The climate change scientific consensus is summarized via the annual IPCC documents. In one of the IPCC sections, projections of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel usage are made in the context of several scenarios, which are referred to as Representation Concentration Pathways (RCP). Historically, the “business-as-usual” pathway was declared to be RCP8.5.
That has worked out as describing an extreme emission scenario IF society did not take corrective action in reducing emissions. In other words, RCP8.5 tracks a growth path in fossil fuels that is extrapolated from the current economic growth rate and largely dead-reckoned FF production increases.
Recently an energy analyst named Michael Liebreich challenged this assumption in the context of the possibility of greater fossil fuel depletion than is currently mapped out in the IPCC, calling the RCP8.5 estimate “bollox” in a tweet. When challenged on this assertion, he rationalized his claim as follows:
“Here’s why I reject scare stories based on RCP 8.5 and SSP5. They assume a vast increase in coal use in the absence of more international cooperation on climate. But the reality is that it coal power is peaking already. Climate change is scary enough, we don’t need ghost stories.”
— Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) August 4, 2019
This started a tweetstorm that has been going on for over a week now, and that has generally pitted climate change activists against energy analysts. The discussion is refreshing in that full-fledged climate change skeptics aren’t actively participating, but that is likely because the arguments are over equally negative economic outcomes – in other words, what the argument is over concerns the likely balance between the downward growth trend resulting from fossil fuel depletion (and possible demand slowdown) and any increase in climate sensitivity resulting from the uncertainty in climate models.
This back-and-forth is described by energy analyst Glen Peters:
“This RCP8.5 thread has been good at showing that the audience that climate scientists communicate with is rather different to the audience that energy system scientists communicate with.
Energy modelers: RCP8.5 is bollocks
Climate modelers: RCP8.5 is useful & shows extremes”— Glen Peters (@Peters_Glen) August 13, 2019
The most striking aspect of the RCP8.5 scenario is how much it emphasizes coal.
“What would make someone think coal might be the “go to” fuel?”
— Ken Caldeira (@KenCaldeira) August 12, 2019
The other aspect is that the RCP8.5 scenario is already wrong when compared against current worldwide oil production, as it overestimated output by a significant amount, and that this estimate will continue rising until it reaches 165 million barrels a day before declining (with coal taking up the slack apparently).
This argument may only end when the International Panel on Climate Change is renamed as the International Panel on Climate Change and Peak Oil, and the climate scientists and energy analysts decide to consolidate their models.
From the peak fossil fuel perspective, an analysis informed by work by Jean Laherrere, Steve Mohr, David Rutledge, and others utilizing a Shock Model Analysis has been presented at peakoilbarrel.com previously.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/world-natural-gas-shock-model/
http://peakoilbarrel.com/coal-shock-model/
The medium oil shock model was recently updated.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-shock-model-scenarios-2/
The underlying analysis behind the shock model can be found in our monograph Mathematical Geoenergy.
Low, Medium, and High scenarios for fossil fuels are presented below where consumption is assumed to roughly match production and demand is assumed to always rise to a level that matches available supply. Note that more recent analyses by Mohr et al suggest the high scenario may be a better estimate than the medium scenario, however the high fossil fuel scenario in the updated Mohr et al (2015) analysis assumes significant output from methane hydrates and liquid oil from kerogen, which both are unproven supply sources to date.
An alternative simple projection uses BP Statistical Review of World Energy data for fossil fuel consumption converted to exajoules (EJ). The trend from 1982 to 2018 is projected to 2050 suggesting about 700 EJ of fossil fuel consumption in 2050. Actual peak fossil fuel consumption is likely to be less than this due to peak fossil fuels in the 2030 to 2040 time frame.
The mean time for absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is 15 years or less, per many studies. RCP8.5 makes assumptions that human activity will increase at significantly higher rates and that CO2 is the only thing warming the planet. If one throws out all worst case assumptions, which are unlikely anyway, and uses something like MODTRAN to see what the actual warming will be one comes to completely different conclusions. If one starts at the Little Ice Age low 400 years ago, increased CO2 has warmed the world at most 1/3 of a degree Fahrenheit. Doubling current CO2 levels would warm the world 1/2 of a degree Fahrenheit more. To get that in perspective it was 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today by 9000-6500 BC and later became colder with half of today’s CO2. To double the world’s CO2 could take several hundred years so the research needs refinement, which leaves the question of what does the most to warm or cool the planet? The sun, it’s output hasn’t been constant over time. If you threw in the present increased solar output and changes in earth’s tilt and orbit (as modeled by NASA) it is going to be warmer for the next 25,000 years with CO2 contributing about 1 degree Fahrenheit.
If one throws out all worst case assumptions, which are unlikely anyway, and uses something like MODTRAN to see what the actual warming will be one comes to completely different conclusions.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/ee/c6ee01008c
Abstract
Uncertainties concerning fossil fuel resource availability have traditionally been deemphasized in climate change research as global baseline emission scenarios (i.e., scenarios that do not consider additional climate policies) have been built on the assumption of abundant fossil fuel resources for the 21st century. However, current estimates are subject to critical uncertainties and an emerging body of literature is providing revised estimates. Here we consider the entire range of revised estimates, applying an integrated assessment model to perform a likelihood analysis of climate change pathways. Our results show that, by the end of the century, the two highest emission pathways from the IPCC, the Representative Concentration Pathways RCP6 and RCP8.5, where the baseline scenarios currently lie, have probabilities of being surpassed of 42% and 12%, respectively. In terms of temperature change, the probability of exceeding the 2 °C level by 2100 remains very high (88%), confirming the need for urgent climate action. Coal resource uncertainty determines the uncertainty about the emission and radiative forcing pathways due to the poor quality of data. We also find that the depletion of fossil fuels is likely to occur during the second half of the century accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources in baseline scenarios. Accordingly, more investments may be required to enable the energy transition, while the additional mitigation measures would in turn necessitate a lower effort than currently estimated. Hence, the integrated analysis of resource availability and climate change is essential to obtain internally consistent climate pathways.
Bold Mine.
Quick question Alex, you are about to board your flight and at the gate there is a sign that says:
Welcome aboard ladies and gentlemen, to our two flights today. Flight RCP6 has a 58% chance of reaching it’s destination safely and flight RCP8.5 has an 88% chance of landing intact, Yipee!
Are you going to board either of those two flights?!
BTW, if you expect anyone to take the content of your comments seriously please provide citations and links to peer reviewed literature to back them up. Unless you have credentials as a publishing scientist yourself, your personal opinion isn’t worth much.
Boy, those trolls were in fast, they’re spooked.
I also happen to think that there are many signs that an RCP8.5 scenario probably has a much higher likelyhood than currently assumed. Though many climate scientist may tend to not want to sound overly alarmist one doesn’t have to look too far to find signs that not all is well!
There are many mainstream scientists who might consider some of the posts at Sam Carana’s Arctic News blog to fall under the alarmist category. The most recent post features the work of Andrew Glikson, Earth and Climate scientist, Australian National University.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/
The changing face of planet Earth
Preamble
The inhabitants of planet Earth are in the process of destroying the habitability of their world through the perpetration of the largest mass extinction of species since 66 million years ago, when a large asteroid impacted Earth, and 55 million years since the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) reaching 5–8°C. The late Holocene-Anthropocene climate change represents an unprecedented event, triggering a fast shift in climate zones and a series of extreme weather events, with consequences for much of nature and civilization. The changes are manifest where green forests are blackened by fire, droughts are turning grassy planes to brown semi-deserts, brilliant white snow and ice caps are melting into pale blue water and clear blue skies turn grey due to aerosols and jet contrails, most particularly in the northern hemisphere. Unless effective efforts are undertaken at CO₂ drawdown, the consequence would include demise of much of nature and a collapse of human civilization.
It goes downhill from there 😉
Cheers!
Fred, you could be right. I was able to provide some common ground between the two factions by suggesting that the determinstic estimate of RCP8.5 was wrong, but that the stochastic estimate could be correct.
What this means is that the exact trend for oil will be wrong (the deterministic part) but that compensating errors of over-estimating the oil consumed but underestimating the climate sensitivity (the uncertain or stochastic part) can make the scenario true, as the two errors will cancel each other out.
Well this is definitely one of those times that I sincerely hope that my intuition turns out to be wrong.
In any case we briefly touched upon this in the discussion on the petroleum side. I think it important to make clear what the letters and numbers in the RCP scenarios actually mean.
A Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is a greenhouse gas concentration (not emissions) trajectory adopted by the IPCC for its fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. It supersedes Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) projections published in 2000.
Four pathways have been selected for climate modeling and research, which describe different climate futures, all of which are considered possible depending on how much greenhouse gases are emitted in the years to come. The four RCPs, namely RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5, are labelled after a possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100 (2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 W/m2, respectively).[1][2][3]
Source Wikipedia
Now even this definition is talking about gases emitted and ignores potential crossing of thresholds and tipping points that ultimately could lead to runaway positive feedback loops.
Furthermore what tends to keep me up at night is the potential impacts of the various RCP scenarios on the biosphere. Here’s one paper that addresses this issue.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017EF000628
The Biosphere Under Potential Paris Outcomes
Abstract
Rapid economic and population growth over the last centuries have started to push the Earth out of its Holocene state into the Anthropocene. In this new era, ecosystems across the globe face mounting dual pressure from human land use change (LUC) and climate change (CC). With the Paris Agreement, the international community has committed to holding global warming below 2°C above preindustrial levels, yet current pledges by countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions appear insufficient to achieve that goal. At the same time, the sustainable development goals strive to reduce inequalities between countries and provide sufficient food, feed, and clean energy to a growing world population likely to reach more than 9 billion by 2050. Here, we present a macro‐scale analysis of the projected impacts of both CC and LUC on the terrestrial biosphere over the 21st century using the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to illustrate possible trajectories following the Paris Agreement. We find that CC may cause major impacts in landscapes covering between 16% and 65% of the global ice‐free land surface by the end of the century, depending on the success or failure of achieving the Paris goal. Accounting for LUC impacts in addition, this number increases to 38%–80%. Thus, CC will likely replace LUC as the major driver of ecosystem change unless global warming can be limited to well below 2°C. We also find a substantial risk that impacts of agricultural expansion may offset some of the benefits of ambitious climate protection for ecosystems.
And if one is willing to take a deep dive into the recent peer reviewed journals that deal with ecological aspects then things tend to get rather scary quite quickly!
Alex says:
Your first sentence is incorrect. What is called the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere/ocean is actually 100’s or 1000’s of years. It’s actually poorly defined because the physics is of a slowly diffusing molecule that is trying to permanently sequester. That’s the reason why CO2 builds up due to man-made emissions.
In section 9.6 of our book entitled “FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND CO2 LEVELS” we give a detailed derivation of this sequestering diffusion.
I won’t address the rest of your comment unless you understand this fundamental concept.
Modtran is right. CO2 is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. Half the heating effect is achieved by 20 ppm. Each extra 100 ppm from here only adds another 0.1 degrees C.
OK, the first sentence is correct but meaningless. There is so much wrong with the rest. What does “tuckered out” mean in a scientific context? CO2 is actually a catalyst that drives the initial warming which will then outgas additional H2O vapor that acts as a strong GHG.
In section 17.3 titled “WHY WE DO NOT LIVE IN AN ICEBOX EARTH” we give a complete derivation of the set points for a CO2-driven stable atmosphere. If David Archibald comes back with further challenges, I can step through the model for him.
Should also point out that David Archibald is a known skeptic from Australia. That may be significant because coal is by far the leading contributor to emissions in the long-term RCP8.5 scenario, and Australia provides over 37% of the worldwide exports of coal. Coal is also one of Australia’s leading export products.
They are also China’s biggest supplier for coal.
Unfortunately, the current Australian government is pro-coal.
What a stretch. Australia promotes coal, he is from Australia therefore he is pro coal. Ad Hominem arguments are first not arguments, second demonstrate the contempt of the participant for those who wish to be informed and third suggests that the participant does not have a reasonable rebuttal and should probably be ignored.
Statistically, AGW skeptics from Australia make up a far greater percentage of commenters on blogs than the population of Australia would suggest. Why is that?
This is a skeptic from Australia that admits it and may be proud of it:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/which-country-has-the-most-skeptics-australia-tops-name-calling-limited-biased-ambiguous-survey/
Example of “humor” from this blogger
Norway is 2nd. I wonder why on that too.
Maybe the people in question in Norway don’t want to be bothered having to fly south to get in a little more sunbathing. It’s too cool up that way even in mid summer to really enjoy being outside nearly nude, most days, to the best of my knowledge. Sarc.
The people in Norway don’t have time for sunbathing. They spend their free time dumping their leaves in the forests of Finland.
I seem to have accidentally deleted an additional comment made by Archibald.
He said: “Here it is. Derived from Modtran – tuckered out as in yes it is good for 3 degrees of the total 30 degree greenhouse effect but from here very little is going to happen”
That’s all wrong, sorry.
Ocean co2 accelerated as oceans surface warms , it is not just output but absorption that matters, a estimate max of 3 ppm co2 increase each year net is what matters. Cloud height was 50 k 1980, is 65k now, at 2050 is tbd
Wow! The anti science trolls are out in full force! This post is sure to have struck a nerve…
Got enough intellectual ammo, should be no problem 🙂
We are currently at a higher temperature than the 8.5 scenario. Heavens to Betsy, we are being told that in order to stabilize temperature (good luck with that) we need to remove a lot of GHG from the atmosphere. Which I take means we also have to stop carbon burn pronto.
I take that to indicate we are past any stability point now and all that current carbon burn is doing is accelerating the engagement of long term natural feedbacks. This sideways admission of system instability should be taken as a practical guarantee of moving to a warm ice free world and all that goes with that. All we can do now is slightly accelerate the transistion or not by modifying carbon burn.
Pathways are meaningless when we will get there anyway, faster or slower.
Of course we could attempt to institute various geo-engineering methods, but unless the human race suddenly becomes very cooperative (low probability) and still retains the ability to act globally the likelihood of stopping the fast and slow feedbacks is minimal.
People are going to be very busy soon dealing with lack of food, water and resources. Might be tough to mobilize a planet wide drawdown.
Gonefishing said:
“We are currently at a higher temperature than the 8.5 scenario.”
The way it is defined to start from around the current date, there isn’t much difference between 8.5 and other scenarios.
They like to talk about signal-to-noise ratio and that will only be high enough after several more years have elapsed.
“They like to talk about signal-to-noise ratio and that will only be high enough after several more years have elapsed.” and it’s too late.
NAOM
Can’t help how they define the physics. Cumulative quantities only start diverging after several years, and since they all start from the same place that’s just the way it is.
Yeah, divergence can be a bitch and by the time it’s obvious then we will be far over the cliff. I get pissed off with those who take the wait and see approach, by the time they can see the seas start to invade cities they’ll never be able to build sea walls fast enough to keep up.
NAOM
Spot on. The CO2 buildup is so gradual and buffers so well that we can have a huge instantaneous surge in FF consumption and it will barely nudge the 4oo PPM number. As the initial difference between RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 is due to a gradually phased decarbonization, this further complicates the analysis.
Sure Paul, there is natural variation in temperature. Berkeley Earth states that global temps can be measured (on average) to plus/minus 0.05 C per annum. Not too difficult to see changes over a few years even at current rates of rise.
If the temps start clustering around the 2016 average then we are at about 2C/century rise. Consider the time lag between temperature rise and GHG input, we could soon see 2.5C or even 3C/century rise rates.
I think my point was that long term projections of industrial output of GHG were not relevant. another decade or two of even moderate output will guarantee long term natural feedbacks.
Berkeley Earth temperatures
Paul, let me get back to GHG since the 8.5 is an emissions scenario.
Here is your graph with the current (real time not factored down) CO2e marked on it. How does that fit into the RCP scenarios?
Even if one uses the 20 year or 100 year factors for methane (only for a pulse not actual atmospheric concentration) the CO2e is significantly higher than the RCP scenarios.
GoneFishing said:
You don’t have to tell me this, because that’s essentially all I’ve been working on for a while. That will be another post here, but it’s covered in our book and at https://geoenergymath.com
Paul, let me get back to GHG since the 8.5 is an emissions scenario.
I know you know this. Actual anthropogenic caused emissions are certainly a big part of the story, but… we are also talking about CO2e and and GHGs from natural feedbacks.
A Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is a greenhouse gas concentration (not emissions) trajectory adopted by the IPCC
So at the end of the day, regardless of CO2 emissions or final concentrations, what we should really be focused on is that pesky 8.5 W/m^2 of radiative forcing!
Cheers!
Fred
The point is that a scenario with 8.5 W/m2 of RF is difficult to create with the fossil fuel resources that are likely to be produced.
Only in a cornucopian world envisioned by Michael Lynch is such a scenario likely.
RCP8.5 and peak fossil fuels by 2035 are not logically consistent, at least if mainstream climate models are roughly correct.
If one wants to argue that climate sensitivity is far higher than most climate research suggests, a scenario with emissions and atmospheric concentrations consistent with RCP4.5 would be far more convincing.
It is highly unlikely that fossil fuel consumption will be 3 times higher than my high fossil fuel scenario.
In fact many have claimed in the past that my high scenarios are absurdly optimistic (pessimistic from a climate change perspective).
Gonefishing,
What is your peer reviewed source for a 800 ppm estimate for CO2 equivalent in 2019? NOAA has CO2 equivalent at 496 ppm in 2018, which is significantly higher than any of the RCP pathways. Note that often these pathways calculate CO equivalent by adding all greenhouse gases and deducting other anthropogenic affects on aerosols, ozone, and some other effects. For AR5 total Effective Radiative forcing relative to preindustrial (1750) was 2.3 W/m^2 in 2011, which corresponds to a CO2 equivalent of 427 ppm in that year. That still does not correspond with the RCP pathways in the chart. Lot of confusion with the CO2 eq concept.
Hi Dennis, thought I explained all that to you in the past.
First, it is not 100 years from now, it is the present, that is where my spot is on the graph. GWP as calculated is for 100 years from now, for a pulse that ceased to exist long before that.
Second, methane has a chemical lifetime in the atmosphere but that is only for a pulse not a continuous concentration, which is present now. As a pulse, all the methane would be gone long ago. That is what apparently confuses you.
Initial RF for methane as compared to CO2 vary from between 300 (used by MIT) and 120 (used by Stanford). The 20 year value has lately been stated as 84 which gives a 250 to 300 multiplier for current concentrations. I calculate the first year value which varies from about 130 to 180 and use 150 times CO2. That is below the actual but in the middle of the variance due to chemical lifetime.
That is close to the real time forcing equivalence of methane. The variation is due to various numbers for the average life of methane in the atmosphere. Feel free to use 120 to 300.
I don’t think you understand the significance of looking at the actual effects. Now through the next decade is critical to pushing the natural feedbacks and disturbing the global biosystems.
Also in situations where the pulse time well exceeds the lifetime of atmospheric methane (as in an industrial pulse followed by a long term natural pulse), the methane level can stabilize or grow causing long term warming and further feedback effects.
You can access the early works on this if you want, they started in the 1950’s. Long before the internet. I no longer have access to large paper libraries or corporate funded searches.
I could provide more graphs from universities but the last one I provided had no effect. I find this a simple concept.
I know that there is a lot of money involved in natural gas production and in downplaying global warming effects. Natural gas has been touted as the climate bridge gas. The rise of natural gas in the US has solidly reduced the demand for PV and wind power.
So I am not surprised that the low value for methane has become the government accepted value and is most quoted and used, though it does not present a real view.
Myself, I don’t know when this current input will end or if the natural inputs will be enough in the long term to keep the methane plume going. The only model we have for this is the PETM and we may follow that pattern over the long term.
However, I do know that right now it is melting a lot of ice, warming the oceans and causing a lot of ecological devastation. I also know that the role of methane is being downplayed.
If you have information showing how methane concentration will reduce quickly in the near future, I would be happy if you would present that.
However, I do know that right now it is melting a lot of ice, warming the oceans and causing a lot of ecological devastation. I also know that the role of methane is being downplayed.
Don’t worry about it! Trump wants to buy Greenland…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/15/trump-reportedly-wants-the-us-to-buy-greenland/#39cb497f4235
You just can’t make this shit up! Maybe he thinks that because it is called Greenland it would make a great golf course!
I really don’t understand the 800 PPM completely either, unless you are implying the value could be 800,000 PPM if you include the sun as an effective forcing.
OK, I will try and respond to that outlandish comment.
First one must understand the concepts of atmospheric saturation of GHGs such as water vapor and carbon dioxide, along with their main mechanism of increasing LWIR absorbance being line broadening.
Methane and other GHGs are at much lower concentration so do not suffer from saturation. Also there is what is called a window in the atmosphere where LWIR is not blocked by H2O and CO2. Methane happens to intrude directly upon this window, so is very effective as a GHG.
I thought it would be intuitively obvious that a reactive species such as methane would have it’s maximum effect at zero time (meaning right now instead of one hundred years from now) . Also that it would be obvious that a concentration in the atmosphere is not a pulse and therefor does not diminish (been growing since the end of the last glaciation).
Below is a graph from MIT that shows the RF effect of
a pulse and CO2 over time. Note the zero intercept.
So until all methane sources on the planet cease and the dissociation to other chemical species is then the only factor in determining methane concentration in the atmosphere, the actual effect of methane occurs at the time zero point (meaning now).
OK, If you are saying that 800PPM is an effective value since the CO2 will drag H2O along with it, then I can go along with that.
The idea of including the H2O is actually a smart idea but I don’t know of anyone else that is doing that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent
No, not the H2O.
Ok, you misinterpreted the whole thing. I give up. Have much more interesting and complex research I am working on now. This is simple stuff.
It’s the methane, methane, methane, methane I am discussing.
I think that’s news if you’re asserting that currently methane is providing the same forcing as CO2. About 400PPM for CO2 and 400 PPM for CH4, so the addition is 800PPM ?
I thought methane is ~1/3 of CO2.
No its not news, it’s old information and no I am not saying that methane is the same as CO2. It comes out near 300. Then there are the other GHGs you know.
415 plus 300 plus 70 is 785. You read my response to Dennis? He said 800 but it could be 750 or 850, lots of fuzziness in the numbers.
“Then there are the other GHGs you know.”
Yes, that’s why I mentioned H2O, and wondered why you didn’t include incremental H2O if you included the others. Increases in man-made GHG will induce outgassing of H2O, which will incrementally increase the concentration of H2O in the atmosphere.
Paul, H2O is supposedly included in the CO2 value. Not sure if it is included in any of the other non-condensable GHG.
If you want to discuss positive feedbacks such as water vapor, we should move this somewhere else.
Probably need a few new pages to do that.
Gonefishing, Thanks, but that’s OK. I have the general idea covered sufficiently in the book, Chapter 17. It’s really not that different from what you say, we just don’t use an equivalent CO2.
Gone fishing
If you are correct that suggests radiative forcing estimates of main stream climate scientists are incorrect, they are about 40% too low.
If radiative forcing is in fact 40% higher than climate scientists believe that also suggests climate sensitivity is 40% lower than best estimates. In other words the response to a given level of radiative forcing must be lower in order for models to match historical data, if you are correct.
Gone fishing
I am pretty sure the Equivalent co2 is based on emissions rather than concentration.
So the RF would be matched with a tonne of ch4 emission.
Heavens to Betsy, we are being told that in order to stabilize temperature (good luck with that) we need to remove a lot of GHG from the atmosphere. Which I take means we also have to stop carbon burn pronto.
I think that’s about right. And yeah! ‘Good luck with that!’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UONiD5GdTY
Dr. Andrew Glikson & Guy McPherson – Aug NBL Interview
That will be fun. Imagine creating the equivalent of all the smokestacks and tailpipes that have been spewing CO2 for well over the past 100 years (only about 1/2 of that is sequestered BTW). Next, imagine reversing that process — the mind reels.
Easier to have everyone go vegan and transform all energy to solar and wind. We could all plant 100 trees each too. 🙂
Unfortunately, that won’t reverse 15o years of cumulative emissions.
Paul,
trees will help, or at least reducing deforestation and then reforesting as population falls in the future.
Probably positive in general, but no panacea either.
I try to visualize a trillion seedlings. That means a select group of 1 million people plants 1 million seedlings per person. Or 100 million people plant 10,000 each?
Paul,
It happens naturally over time without humans disrupting nature, probably too slow a process without human intervention, perhaps using cement that absorbs CO2 for roads and parking lots and buildings would help or some kind of process making carbonate compounds to remove CO2 from atmosphere (energy intensive, but excess solar and wind power might be used for such a process). The aim would be to reduce atmospheric CO2 to 375 ppm.
Improving topsoil and reducing erosion would probably be a better solution than planting trees.
I’ve said this before, too many people look at EVs or solar or trees or [anything else] and shake teir head saying ‘That won’t solve it.’. It is the combination of everything that is needed (maybe except crazy geoengineering projects), EVs + renewables + more trees + reduced TFR etc.
NAOM
You forgot fewer people and less consumption!
But yes, attacking renewables for not solving the entirety of the problem all by themselves is a pretty pathetic lazy excuse…
Cheers!
Covered 😉
“reduced TFR etc”
NAOM
Paul said “Unfortunately, that won’t reverse 15o years of cumulative emissions.”
One should consider the large amount of land, materials and energy to grow animal food. Most of the farmland around here is used for fodder. A very inefficient process compared to direct feeding of humans from fruit, nut, grain and vegetable crops.
And then there is the large amount of ranchland used to raise livestock. It amounts to the size of Africa when summed. Allowing much of that to go back to nature would go a long way to repairing the damage done by 150 years of cumulative emissions and irrational development.
Then there are the oceans. Once commercial fishing is halted (massive scraping of ocean bottoms and lots of bycatch to feed animals) the fish, mollusk and crustacean populations can recover.
So yes, going vegan will reverse much of the cumulative damage done.
Organic is important too. Building up natural soils helps sequester carbon.
What do you want for the political outcome to your arguments? Are they going to be used to justify continuing to raise my taxes? That’s the biggest concern I feel whenever I read about how hard you scientists are working the numbers. My property taxes are already a couple thousand a year and I’m struggling to get by as it is.
Umm, I think we will give you a good idea of how much oil you may have left to feed into your vehicles?
Nice sloganeering attempt, BTW
Paul,
Believe it or not it seems to me the majority of people around the worlds primary concern would be what Adam has highlighted.
Hence we are doomed as a species.
Mike, Hard to argue.
Are problems pressing or are they just depressing?
Pick your poison, Adam’s 1st world concerns or 3rd world concerns of someplace like Yemen?
I would guess Yemen’s civil war is their biggest problem right now.
What do you want for the political outcome to your arguments? Are they going to be used to justify continuing to raise my taxes?
Why do you assume that a post discussing the implications the RCP8.5 scenario has any specific desire for a particular political outcome?! Let alone that part of those consequences would be to raise your taxes?!
Would you be concerned about the economic implications, politics or tax policy if we had confirmation of an asteroid heading towards earth and we were discussing it’s trajectory?!
Just to be crystal clear, if we reach RCP8.5 even by the end of this century, it means a death sentence for most life on this planet and an end to industrial civilization. It also means a pretty miserable existence for most humans in the next couple of decades leading up to that extinction event. Would avoiding that be worth paying your fair share of the burdens we are all placing on the commons?
RCP8.5 means you won’t have to worry about your property taxes at all!
That too.
Even the friend of the tax-complaining conservative is pushing the multi-pronged “No Regrets” strategy
https://youtu.be/l6dKyoHgvFA
Adam. “What do you want for the political outcome to your arguments”
I speak for no one but myself.
I would like to see an energy policy for the country that is coherent, and addresses the impending shortfall in fossil fuels (and subsequent increased prices). Its just a matter of time.
The details can be debated, but for security/stability sake, a massive buildout in renewable energy generation is the best path to stable prices for energy that the country can hope for.
Your property tax issue is local, as is mine. mine is much worse than yours, and has nothing to do with energy policy.
Adam, if you’re worried about your taxes you may wish to know about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Perhaps you care to write your ‘representatives’, and I use that word loosely.
And Canada is essentially piggy-backing off of the USA military for their defense and with the money they save can provide their citizens with universal health coverage/insurance and cheaper pharms.
Ah yes, the benevolence of the Pentagon’s relationship with Canada. How kind of them! How much $ do you think USA would save if Canada had to defend themselves from (insert perceived threat to Canada here) without USA’s kind assistance on the matter?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/us-spends-81-billion-a-year-to-protect-oil-supplies-report-estimates.html
I feel that perhaps the USA taxpayers have bigger line items in the USA military budget to worry about than protecting Canada so they can have cheap insulin.
The inventors of insulin sold their patent for a buck. Why is it so expensive?
https://www.treehugger.com/health/inventors-insulin-sold-their-patent-buck-why-it-so-expensive.html
I’ll give you one guess.
I’d estimate that US military costs due to oil supply security concerns are much higher than $85B. Consider, for instance, the difference in the US military budget before and after 9/11 (which would not have happened without US oil-related interventions).
On the other hand, Canada’s military budget is a different question: it’s worth asking what it would be without the US shield…
Paul,
The cheaper pharms doesn’t come from military savings: it simply comes from paying pharma companies less than they get in the US.
In other words, Canada has cheap drugs because they’re subsidized by US consumers: development costs are paid by US consumers.
It’s one reason that it’s misleading to make a simple direct comparison between US health costs and health costs in other countries.
Its complex—
https://europe.businesschief.com/top10/1543/Top-10-pharmaceutical-companies-in-Europe
Yes, there are a lot of large pharma companies outside the US, including in Asia.
But…the question is: where do their most profitable sales come from? I believe the answer is the US, pretty overwhelmingly, but I’d love to see some good data.
er… who in their right minds would attack Canada? C’mon!
The Canadians are doing a fine job by themselves. 🙂
Well, the USA should try to be like Canada and save all that money it is spending on defense as who will want to attack it. 🙂
NAOM
Adam,
The idea is to address problems before they become catastrophic.
Do you have children or grandchildren? They will have to live on the planet we have destroyed.
What the scientists are attempting to accomplish is telling us how we might minimize the destruction.
Generally more destruction results in higher rather than lower taxes.
Often it is the government pays for much of the recovery from a disaster.
Blaming climate scientists for climate change is a bit like blaming the weatherman for a hurricane.
Your property taxes go for schools and fire department, local roads etc. If you are too god damn ignorant to even know where the money goes maybe you should close your mouth and open a newspaper.
Thanks for the post Paul.
I am interested in just how much fuel we will end up burning over the next 25 yrs, since that will be the primary determinant whether we track the high impact scenarios or start to back down towards mid-range.
Looking at the charts, we are at about 500 exajoules consumption currently. A peak below 600 in this coming decade is likely. Just how long we stay at over 500 exajoules surely depends on how much coal and tar/kerogen we burn. The medium scenario in the chart keeps us at over 500 until 2045. That is a hell of a of more carbon emission. Roughly, we will be at 490 ppm CO2 then.
That is likely enough carbon, and methane release, to run this climate experiment hard.
I assume we not will achieve enough replacement non-carbon energy capacity to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions below these levels in the next 25 yrs, as we march towards 9 billion peoples.
I predict geoengineering will be a debate topic in the 2024 presidential debates.
Hickory,
Note that the fossil fuel scenarios assume no transition to EVs or renewable energy, except what is needed to fill the gap left by decreasing fossil fuel output. Falling energy costs for wind solar and EVs are likely to lead to faster declines in fossil fuel consumption after 2035 than shown in these scenarios.
They were presented primarily to show that the emissions pathway for RCP8.5 is highly unlikely to be realized.
Note that many analysts assume both RCP8.5 and high climate sensitivity, so they are projecting worst worst case scenarios (the two worsts is not a typo, they take worst case emissions and then add worst case climate sensitivity on top of that assumption.
Dennis,
You seem to be one of the very few with a certain critical sense in here. Which is a good thing, also in the very polarised climate discussion. Glen Peters, who initiated the twitter discussion about RCP 8.5 has in an earlier blog post:
https://cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/nyheter/commentary-did-15c-suddenly-get-easier
pointed out that new research indicates that either 1) we have plenty of more time than earlier anticipated to reach 1.5 degrees of warming or 2) we don’t have a clue how the climate should be modelled. Add that IPCC admits that there is a hiatus in global warming and that 111 out of 114 climate models have shown too high temperatures compared to observed. Add that RCP 8.5 use assumptions for very large population increase, energy consumption increases enormously. RCP 8.5 is an extreme scenario not BAU.
Thanks for the paper. Something a bit funny on the accounting of oil as pointed out in the top-level post.
We have some promising models for climate, blogged here: http://geoEnergyMath.com
Paul, sorry I did not follow you. Paper? Accounting of oil?
The RCP8.5 says that current oil production is ~110 million barrels of oil per day, which is high. One can get this from the IPCC document.
Paul
IPCC may be using all liquids which IEA has at about 100 Mboe/d and it is all fossil fuel and carbon emission that matters.
Dennis, I am thinking the same thing regarding All Liquids. The problem is they will double count on emissions to some degree if they are including Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) or condensed NG. And they can’t count biofuels because those are net zero on CO2. What do you think?
That’s why I guessed they may be ~20% high on their estimate.
Possibly correct on biofuels, most of the extra comes from NGL, BP has about 90 Mb/d when converting tonnes to barrels at 7.33 b/tonne for 2018. So yes about 22% too high when we ignore biofuels, so yes you are correct, IPCC too high in their oil estimate, but perhaps their natural gas or coal estimate for 2018 is too low.
Glenn Peters seems to not realize that clumate effects do not occur instantaneously.
So after emissions cease temperature continues to rise.
I think you would need to direct your notions about his understanding directly to him, but keep in mind that Glen Peters is a research director of CICERO – Center of International Climate Research who usually advocates that CO2 is a main contributor to global warming. I would be very surprised if he has a basic misunderstanding about this.
His blog post is not very clear,
I would need to know his credentials some directors are managers.
The path to reduced carbon in the atmosphere is via a change in agricultural techniques and land use. We can switch to regenerative agriculture now, or wait until people start starving because industrial agriculture does not work without fossil fuel inputs. Agriculture is responsible for about 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions. If we switch to regenerative agriculture greenhouse gas emissions go negative and we enrich the soil. See https://truthout.org/articles/for-a-sustainable-climate-and-food-system-regenerative-agriculture-is-the-key/, https://truthout.org/articles/the-cheapest-way-to-save-the-planet-grows-like-a-weed/, and The Carbon Farming Solution.
truthout is anti-GMO, promulgating the romantic myth of “regenerative” farming. Such Luddism is reason enough to abandon hope.
People really have no fucking idea what farming even is.
The worst mistake in the history of the human race.
Agriculture is inherently destructive (see “Climate Change”). It is the art of selective killing for the benefit of a single species.
With over 7 billion people on the planet, we ain’t going back to the romantic past.
Hear hear.
Major changes are at least theoretically and technically possible in just about every major and essential ( to our current life styles and our current LIVES) industry or technology.
But most of these possible changes are either too expensive to be implemented, or WON’T be implemented, at least not any time soon, for various reasons, mostly having to do with politics and ignorance,
Agriculture is theoretically and technically amenable to changes that would be WONDERFUL, in terms of environment.
But as a purely practical matter, anybody who believes such changes can be implemented short term, on a large enough scale to actually matter, on a world wide basis, has his head so far up his ass he will NEVER see daylight.
Such changes are absolutely non starters, politically. And even if the political will were there, implementing them, short to medium term, makes the job of switching to wind and solar electricity and electric cars look like child’s play.
Probably eighty percent of the people discussing sustainable agriculture over dinner last night had industrial meat as the main course, and fruits and veggies transported hundreds or thousands of miles, as side dishes.
But I thought organic, non GMO, pesticide and herbicide free permaculture, without energy produced by any of that nasty wind, solar and renewables stuff, would be able to feed all of the 9 plus billion humans we are projected to have in the near future. Have been missing something?! /sarc!
Think More Before You Comment
Both you and OFM, in classic fashion, don’t appear to quite understand what you’re talking about and/or you’re limiting your thinking about what farming and technology, etc., can be.
Shinzy, on the other hand, seems to be far more on track.
Big, long-winded noises don’t make good ideas or very bright commentary. But at least you two ace that.
Fuck industry.
For many reasons, it’s no good and appears to be guiding your thinking along a blinkered path to boot.
The problem with that is that solar electricity and electric cars aren’t food, nor do they grow, nor can we eat them, etc..
The point of a site like this is to actually start talking about doing what we can in that regard, not discourage it. If we counted the years you’ve been doing so, you’d have a permaculture ecovillage by now with maybe 7 year old fruit and nut trees and berry bushes, etc..
A journey, OFM, starts with the first step. Stop discouraging the first step and be the change you think can happen. Or at least STFU.
Caelan,
If it weren’t for the fact that you truly amaze me by constantly demonstrating the incredible breadth and depth of your ignorance, I would just block you, lol.
But I don’t want you banned.
Those of us who have something to contribute to our collective understanding of our problems NEED an idiot like you around, an idiot capable of composing grammatical sentences, etc, to remind us just HOW desperate our situation truly IS……
Because the vast majority of people in the world don’t know any more about REALITY than you do.
Suppose you tell us, in your infinite wisdom, how you propose to get food from let us say Iowa, where corn and wheat are easily grown, to NYC, without trucks or trains….. or how to house the people of NYC in Iowa, since there’s no housing THERE for them, if they move en masse.
I’m sure you know exactly how to manage such a SIMPLE little problem. It probably wouldn’t take you more than week to have it all sewn up. Done, NEXT.
I’m sure you can talk to a typical Big Apple girl and talk her into moving to the boonies, leaving behind all the conveniences of Big Apple life, to live in a little tin box camper, which would be ALL she could hope for there……
Hell, you’re so smart she would probably want to MARRY you for your brains, after hearing your plans.
I wouldn’t dare put somebody as idiotic as you in a novel…. nobody would be willing to go along with the plot.
Old Farmer Piss
No need to worry, folks, OFM will ‘save us’, along with his assorted ‘noxious-smelling liquids’ and ‘scary/distracting movements and noises’.
Reality, OFM– Glen McMillian– finds everyone, such as those who don’t want to deal with it just yet, some of whom might prefer to take a dubious level of comfort in tenuous, insolent, yet somehow reassuring, comments like yours.
As for others, their journey began a long time ago, with the first step, and even before that, with ideas/inspiration, planning, preparation, discussions, community networking, and that kind of thing.
Have a beer and a visit to NYC sometime special, won’t you?…
I’ve been to the Big Apple many times. Married a NYC girl.
We’re no longer together, but she still lives down south, lol.
You’re still as dumb as an old time flashing advertising sign, saying the same thing over and over, never a change.
Why don’t you explain a SIMPLE problem, since you know so much more than I do…. getting corn and wheat from Iowa to NYC…. without trucks and trains. Or housing the people in NYC in Iowa……. in non existent houses.
When you post a workable answer to this MINOR problem, everybody will be willing to hear you out.
The fundamental problem with farming is that farmers are too politically powerful to be subjected to meaningful regulation. And spare me your claims of over-regulation.
Farmers should not be allowed to cause erosion, or dump fertilizer into rivers, or make excessive use of pesticides. They should be fined for reducing the carbon content of soil. And as my grandmother (born 1888) in Kansas used point out, they should be required to plant trees on their property to reduce wind. Her comment on the Dust Bowl: “I always told them not to cut down those cottonwood trees. There used to be cottonwood trees growing along every creek in Kansas. It was the only thing keeping their farms from blowing away.”
Bingo!
We have a winner
Yes and no.
Not a Jared Diamond fan?
Again, yes and no. It depends on how we approach our food, right?
Agriculture That Works
The problem with some comments/interpretations/perspectives is that they can be severely limited and do not take into consideration how to live on the planet resiliently and in nurturing harmony with it.
Guess what? We actually have to eat to survive. So since we are ‘smart/clever’ and since we have a large population ostensibly brought into being largely by ‘extractivism’, like of the mining of FF’s, fertilizers and soil with little in the way of giving anything back, and since we don’t want a fast and severe crash of our population, because we ‘care’, we need to look at how to ‘eat’ differently.
If termites can do it for as long as they have, then so can we.
Termites were farming 25 million years ago — long before humans
As Stanislaw Lem liked to point out, you don’t actually need intelligence to attain high tech. He wrote science fiction stories about alien spaceships that only contained social insects, a planet covered with high tech fungus, and of course Solaris, which I guess was an ocean that acted intelligently.
In one of his books a SETI-like organization gets a message from outer space that allows it to created cold fusion, and the rest of the book is filled with dense arguments between academics about whether the source was an alien civilization or just some freakish natural phenomenon.
After all, he points out, DNA is a clearly meaningful message with a strict grammar, but it has no beginning, no end, no sender and no intended receiver. It’s just there, in insanely many copies and variations. What else might there be out there?
For example, I consider myself to be a wonderful being, but even so, the fact that there are maybe a trillion copies of my DNA in existence seems a bit excessive.
The original Solaris is one of my favorite sci-fi movies. Great idea, but it also has a great mood or atmosphere.
There’re two Star Trek Voyageur episodes that seem like a take on that idea, too, where the entire ship, crew and their consciousnesses are copied relatively verbatim by some kind of ‘sentient liquid’ on a planet they visit.
I’ve suggested that the universe, itself, could be seen as alive, what with its ‘magical’ forces (laws of physics) and whatnot, so Lem’s ideas seem to make sense in that regard too.
As for DNA, sure, and birds appear to know how to make their nests via it.
We can go back to sustainable farming technologies once the population of the Earth crashes by maybe ninety percent or so, or when and if such technologies are INVENTED that will work at scale to feed eight to ten billion people.
Until then……. We do it the way we do now. Otherwise, half or more of the current population starves to death.
Incremental improvements are constantly being adopted in making industrial agriculture move in the DIRECTION of long term sustainability. That’s about all we can hope for in the short term.
Caelan will NEVER answer such simple real world questions as I pose up thread. He can’t and he knows he can’t so he pulls a typical political hat trick , and simply ignores serious questions and changes the subject or repeats his claims.
He’s like Trump and the Koch outfit. Repeat a lie often enough, and some people will believe it.
It sounds like he’s making a fool of himself, but he’s not. He’s making a fool of the people who are naive enough to believe him, and repeat his arguments, and try to use these arguments as the basis of public policy.
They won’t work, not now and not anytime soon, and when some aspiring young liberal politician makes the mistake of campaigning on such changes, he sticks his chin out to have his entire jaw removed with a Trump type politician’s baseball bat.
The bottom line result is that people like Caelan actually HELP preserve the bau status quo. Hardly anybody with less than a Hollywood type income wants to take a chance on having to pay a lot more for his family groceries.
It’s so simple even a child can see thru it, once it’s explained to the child.
Unfortunately most of the people who vote in this country, excluding those with a solid technical education, aren’t as well educated as a typical child who attends a GOOD school, in terms of science and environment.
Somebody working for Trump ought to be at the very least sending Caelan free plane tickets to a Trump type fundraiser, where he can be put on stage as a comic, mocking environmentalists, by repeating the arguments he makes HERE.
If you followed the links in the articles you would find scientific papers refuting what you just said. The rapporteur for the U.N. Olivier de Schutter refutes what you say. I suggest you read
@Book{wise19:_eatin_tomor_agrib_famil_farmer,
author = {Timothy Wise},
title = {Eating Tomorrow Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food},
publisher = {The New Press},
year = 2019}
before making up your mind.
Remember what Richard Feynman said: “If your theory is not supported by empirical evidence, it’s wrong. And it doesn’t matter who you are, or how smart you are.”
There are plenty of empirical examples proving that you are wrong. Regenerative farming produces more food per acre than industrial agriculture, at the price of higher labor inputs. The major problem is that we will have to completely rethink our sewage systems to make it work.
Shinzy, there is a set hereon who appear to use science when it suits them and discard the rest.
You can see it often and glaringly enough in the style and quality of their commentary.
Some of them would likely, and in short order, be unceremoniously booted off an actual science site if they copied some of it over.
I have farmed off and on all my life, and so has my family, for generations. I have a degree in the field, and I have taken the tours, and talked to the people doing this that and the other, and we used to farm in my family using entirely organic methods and animal power, on a limited basis, even into the fifties and sixties when I was a kid.
Such methods work…… under the right circumstances. I have never said they WON’T work.
What I have been saying, and will continue to say, is that they DO NOT SCALE UP for many reasons, to the point we can give up industrial agriculture, and switch to these methods.
Go to a typical small operation,and REALLY see what’s going on, and you will find that the farmer is doing LOTS of things that are impossible at scale…….. from using moldy hay given him by a neighbor to fallen leaves put at the curb by homeowners as organic inputs. Such inputs simply aren’t available at the industrial scale.
The reasons I mention involve politics, geography, resources, and life styles.
I agree that the way we do things now won’t work forever, or maybe not even for another forty years, at the global scale. They don’t even work anymore in lots of places for lots of people who switched to them over the last forty or fifty years.
But we sure as hell aren’t going to do things much differently anytime soon. We CAN’T, unless maybe somebody comes into power who can force change at the scale Chairman Mao forced it.
Read up on FIVE YEAR PLANS and CHINA.
The only way you will get a typical liberal urban woman with an education to move out to the boonies to work on a farm, and live in a tin box, is at gunpoint…… and even then she won’t go until she see’s you rape one of her friends, cut her throat and leave her body on the sidewalk to show her that you are SERIOUS.
OR she might decide to cut her wrists first, or might meet you at the door with the pistol she secretly owns while publicly supporting the abolition of personal ownership of firearms.
Just because something is TECHNICALLY possible, if you throw enough resources at it long enough, is not any indication it can ever be implemented as real world policy.
I repeat myself. A transition to the sort of agriculture Caelan advocates is impossible, technically, for now and for some time to come, and it’s a political and economic impossibility as well, as far into the future as we can reasonably see.
This is not to say we can’t eat down the food chain, and thus do MUCH less damage to the environment, etc.
There are many things we can and WILL do,in terms of changing the way we get our food, once we have little or no choice in the matter.
Personally I don’t have any problems foreseeing a time when tens of millions of men and women choose to have only one kid, or no kid, because they are afraid they won’t be able to provide that kid with enough food.
Can this happen? Sure,because now we have super dirt cheap communications. In another decade, a simple computer with a built in satellite receiver, built in solar panel or small separate panel will cost no more than a week or two’s wages even for a subsistence farmer. There will be ample free programming, and any parent that has such a computer available will be able to see that his kid learns to read.
Will this come to pass?
Maybe.
Bill Gates could make it happen a million times and not even miss the money, as of next year.
Personally I believe that what’s going to happen is that we naked apes are going to suffer thru a major die off sometime within the next fifty to seventy five years, and maybe sooner, depending on how the cards fall.
There are LOTS of jokers in the deck of reality.
I’m currently reading an old book (1911) on PDF that I found online for free:
Farmers of Forty Centuries: Organic Farming in China, Korea, and Japan
(just google search ‘Farmers of Forty Centuries PDF’)
It’s quite interesting in that it was first published only one year after haber-bosch process was successfully developed for industrial scale nitrogen production, which I understand occurred in 1910.
Many people say organic has no nutritional benefit over non organic. Perhaps this may be true with regards to vitamins and minerals etc, but perhaps not with regards to beneficial bacteria:
https://www.livescience.com/66035-organic-apples-microbiome.html
Survivalist, as you may be aware, I recently took up fermenting with regard to making cider. As a side-effect, I have become more interested in that kind of thing– the ‘microbiome’– and, for example, have begun to read food labels more and to try to avoid artificial (and sometimes other) preservatives. When you try to brew cider using a juice that has a preservative in it, apparently it’s impossible, as the yeast will be killed. So I have to take care to only get a juice that has no preservatives. Pasteurization is ok.
I have posted a recommendation that every body read Farmers of Forty Centuries many times over here and in other forums, such as the old TOD.
I strongly suggest that you actually read it before you jump to conclusions about what it proves….. or does not prove.
After you read it, I will be MORE than ready to discuss the contents and implications of the contents thereof.
Caelan and other such nitwits seem to believe that I believe there’s no better way to produce our food than the way we produce it now. NOTHING could be farther from the truth.
People outside the industry generally don’t know shit from apple butter about what CAN BE and what IS being done to improve our current industrial farming methods so that they require less of any and all material inputs and do less environmental harm.
What I have been saying, and will continue to say, is that the technical, economic, and political problems involved are such that there is no viable path, short or medium term, to the promised land of ” sustainable agriculture” which means one thing to one person and something else to the next person.
We could colonize Mars next year…… no problem…. except that we don’t have a practical means of GETTING TO MARS .
We might as well try to colonize Mars using hot air balloons to get there as we had to do away with industrial agriculture, using any currently available technology, as a purely practical matter.
OFM, not taking away from you points but I think it’s easier to start colonizing the moon than Mars…..
I’ll probably be to old to see the first Lunerites ……
if it ever happens of course
Forbin
Its tens of thousands of times easier to colonize Antarctica than the moon or mars. Or even the bottom of the ocean.
Even easier still to take of places like Tennessee, Moldova or Kashmir.
Treat them as if they were a special place in the universe.
Imagine that.
Thanks for the link to that book, Survivalist. Reassuring that one can create a viable farm the ‘old’ way.
The people in that book didn’t create just a way to farm sustainably. They created an entire CULTURE, an entire economic system, around their farming system.
And they did it in one of the few places on Earth where it can be made to work with a reasonable degree of confidence.
When anybody other than yours truly has finished it, I suggest we discuss it. I’ve read it thru half a dozen times, but not recently.
Take time to digest the ample and detailed descriptions of the way a typical farmer of that place and time spent his day……… from can see till can’t see, year around.
I maintain that anybody who thinks more than one out of ten thousand present day citizens of a prosperous western country will voluntarily assume such a lifestyle is naive to such an extreme that he would jump at a chance to spend his life savings buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
The obsession with fossils fuels is really sad. That is not where the worst destruction is taking place.
Co2 can be absorbed by plants and planting more trees could take up all the CO2 produced by humans. Trees also absorb sunlight preventing it from heating up the planet.
It has been calculated that if a person pays to have 3 trees planted each year they would not only balance the CO2 they are responsible for but protect soil from erosion and protect species from extinction.
https://www.weforest.org/newsroom/cool-insights-hot-world-trees-and-forests-recycle-water?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIl5To16GE5AIVQuDtCh3SxwNOEAAYASAAEgJBGvD_BwE
Trees also pull water from deep in the ground, providing fruit and nuts to eat and they cause it to rain in distant places. remove the trees and the water stays locked in the ground, causing droughts.
https://www.treeaid.org.uk/support-us/donate/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIm6ip_aCE5AIVCbDtCh2RMQuNEAAYASAAEgKUK_D_BwE
We are destroying trees at a rate of that make fossil fuel decrease irrelevant.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
Hugo said:
And then the CO2 is released in a few years when it either decomposes or burns.
Net = Zero.
Next argument.
Paul- Net = Zero.
Thank you.
Most people don’t get this simple fact.
Failure of simple science learning.
Hugo. Every plant cell that grows (and reduces carbon) eventually decomposes, with 100% oxidation of that carbon back to CO2. Sometimes it happens within seconds, and other times it takes decades. Some trees hold carbon for a thousand years in the lignin. But overall, Net=Zero.
With one exception- a tiny bit of carbon is sequestered as fossil fuel. If we leave it alone, it can stay like that for many millions of years.
On a shorter timeframe, a little bit of carbon can be stored in undisturbed soil. Tell 7.8 Billion to not the disturb soil.
The sequestering is proportional to the number of trees in existence. It’s an equilibrium situation once a region is tree covered.
A full grown tree sequesters about 1 ton of carbon dioxide. There are three trillion trees so there can be up to three trillion tons of carbon dioxide already sequestered.
Problem is we keep burning them down and cutting them down. It’s estimated there were twice as many trees before agriculture started.
Trees don’t sequester much during their first decade of growth, so a massive planting scheme will probably take too long.
We need to control ourselves, plain and simple.
In Canada vast forests are also being wiped out by disease and insets such as: mountain pine beetle, spruce budworm and western spruce budworm, to name a few. In the past, most of these insects could not survive cold winters but live happily through our current warmer climate. Where I live, spruce trees are all dead, a lot of fir kaput and even birch taking a beating.
The largest recorded mountain pine beetle epidemic occurred in the 1990s and 2000s in British Columbia. Over 18 million hectares of forest were impacted to some degree, resulting in a loss of approximately 723 million cubic metres (53%) of the merchantable pine volume by 2012. The beetle is now established in lodgepole–jack pine forests in northern Alberta and threatens to spread east across Canada’s boreal forest if conditions are favourable. The mountain pine beetle has also moved north and in 2012 was reported north of 60° latitude in the Northwest Territories for the first time.
Doug
Unfortunately these diseases and parasites are spreading.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ash-dieback-deadly-tree-fungus-cost-uk-15-billion-oxford-university-a8901491.html
https://www.livescience.com/banana-fungus-latin-america.html
Along our road, there are ornamental cherry trees, in the last 10 years about a third have died. One year the tree looks OK. The next year it’s dead. Never seen anything like it.
“A full grown tree sequesters about 1 ton of carbon dioxide”
Here’s a tree sequestering a ton/year.
Discovering the Climate Change Resilience of Coast Redwood Forests
Earth’s climate is changing rapidly, and redwoods are responding. Mature trees alive today have already experienced centuries of climatic fluctuations, including extreme weather predicted to become more frequent. The Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative (RCCI), a research program led by Save the Redwoods League and Humboldt State University, takes a comprehensive look back in time, using tree rings to see what happened when these trees survived droughts and fire. The study compares trees living in northern rainforests with those living in drier forests farther inland and south. Our research began in old-growth forests and is now expanding into second-growth (previously logged) forests, encompassing the full geographic range of coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) (FIGURE 1).
In every part of the forest, our findings show the tremendous carbon sequestration capacity of redwoods, their ability to resist fire, drought, and disease, and where they grow fastest….
Older redwoods gain biomass rapidly simply because they have large crowns full of leaves conducting photosynthesis and an expansive surface area of cambium for production of bark and wood (Sillett et al. 2015b). Cumulatively over centuries, this results in incredible biomass storage in individual trees and the forest as a whole. Rainforests in California’s Del Norte County, which borders Oregon, hold the world record for aboveground biomass, at more than 5,000 Mg ha-1 (2,023 metric tons per acre; Van Pelt et al. 2016), which means in an area nearly the size of two football fields, there is enough heartwood to build 212 homes!
With red heartwood capable of resisting decay for millennia, individual coast redwoods can live over 2,500 years and accumulate over 400 Mg of aboveground biomass, the bulk of which is heartwood (Sillett et al. 2015b). While logged forests lost their major carbon stock when the original trees were cut, our research shows that the oldest second-growth redwood forests alive today have accumulated as much as 1,667 Mg ha-1 (675 metric tons per acre, Sillett et al. 2019). In other words, second-growth redwood forests can accumulate about a third as much aboveground biomass as comparable old-growth forests in much less than 200 years, though the proportion of decay-resistant heartwood is considerably lower (56% vs. 76%, FIGURE 3)….
…in Del Norte County, a 704-year-old redwood (tree 49) with nearly 7,700 m2 (1.9 acres) of leaves in Redwood Experimental Forest witnessed logging of an adjacent forest during the 20th century. Now tree 49 is exhibiting exceptional growth, producing over 1,000 kg yr-1 so far during the 21st century. In 2014, its aboveground biomass increased by an astonishing 1,275 kg (2,811 pounds), which is the fastest growth rate known for any tree worldwide….
After more than a century, redwood forests recovering from 19th-century logging have accumulated more biomass than nearly any forest ever measured
https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods-magazine/spring-2019/discovering-the-climate-change-resilience-of-coast-redwood-forests/
==
Cloning giant redwoods could help combat climate change
Efforts are underway to grow towering new redwood forests, cloned from existing trees, that can sequester massive amounts of carbon
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cloning-giant-redwoods-could-help-combat-climate-change-n1035426
Nice long term project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baQbl7FWark&t=3
Planting A Forest
Paul, not all trees decompose and burn after being planted.
The trick would seem to be in not cutting the things down and/or burning them after they’ve been planted, and of course, some considerable time afterward.
As for the trillion-tree-plant subject of a recent article quoted by myself hereon in a previous thread, part of my thoughts on this is about planting not just trees, but a variety of other native plants, with the idea that we nurture and enhance nature and work with it, rather than against.
We learn to love it.
Right now, we are in a hate and violence-based system, which is why an increasing many in the blogosphere are beginning to talk more about ethics. Many appear to be realizing that human ethics can affect nature.
I’ve planted ~90 trees (saplings) in my life so far and did it in about an hour. If we had 1 billion people planting in 10 hours or so, 1000 trees (and/or a diversity of plants that echoed their locales) each, then we’d have, at least as a start, something pretty cool. Literally. And it would positively influence the fauna, as well, incidentally, as what and how much we can eat.
I’ve planted about twenty thousand, maybe twice that many, myself, mostly back when I was a kid.I could do five hundred a day, typically, but nobody kept track of how many days kids did that sort of work back then. These were and are best described as SEEDLINGS or TRANSPLANTS, rather than “saplings” which are already at least five or six feet tall, according to the customary usage of the word sapling, and typically take at least ten to thirty minutes each.
I will be planting a couple of thousand more this winter or next, unless my health fails. Might just hire it done, even if I’m able, and do something else that takes more brains and less back.
It’s rather likely that the ones I plant will be harvested for lumber , paper and industrial chemicals derived from wood, etc, sometime before the end of this century. Most of the ones I planted as a kid are have already been harvested.
Around here, there are old pastures and orchards that can be reforested. Some fields no longer used for producing crops as well.
In most places, where most of the people are, it would be damned hard to find enough land to plant even five or ten trees per person. In some urban areas, finding a spot to plant even ONE per person would be tough.
Use the trees for construction instead of carbon emitting steel and concrete. That may delay the release of carbon for a few hundred years.
NAOM
Paul
You obviously do not understand the complex nature of the growth of plants.
They are not simple blocks of carbon etc.
Kindly read the articles.
While they are alive they absorb vast amount of energy, which they convert into food and leaves etc. We are cutting down up to 7 billion trees a year. A large tree can draw up to a tonne of water, this not only provides rain in various places but has a considerable cooling effect.
Cut down the trees and the sunlight bakes the ground, super heating the air which ends up traveling towards the poles.
It is anything but a net zero, the only net zero is your understanding of how trees effect the water cycle and how they absorb vast amounts of energy while they are alive.
There are more scientist who are realizing that planting and protecting forests is the only way to reverse climate change.
https://www.livescience.com/65880-planting-trees-fights-climate-change.html
Hugo, Could you provide a proper (Google Scholar) citation for that link?
At least planting trees can’t hurt.
At least planting trees can’t hurt.
While there is some truth to that, much more beneficial would be allowing complete and intact forest ecosystems to spread and flourish.
Here’s a paper that touches on how certain the various RCP scenarios may affect forest health in China in the future. The picture it paints is far from reassuring.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18798-6
Climate change risk to forests in China associated with warming
Abstract
Variations in forest net primary productivity (NPP) reflects the combined effects of key climate variables on ecosystem structure and function, especially on the carbon cycle. We performed risk analysis indicated by the magnitude of future negative anomalies in NPP in comparison with the natural interannual variability to investigate the impact of future climatic projections on forests in China. Results from the multi-model ensemble showed that climate change risk of decreases in forest NPP would be more significant in higher emission scenario in China. Under relatively low emission scenarios, the total area of risk was predicted to decline, while for RCP8.5, it was predicted to first decrease and then increase after the middle of 21st century. The rapid temperature increases predicted under the RCP8.5 scenario would be probably unfavorable for forest vegetation growth in the long term. High-level risk area was likely to increase except RCP2.6. The percentage area at high risk was predicted to increase from 5.39% (20212050) to 27.62% (20712099) under RCP8.5. Climate change risk to forests was mostly concentrated in southern subtropical and tropical regions, generally significant under high emission scenario of RCP8.5, which was mainly attributed to the intensified dryness in south China.
Again, planting trees is a simplistic idea. We need to create conditions for the flourishing of healthy forest ecosystems! The number one way to do that is to stop burning fossil fuels! Not the other way round!
Some good points in there, Fred.
We are part of the ecosystem of course and would do very well to echo that fact in our thinking and behavior with regard to it.
I think we can enhance the planetary ecosystem, if we try and I am unsure leaving it alone would be sufficient at this point.
Paul Pukite,
the livescience article has a link to this science paper:
“The Global Tree Restoration Potential”
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76
is this what you are looking for when you asked Hugo to provide a “proper (Google Scholar) citation?”
Thanks, I didn’t see that.
Co2 can be absorbed by plants and planting more trees could take up all the CO2 produced by humans. Trees also absorb sunlight preventing it from heating up the planet.
While having more intact forest ecosystems would be a good thing. Unfortunately that statement is false!
I have 2 questions, please excuse the ignorance.
Doesn’t the RCP scenarios (except 8.5) assume some form of carbon capture tech deployment in the future?
Do the climate models take coals sulfur, soot and ash content and it’s respective impact on the global dimming effect into account ?
Yes, and yes. The latter is an aerosol correction and climate scientists have that calibrated from studies of previous volcanic events.
Thanks Paul.
My worthless opinion is that we might exceed RCP8.5 after an unforeseeable tipping point has passed. Then the non-linearity of the issue will kick into another gear.
I never though i’d say this, but Guy Mcpherson might have a point in what he says. Not sure about the small timeline he gives it though, but anyways. Thanks for the post.
I never though i’d say this, but Guy Mcpherson might have a point in what he says. Not sure about the small timeline he gives it though, but anyways. Thanks for the post.
Yeah, I have for a long time have had trouble with his very short timeline for our pending extinction. But the more I have looked at the geological record, specifically past mass extinction events such as the PETM and cross referenced it with the current peer reviewed science relating to the biological aspects in ecology and evolution, I have started to come around based specifically on the speed of current rates of change. Change is happening at unprecedented rates!
It is very difficult to completely discount McPherson out of hand given his academic and scientific background.
Guy R. McPherson is an American scientist, professor emeritus[2] of natural resources and ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona
And it’s not like he has done his career and personal finances any favors by making the statements that he has…
Have you watched this interview I posted upthread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UONiD5GdTY
Dr. Andrew Glikson & Guy McPherson – Aug NBL Interview
An Enemy of the People
-Henrik Ibsen
Looks to me like we are simulating the PETM. Not a mass extinction event but was an extinction event. Ocean life sucked at times but land life seemed to fair well with mammals expanding their diversity during the event.
Problem is that one needs increasing species diversity to weather a significant climate change event and we have a decreasing species diversity event as we enter the strongest portions of global warming. So might not turn out as nice as the PETM.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with that comparison.
I’d like to add that while land animals seem to have proliferated during the PETM, they evolved from a baseline climate that was already much hotter than ours. If global average temperatures rise 5-8C (as occurred during the PETM), large swathes of the equatorial and mid-latitude regions will be uninhabitable to humans in the summers due to out-of-this-world wet bulb temperatures.
In other words, our descendants will likely be forced into the bare ecological niches of the poles. On the bright side, that would give the rest of the planet’s biodiversity a chance to recover from our species’ ravages.
Just listened to it now.
Great interview. Loved the philosophical aspect of their discussion too.
Yea seems like Guy has no dog in the fight, he is just seeing the facts as he sees and expressing his views without an agenda of any sort.
re that interview:
Jesus Christ.
“Being a messenger of doom and gloom is a horrible punishment.”
“I don’t have any illusions that anything I do will have an effect.”
Iron Mike
Global dimming is factored into climate models.
RCP 2.6 has carbon capture. Other scenarios just have less carbon emissions.
When the banks stop ok-ing massive loans to develop high-value real estate ventures in coastal areas predicted to be submerged underwater in mere decades, maybe then we start to ask if these models are on to something, because as it stands now they don’t have a good record of accurate predictions.
For example, this curve from Glen Peters for expected CO2 emissions growth would have benefited from realistic predictions for oil production. M. King Hubbert made his first prediction in 1956 that US oil would peak around 1970, which wasn’t that far off — while Revelle and Seuss made their prediction in 1957.
I think the basis of the entire RCP8.5 tweetstorm lies in the fact that climate scientists and energy analysts haven’t been working as well together as they should be. That was Glen Peters point.
Hey crabfarmer.
I think you have it backwards.
Its the banks whose record of accurate prediction is faulty.
Were you an adult during 2008-9?
Maybe you’d like to consider how much tax money its going to cost the nation to relocate military bases and critical infrastructure like ports facilities, railways and pipelines.
Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2016/07/29/rising-oceans-threaten-to-submerge-128-military-bases-report/
or
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy%E2%80%99s-biggest-base-sinking-25062
This is new — to me anyway.
LINK BETWEEN INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC VAPOR DEFICIT AND WORLDWIDE LOSS OF VEGETATION
“…datasets of observation information from across the globe going all the way back to the 1950s. When focusing on vapor pressure deficit (VPD), they found that prior to the 1990s, VPD increased only slightly. But after 1998, the VPD grew quite dramatically—by up to 17 times over the next several years in some places, and it remained at those levels. They also found that over half of all vegetated land on the planet experienced a rise in VPD. The researchers also found that the upswing in VPD occurred in lockstep with the rise in global temperatures and the decrease in worldwide vegetative cover. They suggest that global warming is pushing VPD ever higher, resulting in more loss of vegetation—and because the planet is growing hotter, they predict that VPD will continue to increase, as well, resulting in diminishing vegetative cover.
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-link-atmospheric-vapor-deficit-worldwide.html
Yeah but what I want to know is how that is going to affect my property taxes?!
When focusing on VPD, they found that prior to the 1990s, VPD increased only slightly. But after 1998, the VPD grew quite dramatically—by up to 17 times over the next several years in some places, and it remained at those levels. They also found that over half of all vegetated land on the planet experienced a rise in VPD. The researchers also found that the upswing in VPD occurred in lockstep with the rise in global temperatures and the decrease in worldwide vegetative cover. They suggest that global warming is pushing VPD ever higher, resulting in more loss of vegetation—and because the planet is growing hotter, they predict that VPD will continue to increase, as well, resulting in diminishing vegetative cover.
The mind reels at the thousands of positive feedback loops that we are probably about to set in motion!
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” Donald Rumsfeld
Meanwhile: Leave it in the ground, I don’t think so.
OIL STARTS FLOWING FROM HUGE NORTH SEA DEVELOPMENT
“Oil has begun to flow from the biggest development project in the North Sea in a decade. More than 300 million barrels of heavy crude oil are expected to be recovered from the Mariner field, 95 miles east of Shetland. Norwegian state-owned operator Equinor said the field was a “cornerstone” in its expansion into UK waters.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49336998
WHOOPEE DOO!
That’s enough to run the world for about three days, maybe four, allowing for moonshine and such.
I leave the number crunching to others who haven’t forgotten what math they learned back in the Middle Ages, but I can still remember what happens when you consume a finite supply of ANYTHING at an increasing rate, lol.
Oil won’t be contributing a large percentage of future CO2 pollution much past the middle of this century. We’ve been going after the easiest coal a lot longer than we have the easiest oil…….. but there’s just so much LESS oil to go after initially.
Gas and coal are the real bad guys, going forward.
The electric car revolution is real. It’s here, it’s already big enough to put on it’s own pants, and pretty soon it will be tying its own shoes. It’s going to run the oil guys out of town, on the basis of total costs.
It will get a hell of a boost due to political considerations such as national security and the need for local employment and local tax revenues…… read electrified transportation plus renewable electricity.
And as it scales up, it will become cost effective to run ever more industrial and agricultural equipment on electricity.
This is not to say that any of the regulars here IN the oil biz need worry about their jobs or investments any time SOON as the result of this “HERE” revolution.
It’s going to take ten, maybe twenty years for it to scale up to that point.
All my comments should be read as including the caveat “assuming bau lasts until”. I’m thinking Old Man BAU has another couple of decades in him, maybe longer……. barring bad luck.
Guess we can’t expect much (any) help from the BRICS.
UN CHIEF’S CLIMATE ASKS FALL FLAT IN EMERGING ECONOMIES
“In the context of rising nationalism, coupled with US withdrawal and fragmented European politics, “the idea that countries will commit themselves to share the burden [of climate action] equally is completely unrealistic,” Paulo Esteves, senior research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies and director of the Brics Policy Center told Climate Home News.”
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/08/14/un-chiefs-climate-asks-fall-flat-emerging-economies/
“The mind reels at the thousands of positive feedback loops that we are probably about to set in motion!”
Or that we have already set in motion! Wildfires come to mind, for one.
Estimable DougL,
The paper talks only about the effect of increasing water-vapor deficit (VPD) directly on plants, if I’m reading it correctly.
VPD means dry air and that does increase water loss from plants through the stomata they use to take in CO2 from the air: the longer the stomata stay open the more water is lost through them into the dry air but the more CO2 they can take in to use to make sugars. The balance between the two effects is what counts and the longer the air is dry the greater the stress on the plant from water loss if the stomata stay open.
What goes along with this, though, is simple evaporation of soil water into the dry air. Most plants (redwoods are a partial exception, and there are others) get the water they need through their roots. VPD means less soil water, I should think, and an adaptive advantage for deeper root systems for plants that can grow them. That’s why plants in arid and semi-arid regions are often deep-rooted, as I found out once, long ago, when I tried to uproot a sagebrush to stuff under the car’s tires after driving onto what looked like a dry lake bed.
(Ahem) The point of this ramble is that I’d have preferred it if the article had included VPD’s effects not only directly on plants but on soil moisture too.
Time for more Port.
ROFL!
Meanwhile I just got this notification of an investment opportunity from OilPrice.com!
We can all stop worrying about RCP8.5 right now!
https://oilprice.com/global-energy-alert/moon
“Alien Stone” Found in Sahara Desert Could Fuel Earth for Next 10,000 Years
Alien Stone
Egyptian Discovery Potentially Worth Trillions
It even has a picture of the actual stone!
Of course it would be in Egypt, after all they’ve got the pyramids and stuff.
No, it couldn’t be Bulgaria, or Laos.
Another “more than expected” surprise.
OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RIGS LEAK MORE GREENHOUSE GAS THAN EXPECTED
“A survey of offshore installations extracting oil and natural gas in the North Sea revealed far more leakage of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, than currently estimated by the British government. The researchers used readings from the analyzer, plus data on meteorological conditions, to estimate the amount of methane leaking from the rigs and to calculate average loss based on the rigs’ production. When they compared those numbers to the official estimates, they realized there was substantial leakage that was not included in the official estimates. Riddick said the .19 percent was a conservative estimate and the actual leakage could be greater.”
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-offshore-oil-gas-rigs-leak.html
This came out 2 years ago, but if you haven’t digested the content, its major league important material-
https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/chokepoints-vulnerabilities-global-food-trade
An example of the risks pertains to the lower Mississippi, as well detailed in this recent article-
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/If-Old-River-Control-Structure-Fails-Catastrophe-Global-Impact
I don’t quite follow the RCP 8.5 argument. They clearly are not taking into consideration that Peak Oil is likely taking place within this decade and Peak Coal should also take place before 2050. Calculations based on supply side analyses indicate atmospheric CO2 levels are very unlikely to be much higher than 650 ppm by 2100. I remember Fernando Leanme making the same point. RCP 8.5 is not only a extreme case scenario some of its assumptions like a transition to a coal based economy or technological progress stagnation are beyond ridiculous.
Those that believe in Peak Oil should have a problem believing in RCP 8.5. Whether we want it or not we will transition towards an economy that produces less CO2, not more.
Yes indeed, that’s one of the points of the RCP8.5 controversy. If you look at Fig.3 in the top level post, you will see the middle graph shows oil consumption for 2019 that is already at least 20% higher than the current production numbers are showing.
I don’t know why this is happening because all they have to do is look up the numbers. Perhaps it happens because they are using old forecasts that they haven’t bothered to recalibrate.
But bottom-line, starting from the wrong value now for oil production is likely to cause the long-range estimates to overshoot actual numbers. Like you said, they may not understand peak oil.
“I remember Fernando Leanme making the same point. “
Yes, he is also aware of this situation as I see him engaging on the RCP8.5 twitter thread, but he is also doing his usual conspiratorial ranting besides also pointing out the oil forecasts are wrong. Oh well
Carlos,
I agree that carbon burning will slow in the second half of the century. But for atleast the next 25 yrs we are on the path of the severe scenarios. Beyond that I don’t know, could be less or more severe than projected.
Regardless, heavy damage will already be ‘baked in the cake’.
Look at the chart above- Fossil Fuel Scnarios (EJ)
it is similar to ones projected by Dennis elsewhere.
Look at the area under the curve for the middle scenario (blue line).
That is a shitload more carbon over the next 25 years.
It takes into account peaking of the fossil fuel production.
Hickory said:
“Look at the area under the curve for the middle scenario (blue line).”
You have to look really close to see that the current values are over by (I am eye-balling) ~20% from the actuals being reported. The peak in the blue curve is equivalent to 165 million barrels a day, as I said in the top-level post.
It’s not clear whether there is enough oil to get to that point, unless they start to count CTL and CNG as a liquid, but that would require less coal and NG in the total FF emissions to avoid problems of double-counting.
So in the graph it looks like we are roughly at 500 EJ currently, and will stay above that level until about 2045, in the medium scenario.
Are saying those numbers are off?, and if so, any rough estimate of where we are now?
Hickory, The blue line at the peak corresponds to 165 million barrels a day consumption (35o EJ/year). Interpolating for around 2019 indicates 108 million barrels a day. I believe this is obviously too high if one is counting just crude oil for the category.
For example they can’t be counting CTL or CNG from the all-liquids category, as that would be double-counting on coal and NG for total emissions.
It’s probably like ~20% too high.
Hickory,
The “medium fossil fuel scenario” has 1280 Gt carbon emissions through 2150, where RCP8.5 has about 3880 Gt carbon emissions over the same period. So about a factor of 3 higher. RCP4.5 has about 1400 Gt of carbon emissions and is reasonable.
Paul, I was referring to the chart- “Fossil Fuel Scnarios (EJ)” that you posted.
Hickory,
The high scenario shown in that chart (second to last in the post) has 1440 Gt of carbon emissions from 1800 to 2150, with RCP4.5 at about 1400 Gt C. Note that a fast transition could keep carbon emissions from fossil fuel, cement and land use change to 1000 Gt C. That would be roughly between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 as far as total carbon emissions and no carbon capture and storage would be required, only a fast transition to wind, solar, hydro, and EVs.
I have spent my holidays on an adriatic island. The whole Dalmatian coast is lime (karst). Globally carbon as limestone vastly exceeds carbon in fossil fuels. And there is a negative feed back: maritime chalk formation increases with carbonic acid concentration in the seas. Any studies on that ?
Does anybody here have any back of the envelope WAGs on what methane from fracking is worth in terms of the barrels of oil that would need to be burnt to get CO2 equivalent of the methane released. Apples and oranges and all that, but perhaps there’s a comparison to be made?
Study: Fracking prompts global spike in atmospheric methane
http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/08/study-fracking-prompts-global-spike-atmospheric-methane
Yeah, lot’s of studies have been done. Maybe start with these two mentioned in this Nat Geo Article that was just published:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/fracking-boom-tied-to-methane-spike-in-earths-atmosphere/
Fracking boom tied to methane spike in Earth’s atmosphere
The chemical signature of methane released from fracking is found in the atmosphere, pointing to shale gas operations as the culprit
A 2015 study estimated that North Texas’ Barnett Shale region leaked 544,000 tons of methane a year using a conservative leakage rate of 1.5 percent. That’s equivalent to 46 million tons of CO2, more than some states such as Nevada or Connecticut.
A 2015 study led by John Worden of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory found that methane levels were unchanged for years, but increased sharply after 2006, growing by 25 million tons a year. Using satellites and other measures they concluded that fossil fuels were responsible for between 12 and 19 million tons of this additional methane and the rest was likely biological sources.
The Howarth study adds another piece to the extremely complicated methane puzzle, Worden said in an email, declining to elaborate.
It’s unlikely that the sharp rise in global methane levels at the same time as shale oil and gas operations increased dramatically is just coincidence, said Anthony Ingraffea, a Professor of Engineering at Cornell University and a colleague of Howarth’s. The paper suggests shale gas’s chemical fingerprint offers evidence of a direct link, said Ingraffea, who reviewed an early version of the paper.
Here’s one of those links to the actual paper led by John Worden mentioned above.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02246-0
Abstract
Several viable but conflicting explanations have been proposed to explain the recent ~8 p.p.b. per year increase in atmospheric methane after 2006, equivalent to net emissions increase of ~25 Tg CH4 per year. A concurrent increase in atmospheric ethane implicates a fossil source; a concurrent decrease in the heavy isotope content of methane points toward a biogenic source, while other studies propose a decrease in the chemical sink (OH). Here we show that biomass burning emissions of methane decreased by 3.7 (±1.4) Tg CH4 per year from the 2001–2007 to the 2008–2014 time periods using satellite measurements of CO and CH4, nearly twice the decrease expected from prior estimates. After updating both the total and isotopic budgets for atmospheric methane with these revised biomass burning emissions (and assuming no change to the chemical sink), we find that fossil fuels contribute between 12–19 Tg CH4 per year to the recent atmospheric methane increase, thus reconciling the isotopic- and ethane-based results.
thanks a lot Fred, I appreciate it.
… at 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel (1), that’s a lot of barrels of oil equvalent.
1/ https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references
You are welcome!
But yeah, for my own calculations I used the value from the link below but still close enough for government calculations 😉
On average 1 barrel of oil when consumed produces at a minimum 317kg of CO2
http://numero57.net/2008/03/20/carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-barrel-of-crude/
So even a relatively small amount of CH4, goes a heck of a long way as CO2e.
I got an idea. Let’s just pretend it’s all oil that we’re burning there and we’ll throw it in with the RCP 8.5 numbers for oil consumption. Same difference in the end, so to speak.
From what I recall reading here somewhere, the worst case IPCC scenario, which I assume is RCP 8.5, has Greenland loosing 160 billion tons of ice a year by 2070. I’m just saying I heard it here.
I also understand that Greenland lost 190 billion tons of ice in July 2019. Soooo meh, I take all that IPCC worst case scenario bullshit with another grain of bullshit. Existentially, it’s moot lol
On those lines, here is an interview with Dahr Jamail.
Dahr Jamail: Unpacking The IPCC Report & Abrupt Climate Disruption
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOk_0usZALQ
Dahr Jamail is upfront and direct.
He is not going to make one feel good just to soften the message.
I have been following him from his time in Iraq as a reporter not directed by his military advisors.
I agree, I quite like him too.
On Contact: Climate emergency with Dahr Jamail
https://youtu.be/wEKGp3gT_vs
I’ve also been fond of Hedges’ journalism work since I became aware of him in early to mid 90’s, with his reporting from the Balkan’s.
Hedges is great.
Often here:
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/
It has been record hot this decade.
Possibly, this is the effect of green house gases,
that were added to the atmosphere,
in the last century.
They linger.
Hickory,
The CO2 lingers, methane not so much.
How much more “climate research” is needed at this point? We’ve gotten warnings for decades that Co2 and Ch4 are thought to be greenhouse gases. Will another of the thousands of climate studies change human nature? Or is the science just not settled enough for some?
“How much more “climate research” is needed at this point?”
Climate scientists have no idea how to predict the natural variations of climate due to phenomena such as El Nino. And it’s not chaotic, just a complex pattern caused by a forcing one can easily guess.
Jack, as a professional spectroscopist, I can assure you that CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases, not just thought to be greenhouse gases as you declared.
Climate studies and the related sciences are not intended to change human nature. They are to learn about and monitor the geophysical and environmental changes occurring on the planet.
It’s up to the people, I mean corporations/governments to act or not to act on the knowledge.
Hey, Denis and Shallow…… Petro here….
….long time, no see…..
………………………………………………………
4 years ago I told you that oil will be between $35- $65, or will go “kaboom”…..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………..and rates (….10 year billl…..) will go to ZERO….. hkhe, hkhe……. cough, cough…. 000000000000000000.
………………………………………………………………………..
…………………..you…. and SS …………… and Nick G …………and the Peninsula man/boy…………….and ….Fred…..and watcher …. and AAALLLL the other morons believing the Suply-Demand bull shit…. (ahhhh…. including you RON……sorry) didnt belive it…
Thas fair enough…. for thats ignorance….!
Whats not fair and whats not OK is your arrogance…….
………………………………………………………………………….
I’m sure you know more than I ….. and I am just another moronic commenter on your blog……
…… YEAH…….. U DA MANZZZZZZ…………….. alll of you….
Go ahead Denis, block me like you have done before…..
….”I’m sure” Baken and Permian will still produce by 2030…….
…..ha, ha, ha, ha…….
be well,
Petro
Just a general heads up to all,
I have decided to take a mental health vacation from posting on the internet!
Peace!
Fred, Thanks for your contributions. See ya around the next go!
Have a great vacation Fred. Beautiful weather up here this time of year. I spend hours each day out and about with friends. Watching sunsets is a great pastime, can do bird and insect counts at the same time.
So enjoy, stretch the legs, ease the mind. The planet will be here for a long time.
Enjoy
There seems to be some interest in astronomy and neutrons on this site, so here goes a great talk about a neutron decay anomaly experiment in progress.
Neutron Decay and Parallel Universes: Oak Ridge Experiment Explained
In SFN #266 I reported about an experiment being planned at Oak Ridge National Laboratory that attempts to test an idea about parallel universes to help explain the difference in decay rates of neutrons from rest vs. those created in a beam from fission.
Today’s guest is Joshua Barrow, a PhD candidate at the University of Tennessee and a DOE SCGSR Program Fellow at Fermilab. He is a colleague of Dr. Leah Broussard, the lead scientist on the experiment to be conducted this summer and familiar with the experiment itself. Join us as he explains the problem, the experiment and clarifies some misconceptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB_sh0BqVIQ
The precursor video to the neutron decay video above. Explains the reasoning behind the experiment.
Physicists Hunt for Mirror Universe to Explain Neutron Decay Mystery & Dark Matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYgMlv_rSUI
Hmm, 10 percent of the GHG and destroying areas with 50% of the biodiversity of the planet. You might want to consider getting off this oil.
Palm Oil Plantations. Still plundering on?
Palm oil, rainforests and Orang-utans – we’ve all read the news stories. But is the situation improving or is it business as usual in the plantations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTbPMODTey8
Thanks for the post…
Here is Nebojsa Nakicenovic at ASPO 2012, the man behind the special reports on emissions (SRES) published in 2000 and used in the IPCC 3rd assessment report in 2001: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLJ9jX6L3Ns – see the first minutes of the video.
The SRES included the A1FI family of scenarios (showing extreme/unrealistic increase of FF use) which later sort of became RCP8.5. N Nakicenovic, when questioned about how that ties in with peak oil / peak FF, makes two points:
-the scenarios covered 90% of the peer reviewed literature – OK.
-in hindsight (as of 2012), the emissions were on track with the high (RCP8.5) RCP – but that is a debatable argument going forward since in the first decade of the 21st century, the emissions from the 4 scenarios are pretty close to each other, they will differ much into the future, but by then it is questionable whether actual emissions will still be on track with RCP8.5
I feel he sort of evades the question.
And she’s off!
Greta Thunberg sets sail for New York on zero-carbon yacht
Track the progress of the yacht here:
https://tracker.borisherrmannracing.com/
As usual this is all just a farce. It turns out a crew of five has to be flown to New York for the yacht return trip, and of course the sailor Boris Herrmann will also be taking a plane trip from New York, so instead of two person flights, Greta’s adventure will end up costing six person flights. And that is ignoring the carbon footprint of the yacht repairs and provisions.
https://taz.de/Thunbergs-Segelreise-in-die-USA/!5615733/
It goes to show how difficult it is to get out of our oil addiction and how much propaganda there is about it.
I guess a symbolic low carbon burn trip is frowned upon by fossil fuel proponents.
Maybe we should all wait for regular sailing ship service across the Atlantic and use airplanes in the meantime.
It is frowned upon by nuclear proponents too. Nuclear powered ships have existed for 70 years and there are now more nuclear reactors powering ships than generating electricity on land. Somehow I don’t see the future of sea transportation going back to wind sailing after Peak Oil.
And quite frankly there are quite disturbing precedents in paying too much attention to young female teenagers about decisions that correspond to adults. From Joan of Arc, to the accusers in the Salem witch trials, or Nongqawuse of the Xhosa, it becomes clear that girls should not be paid too much attention about adult issues and should be sent to school to learn. Nongqawuse caused a 40,000 death famine with her proposed solution to the Xhosa crisis.
You are correct Carlos.
Female teenagers are not the best decision makers.
But they are far, far better than adult males.
Even worse, white adult males – Trump
Greta seems to get our wingpawn friends very upset.
I wonder why? (sarc)
The fliers are using carbon offsets, not perfect but that is better than the millions who take a plane to some beach resort, that will disappear due to global warming, while they do SFA about it.
NAOM
I don’t believe in the utility of carbon offsets.
We can’t bargain away our destructive acts.
For example, directly planting a tree where one would normally grow if we hadn’t cut it down, is just speeding up the process of healing a prior wound.
It doesn’t offset the new wound.
If we leave the spot alone, the vegetation will recover on its own anyway.
Perhaps personally using hand tools to remove concrete and take measures to restore some soil is an exception.
I have not seen any carbon offset work crews with pick axes working on concrete removal.
Explain to me why there is any utility or truth to the concept.
Yeah, my opinion is that it is cheating, dangerous cheating.
NAOM
For those who sleep poorly due to CO2 emissions, the sailing trip is bad news:
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article198622037/Greta-Thunberg-Jetzt-ist-ihr-Segeltrip-nicht-mehr-sauber.html
For poor sleep I recommend some good old English humour before you go to bed:
https://greatclimatedebate.com/yes-prime-minister-on-climate-change/
Interesting discussion on cooling and materials science.
The title is misleading (it has nothing to do with space), but the content is very good.
https://www.ted.com/talks/aaswath_raman_how_we_can_turn_the_cold_of_outer_space_into_a_renewable_resource/transcript?language=en
That is pretty cool! I also like they provide a transcript so I can read it in a few seconds instead of wasting an hour watching the video.
agree (but it was only 13 minutes, so my attention span was adequate)
Dennis, if you disagree with this take it up with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, not me. 😉
WATER VAPOR CONFIRMED AS MAJOR PLAYER IN CLIMATE CHANGE
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”
The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter. That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy. “We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.”
“WATER VAPOR IS THE BIG PLAYER IN THE ATMOSPHERE AS FAR AS CLIMATE IS CONCERNED.”
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Meanwhile,
AMAZON FIRES GENERATE SMOKE CLOUD ALMOST AS BIG AS DEVASTATING SIBERIA BLAZE
“While fires in Siberia have created a cloud of smoke larger than the European Union, on the other side of the world, forest blazes in the Amazon are causing a phenomenon of almost the same magnitude.”
https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/14/amazon-fires-generate-smoke-cloud-almost-as-big-as-devastating-siberia-blaze
Doug,
I don’t think Dennis would disagree with that observation because we have it in Chapter 17 Section 3 in the book referenced in the top level post.
On page 271:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119434351.ch17
That’s encouraging because everything I’ve read argues that rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere is a key amplifier of global warming.
I think water vapor is a key amplifier, but the question is whether it continues to scale in proportion to the CO2 or does something wild and starts to further diverge (maybe something to do with clouds ?)
Only double the effect of CO2?
You guys might want to read this.
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm
Also it’s not just CO2, it’s any warming source that will put more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Yes, from that site it points to non-thermodynamic warming caused by an eventual change in albedo changing it from doubling to tripling. Could happen.
Doug,
Nothing new there. Clearly the warming is due to both GHG and the so called fast-feedbacks (which includes the water vapor feedback, included in models since 1979.)
So no disagreement from me.
And on it goes. Not sure if this goes in the worse than expected file or if it was “as expected”.
DATA CONFIRMS GROWING DEAD ZONE IN CHESAPEAKE BAY
“Maryland scientists have been warning of a growing “dead zone” in the Chesapeake Bay. Now the numbers are in, confirming their dire warnings were correct. Natural Resources Department data shows an area with little to no oxygen spread to 2 cubic miles (8 cubic kilometers) by late July, making it one of the worst in decades. By comparison, July dead zones averaged about 1.35 cubic miles (6 cubic kilometers) for the past 35 years. The worst section includes the lower Potomac and Patuxent rivers and much of the Bay, from Baltimore to the mouth of the York River.”
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-dead-zone-chesapeake-bay.html
Continuous industrial/agricultural/residential/transport pollution is a killer.
This is a paper that came out recently, by Justin Ritchie (@jritch) who is participating in the RCP8.5 Twitter thread
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988317301226
Just another abstract to read to the paywall.
Mentions hard coal, which is general term for anthracite. Anthracite is a metallurgical coal not a thermal coal.
“Anthracite is a metallurgical coal not a thermal coal.”
This is not correct. In fact,
Bituminous coal is harder and blacker than lignite and sub-bituminous coal and can be divided into two types: thermal and metallurgical. Together, they make up 52 percent of the world’s coal reserves. This coal type is mostly used for power generation, cement manufacturing and other industrial purposes, while metallurgical coal is used primarily for making iron and steel.
Anthracite is the most mature coal and thus has the highest carbon content of any type of coal. It is frequently used for home heating and, accounting for about one percent of the world’s total coal reserves, represents a very small portion of the overall market. Anthracite can be [and is] used as a smokeless fuel in domestic and industrial contexts.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/industrial-metals-investing/coal-investing/types-of-coal/
Not around here and not when I look up the definition.
From Wikipedia “Anthracite, often referred to as hard coal”
From Dictionary ”
hard coal
/härd kōl/
noun
noun: hard coal
another term for anthracite.”
From the American Geosciences Institute
Anthracite, or “hard coal,” contains the highest amount of carbon
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/what-are-the-different-types-of-coal
USGS does not seem to accept hard coal as a coal type.
I don’t know where you get your facts Doug, but home heating with anthracite coal is rare. I watch trainloads of the stuff headed up to Canada for Titanium smelting. It’s purity is necessary for certain high grade metals.
Sure back in the early days it was a home heating coal. But now it’s primary mission out of the Pennsylvania field is for smelting.
Reading and Northern Railroad and Norfolk Southern are the major shippers.
Yes the old culm piles from mines long gone are being “mined” for power production.
Saw quite a number of these when I was young.
THE COAL FACTS: THERMAL COAL VS. METALLURGICAL COAL
“Metallurgical coal or coking coal is used in the process of creating coke necessary for iron and steel-making. Coke is a porous, hard black rock of concentrated carbon that is created by heating BITUMINOUS COAL without air to extremely high temperatures. Major producers: Australia, Canada, United States.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/627069/the-coal-facts-thermal-coal-vs-metallurgical-coal/
Stoves like this were very common in South Wales, spent many hours sitting by one, although a smaller version, fueld by Anthracite and we did call Anthracite Anthracite and bituminous coal just coal.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/4027/production/_107732461_st_fagans_interior_976.jpg
NAOM
Metallurgical coal/Coking Coal is used in metallurgical process such as in smelting of Iron to make steel. They are usually used both as fuel and reducing agent in the form of coke. Coke is a porous, hard black rock of concentrated carbon that is created by heating BITUMINOUS COAL without air to extremely high temperatures. The coal is baked in a coke oven which forces out impurities to produce coke, which is almost pure carbon. These kinds of coal are usually low in ash, Sulfur and Phosphorous Content. Although ash content can be regulated by washing process, low contents of sulfur and phosphorous are necessary as they tend to migrate to metals.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-coking-coal-and-thermal-coal-What-is-the-Gross-Calorific-Value-of-coking-coal
“Bituminous coals that contain a fairly small amount of sulfur and cake (or “agglomerate”) easily ARE THE ONLY COALS SUITED FOR MAKING METALLURGICAL COKE—a hard, spongelike substance of almost pure carbon important for smelting iron ore.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/bituminous-coal
Doug, please call the Jeddo Company, Reading and Northern Railroad, Norfolk Southern right away. Also notify QIT in Quebec of their horrible mistake in using anthracite.
http://jeddocoal.com/aa.html
Why bother: Anthracite contains 86%–97% carbon and has a heating value that is slightly higher on average than bituminous coal. ANTHRACITE IS THE LEAST ABUNDANT RANK OF COAL IN THE UNITED STATES, AND IT ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF ANNUAL U.S. COAL PRODUCTION.
If you really want to believe anthracite is coking coal that’s your choice. My former business partner was a coal geologist/engineer who spent half his life evaluating bituminous coal deposits to assess their potential as coking coals but what would he know?
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=coal_prices
I did not say coking coal, you did.
Read the Jeddo site, learn something.
Remember this? Not much left in Pennsylvania.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226285370_Trends_in_US_Recoverable_Coal_Supply_Estimates_and_Future_Production_Outlooks
You said anthracite is a metallurgical coal. Metallurgical coal, also known as coking coal, is used to produce coke. The two terms are interchangeable.
Gonefishing,
I did, and went to a site describing Ti smelting and learned something. Whee!
Titanium is got from rutile, its ore, by heating with chlorine gas and (wait for it) coke at about 1000 C. This is just a modest guess but I’d guess that anthracite can be coked just as low-sulfur bituminous can be.
Just a guess, and a modest one.
Time for more Port.
Anthracite, a high quality coal due to its high fixed carbon content (not a coking coal), once a premium coal for steaming purposes but now relatively rare and only utilized in specialist applications such as a graphitizing material for electrode paste and as a reductant for reducing metal oxide ores.
http://undergroundcoal.com.au/fundamentals/01_types.aspx
Doug, for reasons I won’t get into, I have anthracite in my veins and have lived over the mines, been in the mines, know the history of the mines and the railroads that hauled anthracite out of Pennsylvania and still do. My shoes have crunched a lot of anthracite.
So please stop with the references. I know the owner of one of the railroads that hauls it out of Pa now.
That’s fine. The problem is that there’s not much anthracite left in Pennsylvania.
That’s fine too. Only about 16 billion tons of anthracite resources and up to 10 billion tons recoverable in Pa.
Anthracite lost much of it’s advantage in heating to oil and profits were being eaten up by increasing water pumping.
Back in the 50’s, since anthracite was considered a strategic resource, a huge tunnel was proposed to gravity drain the whole northern mine field.
This would have dumped all the acid mine drainage into the Susquehanna River and down into the Chesapeake Bay.
After the studies were done it turned out that the interest on the loan for the tunnel exceeded the cost of direct pumping.
Also the mine operators at the time could not afford the cost of the shorter tunnels to connect with the main tunnel. So the industry collapsed.
Now about 3 million tons are mined a year. Also about 4.5 million tons of culm are mined.
knox mine disaster location and footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X-074T06s4
No more Blue Coal.
But who knows what the future will bring. Maybe Elon will build the tunnels and anthracite will rise again.
The point of the top-level post is what are the remaining resources for RCP8.5 evaluation, and clearly anthracite is well beyond peak just about everywhere in the world and so likely will not count for much in terms of further cumulative emissions, where bituminous and lignite will provide the bulk.
Yes Paul, there is enough coal to totally mess up the planetary ecosystem. Doesn’t matter how it’s labeled.
We’ll be using lignite by the teraton, if we don’t build up solar and wind.
Yes Hickory, closing something because of economics versus wise decisions means as the need (economics) changes they can be opened again and further exploited.
Thanks for this Gonefishing.
Home heating with coal is rare, but several of us here in northern New England still use anthracite in our old cookstoves.
Anthracite comes in bags now (we can no longer get it in bulk) from Wiconisco, PA. I absolutely love it. It has a much higher ash content than hardwood, but is supremely consistent, hot, long-lasting. We cook, heat and produce all our hot water in wintertime with it.
It’s also expensive–up to $10 per 50# bag now. We get it in pallets of 50 bags at a discount.
Try this link http://peakoilbarrel.com/ritchie2017/
Thanks Paul.
Good paper.
According to eia – “As of December 31, 2015, estimates of total world proved recoverable reserves of coal were about 1.1 trillion short tons.”
That is a hell of a lot of carbon that is currently under lock and key.
Bigger question is how much coal and wood will we burn in the next 50 years.
That primarily depends on how fast solar and wind are deployed, in my opinion.
Cold dark winter places are going to be burning coal and wood like there is no tomorrow.
We talk about deforestation of the tropical rain forests.
Next will be taiga.
[The taiga, or boreal forest, is the world’s largest land biome]
Excellent report on the international coal capacity pipeline-
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-plans-for-new-coal-are-changing-around-the-world
Very illuminating report, thanks.
Global coal burn just recently doubled and with the natural time lag in temperature rise by global warming we have not seen the much of the effects of that yet. Also, unlike natural gas, coal has it’s own dimming effect through aerosols. so again we have not seen the full warming effect of this massive increase in coal burn.
Even with a slow descent, coal burning alone appears to be enough to trigger a warm world from natural feedbacks. No need for a RCP 8.5 scenario.
The US has an old fleet of coal burners which allows an easy opportunity to move away from coal burn. Given the political environment, that may be much slower than needed.
The same cannot be said for China and India.
In 2018 100 GW of new solar capacity was added. Given the 20 percent capacity factor that is 20 GW.
1000 GW of new coal power capacity was added between 2000 and 2018.
For current coal, even running low at 50% capacity, to be displaced by solar, 2500 GW would have to be installed. Actually it would be more since many coal plants run at much higher capacity. We can all see the timeline problem and that is just electric power replacement at it’s current demand.
So not having 250 years, we need to increase PV build rate by 25 to 30 times just to replace coal electric power generation as it stands.
Plus power/energy storage has to grow along with the PV or else new fossil fuel burners will continue to be built as PV fails to provide modern society with continuous power.
It’s a very big job working against a growing demand scenario.
Yes, good points.
The average coal plant age in the USA is 42 yrs, while in China it is 12 years and India 16 yrs.
Financially and politically, it is much easier to retire an old plant than young ones.
This coal carbon pulse is huge, and will be in full swing for a good 20-30ys, at least.
GF’s post sent me back to my handy spreadsheet to look at what sort of scenarios would achieve 2500 GW of solar over a couple of decades as opposed to the 250 years suggested by GF. Actually, I’m a little surprised that GF used a linear model at all because he must be aware that solar PV is growing exponentially or is at the early stages of an S curve.
Below is a graph showing the growth in PV manufacturing capacity (new capacity additions) for each year, along with the cumulative capacity over the next fifteen years under three different scenarios. In the low scenario, manufacturing capacity grows at 5% between 2019 and 2020, with the growth in new supply (manufacturing capacity) declining by 10% each subsequent year. This results in 175 GW of new capacity being added in 2030 and a cumulative capacity of 2,286 GW at the end of 2030.
In the medium scenario, manufacturing capacity grows at 19.8% between 2019 and 2020, with the growth in new supply (manufacturing capacity) declining by 10% each subsequent year. This results in 447 GW of new capacity being added in 2030 and a cumulative capacity of 3,565 GW at the end of 2030.
In the high scenario, manufacturing capacity grows at 30% between 2019 and 2020, with the growth in new supply (manufacturing capacity) declining by 10% each subsequent year. This results in 813 GW of new capacity being added in 2030 and a cumulative capacity of 4,992 GW at the end of 2030.
I’m not sure why I chose 19.8% initial growth for the medium scenario. It was probably because it results in very close to 5,000 GW of cumulative capacity by 2033 but, even the low growth scenario gets us close to GF’s figure of 2,500 GW of additional capacity in just fifteen years! The essential point is that it is entirely possible to achieve the sort of scale required to realize significant reductions in CO2 emissions just by enacting policies that allow solar PV to continue to grow (exponentially) at a slightly slower pace than it has up till now. A major problem is the power and influence of FF interests that have oversized influence over media content and government policies as evident in the USA, Australia, the UK, Germany and Brazil to name a few. Despite this opposition renewables are still experiencing robust growth. Imagine what could happen if the opposition was put aside.
Islandboy said “GF’s post sent me back to my handy spreadsheet to look at what sort of scenarios would achieve 2500 GW of solar over a couple of decades as opposed to the 250 years suggested by GF”
I said above:
“So not having 250 years, we need to increase PV build rate by 25 to 30 times just to replace coal electric power generation as it stands.”
Honestly there is no way to predict the rates of growth in the future. I merely gave the linear example as the path not to follow if we expected any real progress.
If the fossil fuel barons and those involved in fossil fuel investing change their tune in the future, then things could become more predictable as regulations and laws will change.
Now it is mostly economics driving the change, which is the least stable and easiest to ignore.
Given that we (you and I at the very least) know that solar PV is growing exponentially and given that most readers of this web site should have more than a cursory understanding of what exponential growth entails, the use of a linear model to suggest how long it will take to reach a given number is just plain wrong!
If we consider that the global capacity of solar PV installed at the end of 2019 could end up in the region of 625 GW, one more doubling would take us to 1250 GW and two doublings would be 2500 GW. The third doubling would add the 2500 GW that you pointed out would be needed “For current coal, even running low at 50% capacity, to be displaced by solar.” . Looking back, between 2006 and 2012 the doubling period for global solar PV capacity was less than two years. Between 2012 and the present the doubling period has lengthened but, it is still less than three years.
If we were to assume that the doubling period from the end of 2019 were to be four years, 1250 GW would be installed by the end of 2023. If we then assume the next doubling period were to be five years, 2500 GW would be installed by the end of 2028. When it is considered that global installed PV capacity first surpassed 1 GW at the turn of the century and could hit 2500 GW by 2028, to even suggest a timeline of 250 years for the addition of 2500 GW is patently absurd.
Detractors will say that I am not being realistic in assuming that PV will continue to grow exponentially for the next fifteen years. My response is that something quite dramatic, akin to collapse of our current civilization, will have to happen in the next twenty years for global installed PV capacity NOT to hit 5,000 GW. How realistic is it to assume that civilization will collapse in the next twenty years?
Iboy, tell me when PV growth rate hits 500 GW per year instead of the 100 or so that it has now.
That is how much it will have to grow just to compensate for the growth in electric power demand. And that is only electric demand, not global energy demand.
“Global electricity demand in 2018 increased by 4%, or 900 TWh, growing nearly twice as fast as the overall demand for energy” IEA
You forget major factors like that and expect anyone to take your analysis seriously. PV is nowhere near to even canceling growth yet let alone reducing energy demand.
So let’s look at the IRENA data for cumulative PV growth over the last 9 years.
I plotted it and put two straight lines along side it for comparison. It goes linear from 2-10 through 2014 then takes a jump at 2015 and goes linear again. Not an exponential at all.
You better be praying for a lot of degrowth because the advancing growth of global energy demand is fast outpacing wind and solar energy growth.
So if you think PV is growing just fine, that is your opinion. Current growth of PV and wind power will do very little against a growing civilization that is moving toward higher standards of living.
“You forget major factors like that and expect anyone to take your analysis seriously.”
First of all I wouldn’t call what I did an analysis, it’s way simpler than that. I put some numbers in a spreadsheet and did a “what if” scenario, somewhat similar to the oil production scenarios that Dennis does. I make no predictions, I just look at possible outcomes if growth occurs in a certain way.
Having said that, I outlined some dates in my post further up and in the medium scenario annual capacity additions exceed 500 GW in 2032. That is not strictly speaking a prediction, it is a projection, if conditions are as outlined in the scenario.
Below is a graph of cumulative PV capacity from 1997 with new capacity and growth figures for both cumulative and new capacity. Looking at the growth percentages, it is hard for me to imagine what would cause the growth to slow down much from recent rates, short of some sort of apocalypse. I’m not saying apocalyptic scenarios are out of the picture but, I would hope that the growth of renewables would accelerate rather than decline. That is what needs to happen if CO2 emissions are to be reigned in.
Gone fishing,
The important factor is growth in consumption of solar power. From 2011 to 2018 based on BP solar consumption data the growth rate averaged about 31% per year.
If we assume solar power continues to grow at 29% per year and wind at 14% /year and nuclear and hydro remain at 2018 level an electricity output grows at 2.5 % per year, then in 2032 95% of electricity output is from solar, wind, nuclear and hydro.
That at least is a step in the right direction. Probably this scenario is too optimistic as growth rates will undoubtedly slow down over the next 13 years.
Dennis, you might want to back off on that growth rate of PV somewhat. You don’t want to make the carbon plume worse by producing PV too fast. The fastest it can be produced is about 25 percent growth. At 25 percent growth there is no energy benefit or reduction in GHG output to the world, since all of the energy of the previously installed PV would be needed to build the next year’s PV.
Would be interesting to see that kind of growth, by the 13th year we would be essentially covering the equivalent of 2/3 of New Jersey with solar panels in one year. Booming economy, with no benefit until we slow the growth.
Of course along with all that wind and PV growth, an equivalent amount of storage would have to be manufactured and installed or the system will fail.
That reduces the rate of growth even further for carbon plume reasons and material availability as well as needed advances in technology and massive changes to the grid structure.
Luckily there are a number of simple things that can be implemented that take no new technology, no massive investment in manufacturing and deployment plus have near instantaneous reduction in GHG output as well as reducing environmental destruction.
This link is at least somewhat relevant. Political cartoons.
https://www.politico.com/gallery/2019/08/16/the-nations-cartoonists-on-the-week-in-politics-003223?slide=0
We’re about ninety nine percent likely headed for hell in a hand basket, but there IS a real possibility that we might transition away from fossil fuels faster than anybody other than the most optimistic of technocopians imagines.
https://electrek.co/2019/08/16/tesla-solar-rental-service-solar-panel-system/
Well, for an ‘old farmer’, I compliment you on being flexible with your outlook as the scenario changes.
More people need to be willing to learn and adapt.
In support of what you asserted-
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-now-cheaper-than-grid-electricity-in-every-chinese-city-study-finds
Hi Hickory,
I was born considerably lucky and have a working brain. It works most of the time at least, lol.
Emerson
” “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
I’ve been reading good books, serious books, whatever was in my school library, since I was old enough to be allowed into the library to check them out, third grade, and I continued to read at least one a week, often a couple, sometimes two or three, for fifty plus more years. But recently I ‘ve cut back to one or two new books a month.
It’s no disgrace to change your mind. Ron, our venerable leader, the very FOUNDER of this forum, thinks I’ve lost my mind because I no longer believe EVERYBODY is up shit creek without a paddle. All the other regulars who are seriously into biology seem to agree with him.
So MAYBE we have already passed tipping points that mean the end of life as we know it. But my perspective is different, and I MIGHT be right.
Consider wars for instance. Sometimes they continue until one side or the other is more or less obliterated, people and infrastructure they built as well.
But more often, something is left, and rebuilding is possible, if painful and slow.
There’s no doubt we are in essence making war on the environment, and destroying large swathes of it.
But with the destruction of the environment comes the destruction of people, not yet on the grand scale….. but sometime down the road, I foresee people dying by the tens of millions, maybe the hundreds of millions, and quite possibly a billion at a time, over say a year or two.
There is every reason, in my estimation, to believe that the grand scale die of humanity will ALMOST FOR SURE be regional, and piecemeal, rather than universal and simultaneous.
This means there’s a real possibility that environmental degradation will slow down or even grow less, in the following years, allowing the environment to heal itself to some extent, and that therefore some people in some places to have at least a fair shot at continuing to enjoy industrial civilization, generation NEXT. Post ff for sure.
It’s a race between climate change, overpopulation, resource depletion, and environmental destruction.
And it CAN play out regionally, to a substantial extent, rather than globally, so that MAYBE people in places such as Canada and New Zealand, and even the mountains of Virginia, can continue to have electricity, grocery stores, cops, and such.
MAYBE.
I was taught that eternal growth was possible in AG Econ 211 212 and 213 back in the dark ages, in the same classroom at the same hour as the econ majors by the same professor. The ONLY difference is my transcript says Ag Econ, lol.
New biology texts teach me that overshoot means THE END of life as we know it.
Biology professors would benefit from reading more history, and economists would benefit from reading more biology.
I believe both camps have a pretty good grip on PARtS of the truth.
I don’t believe we really need imported farm workers to harvest our crops. An abrupt transition to domestic labor would be disruptive as hell, I agree about THAT, so long as the ABRUPT is included.
But all that’s REALLY needed is for farmers to raise wages to the point that Americans who would rather not, would rather do this work than something else. Sure the price of fruits and veggies would go up…. a LITTLE.
But the number of people on welfare, or dealing drugs, or stealing, would go DOWN. And wages would go up a little in other lines of unskilled or semi skilled work, due to less competition for such jobs. Farmers would learn how to get more done with less physical labor.
I’m NOT arguing that immigration is either good or bad, in and of itself. I’m just making this ONE POINT. Nobody in his right mind who has finished a basic econ class CAN dispute it. The right wing is lying about it, although lots of right wingers BELIEVE it, because right wingers believe in cheap labor.
The left wing has either been hoodwinked into believing it, or knows better but isn’t saying anything, for more praise worthy reasons reasons such as supporting human rights and group solidarity.
I don’t CARE if anybody agrees with me. I’m going to look at the data, and come to my own conclusions.
For humans, I have one concern bigger than all the energy or environmental ones.
And that is behavior. Mob behavior.
All the best plans for adaptation, civilization or environmental stewardship, can be wiped out by the human beast.
We like to ignore that part of our collective history and character.
Ask Bison, they will tell you about it.
Some of the founding father’s were very afraid of mob rule (rule by the people), which is why we have a fascist oligarchy forming in the US now.
Its not either-or (mob rule vs oligarchy), as I see it.
Theoretically, you can have democracy that is functional and reigns in the ‘fascist oligarchy’. But it takes an intelligent and engaged populous to pull that off. We have neither.
Similarly, you can have capitalism that that does not result in a huge gap between rich and poor, but it requires strong intention and thoughtful regulation. We have neither.
OFM, you are right about the general public not being aware or not really caring about the global situation. They are often too preoccupied with everyday living and don’t put any real effort into observing and understanding their world. Some do comprehend various general troubles but don’t know what to do or don’t really care.
It’s a very difficult thing to determine proper courses of action and with so many different opinions it is almost impossible to get concerted action without direct threat. Plus they soon forget past events or diminish them with time.
There are many ways this can play out. Something to ponder for a future discussion.
I don’t think I’ve seen a climate change model factoring in a current/imminent Peak Oil followed by a terminal decline. Or a mitigation proposal along those lines as no country would dare even propose a hard, declining cap in crude oil consumption, starting now. Not sure if it is reliance on lazy/self serving projections from the EIA or OPEC or just that it’s so radical it screws with the general model approach. We *could* be several million bpd higher now except that the economy isn’t doing so well, there was a glut price war despite that and Venezuela is a dumpster fire. So a lot of projected development never happened. It’ll take years to catch up and by then does it grow production, or just push back towards what is current, at best?
What happens with the Chinese gambit with their domestic production will be very informative. Does a huge crash EOR program, damn the expense and profitability, make a difference?
Nobody is counting on a huge decline in Chinese consumption. But it’s probably in the cards. Look at their total energy use. Look at the proportion that is coal. A lot of diesel is used building cities nobody lives in. A lot of coal is used to make all that concrete that they’ve been using to build them cities. Those cities won’t be getting built from electricity from solar and wind farms. A lot of oil demand will vanish as their coal depletes.
On the renewable energy front- this is is a good sign if it gets done
Offshore deep water Calif wind energy project in the works.
Important because if deep water projects can be cost-competitive, there is a lot of energy to be harvested around the world.
“The CWO wind farm is planned to be located over 30 miles offshore, taking advantage of a consistent wind resource with an average speed of 8.5 meters/sec. The proposed site location is in a vicinity of the ODAS buoy 46028. Based on over 27 years of data from the buoy, the expected energy generation from the offshore resources could surpass 50% capacity factors. The CWO site is planned to be located in a 2,665 – 3,608 feet (800-1,100 meters, or 1,464 – 2,013 fathoms) water depth approximately. Each FOWS is spaced approximately 3,300 feet (1,000 meters, or 0.54 nmi) apart to reduce, or eliminate, the wind shadow effects. Energy produced from all FOWSs is brought to an offshore, floating substation and delivered to shore via one or more (for redundancy purposes) export cable(s) using the same cable route and connecting to the Morro Bay substation.”
http://castlewind.com/morro-bay-project/
btw- the offshore wind energy industry is on the verge of becoming a very big employer of industrial, port and marine workers
Port industries are going to boom over the next ten years.
‘The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that offshore wind development could create up to 160,000 jobs by 2050, ‘
The story of Donald Trump’s feud with his one true nemesis: Windmills
By Karen Heller
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-story-of-donald-trumps-feud-with-his-one-true-nemesis-windmills/2019/08/15/f637980a-be9e-11e9-b873-63ace636af08_story.html
President Trump truly, emphatically doesn’t like windmills.
He doesn’t like them the way the British feel about the French, the way Aaron Burr felt about Hamilton, the way everyone feels about the New England Patriots.
Except the president’s persistent nemesis is inanimate.
On Tuesday, at a petrochemical complex in natural gas-rich western Pennsylvania, the president was, once again, howling at the wind.
He ranted about “big windmills” that “destroy everybody’s property values, kill all the birds.” They’re unreliable, he claimed, darkening people’s homes. “And then, all of a sudden, it stops; the wind and the televisions go off,” he added. “And your wives and husbands say, ‘Darling, I want to watch Donald Trump on television tonight. But the wind stopped blowing and I can’t watch. There’s no electricity in the house, darling.’ ”
In April, at a Republican fundraising dinner, the president warned, “If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value.” He asserted that “the noise causes cancer.” Also, “It’s like a graveyard for birds,” he added. “If you love birds, you’d never want to walk under a windmill.”
Trump is like Cervantes’s Don Quixote, who tilted at windmills — that is, jousted — believing they might be monstrous giants. What have wind turbines ever done to Trump?
Hi Cats’
Intelligence is a tricky concept. It’s long been obvious to me at least that there’s no good way to measure it, for sure. The best approach seems to be considering it as not one but up to half a dozen or so separate but linked intellectual powers.
In all respects but one, Trump is obviously a retard, unless he knows a lot more than he seems to, which is possible, I suppose.
But in that last one respect, understanding human psychology, he’s way over on the right side of the bell curve. He knows ALL about manipulating his base, which says something complimentary about him, as much as I hate to admit it… but given that he gets away with it……..
It paints a dismal picture of his fan club, does it not?
This one’s for OFM! A video of a new leaning, electric, two seater (tandem) trike out of the Netherlands. I think it fits the description of what he thinks frugal personal transportation might look like in a post peak world:
Carver test ride 2
The video is shot from inside the vehicle on the test ride, so it gives a sense of what it is like to ride in it.
Below is a link to the article that describes the vehicle and the test ride, from insideevs.com:
First Customer Registered Ride On Carver Reveals New Details
Thank you Islandboy for the links.
These people are headed in the right direction. Now if they will give up on the thousand pounds they spent on making it pretty, and put that thousand into making it LAST, they’ll be well on the way.
Of course since they are necessarily going to be selling them to naked apes…. I suppose the thousand will have to be spent on fancy paint, the utterly USELESS rear spoiler, and Sky Daddy alone knows how much molded plastic on the inside.
We need electric vehicles that are stripped down like bottom of the line old time conventional cars that didn’t have any thing not required by the law, or as a matter of mechanical necessity. Some of them eliminated fuel pumps by putting the fuel tank higher than the engine…. which meant than there was NEVER going to be a fuel delivery problem, so long as the line to the engine was clean and intact.
This is what’s going to make them affordable for poor people who are currently driving third hand conventional cars, as a matter of NECESSITY. One morning we’re going to wake up to a new reality….. lots of new electric cars, but not many cheap used ones…. and gasoline is going to be thru the roof.
Sure an old ice car is expensive to own and run……. but owning and running one is generally cheaper than paying the DIFFERENCE for an equally desirable place in the country, which is why so many people commute from the burbs and the boonies.
Dirt cheap electric cars ARE possible ,and they CAN be a reality.
Decent affordable housing in cities, in quantity to allow everybody to live in a nice tight compact mass is not reality , and won’t be, not in the USA, not within the next generation or even two generations.
We’re doomed to be a nation of commuters for a long time to come.
Another glacier bites the dust:
ICELAND’S OKJOKULL GLACIER COMMEMORATED WITH PLAQUE
“Ok is the first Icelandic [large] glacier to lose its status as glacier,” it reads. “In the next 200 years all our main glaciers are expected to follow the same path. This monument is to acknowledge that we know what is happening and what needs to be done. “Only you know if we did it.”
The dedication, written by Icelandic author Andri Snaer Magnason, ends with the date of the ceremony and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air globally – 415 parts per million (ppm).
“It’s not the first glacier in the world to melt – there have been many others, certainly many smaller glacial masses – but now that glaciers the size of Ok are beginning to disappear, it won’t be long before the big glaciers, the ones whose names are well recognised, will come under threat.”
Mr Sigurdsson made an inventory of Icelandic glaciers in the year 2000, finding there were just over 300 scattered across the island. By 2017, 56 of the smaller glaciers had disappeared.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49345912
From this link and the comments I realize that the melting of the glacier has happened over centuries and a possible cause for the melting is that the glacier is on top of a volcano.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/01/the-reports-of-icelands-glacial-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
Well, according to your very own EPA
• On average, glaciers worldwide have been losing mass since at least the 1970s , which in turn has contributed to observed changes in sea level. A longer measurement record from a smaller number of glaciers suggests that they have been shrinking since the 1940s. The rate at which glaciers are losing mass appears to have accelerated over roughly the last decade.
• All three U.S. benchmark glaciers have shown an overall decline in mass balance since the 1950s and 1960s and an accelerated rate of decline in recent years. Year-to-year trends vary, with some glaciers gaining mass in certain years (for example, Wolverine Glacier during the 1980s), but the measurements clearly indicate a loss of glacier mass over time.
• Trends for the three benchmark glaciers are consistent with the retreat of glaciers observed throughout the western United States, Alaska, and other parts of the world. Observations of glaciers losing mass are also consistent with warming trends in U.S. and global temperatures during this time period.
BTW: It has been estimated that a third of the sea-level rise the past years has come from glaciers such as Austfonna, in Norway, in other words ones that are neither on Greenland nor Antarctica, where most of Earth’s ice is located.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers
I don’t understand what you mean by “your very own EPA” ?
I would agree that in general glaciers are retracting as the global temperature is increasing and I would think glaciers retract by default as they will partly melt in the summer. In order to grow again it needs to be snowing, which is not always the case. Probably glaciers have, in general, been retracting since the end of the last Ice Age or mini Ice Age.
I also don’t think that we should always trust news about global warming. As an example, it was a while ago spread (scary) pictures of the dogs running on water on top of the ice In Greenland. Well, that has been observed for the last 2 centuries and is an annual phenomena.
Actually, there are many indicators that suggest that Greenland and Iceland is getting colder. There is BTW one thing that is worse than global warming, which is global cooling.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/if-greenland-is-catastrophically-melting-how-do-alarmists-explain-nasas-growing-greenland-glacier/
Tom said:
Have to admit that pic was kind of puzzling. As anyone that has been cross-country skiing knows, it doesn’t take much melt to create standing water that’s ankle-deep after a warm-up.
Yeah, all the glaciers melting is probably from the increased solar energy and chemtrails. Maybe left over heat from the Medieval Warm period finally reached there.
Not to worry though, the Grand Solar Minimum will fix all that and put things back the way they were in the Little Ice Age.
I mean who would believe GRACE data anyway. How can two satellites tell how much ice there is on Greenland and elsewhere?
You gotta hand it to all those highly paid climate scientists keeping this ball rolling so long, but wattsupwithdat and Alex Jones will soon get them run outta town.
Gonefishing
Exactly what in my comment triggered you to answer sarcastically?
Tom- “I don’t understand what you mean by “your very own EPA”
Doug is from Canada.
“I also don’t think that we should always trust news about global warming.”
That goes for all news. Consider the source. Learn to be a good analyst of what is real. Extinguish your bias’s.
And I’m not American. I thought Doug referred to a link in the article.
I agree it goes for all news, but it seems there is hardly no critical sense when it comes to global warming. If I had spread some fake news, say that the sea level will increase 20 cm the next decade due to global warming I think 80% of the population would believe it.
Candidate : Dee Zell
Platform : I will set yourself on fire
Polling : 35% solid base
Tom, “it seems there is hardly no critical sense when it comes to global warming.”
Critical sense is a in short supply in regard to everything.
Nothing new.
“On this day in 1633, chief inquisitor Father Vincenzo Maculani da Firenzuola, appointed by Pope Urban VIII, begins the inquisition of physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei”
It does help to educate yourself in science, history, and critical thinking.
And perhaps more importantly, avoid allowing your mind to be brainwashed by vested interests and their media outlets.
The earth has been warming quickly in past 30 yrs, increasingly so. That is just data (a ton of it).
Your choice whether to ignore the data, or write it off to an exceptional degree of natural variation, that just so happens to coincide with the massive human induced carbon pulse into the atmosphere.
Or you could try to digest it as an experiment in atmospheric manipulation gone very wrong. And about to get much more wrong.
Thats how it looks to me. And yes, it is very unpleasant to digest.
So is human nature.
And so it goes.
Let’s check some of these claims in global warming. Is it true that the warming has increased slower the last 20 years? The so-called warming hiatus.
Tom, if you truly believe that global temps have had a hiatus in the warming trend, then you are just working hard to delude yourself. Or perhaps I should say that you have exposed yourself to poor sources of analysis that have succeeded in their purpose of deluding you.
Warming has in fact accelerated. Learn some things from this site, if you’d like to be taken seriously.
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/national-graphs-of-global-temps-by-month
Hickory, in that case many more than I am deluded. IPCC mentions themselves in the AR5 report the global warming hiatus. Is IPCC not the most “official” institution within climate research?
https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/resources/htmlpdf/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL/
Box 9.2 p769
Tom,
“Is not the IPCC the most ‘official’ institution within climate research?”
It doesn’t work like that. There is no official or authoritative institution within a field of research in the natural sciences. The whole endeavour is to learn about the natural world, and that is ongoing and has no center. The community of researchers publish in the peer-reviewed literature and every paper published is a contribution to the effort.
The IPCC is part of the UN. The report is intended to give an objective scientific view of climate change and it is created by thousands of researchers going through the professional (research) literature world-wide in order to contribute to the synthesis that is the report. They aren’t even paid.
Here’s an example of how the research community functions: We hear often that the planet is greening–vegetation is increasing globally–as a result of the rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is plant food. This makes sense and the view is widely accepted. Now, on 14 August this year a paper was published in E&E (Energy and Environment) with the title “Increased Atmospheric Vapor Pressure Deficit Reduces Global Vegetation Growth.” The conclusion was that the rate of browning caused by regional deficits of atmospheric water vapor is now more than offsetting the greening on the global scale. There are about 40 authors from the looks of it (I didn’t count,) most Chinese, and from a variety of institutions. (A good deal of current climate research is done in China because well over a billion people live there and they’re dependent on the East Asian Monsoon for their food supply. The government is taking it seriously and supplying lots of funding.)
So what will happen? Researchers will read the paper, go through the methodologies in detail, work out ways to check the results and in many cases try to duplicate or refute them, and examine the qualifications and maybe publication histories of the authors many of whom will be familiar because “research community” is not just a comforting name. A discussion will develop, in new papers in the community. New directions for research may come out of the efforts.
What will not happen is a storm over the temerity of anyone publishing a paper that takes a view different from the one widely accepted currently, though you might get that impression from reading about the paper in the news media–there might even be exclamation points–or at denier sites like WUWT. A paper, to repeat, is a contribution to the effort to learn about the natural world and is viewed as such.
Now, scientists, being human, can be as cussed and bloody-minded as any other humans, but the endeavour, as I’ve called it, does not exist to promote that. Oh: and the editors of peer-reviewed journals in the natural sciences have hearts of iron when it comes to dealing with what isn’t a professional discussion but is supposed to be.
So to the extent that IPCC manages to produce an objective scientific view, it is fair to say that there has been and some claim still is a hiatus. The implication of that is that the natural variation is significant and that there are many factors contributing to climate change, esp. Since the CO2 emissions are higher than ever before.
One predicted consequence of global warming is rising sea levels. It is disputed whether the sea level rise is accelerating or not. The seal level rise sceanarioes until 2100 according to IPCC are:
RCP2.6: 0.44m (0,26-0.55)
RCP4.5: 0.53m (0.36-0.71)
RCP6.0: 0.55 (0.38-0.73)
RCP8.5: 0.74 (0.52-0.98)
RCP8.5 seems to be an unrealistically high projection and thus 0.5m seems to be realistic. In the next 80 years. We can adapt to that, can’t we?
IPCC AR5, Chapter 13, table 13.5, p. 1182.
Hi Tom.
Go to the site Open Mind. Currently there’s a plot of global temperature since 1880.
“Go to the site Open Mind. “
Open Mind is Closed Mind as far as commenting is concerned. Much of the variability of climate is caused by ENSO, which I have a good model for. Yet Open Mind doesn’t want to hear about it so will post the details here soon.
Tom- “If I had spread some fake news, say that the sea level will increase 20 cm the next decade due to global warming I think 80% of the population would believe it.”
Yes, I suspect you are correct. And the opposite fake news as well- if you said that the ‘warming trend is due to waste heat from engines’, majority would believe that as well.
Misinformation and ignorance are rampant, as are entrenched agendas.
I am not a vested interest. I’ll follow the preponderance of solid data, wherever it leads.
Will you?
Paul Pukite,
It’s a handy graph of T anomaly and took one click to reach, you see.
Synapsid,
I am just saying that climate science is stuck in not being able to predict any form of natural variability, such as El Nino’s.
I have some ideas but many of the climate blogs are not supportive of any new ideas. I figure that the problem is at least partly due to skeptics posting crackpot ideas and they can’t separate the good from the bad.
Paul Pukite,
Agreed. I’d add “yet” after “able.”
The value to me of Tamino’s blog is his ability to take apart the very climate sceptics’ arguments that you mention, and do it with scrupulous statistics.
A nice look a the IPCC Climate Change and Land Use Report, pointing out some of the deficiencies.
Climate Change and Land: Is the IPCC being straight with us?
On the 8th August 2019 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a comprehensive report on Climate Change and Land Use. Their findings immediately sparked controversy and debate. This week we take a brief look at the report and also at some of the reaction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL1rpFCBg5s
Nice summary video. IPCCs credibility is questionable. They seem to downplay a lot of the issues raised in their report.
GF- have you seen any updated response by climate experts that takes into account the very hot last decade that we’ve experienced? Is this beyond what previous trend-lines have estimated?
If this recent trend magnitude keeps up, …
Asphalt will be oozing into the gutters and embankments.
I will wait until 2019 data comes in before I respond to that one. This should be an interesting year for heating with a moderate El Nino. Arctic is looking a bit cooked this year.
With the wobbly jet stream it’s difficult to tell without large data sets.
It’s not a secret that climate scientists and meteorologists are unable to predict El Ninos more than a few months in advance — and even this short a timeframe is only possible because there are other indicators for the potential of occurrence.
Yet breakthroughs are coming because the difficulties in solving the fluid dynamics are being overcome.
That’s nice. Is there any helpful attributes to an earlier predication of the oscillation. Does it change anything?
How will the predictive accuracy hold in a fast climate change system?
It’s actually as straightforward as ocean tidal analysis.
It’s as easy as pi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY2gYBN8VpQ
I intentionally didn’t say “easy”. The straightforwardness occurs after the tidal equations are solved. Coming up with the solution was actually quite challenging and described in our book.
We will eventually do a POB post on the topic.
Humor aside, glad you are posting that.
I think what amazes me most is the speed of change, in temperature, in ecology, in species population, in weather, ice, permafrost and hydrology. Maybe 40 years ago we could see the changes in a half a lifetime, now it is clearly visible in less than a generation. Rates of change are twenty to one thousand times above natural processes. Geophysical changes are visible from year to year and species populations are now crashing in many cases.
But I will turn the discussion over to
Andrew Glikson
Earth and Climate scientist
Australian National University
The changing face of planet Earth
The inhabitants of planet Earth are in the process of destroying the habitability of their world through the perpetration of the largest mass extinction of species since 66 million years ago, when a large asteroid impacted Earth, and 55 million years since the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) reaching 5–8°C. The late Holocene-Anthropocene climate change represents an unprecedented event, triggering a fast shift in climate zones and a series of extreme weather events, with consequences for much of nature and civilization. The changes are manifest where green forests are blackened by fire, droughts are turning grassy planes to brown semi-deserts, brilliant white snow and ice caps are melting into pale blue water and clear blue skies turn grey due to aerosols and jet contrails, most particularly in the northern hemisphere. Unless effective efforts are undertaken at CO₂ drawdown, the consequence would include demise of much of nature and a collapse of human civilization.
————-
2. Migrating climate zones
As the globe warms, to date by a mean of near ~1.5 °C, or ~2.0°C when the masking effects of sulphur dioxide and other aerosols are considered, and by a mean of ~2.3°C in the polar regions, the expansion of warm tropical latitudes and the pole-ward migration of subtropical and temperate climate zones (Figure 2) ensue in large scale droughts such as parts of inland Australia and southern Africa. A similar trend is taking place in the northern hemisphere where the Sahara desert is expanding northward, with consequent heat waves across the Mediterranean and Europe.
In southern Africa “Widespread shifts in climate regimes are projected, of which the southern and eastern expansion of the hot desert and hot steppe zones is most prominent. From occupying 33.1 and 19.4 % of southern Africa under present-day climate, respectively, these regions are projected to occupy between 47.3 and 59.7 % (hot desert zone) and 24.9 and 29.9 % (hot steppe zone) of the region in a future world where the mean global temperature has increased by ~3°C.
Closely linked to the migration of climate zones is the southward drift of Antarctic- sourced cold moist fronts which sustain seasonal rain in south-west and southern Australia. A feedback loop has developed where deforestation and decline in vegetation in southern parts of the continent result in the rise of thermal plumes of dry air masses that deflect the western moist fronts further to the southeast.
Much more at:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-changing-face-of-planet-earth.html
So next time you get in your car to drive to the gym to exercise, or go to buy that hamburger or steak for dinner, ask yourself why you want to do so much harm to the life on this planet and to yourself. Maybe ask yourself why you spent many thousands of dollars on entertainment over the last decade instead of insulating your home. Keep on asking why.
Excellent summary you shared GF-
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-changing-face-of-planet-earth.html
Very good video summary/discussions of the land use issues.
I decided to subscribe to this info source.
Synapsid –
Maybe this has been mentioned here before?
ANCIENT DIAMONDS HAVE BEEN FOUND [FROM] NEAR THE EARTH’S CORE
“Ancient diamonds – which are older than the Moon – have been discovered 410 kilometres below the Earth’s surface hidden in the planet’s mantle. The rocks are thought to have been sitting close to the Earth’s core for more than 4.5 billion years until a volcanic eruption in Brazil caused them to move closer to the surface.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49381553?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment&link_location=live-reporting-story
Estimable DougL,
I don’t know about here. I sent a comment to a recovering geophysicist resident somewhere in BC where I’ve never been, though.
There has long been a suggestion in the research community focused on the inner Earth that the mantle is not well mixed, that some parts of it have remained little changed since very early in the planet’s history. The paper in your link reports diamonds that have remained in the transition zone, 410 to 660 km down, between the upper mantle and the lower, since not long after the solid Earth formed. The evidence is the ratio of helium 3 to helium 4 trapped in impurities in diamonds brought up from the transition zone by volcanic activity. The ratio matches that found in meteorites but not generally on Earth except in ocean-island basalts which are sourced especially deep, I believe. Ordinary diamonds, from higher up in the mantle than the transition zone, don’t show this helium ratio.
The interpretation of the helium ratio is that the rocks hosting it show that there’s a helium source way down in the mantle that hasn’t changed since about the time the Earth finished forming.
It’s a neat piece of research.
Nice usage of regenerative braking for mining. Of course you need a steep hill to do it.
“The dump truck, at 45 tons, ascends the 13-percent grade and takes on 65 tons of ore. With more than double the weight going back down the hill, the beast’s regenerative braking system recaptures more than enough energy to refill the charge the eDumper used going up.”
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest-ev-never-has-to-be-recharged
Cool. If only everything worked that way.
HUGE WILDFIRES IN THE ARCTIC AND FAR NORTH SEND A PLANETARY WARNING
“The planet’s far North is burning. This summer, over 600 wildfires have consumed more than 2.4 million acres of forest across Alaska. Fires are also raging in northern Canada. In Siberia, choking smoke from 13 million acres – an area nearly the size of West Virginia – is blanketing towns and cities. Fires in these places are normal. But, as studies here at the University of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Center show, they are also abnormal.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/huge-wildfires-in-the-arctic-and-far-north-send-a-planetary-warning
Anybody here know about any EVs similar to this style of 3 wheel motorbike?
Can Am Spyder. This is a pic of the touring model. It’s ICE, but an EV of similar design might have appeal. Could perhaps encapsulate it a bit for all weather comfort.
Pic didn’t upload. Try again.
Arcimoto has similar design vehicles. Not quite as beefy.
They are at early stage production (and their high initial prices reflect that)
For the few smart enough and humble enough to actually listen.
Discussion on the ecosystem, insects, agriculture, plastic and American leadership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os0D15JkfAk
We are scared of burning forests, but we don’t care about our own “fires”.
Besides CO2, burning fossil fuels brings a lot of heat into the atmosphere. That heat may be even more substantial addition to atmosphere than CO2, since the efficiency of different heat engines is generally under 50%. Therefore, more than 50% of fossil fuel energy goes into atmosphere. Taking this into account, temperatures didn’t really rise so much. Since 2025, the expected peak gas year, the share of fossil fuels in heating atmosphere must go down. And the yet remaining forests around the world should be saved for building sailships, not burn as “biomass”! Iron hulls with sails make cumbersome ships.
I also would like to point out that plants actually like CO2, so if there is more CO2 in atmosphere, it will be balanced by the higher production of O2 by more intensive, truly green growth 😉
Nice try Fernando.
OneofEU is French, Fernando is Spanish.
Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago
Declining plant growth is linked toward decreasing air moisture tied to global warming
Scientists say the greening effects from rising levels of carbon dioxide might be over. Credit: NASA
The world is gradually becoming less green, scientists have found. Plant growth is declining all over the planet, and new research links the phenomenon to decreasing moisture in the air—a consequence of climate change.
The study published yesterday in Science Advances points to satellite observations that revealed expanding vegetation worldwide during much of the 1980s and 1990s. But then, about 20 years ago, the trend stopped.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
This paper seems to conclude otherwise.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301598223_Greening_of_the_Earth_and_its_drivers
From Skeptical Science:
“The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat. “
Good info.
On a observational basis, the heat effect from urban waste heat, along with direct heating of concrete, asphalt and metal surfaces can easily be seen with the Urban Heat Island Effect.
The myth that these sources of localized heating are a significant contributor to global climate warming has been completely debunked.
It is true however, that the urban heat island effect dramatically increases the air conditioning demand of city dwellers, and those immediately downwind.
So if you are truly concerned Fernando, plant more trees in your local city.
ALASKA RECORDS ITS WARMEST MONTH EVER
“Alaska’s average temperature in July was 58.1 degrees (14.5 Celsius). That’s 5.4 degrees (3 Celsius) above average and 0.8 degrees (0.4 Celsius) higher than the previous warmest month of July 2004.”
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-17/alaska-records-its-warmest-month-ever
July is usually the warmest month, of the year, where I’m from, in Michigan also.
Regards,
Ralph
Cass Tech ’64
“Donald Trump’s 2020 election chances could fall if the US economy slides into recession”
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
“The trade war with China could cloud consumer confidence
But there’s another popular US axiom that’s worth noting: “Vote one’s pocketbook.”
Voters may huff and puff about personality and ideology, but at the end of the day, they tend to choose a candidate they believe will help them financially.
What next in the US-China trade fight?
The US has now declared China is a “currency manipulator” — but what does that mean and what effect will it have on the trade war?
When it comes to Mr Trump, people will tolerate a lot of things they don’t like (think relentless tweeting and the use of polemic language around women, race and the like) for things they do (the anti-politician approach and a strong hand on the economic tiller).”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-16/trump-could-lose-2020-election-if-the-economy-tanks/11420022
________________________
On election day November 3, 2020 I will be voting “anybody but Trump”. My single vote isn’t going to make the difference in the election. But from this date until election day I will also be voting with my wallet. I’m going to eliminate my discretionary purchases for the next 15 months and buy them and more after the Trump loss. This is little to ask of myself when you consider the sacrifice that was made to fight the Nazi’s in the 1940’s.
Joe and Susie six pack will just have to learn the hard way. That education is the real avenue to economic success.
Recession is the best way to make sure this nightmare comes to an end as soon as possible.
Agree. Thank you.
And China has the biggest swing vote in all this.
Do they prefer to bargain with adults,
or a petulant juvenile delinquent?
How they decide to handle the trade dispute will determine the outcome of the next election.
And you can bet they know it.
What do they prefer, in the long run?
We know what Putins preference was.
Some links for those who want to see the change in the UK temperature, electric bikers and one for the farmers – would be interested in feedback from our farmers on the last one.
https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/1049333086968844294
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-49393998
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49044072
NAOM
Hi NAOM,
About that enclosed home made electric bike…… I’m REALLY wondering how any body other than a nice slim contortionist could get in and out of it, but otherwise…..
I’m impressed. I have often speculated that it should be possible to use a little air compressor on a motorcycle to inflate a collapsible covering that would keep the rider mostly dry, and mostly out of the wind. That way the rider could inflate it before starting out, and deflate it after stopping, and it wouldn’t necessarily have to weigh a whole lot, or interfere with riding without using it in mild weather.
Now about planting trees….. it WORKS….. if you have land to plant them on. I’m doubtful that there is any significant amount of land in the UK that can be put back into trees.
And as far as robots are concerned……. it’s going to be a good long while yet before you see a whole lot of robots on farms, because they are not yet well enough developed, and well enough programmed, and affordable. It’s one thing to own an electric truck, if you run it most of the day, every day, in your business….. because you can recapture the initial higher cost quickly enough to make a paying proposition out of purchasing it…….. today, in at least some cases. If you run a car at least a couple of hours a day, it means an electric car may already be cheaper to own and run than a conventional car.
But farm machinery necessarily sits around unused most of the time.
You will see robots mopping floors in stores a hell of a lot quicker than you will see them doing precision work in the fields, and you don’t see many mopping floors, which is a super simple job, by comparison.
And as far as breeding cows to fart less, or live longer, I’m sure at least some modest progress can be made in both cases. How much, now that’s anybody’s guess. My personal opinion is that any progress in these directions will be almost entirely the result of political considerations, including regulatory limits or fines imposed on farmers. There’s no real reason, in principle, that farmers should be exempt from such regulations, so long as they are imposed on other businesses as well.
Now as far as farmers getting people to eat down the food chain, voluntarily, you can forget about it. That’s very much against their own economic interests, so it won’t happen.
People won’t voluntarily eat down the food chain excepting the occasional individual who does so for ethical and health reasons. BUT they will drop down the food chain when they must, because they can’t afford meat and dairy products. Meat and dairy products are going gradually get to be more expensive in any case, as resources used to produce them deplete, and it’s possible that such foods may be taxed as luxuries, or rationed, as times get tougher.
Most people who write about agriculture and the environment don’t really know more than “just enough to be dangerous”.
While it IS possible to get excellent yields of some crops in some places using the methods they usually advocate, i e no manufactured fertilizers, no pesticides, no large machinery, getting such yields virtually always involves a LOT of extra labor, extensive EXPERT supervision, and suitable local conditions, which are NOT met in most places. The crops that can be produced this way are generally fruits and veggies or specialty crops that sell high and produce a lot of revenue per hectare of land.
Such methods don’t work, as a rule, in the here and now, on large farms, in the production of staple foods, or feed for livestock, or fiber such as cotton. There is very little reason to believe they will work in the production of staple foods at scale in the near future. In ten or twenty years, they may work at scale. Even if they do, such foods will have to be shipped long distances most of the time.
Having said this much, knowing just enough to be dangerous has lead the environmental camp to jump into bed at least once in a whirlwind marriage with the industrial bau camp, and wind up with a bastard child that’s a hell of an environmental problem. I’m talking about ethanol and gasoline of course.
SO.
Farming as it is conducted the usual way in countries such as the USA, given the state of the art of organic/ sustainable farming technically IN COMBINATION with PRACTICAL considerations such as labor supply, expert specialist knowledge, geography, and above all suitable land suitably located, not to mention adequate supplies of organic inputs ranging from grass clippings to fish emulsions to bone meal to composted manures, etc etc, ……….. produces two or three times as much food, PER ACRE, as organic methods.
SURE there are exceptions. The EXCEPTIONS are the PROOF of the rule.
So we need to be thinking long and hard about getting away from using pesticides, tractors, combines, manufactured fertilizers, and all the other stuff farmers use to get huge yields using only a little labor per hectare, so that nearly everybody can live elsewhere and do other useful work….. and NOT ONLY because this is the system we’re STUCK with for now.
If we go back to methods that get half the yields, we will have to double the amount of land put to the plow……
That means fewer forests, fewer wetlands, fewer wild places, more polluted rivers.
In lots of places, this means NO FORESTS left. NO wetlands left.
Probably MORE environmental damages than at present.
I’m a professional farmer, in the sense that I know quite a bit about ecology, having taken lots of courses in biology.
Most farmers ,who farm for a living, have a few basic courses, at the most, in fields such as business administration, equipment technology, accounting, veterinary medicine, etc. They are NOT professionals except in the vernacular.
So we need to stay pedal to the metal on methods of farming more sustainably, but we DON’T need to go overboard trying to change things too fast, which might well mean MORE problems, instead of fewer.
You can take these words to the bank, they won’t bounce.
Sometimes I need to add on to my own comments.
Even if new technologies mature fast enough to allow us to move to organic and or other less resource intensive methods of farming within the next few years, it’s still going to take ten years plus, and more likely twenty years or longer, for these new mostly hypothetical techniques and machinery, etc, to be scaled up and displace existing methods and machinery.
It’s the same problem as with electric cars…. except that electric cars are already better than good enough and soon will be cheap enough as well to displace conventional cars. It’s still going to take a couple of decades before conventional cars are the exception rather than the rule.
Thanks for your thoughts.
NAOM
Tipping Point of Electric Vehicle cost and Finding a Rapid Charger | Fully Charged (video)
Islandboy,
Since you insist on throwing the phrase “exponential growth” around, do we now have exponential growth in power demand for air conditioning around the globe?
AIR CONDITIONING USE EMERGES AS ONE OF THE KEY DRIVERS OF GLOBAL ELECTRICITY-DEMAND GROWTH
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/may/air-conditioning-use-emerges-as-one-of-the-key-drivers-of-global-electricity-dema.html
That is quite likely the case. Speaking for myself, I wanted to install air conditioning in my apartment but have not done so yet. I have installed 2 kW of PV and would like to have the consumption resulting from the a/c to be covered by the solar PV as much as possible. I have looked at using the energy from the PV system to make ice that, could be used to provide cooling beyond nightfall but, the costs of putting such a system together are astronomical. I’m afraid out civilization does not take global warming as the existential threat that I think it is, or else air-conditioners and fridges that can run off renewable energy when available and store the cooling power for use when renewable energy is not available would be affordable and commonplace
In addition my neck of the woods does not have net metering but, something called “net billing” where PV system owners are paid a lower rate for the power they supply to the grid than they have to pay for what they pull from the grid. For me, this means that I would have to produce roughly twice the amount of energy that I consume overnight just to break even. Not very encouraging!
I also would like to drive an EV instead of a diesel but, the government in my neck of the woods has announced that they are “formulating an electric vehicle policy”(aimed at making them more affordable). I can’t afford to go out on a limb and take on the added expense that acquiring an EV represents at this time, only to see some government policy make them more affordable after I have spent money that I won’t be able to get back.
I’ve already made bad investment decisions based on a fear of Peak Oil and in the meantime the rest of us seem quite happy to be increasing our energy consumption “exponentially”! 😉
Rising temperatures will mean I will need to go air-conditioned, 30C with 90% humidity, yesterday, was no joke. It will mean installing solar as well as increased consumption means increased electricity price and I will need to offset that cost. So, adding A/C will, probably, mean reducing my already low consumption.
NAOM
Does this surprise anyone? Maybe its time to drop the phrase “climate change” and call it what it is — climate crisis.
CLIMATE IS CHANGING FASTER THAN ANIMAL ADAPTATION
“An international team of scientists reviewed more than 10,000 published climate change studies and has reached a sobering conclusion. Birds and other animals cannot adapt fast enough to keep pace with climate change, throwing species survival in doubt.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-08/cu-cic082019.php
Meanwhile,
EARTH’S FUTURE IS BEING WRITTEN IN FAST-MELTING GREENLAND
“In just the five days from July 31 to Aug. 3, more than 58 billion tons (53 billion metric tons) melted from the surface. That’s over 40 billion tons more than the average for this time of year. And that 58 billion tons doesn’t even count the huge calving events or the warm water eating away at the glaciers from below, which may be a huge factor. Holland, like NASA’s Willis, suspects that warm, salty water that comes in part from the Gulf Stream in North America is playing a bigger role than previously thought in melting Greenland’s ice. And if that’s the case, that’s probably bad news for the planet, because it means faster and more melting and higher sea level rise. Willis said that by the year 2100, Greenland alone could cause 3 or 4 feet (more than 1 meter) of sea level rise.”
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-earth-future-written-fast-melting-greenland.html
New detailed report on the state of the US Wind Energy sector-
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/08/f65/2018%20Wind%20Technologies%20Market%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
Hickory, good information, TKS. From your post (no exponential growth nonsense):
“Energy analysts project that annual wind power capacity additions will continue at a rapid clip for the next couple years, before declining, driven by the five-year phased expiration of the PTC. Additionally, improvements in the cost and performance of wind power technologies, which contribute to low power sales prices, will impact near-term additions. Other factors positively influencing demand include corporate wind energy purchases and state-level renewable energy policies. As a result, various forecasts show wind capacity additions increasing in the near term, to 9–12 GW in 2019 and 11–15 GW in 2020. Forecasts for 2021 to 2028, on the other hand, show a downturn, in part due to the PTC phase-out. Expectations for continued low natural gas prices and modest electricity demand growth also put a damper on growth expectations, as do limited transmission infrastructure and competition from natural gas and—increasingly—solar energy. At the same time, the potential for continued cost reductions may enhance the prospects for longer-term growth, as might burgeoning corporate demand for wind energy and continued state RPS requirements. Moreover, new transmission in some regions is expected to open up high-quality wind resources for development. Given these diverse and contrasting underlying potential trends, wind additions—especially after 2020—remain uncertain.”
Yes. This report is focused on USA.
I do expect more robust growth in Europe, where solar and domestic Nat Gas are not as big competitors, and where winter short days are a big issue.
Strong leadership from N.Carolina on electrical generation issues!
Last year Governor Cooper (D) issued an executive order, and in response a draft ambitious clean energy plan has been put forth.
https://governor.nc.gov/news/governor-cooper-commits-clean-energy-economy-nc-combat-climate-change-create-jobs
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/north-carolina-clean-energy-plan-could-reduce-power-sector-emissions-up-to/561261/
S.Carolina is also finally moving along, after ending the 2% solar cap on net metering-
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/south-carolina-unanimously-passes-solar-bill-to-lift-2-net-metering-cap/554490/
Bit of trivia,
“Between 2007 and 2017, 45.5 billion tonnes of oil and 36.3 billion cubic metres of natural gas were removed from the Earth’s crust.”
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-full-report.pdf
As Greta said: “Our house is on fire.”
AMAZON FIRES: RECORD NUMBER BURNING IN BRAZIL RAINFOREST
“The National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) said its satellite data showed an 84% increase on the same period in 2018. It comes weeks after President Jair Bolsonaro sacked the head of the agency amid rows over its deforestation data. The largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon is a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming. It is also home to about three million species of plants and animals, and one million indigenous people.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49415973
Islandboy (aka Mr. Exponential Growth) —
FOSSIL FUEL BURNING LEAPS TO NEW RECORD, CRUSHING CLEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE EFFORTS
“Despite decades of promises to prevent a climate crisis, the primary cause of it — global fossil fuel burning — continues to increase rapidly. Last year’s record-breaking burn was a doozy. That’s according to data in the latest “BP Statistical Review of World Energy.” And renewable energy — a hoped-for climate solution — has not only failed to halt the explosive rise in fossil carbon burning, it’s falling ever-further behind…
Climate-safe energy did indeed increase significantly since 1990, rising by 1.1 Gtoe. But humans increased fossil fuel burning four times more. Climate-damaging energy use is not just rising. It is pulling away from the climate-safe alternatives. Fossil fuel’s lead has widened from 6.1 Gtoe in 1990 to 9.6 Gtoe today. In practical terms, this means that each year, the amount of clean energy that must be added to replace fossil burning keeps getting larger and larger — not smaller.”
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/07/31/opinion/fossil-fuel-burning-leaps-new-record-crushing-clean-energy-and-climate-efforts
BTW I fondly remember an assignment in High School involving bacteria and exponential growth. We were asked to calculate how long it would take for a bacteria culture to expand to fill space out to the moons orbit — assuming exponential growth (daily doubling). Try it, you might even be surprised by the result. 😉
Here is another good teaching tool for exponential growth-
make a bet, and if you win, the other guy has to give you a penny on day 1,
and then 2 pennies on day 2,
and then 4 pennies on day 3,
and then 8 pennies on day 4…..
doubling the pennies paid for a total of 30 days.
How much is the total winnings?
Or make your own graph using:
y(t) = a × e^kt
Where y(t) = value at time “t”
a = value at the start
k = rate of growth (when >0) or decay (when <0)
t = time
That is for smart people.
I was giving the pathway for the american voter.
A question to all of you climate alarmists: does it change anything if our need to change our ways is due to peak oil, not a coming CO2 climate catastrophe?
Why? Our need to change our ways is NOT due to peak oil. Have you heard of (human) population overshoot and all that implies?
I am trying to answer the important question whether the CO2 scare would have appeared without peak oil phenomenon.
Overshoot is not relevant here; fundamentally this is a political question, a question of credibility what we are told, why people are treated more and more like children etc.
Wouldn’t people agree to change their ways if told the truth?
The “the CO2 scare” is a result of fossil fuel burning (primarily coal, oil, and natural gas) plus agriculture and numerous other factors. So no, peak oil, which may or may not arrive soon, is NOT the cause of the “CO2 scare”, it’s the cumulative effect of greenhouse gas emissions into Earth’s atmosphere resulting from human activities.
The corollary does not really work, temperature does not rise as much as was expected. Local anomalies are just local.
It is true, though, about agriculture, but what are we to do with human need of eating?
“The corollary does not really work, temperature does not rise as much as was expected. Local anomalies are just local.”
Yes it does, when you add in the heat being absorbed by the oceans.
But CO2 scare is about atmosphere, not oceans.
Aren’t we lucky that oceans are yet cold enough to absorb additional heat?
At the moment melting ice is absorbing massive amountsa of heat from the atmosphere. When the ice is gone, things are going to get very interesting. I hope I’m not still alive by then.
Won’t be so much heat in atmosphere then. By the way, Antarctica is bigger than Europa or Australia. So much ice to melt YET!
OneofEU does not understand the premise at all. Without the mitigating effects of Peak Oil, global warming would have been much worse at the current time.
All one has to do is look at the rate of production increase into the 1960’s and notice that was truncated by oil shortages in the 1970’s.
All this should be obvious and was one of the reasons for this post in the first place.
This is being replayed for coal perhaps
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario
And we may need to blame EIA for their poor recent projections of coal usage
Aren’t we lucky that Antarctica is so big and there is so much ice left to melt! I somehow don’t think Fred and his fellow residents in South Florida will feel so lucky if Antarctic ice melting were to accelerate. Every time I see people calling other people who subscribe to the idea of anthropogenic global warming “alarmists”, I wonder, what is it going to take to convince them that anthropogenic global warming is real? Venice and South Florida inundated?
As for the EIA projections posted by Paul above, compare those projections to their record of projections posted at the top of Auke Hoekstra’s Twitter page (below). Is it institutional pro FF/anti renewable bias or just incompetence? The EIA has consistently produced optimistic forecasts for FF and pessimistic forecasts for renewables. Why?
Please take and pass a course in physics. Then start reading on the appropriate topics. Maybe, just maybe, in a few years you will at least sound intelligent.
In school, I used to excell in physics. Where I am lacking now?
@OneofEU
Did you cover what happens to oceans as they warm up, in your physics class? Did you pay attention to the changing properties of water with respect to CO2, in your chemistry class? Please revise these topics.
NAOM
-There are no climate alarmists here. If you seek them, go somewhere else.
-Of course the world needs to change its ways due to peak fossil fuel. The pathway of adaptation is very similar whether taking into account peak fossil fuel or global heating.
-There is no CO2 scare. Just reality.
-Overshoot is entirely relevant here. In fact, it is hundreds of times more relevant than any other factor in all of this.
-And no, people generally fail to be proactive and wise.
And finally, I have rarely met a person whose outlook is as fucked up as yours.
Why fucked? I don’t deny that our ways must be changed.
However, I would much more prefer the truth to the Puritan-like rhetoric of CO2 sin.
Clima alarmists are like apocalyptic preachers in the past. But maybe every time needs its own Savonarola….
Bullshit. You have a huge agenda.
Not into truth.
I nominate you as one to ignore.
I second the nomination.
Good bye.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting
Sounds very Javier/Fernando ‘ish.
Discussion article on RCP8.5 pathway just out-
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario
thanks, I also linked to that in another comment.
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1164189973664264192
@ Paul Pukite Therefore, global warming is a kind of straw man, since it has been already ‘mitigated’.
There is a grain of truth here, because like I said in the main text, having unrealistic projections for oil and coal usage was one of the reasons for this post. It is also what provoked the RCP8.5 tweetstorm .
Yet, having said that, there is still a possibility that the world starts exploiting the low-grade, low-EROEI fossil fuels, such as oil shale. There is enough of this in the world to easily reach the RCP8.5 threshold, due to the fact that the extraction process might exhaust just as much waste carbon as that provided as usable fuel, i.e. hydrocarbons.
… not to mention that it will also use all the available water in the western USA — thus the parallel and perhaps even more important existential concerns of overshoot.
This is a moot point since we do not really know the correlation between burning (1) carbon (2) and temperature (3).
For example, burning is a chemical reaction which needs oxgen. What if plants do not produce enough oxygen to sustain serious burning? At some point, plants should be half-dead, due to rising temperature etc, if I well understood ‘no greening’ thesis.
I think the cycle is self-regulating, more or less: more burning, more CO2, more plants, more oxygen, more humans, more burning, less oxygen, more CO2, less burning, more plants etc….
and there is a big IF:
IF Earth is a thermodynamically isolated system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsTK2LHZKPQ
OneofEU:
No offense, but opinions are irrelevant. May I suggest that you provide links to peer reviewed journal publications if you wish to be taken seriously. Thank you!
Regarding OneofEU :
One comment he says it’s mitigated.
Next comment he says it’s moot.
OneofEU apparently doesn’t understand the meaning of words.
Oh yeah that was a clever semantic investigation.
A Foreigner has been demascated.
Not valid though unless confirmed by consensus of peers in peer-reviewed journals.
No, you said that something was “mitigated”, which means it was reduced to a level that you are satisfied with.
Then you say that this is “moot” which means that it doesn’t matter as the premise was false.
That’s BS to play rhetorical games.
Ah so. When I said ‘mitigated’ I have only followed the internal logic/validity of your argument. That does not mean that I accepted this position as true.
My own position is that antropogenetic CO2 warming is still merely a hypothesis. More plausible than some other hypothesis, but still just a hypothesis.
However, I do admit that we undergoing some natural climate change.
The almost universal acceptance of CO2 narrative has substantially reduced my faith in humanity, so gullible it is. Argumentum ab auctoritate (pace peer reviewed journals) seems to be still the strongest one known to humans.
Anybody who doesn’t understand that peer reviewed journals are where real scientists talk about their work, professionally, with OTHER scientists, is basically ILLITERATE, RETARDED, INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED, in terms of understanding science at all.
The proof that forced warming is real is statistical in nature. Any mathematician who examines the evidence will tell you that we are forcing warming, unless maybe he’s a hard core Trump type, and willing to lie about it.
This is not to say liberals aren’t just as bad about lying or failing to face up to the truth, when lying or ignoring the truth suits their personal agendas.
I have yet to hear about a prominent Democrat saying that HRC ran a scam referred to as CATTLE GATE.
The evidence that she did is irrefutable, per basic math, if you accept that papers such as the NYT and the Washington Post reported the known facts accurately.
Pretty much all of us believe what we WANT to believe, excepting the ones of us with real honest to Jesus technical training, and the ability to think for ourselves. And even then……. half of this tiny elite group manages to ignore anything that conflicts with their own personal ethics and cultural norms.
There are no real scientists. There are only professional scientists and amateur scientists. Science has been started by amateurs (original meaning of ‘dilettante’), and then was taken over by a state and became academia; now amateurs seem to be taking it slowly over (‘citizen science’ idea), probably because professional science stopped delivering, a kind of.
That takes the biscuit! Complaining about semantics when coming up with a word “demascated” [sic].
NAOM
Not good!
THE AMAZON IS BURNING AND SMOKE FROM THE FIRES CAN BE SEEN FROM SPACE
“Forest fires in the Amazon are generating smoke that can be seen from space and may have caused a daytime blackout more than 1,700 miles away in the country’s largest city.”
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-amazon-space.html
From what I understand Brazil’s wildfire season peaks between August and October. It’s off to a big start.
I generally applaud Tesla successes (and anyone else who pushes hard in the EV/battery sector),
but this is bad work.
Seven fires on Walmart roofs originating with solar arrays installed by Tesla.
I ‘m curious what they got wrong?
Too many panels per inverter?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/after-seven-roof-fires-walmart-sues-tesla-over-solar-panel-flaws/
Somebody in mid level management dropped the ball, and either didn’t hire fully qualified field crews, or failed to follow up on their work to the usual standards.
By the time three fires were reported, there should have been people sent around to check that all the rest of the systems were installed correctly, using satisfactory components.
Even the biggest companies in the biggest industries fuck up on a regular basis.
Cars are recalled for safety defects by the millions, every year. Cars built by companies in the biz for a century.
Has anyone asked “Why just Walmart?” ?
“Walmart says it “demanded” that Tesla disconnect all of its solar panels after three fires broke out in 2018 in Ohio, Maryland, and California. Tesla complied, according to the complaint, but Walmart says another fire broke out anyway at a second California store. ”
“According to Walmart’s suit, the problems started with SolarCity before Tesla acquired the solar panel company in 2016. SolarCity had “adopted an ill-considered business model that required it to install solar panel systems haphazardly and as quickly as possible in order to turn a profit, and the contractors and subcontractors who performed the initial installation work had not been properly hired, trained, and supervised.””
Obviously Solar City had something to do with this and the panels should have all been removed instead of disconnected.
So this should not involve panels installed by Tesla, which might explain why only Walmart has the problem.
Tesla has relaunched it solar power business, likely in an attempt to put this poor installation scenario behind them.
Its going to take much work to heal this wound.
I’m sure Elon Musk sent some people out to pasture.
I’m still interested to understand specifically what was done incorrectly.
Installing these panel arrays is not rocket science.
Sometime back I read about arc fault protection and fires caused by arc faults. Arc faults can result from poor connections between panels at the point of connection. There are quite a few different manufacturers of connections and over the years the standards for connections have evolved from MC2 to MC3 to the current standard MC4. The MC is actually a reference to a brand name (Mutli-Contact) but many manufacturers make MC4 compatible connectors. MC2 and MC3 connectors cannot fit together while MC3 and MC4 can, the difference between them being that MC4 connectors have a locking mechanism that requires a special tool for easy disconnection. MC2 and MC3 can simply be disconnected by pulling them apart.
The reason I went through all of the explanation above is to point out one way that arc faults can happen. When I bought my first set of high power panels (285W), they were not UL listed ostensibly because they had MC3 connectors when locking MC4 connectors had become a requirement for UL listing. The cables I bought to run to my inverter were fitted with MC4 connectors which would fit but, the connectors from the array lacked the locking mechanism. I used generous amounts of electrical tape to hold the connectors together and reduce the likelihood of moisture getting to the contacts. After a few months my inverter started shutting down with an arc fault error. Thinking it might have been a fluke I reset the inverter but, it would run for awhile and then shut down again. When I inspected the connections between the array and the cable run to the inverter one of the connectors was not pushed all the way in. I pushed it in and re-taped it with electrical tape and viola! The system has worked uninterpreted since.
At the level of a Walmart and Solar City, they should be using only matching (same brand) MC4 connectors and inverters with arc fault protection. The article I read spoke about “MC4 compatible” connectors from different brands that might form a less than perfect connection and then there are the Chinese “knock offs”. I’m pretty sure the cause for these fires at Walmart will eventually be discovered at which point, it becomes a learning experience for the industry.
Thanks. I’m going to keep an eye out for updates.
Useful to know, thanks. I have heard that some people like to cut off the connectors and make a hard joint.
NAOM
Carbon Offsets- good for your conscious, tell all your friends.
Here is the kind of company that operates in this space.
Its all bullshit, I think.
If I’m wrong, tell me about it.
https://www.terrapass.com/
The appearance (reappearance?) of another strident Global Warming denier in the form of OneofEU(Javier?) has got me wondering about basic thought processes of human beings and what it is that defines individual belief systems. I remember watching Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and looking at the basic premise of anthropogenic Global Warming and thinking, “that looks about right”. I took physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics in high school before going on to study electrical engineering at a Technical College (Polythechnic in the UK) so I think I have a fairly good grasp of the science involved, if not the detailed grasp that would belong to to an individual with a degree in physics or climate science.
It is the same sort of thought processes that have led me to accept the idea of Peak Oil and I still tell people that Peak Oil has not “gone away”, it’s just been delayed to some point in the not too distant future. How can one accept the ideas put forward in Prof. Albert Bartlett’s talk Arithmetic, Population and Energy and think otherwise? It is the same sort of thought process that resulted in me looking at Tony Seba’s “Clean Disruption” videos (most recent one on Youtube here) and again think, “Yup, that looks about right!”. I find the trends (cost curves) presented in Seba’s presentations quite compelling and while the timing may up for question, I find the basic premise sound.
On the other hand, I am yet to see an argument coming from the group that calls themselves “skeptics” that is even close to compelling and that is not easily debunked by people with access to the relevant data. Take for example the video Grand Solar Minimum is coming. And..?, that we have to thank GF for posting a link to recently, from a Youtube channel called “Just Have a Think”. IMO it thoroughly debunks any ideas that the current spate of global warming is being driven by any thing other than greenhouse gases but, the comments section is full of people that sound very much like our own OneofEU.
Am I just gullible? I don’t think so and what is more, I think deniers are ripe for being converted to flat earthers with their level of science denial, which they like to call skepticism. In addition, it is pretty well established that there are interests within the FF industries that have funded fairly sophisticated PR campaigns to propagate exactly this kind of doubt in the validity of the science, in some cases using exactly the same people or organizations that the tobacco industry used to cast doubt on the links between smoking and ill health. This leads me to believe that it is the deniers that are the gullible ones.
EU is a giveaway that he’s from Europe and almost positive that he’s in Germany.
French, pretty much told us. His use of English would be consistent with that.
Good points IslandBoy.
I have wondered what the motivation is for those who are beyond reasonable skepticism on climate warming issues.
I have a few ideas.
One is a vested interest in fossil fuel and related industries. Any thing from propane delivery to engine repair. They fear loss of income/wealth.
And perhaps loss of value of properties in lowland areas.
Secondly, is fear of the physical changes. To digest the idea that coastal lowlands and riverbottoms could flood, local forests could more prone to burning, or food supplies could be disrupted, is legit reason for fear.
Another big source of fear for some is a flood of migrants from disrupted economies/failed states.
These are all legitimate fears. We should acknowledge that. But to pretend that the problem does not exist prevents one from attempting to adapt. It does not make the source problem go away. Perhaps worse.
Another motivation many may have is simply a political bias. Any blindly partisan person generally runs hard to a position that is contrary to their opponent, even if that position is ridiculous. Consider the republican policy on restriction of military weapons available to US public, or the democratic policy on immigration, as examples of this. Most of these ‘deniers’ are hard core right wing nationalists.
Many others are simply ignorant. Ignorance, and perhaps even more so- disinformation, is rampant. Some others believe they are smarter than the herd- they are self-deluded.
And then there is religion. Blind faith in what they are told by ‘gods’ representatives. Science is for non-believers, and such.
Next, many have great disdain of regulations and government intervention. Any rules restricting pollution, industrial development, and perpetual growth, are hated by many. And they see acceptance of ‘global warming’ as leading straight down the path to regulation. ‘All regulation is excessive’.
Lastly, there is large cohort of people around the world who just don’t give a shit about their children and future generations, about clean air , water, food, about the food chain or biologic diversity. They don’t care about any of it, just themselves. Let nothing get in their way of taking what they can get.
So which is it for you OneofEU, Archibald, Javier or Fernando?
Fear, ignorance, partisanship, selfishness, “faith”, delusion?
Maybe you can check 3 or 4 boxes.
Or try to uncheck them.
When I have spare time, I will write essay with the following title, and publish it here:
‘The Coin of Virtue and Vice, or Moral Legitimacy of Global Warming and Illegitimacy of Peak Oil.’ Hope Dennis & Ron will accept it.
The ethical framing of this crisis is necessary since the solutions have to be to transposed into law, which is supposed to be an expression of applied ethics.
The riddle for all of you guys: you know what heads and tails are, now, what is the coin itself?
The argument doesn’t sound coherent at this stage. Keep working it.
It is a (hypo)thesis, not really an argument.
if you really want, it is the clue to the riddle.
A good hypothesis needs evidence.
In natural sciences, yes.
But it is a philosophical hypothesis, so should be judged in terms of plausibility and coherence.
This is a hypothesis about oil??? How can that not be grounded in the real world – what is the meaning of Peak Oil without quantification (e.g., of barrels of oil per day)? What is the meaning of Climate Change without quantification (e.g., of GHGs)?
A hypothesis requires evidence: provisional evidence before it’s formulated, and then after it’s formulated it needs evidence to test it.
“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Perhaps “hypothesis” isn’t the right word for your idea…
Provisional EVIDENCE is not necessary.
This is not mathematics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model
There is underdetermination problem too.
Yes, provisional evidence is needed.
You need to have some kind of reason to believe the hypothesis makes sense. Some kind of observation or experience that suggests this particular hypothesis.
If you’re going to suggest that the world was created by leprechauns, or that the world rests on the back of a turtle, you need some kind of reason to believe it.
“Evidence” doesn’t have to be absolutely convincing or overwhelming. It just needs to be reasonable.
who has time for riddles?
Intelligent creatures 😉
It has been their old pastime since Bilbo Baggins won the Ring of Power from Gollum in this way.
If you meant to say intelligent fictional creatures, then I can agree with you.
Climate science is complex. There are a variety of different projections and a large uncertainty in models and many failed exaggerated predictions not matching observations. I understand that people question the extent of human made warming. Does anyone have the exact answer of human impact, from 0 to 100%?
Tom, just so you know, I view those who deny climate science the same way I view people who deny that the world is a sphere, with an exception. The exception is that I know of no benefit to be gained by those who claim the earth is flat and hence no motivation for anyone to spend huge amounts of money trying to convince people that the planet is not a sphere. With Global Warming and Climate Science, there are whole industries that stand to lose a lot if CO2 emissions were to be restricted in a meaningful way. The owners of these industries are on record as spending multiple millions of dollars each year on PR campaigns to foster doubt about climate science. Judging by comments from the likes of you, that money has been well spent.
Speaking of money well spent, I watched an excerpt from last nights show, Real Time with Bill Maher and learned that David Koch of the Koch Brothers died yesterday (August 23rd) from prostate cancer, at the age of 79. Fat lot of good his net worth of $50 billion did for him and it certainly is no good to him now! I hope his heirs do not allow their uncle Charles to convince them to continue to spend any of their portion of the inheritance on science denial. As Bill Maher put it, “He and his brother have done more than anybody to fund climate science deniers for decades so, F him, the Amazon is burning up, I’m glad he’s dead.” I guess it is too much to hope that David’s death will cause Charles to have a change of heart with regard to his role in climate science denial, for the sake of those of us his 83 year old ass is sure to leave behind at some point in the next couple of decades.
Who denies climate science? Is your comment related to my comment?
Tom- “the extent of human made warming.Does anyone have the exact answer of human impact, from 0 to 100%?”
Of course not. Its a silly question.
But one with a serious point I understand.
The point is uncertainty, and underlies many of your comments.
And people who claim certainty about future outcomes are just simplifying things, as people are prone to do.
I do not believe that we understand earth science enough to create any entirely accurate model, but over time the improvements have been dramatic. Take hurricane forecasting as an example. Not a simple task. But you have no need to be caught unaware by a hurricane, any where in the world. That is a dramatic advance, and the warnings come with a high degree of accuracy, especially in location and timing.
Many people want to think they know better than climatologists, because they don’t like the message that has come from the scientific community. Its like saying, ‘I don’t believe in the medical science that asserts smoking cigarettes vastly increases the risk of developing lung cancer.’ Regardless of whether you like it or not, it is truth. And you may say- ‘yeh, but what is the certainty that I will develop ling cancer if I accumulate 40 pack years of smoking?’
There is no accurate answer for the degree of risk in most things.
Regarding the acceleration of sea level rise, or timing of ice-free arctic, it is an impossible task to nail down. And to expect to be able to get a solid prediction is to display a lack of understanding about these things.
If you want 100% certainty before you acknowledge the process, it will only be in retrospect. If you stand at sea level today, in 50 yrs you can measure the degree of rise just above your ankles. Then you know for sure. Doesn’t sound like much, but its the storm surges and high tides that will do the damage.
How much certainty do you need before you respond to a risk?
Only you can answer that for your self.
When all is said and done, the important thing is will the collective actions of humanity be proactive, or reactive. Extremely different outcomes.
I’d place my money on reactive. Too little, and too late.
According to IPCC AR5, it is 95% probability that more than half is human made. The question is relevant in order to quantify the risk.
I’m not one of those who claim that I know more than climatologists, but if we don’t even know what they say then why discuss at all.
“Does anyone have the exact answer of human impact, from 0 to 100%?”
More than 100%. Without us, natural forces would be cooling the planet
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1213
It is rated as 5-Sigma, that’s good enough to get a Nobel Prize.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures/evidence-for-man-made-global-warming-hits-gold-standard-scientists-idUSKCN1QE1ZU
NAOM
The article is quite good as it demonstrates that there are different points of view among the climate scientists. But I did not quite understand the essence. My interpretation is that the paper concludes there is an 99% probability that more than 50% is human-made. How have they become so much more certain in a few years? Has the data set changed so much?
Tom, A consensus of climate scientists estimate that the proportion of GHGs to the global warming trend is greater than 100%. How can that be? It’s because hydrocarbon pollutants also consist of aerosols that act as a cooling agent, so that the net is about 100%
Thanks, Paul, that’s very interesting. Do you have a link to this survey confirming the consensus? For “the gold standard” research, is my interpretation correct, 99% probability that it more than 50% human made global warming?
Tom,
You do realize that you come across as a desperate man grasping at straws, right?
I’m just trying to learn new things.
Comes across like a preacher or a promoter, rather than a learner. Each of your posts has proclamations, or the equivalent.
But I’ll take your intent as stated. We’ll see.
69 monthly national/territorial heat records were beaten or tied in 2019 (as of July 17).
There was 1 possible cold record set in the same period, although the data was not from a long standing recording station. But we’ll take it into account.
Thats 69-1 hot / cold record ratio.
If there was no trend it would 1/1 ratio, or close to it.
Its not random. Its the early data of a huge trend.
Just getting started.
Renewables and geopolitics: ‘There won’t be as much to fight over’
Bingo.
People talk about renewables being unreliable, but in a very real sense fossil fuels are much less reliable than renewables. Wherever you are, the sun shines every day, at least a little and mostly a fair amount. Wind power is available almost everywhere.
Given the reality of depletion and geographic maldistribution, wind and solar are much more reliable overall.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/
“As president, Bernie will: Transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to 100 percent energy efficiency and sustainable energy by 2030 at the latest.”
LOL LOL LOL
OK, I’m still not done
LOL LOL LOL
It must be Trump disease (desperate, falling in the polls and detached from reality).
Hi HB,
You’re not as dumb as I ‘ve often said you are, and I’m not a Trumpster, as you have so many times said likewise.
Maybe you haven’t ever heard that famous Nixon quote, about running as hard to the right as possible to get the nomination, and then as hard as possible to the center to win the election.
Right now, D party internal politics are such that people seeking the nominations are forced to out holy each other on environmental issues, because the primaries attract virtually all the serious environmental voters, who comprise a formidably large voting block in a good many Democratic primary elections.
Sanders, or whoever wins the nomination, will run for the center, once the nomination is secured.
Unless the D’s nominate somebody as politically naive and wooden headed as HRC again. She ran a Republican Lite campaign, with the result that Sanders got the younger, more idealistic, better educated voters during the primary races, some of whom undoubtedly just stayed home for the election, and she lost enough of the working class, making secret speeches to Wall Streeters, etc, to allow Trump to win in the electoral college.
Let us all pray to the ROCK, MOUNTAIN, SNAKE, or Sky Mommy or Daddy of our personal choice that the D’s nominate somebody this time who has a better grasp of the mood of the people of this country.
Trumpster, I see your still in denial of the Russian Republican voter suppression techniques of fear and hate pumped in your head over the years. Now keep focused and repeat after me for the next 15 months “Anybody but Trump”. It’s all about policy and who can deliver the White House. Don’t get distracted and shoot yourself in the foot again. The free world and mother earth are depending on you.
HI HB,
Maybe you ARE as dumb as I’ve described you in the past.
Sometimes you lose a battle, short term, in order to win a war , long term. Think about that. Also think about the fact that since I live in Virginia, and it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that VA would go D, I was free to vote Green, without voting for Trump.
Any body who thinks OLD TIME MACHINE POLITICIAN HRC wasn’t the WORST POSSIBLE candidate the D’s could have nominated last time around has their head up their ass.
Nobody else in the entire D camp was so thoroughly despised by close to half the electorate, or had a baggage train even a tenth as long.
But since she OWNED the D party apparatus, not evens a single prominent Democrat was willing to run against her. ANYBODY who doesn’t have his head up his ass ought to be able to see that she was only able to win the nomination BECAUSE she was an old line machine style politician,running a REPUBLICAN LITE campaign, the only REAL difference being that she was a female.
Sanders got an extremely late start, but if she hadn’t OWNED the party, running it as a personal fiefdom. He would have mopped the floor with her, in a fair and square race. He inspired people.
Have you ever wondered why OBAMA came out of nowhere, with hardly any national exposure, and kicked her ass, after she had the WH on her side , etc ?
Incidentally I voted for Obama.
Has it EVER occurred to idiots such as yourself that the reason WHY is that even THEN, millions and millions of Democrats were ready to vote for ANYBODY BUT HRC? Especially if that anybody was articulate, charismatic, and wasn’t hindered by a world record class baggage train? Especially if they saw the alternative candidate as fresh and new, as opposed to tired, bought and paid for second hand flea market goods?
I pray my comments here and in lots of other places have helped quite a few Democrats come to understand that they should nominate the candidates most likely to win, rather than the ones that have been scheming for the nomination for decades.
Repeat after me “Anybody but Trump “
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/importance-of-patriotism-god-and-children-plummets-among-young-people-poll
“Thirty percent of millennials and Generation Z said religion was important, compared to the over 75% of baby boomers, with just over 30% of millennials and Generation Z saying it was important to have children.”
“There’s an emerging America where issues like children, religion and patriotism are far less important. And in America, it’s the emerging generation that calls the shots about where the country is headed,” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the survey with Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt.
I’ve been posting comments for years to the effect that demography rules, here in the USA, and that when my generation and maybe half of the boomers, are dead or in nursing homes, possibly much sooner, we will have a government here in the USA quite similar to the ones that prevail in Western Europe today.
Let’s just hope we survive as a nation that long!
You’re the only person I know that would argue with the fire chief about the firetruck siren being to loud on your front yard as your house burned
ANYBODY BUT TRUMP!!!!!!!!!
Done, now repeat after me, anybody as the D candidate who isn’t despised by half the people even before announcing his or her candidacy. !
Which begs the questions going forward (please), are any of the major Dem contenders despised by half the country the country?
Who will be tolerable to half the voters (plus 3 million)?
At this point, I really wonder if E Warren can continue to guide her campaign so well. Notice how she has branded herself as a ‘down to bone capitalist’, in contradistinction to B Sanders.
I’ll add here that I still think that its entirely possible that trump will not be on ticket.
Just noticed that at 11:30 am. Australia time on August 23 (approximate time of this comment) more than a quarter of the electricity being generated in Queensland is coming from solar PV with over 2GW being generated! It can be seen by looking at the NEM watch widget at the right of the home page at reneweconomy.com.au or at the following link:
http://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/RenewEconomy/
If solar capacity were to double two more times, that would be 100% of mid day demand being satisfied by solar PV!
Not bad for winter.
The result of this boom in solar?
Solar sends Queensland wholesale day-time prices to zero six days in a row
It would appear that te future belongs to tose who can best figure out how to make hay when the sun shines, so to speak!
Meanwhile,
AUSTRALIAN COAL EXPORTS FORECAST TO TRIPLE IN A DECADE
“New taxes don’t seem to be deterring the expansion of Australia’s coal industry. A conference in NSW has been told that thermal coal exports should triple in the next ten years, driven by demand out of Asia.”
https://www.mining.com/australian-coal-exports-forecast-to-triple-in-a-decade/7/
I thought I was delusional but the guys over at mining.com seem to have me beaten! I fail to see how coal use is going to surge in markets that have to import the stuff, when coal users are struggling to fight off competition from NG and renewables in the countries where it is mined (US, Australia)!
I’ll believe “TRIPLE IN A DECADE” if I live to see it!
ADANI TO HELP TRIPLE COAL EXPORTS TO INDIA
https://7news.com.au/business/energy/adani-to-help-triple-coal-exports-to-india-c-414914
Sign O’ Th’ Times Series
‘Quickie Dough Prepared Dough For Fundraising: For Lease’
And now for some news from the sunny side:
US electricity retailers are ditching fossil fuels
China added 11.4 GW of solar capacity in first half of this year
Meanwhile,
“Australia’s LNG export volumes are forecast to reach 77 million tonnes in 2018–19, up from 52 million tonnes in 2016.” Exponential growth? 😉
While utilities might love EV’s, the real question is, do solar panels love natural gas?
In any case, what we do know for sure is that pancakes love Nutella.
Speaking of which, did you guys prepare your quickie dough fundraising dough yet? I certainly hope so. In today’s hard times, it’s more important than ever.
The one reason that USA hasn’t been going wind and solar at a much higher rate of growth is Natural Gas. ‘Fracking’ is enabling a huge supply of nat gas to be brought to market, and as a result the price for electrical generation capacity is very cheap compared to what it would be without that production.
And its not going to end anytime soon.
I suspect that a place like Calif would have double the capacity by now, if not for cheap nat gas.
In 2008 nat gas average US $8.86 (before fracking). In 2019 US average $ 2.36
Its tough competition. Its done killed coal.
“Its tough competition. Its done killed coal.”
Natural gas is also a planet killer. If they access the deeper layers below the Marcellus or the methane hydrates it’s KYAG time for sure.
True GF.
I expect much of that nat gas to be brought up and burned.
Are they going to use natural gas as a pseudorenewable energy system buffer, like for when the sun doesn’t shine or wind blow?
If so, then perhaps the buildout of non-renewable renewable energy systems will help in the increased usage of natural gas to help prolong the burning of fossil fuels and increase the risk of nudging the climate past an
dangerousadventurous tipping-point.Natural gas is so last decade. Utility scale batteries is where it is going.
Songster.
That is a nice thing to wish for,
but in terms of energy flow, we are talking something like millions to one advantage,
in favor of nat gas now.
And moving faster in favor of nat gas every day.
Pull up the numbers if you don’t believe me.
Hi Hickory,
Oh I believe you :). But I do see a definite trend (small as it is so far) to make some moves from natural gas.
I am hoping (dreaming) those small trends will at some point go exponential and have any solar/wind/hydro power generating facilities be backed by utility scale batteries instead of any fossil fuel.
Ice free Arctic, not long now. Just think of all of those millions of square kilometers absorbing all that energy instead of reflecting it away. Then think of all that bacterial action being stimulated as the permafrost melts. This is now folks, it’s been happening while we churn.
Here they talk of being ice free for 9 months of the year.
An Ice-Free Arctic Will Speed Up Global Warming 25 Years, NASA Predicts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO9Ze95mpTA&t=3s
You know how the predictions go. It’s been sooner than anticipated for a while now.
Meanwhile,
WILDFIRES ARE BURNING AROUND THE WORLD.
“The Amazon is not the only region that’s burning. More than 21,000 square miles of forest have gone up in flames in Siberia this month, putting Russia on track for its worst year on record for wildfires. Many of these wildfires stem from unprecedented warmth and dryness across many parts of the world this year. And in the case of the Amazon, they are an unmistakable sign of how humans are radically reshaping the planet.”
https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/20/20813786/wildfire-amazon-rainforest-brazil-siberia
If people want to save the Amazon, at least for the foreseeable future, stop eating meat. No need to burn land for cattle or to grow the soybeans to feed them. Don’t use tropical wood either.
Siberia?
Massive forest fires in Siberia is a climate emergency
Fires in the Taiga have been raging every year, but this summer’s blazes have reached unprecedented size and strength. The Siberian fires are emitting more than 166 Mt CO2 — nearly as much as 36 million cars emit a year. Fires in Siberian forests are especially dangerous for the climate as they are the source of black carbon that settles on the Arctic ice and accelerates its melting
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/23660/massive-forest-fires-in-siberia-is-a-climate-emergency/
And it just keeps on happening.
With a total of 17 million square kilometers there is a lot more Taiga to burn.
Climate: what the weather is like over a long period of time in a specific area.
For the NASA people who don’t seem to get it, that means there are always going to be big swings in weather which we cannot therefore call climate change. For the predictions to come true, we would need to see exponentially higher temperatures every day of the year, and that is not the case.
“exponentially higher temperatures every day of the year”
L.O.L. Do you have the faintest idea what exponentially higher EVERY DAY of the year implies? Try it and see for yourself, or better yet, just go away:
y(t) = a × e^kt
Where y(t) = value at time “t”
a = value at the start
k = rate of growth (when >0) or decay (when <0)
t = time
Shiloh.
Your sales pitch sucks.
Go back to drawing board if you want to be taken seriously.
When is the Arctic anticipated to be ice free?
anticipated?
of course no one knows.
by asking the question, I suppose you want a guess.
how much degree of certainty do want?
Here is my wild ass guess-
There will be no ice greater than 40 miles in greatest dimension for at least 20 minutes in the first week of september, in 2034.
Send your money order to-
79% Accurate Predictions
PO Box 2138
Abuja, Nigeria 56-90987
If the climatologists are serious about making models then there exists projections and predictions about it. The very rich man Al Gore predicted that it would happen within 2015. Gonefishing thinks it is “not long, now” and I’m curious to know more if we are thinking decades, centuries or what.
Natural variations make exact forcasts difficult, they usually come with a range as you have quoted above.
NAOM
Tom
BTW, you get some extra points for your cheeky & funny comment.
WHY You Should Fly A Glider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vVXXsiCTO8
Sounds pretty dramatic. What’s next?
TRUMP SAYS US FIRMS ‘HEREBY ORDERED’ TO QUIT CHINA
“President Donald Trump says he has “hereby ordered” American companies to leave China, after Beijing announced plans to slap new tariffs on US goods. The White House did not immediately say what authority the president had to compel private firms to quit a country.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49450245
The White House did not immediately say what authority the president had to compel private firms to quit a country.”
It is not surprising that he thought he had that authority. Of course, no such authority exists. But for a man who thought he could buy Greenland, and declared himself “The Chosen One”, this is not at all surprising. We have a blooming idiot for a president.
Trump is taking on China just like he took on N Korea. By which I mean he’s not taking on China at all. He blows hot air for a while and creates waves, then he stops and says he’s solved a problem, but he hasn’t. He will stop creating chaos and then claim victory as markets will rebound from the shit he caused, right before the next election. I’m quite certain Trump will win. If you doubt me, ride a bus from LA to NYC, and behold your countrymen.
I think whether or not trump-hole wins the next election depends on what China decides it wants. Trump has inadvertently given them the equivalent of easily 20 million votes.
If China decides it likes an incompetent in charge of the usa for another 4 years, they will agree to some sort of ‘time-out’ on the trade dispute.
If China decides its longterm goals would be better served with an adult in charge of the USA, they will hold off on a trade deal until after the election.
Given the extent of the Brazilian fires and realizing that Brazil has an area about the same as the lower 48, it will be instructive to see if the atmospheric CO2 level will spike at all in the next few months.
It’s really an inadvertent controlled experiment the world is performing. The impulse response function is the classic measurement of experimental science.
Let’s be fair. Not counting Siberia, Alaska and Canada, large fires are also burning in neighboring countries such as Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina. Then there’s Africa. Weather Source (NASA) recorded 6,902 fires in Angola over the past 48 hours and 3,395 in the DRC compared with 2,127 in Brazil.
This is not an experiment, this is millions of lives being burnt alive in every acre. Then the additional changes across the planet affecting trillions of living beings in negative ways, many to the point of death.
This is a blatant example of extreme hubris and idiocy that is accelerating. No temperature value, gas concentration or pH will ever express the results of these “impulses”.
Somehow I doubt if even the loss of half of the humans on this planet to extremes and starvation will change the destructive attitudes of most humans.
The carbon bomb, the pesticide and herbicide bombs, the land grab bomb, the meat bomb, the fishing bomb, the mining bomb, the plastic bomb, the techno-electric bomb, the HVAC bomb, the lumber and pellet bomb are being dropped every day over and over again on the life of this planet.
That sounds right: “One paper from a few years ago suggested that, while many species in the Amazon have already gone extinct thanks to deforestation, 80 to 90 percent of extinctions are yet to come. These declines are, unfortunately, right in line with what’s happening everywhere in the world in what is now indisputably underway: a mass extinction by human hands. A new study this week from the World Wildlife Federation found that, globally, wildlife populations have declined by 60 percent since just 1970, at rates 1,000 times faster than at any previous point in planetary history — a discovery the WWF director general Marco Lambertini called “mind-blowing.” The UK chief executive put the news in somewhat more eye-opening perspective: “We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it.””
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/bolsanaros-amazon-deforestation-accelerates-climate-change.html?fbclid=IwAR2P3UizIvgEQr4MZ9OK8rcjI66AZcLU4KIa0QwYIJCLd7AaK_W-rxzY7s0
I forgot the nuclear bomb.
Oh, another study written by somebody who can’t differentiate between statistical probability and fact. What a shameless insult to our intelligence these people are trying to pull.
Some people refer to Amazon burning this as ‘wildfires’.
The vast majority of the fires are in fact deliberate land clearing, not unintentional.
Conversion from forest to agriculture, primarily meat production grazing, and secondarily grain feedstock.
To think that firefighting efforts are needed is naive.
It is policy change and enforcement that is needed,
if the intention is to keep some forest, some water shed, some biologic diversity.
But the 99% intention around the world is people first, me first, profit first.
“Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.” — Greta Thunberg
“Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority”
Doug and Hightrekker,
I too am drawn to the narrative that its a small number of people who pull the levers of destruction…
But its really not true.
Remove the whole set,
and thousand of new ones will be in line to eagerly full their shoes.
Regardless of culture, nation, economic system or religion,
its the crush of 7.8 Billion Homo sapiens.
Bad species. Monstrosity in the extreme.
This species will not become suddenly kind.
Or wise.
Or respectful of others, the soil, the water, or diversity.
This NASA has a very different point of view about the Brazilian fires and mention statistics (given in a link in the article) that demonstrate that the number of fires are not exceptionally high compared to earlier years. 2005 was an exceptional year with many forest fires.
I’m surprised as there have been so many headlines about the extreme fire situation. Still, I can’t find a reason to question NASA’s credibility here and the statistics seem to be solidly based.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil?fbclid=IwAR16ZFIWCcsOM-eUEXyCO5kyklp2_gxLavbH4QTrCwWBcter2I9TMxgFcxk
The wiki link confirms that the rate of deforestation in Brazil is generally in a decreasing trend
https://www.wikizeroo.org/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvRGVmb3Jlc3RhdGlvbl9pbl9CcmF6aWw
Your link says “As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.”
Things changed in a hurry.
2019 Fire Season Updates:
August 24th, 2019
Figure: Cumulative active fire detections through 8/22/2019 from MODIS and VIIRS confirm that 2019 is the highest fire year since 2012 (the start of the VIIRS record) across the seven states that comprise the Brazilian Amazon. In addition, fires in 2019 are more intense than previous years, measured in terms of fire radiative power, consistent with the observed increase in deforestation
http://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html
And, it’s not just Brazil:
In Bolivia firefighters are trying to put out wildfires that have already burned more than 1.6 million acres of tropical forest where military footage shows vast swaths of tropical forest burning near Bolivia’s border with Paraguay and Brazil.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5805528/amazon-wildfires-buring/
The talking and writing about that in the year 2100 average temp. increase should be limited to two degrees C …with the feedback mechanism going on I wonder if those two degrees are not already reached in 2050.
from the article:
“Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates from the Global Fire Emissions Database,”
Mato Grosso, is no longer part of the Amazon rain forest. “In the north is the biodiverse Amazonian forest, which originally covered half of the state. Much of this has been disrupted and cleared for logging, agricultural purposes and pastures”
However, during the twentieth century it claimed the lives of many explorers and was termed the Green Hell. Now it looks like much of it is farm and pastureland,
It has been burned and logged out so you all can chomp them steaks and use tropical wood. From one of the most dangerous and wild places in the world to pastureland in just a short time.
You generally don’t burn what is already gone. So like any fire, it has a fire front and behind that is black and dead.
So for NASA to say that the fires are about average for the last 15 years means that destruction is continuing unabated, deeper into the Amazon rainforest. This also means eventual collapse of the hydrologic system and subsequent loss of rainfall, collapsing the forest to savannah. Parts are already drying and burning on their own.
Another case of quibbling while the planet burns.
BTW it looks like Para development has run up against preserved and native territory so there will be slower burning there.
“Large tracts of Pará state suffer from illegal deforestation and land occupation, mostly due to cattle ranching and soya farming. There have been conflicts between government, indigenous tribes, the Caboclos who are mixed-race peasants of the area, and ranchers over land rights. The situation is unlikely to be resolved soon, particularly due to the demand for beef from Europe and soya from China. “
This link below is to a quite deceptive blog post:
U.S. set to drown the world in oil – “The sheer scale of this new production dwarfs that of every other country in the world”
https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/08/u-s-set-to-drown-the-world-in-oil-the-sheer-scale-of-this-new-production-dwarfs-that-of-every-other-country-in-the-world.html
What they are showing is new oil and gas fields in the next 10 years across the USA and compared to the world. Sure enough it appears as if the USA will just dwarf the rest of the world, but I think they are forgetting one thing — the Red Queen. These new oil fields are just the replacement fields for the fast depleting fracked sources of oil and gas. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I think it is giving the wrong impression simply by using the word “new” instead of total production.
Wow, they can do all that with declining rig count? /sarc
NAOM
NAOM,
Nothing changes in the future? I guess that is why we are a low population, primarily agricultural species of low technical and industrial ability.
Only a few have a clue about the future, it always changes, sometimes dramatically as in the last few hundred years.
I would not bet against the urge to continue the present insanity to it’s inevitable conclusions. No one seems to be able to stop it, even after 40 years of dire warnings.
“the urge to continue the present insanity to it’s inevitable conclusions. No one seems to be able to stop it, ”
The experience of war, did not end wars.
Intelligence among Homo sapien is shallow and transient.
Kindness is rare.
When that circle in Texas gets to its largest size it’s essentially representing the current oil production level.
In other words, that represents replacement production from all the shale output from today. This will never happen unless the rig count at least stays level
The upcoming recession will “prove” peak oil, then when the economy turns around the drilling trend will rise again. Of course the expansion of renewable energy will also slow down.
The fact is the world is still on trend toward higher lifestyle and is still adding the equivalent of ten New York Cities worth of people to the planet every year.
PV and wind have done very little and continue to do very little until their growth rates slow down.
Until we start to take care of this planet and ourselves today as our major goal, the pathological actions of our civilization will continue. In other words, do things now that will effect the present.
One does not save a patient that is bleeding out by giving them pills that will stop the bleeding a week later.
All pathological action must cease and any solutions must have a present or near present effect on the biosystem. To even allow the possibility of the scenario laid out in the desdemondespair article is dangerous, let alone sit back and just think it won’t happen because of economics.
“The fact is the world is still on trend toward higher lifestyle and is still adding the equivalent of ten New York Cities worth of people to the planet every year.”
“IF WE CANNOT STABILIZE CLIMATE AND WE CANNOT STABILIZE POPULATION, THERE IS NOT AN ECOSYSTEM ON EARTH THAT WE CAN SAVE.” — Worldwatch Institute
Kashmir: The Fight for the High Ground Has Started
Thanks for the link. I like the geopolitical topics.
While I’m not a fan of Peter, I do find him worth listening too from time to time. He seems to be betting the house on American energy independence.
The New World (Dis)Order – Peter Zeihan – 72nd CFA Institute Annual Conf…
https://youtu.be/pKVQDUQR8I4
Same here about geopolitics– very tied to POB’s subject-matter of course. Unsure I know anything about Peter Z., and downloading your video recommendation for later viewing.
I don’t think it’s exactly an ACCIDENT that every time I hear about a really large tract of land, or a large collection of parcels really close together, being sold here in the southeastern USA, the buyers seem to be very deep pocketed foreigners.
Many years ago I read a classic novel, wherein one of the principal characters was doing great service to China, and was lavishly rewarded with money and goods.
But when asked what he might really want, if it was within the power of the Emperor, I forget which one, he begged for permission to buy a house and live BEHIND THE WALL.
There is little doubt in my mind that quite a few very wealthy people have quietly made arrangements to move to the USA and or Canada when and if the shit really hits the fan.
Huge number of wealthy Chinese has bought property in the west- places like Vancouver BC, Seattle, Portland, SF, over the past 20-30 yrs. Its a little quiet at the moment, but Chinese buyers show up at pretty much every home sale in the Bay Area.
Its a natural pressure, considering the overpopulation and government there.
And the Native Americans (the few left), can be faintly heard in background saying
“well atleast they are paying for the land, rather than just taking it like the Europeans did”.
New posts up
http://peakoilbarrel.com/permian-basin-scenarios/
http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-august-26-2019/