. For the spreadsheet aficionados out there, I took the percentage contributions of wind and solar for the year 2017 as my starting point (first row). I used the most recent year over year percentage growth for each quantity as my starting point as well (14% for wind and 39%). I then picked a somewhat arbitrary percentage to reduce the growth rate by each year (6% for wind and 11% for solar). Each year the values for solar and wind are then increased by a declining percentage. The result is the chart below.
Barring a black swan event, I think the projections I am presenting are reasonably conservative. I have assumed that growth rates will decline rather than accelerate but, with both wind and solar approaching a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) below that of any plant powered by FF, that may not be a reasonable assumption. Yet the scenario presented has the contribution to the US generating balance of wind and solar combined exceeding 50% by 2032 and approaching 91% by 2050! This projection has both solar and wind growing by less than 5% per year by 2035.
I would like someone to explain to me why the projections from the IEA are any better than the one I have presented? They do not seem very optimistic about EVs either, with no room for the possibility of disruption in any of their projections.
Here is a global look at EV growth and annual power consumption (if we don’t make more efficient EV’s than currently produced).
However, if we continued to use ICE with efficiency across the whole fleet of 30 mpg, that would use 50,000 TWh of fuel energy instead of 6000 TWh of energy for transport. Aside from the fact that there would not be enough oil to supply the demand.
All just conjecture of course when extrapolating that far into the future. Personally I suspect that we will need far less vehicles and far less power in 2050 having hit some limits to growth and encountered environmental disasters.
Gone fishing,
Year 1 =2018? Looks like a fairly reasonable projection, perhaps a bit optimistic, but what we need to achieve to reduce environmental damage.
This needs to be coupled with an aggressive ramp up in solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear to replace coal and natural gas for electric power, greater use of heat pumps, better building design with passive solar and high levels of insulation and building envelop integrity, more efficient use of all resources, better education for all people, but especially women as more highly educated women have fewer children, along with equal rights for women worldwide and access to healthcare. The general target for TFR should be about 1.5 for the World average, hopefully reached by 2058.
We are at about year three in my formula, within the thickness of the line I used. Year 9 (2023) there should be about 43 million EV’s on the road. Year 15 (2030) 583 million. Crosses one billion in year 17.
IEA models are pre-DG Revolution. 99+% of Wind is Centralized – subject to corrupt Investor Owned Utility Model resulting in 2-3x retail price, PV is Distributed – at under a Nickel kWh why would people commit to energy/economic Slavery? We are having a lot of unnecessary complications with a head Inspector in a Fla county. IMO it’s since they have no control and the Sun is not taxed yet. If Enphase gets this IQ8 Grid/Battery free or agnostic microgrid system right there will be grid defection starting mid 2019.
Hey Longtimber- that Enphase IQ8 is very exciting stuff! Hopefully it will pan out and be useful for systems already installed. Compatible with Solaredge? I suspect Solaredge won’t be too far behind with something similar. Enphase HQ is just 30 miles away from me. Both companies are excellent in my opinion.
Here is a description of the IQ8 at work-
https://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/residential-solar/what-i-saw-at-enphase-mind-blown
Takes me back…
While the pesky EV crowd continue chanting their godawful save-the-planet mantra, what happens during the next few months in Brazil will actually impact the future of the Paris Agreement and, indeed, the global climate.
BRAZIL’S ELECTION COULD DEAL A CRUSHING BLOW TO COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE
The US is far from alone in failing to live up to its commitments under the Paris agreement. It ranks alongside Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Ukraine as “critically insufficient” in terms of meeting the pact’s baseline goals, according to Climate Action Tracker, a Berlin-based project that monitors national emission plans. China, Canada and Japan are listed as “highly insufficient,” while Mexico, Australia and Brazil rank as “insufficient.”
In what would constitute a major setback for the agreement and the world, Brazil may soon rate even worse. Bolsonaro’s brash, offensive rhetoric and fawning admiration for the American president have earned him the nickname “Brazil’s Trump.” And he helped confirm that moniker by copying Trump’s contempt for the Paris accord and calling for Brazil to pull out of it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brazil-election-could-deal-crushing-094506215.html
HOW BRAZIL’S BOLSONARO THREATENS THE PLANET
“I think we are headed for a very dark period in the history of Brazil,” said Paulo Artaxo, a climate-change researcher at the University of Sao Paulo, to Science magazine. “There is no point sugarcoating it. Bolsonaro is the worst thing that could happen for the environment.”
Bolsonaro does not embrace climate denial as ardently as Trump. Instead, he has argued that the challenge should be seen as a demographic and family-planning problem. But he also echoed the American president’s insistence that international agreements regarding climate change infringe on national sovereignty and therefore should be rejected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/10/19/how-brazils-bolsonaro-threatens-planet/?utm_term=.ded961089ef9
It’s not just Brazil or the US or Russia.
Meanwhile up north in the Arctic watershed region, dying birds, toxic wildlife and increases in cancer due to toxic sludge from tar sands oil extraction continues with no stoppage in sight. Enter into the dark side of Canada, if you dare.
Canada’s most shameful environmental secret must not remain hidden
Tar sands have been dubbed the largest – and most destructive – industrial project in human history. And Canada is on the forefront of their exploitation
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/14/canadas-shameful-environmental-secret-tar-sands-tailings-ponds
Canada’s Toxic Secret: A troubling trend of leaks and spills in the Sarnia area
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSt-0SE3O1s
Although Canada has record low deforestation rate, it had a worldwide lead in deforesting primary forests.
Of that degradation, more than a fifth — 21.4 per cent — occurred in Canada, the study found. That’s more than any other country. Russia, in second place, accounted for 20.4 per cent of the damaged or destroyed virgin forests, while Brazil, site of the Amazon rainforest, accounted for slightly more than 14 per cent.
“There is no political will at federal or provincial levels for conserving primary forests,” Peter Lee of Forest Watch Canada told Canada.com. “Most logging done in Canada is still to this day done in virgin forests.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/05/canada-deforestation-worst-in-world_n_5773142.html
Europe, however, has been losing it’s forest to the woodcutter and the plow for thousands of years.
Europe’s lost forests: a pollen-based synthesis for the last 11,000 years
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18646-7
The great trees of Merry Olde England are no more.
Ancient woodland in Britain is being felled at a rate even faster than the Amazon rainforest, according to new research today. It shows that almost half of all woods in the UK that are more than 400 years old have been lost in the past 80 years and more than 600 ancient woods are now threatened by new roads, electricity pylons, housing, and airport expansion.
The rate at which the UK has lost ancient woodland is one of the fastest in the world and compares unfavourably with the Amazon. Studies suggest that the Amazon has lost 15% of its area in the past 30 years and perhaps just 2% before that in the previous several thousand years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/oct/21/forests-conservation
The deforestation is worldwide and precious species are at risk all over the world. Fragmented areas do not do well. We are in a time when “developing” countries are making their play for economic increase, which sadly means they will model the destruction that occurred previously in the “developed” countries.
People tend to forget the losses of previous generations very quickly and accept them as normal. There is no normal, only amnesia on a grand scale. Focusing upon stopping losses in Indonesia or further losses in Brazil or Africa is a great endeavor. But not rebuilding the great forests and wildlands that were lost, some not long ago, while continuing the destruction in one’s own country does not show a picture of much depth of thought and other people might look upon it as hypocrisy rather than amnesia and acceptance.
From my quote: “China, Canada and Japan are listed as “highly insufficient.” BTW As of June 2015, more than 40 coal-fired power plants are planned or under construction in Japan. And, Canada’s Tar Sands: “The most destructive project on Earth?” Does that make you happy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjia7BsP4Bw
Sure, I can read and comprehend.
Doug asked” Does that make you happy? ”
None of that is about me Doug or about you, if it was about me I would change it. People keep harping on Brazil and Indonesia and the US, but then I think what is it that people are not talking much about. Canada came to mind, then Europe and others. My own thoughts of Canada are a place of wild rivers, long canoe trips and vast natural areas. But that is biased by my travels there and where/why I went there years ago. A more honest look was needed.
Let’s call it a shot at bringing the amnesiacs back from forgetfulness and a personal journey into greater realization.
I grew up in a big chemical production area. The pollution was tremendous and pollution in general was horrid. Now that the air is clearer in appearance and the rivers don’t run in colors most people think that their regions are unpolluted.
Far from it, it’s just gone more stealth.
Having worked in the chemical industry most of my adult life, some companies really do try their best to contain pollution and prevent spills. Partly because of laws. Others look for ways to get away with things or press politicians to reduce the laws. Hiding the pollution in rural areas is a big thing now. Out of sight out of mind and who pays attention to a few rural people or some indigenous people?
But the giant finger of blame has to also point at the consumer who blithely purchases far beyond what needs dictate and has not a thought for what the effect of that is upon the world. We are long past the world of not knowing and into the world of purposeful ignoring and selfish desire.
An acquaintance of mine drives more than 60,000 miles a year. I keep encouraging him to at least get a hybrid vehicle but to no avail. Probably half of that is for recreational purposes. It looks like this year I will drive less than 3000 miles. I cannot even compensate for one person overdoing it even if I did not drive at all.
The only reason tar sands in Canada is happening is because the world decided that vehicles should be about half as efficient as they could be and that EV’s should be delayed about 15 years. Also that renewable energy, conservation and efficiency were not as important as developing more mines, more oil wells and more natural gas wells. It was a huge decision made by no one in particular but by many in concert and mostly promoted by the populace in general through their actions and inactions. The general population here only complains when the price of gasoline goes up, not about the total abuse of the situation.
I have a small house that uses little energy and I improve that each year.
Yet how can I compensate for even one McMansion with a pool, a hot tub, thousands of watts of lighting, a big boat and RV in the driveway and every gadget under the sun (whose energy is ignored)? My paltry attempts at conserving energy and collecting solar energy are overrun very quickly, yet like some insane badger I keep going on.
A world and economy based on sheer gluttony and a growing population aimed at duplicating that to some degree.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not judging those people, they just followed the social meme preset by business and government. Now we know that is not the way, yet the big car, big house, big debt life is still looked up to by many, still a goal for many more. A vision of disaster. I just like to get a somewhat realistic picture of what is going on and the magnitude of the occurrences.
We made the decisions, but let’s not forget the scope of the decisions nor accept the status quo in our own neighborhoods, counties, states and countries.
Oh, want to stop the devastation from palm oil plantations, or at least slow it down? Don’t buy products that use palm oil. Peak palm oil, ehhh.
https://www.theorganicprepper.com/the-10-daily-habits-of-frugal-people/
On the other hand…
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/09/19/business/corporate-business/marubeni-halve-coal-fired-power-capacity-2030/
The big money is getting out. Coal plants are now leaning on governments for support.
It’s time to support the markets — they’re on our side at this point.
Don’t know for sure that I’m part of “the pesky EV crowd” that continues “chanting their godawful save-the-planet mantra” but I strongly suspect that I am so, I will respond.
I was raised by parents who loved the outdoors and nature type excursions were always a part of family vacation type activities. I’ve been to the highest peak in the island, Blue Mountain Peak (2,256 metres (7,401 ft.)) several times and went without my immediate family only once. Every time I make the trip to the peak, I am disheartened by the environmental degradation that seems to get worse every time. When my sister visited the island earlier this year, I posted pictures of empty potato chip bags, cookie bags and soda pop bottles that were strewn along the trail way up in the hills above the city on a nature trail hike we took part in. I cannot look at nature and ignore the pollution that is taking place. I am just as concerned about all these things as the next person.
Having said that I don’t see our current situation changing course voluntarily any time soon, as you have pointed out repeatedly. However, I do not believe that there is nothing that can be done to slowdown this train wreck that is global warming. On the contrary, I believe that efforts were started long ago but, certain interests who saw these efforts as an existential threat to their fortunes have spent considerable amounts of time and money, seking to ensure that all efforts to reduce CO2 emissions were stopped in their tracks. The result has been a deluge of global warming denialism (especially in English speaking countries) and a unending stream of anti-EV and anti-renewable rhetoric, designed to foster the exact same situation we are in now.
I also am of the view that the strength in numbers of scientists and people who “get it” will ultimately prevail. Our civilisation has been a constant stream of technological disruptions ever since agriculture was “invented” and there is nothing to suggest that there is any group out there that will be able to hold back the tide. Maybe the efforts will all turn out to be too little too late but, the alternative is to press down on the accelerator as the vehicle of civilisation hurtles towards the brick wall that faces it. I want to hit the brakes and my area of expertise is electricity. I’ve also been fascinated by machines my entire life, as my older sister once told me, “if it didn’t have wheels, wings or propellers” yours truly wasn’t interested, even as a toddler. As a result I try to focus my attention on ways our civilisation can reduce CO2 emissions as it relates to electricity generation and transportation. I leave it to others, with other areas of expertise to address other matters like ecosystem degradation, pollution, soil degradation and over population.
I am 56 years old and my father lived until he was 95 so, if I were to live to the same age as my dad I could still be alive in 2050, 32 years time. If things get as bad as the latest IPCC report suggests they might, billions of people will probably die, mostly of starvation but any of the four horsemen (of the apocalypse) could strike. I have no way of guaranteeing that I will not be one of those to die a painful or otherwise horrible death so, I will persist in advocating for stuff that I think will make the liklihood of having to suffer a horrible death lesser rather than greater.
I will compose a post supporting my reasons for optimism later.
EV will flip faster than people expect. There will be a tipping point where fuel stations start to close because of lack of business. It won’t be for a few years yet but it will come. They won’t be able to afford those expensive sites in the cities. With less fuel availability more people will decide electric is easier and so the spiral starts. Then, as demand falls, things like the tar sands will find it getting too expensive to keep going. However this will not be overnight but it will come.
NAOM
One of the greatest things about running on electric (I have a plugin hybrid for a bout 6 months now) is saying good bye to gas stations.
I will miss the smell a little bit, must admit. But I can purchase a small jar of toluene/benzene/ turpentine mix to get my fix.
With an all EV- no more piston worn ring, vacuum leak, drive belt failure, spark plug cable replacement, oil change, carburetor rebuild, clutch job,…..
Servicing regenerative brakes might be more complicated than the old ones I suppose?
Servicing regenerative brakes might be more complicated than the old ones I suppose?
Nope! Regenerative braking is simply using the electric motor as a brake by turning it into a generator and putting power back into the batteries. AFAIK the actual brake components are exactly the same as a regular car, they just tend to last a lot longer because they are not used quite as much.
Like about 95 percent not as much. I hardly use my brakes at all.
Fuel stations are *already* closing, for three reasons:
— essentially unprofitable, gasoline is a “loss leader” to bring people into convenience stores.
— complying with regulations against oil spills is expensive
— almost anything is a more valuable use of the land
They’re already disappearing from center cities (land worth more for other things), and from the countryside (doesn’t bring in enough drive-by traffic to the convenience store to cover the costs). The suburban sites will be the next to go as demand falters (the suburbs are, of course, where electric cars are being adopted first and in largest numbers). Sites next to major freeway exits will last longer.
Closing fuel stations and installing charging stations is an accelerator. As it becomes easier to fuel an EV than IfCE then people will start to see an advantage.
NAOM
With an EV it is like having a gas station at your home, just fill up in your garage each night. Pretty convenient. I went on a 140 mile trip, no interstate and got 20.5 kW/hr per 100 miles. My battery is 78 kWhr so for a full battery and that kind of driving (mostly 40 to 55 mph) and weather (dry and about 55 F) the range would be 380 miles on a full charge. My average so far is roughly 23.5 kWhr/100 miles, so on average about 332 miles of range for a full charge. (Mostly 40-60 F weather and not much rain).
50F=10 C
Another nail in the coffin for IfCE liquid fool…er… I mean fuel supply stations.
NAOM
PS Is there a word I can use that will equal gas and petrol so that a comment makes sense on both sides of the pond? My natural instinct is to say petrol for car fuel but North Americans call it gas.
NAOM,
Just use petrol, we all know what you mean, I try to use gasoline, rather than “gas”, but I see I used “gas station”, which is commonly used in the US, sorry about that, “petrol station in the garage” would have been clear to all (or most) readers.
Thanks.
How is it that a person could have a zero bill for the month from the electric company, yet drive 1000 miles with their plug-in car ?
The answer is solar PV on their roof.
Just do it!
In case you missed this- great tool for looking at solar PV cost effectiveness vs the utility, by state-
https://sunmetrix.com/sunmetrix-grid-parity-map-for-residential-solar-energy-in-the-united-states/?fbclid=IwAR2rgfrkAlq9-2I5o3Kw5Z2H5gbS2MO4d_ej7DQeiw5I-9DM0YQn-Ph_fG8
Excellent efficiency on that high performance car! Keep us posted about cold weather/snow performance. Sounds like a winner so far.
A recent longer trip on interstate the efficiency was a bit lower (temps 35 to 50 F or 2 to 10 C), highway posted speed was 70 mph (112 kph) and I drove around 65 mph (104 kph). Average energy used per 100 miles was 26.5 kWhr (range for model 3 about 294 miles at interstate speeds vs 374 miles at 40 to 50 mph).
Note that I do not drive the car for performance, but for efficiency, slow acceleration and braking, steady speed as far as possible.
Still doing really well. Did you use the heater?
Have any data for around town and slower highway speeds (45 to 50 mph)?
Gonefishing,
Tried to minimize heating, but also trying not to make my wife regret buying the car so we eventually settled on 67 to 68 F in the car, used recirc to reduce heat load, there are seat heaters but front of thighs got cold, a blanket in winter might help.
A trip at slower speeds (probably about 40-55 mph with an average of roughly 50 mph) with no heat used and 40 to 50 F outside temps, I got about 205 Whr per mile, the battery pack is about 78000 Whr so 78000/205=380 miles of range. Average for all miles driven to date is 241 Whr per mile. I preheat the car when plugged in at home about a half hour before using the car to about 60 F, this is to reduce battery wear and tear, the battery will heat itself, but this seems a waste of battery capacity. I also schedule charging just before leaving, to try to warm the battery pack through the charging process.
Around town, where I live that is 25 to 45 mph, is maybe 200 whr/mi at best (no heat or ac, dry roads and 50 to 60 F outside temps), so maybe 390 miles range if 100% of my driving was like this and I ran pack down to 0% SOC, realistically I would probably never go below 5% so probably 370 miles from full battery to 5% would be the maximum realistic range (at low speeds under 45 mph).
Yeah, that’s great.
Can you preheat the cabin using house power? And…what options do you have for scheduling when you charge?
Nick,
Yes can preheat using app on smartphone, a scheduling feature is built into car, it would be a nice addition to the app n the smart phone, for now the schedule has to be set up in the car, but if it is always the same. the car can just be plugged in and it will charge to whatever level you have set up.
Maximum battery life is attained by charging to 75% to 80% of capacity, which is plenty for use during the week for weekend trips where no superchargers are convenient (mostly true where I live), I sometimes charge to 95% to 100% just before leaving. Minimizing time spent charged fully to 100% capacity also helps prolong the battery life cycle.
Earlier I posted a comment to the effect that I believe that there are things that can be done to drastically reduce CO2 emissions in a relatively short time frame, that these things will eventually be done and that I will try to play my part in advocating that they do get done.
There are a couple of blog style news site that I visit every day for news on EVs and PV. For EVs my go to site is Inside EVs. For PV it is PV Magazine‘s news page. Just this past week there have been fourteen stories I have filed in the “positive news” category.
On Germany
Germany: Tendered PV projects need no public subsidy in August
Germany’s auction for large-scale solar concludes with average price of €0.0469/kWh
100 MW power-to-gas project planned in Germany
WWF says 2% of Germany’s surface is enough for 100% renewables
On India
India added world’s second largest PV capacity in first half of 2018
India to add up to 8.5 GW of RE in FY19
On Australia
ARENA backs corporate PPA platform aiming to drive 5 GW of Australian renewables
On Jamaica
Jamaica’s prime minister calls for 50% renewables by 2030
On prospects for future growth of PV manufacturing capacity (China)
Meyer Burger to lay off 100 workers and relocate most of PV business to Asia
Daqo aims to slash polysilicon price as it forges ahead with production expansion
On forecasts
‘There is no alternative to a world of 100% renewables’
2035: The renewable energy tipping point
Deloitte sees renewable energy in the fast lane
On sustainability (recycling)
High-yield recycling of PV modules demonstrated by EU team
All these stories indicate to me that the editorial board of PV magazine is open to the idea of 100% renewables (obviously!) and is signalling strong growth in installations, falling prices and more ambitious targets and forecasts. The outlook of PV Magazine with respect to PV and other renewables is far more optimistic than the IEA appears to be and historically the IEA’s long term PV forecasts have been abysmal so, I am far more inclined to see what is reported in PV Magazine as what is actually likely to happen. After reading all this optimistic leaning news, it is a bit hard to swallow the “no can do” and doom and gloom that tends dominate around here. Some good stuff is happening and I want to help spread the word.
As a follow up to the comment above, I also visit the Australia basedRenew Economy every week day, for the latest news on happenings in Australia. The latest stories of note are:
South Australia grid demand hits record low as solar accounts for 54%
Australia large scale solar output breaks through 1GW on Sunday
This has been repeated Monday according to the All Regions chart over at the Open NEM web site. More than 1 GW from utility scale solar at mid day looks to be the order of the day for the coming Australian summer season.
Wentworth wipe-out won’t shift Coalition idiocy on climate and energy
In a comment further upthread, I wrote “IMHO if the Australian electorate can somehow replace their current coal friendly, federal government with one more in line with what appears to be the mindset of the majority of the Australian population, Australia could transition to largely renewable electricity generation in less than a decade.”. From the last link above, it appears the Australian electorate might be fixing to do just that!
Meanwhile, Lest We Forget
Coal-fueled power plants provide almost 40% of global electricity. Coal consumption is declining in the U.S., but most emerging geographies are reliant on coal for their energy. India and other Asian countries are still using more and more coal.
Not really. India’s got some screwy stuff going on, but the major reports recently are that coal is (a) unprofitable (b) unpopular (c) non-functional in heat waves, and as a result both private companies and state governments are racing to install solar and wind to replace it. The national government is putting up severe restrictions on coal imports to try to use up an excess stockpile of local coal, while simultaneously trying to close local coal mines without putting people out of work.
There’s also screwy provincial-kickbacks vs. national-policy stuff going on in China. And Japan is a case of financial firms won’t fund coal, but government is still trying to support it.
The financials are unstoppable, though. Only way a coal plant gets funded now is through strongarm governments doing 100% taxpayer funding.
After reading all this optimistic leaning news, it is a bit hard to swallow the “no can do” and doom and gloom that tends dominate around here. Some good stuff is happening and I want to help spread the word.
There is no doubt that many good things are happening and I for one certainly aplaud them.
However on the flip side of the coin I see a big problem with the retrograde politics of populism that will stand in the way of addressing serious issues that are barely on the radar of most people. PV and EVs won’t fix the Amazonian ecosystems, witness Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. Or ocean acidification and the wiping out of
all coral reef systems. Those are the kinds of issues that make me feel more that a bit doomerish. We are in desperate need of forward thinking paradigm shifts and we get Trump and his supporters. The Growth Economy, uber alles. Ain’t gonna work…
Don’t get me wrong! I am as concerned about the things you mentioned as you. Unbridled population growth is something that weighs heavily on my mind, especially when I have to travel to or through working class (ghetto) communities in my neck of the woods and witness the multitudes of very young mothers and idle young men that are likely the fathers of the teeming masses of very small children running around. (It’s ironic that they are called working class communities when on of the obvious things about them is that a very large portion of the residents are obviously unemployed!)
I also mentioned hikes into the mountains to the north east of the capital city where I live. I see evidence of slash and burn land clearing methods in areas with very steep terrain, this on an island that experiences heavy rain when it does rain, exposing denuded hillsides to a serious risk of erosion. I see this and wonder what kind of desperation drives people to risk such severe erosion of the thin hillside soils they so obviously depend on?
Do you remember the picture of a large open storm water channel (known here as gullies) that was being used as a garbage dump by people living and working nearby? I did a search but, wasn’t able to find the thread I posted it to. I raised the point when I posted that picture that the people disposing of their garbage in this way, were not concerned that tons of non bio-degradable solid waste would just be washed down into the ocean with the next heavy shower of rain!
“Those are the kinds of issues that make me feel more than a bit doomerish”, so please forgive me for focusing on areas that I feel I can make a difference in, it is how I maintain some semblance of sanity in this crazy world. Hopefully Trump and his supporters will face some formidable checks and balances, come Nov 6!
I agree with your attempt at maintaining some semblance of sanity in these times of insanity. And yes, I do remember the picture you posted of the storm channel filled with plastic. I could post similar pictures from Brazil.
But then I just read this article over at Phys.org, thanks to Doug’s link about Alaska.
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-fish-coral.html
Fish give up the fight after coral bleaching
October 22, 2018, Lancaster University
Such changes in behaviour may well be the driver behind more obvious changes such as declining numbers of fish individuals and species. The finding has the potential to help explain the mechanism behind population declines in similarly disrupted ecosystems around the world.
“Our work highlights that animals can adjust to catastrophic events in the short term through flexible behaviour, but these changes may not be sustainable in the longer-term,” added co-author Prof Andrew Baird of Coral CoE at James Cook University.
Yeah, I’m pretty doomerish myself. If some fraction of human civilization is to survive, however, we have gotta stop burning fossils.
“Last year, the share of coal in the power sector sat around 38 percent. It pains me to tell you this, but that is the exact same percentage that it was in 1998. In two decades, almost zero progress has been made.”
https://www.sciencealert.com/worrying-energy-chart-coal-consumption-production-renewables
The only story that counts is the amount of coal, gas and oil burned. Oil consumption is now 100 million barrels per day. Gas consumption is up by 25 trillion cubic feet since 2008.
Coal consumption increased last year and is higher than when to Paris agreement came into force.
An article highlighting some items in the KSA PR budget. It looks to be a bit of a ‘shrinking pie’ scenario playing out over there among the elites. I’m sure there’s a lot of hangers-on.
“Saudi Arabia pays UK firms millions to boost image”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/19/saudi-arabia-pays-uk-firms-millions-to-boost-image
Guess what folks? How about 1.2 C rise in 70 years? With the rate accelerating, what can New Jersey expect in 30 or 40 years. Hello North Carolina, here we come with occasional blasts from the ever warming Arctic to remind one of the good old days.
N.J. is one of the fastest warming states in the U.S. Here’s what that means
According to the AP analysis, the average monthly temperature in New Jersey rose nearly 2.19 degrees Fahrenheit from 1988 to 2017.
That level of warming is striking when compared to the nationwide average, which rose 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the same time frame.
In fact, the AP found that New Jersey was the third-fastest warming state in the nation, coming behind only Alaska and Vermont. Overall, New Jersey was 2.23 degrees Fahrenheit warmer between 1988 and 2017 than it was from 1901 to 1960.
The Garden State is in a prime spot for accelerated warming according to David Robinson, the New Jersey state climatologist. Warmer air has the potential to hold more water vapor, and New Jersey’s abundance of water makes the increased humidity a reality. Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise dissipate. New Jersey is caught in a vicious cycle: More heat means more humidity, and more humidity means more heat.
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/nj_is_one_of_the_fastest_warming_states_in_the_us.html
Check out your state on the included map.
BTW, NJ is one of the top installers of PV, should cross past 3 GW installed by end of year. About 80 percent is behind the meter.
According to the map, South Florida has barely warmed at all. Sorry, but having lived there for the last quarter of a century I find that a bit hard to believe! This year alone we had summer temps starting in late March till at least early October. I’m pretty sure the ocean has been warmer as well.
Btw, just checked the temp in Hollywood Fl local time 7:00 AM and it is 80 degrees.
Maybe Florida was hot early last century? That’s the problem with averages. Good thing you have all that ocean to stabilize your temps? Or maybe the AMOC slowdown is heating you up.
<
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southeast
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/2017-was-floridas-warmest-year-to-date-9349539
Hey, you don't have my problems. Dropped below freezing twice in a week and is supposed to go below freezing again this week. It's so cold around here most of the leaves have fallen off the trees and people are not swimming in the lake anymore. Even the birds are leaving. Freaking sunlight is getting weak, must be that Grandee Solar Minimum I hear about.
Maybe another ice age?
If I stop commenting here, send up an expedition to chip me out of the ice. On second thought, forget it, you don't have the clothes or the snowshoes and dog sleds. Shorts don't cut it.
GoneFishing,
Whereabouts are you posting from?
Northeastern US
GoneFishing,
Thanks.
My first year of grad school was in Connecticut and I did a little field work in the White Mountains. Beautiful country, but I dislike mosquitoes and (!!!) black flies.
GoneFishing,
I meant to ask: Is the maple-syrup industry in Vermont suffering from the warming? I’d expect it; I’d also expect the corresponding industry in Quebec is enjoying a burst of production.
But those are expectations.
I haven’t personally heard anything, I think most of the problem is still in the future. As with anything natural, weather variability plays a key role. I read a while back that the forests would shift northward, but again, in the future.
GoneFishing,
There’s been a lot of work on latitudinal shift and shift to higher altitudes and both are ongoing. What’s happening is what DougL referred to a short while back: shifting is faster than anticipated.
What caught my eye a year ago was changes in the Rockies. At their southern end, in New Mexico, the ponderosa forests aren’t reseeding in after fires; instead they’re being replaced by oak and juniper moving up from lower drier conditions–that is, the ponderosa belt is still the higher of the two but it’s moving up. A similar pattern is showing along the Front Range on the east side of the Rockies and farther north. After range fires ponderosas, at the eastern edge of their range there, are being replaced by grass. The forest is retreating westward into the mountains and the grassland is expanding into its place. Colorado State has a program to try to re-establish the forest by planting ponderosa seedlings but the seedlings aren’t growing. This is the same pattern we see during the thermal maximum after the end of the last ice age, best studied in SW Minnesota. During the maximum forest retreated to the E and NE in the region and was replaced by grassland; after the maximum as conditions became cooler and moister forest re-advanced and grassland retreated westward. What we’re seeing now is going on much faster though.
Yeah, I have read studies done on mountainsides in Central America where changes are occurring.
The Northeast is a mess. With 400 years of cutting, development and fragmentation, interspersed with preservation, one never knows what trees one will find in an area.
The hemlocks were heavily cut for their bark, used for tanning. Regions like the Lehigh Valley were cut to bare ground, partly to supply wood for the canal boats (broken up at the bottom of the run, crazy stuff). The stories go on and on.
Now the biggest problems (beside some development) is disease and variable weather.
I suspect that the paper birches and sugar maples will fade from the mountains near me as temperature rises.
I find old growth hidden down in the ravines, too hard to log I guess. Also some areas that were owned by the rich have old growth trees.
One of the more unique areas, the nation’s last remaining major virgin holly forest, containing specimens as old as 300 years, will succumb to increasing storms and sea level rise.
It’s only a few feet above sea level and on a barrier island separating ocean and bay.
Luckily, places like New York and Pennsylvania have preserved large areas of forest land in various ways. I have been in counties with about 90 percent forest cover. Not sure of their status lately but probably similar. I have seen other semi-wilderness areas fall to development and the last preserved stretches with development right up to the very edge.
Farms and towns fragment what were large forested areas, leaving the forests to the steep hills and mountain areas.
Trees near me are doing well, lots of nut trees to feed the wildlife. I thought for a while that the woodcutting for heating would be a problem, but strong winds in storms seem to take down a much larger number of trees than people over the last decade.
Just saw about an acre of forest cleared near me so somebody could put their poop in the ground. 🙁
Here is a study of northeastern forests.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0072540
GoneFishing,
Thanks for the paper in PLOS on NE’n forests.
The pollen record of forest in E’n North America shows that as the late-Pleistocene ice sheets expanded the forests shifted in various directions–the assemblages fragmented and some species moved S and SE, others SW; there were various permutations. It wasn’t the case that the various belts moved S’ward as units. In Great Britain and NW Europe the story was the same, and the older pollen record allowed us to compare the assemblage of the Holocene to those of the previous interglacial as well as one or two earlier ones. The general species mix was similar but the assemblages weren’t the same from interglacial to interglacial though they were similar. Part of the cause was the earlier interglacials were warmer than the later ones.
The idea of a climax forest developing over time is useful but not necessarily complete. Work done in the 1960s and -70s showed, for instance, that the eastern white pine was still expanding its range in SE’n Canada, as it had been throughout the Holocene.
Hey, you don’t have my problems. Dropped below freezing twice in a week and is supposed to go below freezing again this week.
Except for that fact that I’m not in Florida at the moment but Germany and heading back to Hungary where temps do tend to dip well bellow freezing…
So not a whole lot of sympathy for you, in your block of ice!
Chchcheers!
Just looked up the forecast for Budapest. All week in the 50’s, 60’s and up to 70 one day. Low temps 50, to 40,s F. Oh, I feel for you.
Trust me on this one, it will get really cold in in Hungary soon and I will be in the hills and not in Budapest. Even now where I am in Germany it is overcast and the wind has been blowing all day. Not exactly shorts kinda weather.
Not below freezing yet for sure, but I’m still not feeling a lot of sympathy for your freeze… Anyways I’ve also lived in upstate New York so I’m not exactly unfamiliar with cold weathet.
Cheers!
Best weather in the world, period
Best weather title I believe goes to Vista, California.
When I lived there between 1951-1956 ( I was very young then!) the population was about 1500. Now it is over 100,000.
OECD PREDICTS UNSUSTAINABLE RISE IN USE OF RAW MATERIALS
“The Paris-based think tank said Monday that with a growing global population and rising living standards, the amount of raw materials used each year will increase to 167 gigatons by 2060, from 90 gigatons today. The OECD says increased extraction and processing of wood, oil, gas, metals and building materials “is likely to worsen pollution of air, water and soils, and contribute significantly to climate change.” In a report presented during a meeting in Yokohama, Japan, the OECD says carbon emissions from burning of fossil fuels and production of iron, cement and other materials could almost double to 50 gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2060.”
But don’t worry, EVs, currently amounting to 0.4 percent of world’s vehicle fleet, will fly to our rescue. Luckily, they don’t require raw materials: asphalt (or cement) roads and parking lots, cobalt for batteries, etc. Maybe the 83 million people being added to Earth every year will all buy one?
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-oecd-unsustainable-raw-materials.html#jCp
Maybe the 83 million people being added to Earth every year will all buy one?
That would make perfect sense, 83 million people all using the same EV… 😉
Hey, anti-EV Doug, you forgot the complete loss of electricity in most places long before 2060.
According to this peered at report from the UN IPCC , there will not be a problem with materials in 2060 most places.
https://www.theonion.com/new-climate-change-report-just-list-of-years-each-count-1819580403
So don’t worry about the Amazon rain forest, it’s toast anyway according to phys.org and the OECD.
So buy your EV now and enjoy the ride, it probably will be your last car. At least the last one that runs.
BTW Doug, all new cars will be EV’s about a year before the US becomes uninhabitable.
.
There’s a difference between being anti something and not seeing it as God’s perfect solution to every problem facing mankind. Believe it or not, I think EVs are (potentially) great, perhaps not totally wonderful when charged by dirty coal fired generators and when their batteries rely on cobalt mined by starving kids in the Congo. What the Fuck, these are easily ignored issues. So, all together now: Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare — EV EV EV EV…..
That’s just too stupid to respond to other than:
Rama lama ding dong to you.
Cobalt use is being reduced with the goal to be 0 cobalt.
NAOM
Yes, we all know that battery chemistry and materials are changing and will change even more in the future. Only idiots, fossil fuel promoters and sociopaths would try to stop the renewable/EV energy transistion. But we have a lot of those around.
Typical cons are saying they still produce CO2 because the power is made from coal. Other ones say that there are not enough materials to produce the cars needed (as if they know the future demand or even the materials used). My one neighbor just tried those on me when I mentioned EV’s. It’s such common trash talk but hey, almost 1/3 of Americans voted for you know who. So expect this kind of thing from at least 1/3 of the people.
A guy I met out in public one day started telling me that the there was no loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean. He threw a hissy fit and stomped off when I disagreed with him. It’s like a religion to some people and no one must disagree. They hear this stuff on the radio and that is that for them. You know the kind of radio programs I am talking about.
The ploy that Doug is pushing is another typical one that anyone interested in EV’s thinks they will solve all the problems. Of course that is not true or even close to true, about the people I mean. No one thinks EVs or any one non-polluting method will solve all the problems.
Washing hands prevented the transfer of a lot of disease but did not cure all disease. Still one should wash their hands, especially before performing surgery.
Doug,
A couple of things worthy of note:
The two points you raised in your post are straight out of the Charles Koch playbook. See The Koch brothers going on the public offensive against electric cars is nothing new, and now they’re spewing more misinformation to make people think that EVs are toxic to humans. from insideevs.com. I tried looking up the source of the meme that EVs are no cleaner than ICE powered cars when charged by coal fueled power plants but, mostly saw articles debunking that idea and pointing out that this was oil industry sponsored propaganda.
Now, I am not denying that either of these claims have some merit but, the people who decided to pick them up and run with them obviously have an agenda that is more about protecting their businesses from disruption than any public interest.
We could look at it another way. People want cars, especially in rapidly growing developing economies. China and India alone contain roughly a third of the global population and the continent of Africa has another 1.25 billion There is a Wikipedia entry: List of countries by vehicles per capita that is quite interesting. The bottom third of the list is dominated by African countries but there are countries like India at number 133, Egypt at 134, the Philippines at 144, Pakistan at 160 and Bangladesh close to the bottom at 190. According to this Jul 29, 2014 article at http://www.greencarreports.com , 1.2 Billion Vehicles On World’s Roads Now, 2 Billion By 2035: Report. Since some vehicles are owned by companies and some people own more than one car (The Sultan of Brunei allegedly owns more than 7,000) I think it is safe to say that more than 6 billion people on the planet do NOT own a car!
Just as the world is adding 83 million more bodies to the population each year, according to the Wall Street Journal, Car Sales to Top 90 Million Globally for First Time (If it’s behind a paywall, search for the headline with Google and follow the link) Whether anybody likes or not it seems the world will be stuck with adding 90 million cars or so each year. I have not heard any talk of a shortage of raw materials to make these cars so, why would there necessarily be a shortage of materials for EVs, if the battery production capacity were to grow along with growing EV production? As a matter of fact, some manufacturers (VW comes to mind) have developed vehicle platforms that are essentially the same for battery electric vehicles and ICE powered vehicles. Assuming the availability of enough batteries and electric motors, why would manufacturers be able to make as many ICE powered vehicles as they want but, not be able to make EVs?
The bottom line is that, it is very likely that some 90 million plus cars are going to be manufactured each year. Is that sustainable in the face of Peak Oil if they are mostly powered by the ICE? Would you rather more of the vehicles manufactured be EVs or less? This year is on track for well over a million of those new vehicles being plug-ins, at least partially electrically powered. Do you agree that robust growth in market share by EVs would be better than tepid or no growth in market share? Frankly I see projections of 70% market share for ICE powered vehicles in 2030 as pure flights of fancy! The idea that 60 million plus vehicles with ICE power plants will be manufactured and sold each year, when global oil production is likely to be undeniably in decline, strikes me as absurd! What do you think?
Well, I’ve watched the Norwegian plug-in electric vehicle market share (new car sales) go to roughly 40% in 2017. In other countries they seem to be a niche market — so far. In Norway they are “fueled” by hydro, which seems sensible. I’ve driven my niece’s EV and it’s a solid form of personal transport. Otherwise I know SFA about them. Maybe they’ll stave off the collapse of civilization for a few years.
Staving off collapse for a few years is what I see being attempted, although mostly it’s couched in terms of continuing growth. I think it’s quite possible we are following the base case limits to growth but only by employing the high technology route (I can’t remember the name they used) as exemplified by EVs, horizontal fracking etc. In that case collapse came a bit later but was much faster because everything had been used up earlier.
The green revolution might have been the first example – lots more food, lots more people and therefore lots more pollution and faster exhaustion of wildlife, groundwater, soil and energy resources. I don’t see a technocopia solution from where we are, especially when combined with the current rampant late stage capitalism and associated greed. In addition the limits to growth study didn’t have “the environment” as a big enough impact, and now it’s clear that climate change is going to be at least as big as resource limits, if not more so.
Oh, I see a technoutopia solution, but unfortunately — since Al Gore had the Presidential Election stolen in 2000, which was our last chance to save everyone — it’s only going to be a solution for the portion of the population which manages to be located in the right place. We’ve now baked in too many disasters for the population of Florida or Bangladesh to survive.
And nobody’s going to welcome the refugees. OK, maybe people will welcome a few of the really smart refugees, but not most of the refugees.
According to this map the entire energy US is at Least Grid Parity.
https://sunmetrix.com/sunmetrix-grid-parity-map-for-residential-solar-energy-in-the-united-states/
Scaling of Global PV Production is the Second largest energy event in our Lifetime. Everyone at this site knows #1.
Very interesting data there- thanks.
IN ALASKA, EVERYONE’S GRAPPLING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
In the Arctic and sub-Arctic, climate change is accelerated and its effects are profound. This is primarily the result of what is known as the “albedo effect”: As we lose reflective ice and snow due to warming, more heat-absorbing dark ground and water are exposed. Thus, local warming gets even more extreme.
Meanwhile, the state’s coffers are enriched by money from oil and gas extraction – which are both primary sources of climate change, an irony that has not gone unnoticed by those struggling to craft long-term plans for Alaska. With 6,640 miles of coastline, Alaska is an ocean-dependent state. Due to loss of sea ice that protects soft soils from seasonal storms, huge stretches of this coastline are washing into the Bering Sea. For communities at risk of erosion, all other concerns pale in comparison. At stake are not only structures and money, but also traditions, a sense of place, and even lives.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-alaska-grappling-climate.html#jCp
I have lived in interior Alaska since 1976. This is the warmest early winter we can remember. Here it is three weeks into October and no snow cover. Back when I drove dogs I there was enough snow to begin in October. My diary says”12 degrees at 6:03 am … ran dogs around [Goldstream] valley ~ 6 miles. Trail bumpy.” That was 25 October 1997. Temps now are freezing and above. At this very moment the sun is just above the horizon and shining into my southern window. This used to be a rare thing. Normally there are thick clouds over Fairbanks all winter.
This is a nice blog if you like following Alaska weather trends.
http://ak-wx.blogspot.com/
I think we should assume somebody who actually lives in the interior of Alaska is already aware of the real-world weather trends there.
https://youtu.be/JPNui61nQro
JOACHIM RONNEBERG: NORWEGIAN WHO THWARTED NAZI NUCLEAR PLAN DIES
“Joachim Ronneberg, the Norwegian resistance fighter who sabotaged Nazi Germany’s nuclear weapons ambitions during World War Two, has died aged 99. In 1943, he led a top-secret raid on a heavily-guarded plant in Norway’s southern region of Telemark. The operation was immortalised in the 1965 Hollywood film Heroes of Telemark, starring Kirk Douglas.”
“After the explosion, the men escaped into neighbouring Sweden by skiing 320km (200 miles) across Telemark – despite being chased by some 3,000 German soldiers. With a wry smile, Ronneberg described it as “the best skiing weekend I ever had”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45938874
For those anti-EV people who think that running an EV off the grid produces as much carbon as an ICE, here is a nice tool to help them. Pick Scranton Pa if you want to see how an EV does running on coal.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/ev-emissions-tool#z/NATIONAL/_/_/_
Even old St. Louis is starting to change it’s ways. I remember driving through there in 1970, brought tears to my eyes, from the pollution.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/st-louis-long-coal-capital-votes-get-all-its-power-n814861
Permafrost (all papers from 2018)
EXCLUSIVE: SOME ARCTIC GROUND NO LONGER FREEZING—EVEN IN WINTER
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-arctic-permafrost-may-thaw-faster-than-expected/?user.testname=none
… some Arctic experts are weighing a troubling question: Could a thaw of permafrost begin decades sooner than many people expect in some of the Arctic’s coldest, most carbon-rich regions, releasing trapped greenhouse gases that could accelerate human-caused climate change?
MELTING PERMAFROST BELOW ARCTIC LAKES IS EVEN MORE DANGEROUS TO THE CLIMATE, NASA WARNS
https://www.space.com/41533-abrupt-permafrost-melting-carbon-climate-impact.html
Within my lifetime, my children’s lifetime, it should be ramping up. It’s already happening but it’s not happening at a really fast rate right now, but within a few decades, it should peak.
MINERAL WEATHERING FROM THAWING PERMAFROST CAN RELEASE SUBSTANTIAL CO2
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180919115853.htm
The amount of carbon dioxide released from thawing permafrost might be greater than previously thought …
PERMAFROST IN COLDEST ARCTIC AREAS WILL MELT FASTER THAN THOUGHT, RELEASING LARGE AMOUNTS OF GREENHOUSE GASES
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/08/permafrost-in-coldest-arctic-areas-will-melt-faster-than-thought/#.W87hnGYZNmA
And the scary word in all of this is ‘irreversible.’ Once we thaw permafrost, it becomes very difficult to refreeze.
I also recently read a paper that said rapid thaw would allow up to twice as much GHG to enter the atmosphere than a slow thaw, but can’t find the link now.
So there you have it: it’s melting earlier than expected, it’s melting faster than expected, there is more potential CO2 to be released than expected, the faster it melts the more CO2 gets into the atmosphere, and it’s effectively irreversible (i.e. a really hot summer isn’t compensated by a cold winter). And next year all the new research will say it’s even worse than that.
Research on permafrost has historically been quite uncertain (and why your quotes contain rhetoric like “could”, “should be”, “might be”, etc) due to the Arctic being a vast area with little human settlement, let alone developed infrastructure, therefore obtaining a sufficient amount of scientific data from the region to be useful is challenging, to put it mildly. We’ve also only had the ability to study some of these things through remote sensors for a few decades, at best. Basically, we need some of the research funding to go toward auditing past assumptions about permafrost creation and destruction to see how well they hold up as additional data comes in.
Welcome back Alex! You’ve been mighty quiet lately! Just curious as to your opinions on my “positive news category” comment further up? Do you think any of these “new”developments are good for the economies they are occurring in?
Here I think:
21st-century modeled permafrost carbon emissions accelerated by abrupt thaw beneath lakes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6093858/
Abrupt thaw accelerates mobilization of deeply frozen, ancient carbon, increasing 14C-depleted permafrost soil carbon emissions by ~125–190% compared to gradual thaw alone
And,
ARCTIC GREENING THAWS PERMAFROST, BOOSTS RUNOFF
“A new collaborative study has investigated Arctic shrub-snow interactions to obtain a better understanding of the far north’s tundra and vast permafrost system. Incorporating extensive in situ observations, scientists tested their theories with a novel 3D computer model and confirmed that shrubs can lead to significant degradation of the permafrost layer that has remained frozen for tens of thousands of years. These interactions are driving increases in discharges of fresh water into rivers, lakes and oceans.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181017172841.htm
Yep—-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqA8KpvXcAAcoMl.jpg
Dow down over 500 points.
Interesting times—-
Meanwhile,
SAUDI OIL CHIEF SAYS OPEC’S IN ‘PRODUCE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN’ MODE
“Al-Falih said plans to diversify the economy will continue, but oil and gas expansion will also remain a priority. In addition to its crude investments, Saudi Arabia intends to partner in liquefied natural gas projects abroad and start trading LNG in the future. Global gas consumption is growing, he said, and oil demand will reach 120 million barrels a day in 30 years, from 100 million currently.”
Saudi Arabia will continue to expand it’s oil and gas production.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih should come onto this website, he obviously has not heard from Islandboy that oil and gas are yesterday’s news.
Seriously he obviouly believes that OPEC will produce 50 million barrels of oil per day.
I would like to see the breakdown of that 50 million by individual members.
“he obviously has not heard from Islandboy that oil and gas
arewill be yesterday’s news” in the not too distant future.There! Fixed that fer ya! 😉
“Global gas consumption is growing, he said, and oil demand will reach 120 million barrels a day in 30 years, from 100 million currently.”
Yeah right! And if you believe that, I’ve got an island in the Caribbean you might wanna buy!
Hi DougL.
I’ve noticed that Saudi Aramco is advertising in Rigzone for Geoscientists. They want them for E & P unconventional. I bet they’d jump at an experienced and versatile geophysicist.
Lots of sand for the fracking there, that’s a plus.
As long as they have the right type of sand 😉 I can name one village, in the UK, that sells sand to them.
NAOM
NAOM,
Do you know what that sand is used for? Could be filtration or glass blowing or something else?
Now I’m excited. Where is the village?
(OK, where’s my geologic map of Britain? Need age of formation containing the sand, average grain size, degree of sorting, composition…)
Water filtering.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9482001,-0.648294,724m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Oh, a scene from the second ‘The Mummy’ was filmed here too. There are also a lot of belemnite fossils around there too. One of the other pits had a fossil beach in it too.
NAOM
NAOM,
Belemnites, huh? That dates it to the latter half of the Mesozoic. I’ve never found a belemnite; their fossils are abundant where they’re found at all but I’ve never worked in such an area.
Thanks.
Should have added that they were in the spoil which is mostly mud so that puts them on the layer above the sand. Because it is all dug up the layering is gone. ISTR you are in the correct area. You can find belemnites, small amonites and other fossils in many of the sand/gravel/clay workings across Bedfordshire.
NAOM
GULF OF MEXICO OIL SPILL THAT HAS LASTED 14 YEARS WILL SOON BE THE WORST IN HISTORY
“There has been an uptrend of the areas of the slick during the last two years,” Oscar Pineda-Garcia, an adjunct professor at Florida State University who also operates a company that charts oil spills, told the AP. The oil is so thick in some areas of the Gulf that people have had to wear respirator masks because the fumes are overwhelming, Pineda-Garcia added. Worse yet, the leak is likely to continue for the rest of the century as there is no clear way as of yet to cap the remaining wells.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/gulf-mexico-oil-spill-lasted-023838834.html
Not to worry oil people, the planetwide destruction will continue, according to BP and the IEA. EV’s will barely make a dent in the consumption of oil far into the future.
According to this article a co-existence will occur between EV’s and ICE’s.
The Oil Sector Will Survive The Arrival Of The Electric Car Just Fine
“There will be no Kodak moment for Big Oil. That’s because electric vehicles and conventional gasoline- and diesel-powered automobiles will co-exist. It won’t be a zero-sum game, with ample room for growth on both sides, particularly as internal combustion engines become increasingly efficient.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daneberhart/2018/03/22/the-oil-sector-will-survive-the-arrival-of-the-electric-car-just-fine/#95172e671551
With this mindset, I expect steam locomotives to rise again as coal mining looks for new burning frontiers. Whooooo, Whooooo.
Thanks for the laugh, glad I wasn’t drinking anything.
NAOM
Gone fishing
Have you actually done the math with regards to electric vehicles and global oil consumption?
http://www.ev-volumes.com/country/total-world-plug-in-vehicle-volumes/
Of the 98 million vehicles built this year 2 million will be PEVs there are more ICE vehicles on the roads today than last year that is why oil consumption is going up.
99% of vehicles today are ICE and they can last for 20 years.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/the-rise-of-the-middle-aged-motor/
many get exported to Africa and India where they are even older
https://www.thenational.ae/business/africa-the-land-of-second-hand-unwanted-cars-1.155263
How many plugin electric vehicles need to be sold each year for consumption to stop growing do you know? and what year will that be achieved?
Tbe same year that coal powered steam locomotives make their comeback… As GF, said:”whooooo!”
25% of global energy is transport. Most of that is waste heat and creates huge amounts of damaging pollution. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/transport-uses-25-percent-of-world-energy
“99% of vehicles today are ICE and they can last for 20 years.”
Enjoy your last one then. 20 year old operating cars are rare, most only make it to 12 and some to 15. I posted the data previously. Putt, putt, putt, dead. All the people around you will be charging along in their BEV’s while you look for a rare service station to fill up.
With current global growth rate of BEV, the crossover point where ICE car sales start to drop is 2023 and all new cars will be BEV by 2032. Consumption of liquid fuel will fall even faster as ICE manufacturers try to drastically improve efficiency to compete with the BEV. They won’t be able to, but suckers will buy them not realizing they cost them twice as much in the long run.
I assume you like buying a vehicle that costs twice as much and breaks down a lot, which means an ICE. I also assume you like to waste energy and pollute (ICE again).
Some BEV pay for themselves in lower cost of fuel and maintenance in ten years, so the car is free compared to the ICE cars. More and more BEV will do that as prices come down. End game is BEV will be about 1/4 the cost of ICE over their lifetime use. BEV motors are now getting past the million mile range.
Gonefishing
I do not like buying ICE vehicles I bought one 18 years ago and it is still going strong. The next vehicle I buy will probably be a plugin hybrid.
I take it you have not done the analysis of the number of electric vehicles sales needed for global oil demand to stop rising? and when do you think we would reach that?
For global oil production to peak requires more than just ICE vehicle sale falling. It would require at electric vehicle sale to reach at least 60 million.
These are the targets of electric sales the car companies hope to reach
https://www.drax.com/technology/race-electric-vehicles/
I have not read of a single serious prediction that says that would happen before 2035
I have not read of a single serious prediction that says that would happen before 2035
Not sure what you have been reading but you might read and watch this.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/06/tony-seba-charts-out-the-disruptive-path-forward-to-evs-and-out-of-the-i-c-e-age/
Tony Seba Charts Out The Disruptive Path Forward To EVs & Out Of The I.C.E. Age
Every single time there has been a 10x improvement in technology, there has been a market disruption. Tony estimates these factors combined will result in 95% of all passenger vehicle miles being driven by on-demand, fully autonomous vehicles by 2030. That’s a mere 12 years and a few more grey hairs down the road for most of us. Surprisingly, he expects 40% of the cars in 2030 to still be privately owned, with the remaining 60% being comprised of fleet vehicles that will drive 95% of passenger vehicle miles at all hours of the day and night for pennies.
This, my friends, is what Tony calls “The end of the ICE age,” which I absolutely love, resulting in a few fun predictions for the fully autonomous future:
95% of all passenger vehicle miles being driven by on-demand, fully autonomous vehicles by 2030
Fleet goes down by 80% … which still leaves 2x the capacity needed for rush hour.
Annual demand for new cars will collapse immediately by 2021 (or after the first fully autonomous vehicle goes into production)
No more car dealerships
No more vehicle service stations
No more auto insurance (for individuals, at least)
The average family will save $6,000 per year on transportation
90% decrease in personal transportation-related CO2 emissions
No more parking in cities which frees up valuable real estate in cities and presents a major opportunity to redesign our cities for humans
The way things are going before long most fossil fuels will go to power air conditioners. Already 70% of Saudi Arabia’s electricity is used for air conditioning which currently comes from burning oil. How long before a billion Chinese buy an air conditioner that relies on coal, gas or oil to keep it running?
Or they could discover high tech items like awnings and insulation.
Hugo said “I take it you have not done the analysis of the number of electric vehicles sales needed for global oil demand to stop rising? and when do you think we would reach that?”
Global oil demand is not fully dependent upon ground vehicles such as cars and trucks, it is used for many things. I would say at most 70 percent for all types of transport. Hard to determine the demand of oil from just car sales, but it is a large percentage.
Right now:
The total global number of cars is increasing by about 2.5 million units per year. The total plug-in sales will reach 2.3 million next year and over 3 million the year after that. So I suspect in reality ICE’s will stop increasing mid 2020. Since ICE’s will have to get higher mpg to compete at all, especially since more countries are instituting a carbon tax, their use of oil will shortly stop rising and fall quickly after that as BEV’s take over.
In my graph I used about a 40 percent initial growth rate in a logistic formula. In reality growth rate of plug-ins is closer to 60%, last May hit 75% yoy. So I was actually very conservative.
“For global oil production to peak requires more than just ICE vehicle sale falling. It would require at electric vehicle sale to reach at least 60 million”
Huh, the replacement rate of ICE is very close to the production rate now, so if EV’s hit 60 million then ICE’s would be more than 60% below replacement rate.
Gone Fishing
It is no wonder you have such an optimistic view of when vehicle oil demand will peak.
You have confused increase in sales with increase in the number of vehicles on the road.
look at the exel sheet for all vehicles.
Your error is not a minor one but totally off the board.
http://www.oica.net/category/vehicles-in-use/
The number of vehicles on the roads of the world is increasing by something in the region of 50 million vehicles per year. In 2018, 2 million of those will be electric the other 48 million will be diesel and petrol.
I see what you mean, OICA gives about 40 million increase in passenger cars in 2015. I think I overestimated the death rate of cars, may be longer worldwide. 12 years in the US.
EV production will cross 50 million in 2026 so I guess my earlier number of 2023 being the crossover point was a little soon unless other factors take over.
I don’t count total vehicles because EV’s are primarily passenger cars at this point. Trucks and other large vehicles will come later but comprise a smaller number.
Also any projection of ICE vehicles or needs to take into account the reduction in oil availability, environmental laws and car sharing (car as a service) all of which reduce the number of ICE’s or total number of vehicles.
We will see if Tony Seba is right about all new vehicles being EV by 2025. Sounds a bit optimistic to me but there are far too many factors in play to discount this as an upper boundary.
I think there may be a new “sickness” that may shorten the life of IC vehicles and perhaps EVs at the same time.
Complex electronics.
A lot of the electronic components in automobiles are custom made for the industry, sometimes for specific manufacturers. When one of these components fail if the original manufacturer is no longer required to keep them in stock the cars simply won’t run, or stop or whatever the component controlled.
If a lot of these cars are being shipped to 3rd world countries there may not even be the ability to diagnose the problems much less fix them.
Yep, all those ICE computers and electronics will not be supported as they fade into non-existence.
Here is an article about ICE car computers from before the day of the EV.
“It would be easy to say the modern car is a computer on wheels, but it’s more like 30 or more computers on wheels,” said Bruce Emaus, the chairman of SAE International’s embedded software standards committee.
Even basic vehicles have at least 30 of these microprocessor-controlled devices, known as electronic control units, and some luxury cars have as many as 100.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/technology/05electronics.html
Gonefishing
I think it would be great if electric vehicle sales hit 50 million in 6 years. I think the likelihood of that is very small. How did you get to 50 million in 2026? Did you simply extrapolate a 60% increase in sales from 2017 to 2018 and copied and pasted for the next 10 years?
It is one thing for a company like Nissan which produces 50 or 60 variants of cars and vans to develop 1 or 2 electric vehicles. That investment was a small proportion of the R&D and factory refitting. To think that nearly every single company will close down half their engine plants and retool half their factories in 6 years is very unlikely.
Many companies do not even have one electric vehicle. Ford has big plans but many will be hybrid.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/09/ford-future-ev-interview/?guccounter=1
If sales did hit 50 million that would mean of the 110 million vehicles sold 60 million would still be diesel and petrol.
“To think that nearly every single company will close down half their engine plants and retool half their factories in 6 years is very unlikely.”
They may have little choice. See my comment towards the bottim of this thread about Tesla report healthy profits for the most recent quarter. BMW, Audi, Porsche and Mercedes do not have anything ready for market to counter Tesla at current production volumes. Look for one or more of the four I just listed to start closing factories and laying of workers within about six months or so. They cannot withstand the decreased sales Tesla is forcing on them for much longer.
Hugo- “Many companies do not even have one electric vehicle. Ford has big plans but many will be hybrid.”
Well, those Ford plans are big news. Hybrids are an incredible bridge tool to all-electric.
I have a plug-in hybrid built by Chrysler and 2/3rds of my miles are electric (from solar panels on my roof), and 1/3rd petrol thus far.
Excellent vehicle, no regrets on its purchase, and no regrets on going to the gas station much less often.
Our next vehicle purchase will be all electric.
Hugo, see here http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-october-18-2018/#comment-655651
You know what a logistical function is? It runs exponential then goes nearly linear and finally reduces slope until it peaks (saturates). Very useful for modeling production and sales in disruptive markets.
I originally gave you your answer in my first comment but you missed it completely. Now all you can do is moan and groan and make unsupported claims like “I think it would be great if electric vehicle sales hit 50 million in 6 years. I think the likelihood of that is very small. How did you get to 50 million in 2026? Did you simply extrapolate a 60% increase in sales from 2017 to 2018 and copied and pasted for the next 10 years?”
Actually I used 50% for that one and my logistic curve started with a conservative 40%. Either way, not much difference in that time span.
Use the data or make things up, your choice. You have nothing to support your negative assertions, growth has been high and getting higher. Your buggy whip factory analogy (they won’t close down the ICE manufacturing) is unsupportable. GM is planning 20 EV’s by 23, China has a lot already. VW and others are moving along on EV’s. If they can’t sell ICE’s why would they continue producing them? For fun and giggles?
I gave you your answer in my first comment, you missed it entirely. Between 2023 and 2032.
Sure there is pushback against EV’s. Car manufacturers can make money on them, electric producers can make money, they fit well into the renewable energy growth, but oil companies fear them. Oil production will be in low demand once EV’s get in place.
In the US each EV displaces at least 500 gallons of gasoline per year. It takes one barrel to produce 26 gallons of gasoline, so that is 19 barrels per year per car. When there are 50 million EV’s on the road, the demand falls by 2.6 million barrels per day. When there are 100 million, 5.2 million barrels per day and in 2030’s when the market is saturated, almost no oil demand from cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, etc. Even a lot of the diesel use will be substituted.
That is the problem, the ever cornucopian oil industry that thinks it has 140 years of technical reserves left will collapse due to the high cost, high maintenance of ICE vehicles.
Want a perfect historical example of how fast this happens. Study railroad history and see how fast diesel-electric locomotives took over from steam locomotives. Lower cost fuel and vastly lower maintenance plus less support infrastructure for diesel-electric doomed the steam locomotive. Even though the diesel electric was not as powerful, it had MU capability and better traction, thus giving it more flexibility, lower cost and less need for employees. One engineer could control several locomotives electrically.
Sound familiar, EV’s have lots of advantages, cheaper fuel and much lower maintenance costs as well as higher performance (will be great for big trucks, all that torque at near zero speed).
Also they don’t generate pollution.
So whatever is making you think that ICE’s can stand up to EV’s and won’t be produced, is just in your mind. They have gone from amateur status to superior road vehicle in a decade. Soon they will just be another car, which is all they really are, a car, just a better one.
Oh yeah, you haven’t thought about efficiency changes. Yes, ICE cars can be more efficient but so can EV’s. They are not near their peak possible efficiency yet.
I made some charts of this back in February.
See the charts at bottom of page for an even lower initial rate of EV production. Logisitic with initial 30 percent growth (far lower than now) starting in 2015.
Also fuel use by ICE chart.
However they are not realistic since initial growth rate is much higher.
@Hugo
Audio is launching an ESUV, at the moment, Tesla is building a factory in Singapore and increasing USA production. There are more, these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Don’t underestimate the exponential. When other companies see their breakfast, lunch and dinner are being eaten, movement will take place.
NAOM
Passenger vehicle growth rate is 3.6% per year. Total plugin vehicles on the road have increased by 61% per year from 2014 to 2018, they are likely to grow by 30% from 2018 to 2030, by 2037 plugin vehicles will be half of total passenger vehicles on the road and by 2050 all passenger vehicles are likely to be plugin, with likely 95% of miles driven on battery power.
Vehicle Miles Traveled is the important factor, and it’s growing more slowly:
VMT
2006 0.9%
2007 0.5%
2008 0.6%
2009 -2.3%
2010 -0.6%
2011 1.0%
2012 -0.5%
2013 0.3%
2014 0.5%
2015 1.8%
2016 2.3%
2017 2.4%
2018 1.0%
New cars have higher VMT, so when plugin vehicles are half of total passenger vehicles on the road, they’ll probably account for 70% of VMT.
VMT 10 year Average Growth Rate: .6%
Basically, fleet size is growing because there are more old, little-used cars.
See this graph.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-october-18-2018/#comment-656044
VMT across the Great Recession caused the reduction.
Well, here’s the longterm trend. We can see that VMT growth has been declining for a while. Now it’s below the population growth rate, meaning that per-capita VMT is declining.
Yep, VMT rose 4% to 2017 since the recession. Funny how the 2018 number is included during 2018.
VMT since 2007
Well, the chart I provided does include 2018 – the X axis is labeled with every other year.
It shows growth year-over-year, which is more meaningful than the absolute numbers.
I agree that the recession, and the following recovery, have an impact. No question. But, there’s also a clear longterm decline. We can see it from 1993 to 2005. Now, the recession caused a drop, and the recovery had a “snap-back” (aka “dead-cat bounce”), but it’s now back on the long-term trend: The growth in 2018 is only .5%, less than population growth.
Not sure how a partial result from an incomplete year shows a trend. But OK, keep us posted on this trend, even though it is just for the US, right?
Well, the FHWA provides the data in a nice format, which compares the last 12 months to the corresponding 12 months before that, so it’s a pretty good, full year comparison. The latest data is for the 12 month period ending in August.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/tvt.cfm?CFID=52043648&CFTOKEN=2a7bf3a9281b7268-BA768AE4-E692-36D7-96802D971FB7ACE1
And, as we saw above, the average growth since 2006 was only .6% (roughly a full business cycle). It seems pretty clear that US VMT has dropped to zero per capita growth.
Hi Nick,
Not sure that is true for the World, do you have VMT for the World? Agree for US, and possibly Europe, VMT is growing slowly, but China and India, South America, and Africa, maybe not.
Good question. I don’t think there’s anything like the FHWA stats for the world.
FWIW, I believe that VMT is growing more slowly than fleet size because of congestion. I’ve read anecdotal accounts of people in China and India who buy a shiny new four wheel vehicle because they can now afford it, but don’t drive it very much because the streets are so crowded. IOW, the roads are at capacity. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if adding more vehicles actually reduced VMT!
Have you ever seen the traffic in Cairo, or New Delhi? Truly, truly scary. You either take your life in your hands, or get nowhere, or both.
Nick,
I agree VMT may decline, but I think it will be due to the expansion of TaaS (Transportation as a Service) and eventual self driving cars (probably 5 to 10 years away). Also simple ride sharing apps could easily be devised where one joins a carpool app and rides to work can be arranged for a small fee. Kind of like ride sharing uber or lyft, but just for those who want to car pool.
Higher future oil prices may make this a reality, before self driving cars become a real thing.
Never thought I’d be agreeing with the CEO of the largest Nuclear Power operator (Exelon) in the US, but here goes-
“The CEO of the nation’s largest nuclear operator on Monday renewed his call for a price on carbon emissions, saying it would be preferable to current state subsidies for nuclear plants or a federal plant bailout contemplated by the White House.”
‘Regardless of the White House plan, Crane said Exelon would like to see a nationwide price on carbon that would preserve nuclear plants on environmental grounds.’
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/exelon-ceo-carbon-price-preferable-to-band-aid-nuke-subsidies/540370/
Whoda thunk it?!
The wolves are circling on each other. Ahhhhhwooooooo! It’s a dark cold night in the winter of energy profits.
Tesla stock skyrockets, Model 3 a bit hit.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-stock-skyrockets-after-legendary-short-seller-goes-long-2018-10-23?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
As the Trump administration wrestles with whether to buy Saudi Arabia’s belated and befuddled explanation for the death of Jamal Khashoggi, a thoughtful Saudi tells me: “Morality aside, the critical question is the sanity of our very own Caligula.”
…
If the crown prince loses power it could be either by the gentle hand of his father or, like Caligula, at the violent hand of cooperation between disgruntled princes and praetorians.
…
What this would mean for U.S.-Saudi relations is anyone’s guess. Surely, however, if Mr. Trump has the ability to influence events, the first scenario is far preferable to the second.
In Florida race, climate change divides DeSantis and Gillum
David Knowles
https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-race-climate-change-divides-desantis-gillum-185054456.html
The heat is rising in the Florida governor’s race.
During Sunday night’s contentious debate between Democrat Andrew Gillum and Republican Ron DeSantis the two candidates expressed markedly different positions on whether human-caused climate change is real and a mounting threat to the state.
CNN moderator Jake Tapper pressed DeSantis over conflicting comments in which the candidate said he isn’t a climate change denier but doesn’t want to be known as a believer in climate change, either.
“What I said is I don’t want to be an alarmist. I mean, I want to look at this and do what makes sense for Florida,” DeSantis said. “So, for example, for the people of Northwest Florida, I will be there for you. You guys are resilient. You’re fighting. [Hurricane Michael] was a terrible storm, and we will rebuild. But I also think you just have to look at facts. The fact is, you look at South Florida, we need to do resiliency. You have more water; you have flooding. So as governor, that’s something that I’m going to take on full throttle. But what I don’t want to do is do things like Andrew [Gillum] wants to do, which is a California-style energy policy that will cause our electricity rates to skyrocket.”
Gillum, who declares on his campaign website that he “believes that climate change is a real and urgent threat,” responded by taking a shot at Gov. Rick Scott, who has largely avoided any mention of climate change during his tenure, as well as in his Senate campaign against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.
“What Florida voters need to know is that when they elect me governor they’re going to have a governor who believes in science, which we haven’t had for quite some time in this state,” Gillum said. “I’m not sure what is so California about believing that the state of Florida ought to lead in solar energy. We’re known as the Sunshine State. At the very least what we can do is be a global leader here. We’ve got to teach the other 49 states what to do and what it means to have a state that, quite frankly, leans into the challenges of the green economy and builds one and at the same time builds an economy that lasts.”
“Climate here means different things to different people,” Democratic strategist Steve Schale told Yahoo News. “For some, it is an environmental issue; for others, like those impacted by red tide, it is an economic issue; and for others yet, like those in Miami Beach and towns like my hometown, St. Augustine, it is a problem where flooding is stressing infrastructure. So I don’t know that climate on its own is a winnable issue — but candidates who are able to draw the connection between climate and these other issues can make climate a winning issue.”
Y Combinator issues a request for geo-engineering startups because climate change is real and we’re all going to die
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/23/y-combinator-issues-a-request-for-geo-engineering-startups-because-climate-change-is-real-and-were-all-going-to-die/
Oh yeah, just what we need! /sarc!
Panic is setting in and the parasites see profit in it.
Won’t the dispersion of sulfates in the atmosphere reduce the amount of light available for photosynthesis?
Yes, and PV and also cause acid rain while not reducing ocean acidification rate.
Don’t these guys know that EVs will save the planet — all by themselves?
WITHOUT CHANGING HUMAN DIETS, IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO HALT GLOBAL WARMING
“The global food system’s environmental impact is large and growing. Nearly a quarter of all planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions come from food production and associated land-use change. And as incomes rise and more people move to cities, consumption of meat and dairy — foods with outsized climate impacts — is on the rise. The world population is expected to approach 10 billion people by 2050. With this projected increase in population and shifts to higher-meat diets, agriculture alone could account for most of the emissions budget for limiting global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. This level of agricultural emissions would render the goal of keeping warming below 1.5 C impossible.”
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/without-changing-human-diets-its-impossible-halt-global-warming
Meanwhile,
RECORD HEAT, FIRES WORSENED BY CLIMATE CHANGE
The first major science study to connect greenhouse gases to stronger and longer heat waves was in 2004. It was titled “More intense, more frequent and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century.” Study author Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said Friday that now it “reads like a prediction of what has been happening and will continue to happen as long as average temperatures continue to rise with ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. It’s no mystery.”
https://www.foxnews.com/us/science-says-record-heat-fires-worsened-by-climate-change
Doug,
Nobody suggests EVs solve all problems, just one piece of a comprehensive solution which would include lower total fertility ratios, changes in diet and agricultural practices, rapid expansion of wind and solar along with more insulation and passive solar building design , more use of heat pumps to heat both buildings and water and expansion of a high voltage DC grid with a widely interconnected international grid system so that electric power can be more easily moved both North and South and East and West. This is an abbreviated list, no doubt there are problems not addressed. There are many problems and many solutions. No silver bullet.
Yep, meat and eating in general produces greenhouse gases. Here in the US we can save about 40% of that or more just by not wasting food. Changing the way we do agriculture in general could save a lot of fuel and mineral resources. In fact it has been shown that eating organic vegetables increases fertility. Lots of opportunities to improve life in general.
New T-short slogan: Eat a rat, it ate your veggies.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html
“Don’t these guys know that EVs will save the planet — all by themselves? ” That is more true than you would want to believe. Only simple one variable linear thinking does not take into account the multiple interlinked effects of a major societal change. The goodness of EV’s with Renewable energy will spread energy and environmental awareness across the board, creating a new paradise on Earth. Just send large donations to New EV Paradise, Box 666, Mephisto, PA 69693.
( More than 90 percent of all donations will be used to buy EV’s and Renewable Energy).
More EV’s, Less Cows, More Grumpy People!!!! The new vision for Mankind.
Do I have to give up Ice Cream? Damn. Now I am grumpy.
Do I have to give up Ice Cream? Damn. Now I am grumpy.
Not gonna worry until I have to give up beer! Then I’ll be real grumpy!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/climate-change-to-cause-dramatic-beer-shortages-extreme-weather-price
Trouble brewing: climate change to cause ‘dramatic’ beer shortages
Extreme weather damage to the global barley crop will mean price spikes and supply problems, according to new research.
Dow—
-608.01(-2.41%)
Wow! Early bird watching, and things go south.
Well, look how long the Dow was rising. Have to go down sometime so the rich guys and make fortunes on the upswing. Just one more way the rich get richer.
Ever notice that the stock market falls during Republican control? Or is that just lately?
Maybe it’s related to the deficit. Republicans fight like crazy to ward off deficits during Democratic admins. As soon as they get power they jump on tax cuts and run up the deficit.
Whatever it is, it’s crazy to keep repeating it.
Crazy? Have you seen the president they have gifted us?
Some thoughts from H. G. Wells
A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men’s lives should not stake their own. H. G. Wells
Man is the unnatural animal, the rebel child of nature, and more and more does he turn himself against the harsh and fitful hand that reared him. H. G. Wells
While there is a chance of the world getting through its troubles, I hold that a reasonable man has to behave as though he were sure of it. If at the end your cheerfulness in not justified, at any rate you will have been cheerful. H. G. Wells
Tesla reports surprise profit, stock surges
Tesla reported its third-ever profit in its eight years as a public company.
The electric car-maker blew past expectations for revenue and earnings, reporting adjusted EPS of $2.90 per share on revenue of $6.82 billion. This exceeded average analyst expectations of losses of 15 cents per share on revenue of $6.32 billion. The company brought in an adjusted $516 million for the quarter.
The period ending September 30 “was a truly historic quarter for Tesla,” the company said in a statement. “Model 3 was the best-selling car in the US in terms of revenue and the 5th best-selling car in terms of volume.”
For those of us who have been tracking Model 3 sales closely, this did not come as a surprise!
From insideevs.com:
Tesla Q3 Conference Call: Ride Real-Time With Us On Profit Wave
Profit secured.
The Tesla 2018 Q3 earnings report is in, and as CEO Elon Musk had predicted, the company recorded a profit. And, at $2.90 a share, not a tiny one either. So now, with Tesla bulls ebullient and bears barely able to lift the goal posts they seem to so often be moving, we turn our attention to the quarterly financial call with analysts. Like last time, we will listen live and fill you in on the most notable bits, crossing our fingers for information about what to expect from the company with regards to progress and products.
Musk had promised the “short burn of the century”. Maybe this is it. EPS of $2.90 per share, versus analyst expectations of losses of 15 cents per share has got to have hurt the shorts, a lot!
Tesla Debt to Equity Ratio 2009-2018
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/debt-equity-ratio
Excellent news. They can start paying down the 9.51 billion they owe.
OTOH VIX is getting frisky.
NAOM
US National Debt, Part 1: Fundamentals of debt
https://youtu.be/WWCoDORgs3A
EV and ICE population study with two different growth rates. ICE at 3 % and EV at initial 30 percent.
The ICE rate is about what is happening today but the EV rate is well below current growth rate so will probably cross each other much earlier.
ICE population, 3 percent growth rate, fuel use with no efficiency change and with 3% increase in fuel efficiency for the first 25 years. Plotted against EV 30 percent initial growth as shown in above graph.
is that car sales, or cars in service? if cars in service, how long of a lifespan are you assuming for each?
As it says, it’s a population growth study, nothing to do with lifespan. ICE cars are growing at around 3 percent now. EV’s at about 50% per annum. See graphs below for a more accurate estimate.
EV versus ICE with 50% initial EV growth rate (logistic curve).
ICE fuel consumption with and without efficiency increase against an initial 50% EV production rate rise starting 2015.
The stars are dying, the universe is dimming. How much of what we can see or detect is still bright?
Universe is fading away, say astronomers
The number of stars being created has been in decline for about the last 6bn years, and there is little chance of a surge in productivity in the future. The conditions for making stars are less favourable now and most of the ingredients required, including hydrogen and helium, have already been used up.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/aug/18/universe.sciencenews
Pipe bomb duds in the mail are quite good at knocking Khashoggi off the front page. I wonder who sent them?
Good point.
MBS Crimes a Distraction for US Regime Change Plan in Iran – Q&A with Paul Jay
https://youtu.be/_dykfECKTn0
It’s harder to sell war with Iran because they’re bad guys (who am I kidding, selling war to American’s is easy) when your own goons in the region are dismembering journalists on foreign soil. Must be some real stunned minds down at KSA General Intelligence Presidency.
The Geopolitics Of The Khashoggi Murder
https://lobelog.com/the-geopolitics-of-the-khashoggi-murder/
Jamal Khashoggi: Journalist ‘was enticed to Istanbul consulate from Saudi embassy in DC’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jamal-khashoggi-latest-news-saudi-arabia-turkey-embassy-washington-dc-a8601961.html
According to the FBI they are not duds.
Dud: noun- a thing that fails to work properly or is otherwise unsatisfactory or worthless; adjective- not working or meeting standards i.e. faulty.
Let’s not confuse a dud device with a hoax device. A dud device fails to function properly. A hoax device is designed not to function properly; to wit, it is an intentional dud.
My money is on that the sender intended them to work (not a hoax device) but they did not (because he made dud devices). He made and sent duds. Effective IED deployment requires a bit of a learning curve, and this dude was likely not on it.
“In a few cases, the flaws were substantial, the investigators said. In others, the defects were more subtle. But there’s still no way to know at this point whether the deficiencies were intentional — to make convincing hoaxes — or simply the result of bad design or construction, the sources said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/some-mailed-pipe-bombs-could-have-been-duds-investigators-say-n924516
Incompetent as well as bonkers, reminds me of his hero.
1806 — Germany: Ego-philosopher Max Stirner lives. Theorist of individualist anarchism, currently a foundation for post-left anarchy, author of The Ego & It’s Own (1844), opposed by Karl Marx.
“The great are great only because we are on our knees. Let us rise!”
— Max Stirner
Any of you USAians out there have a take on this:
NV Energy looks to add 350 MW renewables, storage as state anti-monopoly vote approaches
The utility says if voters approve the measure eliminating monopolies, it will not add renewable energy resources beyond the state’s requirements. Those requirements, if a separate ballot measure passes, would require the state to generate 50% of its power from renewables by 2030. But NV Energy says it has its sights set on 100%.
Sounds to me sort of like the actions of a spoiled child! “If I don’t get things my way, I’m taking my marbles and going home!”
All of that despite this:
Even in Indiana, new renewables are cheaper than existing coal plants
Dive Insight:
NIPSCO’s upcoming IRP is more evidence that coal generation is steadily declining in the U.S. despite efforts from the Trump administration to save it.
In Indiana, as elsewhere, the issue is economics. The youngest generating units at NIPSCO’s 1900 MW Schahfer plant were built in the mid 1980s, and the utility’s analysis found that keeping them on the system would be more expensive than replacing them with new wind, solar and batteries.
NIPSCO’s current preferred resource plan — Scenario 6 below — would see it retire all four units of the Schahfer plant in 2023 and the last coal unit at its Michigan City plant in 2028.
Credit: NIPSCO presentation
Eliminating coal from its portfolio would actually be the cheapest option, NIPSCO reported. Taking all the Schahfer and Michigan City units offline by 2023 — Scenario 8 above — was the lowest cost resource plan, but it presented “unacceptable” reliability risks to the utility.
Coal’s inability to compete persisted even when NIPSCO modeled scenarios friendly to the resource. At the request of the Indiana Coal Council, a trade group, the utility analyzed a situation with high natural gas prices, no price on carbon, and a flat fee for delivered coal.
In that scenario, retiring coal faster was still cheaper than keeping it around, and the least cost plan was still more expensive to consumers than NIPSCO’s preferred scenario.
Isn’t coal supposed to be big business in Indiana?
3… 2… 1… Trump subsidy to keep the coal plants online.
NAOM
Nevada in 2030 and beyond? A good place to collect and distribute solar energy and other renewable energy but too much heat and not enough water. I would not be too concerned with fossil fuel power generation after 2030 in that region. Population is low and will most likely get lower. To give you an idea, Reno is the fastest warming city in the US at 1.4F/decade. That rate is likely to increase in the near future.
Nevada could be a renewable energy capital but not a place where many can live. Air conditioning is one thing but lack of water is much tougher. Looks like the Colorado River supply is in deep trouble.
Here is an example of the desperate demand for water:
http://www.wsgwa.org/news_nevada-town-crisis-over-water.htm
Seven Australian solar facts to make your jaw drop
The Australia solar PV industry broke a whole set of new records in September. September data from the APVI and Clean Energy Regulator shows accelerated growth in utility scale solar, particularly benefiting rural and regional Australia.
And over the last quarter, a total of 1.56GW was registered with the Clean Energy Regulator – more PV capacity than in the entire record year of 2017.
Here are seven jaw-dropping records and fun facts Australia’s solar sector has been busy notching up…
1. Australia now has over 10.1 GW of solar installed, capable of delivering 14.6 TWhrs and meeting more than 5.5 per cent of Australia’s energy demand.
2. Total new solar registered for the month of September exceeded 725MW – the largest volume of new solar power recorded for a single month…….
The chart below just about says it all! Australia’s PV capacity will probably exceed that of the France by January 1, 2019 but, will they install enough to bump the UK into eighth position in terms of national installed capacity?
Australia electricity mix.
https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/generation-capacity-and-output-by-fuel-source
Black coal and brown coal generated 70% of Australia’s electricity this year and gas pushed that figure to close to 80%.
Islandboy your optimism is commendable but hardly grounded, solar produced 0.9% of Australia’s consumption.
In South Australia solar and wind uptake has been disproportionately higher. This has led to grid instability and blackouts. South Australians are quote, paying the high price for erratic wind and solar. Renewable companies have no obligation to ensure reliability of their power, backup or grid stability.
https://www.woodmac.com/news/editorial/south-australia-power-crisis/
Rather than rely on Wood Mackenzie for my news on Australia, I prefer the perspective of Australians, living in Australia who have a stake in this. I have not read anything quite like this on reneweconomy.com.au but, thanks for the link anyway. I will forward it to Giles Parkinson over at Renew Economy to see what he thinks!
Incidentally are you denying that utility scale solar in Australia appears to be taking off? My view is not what coal consumption and CO2 emissions are right now. What is important is what is likely to happen to them if current trends continue.
islandboy
Wood Mackenzie appear to be pro wind and solar, but their job is to be honest about the problems that these intermittent power sources create.
They are paid to look at problems and find solutions rather than just flag waving which anyone can do.
Hugo, have you ever watched a Tony Seba presentation on youtube? Here is his most recent, which also happens to be the shortest I’ve seen at a little over 37 minutes:
Technology Megatrends Leading to the Disruption of Transportation 2020-2030 – Tony Seba
If you have never looked into Seba’s messaging, it’s difficult, bordering on impossible, to come to grips with the messaging of technology disruptions. The graph I posted above is a harbinger of a disruption about to happen and that is the point I am trying to make. I am getting ahead of the curve and looking at what is likely to happen in the future based on recent trends.
Wood Mackenzie is typical, a classic example of what Seba describes at 3min 21 sec into the video linked to above, as “the experts and the insiders and even some futurists who don’t get it” and always dismiss opportunities. If you’ve never watched a Seba video, please watch the one above and then get back to me. There are two of Seba’s big four “Clean Disruptions” that have been the center of the debate in this thread, namely solar PV and EVs.
Islandboy
I have watched a video of his. It simply is not the real world.
This is the real world.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Look at Co2 by source and country, The graphs are heading to the sky. Oil consumption 12 million barrel higher than 2005. Gas consumption increasing massively. Even coal stubbornly up.
The chances of reducing Co2 by 75% by 2050 is zero. Just enjoy yourself we are all going to die anyway.
Oh well! I guess I better just party like it’s then end of the world. Forgive me for being hopeful!
PS. Going back to 2014, who’s projections have turned out to be more accurate, Seba or Wood Mackenzie, the IEA, the EIA and the rest of the usual experts?
Be hopeful all you like. The world is full of hopefull people. Make The Future Great Again. Makes some hats if it makes you feel better.
Unfortunately Hugo is correct on this, IMHO-
“The chances of reducing Co2 by 75% by 2050 is zero”
As someone said earlier- we are going to run this experiment hard!
And of course Islandboy is right.
We should be working on transition like there is no tomorrow, without it.
The chances that we will be producing much CO2 in 2050 are diminishing by the day.
What if Pagani and Liua are right and the current amount of carbon in the atmosphere is enough to achieve 4C? Adding another 2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent carbon to the system sounds like suicide to me.
Or Hansen:
Our best estimate for the fast-feedback climate sensitivity from Holocene initial conditions is 3 ± 0.5°C for 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing (68% probability) . Slow feedbacks, including ice sheet disintegration and release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by the climate system, generally amplify total Earth system climate sensitivity. Slow feedbacks make Earth system climate sensitivity highly dependent on the initial climate state and on the magnitude and sign of the climate forcing, because of thresholds (tipping points) in the slow feedbacks. It is difficult to assess the speed at which slow feedbacks will become important in the future, because of the absence in paleoclimate history of any positive (warming) forcing rivaling the speed at which the human-caused forcing is growing.
Looks like the slow feedbacks are already engaged and moving fairly quickly.
Then there are limits to growth, droughts in some areas, floods in other, chaotic weather to make farming very difficult, increased demand on the natural system crashing ocean life and removing forests.
No real forests by 2050 at this rate. No fish either.
So running this experiment hard in it’s current form won’t last very long at all. 2050 and after is a place not to be if that is the case.
Ok, 2040 anyway.
I suspect people will be burning coal til the ocean swamps their pit.
Then they’ll cut down the trees they are hanging on to.
Hickory,
Coal output will peak, it will become expensive then it will be rapidly replaced by wind and solar power which have been falling rapidly in price. Coal will not be able to compete, nor will oil or natural gas when they peak as well. Peak dates Oil 2024, Coal 2027, natural Gas 2030 all +/- 2 years for World output. I would say zero fossil fuel emissions is doable, 75% less by 2050 is conservative.
Hugo, fossil fuels will peak by 2030, they will become very expensive and alternatives will ramp up rapidly as they will be cheaper and better.
Hugo,
It looks like that .9% figure for solar is just for utility solar. Australia is unusually oriented towards customer solar.
The Wood Mac presentation is a year old – things have changed. Also, it’s a podcast. Podcasts and videos are for entertainment. If you want to present something serious, provide a written presentation or at minimum a transcript.
Nick G
You don’t think the discussion was serious? What fact did they put forward that was not accurate?
This website looks good for up to date info
https://www.energymatters.com.au/energy-efficiency/australian-electricity-statistics/
Nice link Hugo, puts things into perspective.
Again, the primary point is that the discussion is a year old. I believe that battery installations have changed the situation in SA.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-stunning-numbers-behind-success-of-tesla-big-battery-63917/
As a secondary note: podcasts and videos are a terrible way to disseminate hard information. There are no footnotes, no references, no links, just very slow discussions. There is a very low Return of Information On Time Invested. When you read the transcripts for such presentations you often see that there’s much less information than you thought: listening to voices and watching faces captures your attention, but generally doesn’t really contain the kind of specific, quantitative information that you really need.
“podcasts and videos are a terrible way to disseminate hard information”
“Videos are for entertainment.”
Did you make the same comment about the Tony Seba links and hoorays or did I miss that?
I haven’t commented at all on the Tony Seba presentations.
I haven’t watched them, partly because they seem too speculative to be the basis of serious planning, and in part because…video is a terribly slow way to transmit information.
It’s pretty cool to look at the satellite images of single family unit neighborhoods in Adelaide. Rooftop solar is amazingly popular.
I dunno if it’s just me but it seems like it’s more popular with people who live on the North side of the street than the South side. Maybe because they put panels on North facing roofs and think they don’t look nice on the street side?
Yes, after looking on google maps satellite, most panels are not visible from the road. Local ordnance or just local norms?
https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-power-adelaide-sa-compare-deals
Dow–
-467.16(-1.87%)
Getting a bit messy—
Maybe this incredibly overvalued market is beginning to correct?
Interesting… Because not only do we need to get off fossil fuels asap, we also need to stop polluting with plastics!
https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/26/tap-a-new-startup-from-sam-rosen-wants-to-be-the-google-of-drinking-water/
Tap, a new startup from Sam Rosen, wants to be the Google of drinking water
http://arcadenw.org/blog/the-art-of-waste-the-photography-of-chris-jordan
Plastic Bottles, 2007, 60″ X 120.” From Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait. Depicts two million plastic beverage bottles: the number used in the US every five minutes.
Chris Jordan’s subject matter, in the artist’s words, is “the immense scale of our consumption” (Intolerable Beauty: Portraits of American Mass Consumption). It is the life cycle of commercial products, the habits of the individual consumer and the social implications of systems of consumption: power, excess and waste.
Last night I ordered takeaway curry from my favourite restaurant and handed over to the manager a bag with 3 re-usable containers – two for curries, one for rice. Receptacles accepted and utilised without comment.
A far cry from a few years back when I tried to order tortilla soup at Mission Burrito in Houston TX and hand my container across the counter. Get that out of here! the manager had a bit of a freak, like I was spreading anthrax powder. Thinking does change.
Don’t believe EVs are disruptive?
This Week Rings Warning Bell for Gas-Powered Cars
Trouble Ahead
As I said, these views are not surprising from a Tesla employee. But check out what Maryann Keller, an august auto analyst for four decades, wrote on LinkedIn on the very same day. Keller is the author of the 1989 book “Rude Awakening” about the rise of Japanese automakers in the United States. Her piece is entitled, “Electric Vehicles Will Destabilize the Automotive Industry.”….[snip]
Her analysis reaches a level of panic as she describes how established automakers will soon lose what makes them special – the characteristics of their engines and transmissions. “Never before has the global automotive establishment confronted such fundamental and imminent challenges,” she concludes.
Meanwhile,
TRUCK SALES SKYROCKET
The broad category of trucks includes pickups, SUVs and minivans. It now accounts for about two-thirds of new vehicle sales in the U.S.
Does not change the fact that the industry is ripe for disruption. Maybe skyrocketing truck sales make it even more so, by delaying the day of reckoning for the likes of Ford and GM. The longer they wait to go “all in”, the worse the outcome is gonna be. Disruption rules!
“Disruption rules!” Yes, and climate change plus increases in global population will see to that.
I kinda agree with both of you.
But at the end of the day, disruption does rule! I’m back in Hungary at the moment and have been seeing a few EVs here and there. Less than what I saw in Germany. My brother who lives in Munich will be picking up his brand new Nissan Leaf next month so I might get to check it out before I return to Trumpland!
However as beautiful as Budapest is, the automotive traffic is beyond horrendous. Fortunately they have a great public transport system.
But long term I don’t get the impression that Budapest is much more sustainable than São Paulo. Too many people using too many resources.
I’d say that less than 1% of Europeans have a true understanding of the fact that their current life styles are not sustainable long term. They will be disrupted for sure! As will all of us, some sooner, some a little later but there will be no escape from the realities of future disruption.
Cheers!
2020 Ford F-150 hybrid to be built at Dearborn Truck Plant
http://www.autonews.com/article/20180927/OEM04/180929782/2020-ford-f-150-hybrid-dearborn
“The longer they wait to go “all in”, the worse the outcome is gonna be”
General Motors calls for National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) program in the US
General Motors supports a nationwide program modeled on the existing ZEV program and provides these framework recommendations:
Establish ZEV requirements (by credits) each year, starting at 7% in 2021 and increasing 2% each year to 15% by 2025, then 25% by 2030.
Use of a crediting system modeled on the current ZEV program: credits per vehicle, based on EV range, as well as averaging, banking and trading.
Requirements after 2025 linked to path toward commercially viable EV battery cell availability at a cost of $70/kWh and adequate EV infrastructure development.
Establishment of a Zero Emissions Task Force to promote complementary policies.
Program terminates when 25% target is met, or based on a determination that the battery cost or infrastructure targets are not practicable within the timeframe.
Additional consideration for EVs deployed as autonomous vehicles and in rideshare programs.
In comments being filed today on the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, the Trump Administration’s proposal to freeze fuel economy regulations, General Motors proposes the establishment of a National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) program to support a 50-state solution, promote the success of the US automotive industry and preserve US industrial leadership.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/10/20181026-nzev.html
Some people are not very happy about half or quarter measures.
GM calls for garbage ‘National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) Program’ that would let China keep the EV lead
Now don’t get me wrong. What they are proposing is better than nothing, but if the government wants to save the U.S. auto industry, they would need to implement a much more aggressive mandate that would force them to accelerate their electrification plans at all levels.
Otherwise, they will find themselves in 2030 with an EV production capacity of 25% of their volume while 100% of customers will want electric vehicles.
Are they telling the stock market to expect a GM that is 25% the size of GM today? Because that’s what I’m hearing.
https://electrek.co/2018/10/26/gm-weak-national-zero-emissions-vehicle-nzev-program-china-electric-vehicle/
Doug,
EVs can be SUV, pickup truck, or car. In 2020 Tesla will start producing the Model Y (small SUV), no date yet for the pickup truck, maybe Ford will do it first 🙂
Disruption? These guys are coming out of the woodwork.
“Jair Bolsonaro is poised to win the Brazilian presidential runoff on 28 Oct., currently polling with 58 percent of the vote. He holds strong policy positions in opposition to the environment, indigenous rights and traditional land claims. Bolsonaro has pledged to open the Amazon to economic exploitation, greatly expand energy production, abolish Brazil’s environmental ministry, relax environmental licensing and regulation, open indigenous reserves to mining, and back out of the Paris climate accord.”
Speaking of disruption: A fireman and a clown walked into a brothel…
The Toronto Circus Riot of 1855
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUhKcJAsrQ
I assume this isn’t good news for the forest cover of the Amazon.
Escalating deforestation. Good thinking.
Biodiversity and watersheds are for pussies.
Why pick on just Brazil and the Amazon?!
As far as I can tell North America and Europe wiped out their native forests long ago and Asia and Africa are doing a bang up job of destroying their own forests in their respective necks of the woods, (no pun intended)…
Humans don’t yet seem to understand that they too depend on nature but I have a hunch they will find out the hard way.
Cheers!
Hi Fred. I was referring to the pending election of Bolsonaro, and the policies of a man like that likely being unfavorable to careful stewardship of the nations resources.
“Why pick on just Brazil and the Amazon?!”
Maybe its because the Amazon represents over half of the planet’s remaining rainforests, and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species. [Wiki]
Maybe its because Bolsonaro has pledged to open the Amazon to economic exploitation, greatly expand energy production, abolish Brazil’s environmental ministry, relax environmental licensing and regulation, open indigenous reserves to mining, and back out of the Paris climate accord.
Yeah, I know all that!
I composed a long reply which I can’t seem to post from where I am at the moment. Maybe I’ll try again later
Cheers!
More train wreck porn from the genius down at TESLA
Tesla Faces Deepening Criminal Probe Over Whether It Misstated Production Figures
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents are examining whether Tesla misstated information about production of its Model 3 sedans and misled investors about the company’s business going back to early 2017, people familiar with the matter say.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/26/business/tesla-fbi-probe/index.html
Economic Update: The Immigration Issue and Capitalism
https://youtu.be/P5NCMY9S-PI
The Keeling Curve measurements seem to be showing almost 1 ppm higher than predicted for the past couple of months. There’s usually some noise but deviations are generally smaller and/or shorter. Could be all the typhoons in the Pacific mixing air from the north maybe.
Hi George, I’ve been watching that data also. Good question…. perhaps one of the brighter bulbs could chime in and offer context, because, to put it mildly, I’m not a climate scientist.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
It’s the change of season, it bottomed out at 405 and is now 406, modeling the rate seen last year.
Methane Hydrates are melting.
As oceans warm the methane frozen for thousands of years is starting to be released.
https://paulbeckwith.net/2018/07/15/methane-consequence-and-accelerant-for-abrupt-climate-change/
As the methane is released from deep waters it is robbing the oceans of life supporting oxygen.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/climate-change-suffocating-low-oxygen-zones-ocean/
These processes will certainly increase in effect, I cannot see how we can stop it now.
Yes, just a couple of the many positive feedbacks. The earth system is very sensitive to temperature changes.
“As the methane is released from deep waters it is robbing the oceans of life supporting oxygen.”
Please provide evidence that methane is robbing the ocean of oxygen rather than temperature increase.
Here is a three pronged approach to reducing dead zones.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180104153511.htm
“Here is a three pronged approach to reducing dead zones.”
Oh yeah I’m sure we’ll get right on that.
Respecting fate of methane in seawater the following is a recent analysis of the issue.
FLUXES AND FATE OF DISSOLVED METHANE RELEASED AT THE SEAFLOOR AT THE LANDWARD LIMIT OF THE GAS HYDRATE STABILITY ZONE OFFSHORE WESTERN SVALBARD
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JC011084
Gonefishing
It is a chemical fact that as methane Hydrates melt the methane reacts with oxygen and is converted to Co2.
https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/energy/methane-hydrates/
Studies of how Methane hydrates will react and are reacting to ocean warming is being conducted by many scientists. They all point to increased melting and increased oxygen depletion.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL060483
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL047222
No chemical fact, methane does not react with oxygen. What happens is that bacteria consume the methane and produce CO2 as a waste product. Neither modeling study takes into account the biological activity, distribution in the oceans, or changing distribution over time.
The studies assume methane is absorbed and eaten in the water column, no leakage to atmosphere. Also the study span is 2000 to 3000 years, a very long time. Surprisingly they say oxygen from the atmosphere is only 45% replaced. Strange with such a high surface to depth ratio of exposure as seen in the ocean. I think they are assuming permanent stratification.
Also the studies just say “if 50% or 100% of methane hydrates dissociate” but give no mechanism for the dissociation. The only mechanism would be heat which would probably not happen if there is not a large atmospheric intrusion by methane. Therefor end of story.
Now the dominating factors are oxygen depletion due to increasing temperature rise, a fast change, and oxygen depletion due to plankton blooms especially diatoms. As deep low oxygen water reaches the continental shelves, the low oxygen content removes iron from the sea bottom. This enrichment feeds diatom blooms which then sink downward taking removing oxygen as they go and then fall to the bottom in a feedback cycle. More heat produces less oxygen, less oxygen produces more diatoms. An ongoing and massive change that is happening now.
Methane hydrates are a slower exacerbating system that is driven by biological action and heat over a long period of time (for the deep hydrates).
Problem for both of these systems is that the biology of the oceans is depleting. As the oceans go dead, only the physical processes will drive the process and without the biology a lot of the methane will reach the surface or be retained in the ocean at saturation level.
But again, without the methane reaching the surface temperature will not rise far enough to release the deep methane hydrates. Biological activity and distribution is a limit to conversion of methane to CO2. The whole process can go awry due to H2S production. H2S is a very toxic gas. Anaerobic methane oxidation is the first step as the methane proceeds upward through the soil. Anoxic waters prevent the methane oxidation to CO2, but sulfates in the sea floor allow production of H2S. That story has a very deadly ending.
https://news.psu.edu/story/218310/2003/11/03/hydrogen-sulfide-not-carbon-dioxide-may-have-caused-largest-mass-extinction
Complete nonsense, methane oxidizes into CO2 in seawater (and in the atmosphere), adding to the carbon dioxide levels in both realms. One molecule of methane oxidizes to give one molecule of carbon dioxide. Grade 8 chemistry.
CH4 + O2 –> CO + 2H2O
2CO + O2–> 2CO2
OCEAN OXYGEN DEPLETION DUE TO DECOMPOSITION OF SUBMARINE METHANE HYDRATE
“The released methane causes oxygen depletion via oxidation; however, its global impact is yet to be quantitatively investigated. We have projected the potential impact of oxygen depletion due to methane hydrate decomposition via numerical modeling. We find that the global methane hydrate inventory decreases by approximately 70% (35%) under four times (twice) the atmospheric CO2 concentration and is accompanied by significant global oxygen depletion on a timescale of thousands of years. In particular, we demonstrate the great expansion of suboxic and hypoxic regions, having adverse impact on marine organisms and ocean biogeochemical cycles. This is because hydrate decomposition primarily occurs in the Pacific Ocean, where present-day seawater has low oxygen concentration. Besides the decrease in oxygen solubility and reduced ventilation associated with global warming, the process described in this study is also important in oxygen depletion.”
I doubt any number of papers will convince you otherwise so won’t waste space by including references to them. BTW Analysis of individual profiles implies that the dissociation of gas hydrates occurs according to temperature and pressure (depth) at hydrate phase boundary. A quantity, named as virtual oxygen utilization (VOU), is calculated to account for the depletion of dissolved oxygen observed in seawater. I worked on ships in the Arctic where oceanographers were observing this take place so tend to agree with the science. I’m not saying that there aren’t parallel biological processes taking place as well but methane oxidizes into CO2 (in the ocean) — period.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2014GL060483
Too bad you forgot your chemistry. Look up the kinetics of dissolved methane decomposition at ocean temperatures and ocean oxygen concentrations. You might want to explain where the energy to cross the activation energy of the reaction comes from. Got a match? Lots of UV?
It’s biology me boy. Bacteria solved all those problems long ago with much better methods than your faux chemistry.
Since you do not seem to grasp the concept , I won’t waste high level studies on you, here is an eighth grade level explanation of how the ocean really works.
Methane rising up from the sediments is, to a large extent, consumed by microorganisms that live in the upper layers of the sea floor and in the water. Anaerobic bacteria – bacteria that can survive without oxygen – are active in the ocean floor. They process the methane with the help of sulphate (SO42-), thus producing hydrogen sulphide anions (HS-), hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and bicarbonate (HCO3-).
Aerobic bacteria – which need oxygen – are active in seawater. Together with oxygen (O2) they convert methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide and water (H2O). The methane therefore slowly breaks down during its journey from the seabed up through the seawater. The greater the depth from which the methane rises, the farther it has to travel and the less methane reaches the upper water layers and the atmosphere.
https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-3/methane-hydrate/mining-impacts/bacteria-consume-methane/
How Mohammed bin Salman Turned Saudi Arabia Into an Investment Wasteland
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/26/how-mohammed-bin-salman-turned-saudi-arabia-into-an-investment-wasteland-khashoggi/amp/
Elon Musk Claims ‘420’ Tweet With $20 Million SEC Fine Was ‘Worth It’
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-claims-420-tweet-with-20-million-sec-fine-wa-1830050362
God complex
“A person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of their error or failure, even in the face of irrefutable evidence”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex
What a fucking “genius”.
I don’t read the non-petroleum threads very often, so forgive me if this has already been posted.
I wonder to declining sperm counts in men might have a moderating effect on population growth.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/sperm-counts-continue-to-fall/572794/
LOL It takes only a single sperm to fertilize an egg. Don’t worry my lovelies, my count is down to 50 million per ml. 😉
Yes, it’s war plain and simple, completely surrounded by deadly enemies. Men need to train and arm their sperm, but mostly they need massive numbers to cross the defenses. It’s a suicide mission. Millions die for each that reaches the egg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FChNBd1pQVs
In a more serious note, low sperm count is often a sign of major health problems and/or toxicity.
Dogs might be easier to study.
Study demonstrates rapid decline in male dog fertility, with potential link to environmental contaminants
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160809095138.htm
We are surrounded by potentially disruptive chemicals and byproducts of those chemicals. Who knows what the long term effect of pesticides, herbicides, animal fatteners and antibiotics do to our systems? I guess he price of not dying of plague, typhoid fever, and a lot of other diseases is having to be inundated by unknowns.
https://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals
Mysterious source of greenhouse gas methane in ocean explained
According to WHOI geochemist Dan Repeta, the answer may lie in the complex ways that bacteria break down dissolved organic matter, a cocktail of substances excreted into seawater by living organisms.
In a paper released in the November 14, 2016 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, Repeta and colleagues at the University of Hawaii found that much of the ocean’s dissolved organic matter is made up of novel polysaccharides — long chains of sugar molecules created by photosynthetic bacteria in the upper ocean. Bacteria begin to slowly break these polysaccharides, tearing out pairs of carbon and phosphorus atoms (called C-P bonds) from their molecular structure. In the process, the microbes create methane, ethylene, and propylene gasses as byproducts. Most of the methane escapes back into the atmosphere.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161117145241.htm
GoneFishing, DougL,
I don’t have numbers but there’s been a lot of attention to the East Siberian Shelf as a setting where methane coming from the sea floor does reach the atmosphere.
Going on my failing memory here: The Shelf is continental shelf and the water isn’t very deep but there’s still methane coming up from beneath the drowned permafrost layer that caps the organic source. The water column is short enough, especially inshore, that not all of the methane is consumed. Now that I think of it, I don’t know if that’s coming from hydrate or just buried organics. Hmm.
Well, the Shelf covers a lot of area so the amount of methane may prove to be significant. I’m wondering now how much methane is released during meltout in lakes in the boreal forest of North America and Eurasia, and maybe from tundra lakes too; there was a paper recently presenting larger figures for such than had been expected. Reservoirs as well.
I should quit while I may still be ahead.
There is no question that shallow methane hydrates and ocean covered permafrost will and is expelling methane. The deeper clathrate takes a greater amount of temperature change to initiate, it’s a moving boundary system and dependent upon ocean circulations. The shallow systems are increasingly subject to wave action mixing now that ice is becoming minimal or absent in many areas of the Arctic for months at a time.
Here is a survey of the methane hydrate Arctic Ocean.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/05/proposal-to-extract-store-and-sell.html
One thing that needs to be kept in mind. During the large temperature rise and afterward of the PETM, land life did quite well and mammalian life diversified during that time. Sea life did not do as well. That implies either there was not much methane hydrate to destabilize or it did not to any significant degree. There may be some good news for the long term.
Gonefishing
You are correct, the shallow methane hydrates are being effected already. Those that are next to land permafrost which is already melting.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/
Although the arctic is still a carbon sink, it is only a matter of time that the tipping point is reached.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
https://eos.org/editors-vox/could-subsea-methane-hydrates-be-a-warming-tipping-point
What should concern us the most is the decline of oxygen in water, this will effect us the most as fish is the staple diet for hundreds of millions of people.
https://www.livescience.com/61338-ocean-losing-oxygen.html
There was a 2011 paper that predicted the Arcic was change from a sink o a source in the mid 2020s. That is probably conservative based on recent research. There was something a couple of years ago that showed the Arctic Ocean was actually neutral overall for Co2 (which was a surprise) and wasn’t becoming a bigger sink as the ice retreated (contrary to some earlier expectations). In the near term these are much bigger issues than the ocean dead zones.
Cold regions should be more of a CO2 sink than warm regions. We better hope the oceans continue to be a sink or we are totally fucked for a very long time. Physics says the ocean should be less of a sink with warming waters. If the thermohaline circulations slow or are stopped, stratification will increase and the oceans will stop being a sink. Of course that will also play havoc with the weather systems.
The big hope is the oceans will absorb the CO2 in a relatively short time (thousands of years) and temperature will fall back. That is a simple minded one dimensional assessment ignoring albedo changes, major biological changes, ocean current changes and carbon releases. You will see this type of fast reduction in models. Once the plankton pump slows and stops, the thermohaline slows or stops, the extra radiative forcing from loss of snow and ice heats the polar region causing massive loss of carbon, the simple minded model results look like drawings by a pre-schooler.
With over 40 positive feedbacks, we are hanging our trust on a carbon cycle we don’t understand to keep temps down below 4C (no one believes the 2C story do they?). When the system is this complex, should we trust the “science” or should we just assume that our science is unable to grasp reality and hit the emergency brake now?
Driving into a dark tunnel or down a dark road with no headlights is about what we are doing. Stopping or going very slowly are the only safe ways to approach it. So far we have slowed a little but are still in extreme danger (if one considers the global human/ecosystem as worth saving from permanent damage or total destruction).
Oh BTW, that hope of the temperature dropping and things resuming as before in 5000 to 10,000 years is shot in the foot because by then the Arctic will be receiving 5 to 10 watts/m2 more sunlight just from orbital forcing. Try refreezing under those conditions. Goodbye snow, goodbye Greenland Ice sheet, hello dark waters and land. Hello lower albedo and no more chilling from 10,000 feet high of ice sheet plateau.
Anyone willing to wait one thousand years to see if the modelers are right about CO2 removal or that methane release is not a problem?
Gone fishing,
The Earth system is indeed complex, I agree that models which attempt to understand the Earth System are imperfect, and the uncertainty is reason to reduce any further impacts as rapidly as is feasible.
Anyone notice that the current thermohaline circulation is not enough to equilibrate ocean temperature? The ocean is already stratified. Now as the polar-equator temperature differential decreases, so does the circulation.
Guess what folks, it’s a hot time in the first few hundred meters of the ocean and the deep water won’t be sucking up all that CO2.
Of course there is always diffusion and conduction.
We’re saved!! According to the USGS the Arctic Ocean is absorbing over 200 times the carbon dioxide needed to counter any warming from oceanic methane releases.
Ocean Absorption of Carbon Dioxide More than Makes Up for Methane Emissions from Seafloor Methane Seeps
The ocean waters near the surface of the Arctic Ocean absorbed 2,000 times more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than the amount of methane that escaped into the atmosphere from the same waters, according to a study by the USGS Gas Hydrates Project and collaborators in Germany and Norway. The study was conducted near Norway’s Svalbard Islands, above several seafloor methane seeps.
https://www.usgs.gov/news/ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-more-makes-methane-emissions-seafloor-methane-seeps
Now that we know that one of the big threats is stopped in it’s tracks we can go back to peak oil, renewables, water problems, population, pollution, wacko leadership and much more. Someone should send up biodegradable balloons to celebrate this new USGS finding.
One down, a few hundred to go.
Hmm, no mention of CO2 emission from the ocean or if the level of absorbance had increased. Are we being gimmicked here? CO2 is a circular system, if methane adds to that system (even at a smaller rate) then it’s still an addition?
Do you have any opinion on when ocean food chains, in the context of ocean acidification and fishing practises etc, will contract to the point that they no longer provide protein services to human populations? I believe WHO states approx 14 to 16% of protein comes from oceans. It’s worth noting that some regions consume a much higher % than others.
It’s a train crash in progress. The small and subsistence fishermen are already losing out. Fishing fleets have had to expand exponentially and are taking more low quality catch. The demand is exceeding the supply, so we are heavy into the descent.
The ever growing ignoring of fish and crustacean depletion will cause a crash even without acidification. Just as the whitetail deer and the Canada goose was essentially exterminated from the eastern US, the fish population will also be, meaning sea bird and mammalian sea life will disappear also. Unlike the eastern US, effective policy to stop the killing and replenish the animal life is not possible on the oceans. Not without war.
Total collapse could occur within the next decade or two. We can deal with the energy and materials problems but the ever massive pressure of population on the natural food system is not being restrained.
A model for the near future?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery#Present_recovery_status
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2017/02/ocean-fish-stocks-on-verge-collapse-irin-report/
No wonder people concentrate on the royal family and the kardashians
Knowing what will happen to their children is too painful
What?! You don’t like eating jellyfish?
Even though marine ecosystems are already undergoing drastic changes, the oceans will continue to provide a source of protein for a long time to come, just not in the form of large, tasty, pelagic fish such as Tuna!
Jellyfish contain about 6g of protein per 100g of weight. No fat!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26593577
Abstract
Food Chem. 2016 Apr 1;196:953-60. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.09.094. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
Nutritional composition and total collagen content of three commercially important edible jellyfish.
Khong NM1, Yusoff FM2, Jamilah B3, Basri M4, Maznah I5, Chan KW6, Nishikawa J7.
The study aimed to evaluate nutraceutical potential of three commercially significant edible jellyfish species (Acromitus hardenbergi, Rhopilema hispidum and Rhopilema esculentum). The bell and oral arms of these jellyfishes were analyzed for their proximate composition, calorific value, collagen content, amino acid profile, chemical score and elemental constituent. In general, all jellyfish possessed low calorific values (1.0-4.9 kcal/g D.W.) and negligible fat contents (0.4-1.8 g/100 g D.W.), while protein (20.0-53.9 g/100 g D.W.) and minerals (15.9-57.2g/100g D.W.) were found to be the richest components. Total collagen content of edible jellyfish varied from 122.64 to 693.92 mg/g D.W., accounting for approximately half its total protein content. The dominant amino acids in both bell and oral arms of all jellyfish studied includes glycine, glutamate, threonine, proline, aspartate and arginine, while the major elements were sodium, potassium, chlorine, magnesium, sulfur, zinc and silicon. Among the jellyfish, A. hardenbergi exhibited significantly higher total amino acids, chemical scores and collagen content (p<0.05) compared to R. hispidum and R. esculentum. Having good protein quality and low calories, edible jellyfish is an appealing source of nutritive ingredients for the development of oral formulations, nutricosmetics and functional food.
Not that jellyfish will save us either, if we continue to add those 83 million humans per annum to the planet, as we have been doing till now!
It looks like this year we will only add about 81.7 million humans to the planet.
The jellyfish will thank us!
The ocean waters near the surface of the Arctic Ocean absorbed 2,000 times more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than the amount of methane that escaped into the atmosphere from the same waters, according to a study by the USGS Gas Hydrates Project and collaborators in Germany and Norway.
Really?! That may sound great until you look at a graph such as the one below!
When the average layperson doesn’t get it, that is not all that surprising. That most reporters and pundits, in the mainstream media are scientifically and mathematically illiterate is old news, pun intended. We also have to deal with the political and economic agendas of the vested economic interests of the fossil fuel industry and their paid lackeys!
However we should set the bar a few notches higher for scientists of the USGS, or has Trump gotten in there as well?. They should be able to connect the dots and see the bigger picture! Not to mention understand a logarithmic scale and its implication.
Has everyone lost their minds or do they all have their heads stuck up their asses?!
.
Yes, we know, we know, we know.
If one looks a little deeper then much of this USGS Gas Hydrates Projects begins to look suspiciously like a fossil fuel funded project…
https://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/index.html
Gas Hydrate Project
The USGS Gas Hydrates Project focuses on the study of natural gas hydrates in deepwater marine systems and permafrost areas. The primary goals are:
Evaluate methane hydrates as a potential energy source
Investigate the interaction between methane hydrate destabilization and climate change at short and long time scales, particularly in the Arctic
Study the spatial and temporal connections between submarine slope failures and gas hydrate dynamics
The Gas Hydrate Project conducts multidisciplinary field studies, participates in national and international deep drilling expeditions, and maintains a laboratory program focused on hydrate-bearing sediments.
Yep.Suck the hydrates out and burn them before they can destabilize. Insane.
Looking at current events, the word ‘Insane’ seems to have lost its impact a bit…
Insane the new normal?
How about TotallyFreakingAssbitingCrazy?
Or is that over the top?
Maybe just saying that is sure BAU of them might describe it better.
Maybe just saying that is sure BAU of them might describe it better.
Yep, pretty much!
There are three options in tackling climate change. Only one will work
Mayer Hillman
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/30/climate-change-action-effective-ipcc-report-fossil-fuels
Remarkably, public expectations about the future indicate that only minor changes in the carbon-based aspects of our lifestyles are anticipated. It is as if people can continue to believe that they have an inalienable right to travel as far and as frequently as they can afford. Indeed, there is a widespread refusal by politicians to admit to the fact the process of melting ice caps contributing to sea level rises, and permafrost thawing in tundra regions cannot now be stopped, let alone reversed. The longer we procrastinate, the greater the certainty of environmental degradation, social upheaval and economic chaos.
National leaders are unable to reconcile the expectations of their electorates for higher living standards by burning fossil fuels, with the absolute need to live within the planet’s finite environmental capacity. Nor, in democracies, can they move too far ahead of public opinion.
Oh, and BTW, barring some miracle, the third option is likely not going to work either… My condolences and deepest apologies to future generations!
Most people are familiar with the legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This age-old rule prevents individuals from avoiding prosecution by claiming that they did not know their conduct was illegal.
Unfortunately this principle applies in spades when it comes to continuing to ignore the fact that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, simply cannot be broken without paying the very severe consequences, which are: The complete extinction of life as we currently know it on this planet. We are all on a global suicide mission!
At this point it probably won’t change the final outcome but we could start by prosecuting the CEOs of these companies.
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Cheers!
&lNational leaders are unable to reconcile the expectations of their electorates for higher living standards by burning fossil fuels, with the absolute need to live within the planet’s finite environmental capacity.
I’m so tired of this nonsense. It’s time for people to realize that fossil fuels are NOT necessary for higher living standards. EVs are better. Passive Houses are better. Planes with batteries and synthetic fuels will work just fine.
Sure, we need to reduce fossil fuel consumption quickly. We might need to carpool for a few years…the horror!
So how do you allocate responsibility between the company with emissions vs their customers whose demand pays for the companies output?
Similiarly, some people have expressed dismay at the USA selling weapons to Saudis for use against the Yemenis, but those same people think nothing of driving up to the mountains for pleasure. The fuel the burn may not be from S. Arabia, but it is helping to keep the price of oil up in the world and thus keeping the Saudi weapon purchasing capability high.
Selling oil is fine.
Lying about it’s costs (pollution, war casualties, economic insecurity, corruption and inequality etc) is dead wrong.
So how do you allocate responsibility between the company with emissions vs their customers whose demand pays for the companies output?
The same way I allocate responsibility between drug pushers and drug addicts! I prosecute the drug pushers and try to treat the drug addicts. Of course once the drugs are simply not available then the addicts go cold turkey regardless, painful as that might be!. The drug pushers need to do some really hard time!
And since most of our politicians are complicit with the drug pushers they need to be locked up as well for crimes against humanity!
The rest of us need to grow a pair and fight these bastards any way we can and put them all out of business! Capice?!
Here is where I am going to offer a different perspective on that Fred-
-people lose their choice when they have a drug addiction.
-people can choose to use less oil. free will. less convenient. more expensive. but it a choice. and therefore we all have responsibility for the consequences.
A much harder question is the responsibility of the tax payer for the bombs his/her nation sells or drops on another. Just to say I didn’t vote for those bastards doesn’t mean you didn’t pay.
I draw a big distinction between drug sellers and drug pushers.
People who simply sell drugs should be made legal and regulated. People who market, lobby and lie for drugs should be given life sentences without parole.
A somewhat interesting article/analysis if you like current events and what IEDs made by that dude who seems mentally ill look like on X-ray.
The failed bombing attempts on leading anti-Trump voices.
http://indianmavericks.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-failed-bombing-attempts-on-leading.html?m=1
“Once that last threshold is crossed (i.e. people are killed on account of Trump’s hate speech) – the Media should resort to treating him as they treat any other terrorist. They should stop relaying his exact words or images and ONLY editorialize on his statements in a way that degrades his standing in society. A simple way to do this is to discuss an issue in detail and say that Trump spouted his usual unproductive rhetoric on the issue. This will IMHO shut Trump up forever.”
Republicans like Trump the way he is. He helps to fulfill their hate lust.
He helps them to forget that they are all (offspring of) immigrants.
He helps them to live in a world of denial- that they are enablers of and complicit with domestic terrorism.
They will find media sources that fit their belief system.
According to https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.arc-lea.t2anom world anomaly at the moment is 1°C and northern hemisphere is 1.4°C. There are lots of different baselines against which anomalies are measured but I think they use the 1979 to 2000 average (below) which is about 0.6°C above the 1850 to 1900 ‘pre-industrial’ number. Therefore as far as I can see we’re currently just about past the IPCC limit for the world (and above 2°C for the NH). It’s predicted to cool down for the rest of the week, but there’s also El Nino predicted by https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/ at above 70% until next June.
After using catalytic converters and other anti-pollution devices the rate rose to 1.5C per century. Once Asia and others clean up their acts, expect 2.5C/century.
Gone fishing,
So increased CO2 had no effect? Or only was responsible for 0.5 C of 1.5C? Not what the data indicates (using multilinear regression on ln(CO2atm) and Sato data from GISS to represent aerosol loads) where aerosol change from 1980 to 2011 suggests about 4% of the rise in temperature was due to reduced aerosol. The aerosol effect is more limited than you seem to think. Regression on ln CO2 and Sato aerosol data (annual average) vs BEST land ocean data from 1850 to 2011 (end of Sato data). Adjusted R squared is 84% over the 1850 to 2011 interval.
Used Law Dome, Mauna Loa and Global CO2 data
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome-data.html
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Sato data
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
BEST data (Land ocean used)
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/
Regression is a linear least squares on LO Temp (Y) vs ln(CO2), aerosol (X)
“So increased CO2 had no effect? Or only was responsible for 0.5 C of 1.5C?”
How did you come to that conclusion from what I said? You misinterpret all the time in your comments. Sometimes I think you do not have much real world experience or worked in actual physical sciences.
Compounds that block or reflect sunlight, reduce heating, got it. When one removes the pollution that blocks the input energy, then the actual full temperature rise from GHG comes into play.
Maybe you just don’t know how strong the actual effect of GHG’s are because the effects are blocked or partially blocked.
You were probably too young to see it. You could see the air, every city had a big grey dome over it. The whole horizon (longest view through the atmosphere) had a brown ring. It stank.
As a spectroscopist I have used electromagnetic energy from radio waves, infrared, optical, UV up to X-rays for analysis. I know how these work and I know the physics of interactions with various materials including GHG.
I also know if you put a filter or a reflector between the source and the detector that the energy input will change.
Hey, guess what? Look at 1940 to 1980. Heavy pollution across all industrialized nations. Then see what happens when environmental controls start coming into place? Boom, up goes the temperature.
Had nothing to do with CO2, had to do with other pollutants blocking or reflecting the radiation. CO2 was absorbing infrared all along, just did not have as much to work with.
Still does, just not as much in USA/Euro land.
Try this experiment. Go outside, feel the sun on your face, now put a piece of white paper between your face and the sun. It should feel cooler, tell me if it doesn’t. Not sure why you have not noticed that it is cooler in the shade than in direct sunlight. Maybe you did, but never made the leap to conclude that lower energy input means lower temperature.
You may someday, if you try hard, realize 70 percent of the earth energy is controlled by the atmosphere. It’s not just CO2, there is more than one variable in play.
Gonefishing,
Try reading some papers on the subject. There are a number of effects to consider with aerosols. They can effect cloud cover, both low clouds and high clouds. The soot can be deposited on snow, reducing albedo and increasing warming. The net effect of fossil fuel aerosol emissions, is expected to be increased warming.
See
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_ha01110v.pdf
Table 5 page D18104 (screen clip below)
Note that I have used the data to come to my conclusion, if 1940 to 1980 had the effect you assume, it should show up in the data.
Also see page D18104 for a short discussion of the Sato data:
However, there are empirical constraints such as the AERONET observations analyzed by Sato et al. [2003]. Contrary to the claim of Reddy et al. [2005], Sato et al. [2003] did not filter the AERONET data with single scatter albedo retrievals.
I agree aerosols will have an effect, but on a global scale the effect is not as large as you think.
The polluted urban areas are a small part of the globe. The interaction between aerosols and clouds is complex, not quite as simple as an awning.
It’s far more complicated than you think. Even the IPCC shows minus 1.5 w/m2 for aerosols.
Reduction of SOx is a major factor to increase the amount of light reaching the surface. In order for GHG’s to warm the atmosphere, they need the visible light to be converted to lower energy long wave infrared. The light must strike matter to do that. Once that increase occurs, the GHG’s, dependent upon energy input, reflect more of the LW energy back into the atmosphere instead of space. Global temperature then rises from increased input and increased GHG effects. But it is all dependent upon input.
Reflective fogs are a problem too, but one factor that is not often talked about is the atmospheric chemistry of methane. Once NOx is reduced by environmental laws on combustion, the methane increases. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and warms the planet quickly.
So the combination of more transparent air, less reflective clouds, lower NOx, higher methane and increasing GHG overall makes for an increasing temperature rise. Increasing the transparency of the atmosphere to visible light will increase the heating rate, changing the chemistry will also do that and of course more heat increases all the other feedbacks. When the aerosols such as SOx and NOx are depleted, then the true rate of GHG heating will be revealed. Now it appears that GHG heating is greater than aerosol cooling, due to increase in GHG concentration.
Here is a case where older knowledge is again coming to the forefront with new research.
Cleaning Up Air Pollution May Strengthen Global Warming
New research is helping quantify just how big that effect might be
Other research has also supported the idea that aerosols have influenced global temperatures as a whole. Another 2016 paper, also published in Nature Geoscience, suggested that about a third of all the warming that occurred over land areas over the past 50 years was masked—temporarily covered up, in other words—by aerosol pollution.
Collectively, the research indicates that greenhouse gas emissions have had an even greater effect on the climate so far than it appears—it’s just that part of it has been obscured by the presence of air pollution. As the air gets cleaner, those masked effects will start to make themselves known.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/
See Chapter 7 AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf
on page 620 they estimate -0.9 W/m^2, and I agree it is quite complex.
When we add the effect of black carbon (about 0.04 W/m^2) the total effect of aerosol is about -0.86 W/m^2.
Note that some of the aerosols are dust, and natural sources such as volcanoes and forest fires, though the proportions are not well measured.
Also consider Chapter 10 of AR5 and figure 10.5 on p.884.
From 1951 to 2010 forcing from anthropogenic sources that are not well mixed greenhouse gases (GHG) is estimated at about -0.25 C. If we assume all of this is aerosol effects (radiation, clouds, and black carbon on snow), then elimination of anthropogenic aerosol emissions would result in a 0.25 C increase in temp, on top of increases from GHG and other fast feedbacks.
Global dimming:
A new aspect of climate change
A review of the published information on
secular changes in Eg! up to 2000 concluded
that globally the decrease averaged
0.51 ± 0.05Wm–2 annually, equivalent to a
reduction of 2.7% per decade, and now
totals 20Wm–2 – seven times the error of
measurement. Decreases in Eg! were found
in all but two of the published results from
the 39 individual series of long-term measurements
tabulated in the review; at 28 sites
the global dimming was statistically significant
with an average reduction of
0.55Wm–2 per year. Only one of the two
increases reported for individual series was
statistically significant (Stanhill and Cohen
2001).
The degree of global dimming varied
markedly with latitude as shown in Fig. 1 –
the maximum decrease, exceeding 1 Wm–2
per year, occurring in the midlatitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere, the earth’s most
densely populated and industrialised zone.
However, significant reductions in Eg! were
found even within the empty polar circles,
0.36Wm–2 per year in the Arctic and
0.28Wm–2 per year in the Antarctic; both
these reductions were based on an analysis
of data from all of the pyranometer stations
in the two polar regions.
https://imedea.uib-csic.es/master/cambioglobal/Modulo_I_cod101601/Ballabrera_Diciembre_2011/Articulos/Stanhill.2005.pdf
A simple model.
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/
I have reproduced the model in its simplest form (5 year centered averages presented).
Coefficients (intercept, CO2 (ln), SOI, Aerosols, LOD, TSI)
-17.082
2.954
0.080
-2.355
-0.032
0.087
And when you learn what the word aerosols means, we can talk further.
From NASA:
The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface.
The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds.
Climatic Effects of Aerosols
The additional reflection caused by pollution aerosols is expected to have an effect on the climate comparable in magnitude to that of increasing concentrations of atmospheric gases. The effect of the aerosols, however, will be opposite to the effect of the increasing atmospheric trace gases – cooling instead of warming the atmosphere.
The warming effect of the greenhouse gases is expected to take place everywhere, but the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas. No one knows what the outcome will be of atmospheric warming in some regions and cooling in others. Climate models are still too primitive to provide reliable insight into the possible outcome. Current observations of the buildup are available only for a few locations around the globe and these observations are fragmentary.
Understanding how much sulfur-based pollution is present in the atmosphere is important for understanding the effectiveness of current sulfur dioxide pollution control strategies.
Gone Fishing,
And your point? The data from Sato measures the effect of Aerosols.
See
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/
Data through 1993 is discussed at paper below,
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Sato_sa08000d.pdf
You seem to think you know more than the geophysicists and geochemists that study climate change, I have no illusions that I understand this better than the experts. T
I linked to an earlier paper
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01110v.html
There are also
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ko07100z.html
and
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi07010j.html
My guess is these scientists are likely on the right track, but there is no doubt more research needed.
Chapter 7 and Chapter 10 of IPCC AR5 are also useful summaries of knowledge through 2013.
That description is very nice, but a bit dated (1996)
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html
Came across some fairly new research (Sept 2018) that may be of interest. There is still much to learn.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06280-4#Tab1
Global Dimming and Brightening
Decadal changes in sunlight at the Earth’s surface
https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Wild-slides.pdf
Gone fishing,
Interesting presentation. Not sure how much a comparison of Northern and Southern hemisphere makes sense as much of the Northern Hemisphere land mass is at higher latitudes (where polar amplification tends to increase the average temperature), for the Southern hemisphere the reverse is true.
Some of the dimming may be due to more cloud formation simply due to warming, some of the cycles in relative warming rates may be more related to changes in ocean circulation over time, rather than the dimming and brightening story. When looking at the Aerosol Optical Depth data and comparing it to changes in temperature, the effect seems relatively small at the global level.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global-dimming-and-global-warming/
also
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/aerosol_dimming.html
Believe what you want, the temperature and SOx data match quite well.
The solar data from China shows a loss of ground level radiation increasing from the time they heavily industrialized.
Yes, sulfur pollution causes more persistent clouds.
Yeah, there is lot of handwaving in the climate change community. There is little hope of any real progress when they are all wanting to be right about their little part of the puzzle.
Too bad they never take a system approach to the planet and look at the bigger picture. They niggle about a half watt here or a watt there, when the real changes involve tens of watts per m2.
Oh yeah, this global average crap is not where the action is at. But I have beat that drum in the past and the mules still don’t pull.
Gone fishing,
You can believe what you want as well. The climate scientists do try to look at the whole system, but there are large areas of the science that are not well understood, the system is quite complex. The climate scientists look at the planet on a 2 x 2.5 degree horizontal grid and 40 atmospheric vertical layers, this is couples to an Ocean model with 32 layers on a 1 x 1.25 degree horizontal grid, often the AOGCM is coupled with a carbon cycle model, many of these do not include modelling for permafrost or ice sheet dynamics over time as these processes are less well understood.
The dimming due to aerosols is included in the models, despite what you seem to think.
The changes in radiative forcing are net changes for the entire planet averaged over an entire seasonal cycle. So you are making apples to oranges comparisons.
Hansen and others have said the net increase in radiative forcing (over a short period that captures fast feedbacks) is about 3.7 to 4 Wm-2 for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above preindustrial (roughly 560 ppm), this does not include ice sheet changes, changes in land forms due to a warming climate and permafrost melt (all of which are expected to be longer term processes). The mainstream consensus is about a 1.8 C transient climate response (almost immediate temperature change as atmospheric CO2 doubles over a 100 year period) and a 3 C equilibrium climate response as the Ocean gradually reaches some equilibrium temperature over a 300 to 500 year period. Local effects might be 10 watts or more (severe volcanic eruption) and certainly seasonal effects can be larger than that. If we want to look at the Global system, the average temperature and how it has changed over time is just a simple starting point.
Arctic areas around Greenland and Canada are predicted to be much colder than normal in the next month.
Canada, Europe, Russia look nice and toasty along with much of the ocean. Alaska is getting a reprieve from their heat waves. Nice in the US too.
Thanks Bob, looking forward to it. I don’t ski anymore so warmish is good.
I watched a segment on One America News where they explained the IPCC report is just a bunch of lies designed to destroy America’s energy dominance. Notice how this is the new phrase Republicans are using in campaigns now this year: energy dominance vs. energy independence.
When it comes to fossil fuels America is neither dominant nor independent.
And to be clear, fossil fuels are not synonymous with energy!
Most Republicans are dumber than a bag of rocks and the rest are immoral unethical POS!
As a newly minted citizen of ‘The Good Country’ I am now actively trying to spread the word and hoping to get others to join! I consider being a part of it, to be the antithesis, of narrow close minded Ultra Nationalism and populism. Neither of which propose any real solutions to our global predicaments.
While alternative energy and EVs, by themselves, are definitely not going the save the world, perhaps finding a path forward towards a new paradigm and vision is something we can all take part in.
https://goodcountry.org/
Interesting concept Mr Ambassador- but I’ll not sign on unless I can learn enough to be convinced that this project puts more emphasis on freedom for religious and ethnic minorities, democracy over authoritarianism, protection against hate crimes, protection for free journalism, and the like.
(ex- why does Hungary rank so high with such a hater leader in office?)
Also, what sense of certainty do you have that this organization, who seeks to have a voice at the table of international affairs, won’t be co-opted by those with a specific agenda, such as religious fundamentalism?
“Driven by zero-sum thinking, the rigid, inflexible, ideological thinking and obsessive need of our collective human ego to be absolutely and imperatively “right”, is rapidly driving our Nation and our American democracy toward collapse.”
I have no intention of trying to convince you or anyone else, one way or another. I have provided a link for anyone to explore. If it is not something that makes sense to you or if you have doubts. That’s fine.
(ex- why does Hungary rank so high with such a hater leader in office?)
The reasoning behind the ranking of all countries is clearly explained on the website.
Also, what sense of certainty do you have that this organization, who seeks to have a voice at the table of international affairs, won’t be co-opted by those with a specific agenda, such as religious fundamentalism?
I have no sense of certainty about anything, though given the kind of values expressed by the founders and those who have signed up so far I find that rather unlikely.
Cheers!
don’t mind me Fred, I’m just more pissed at humanity than usual this morning. Not sure if its the deficit in kindness or the excess in hate.
Either way, its souring my normally glorious and rosy outlook.
No worries!
“its souring my normally glorious and rosy outlook.”
Pangloss is getting woke
Here is where the conversation is today about how we can continue to conduct business as usual if we just take some easy steps-
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45967215
They sound easy but they aren’t, much better to elect far thinking and enlightened leaders like Bolsonaro to sort things out, no … wait, er.
Now wait a second, you get paid 20 dollars a ton for removing CO2, and we get to pay higher electricity prices because the CO2 produced by burning the bio-waste has to be captured underground?
Why not just pay wind turbine, PV installations, and EV owners instead since they “remove” all that current and future CO2 that did not have to be produced and save money to boot? That would move things a bit faster and actually solve the problem.
As the trees grow they become more valuable (even as just firewood) than the $20 per ton and guess what happens to the trees (if they don’t just burn)? Hopefully lumber, but much will be burned for heating.
1000 trees *2.5 tons/tree *$20/ton is $50,000.
As firewood we are looking at up to $200,000. Once they are grown they can/ will be burned. So much for storing carbon.
As lumber they could store for up to another 200 years and might be much more valuable if they are the right species.
We would be better off oxygenating the ocean. Giant aquarium bubblers for the ocean. 🙂
Things will not get this bad, but it’s nice to know the boundaries of the system. Yes, the sun is brighter now, but I don’t think we have enough carbon available to disrupt the system this far (fossil plus natural). Of course the earth does, so let’s hope volcanism stays low for the next 100,000 years or so and cloudiness does not diminish.
Extreme Global Warming May Have Caused Largest Extinction Ever
The upper part of the ocean may have reached about 100 degrees F (38 degrees C), and sea-surface temperatures may have exceeded 104 degrees F (40 degrees C). For comparison, today’s average annual sea-surface temperatures around the equator are 77 to 86 degrees F (25 to 30 degrees C).
“Photosynthesis starts to shut down at about 35 degrees C…
https://www.livescience.com/24091-extreme-global-warming-mass-extinction.html
Perhaps human extinction would be a good thing?
‘The world’ needs a breather.
People are long overdue for a ‘timeout’.
That is going to happen–
The details just need to present themselves .
OK some good meaty news-
Univ Texas report-
What is the cheapest from of power generation by county for the USA?
quick review- https://www.utilitydive.com/news/study-natural-gas-wind-solar-cheapest-power-generation/540803/
full report- https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_LCOE_2016.pdf
The study includes an online calculator as a reference for policymakers and stakeholders to determine the “cost implications of potential policy actions” by county.
Behind paywall in The Times:
Humans to blame as 60% of world’s wildlife is lost
Wildlife populations have fallen globally by an average of 60 per cent since 1970 and loss of habitat is the biggest cause, conservationists have said.
…
“Exploding human consumption” is blamed for much of the decline, with the report saying that vast tracts of wildlife habitat had been lost to palm oil and soy plantations and the construction of dams, mines and roads.
…
Overfishing and the introduction by humans of invasive species are the next biggest factors. Pollution and climate change were growing threats.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2018
We are pushing our planet to the brink. Human activity—how we feed, fuel, and finance our lives—is taking an unprecedented toll on wildlife, wild places, and the natural resources we need to survive.
On average, we’ve seen an astonishing 60% decline in the size of populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in just over 40 years, according to WWF’s Living Planet Report 2018. The top threats to species identified in the report link directly to human activities, including habitat loss and degradation and the excessive use of wildlife such as overfishing and overhunting.
The report presents a sobering picture of the impact human activity has on the world’s wildlife, forests, oceans, rivers, and climate. We’re facing a rapidly closing window for action and the urgent need for everyone—everyone—to collectively rethink and redefine how we value, protect, and restore nature.
A copy of that same report that is NOT behind a paywall:
Earth’s wild animal population plummets 60 percent in 44 years
From 1970 to 2014, 60 percent of all animals with a backbone – fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals – were wiped out by human activity, according to WWF’s Living Planet report, based on an ongoing survey of more than 4,000 species spread over 16,700 populations scattered across the globe.
“The situation is really bad and it keeps getting worse,” WWF International director general Marco Lambertini told AFP news agency. “The only good news is that we know exactly what is happening.”
For freshwater fauna, the decline in population over the 44 years monitored was a staggering 80 percent. Regionally, Latin America was hit hardest, seeing a nearly 90 percent loss of wildlife over the same period.
—
For corals, it may already be too late. Back-to-back marine heatwaves have already wiped out up to half of the globe’s shallow-water reefs, which support a quarter of all marine life.
Even if humanity manages to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius – mission impossible, according to some scientists – coral mortality will likely be 70 to 90 percent.
A world warming at 2C would be a death sentence, a major UN report concluded last month.
One congressmen was heard to murmur-
“thats what zoos are for”
you can guess what party
He didn’t say, “That’s what an arc is for”?
But then again, that would concede the risk of global flooding.
Big new ice berg at Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica (faster retreating glacier now – 3 miles since 2015), 5 times the size of Manhattan.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/an-iceberg-five-times-the-size-of-manhattan-just-popped-1830094386
Why is it called Pine Island Glacier?
Most people just call it “The Pig”
And speaking of warm water…
I was walking around in the park behind the Széchenyi Spa in Budapest today and came across this old stone engraving above a nice little pond filled with lilly pads which I found to be more than a bit unusual. Especially given that this is the end of October and they were preparing the ice skating rink nearby.
Picture below, The information on the inscription seems to say:
Can’t quite make out the beginning of the first line but …’KUT’ means WELL.
1257 M 75 °C (I assume that is the water temperature at that depth.) since there are lilly pads the surface must be cooler 😉
Dissolved in 1 L of water, 1774.53 mg
Of:’ásványianyag tartalom’, basically means mineral content. (could be a lot of things in there…)
The baths nearby at the Spa date to early Roman times!
.
Nice historical find Fred and geothermal too!
Yeah, Budapest has great potential for harnessing geothermal energy!
https://bbj.hu/energy-environment/geothermal-plant-gears-for-november-launch-_139987
Hungaryʼs first combined geothermal heat and power plant in Tura, in Pest County northeast of Budapest, is currently at the commissioning phase, with the official start of operation planned for November, according to reports.
That was a year ago. Better late than never!
Cheers!
More bad news on the coral front.
Great Barrier Reef Under Threat of Mass Bleaching Again in 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxXZVK9GcgI
We know! We know! We know! 🙁
If you are looking for a chance to like the policies advocated by GM- here is a chance
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/gm-calls-for-national-ev-sales-program/540964/
GoneFishing says:
10/27/2018 at 4:22 pm
Some people are not very happy about half or quarter measures.
GM calls for garbage ‘National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) Program’ that would let China keep the EV lead
It’s too bad, because GM knows how to make a good EV. They just don’t know how to support and sell them.
They’re a big organization, and some people inside it are committed to EVs, and some hate them (think people with long career experience with ICEs).
Dealers are a special problem: their business model depends on profits from repairs, and EVs are much lower maintenance. You can’t get a dealer to sell you an EV for love nor money.
That, of course, is a primary reason Tesla doesn’t do dealerships.
The Chevy Volt has more lines of code than the space shuttle. That was a decade ago. That’s Scary even Today.
The shuttle’s not quite the best comparison – it was powered by a a specialized IBM computer that was developed before, and was slower than the original 1981 PC XT (well, 5 redundant computers, actually). The engineers were risk averse and figured they shouldn’t mess with a system that worked. OTOH, it meant that the shuttle, near the end of its life, was maintained with parts bought by NASA on eBay.
https://www.geek.com/chips/nasa-needs-8086-chips-549867/
The Volt has more lines of code than an Air Force tactical fighter – around 10 million!
I have a Volt and will certify in court that most of the lines of code (no doubt written by a 19 year old skateboarder) are dedicated to flashing lights, unnecessary messages, unintended radio operations and just plain irritating me.
I love the powertrain, tho.
The Volt has functioned well over time though, correct?
Compared to other hybrids.
I would guess that hybrid control systems are more complicated than pure electric ones?
Yes, to both.
GM wanted the Volt to be a tech halo car, so they went out of their way to make it perfect. Sadly, they didn’t work that hard at selling them: halo cars are just to look good, not to sell.
Why Ford Stopped Making Cars, What Went Wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxPf7vBwXsQ&t=6s
Global Dimming vs Warming
from https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Wild-slides.pdf
Assymetric Hemispheric heating
from https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Wild-slides.pdf
Gone fishing,
The argument that aerosols are very important can lead to the argument that CO2 doesn’t matter.
Look at Global GISTEMP LOTI from 1920 to 1945 (few volcanoes during that period relative to 1880 to 1920) and the rate of temp increase is 1.61 C/century. For the 1968 to 2017 period we get 1.78 C per century which leads to the argument that atmospheric CO2 does not matter.
I think the aerosols are less important than some scientists argue for. Likewise the AMO may influence global rates of warming but that is secondary to the CO2 and other greenhouse gas forcing (and the related fast feedbacks from clouds and water vapor, etc) in my opinion.
“The argument that aerosols are very important can lead to the argument that CO2 doesn’t matter.” False premise. You have it backwards anyway.
This is not a popularity contest of who is more important than the other. The existence of reflective chemical systems does not change the physics of GHG’s.
Are you implying that CO2 can decide to not take part in the physical system?
Dennis,
What climate scientists KNOW is that since the Industrial Revolution, humans have pumped more and more aerosols into the air which have counteracted global warming to a significant degree. Using models, they’ve estimate aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the Earth’s surface. In fact, without the presence of these aerosols in the air the planet would now be about one-degree C hotter than it is (One big problem is that most aerosols are bad for human health.) Of course, aerosol particles do not stay in the atmosphere for long, and most GWGs stay in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, so accumulated heat-trapping gases will overpower any temporary cooling due to short-lived aerosol particles. In any case, it doesn’t matter what you or I THINK. This is what the science is telling us.
Should I add as a footnote the fact that with decreasing coal and oil (especially diesel) aerosol levels will quickly drop? This is one of the reasons widespread adoption of EVs would/will be a mixed blessing. Think how many aerosols would disappear from the northern hemisphere if China and India suddenly converted to solar powered EVs.
Hmm. Aerosols are accidental geo-engineering. I share your fear of deliberate geo-engineering (what can go wrong?), but it does seem to support the idea.
BTW, we humans unfortunately will never know truth directly. It will always be a question of what we think the physics/science is. We may come to consensus. We may be confident in our models of reality. But, we’ll always be relying on what we think is the truth.
Cogito ergo sum.
“We may come to consensus. We may be confident in our models of reality. But, we’ll always be relying on what we think is the truth”
Reality? Reality is easy compared to achieving understanding.
Nahhh, there are many things we can measure directly, repeatedly and prove. Look at all the things we are able to do successfully. Right down to the structure of molecules and atoms up to the structure of the universe. Building flying machines like they are humdrum now.
We just are not up to extremely complex, interdependent non-linear systems like the earth system (which combines both physics, chemistry and biology as well as some astronomy). There are limits to our knowledge, math and sensing capabilities.
Still, we have enough knowledge to mostly know what we are doing wrong, yet not enough will and courage to change on a large scale, so further knowledge and ability is useless and frustrating.
No, we do not need certainty to act, not in the presence of extreme danger. We need to stay ahead of the danger, but now find we are in it’s midst and we are the danger. That is reality enough.
I agree. That’s what I was referring to, when I talked about consensus and confidence.
OTOH, it’s not really true that we know enough. We need to know much more about human psychology, sociology and poltical science. We need to understand how to manage psychopathic billionaires, propaganda, rumor and fear, etc.
We certainly know enough to take action. But we could certainly use more knowledge to allow us to be more successful.
Sum ergo cogito! 😉
Cogito, ergo sum according to the internet.
NAOM
Doug,
RF from GHG about 2.9 Wm-2
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
IPCC AR5 Chapter 7 estimate for aerosol RF is -0.86 Wm-2
So without the aerosols we would have 2.9 Wm-2 of RF instead of 2 Wm-2, since 1850 to 1899 (average for that period) we have had about 1 C of warming, without the aerosols it might have been 1.5 C. That is what the science says as of 2013. Note tat there is wide uncertainty in the aerosol estimate from 0 to 1.8 Wm-2, so potentially it could be no effect to the 1 C that you estimate.
This is all I’m saying:
CLIMATE IMPACTS FROM A REMOVAL OF ANTHROPOGENIC AEROSOL EMISSIONS
“To keep within 1.5 or 2° of global warming, we need massive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, aerosol emissions will be strongly reduced. We show how cleaning up aerosols, predominantly sulfate, may add an additional half a degree of global warming, with impacts that strengthen those from greenhouse gas warming. The northern hemisphere is found to be more sensitive to aerosol removal than greenhouse gas warming, because of where the aerosols are emitted today. This means that it does not only matter whether or not we reach international climate targets. It also matters how we get there.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076079
This agrees with the estimate I gave of 0.5 C, but in reality I realize it will be larger when climate reaches short term stability (ocean warms to equilibrium in 300 to 500 years), possibly another 0.25 C, in a sense if we use 4 Wm-2 as equivalent to doubling of CO2 which will lead to about 3 C of warming (when oceans reach equilibrium temperature), we are currently at about 3Wm-2 from GHG, so this suggests 3/4 times 3 or 2.25 C of warming from current levels of GHG, some of these GHG are shorter lived (methane mostly) so possibly reduction of methane emissions could offset some of the increased warming due to reduction of SO2, also some of the aerosols are natural (forest fires and volcanoes) so it is unlikely that aerosol forcing will be reduced to zero.
Not sure if forcing from various aerosols have been well measured.
Is this the last Open Non-Petroleum thread or something?
Just curious…
Probably not the last
This is the doofus WW at the WUWT blog, claiming there is very little warming in California:
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/average-temperature-statewide-ca.png
However this is a plot of temperature during the “water year” months from the research literature:
https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/bdc261c6-dca9-4d3f-b294-0823f17ec58b/grl53309-fig-0004-m.jpg
from “Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012–2014”
Wonderin Willis claims that temperature changed only ~0.2C, while it’s obvious that the change is at least 1C from the peer-reviewed paper.