This month’s open thread. Try to keep it at least vaguely focused on climate science…!
Reader Interactions
782 Responses to "Unforced variations: Oct 2012"
Patrick 027says
cont. from my 44,45 above
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/420f11017.htm#4
under “Electric Vehicles (EVs)”:
“Miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent converts kilowatt-hours of electricity into gallons of gasoline (based on 33.7 kilowatt-hours per gallon)”
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-electric-label.shtml
The sample sticker shows 99 mpge (103 city, 95 hwy), equates this to 34 kWh/100 mi (approx. 1 gal gasoline primary energy / 100 mi)
Annual fuel cost given is $600, which is based on 15,000 miles (see their part 6).
150*34 = 3400 + 1700 = 5100, 5100 kWh @ ~ 10 cents/kWh = ~ $510. So from this, it seems like the 34 kWh of delivered electricity is being equated to approx. the same *primary* energy in a gallon of gasoline (and that electricity price is ~ 12 cents/kWh).
Their part 5 – first paragraph – in context, implies as much.
From part 7:
22 mpg = 1/22 gal/mi = 395-412 CO2 g/mi
I think this was tailpipe value – actually it says so in the first paragraph of 7. Also, I had read somewhere in this set of websites or their relatives (don’t remember where now), that 22 mpg was average, and the “greenhouse gas calculator” implies the average car’s tailpipe emission is 400 g CO2/mi (see below/later).
See also part 8:
The Fuel Economy and Environment Label provides a Greenhouse Gas Rating, from 1 (worst) to 10 (best), based on your vehicle’s tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions only, and this rating does not reflect any GHG emissions associated with fuel production.
You can estimate the total GHG emissions that would be associated with driving an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, including GHG emissions from the production of electricity used to power the vehicle, with our greenhouse gas calculator.
… which I will get to later.
from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/GHG-emissions.shtml
“If you want to compare total tailpipe plus fuel production GHG emissions for an electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle to those for a gasoline vehicle, you should multiply your gasoline vehicle tailpipe GHG emissions value on the Fuel Economy and Environment Label by 1.25 to reflect the fuel production GHG emissions for gasoline.”
The emissions calculater: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2
“*Total emissions rate includes tailpipe emissions and the emissions associated with the production and distribution of fuel. Emissions associated with electric operation are estimated using recent electricity generation data regardless of the model year of the vehicle selected.”
Using the emissions calculator: you have to enter a zip code but the results given include both the regional electricity emissions as well as the US average, and the US average car. Thus, using three zip codes (53706 , 97212 , 10177), I got four emissions values for each EV or PHEV car.
For Several EV and PHEV cars and the average US car; the first column is the percentage of use as an EV and the second is tailpipe emissions; the third column is total emissions (US average).
Total emissions includes upstream emissions for gasoline, so I based the tailpipe emission for the US average on the total emission and the 1.25 ratio given here.
Aside from combustion of fuels within power plants, I don’t think other upstream emissions are included for electricity, although those should be small (I think). I don’t think emissions associated with plant and car construction/manufacturing etc. are included.
It seems like the total emissions were rounded to the nearest 10, and the last three columns are adjusted values; they are attempts to find something *possibly* more accurate, based on the following:
Subtract 1.25 * tailpipe emissions to find electricity emissions (call these a, b, c, and d, where d is for the US average).
Sum the results over all cars for each location, and for the US average.
Determine the ratio of emissions to the US average for each location, using the sums – call these A, B, and C, respectively.
The rounding would introduce errors of a – A*d, b – B*d, etc, for each car.
The adjusted values for d (call them x) were found by setting the sum of those errors to zero; thus, for each car, x = (a+b+c+d)/(A+B+C+1) (with 3 significant figures available). This is the first column of adjusted values.
The second column was found by determining A, B, and C from only the purely EV cars.
The third column was found the same way, plus the additional step of then adjusting x just enough to eliminate any rounding errors greater than or equal to 5 in magnitude (as that would imply that the emissions had not been rounded to the nearest 10 (setting aside the ‘equal to 5’ case). There was one car, the Toyota Prius PHEV, for which one such error could not be eliminated without leaving another, so that x value was set for those errors to be about equal, then the two ratios (A and B) were adjusted to bring both just under 5 in magnitude, and then everything was repeated. Two cars ended up having x values different from (a+b+c+d)/(A+B+C+1): the Nissan Leaf and the Toyota Prius.
(3 sig figs each, A, B, C values for the three columns, respectively:
A = 1.3194 , B = 0.65066 , C = 0.55084 (all cars)
A = 1.3161 , B = 0.65161 , C = 0.55484 (EVs only)
A = 1.3228 , B = 0.64730 , C = 0.55084 (all cars, all errors less than +/-5)
)
At this point I should mention that I realize this still leaves some wiggle room for average emissions and the ratios among regions – I could try to find the bounds of self-consistent sets of values but … it doesn’t seem worth the trouble at this point. I will just use the given values and the third adjusted values for further calculations.
clearer version of table.
PS 0 % EV is an assumption/approximation for US average
Patrick 027says
… I remember using model year 2012.
Patrick 027says
Using the given (rounded) emissions, here’s mpg based on CO2 emissions. The second column of values compares the electricity generation + tailpipe emissions to the tailpipe emissions of the US average car (the first column is based on total emissions including the 1.25 factor for gasoline).
I may yet want to double check my spreadsheet formulas, but assuming I didn’t make any mistakes, here’s g CO2/mi for EV operation
based on (total – 1.25 * tailpipe)/(fraction of operation that is EV)
and from that and the emissions intensities for the 2010 electric power sector (to first find kWh/mi) and from 33.7 kWh/gal, mpg was found for delivered ‘gallon’, net generated ‘gallon’, and primary ‘gallon’.
last column is mpg for purely non-P HEV operation
= 22 mpg * 400 g/mi /(tailpipe emission / fraction of operation non-PHEV)
… oh, emissions in those tables were all in g CO2/mi.
Jim Larsensays
70 Chris D,
Yes, I don’t think a country’s emissions are in the least bit important. I was simply responding to your blaming “China” for riding scooters instead of bicycles and for producing goods the West actually uses. Hey, as long as something bad is happening and we are the primary beneficiaries, blame the essentially unpaid and powerless slaves for our good fortune!
Any rules you put into place for individual countries’ emissions will be corrupted. Emissions will flow to the least costly location. You say “China has hit its carbon limit”, and you enforce it however you choose. China will export more bauxite and import more aluminum, resulting in little or no reduction in world CO2 emissions.
India has made their stance clear. They promise to never emit more CO2 per capita than the USA. I challenge you, Chris D, to find any moral, logical, or other fault with India’s stance.
It’s a person’s or humanity’s emissions that matter. National boundaries are irrelevant. My belief is that a carbon tax, collected by the UN, should be assessed at the well or the mine. This way the tax will propagate to and be paid by the ultimate consumer. The proceeds should be used by the UN for global good, with the excess refunded per-capita to the entire world. Carbon emissions are simply not a national issue, as it is clear that any single nation will benefit by not reducing emissions at all, assuming it can find a way to provide its own fossil fuels. Coal and frackable gas are plentiful, and clathrates will ever so sweeten the pot. Even Japan is sniffing at ways towards energy independence through fossil fuels.
If you haven’t noticed, I just advocated a bit of a One World Government. Some stuff, like climate change and military issues, are Global Problems, not some nation’s concern. (GASP! Must be Star Trek’s fault.)
Chinese actions should be seen in context with the party in power. Some years ago, I saw a conscise summary of their operating principles, which struck me as quite credible.
1. Party must remain in power.
2. Party decisions must benefit the Chinese people
3. Party decisions must be based on results of science
4. Party members must be well educated model citizens
“Benefits” and “results of science” are not in conflict. Their current 5-year plan is full of action to develop knowledge and products that are based on the view that there will be a huge global market demand for new energy technology, rail transport, ice breaking ships, nuclear power, etc.
Carbon efficiency is their key term. It produces an unavoidable transformation that will generate major winners and the Chinese are not about to lose the opportunity.
Johnnosays
ozajh #84 you’re saying that a country with 1.35 bn people is entitled to the same per capita emissions as the West. I suggest only 300-400m Chinese will stay middle class. Ditto India.
Darv #97 the Australian carbon tax is riddled with freebies like 94.5% exemption for steel and aluminum mills. The govt already gave brown coal generators a billion dollar downpayment to quit but no large operators intend to do so. They keep the $1bn.
“Of course, there’s no need to struggle, since there was not one word on the subject spoken by Lehrer, Obama or Romney.
Not. One. Single. Word.”
Right. Speakers tend to address topics their audience wants to hear. Most of the electorate could care less about climate change. Do you think they have any interest in Obama or Romney telling them to take the harsh steps required to even begin to address the problem: e.g., trade in your large gas-guzzling SUV for a Citroen Deux Cheval, replace your 6,000 ft^2 McMansion with a 1000 ft^2 condo, pare back your six annual Asian vacation flights to zero, etc. If either of these politicians provided the recommendations needed to address the looming climate catastrophe, they would be looking for new work tomorrow.
One Step Beyondsays
Interesting report on electric vehicles here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232
Did not expect the environmental impact of prouction to be so bad
“The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.”
In addition, producing batteries and electric motors requires a lot of toxic minerals such as nickel, copper and aluminium.
Hence, the acidification impact is much greater than that of conventional car production.”
That said over a life time of the car it is still between 10% to 30% more efficent than petrol cars. Although the report does say
“A more significant reduction in global warming could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from petrol to diesel,”
Dan H.says
Secular,
There was one comment: The $90 billion the Fed spent on “green energy.” Although it was not entirely accurate, as it included funds for energy efficiencies and grid modernizzation, unrelated to anything “green.”
#113–“Although it was not entirely accurate, as it included funds for energy efficiencies and grid modernizzation, unrelated to anything “green.””
Strange, I would see energy efficiency and grid modernization as being quite “green.” Still, the larger point stands, as the $90 bn included a $3 bn for ‘clean coal.’
And it’s a shame that the President essentially said nothing whatever to defend these expenditures, as, according to a WaPo blog post, there’s quite a lot to say in that regard.
A (dare I say) ‘money quote’ on results:
The stimulus appears to have boosted U.S. wind and solar generation. Here’s Mike Grunwald with a top-line summary: “Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government’s ‘base case’ energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it’s not quite 2030 yet, but we’ve already got 50 GW of wind. We’ve also got about 5 GW of solar, which isn’t much but is over six times as much as we had before Obama.”
On the cost side, Romney has apparently now clarified that his ‘half of the businesses are out of business’ crack really applied only to a $16 bn subset of the total–and the WaPo adds that within that subset, the ‘half’ actually is 3 out of 33 businesses. (One of the three is our old friend Beacon Power, which was bought in bankruptcy by private investors, continues to operate, and has repaid 70% of its Federal loan as part of the bankruptcy agreement.) The WaPo makes it a 2.6% default rate.
94 SecularA said, ” the ongoing, huge and escalating economic impacts of climate change …”
Threats are seen as immediate or future, and even more important intentional or happenstance. Thus, 3,000 deaths will bring a tremendous response because it was intentional and immediate, even after the problem was solved by reinforcing cockpit doors and keeping them locked. On the other hand, climate change is an unintended side effect which lies mostly in the future, and whose effects can be shrugged off as natural.
And, of course, if something threatens one’s children, such as a sluggish economy, then nuttin else matters.
Jim Larsensays
109 Johnno said, “ozajh #84 you’re saying that a country with 1.35 bn people is entitled to the same per capita emissions as the West. ”
SecularA has proposed, and backed up with reasonable documentation, that the West could go near zero carbon in a decade. Given that the West is wealthy enough to actually do it, then there is no reason the West couldn’t drop its emissions to the level of the third world within 20 years. You’d have to lay down some serious logic to convince me that such an action is not what Jesus would do.
“The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (the AMO) is one of the best known unforced variations.”
Love the phrase. In his novel “Norwood” Charles Portis described a character as “the world’s smallest perfect fat man.”
Dan H.says
Kevin,
I would contend that most people (myself included) use the term “green” to refer to renewable energy sources, i.e. non-petroleum related products. The energy efficiency portion was targeted for overall reduced energy consumption (insulation, roofing, and other energy losses). There is no emphasis in moving away from current energy production. I would equate this calling a Smart car, “green energy,” because of its high mpg rating. I disagree with this placement, as it still uses 100% gasoline.
Also include in the $90 billion, was $3 billion for clean coal. Is this considered “green” energy.
Dan H.says
Jim,
Agreed. First and foremost on everyone’s agenda is the feeding, clothing, and sheltering of ones own family. After that, there is a laundry list of wants and needs; education, transportation, on down to various luxuries. Once the major necessities are satisfied, people will then look to support other humanitarian issues. Granted, there will always be those who put these issues first (i.e. Mother Teresa), but they are a small minority. Remedy the major concerns first, then there will be larger support to tackle other issues.
You are proposing a carbon tax for mitigation. Maybe that would work. I don’t think there is time for that and what we need is further progress on the Kyoto model since it is already working.
But you really don’t seem to understand that I am not talking about mitigation at all. I am talking about adaptation and polluter pays. As I have demonstrated, it is the most recent emissions which have pushed us into the dangerous climate change regime. As I have pointed out, it is countries which set emissions policy, so they are the responsible parties. Some countries have policies that are cutting emissions. The largest polluter though has a policy of increasing emissions. That makes that country the culpable party for the current round of crop losses caused by climate change. And, there is an existing mechanism through GATT for us to unilaterally exact reparations for the damage that has been done to us by that polluter. We should be made whole and collect those reparations.
Look, if there is a death by hit-and-run should it really make a difference if the victim is rich or poor? If the perpetrator is rich or poor? We are talking about damages and penalties, not social status. All of that comes into discussions about mitigation, but it really has no place when it comes to adaptation. Polluter pays. That’s basic.
Dansays
Don’t know if it’s been commented upon here, but the AMSU global mean temperature just jumped above the spaghetti of the last 10 years. October 4, 2012 was warmer than any other October 4 going back to 2002.
That’s true of tribal societies and those where first cousins routinely marry. As I recall it came as rather a surprise to the US military advisors who tried to treat the Afghan army like the US army, because people’s first loyalty was to their direct relations, then to their extended families, and there was no tradition of sacrificing for the country.
The US, and some other democracies, had for a while a tradition where even the rich families would put their children into the military — and into harm’s way — to protect the society. My dad, explaining why he had dropped his PhD program the day after Pearl Harbor to enlist, called it a ‘social contract’ that was at the time widely understood by those who’d pulled the country through the Depression years.
Not true any longer, as Dan points out.
Now, it’s family first and foremost.
Oligarchy — and ecological collapse — is the end point of that approach.
The pithiest pertinent quote is J.B.S. Haldane’s answer when asked if he’d give up his life for a brother: “No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.”
“Thirty years ago, “old ice” (layers in the pack some 5-10 years old) made up some 50% of the floating pack at the end of the summer melt. Today, there is almost none of this remaining, with the ice at the end of summer consisting of the thin remnants of the winter freeze.”
The old, thick Ice Cap is gone.
We are now on a starkly different planet from the one we had just a few years ago, and from the one the earth had for millennia, at least.
I would love to come to a site like this to hear about well informed best guesses or studies as to likely consequences of this aspect of our radically altered planet, but mostly this site seems to be following the general absence of discussion of these most important issues.
First and foremost on everyone’s agenda is the feeding, clothing, and sheltering of ones own family.
I posit you don’t speak for me, Dan. If you would start speaking for yourself and stop proclaiming what everyone thinks or should do then I might take your ramblings here a little more seriously.
Now, what I think. Geoengineering. Since a basic North American continental experiment was already successfully executed on the few post 911 clear sky days, I posit that simple solar L1 irradiance modification experiments could be designed to test the hypothesis without any serious side effects (certainly without moving an asteroid) to successfully obtain the desired data to enable more permanent temporary solutions, and in order to give us more time to develop the necessary carbon dioxide removal and sequestration schemes – aka carbon containing products).
SecularAnimistsays
Superman1 wrote: “Most of the electorate could care less about climate change”
That’s a blatant falsehood, as public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that strong majorities of voters consider climate change to be “a very important” or “the most important” issue facing the country.
With all due respect, sir, you make a lot of these broad claims that have no support in fact.
SecularAnimistsays
Jim Larsen wrote: “Threats are seen as immediate or future”
Skyrocketing food prices — a direct result of anthropogenic global warming — are happening right now. They are already having a very real impact on the finances of consumers in the USA and other developed countries, and in the developing world, where they manifest as food shortages, they are already a major factor contributing to social unrest and even violent revolution.
20120013495_2012013235.pdf is hidden in a vault at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Jack Roeslersays
I read a study stating that for every unit of fossil fuel-derived energy, the CO2 liberated eventually traps 100,000 units of the sun’s energy in our climate system. Could that be accurate?
Paul Ssays
Martin Smith – As far as I can tell, this is not a paper…yet: presumably Zwally et al. are in the process of publishing the results mentioned. The linked document is an abstract for a workshop talk, as stated in the pdf header.
The workshop has a webpage and Zwally’s talk is available there as a video, along with several others.
SecularAnimistsays
Hank Roberts wrote: “protecting the planet, or even the nation, will not be understood as important in tribal cultures”
While I myself am not without a certain degree of altruism, that extends even to other species, I certainly see global warming as a direct threat to my personal well-being, and find that highly motivating.
It’s not “the planet” or “nations” or even “tribal cultures” that will starve when agriculture fails. It’s individual human beings that will starve. You. Me.
When people begin to get that through their heads — when their empty stomachs start grumbling about it — it will be reflected in their views of this “environmental” issue.
wilisays
Secular Animist at #133 said, “It’s not “the planet” or “nations” or even “tribal cultures” that will starve when agriculture fails. It’s individual human beings that will starve. You. Me.
When people begin to get that through their heads — when their empty stomachs start grumbling about it — it will be reflected in their views of this “environmental” issue.”
And by then, of course, it will almost surely be too late, especially since the people with the power to do the most to stop global warming will be the last to feel the hunger pangs.
Figure three shows that, with CO2 from the top 3.5 meters of permafrost figured in and climate sensitivity of 3 degrees, a complete cessation of additional CO2 emissions by humans in 2013 leaves us with a stable level of atmospheric CO2 at about today’s levels…for centuries, at least.
As the second-to-last paragraph of the SkSci article points out, this study leaves out:
–carbon below 3.5 meters, which there is plenty of, and which will eventually be released eventually
–methane from permafrost…
–methane hydrates…
(One might add other certain or likely feedbacks, or the likelihood that the sensitivity is higher than 3 degrees C, but let’s set those issues aside for now.)
So if we add all these in, presumably that would mean that stopping all human emissions of CO2 next year would result in increases in atmospheric CO2 levels for centuries (at least) to come.
Am I missing something? Please say I am.
Patrick 027says
Re 132 Jack Roesler –
from my 44 above, I found 285.7 g CO2 / kWh of primary energy, for the fossil fuel input into the U.S. electric power sector. This value will vary with fuel type, but just going with it:
—-
Atmospheric mass and composition:
approx. 510 trillion m^2 (surface area) * 0.1013 MPa (surface pressure) / 9.81 m/s^2 = 5.266 E18 kg = 5.266 million Gt
Hartmann, “Global Physical Climatology”, p.8 gives 5.136 million Gt (the difference could be due to actual average surface pressure being lower than average sea level pressure; counteracting that, gravity decreases with height (not much over most of the mass of the atmosphere) and I think global average g may be less than 9.81 (maybe 9.80?),
but anyway, using 5.136 Gt,
an average molar mass of 28.964 g (Hartmann, p.8, dry air – but moist air should be (slightly) lower, whereas the total atmospheric molar mass from Hartmann is 28.97 g, so I’m using 28.964 (maybe 28.97 includes dust? or the effect of clouds? (H2O, but liquid; the equivalent ideal gas would have to higher molar mass, or otherwise, lower temperature – see ‘virtual temperature’),
whereas CO2 is 44.010 g/mol; C is 12.011 g/mol
So at 280 ppmv (approx. preindustrial), CO2 mass was ~ 2185 Gt (596.4 Gt C).
Doubling that would then require another 2185 Gt CO2 (etc. C), except more than that becasue of oceanic uptake, etc. (so far). Just using this value and setting uptake aside for now, 2185 Gt CO2 would then have a forcing of about 3.7 W/m2 (from memory, see IPCC), which globally is ~ 1887 TW (keeping extra digits beyond significant figures for farther calculations).
1887 TW/2185 Gt CO2 ~= 0.8636 W/kg CO2 (3.164 W/kg C)
Varies with baseline (will decrease to half if we double again. Had industrialized civilization somehow arisen in the early Paleozoic, they would have had more margin of error for getting climate policy right (unless?). Although maybe not so much energy resources… (what about ocean acidification?).
—–
365.25 days/year = 8766 hours/year, thus 1 W = 8.766 kWh/yr. At 285.67 g CO2/kWh, combustion of 1 W fossil fuel supply (of a particular mix) emits 2.5042 kg CO2 (0.68343 kg C) per year. 1 TW would thus emit 2.5042 Gt CO2 (0.68343 Gt C) per year. This seems to be on track as, from memory, once upon a time emissions were ~ 7 Gt C per year and energy consumption was something like 10 TW or maybe 12 ? (although that would include some nuclear, hydro, etc, and the fossil fuel mix would be different over time and space).
But for the U.S. primary energy fossil fuel input into the electric power sector in 2010, it seems to be about 0.39933 W/(kg CO2/yr) (1.4632 W/(kg C/yr)).
The radiative forcing would then seem to be 2.163 times the primary energy (and then less if you have oceanic uptake, etc.), except that the ratio has a unit, per year. The radiative forcing is 2.163/yr times the primary energy. If we emitted at a constant rate for 100 years and the atmospheric CO2 increase were linear, with no uptake, then the ratio would be 2.163/yr * 100 yr / 2 = 108.1. Then if we stopped emitting, the ratio would continue to increase simply by having the atmospheric perturbation not decay back to zero infinitely fast.
There is, in response to the perturbation, net uptake of CO2 out of the atmosphere (so far, at least), but consider that the anthropogenic CO2 forcing was recently about “+1.66 ± 0.17 W m–2“, or approx. 847 ± 87 TW (based on 510 trillion m^2) – that’s from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html ,
while at a similar time (assuming IPCC figure is valid for 2005), from http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=0-IEO2011&table=1-IEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630 , world primary energy consumption was 471.1 , 481.3 , and 492.6 quadrillion Btu in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (it wasn’t immediately clear to me that these weren’t projections but they remained when I clicked on the ‘History and Last’ button), which is 15.76 , 16.10 , and 16.48 TW , and some of that is nuclear, hydroelectric, etc.
(PS from memory, geothermal heat flux at the surface is around 40 TW. Tidal dissipation heating is ~ 4 TW.)
Another comparison that could be made would be the total energy of fossil fuel combustion relative to the total heat uptake of the climate system necessary to achieve equilibrium with the forcing (setting aside duration)…
about uptake, from the same ipcc link:
Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2. Since 1750, it is estimated that about 2/3rds of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have come from fossil fuel burning and about 1/3rd from land use change. About 45% of this CO2 has remained in the atmosphere, while about 30% has been taken up by the oceans and the remainder has been taken up by the terrestrial biosphere. About half of a CO2 pulse to the atmosphere is removed over a time scale of 30 years; a further 30% is removed within a few centuries; and the remaining 20% will typically stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. {7.3}
(This behavior is, I think, associated with a relatively rapid cycling and equilibration between the atmophere and upper ocean, a slower equilibration with vegetation, and a slower equilibration with the deep ocean (and there’s equilibration with exposed carbonates); equilibration with each successive C reservoir still leaves some of the atmospheric perturbation because the C is just being redistributed over a larger total reservoir (PS not necessarily maintaining the same equilibrium ratios, though I don’t know about that much offhand). The atmospheric molecular residence time is actually under a decade but some of those C atoms return with similar speed. Utimately the perturbation fades with the generally very slow ongoing supply of ions from silicate rock weathering that react with CO2 to form carbonate minerals, which tends to approach balance with geologic emissions minus organic C burial. See also a prior RC post (not sure where it is offhand) or David Archer’s book.)
Remember these scientists? They saved a lot, for a few decades.
I wonder whether the seed collection they starved to protect during WWII was in fact bulldozed last year by developers as expected; anybody know?
It’s not how you starve or what you starve to protect; it’s whether people have any clue why you’d bother giving your life over to protect anything at all besides your own self.
Energy of climate change – some of these are specifically (or roughly) for 3 K warming, others may or may not be the right amount for that amount of change.
Energy, and power over 1000 years:
3 K warming of ocean:
17100 ZJ , 542 TW
(in the short term, it is mainly the upper ocean that is warming)
5 m rise in sea level from melting ice (latent heat):
601 ZJ , 19.1 TW
3 K warming of 15 m depth of rock on land, assuming density of 2600 kg/m^3 and specific heat of 733 J/(kg*K) (p.85; note (also from p.85) – for typical soil thermal diffusivity, penetration depth for an annual cycle is ~ 1.5 m; penetration depth is proportional to the square root of time. But diffusivity will change when bedrock is reached, etc.):
12.9 ZJ , 0.408 TW
3 K warming up 70 % of atmosphere (~85 % is troposphere, stratosphere cools – not sure how much offhand):
10.8 ZJ , 0.343 TW
Latent heat of vaporization: 20 % increase in atmospheric water vapor (starting with atmospheric H2O vapor equivalent to 0.025 m of liquid water over global area) (p.12, p.350 (20 % increase in equilibrium vapor presure per 3 K) – ignoring changes in lapse rate and tropopause height (in pressure), etc.):
6.38 ZJ , 0.202 TW
Hartmann, p.350 (vapor pressure change with temperature), pp.373-374 (specific heats of air (1004 J/(kg*K)), water (liquid: 4218 J/(kg*K) at 0 deg C), and latent heats of vaporization and melting of water (at 0 deg C: 2.5 MJ/kg and 0.334 MJ/kg)), p.85, p.8 (atmospheric mass), and p. 12 (oceanic and atmospheric water amounts in depth of liquid water over global area: 2650 m and 0.025 m).
Thomassays
SA @134. Actually an honest assessment will come to the conclusion, that its the poorer folk in the poorer nations that will starve (or more likely become malnourished) not us well to do folks. The rest of us will suffer either because seeing TV coverage of starving people upsets us, or because the resulting geopolitical instability will make problems for us.
wilisays
Let me add to my comments at 136 that I am not associated with AMEG and I do not approve of–in fact I am quite appalled by–their geo-engineering schemes.
I think the poster got it right who said they had watched a few too many episodes of “Thunderbird” as children (though I admit I had to look it up on google to realize it was that horrific TV show with frightening marionettes constantly going off on high-tech–for the times–quests to save the world. It always seemed creepy and nightmarish to me. Sorry for the off topic rant.)
Regarding the alleged majority of voters who care about climate change: even if that’s so and Obama is reelected, judging by Obama’s performance so far it seems wildly unrealistic to expect him to do a fossil fuel about-face any time soon. But more importantly, I submit that the elusive presidential climate policy is mere distraction, because America is already a sideshow. To wit:
“China’s economic growth is projected to continue and to drive increasing energy consumption for several decades (Figure 1). By 2035, China is likely to see a large increase in demand for primary energy, perhaps up by nearly 70% from the present levels (IEA, 2011a). This demand is likely to be met by increasing use of fossil fuels along with other sources, such as nuclear and renewable.” [my emphasis]
IEA 2012 – Facing China’s Coal Future: Prospects and Challenges for Carbon Capture and Storage, p. 7 PDF here
“The IEO2011 Reference case projects about 1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035 … In the period from 2021 to 2035, cumulative emissions are 22 percent higher than those in the period from 2006 to 2020 … Non-OECD Asia is the dominant source of cumulative emissions growth in the 30 years preceding 2035.” [my emphasis]
US EIA International Energy Outlook 2011, p. 143 PDF here
There’s further corroboration in UNEP’s GEO5, and in BP’s June 2012 “Statistical Review of World Energy”.
Hence my claim to the relevance of Peter Calthorpe’s Weapons of Mass Urban Destruction article (@68 & 71). Did anyone read it? His main source seems to be the 2009 McKinsey report “Preparing for China’s urban billion” but I can supply plenty more. “China’s urban population is projected to grow by 350 million people by 2020, effectively adding today’s entire U.S. population to its cities in less than a decade … the country’s vehicle fleet could grow from more than 200 million today to as many as 600 million by 2030.”
Since Americans own the largest share of historical emissions, we’re in no position to tell the Chinese what to do, as they keep pointedly reminding us. I agree with Prof. Kevin Anderson (Tyndall Climate Center): the future looks impossible. We haven’t even finished melting the Arctic and I’m already suffering from CCSD (Climate Change Stress Disorder). Help!
Wili, current climate and weather events are so big they go unnoticed, and again the stories are like comets hitting Jupiter, they affect very few people, or if they affect millions it must be a normal situation. The sea ice puddle matter was a good catch. But looking at NOAA North Pole Cam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f2YhGnRwQ&feature=fvwp , puddles came more from rain while it was so cloudy. Whether in this case they accelerated the melt is a bit uncertain, because there would be cracks in the ice by the difference in thickness, which would be from some stress battering of the daily tides. On site measurements may have been with thinner ice than near the pole. Ice mostly bare at maxima is always thicker than ice with snow on top. Once it rains or when there is sun the puddles form over the thinnest ice, so it is certainly a helpful find .
Patrick 027says
re my 140 – the power is actually for ~ 999.3 years as I forgot about leap years in that calculation (because I just used the same spreadsheet cell that I used for 2005 – 2007 conversion quad Btu to TW ).
can you please tell me where i can find climate change related discussion? i mean in which section i can find it?
Jim Larsensays
121 Chris D,
I didn’t mention adaptation or mitigation. This discussion was framed by you – “who’s culpable?” and “Polluter pays.”. I don’t want to expand it, especially since things are about to die of talking past each other. If your next post isn’t substantially different from the past, I’ll bow out. (Might do so anyway):
“The largest polluter ”
PER CAPITA is the REQUIRED phrase to insert here. Since you didn’t, we can’t talk effectively. Either provide some logic for omitting “per capita”, or adopt its use. You want a Climate Villain? According to this list it’s Qatar with MORE THAN DOUBLE the USA’s emissions.
Yep, and that I polluted yesterday doesn’t give me a pass on today’s pollution. The grams I spew today times the damage per gram is my appropriate penalty, and Grams * Damage is your appropriate penalty as well.
Suppose that last year, before this hypothetical tax/fee/cost were installed, I spewed ten times more than you (all for free). If you spewed twice as much this year as last while I hold the line, I should pay FIVE TIMES what you pay. If there are 10 of you and 2 of me, then “we” should pay the exact same penalty as “you all” do. If we use a rationing base – as in every human has the right to spew some amount for free, then the numbers get far worse for the West.
Basic math. (But those getting a free ride often abhor fairness)
So, two things which must be cleared up before I’ll respond further. I’d appreciate a post which talks to these two points, and only these two points, with other thoughts in another post:
1. The USA is dead last in vehicle efficiency, and has increased it’s efficiency at 1/4th to 1/5th the rate of ~all other countries over the last decade. Does this make the USA culpable?
2. Explain your thoughts on the irrelevance of population – that geographic divisions define culpability. If China split in four legally but not in any other fashion, how would your system penalize, or not, China1-4? It appears that under your system, current ratios for carbon emissions will be locked in, but penalties will be assessed based on population – so China gets hit HARD for increasing emissions from a low level while having a large population, and the West gets free elevated emissions locked in for the rest of the fossil age, and Qatar gets a gravy train by starting high and having a tiny population. An American will legally and forever be able to spew ~four times as much carbon as an Asian, and a Qatarian ~2.5 times more than an American. If an American spews as much as a Qatarian spews for free, the American should pay a huge penalty. If the Qatarian spews more, he should get a minor fee, and a Chinaman who spews as much as a Qararian? Well, execute him…
Jim Larsensays
61 Ray L said, ” Jim Larsen: “Peer-reviewed = minor player.”
This is simply not true. Science is STILL the best guide to truth ”
I think you’re speaking of value, while I’m talking power. Just how much effect have all those peer-reviewed slam-dunks had? In the Literature, it is beyond a Skunking, but in the real world, as SecularA said, the debates didn’t even mention the ice cap on no-life-support. I’ve talked to my young not-involved friends. None heard anything about it. My super-smart highly-successful very-engaged Republican family members… well, maybe a whiff, but not much.
ozajhsays
Johnno @ 110,
Are YOU saying that 1.35 bn Chinese should be PERMANENTLY held at a lower standard of living than those fortunate enough to be born in the West?
Craig Nazorsays
Dan H – What are we supposed to do with that Gallup poll? If the doctor tells you that your chances of dying of cancer without an operation is 97%, do you consult a Gallup poll before you schedule the operation? Not wanting the operation, and being willfully ignorant about cancer, one might quibble with the percentage. Does this mean we have to wait until all the quibblers can clearly see that the situation will get desperate before we take action? In the case of global warming, that will be too late. So what useful would this Gallup poll tell me, other than that an awful lot of Americans are scientifically challenged? Being a teacher, I already knew that. I would bet that if strong action isn’t taken soon to address the scientific consensus, human political structures will begin to destabilize.
cont. from my 44,45 above
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/420f11017.htm#4
under “Electric Vehicles (EVs)”:
“Miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent converts kilowatt-hours of electricity into gallons of gasoline (based on 33.7 kilowatt-hours per gallon)”
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-electric-label.shtml
The sample sticker shows 99 mpge (103 city, 95 hwy), equates this to 34 kWh/100 mi (approx. 1 gal gasoline primary energy / 100 mi)
Annual fuel cost given is $600, which is based on 15,000 miles (see their part 6).
150*34 = 3400 + 1700 = 5100, 5100 kWh @ ~ 10 cents/kWh = ~ $510. So from this, it seems like the 34 kWh of delivered electricity is being equated to approx. the same *primary* energy in a gallon of gasoline (and that electricity price is ~ 12 cents/kWh).
Their part 5 – first paragraph – in context, implies as much.
From part 7:
22 mpg = 1/22 gal/mi = 395-412 CO2 g/mi
I think this was tailpipe value – actually it says so in the first paragraph of 7. Also, I had read somewhere in this set of websites or their relatives (don’t remember where now), that 22 mpg was average, and the “greenhouse gas calculator” implies the average car’s tailpipe emission is 400 g CO2/mi (see below/later).
See also part 8:
… which I will get to later.
from
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/GHG-emissions.shtml
“If you want to compare total tailpipe plus fuel production GHG emissions for an electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle to those for a gasoline vehicle, you should multiply your gasoline vehicle tailpipe GHG emissions value on the Fuel Economy and Environment Label by 1.25 to reflect the fuel production GHG emissions for gasoline.”
The emissions calculater:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2
“*Total emissions rate includes tailpipe emissions and the emissions associated with the production and distribution of fuel. Emissions associated with electric operation are estimated using recent electricity generation data regardless of the model year of the vehicle selected.”
Using the emissions calculator: you have to enter a zip code but the results given include both the regional electricity emissions as well as the US average, and the US average car. Thus, using three zip codes (53706 , 97212 , 10177), I got four emissions values for each EV or PHEV car.
For Several EV and PHEV cars and the average US car; the first column is the percentage of use as an EV and the second is tailpipe emissions; the third column is total emissions (US average).
Total emissions includes upstream emissions for gasoline, so I based the tailpipe emission for the US average on the total emission and the 1.25 ratio given here.
Aside from combustion of fuels within power plants, I don’t think other upstream emissions are included for electricity, although those should be small (I think). I don’t think emissions associated with plant and car construction/manufacturing etc. are included.
It seems like the total emissions were rounded to the nearest 10, and the last three columns are adjusted values; they are attempts to find something *possibly* more accurate, based on the following:
Subtract 1.25 * tailpipe emissions to find electricity emissions (call these a, b, c, and d, where d is for the US average).
Sum the results over all cars for each location, and for the US average.
Determine the ratio of emissions to the US average for each location, using the sums – call these A, B, and C, respectively.
The rounding would introduce errors of a – A*d, b – B*d, etc, for each car.
The adjusted values for d (call them x) were found by setting the sum of those errors to zero; thus, for each car, x = (a+b+c+d)/(A+B+C+1) (with 3 significant figures available). This is the first column of adjusted values.
The second column was found by determining A, B, and C from only the purely EV cars.
The third column was found the same way, plus the additional step of then adjusting x just enough to eliminate any rounding errors greater than or equal to 5 in magnitude (as that would imply that the emissions had not been rounded to the nearest 10 (setting aside the ‘equal to 5’ case). There was one car, the Toyota Prius PHEV, for which one such error could not be eliminated without leaving another, so that x value was set for those errors to be about equal, then the two ratios (A and B) were adjusted to bring both just under 5 in magnitude, and then everything was repeated. Two cars ended up having x values different from (a+b+c+d)/(A+B+C+1): the Nissan Leaf and the Toyota Prius.
(3 sig figs each, A, B, C values for the three columns, respectively:
A = 1.3194 , B = 0.65066 , C = 0.55084 (all cars)
A = 1.3161 , B = 0.65161 , C = 0.55484 (EVs only)
A = 1.3228 , B = 0.64730 , C = 0.55084 (all cars, all errors less than +/-5)
)
At this point I should mention that I realize this still leaves some wiggle room for average emissions and the ratios among regions – I could try to find the bounds of self-consistent sets of values but … it doesn’t seem worth the trouble at this point. I will just use the given values and the third adjusted values for further calculations.
—————————————–
Car ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| % EV ‘ ‘ ‘| tailpipe ‘| total ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | adj.1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | adj.2 EV only ‘| adj.3 all abs(error) below 5
Mitsubishi i-MiEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 200 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 198.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 198.7 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 198.8
Toyota Prius PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 28.8 ‘| ‘ 133 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 210 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 210.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 210.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 210.7
Ford Focus BEV FWD ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 210 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 213.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 212.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 213.0
Nissan Leaf ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 230 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 227.2 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 227.1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 226.9
Tesla Model S ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 250 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 249.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 249.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 249.9
Chevy Volt PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 64 ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 87 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 260 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 260.7 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 260.6 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 260.7
CODA Automotive CODA|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 300 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 303.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 303.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 303.9
ADTCEW ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 360 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 357.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 357.7 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 357.9
Fisker Karma PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 62 ‘ ‘ | ‘ 169 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 470 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 468.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 468.2 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 468.3
US average ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ | ‘ 400 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 500 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘
ADTCEW = Azure Dynamics Transit Connect Electric Wagon
Car ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| % EV ‘ ‘ ‘| tailpipe ‘| total ‘ ‘| Sum ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| Sum EV ‘| Sum error below 5
Mitsubishi i-MiEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 200 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 198.8 ‘| ‘ 198.7 ‘| ‘ 198.8
Toyota Prius PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 28.8 ‘| ‘ 133 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 210 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 210.3 ‘| ‘ 210.3 ‘| ‘ 210.7
Ford Focus BEV FWD ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 210 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 213.0 ‘| ‘ 212.9 ‘| ‘ 213.0
Nissan Leaf ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 230 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 227.2 ‘| ‘ 227.1 ‘| ‘ 226.9
Tesla Model S ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 250 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 249.9 ‘| ‘ 249.8 ‘| ‘ 249.9
Chevy Volt PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 64 ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 87 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 260 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 260.7 ‘| ‘ 260.6 ‘| ‘ 260.7
CODA Automotive CODA|_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 300 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 303.9 ‘| ‘ 303.8 ‘| ‘ 303.9
ADTCEW ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |_ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 360 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 357.9 ‘| ‘ 357.7 ‘| ‘ 357.9
Fisker Karma PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 62 ‘ ‘ | ‘ 169 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 470 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 468.3 ‘| ‘ 468.2 ‘| ‘ 468.3
US average ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ | ‘ 400 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 500 ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ ‘
clearer version of table.
PS 0 % EV is an assumption/approximation for US average
… I remember using model year 2012.
Using the given (rounded) emissions, here’s mpg based on CO2 emissions. The second column of values compares the electricity generation + tailpipe emissions to the tailpipe emissions of the US average car (the first column is based on total emissions including the 1.25 factor for gasoline).
Car ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| mpg total CO2 ‘ ‘ ‘| mpg tailpipe CO2 ‘|
Mitsubishi i-MiEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 55.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 44.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
Toyota Prius PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 52.4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 49.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
Ford Focus BEV FWD ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 52.4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 41.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
Nissan Leaf ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 47.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 38.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
Tesla Model S ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 44.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 35.2 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
Chevy Volt PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 42.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 36.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
CODA Automotive CODA| ‘ ‘ 36.7 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 29.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
ADTCEW ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 30.6 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 24.4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
Fisker Karma PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 23.4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 20.6 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
US average ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 22.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ 22.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘|
energy comparisons tomorrow… and that’s it.
I may yet want to double check my spreadsheet formulas, but assuming I didn’t make any mistakes, here’s g CO2/mi for EV operation
based on (total – 1.25 * tailpipe)/(fraction of operation that is EV)
and from that and the emissions intensities for the 2010 electric power sector (to first find kWh/mi) and from 33.7 kWh/gal, mpg was found for delivered ‘gallon’, net generated ‘gallon’, and primary ‘gallon’.
last column is mpg for purely non-P HEV operation
= 22 mpg * 400 g/mi /(tailpipe emission / fraction of operation non-PHEV)
Car ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| g CO2/mi EV ‘ ‘ ‘| mpg del ‘| mpg netgen ‘ ‘| mpg primary ‘| mpg non-EV
Mitsubishi i-MiEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 200.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 104.0 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 96.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 33.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |NA
Toyota Prius PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 151.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 137.0 ‘ ‘| ‘ 126.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 43.4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 47.1
Ford Focus BEV FWD ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 210.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 99.1 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 91.7 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 31.4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |NA
Nissan Leaf ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 230.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 90.5 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 83.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 28.7 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |NA
Tesla Model S ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 250.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 83.2 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 77.1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 26.4 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |NA
Chevy Volt PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 236.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 88.0 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 81.5 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 27.9 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 36.4
CODA Automotive CODA| ‘ ‘ 300.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 69.4 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 64.2 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 22.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |NA
ADTCEW ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 360.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 57.8 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 53.5 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 18.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ |NA
Fisker Karma PHEV ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 417.3 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ ‘ 49.9 ‘ ‘| ‘ ‘ 46.2 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 15.8 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ | ‘ 19.8
… oh, emissions in those tables were all in g CO2/mi.
70 Chris D,
Yes, I don’t think a country’s emissions are in the least bit important. I was simply responding to your blaming “China” for riding scooters instead of bicycles and for producing goods the West actually uses. Hey, as long as something bad is happening and we are the primary beneficiaries, blame the essentially unpaid and powerless slaves for our good fortune!
Any rules you put into place for individual countries’ emissions will be corrupted. Emissions will flow to the least costly location. You say “China has hit its carbon limit”, and you enforce it however you choose. China will export more bauxite and import more aluminum, resulting in little or no reduction in world CO2 emissions.
India has made their stance clear. They promise to never emit more CO2 per capita than the USA. I challenge you, Chris D, to find any moral, logical, or other fault with India’s stance.
It’s a person’s or humanity’s emissions that matter. National boundaries are irrelevant. My belief is that a carbon tax, collected by the UN, should be assessed at the well or the mine. This way the tax will propagate to and be paid by the ultimate consumer. The proceeds should be used by the UN for global good, with the excess refunded per-capita to the entire world. Carbon emissions are simply not a national issue, as it is clear that any single nation will benefit by not reducing emissions at all, assuming it can find a way to provide its own fossil fuels. Coal and frackable gas are plentiful, and clathrates will ever so sweeten the pot. Even Japan is sniffing at ways towards energy independence through fossil fuels.
If you haven’t noticed, I just advocated a bit of a One World Government. Some stuff, like climate change and military issues, are Global Problems, not some nation’s concern. (GASP! Must be Star Trek’s fault.)
John Mashey@95,
Put them together like this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-climate-romans-idUSBRE89212020121003
Johnno at 77:
Chinese actions should be seen in context with the party in power. Some years ago, I saw a conscise summary of their operating principles, which struck me as quite credible.
1. Party must remain in power.
2. Party decisions must benefit the Chinese people
3. Party decisions must be based on results of science
4. Party members must be well educated model citizens
“Benefits” and “results of science” are not in conflict. Their current 5-year plan is full of action to develop knowledge and products that are based on the view that there will be a huge global market demand for new energy technology, rail transport, ice breaking ships, nuclear power, etc.
Carbon efficiency is their key term. It produces an unavoidable transformation that will generate major winners and the Chinese are not about to lose the opportunity.
ozajh #84 you’re saying that a country with 1.35 bn people is entitled to the same per capita emissions as the West. I suggest only 300-400m Chinese will stay middle class. Ditto India.
Darv #97 the Australian carbon tax is riddled with freebies like 94.5% exemption for steel and aluminum mills. The govt already gave brown coal generators a billion dollar downpayment to quit but no large operators intend to do so. They keep the $1bn.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (the AMO) is one of the best known unforced variations. Here I compare 3 reconstructions:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-recon.htm
SecularAnimist #94,
“Of course, there’s no need to struggle, since there was not one word on the subject spoken by Lehrer, Obama or Romney.
Not. One. Single. Word.”
Right. Speakers tend to address topics their audience wants to hear. Most of the electorate could care less about climate change. Do you think they have any interest in Obama or Romney telling them to take the harsh steps required to even begin to address the problem: e.g., trade in your large gas-guzzling SUV for a Citroen Deux Cheval, replace your 6,000 ft^2 McMansion with a 1000 ft^2 condo, pare back your six annual Asian vacation flights to zero, etc. If either of these politicians provided the recommendations needed to address the looming climate catastrophe, they would be looking for new work tomorrow.
Interesting report on electric vehicles here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232
Did not expect the environmental impact of prouction to be so bad
“The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.”
In addition, producing batteries and electric motors requires a lot of toxic minerals such as nickel, copper and aluminium.
Hence, the acidification impact is much greater than that of conventional car production.”
That said over a life time of the car it is still between 10% to 30% more efficent than petrol cars. Although the report does say
“A more significant reduction in global warming could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from petrol to diesel,”
Secular,
There was one comment: The $90 billion the Fed spent on “green energy.” Although it was not entirely accurate, as it included funds for energy efficiencies and grid modernizzation, unrelated to anything “green.”
#113–“Although it was not entirely accurate, as it included funds for energy efficiencies and grid modernizzation, unrelated to anything “green.””
Strange, I would see energy efficiency and grid modernization as being quite “green.” Still, the larger point stands, as the $90 bn included a $3 bn for ‘clean coal.’
And it’s a shame that the President essentially said nothing whatever to defend these expenditures, as, according to a WaPo blog post, there’s quite a lot to say in that regard.
A (dare I say) ‘money quote’ on results:
On the cost side, Romney has apparently now clarified that his ‘half of the businesses are out of business’ crack really applied only to a $16 bn subset of the total–and the WaPo adds that within that subset, the ‘half’ actually is 3 out of 33 businesses. (One of the three is our old friend Beacon Power, which was bought in bankruptcy by private investors, continues to operate, and has repaid 70% of its Federal loan as part of the bankruptcy agreement.) The WaPo makes it a 2.6% default rate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/a-closer-look-at-obamas-90-billion-for-clean-energy/
94 SecularA said, ” the ongoing, huge and escalating economic impacts of climate change …”
Threats are seen as immediate or future, and even more important intentional or happenstance. Thus, 3,000 deaths will bring a tremendous response because it was intentional and immediate, even after the problem was solved by reinforcing cockpit doors and keeping them locked. On the other hand, climate change is an unintended side effect which lies mostly in the future, and whose effects can be shrugged off as natural.
And, of course, if something threatens one’s children, such as a sluggish economy, then nuttin else matters.
109 Johnno said, “ozajh #84 you’re saying that a country with 1.35 bn people is entitled to the same per capita emissions as the West. ”
SecularA has proposed, and backed up with reasonable documentation, that the West could go near zero carbon in a decade. Given that the West is wealthy enough to actually do it, then there is no reason the West couldn’t drop its emissions to the level of the third world within 20 years. You’d have to lay down some serious logic to convince me that such an action is not what Jesus would do.
“The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (the AMO) is one of the best known unforced variations.”
Love the phrase. In his novel “Norwood” Charles Portis described a character as “the world’s smallest perfect fat man.”
Kevin,
I would contend that most people (myself included) use the term “green” to refer to renewable energy sources, i.e. non-petroleum related products. The energy efficiency portion was targeted for overall reduced energy consumption (insulation, roofing, and other energy losses). There is no emphasis in moving away from current energy production. I would equate this calling a Smart car, “green energy,” because of its high mpg rating. I disagree with this placement, as it still uses 100% gasoline.
Also include in the $90 billion, was $3 billion for clean coal. Is this considered “green” energy.
Jim,
Agreed. First and foremost on everyone’s agenda is the feeding, clothing, and sheltering of ones own family. After that, there is a laundry list of wants and needs; education, transportation, on down to various luxuries. Once the major necessities are satisfied, people will then look to support other humanitarian issues. Granted, there will always be those who put these issues first (i.e. Mother Teresa), but they are a small minority. Remedy the major concerns first, then there will be larger support to tackle other issues.
Jim (#107),
You are proposing a carbon tax for mitigation. Maybe that would work. I don’t think there is time for that and what we need is further progress on the Kyoto model since it is already working.
But you really don’t seem to understand that I am not talking about mitigation at all. I am talking about adaptation and polluter pays. As I have demonstrated, it is the most recent emissions which have pushed us into the dangerous climate change regime. As I have pointed out, it is countries which set emissions policy, so they are the responsible parties. Some countries have policies that are cutting emissions. The largest polluter though has a policy of increasing emissions. That makes that country the culpable party for the current round of crop losses caused by climate change. And, there is an existing mechanism through GATT for us to unilaterally exact reparations for the damage that has been done to us by that polluter. We should be made whole and collect those reparations.
Look, if there is a death by hit-and-run should it really make a difference if the victim is rich or poor? If the perpetrator is rich or poor? We are talking about damages and penalties, not social status. All of that comes into discussions about mitigation, but it really has no place when it comes to adaptation. Polluter pays. That’s basic.
Don’t know if it’s been commented upon here, but the AMSU global mean temperature just jumped above the spaghetti of the last 10 years. October 4, 2012 was warmer than any other October 4 going back to 2002.
> First and foremost on everyone’s agenda
That’s true of tribal societies and those where first cousins routinely marry. As I recall it came as rather a surprise to the US military advisors who tried to treat the Afghan army like the US army, because people’s first loyalty was to their direct relations, then to their extended families, and there was no tradition of sacrificing for the country.
The US, and some other democracies, had for a while a tradition where even the rich families would put their children into the military — and into harm’s way — to protect the society. My dad, explaining why he had dropped his PhD program the day after Pearl Harbor to enlist, called it a ‘social contract’ that was at the time widely understood by those who’d pulled the country through the Depression years.
Not true any longer, as Dan points out.
Now, it’s family first and foremost.
Oligarchy — and ecological collapse — is the end point of that approach.
Dan H. is quite correct, for most of the world — protecting the planet, or even the nation, will not be understood as important in tribal cultures.
Robin Fox at Rutgers is widely quoted on this.
The pithiest pertinent quote is J.B.S. Haldane’s answer when asked if he’d give up his life for a brother: “No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.”
That ratio changes with cousin marriage.
Apologies if this has been linked already.
http://theenergycollective.com/davidhone/120146/time-think-3d-about-arctic-sea-ice
“Time to think in 3D about Arctic Sea Ice”
“Thirty years ago, “old ice” (layers in the pack some 5-10 years old) made up some 50% of the floating pack at the end of the summer melt. Today, there is almost none of this remaining, with the ice at the end of summer consisting of the thin remnants of the winter freeze.”
The old, thick Ice Cap is gone.
We are now on a starkly different planet from the one we had just a few years ago, and from the one the earth had for millennia, at least.
I would love to come to a site like this to hear about well informed best guesses or studies as to likely consequences of this aspect of our radically altered planet, but mostly this site seems to be following the general absence of discussion of these most important issues.
Is it just all too depressing to contemplate?
First and foremost on everyone’s agenda is the feeding, clothing, and sheltering of ones own family.
I posit you don’t speak for me, Dan. If you would start speaking for yourself and stop proclaiming what everyone thinks or should do then I might take your ramblings here a little more seriously.
Now, what I think. Geoengineering. Since a basic North American continental experiment was already successfully executed on the few post 911 clear sky days, I posit that simple solar L1 irradiance modification experiments could be designed to test the hypothesis without any serious side effects (certainly without moving an asteroid) to successfully obtain the desired data to enable more permanent temporary solutions, and in order to give us more time to develop the necessary carbon dioxide removal and sequestration schemes – aka carbon containing products).
Superman1 wrote: “Most of the electorate could care less about climate change”
That’s a blatant falsehood, as public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that strong majorities of voters consider climate change to be “a very important” or “the most important” issue facing the country.
With all due respect, sir, you make a lot of these broad claims that have no support in fact.
Jim Larsen wrote: “Threats are seen as immediate or future”
Skyrocketing food prices — a direct result of anthropogenic global warming — are happening right now. They are already having a very real impact on the finances of consumers in the USA and other developed countries, and in the developing world, where they manifest as food shortages, they are already a major factor contributing to social unrest and even violent revolution.
WUWT touted this paper, saying the Antarctic ice sheets are growing (not the sea ice). They give this link: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
but it’s only the abstract, and the NASA help desk tells me all they have is the abstract. Has anyone here read the paper?
Secular,
Here is a recent gallup poll concerning global warming.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156347/Americans-Next-President-Prioritize-Jobs-Corruption.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication
20120013495_2012013235.pdf is hidden in a vault at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I read a study stating that for every unit of fossil fuel-derived energy, the CO2 liberated eventually traps 100,000 units of the sun’s energy in our climate system. Could that be accurate?
Martin Smith – As far as I can tell, this is not a paper…yet: presumably Zwally et al. are in the process of publishing the results mentioned. The linked document is an abstract for a workshop talk, as stated in the pdf header.
The workshop has a webpage and Zwally’s talk is available there as a video, along with several others.
Hank Roberts wrote: “protecting the planet, or even the nation, will not be understood as important in tribal cultures”
While I myself am not without a certain degree of altruism, that extends even to other species, I certainly see global warming as a direct threat to my personal well-being, and find that highly motivating.
It’s not “the planet” or “nations” or even “tribal cultures” that will starve when agriculture fails. It’s individual human beings that will starve. You. Me.
When people begin to get that through their heads — when their empty stomachs start grumbling about it — it will be reflected in their views of this “environmental” issue.
Secular Animist at #133 said, “It’s not “the planet” or “nations” or even “tribal cultures” that will starve when agriculture fails. It’s individual human beings that will starve. You. Me.
When people begin to get that through their heads — when their empty stomachs start grumbling about it — it will be reflected in their views of this “environmental” issue.”
And by then, of course, it will almost surely be too late, especially since the people with the power to do the most to stop global warming will be the last to feel the hunger pangs.
Has this been posted here yet?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html
Figure three shows that, with CO2 from the top 3.5 meters of permafrost figured in and climate sensitivity of 3 degrees, a complete cessation of additional CO2 emissions by humans in 2013 leaves us with a stable level of atmospheric CO2 at about today’s levels…for centuries, at least.
As the second-to-last paragraph of the SkSci article points out, this study leaves out:
–carbon below 3.5 meters, which there is plenty of, and which will eventually be released eventually
–methane from permafrost…
–methane hydrates…
(One might add other certain or likely feedbacks, or the likelihood that the sensitivity is higher than 3 degrees C, but let’s set those issues aside for now.)
So if we add all these in, presumably that would mean that stopping all human emissions of CO2 next year would result in increases in atmospheric CO2 levels for centuries (at least) to come.
Am I missing something? Please say I am.
Re 132 Jack Roesler –
from my 44 above, I found 285.7 g CO2 / kWh of primary energy, for the fossil fuel input into the U.S. electric power sector. This value will vary with fuel type, but just going with it:
—-
Atmospheric mass and composition:
approx. 510 trillion m^2 (surface area) * 0.1013 MPa (surface pressure) / 9.81 m/s^2 = 5.266 E18 kg = 5.266 million Gt
Hartmann, “Global Physical Climatology”, p.8 gives 5.136 million Gt (the difference could be due to actual average surface pressure being lower than average sea level pressure; counteracting that, gravity decreases with height (not much over most of the mass of the atmosphere) and I think global average g may be less than 9.81 (maybe 9.80?),
but anyway, using 5.136 Gt,
an average molar mass of 28.964 g (Hartmann, p.8, dry air – but moist air should be (slightly) lower, whereas the total atmospheric molar mass from Hartmann is 28.97 g, so I’m using 28.964 (maybe 28.97 includes dust? or the effect of clouds? (H2O, but liquid; the equivalent ideal gas would have to higher molar mass, or otherwise, lower temperature – see ‘virtual temperature’),
whereas CO2 is 44.010 g/mol; C is 12.011 g/mol
So at 280 ppmv (approx. preindustrial), CO2 mass was ~ 2185 Gt (596.4 Gt C).
Doubling that would then require another 2185 Gt CO2 (etc. C), except more than that becasue of oceanic uptake, etc. (so far). Just using this value and setting uptake aside for now, 2185 Gt CO2 would then have a forcing of about 3.7 W/m2 (from memory, see IPCC), which globally is ~ 1887 TW (keeping extra digits beyond significant figures for farther calculations).
1887 TW/2185 Gt CO2 ~= 0.8636 W/kg CO2 (3.164 W/kg C)
Varies with baseline (will decrease to half if we double again. Had industrialized civilization somehow arisen in the early Paleozoic, they would have had more margin of error for getting climate policy right (unless?). Although maybe not so much energy resources… (what about ocean acidification?).
—–
365.25 days/year = 8766 hours/year, thus 1 W = 8.766 kWh/yr. At 285.67 g CO2/kWh, combustion of 1 W fossil fuel supply (of a particular mix) emits 2.5042 kg CO2 (0.68343 kg C) per year. 1 TW would thus emit 2.5042 Gt CO2 (0.68343 Gt C) per year. This seems to be on track as, from memory, once upon a time emissions were ~ 7 Gt C per year and energy consumption was something like 10 TW or maybe 12 ? (although that would include some nuclear, hydro, etc, and the fossil fuel mix would be different over time and space).
But for the U.S. primary energy fossil fuel input into the electric power sector in 2010, it seems to be about 0.39933 W/(kg CO2/yr) (1.4632 W/(kg C/yr)).
The radiative forcing would then seem to be 2.163 times the primary energy (and then less if you have oceanic uptake, etc.), except that the ratio has a unit, per year. The radiative forcing is 2.163/yr times the primary energy. If we emitted at a constant rate for 100 years and the atmospheric CO2 increase were linear, with no uptake, then the ratio would be 2.163/yr * 100 yr / 2 = 108.1. Then if we stopped emitting, the ratio would continue to increase simply by having the atmospheric perturbation not decay back to zero infinitely fast.
There is, in response to the perturbation, net uptake of CO2 out of the atmosphere (so far, at least), but consider that the anthropogenic CO2 forcing was recently about “+1.66 ± 0.17 W m–2“, or approx. 847 ± 87 TW (based on 510 trillion m^2) – that’s from
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html ,
while at a similar time (assuming IPCC figure is valid for 2005), from
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=0-IEO2011&table=1-IEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630 , world primary energy consumption was 471.1 , 481.3 , and 492.6 quadrillion Btu in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (it wasn’t immediately clear to me that these weren’t projections but they remained when I clicked on the ‘History and Last’ button), which is 15.76 , 16.10 , and 16.48 TW , and some of that is nuclear, hydroelectric, etc.
(PS from memory, geothermal heat flux at the surface is around 40 TW. Tidal dissipation heating is ~ 4 TW.)
Another comparison that could be made would be the total energy of fossil fuel combustion relative to the total heat uptake of the climate system necessary to achieve equilibrium with the forcing (setting aside duration)…
about uptake, from the same ipcc link:
(This behavior is, I think, associated with a relatively rapid cycling and equilibration between the atmophere and upper ocean, a slower equilibration with vegetation, and a slower equilibration with the deep ocean (and there’s equilibration with exposed carbonates); equilibration with each successive C reservoir still leaves some of the atmospheric perturbation because the C is just being redistributed over a larger total reservoir (PS not necessarily maintaining the same equilibrium ratios, though I don’t know about that much offhand). The atmospheric molecular residence time is actually under a decade but some of those C atoms return with similar speed. Utimately the perturbation fades with the generally very slow ongoing supply of ions from silicate rock weathering that react with CO2 to form carbonate minerals, which tends to approach balance with geologic emissions minus organic C burial. See also a prior RC post (not sure where it is offhand) or David Archer’s book.)
>individual human beings … will starve
Remember these scientists? They saved a lot, for a few decades.
I wonder whether the seed collection they starved to protect during WWII was in fact bulldozed last year by developers as expected; anybody know?
It’s not how you starve or what you starve to protect; it’s whether people have any clue why you’d bother giving your life over to protect anything at all besides your own self.
PS, it appears the seed bank plots have been protected thus far:
http://www.vir.nw.ru/news/14.05.2012_en.html
1 Z? = 10^21 ? (metric prefixes: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec13_3.pdf )
(assuming 360 trillion m^2 ocean, 150 trillion m^2 land (approx.))
Energy of climate change – some of these are specifically (or roughly) for 3 K warming, others may or may not be the right amount for that amount of change.
Energy, and power over 1000 years:
3 K warming of ocean:
17100 ZJ , 542 TW
(in the short term, it is mainly the upper ocean that is warming)
5 m rise in sea level from melting ice (latent heat):
601 ZJ , 19.1 TW
3 K warming of 15 m depth of rock on land, assuming density of 2600 kg/m^3 and specific heat of 733 J/(kg*K) (p.85; note (also from p.85) – for typical soil thermal diffusivity, penetration depth for an annual cycle is ~ 1.5 m; penetration depth is proportional to the square root of time. But diffusivity will change when bedrock is reached, etc.):
12.9 ZJ , 0.408 TW
3 K warming up 70 % of atmosphere (~85 % is troposphere, stratosphere cools – not sure how much offhand):
10.8 ZJ , 0.343 TW
Latent heat of vaporization: 20 % increase in atmospheric water vapor (starting with atmospheric H2O vapor equivalent to 0.025 m of liquid water over global area) (p.12, p.350 (20 % increase in equilibrium vapor presure per 3 K) – ignoring changes in lapse rate and tropopause height (in pressure), etc.):
6.38 ZJ , 0.202 TW
Hartmann, p.350 (vapor pressure change with temperature), pp.373-374 (specific heats of air (1004 J/(kg*K)), water (liquid: 4218 J/(kg*K) at 0 deg C), and latent heats of vaporization and melting of water (at 0 deg C: 2.5 MJ/kg and 0.334 MJ/kg)), p.85, p.8 (atmospheric mass), and p. 12 (oceanic and atmospheric water amounts in depth of liquid water over global area: 2650 m and 0.025 m).
SA @134. Actually an honest assessment will come to the conclusion, that its the poorer folk in the poorer nations that will starve (or more likely become malnourished) not us well to do folks. The rest of us will suffer either because seeing TV coverage of starving people upsets us, or because the resulting geopolitical instability will make problems for us.
Let me add to my comments at 136 that I am not associated with AMEG and I do not approve of–in fact I am quite appalled by–their geo-engineering schemes.
I think the poster got it right who said they had watched a few too many episodes of “Thunderbird” as children (though I admit I had to look it up on google to realize it was that horrific TV show with frightening marionettes constantly going off on high-tech–for the times–quests to save the world. It always seemed creepy and nightmarish to me. Sorry for the off topic rant.)
Regarding the alleged majority of voters who care about climate change: even if that’s so and Obama is reelected, judging by Obama’s performance so far it seems wildly unrealistic to expect him to do a fossil fuel about-face any time soon. But more importantly, I submit that the elusive presidential climate policy is mere distraction, because America is already a sideshow. To wit:
“China’s economic growth is projected to continue and to drive increasing energy consumption for several decades (Figure 1). By 2035, China is likely to see a large increase in demand for primary energy, perhaps up by nearly 70% from the present levels (IEA, 2011a). This demand is likely to be met by increasing use of fossil fuels along with other sources, such as nuclear and renewable.” [my emphasis]
IEA 2012 – Facing China’s Coal Future: Prospects and Challenges for Carbon Capture and Storage, p. 7 PDF here
See also Figure 1 from the same page.
“The IEO2011 Reference case projects about 1 trillion metric tons of additional cumulative energy-related carbon dioxide emissions between 2009 and 2035 … In the period from 2021 to 2035, cumulative emissions are 22 percent higher than those in the period from 2006 to 2020 … Non-OECD Asia is the dominant source of cumulative emissions growth in the 30 years preceding 2035.” [my emphasis]
US EIA International Energy Outlook 2011, p. 143 PDF here
See also Figures 115 & 116 from the same page.
There’s further corroboration in UNEP’s GEO5, and in BP’s June 2012 “Statistical Review of World Energy”.
Hence my claim to the relevance of Peter Calthorpe’s Weapons of Mass Urban Destruction article (@68 & 71). Did anyone read it? His main source seems to be the 2009 McKinsey report “Preparing for China’s urban billion” but I can supply plenty more. “China’s urban population is projected to grow by 350 million people by 2020, effectively adding today’s entire U.S. population to its cities in less than a decade … the country’s vehicle fleet could grow from more than 200 million today to as many as 600 million by 2030.”
Since Americans own the largest share of historical emissions, we’re in no position to tell the Chinese what to do, as they keep pointedly reminding us. I agree with Prof. Kevin Anderson (Tyndall Climate Center): the future looks impossible. We haven’t even finished melting the Arctic and I’m already suffering from CCSD (Climate Change Stress Disorder). Help!
Wili, current climate and weather events are so big they go unnoticed, and again the stories are like comets hitting Jupiter, they affect very few people, or if they affect millions it must be a normal situation. The sea ice puddle matter was a good catch. But looking at NOAA North Pole Cam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f2YhGnRwQ&feature=fvwp , puddles came more from rain while it was so cloudy. Whether in this case they accelerated the melt is a bit uncertain, because there would be cracks in the ice by the difference in thickness, which would be from some stress battering of the daily tides. On site measurements may have been with thinner ice than near the pole. Ice mostly bare at maxima is always thicker than ice with snow on top. Once it rains or when there is sun the puddles form over the thinnest ice, so it is certainly a helpful find .
re my 140 – the power is actually for ~ 999.3 years as I forgot about leap years in that calculation (because I just used the same spreadsheet cell that I used for 2005 – 2007 conversion quad Btu to TW ).
can you please tell me where i can find climate change related discussion? i mean in which section i can find it?
121 Chris D,
I didn’t mention adaptation or mitigation. This discussion was framed by you – “who’s culpable?” and “Polluter pays.”. I don’t want to expand it, especially since things are about to die of talking past each other. If your next post isn’t substantially different from the past, I’ll bow out. (Might do so anyway):
“The largest polluter ”
PER CAPITA is the REQUIRED phrase to insert here. Since you didn’t, we can’t talk effectively. Either provide some logic for omitting “per capita”, or adopt its use. You want a Climate Villain? According to this list it’s Qatar with MORE THAN DOUBLE the USA’s emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
” Polluter pays. That’s basic.”
Yep, and that I polluted yesterday doesn’t give me a pass on today’s pollution. The grams I spew today times the damage per gram is my appropriate penalty, and Grams * Damage is your appropriate penalty as well.
Suppose that last year, before this hypothetical tax/fee/cost were installed, I spewed ten times more than you (all for free). If you spewed twice as much this year as last while I hold the line, I should pay FIVE TIMES what you pay. If there are 10 of you and 2 of me, then “we” should pay the exact same penalty as “you all” do. If we use a rationing base – as in every human has the right to spew some amount for free, then the numbers get far worse for the West.
Basic math. (But those getting a free ride often abhor fairness)
So, two things which must be cleared up before I’ll respond further. I’d appreciate a post which talks to these two points, and only these two points, with other thoughts in another post:
1. The USA is dead last in vehicle efficiency, and has increased it’s efficiency at 1/4th to 1/5th the rate of ~all other countries over the last decade. Does this make the USA culpable?
2. Explain your thoughts on the irrelevance of population – that geographic divisions define culpability. If China split in four legally but not in any other fashion, how would your system penalize, or not, China1-4? It appears that under your system, current ratios for carbon emissions will be locked in, but penalties will be assessed based on population – so China gets hit HARD for increasing emissions from a low level while having a large population, and the West gets free elevated emissions locked in for the rest of the fossil age, and Qatar gets a gravy train by starting high and having a tiny population. An American will legally and forever be able to spew ~four times as much carbon as an Asian, and a Qatarian ~2.5 times more than an American. If an American spews as much as a Qatarian spews for free, the American should pay a huge penalty. If the Qatarian spews more, he should get a minor fee, and a Chinaman who spews as much as a Qararian? Well, execute him…
61 Ray L said, ” Jim Larsen: “Peer-reviewed = minor player.”
This is simply not true. Science is STILL the best guide to truth ”
I think you’re speaking of value, while I’m talking power. Just how much effect have all those peer-reviewed slam-dunks had? In the Literature, it is beyond a Skunking, but in the real world, as SecularA said, the debates didn’t even mention the ice cap on no-life-support. I’ve talked to my young not-involved friends. None heard anything about it. My super-smart highly-successful very-engaged Republican family members… well, maybe a whiff, but not much.
Johnno @ 110,
Are YOU saying that 1.35 bn Chinese should be PERMANENTLY held at a lower standard of living than those fortunate enough to be born in the West?
Dan H – What are we supposed to do with that Gallup poll? If the doctor tells you that your chances of dying of cancer without an operation is 97%, do you consult a Gallup poll before you schedule the operation? Not wanting the operation, and being willfully ignorant about cancer, one might quibble with the percentage. Does this mean we have to wait until all the quibblers can clearly see that the situation will get desperate before we take action? In the case of global warming, that will be too late. So what useful would this Gallup poll tell me, other than that an awful lot of Americans are scientifically challenged? Being a teacher, I already knew that. I would bet that if strong action isn’t taken soon to address the scientific consensus, human political structures will begin to destabilize.
http://www.wearepowershift.org/category/tags/tar-sands-blockade
The oracle reCAPTCHA says: SAINTS. tarests