Yet another indication on the critical nature of the cultural question. I have no doubt Harris and her team understand the situation with climate. Yet there is considerable evidence to suggest that promising a fracking ban will cost her the election.
If we are to be governed by some version of democracy and meet the climate threat, we’re not yet were we need to be with mass public understanding
Exactly so. And it may not even be in this case driven by national opinion, but rather by the public’s view in the swing state of Pennsylvania–in quite a few scenarios, as I understand it, the election could potentially turn on the result there. And a fracking ban is not popular in Pennsylvania.
(For readers not so familiar with the political landscape here, the US elects Presidents indirectly, via an 18th-century institution called the “Electoral College,” in which each state is allotted a specific number of electors based on population. State officials conduct the election according to their state’s laws; almost all use a winner-takes-all system by which all the state’s electors are pledged to vote for the candidate who received the most votes. In today’s landscape, a few states–so-called “swing states”–are closely competitive, and thus receive much attention and effort from both sides, as they are quite likely to be decisive. Pennsylvania (Harris +0.5 this morning) is one; the others generally considered as such right now are Arizona (Trump +0.5), Nevada (tied), Georgia (Trump +0.2), North Carolina (Trump +0.6), Wisconsin (Harris +1.4), and Michigan (Harris +1.1). All numbers are poll averages aggregated by RealClearPolitics. For the country as a whole, Harris is currently leading by 1.8%–a value that has been steady since last week. To our shame as a nation, this election is very, very close–margin of error of these polls is typically about +/- 3%.)
Davidsays
Kevin, you’re right about Pennsylvania. The whole thing is going to come down to Pennsylvania. If Harris wins the state, the probability is high of her maintaining the “blue wall.” If she loses the state, the probability of her replacing those 19 electoral votes via some combination of sunbelt states is depressing very low.
Given how battleground state polling has under-polled Trump votes in 2016 & 2020 (a polling issue that the pollsters admit they’ve no reasonable certainty has been corrected), the warning signs are flashing brightly. When the Harris campaign says they’re currently underdogs, that’s accurate. Whom ever is guiding her economic messaging is doing her a disservice, it’s killing her chances of winning.
Nigeljsays
From last months UV thread posted by CJ on 1st September: Holly Buck says (my paraphrasing) that people are genuinely worried about whether renewables will work, and that we should listen and not claim their concerns are all all a result of denialist missinformation / disinformation, and that we should do something about addressing their concerns. This sounds right in principle, because many people would have had these thoughts because they are natural concerns (although some people might have raised the issues after reading denialist websites). And if we say the general publics concerns are a result of missinformation, they might prefer to believe the missinformation, because this is easier than admitting to themselves they were fooled.
However millions of words have already been written in many forums answering questions about renewables and showing problems are over stated, and all this based on careful peer reviewed studies and experts views and without referencing denialist views. Despite this some people refuse to accept that renewables are the best solution overall. You can lead a horse to water….But fortunately polling shows the majority of people support renewables:
It looks like Escobar has hijacked the discussion, but he made the crucial admission of defeat by stating: “which is clearly a lie / disinformation because “renewables” are NOT ETERNAL”.
Anybody see why one must not talk about Fight Club?
James Charlessays
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “ https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q
IOW: They need to extract the crude oil to power the technology that will find a replacement for that same crude oil which will eventually price its way out of existence
. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIqrYFbXMAANUk6.jpg
I linked the above chart because it shows that the USA consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day, but only extracts 12-13 million barrels of crude oil per day from its territory. Yet, both political parties claim the USA is “energy independent”. The misappropriated euphemism for that situation is Climate Change.
cjsays
Yes Paul, politicians play politics all the time and Stats are the best tool for that, unless there are reports of people eating Pets and when someone who is accused of about to wipe out democracy and become the next Hitler dictator.
.The main point first though is that Oil is one component of the “energy” supply in the US. Not all that Oil is used as energy either — the imported stuff (heavy crude) to the US is what they need for lubricants, plastics, bitumen and petrochemicals because the light sweet crudes and shale oils are lacking in those components.
Much used to come from Venezuela btw until the US demolished their oil industry, sanction the nation and destroyed their society leading to record refugee numbers from there running to the US border for years.
Add to that the US exports large amounts of Natural Gas and a portion of the natural Gas (fracked supply especially) is actually “liquids” that are removed for other uses including mixed into fuels at refineries, then all in all, throw in coal, nuclear, hydro then +/- swings and roundabouts it ends up the US is close to “energy independent” .
Of course it wouldn’t take much to stick a pin in that narrative balloon. I too very much agree with Charles — until it is possible to mine the minerals, ores, produce the metals from that, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies, build out the new electricity networks with back battery supply, transport everything, without the use of any fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy supply” in the sense which the term is currently promoted by climate scientists and activists.
The Just Stop Oil is another spurious misadventure in the making
In a hypothetical dream world where 100% renewable energy/electricity supply for every use exists – zero fossil fuels, zero Oil for gasoline diesel being used in cars trucks or planes or shipping etc.
If you assume Oil will still be pumped in order to supply Lubricants Plastics and all the Petrochemicals needed for a modern civilization -then the same amount of OIL will still need to be processed through OIL Refineries like happens today.
But what do we do with the ~70% by Volume of the left over components of Bitumen, diesel, gasoline, kerosene, AV Gas, benzine, butane and all the other ‘flammable gases/fluids’ left over as “waste” that is left behind after extracting what we wanted from the Oil?
Where does all that go as a waste stream if we cannot burn it? Curious minds are asking but this issue does not exist (apparently)
You still didn’t address the 20 million barrels/day of oil consumed vs only 12 million barrels extracted. Place this in the context of if the USA consumed 20 wheat bushels for every 12 wheat bushels harvested from farms. Would the USA still be considered the breadbasket of the world? Considering that the USA is supposedly the number one producer of crude oil in the world, this should get everyone thinking. Need a Sankey diagram to show where all the flows go. About 1 million of oil consumed is from biofuels, and I don’t think LNG is part of “liquid oil”.
Nigeljsays
CJ, renewables are indeed not really renewables until they are completely independent of the need for any fossil fuels in the manufacturing chain etcetera. But this is in a strict technical sense. We have to call solar and wind power something, and I would say renewables is a decent approximation, because 1) they rely on the near limitless energy of the sun and 2) you can recycle the components, or most of them. We dont need to get too pedantic about terminology.
Manufacturing things like petrochemicals like bitumen creates waste products with global warming potential and so what do we do with the waste products, burn them or bury them? Burning them is not a huge problem, because the quantities are so small compared to burning fossil fuels for energy use that the impact on global warming would be small, and it could be countered anyway by carbon sequestration.
The waste products left over from manufacturing fuels like diesel are not a problem, because once diesel is phased out so are the waste products.
Just a bit of a rant about the thing that worries me. Tidying up the petrochemicals industry as a whole might be the greater challenge. So it is only used where really necessary, so it doesn’t rely on fossil fuels for its energy inputs, and doesnt cause other forms of pollution, or used products just dumped in landfill. There are feasible tecnical solutions to most of this, but sometimes I despair that its possible given the nature of humanity and its tendency to be wasteful and to ignore environmental degradation, and socialise its costs. But I feel we have to hope it will be done better and lobby for that. One positive is most peope appear to be sympathetic to recycling schemes and that is a step in the right direction and solves a range of problems.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
cj: Much used to come from Venezuela btw until the US demolished their oil industry, sanction the nation and destroyed their society leading to record refugee numbers from there running to the US border for years.
BPL: Venezuela is still pumping oil. The sanctions came about because Venezuela used to be a showcase Latin American democracy, but was taken over by a dictator who fixes elections and who, quite without help from American sanctions, destroyed the economy and society. People are leaving because Venezuela is now a tightly-controlled dictatorship. You seem to have forgotten that part of the story.
cjsays
to Paul Pukite
“You still didn’t address the 20 million barrels/day of oil consumed vs only 12 million barrels extracted.”
I do not need to address it again, because I already did, as have others.
I repeat, “energy independent” captures all energy, not only oil.
RE “I don’t think LNG is part of “liquid oil”.”
Whatever. Natural Gas Liquids etc are counted as part of the global Oil supply. extracted Oil from the ground only accounts for +80% of what reports say is the ~100mb/d of “Oil” production/supply etc.
Go check it out. I’m right. I am also right that hydro geothermal wind/solar will never replace this liquid energy, plastics, bitumen, critical fertilizer / petrochemical supply.
I am also right that holding temps to 1.5C by 2050 (or even 2C) is disinformation / false hope, as is the fraudulent theory about ZEC. We are surrounded with unscientific wishful thinking and gullible mysticism essentially on all side – pro/con climate science and catastrophic heating.
cjsays
Nigelj
“We dont need to get too pedantic about terminology.”
Oh really? And since when did terminology not matter to the pedantic meat computers on this forum? I’ll tell you – Never.
Until, like now, it suits the distorted unscientific and fraudulent propaganda narratives – to you can say the correct logical terminology and physics no longer matters that much.
Nature bats last, not hope in delusions disinformation and lies.
Piotrsays
cj: “ In a hypothetical dream world where 100% renewable energy/electricity supply for every use exists
That would be relevant if anybody here advocated such hypothetical world. You can stabilize the atmospheric CO2 without bringing “every use” if fossil fuels to zero -its enough to bring them to the same level as the natural uptake of CO2 from atm (via net sequestration in biomass and soils, and reaction of atm CO2 with calcareous and silicate rocks. plus whatever human sequestration) .
The perfectionist strawman “100% renewable energy/electricity supply for every use“, is an example of “ all or nothing” fallacy. Has been used by denier industry for year, with the implication: If you didn’t give up ALL fossil fuels then you are a hypocrite and therefore you are in no position to criticize your neighbour who uses 5 times more of fossil fuels than you, nor criticize the fossil fuel industrial complex, and their trillions of dollars in profits
For the same reason Ogilvy and Mather PR firm, hired by BP, created and promoted “the carbon footprint calculator” – so people try it, find out that no matter what they could realistically do – they still won’t reduce their Co2 emissions close to zero, so in the resulting feeling of hopelessness, they will give up trying and won’t even do what they could – because: what’s the point – you CAN’T eliminate “every use” of fossil fuels.
For more details see the letter by Mark Kaufman, or its description in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook
And even if we can’t immediately cut our emissions to match the uptake – a world with 500 ppm would still be a less lethal place than the one with 800ppm.
“to Paul Pukite
“You still didn’t address the 20 million barrels/day of oil consumed vs only 12 million barrels extracted.”
I do not need to address it again, because I already did, as have others.”
On the contrary, no one addresses this elephant in the room enough. Condensates often are a byproduct of oil extraction — ethane, propane, butane, hexane, pentane, so the numbers are 85-92% of “oil” is crude-related. With the remainder 3-5% biofuels and the rest from natural gas and coal and other fossil-fuel sources.
So many politicians intentionally conflate oil independent with energy independent, which can’t be stressed enough. There is an enormous crude oil problem, which tries to be hidden by playing around with the numbers. The biggest “creative bookkeeping” ploy that the USA uses is to claim imported oil is from domestic sources, because the oil refinement is done here. That’s a load of BS when they then use this to claim that the USA is a dominant “producer” of oil.
“It is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies [needed to create renewable energy technology] without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process–period.”
Are we actually doing it that way now? No, we are not. However, increasingly the electric power doing large chunks of that work are RE, and we can see very notable progress in in the decarbonization of the transportation involved as well. And the transition in both those areas figures to be a whole lot faster than most people expect, or can even envision. See, for example:
Your and other’s unscientific fanciful beliefs and hopes have no effect on the Laws of Physics and the limits of human made technology nor the finite amount of mineral resources (and ecosystems/organic life) present on Earth. I can only recommend people educate yourselves better. Ignorance is not a valid excuse anymore.
I’ve been educating myself on these topics for easily 20 years now, cj.
How ’bout you?
Escobarsays
Housekeeping to clear up other people’s confusions
[Response: Seriously, what are you even talking about? What new physics do you think we have invented? Radiative transfer? Conservation of energy and mass? Heat capacity? Navier-Stokes? Stefan-Boltzmann? Henry’s Law? Thermal expansion? Seems like pretty standard stuff to me… – gavin]
I was obviously speaking to THE different physics of different drivers/forcings that produce past and present climate change. The same as climate scientists and the IPCC address such things all the time when trying to explain what THE PHYSICS of Different Forcing over Time and Space are behind climate science is all about in the past VERSUS the present and the future.
Yes, THE PHYSICS of the pattern of regular Ice Ages across Millions of Years is NOT THE PHYSICS of the forcing producing global heating and climate change today. It is a different dynamic – it is not new physics – it is a different kind of Physics in play forcing heating and climate change responses.
I say that as per the IPCC reports and climate research papers.
And that is still changing faster than the climate models and the research papers can keep up with. Obviously, or you would have known what was happening in 2023 during or before 2023.
Climate scientists know the physics of meteor hits and flood basalts and variations in orbits and insolation and continental shelfs (everything) were forcing and produced a paleo / ice ages climate very different from the physics of shipping sulfur emissions, the sea level and land use, the amoc, the volume of global ice that are forcing and impacting the climate dynamics of today.
I repeat, if you, Radge or anyone else wanted to understand what was being said then you could. You appear to chose not to.
…………………….
and then Radge — – was addressed to CJ.
I have thought and/or said almost the exact same things about this aspect (was it posted?) and wasn’t paying proper attention, Mea culpa for being ‘confusing’ this time. 1 time out of a 100 isn’t a bad result.
But I can’t compete with your wild judgements about ‘why” X happens so make up your own as usual. You’ll never believe me anyway because you do not care in the least.
Anyone suggesting global heating can be stopped by unfounded unproven net zero theories (opinions & beliefs) and the proposed ‘actions’ globally by 2050 is overtly saying:- “global heating is no big deal” – if it is that easy and so quick to stop.
Beliefs like this are much closer to schizophrenia delusions than a science based material reality.
Good paper ref. It is obvious and undeniable what is happening today is nothing like what happened in the past (causes and outcomes) and is orders of magnitude faster.
As well as totally out of control with a body of climate science unable to explain what is happening and what is coming with any degree of intelligent physics based logic or certainty.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
E: Anyone suggesting global heating can be stopped by unfounded unproven net zero theories . . . Beliefs like this are much closer to schizophrenia delusions than a science based material reality. . . . climate science unable to explain what is happening and what is coming with any degree of intelligent physics based logic or certainty. . . .
BPL: This is just insults, slander, and name-calling. If you can locate a specific error, spell it out. Show your work.
…with a body of climate science unable to explain what is happening and what is coming with any degree of intelligent physics based logic or certainty.
…and that would be flatly false. There are certainly many uncertainties remaining, but the big picture is very, very clear.
Nigeljsays
Escobar, there is no such thing as physics based logic. If you feel you have to post wild inflammatory, incorrect, evidence free trolling rants at least get the terminology right.
Ray Ladburysays
You really don’t understand what you’re reading, do you, sweetie?
Escobarsays
For Radge and Gavin – everything is connected, what I post now is connected to what came before – on this forum. If you wanted to understand what I and others are talking about, you could. But you choose not to understand and then blame others for what you do not know or remember.
The reasons for this is obvious: over millions of years other external factors like plate tectonics, changing volcanism etc. play a bigger role, difficult to quantify.
The main characteristic of our human “global climate experiment” is that we are changing the tropospheric greenhouse gas content *at least an order of magnitude – ten times or more – faster than during any known comparable event from the whole geological history*, fx. the end permian basalt volcanism creating the siberian traps 252 m. yrs BP and the PETM 56 m. yrs BP.
This means that we should not only be extremely reluctant continuing along this path, in fact we would be better off, the sooner we manage to put an end to this global experiment, which was unconsciously startet by our ancestors a couple of hundred years ago.
Our climate models of course may all be very sophisticated mathematically etc., but they clearly have this serious weakness: because our “experiment” lacks parallels in the geological history, we really can’t calibrate the model results with anything known. Compared to the reality our models are indeed very simplistic.
…………………………….
Some people are allowed to use the word uncertainty, while others are not and automatically condemned as “deniers” or climate science illiterates.
From late last month
1 Sep 2024 at 3:11 AM Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn
By Holly Buck
Much of the climate movement is now pouring its energies into combating disinformation. But this focus fails to address real concerns about a green transition and obscures what is needed to win the public over to effective climate action.
from https://jacobin.com/2024/08/climate-disinformation-green-transition-workers
The people who really need to act on this info / research will not read it, and if they do I suspect they will not know what it is talking about!
Barton Paul Levensonsays
E: Our climate models of course may all be very sophisticated mathematically etc., but they clearly have this serious weakness: because our “experiment” lacks parallels in the geological history, we really can’t calibrate the model results with anything known. Compared to the reality our models are indeed very simplistic.
BPL: The physics remains the same. And I doubt you are familiar enough with the models to call them simplistic. How much model code have you read?
jgnfldsays
C’mon, BPL, Surely you know “THE PHYSICS” of forest fires set by people and those set by lightning are simply not the same???!!!
Escobarsays
“I never suggested that the rate of change would somehow represent a change in (The Laws of) Physics! – was another example of me discussing these related issues on the Miocene page:
JCM says
30 Aug 2024 at 8:27 AM
The headpost article attempts to demonstrate that the climate sensitivity of the distant past, when including factors like solar forcing, topographic configuration, and minor trace gases, is directly comparable to today’s conditions, with a fast ECS estimated at only 3.5°C.
However, this could be misleading. Left unperturbed, the paleo Earth had total freedom in biogeochemical and biogeophysical response. As you noted, as the CO2 rose, it’s likely that life diversified, soils enriched, and nutrient cycling intensified. Today, the situation is markedly different. As humanity artificially drives up CO2 levels, life is being drastically diminished, soils are actively eroded, and biodiversity is in sharp decline. This by direct ongoing intervention. This is the exact opposite of what occurred in the past. Today’s unnatural and unprecedented combination of rising CO2 and declining biosystems suggests that paleo climate sensitivity estimates may not be directly comparable to those of today. Alarmingly, this implies that today’s climate sensitivity is likely higher than in the past.
REPLY – Escobar says
30 Aug 2024 at 6:10 PM https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824179
Climate science keeps on saying and implying and suggesting that they know things they do not know. Then basing their recommendations out of the IPCC and other bodies based on this not knowing unproven guesswork and assumptions, guesses and opinions of the most outspoken who declare they are certain about things when they and the science is clearly uncertain and unproven.
Resulting in – “it’s ‘easy’ to stop global heating, just hit zet nero (sic) emissions by 2050 and the warming will be stopped! The UNFCCC agrees.” That isn’t science. Or real.
[end quotes]
There would be far less confusion if people read what had already be said and remembered it better and were better equipped “to connect the dots” and not rush to judgement. There would be far less posts required to FIX other people’s ERRORS and ignorance of what recently happened.
E: Climate science keeps on saying and implying and suggesting that they know things they do not know. Then basing their recommendations out of the IPCC and other bodies based on this not knowing unproven guesswork and assumptions, guesses and opinions of the most outspoken who declare they are certain about things when they and the science is clearly uncertain and unproven.
BPL: This is about the tenth time you have posted basically the same rant. You don’t seem to have any specifics to go with the charges you make. Until you do that, STFU. We’re tired of reading the same abuse over and over and over again.
Nigeljsays
Agree with BPL 100%.
Escobarsays
Another reference for good measure:
Mal Adapted says
29 Aug 2024 at 1:55 PM https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824116 We’re talking about changes occurring over millions of years. Species evolved and went extinct as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and oceans rose and fell. Continents were moving. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current formed.
Climate is changing orders of magnitude faster now. We know with more than adequate confidence that ~300 years of economically-driven (i.e. anthropogenic) transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere is the principal driver of the contemporaneous rise of global heat content.
[end quote]
Nothing I have said contradicts Mal, nor does he contradict what I said yet many have found “wanting” here.
As Weird as Trump!
Secular Animistsays
With all due respect, sir, your posts here are boorish, self-indulgent, pointless nonsense, and your responses to other commenters consist of little but name-calling and insults. All you are accomplishing here is to make a fool of yourself in public.
cjsays
When someone’s comment begins with “With all due respect, sir,” it is guaranteed that zero respect is coming. So ‘secular animist’ you too are admitting what escobar said went way over the top of your head. No ‘comprender’! It was above your ‘pay grade’ too I assume given your illogical emotional response. Bringing insult and judgemental ridicule instead.
How nice of you, You should be proud of the good job you are doing on this forum and in your professional life. Kudos Señor!
While working in the yard this afternoon, I vaguely remembered I’d come across the following I’ve linked below somewhere sometime. If you have time/inclination to look at:
. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/soil_and_climate_en.pdf
.
Does this “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” document address (in whole, in part, or not at all) your position?
BTW, if you or someone else here was the original source for this item previously, please forgive my memory lapse. I’d do a little digging to see how/when I came across this, but frankly Im too tired and hungry :-)
JCMsays
To David,
the article “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” focuses exclusively on the biogeoChemical effects related to the carbon exchange and oxidation between land and atmosphere.
This is the framing of all types of ClimateSmart™ initiatives, driven by the narrowly defined climate science and associated CO2 politics of today.
This naive framing results in enrolling landowners into carbon trading schemes (scams?), incentives for planting carbon sticks, and spreading stony reactive materials.
It’s part of a broader effort to commodify landscapes and trade them on global financial markets – where CO2 is treated as interchangeable across continents and fully fungible in investment portfolios. In the process, landscapes are detached from the places and communities they support, and the enormous power of self-motivation is diminished. This is catastrophic from a local governance perspective.
My interests are primarily in the biogeoPhysical land-atmosphere interactions and related effects of desertification. By marginalizing these effects in the study of climates, conservation stewardship has become undervalued by several times.
Climate science still falls short of providing the comprehensive, actionable insights needed to address changing climates at any scale. The European Commission report only reinforces a biased perspective which seems driven more by financialization than the needs of communities.
cheers
Davidsays
JCM,
Thanks for replying. Your advocacy in support of your position impresses. Not having a substantive grasp of the matter has lead me to pretty much refrain from engaging in the interesting “soil/land degradation, climate change, modeling etc) conversation here concerning your perspective thus far. That’s something I aim to rectify, at least a little, in time (a lengthy amount of time no doubt ;-) If for no other reason than to gain a further understanding of how things work. And perhaps be a better advocate for things I care a great deal about.
I had that item I asked about in my files and thought it was a place to start. Doing a subsequent google scholar search using different search terms has lead me to a number of works (many quite recent) that at first glance look like papers worth the efforts to study. If you have a recommendation, please pass it along.
JCMsays
To David,
I recommend a good foundation in the boundary layer and surface budget. A classic resource is T.R. Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates textbook which gives an overview of those climates formed near the ground and cycling of energy and mass through systems.
A few hostile contributors on these pages have attempted to engage with me without any foundation at all, and they always fail or continue to move the goalposts in a spirit akin to denialists.
Reasonable discussions which clearly make a distinction between the indirect effect of landscapes as a source or sink of greenhouse gases vs the direct thermodynamic effects of desertification are provided by people like Hanna Huryna, Jan Pokorny, and Petra Hesslerova. Strong overviews of thermodynamic constraints are provided by Axel Kleidon and Ghausi.
It’s useful to understand why a barren desertified landscape with relatively low surface net radiation has higher avg temperature compared to an ecologically functional one. Drainage and erosion of billions of hectares and removal of optimal biosystems brings about a large shift from latent heat to sensible heat flux. Latent heat prevails and uses 80% of surface net radiation in moisture unlimited regions. This reduces vertical temperature gradients, cools the surface air, and increases relative humidity and low cloud formation.
Evapotranspiration-condensation processes slow down over a barren landscape and solar radiation is increasingly transformed into sensible heat at the surface. The overheated surfaces warm the adjacent air layer which rises turbulently upwards and is capable of absorbing higher amounts of water vapour. For each 1 million hectares degraded releases additionally as sensible heat up to 2.5 MW to the lower atmosphere in mid-latitudes. Land-atmospheric interactions are relevant in planetary energy balance through global circulation as demonstrated by Maryssa Lague.
IPCC reports do not adequately take into account this direct thermodynamic effect of landscapes on climates because these documents are prescribed to support policies related to a trace gas global governance framework. A comprehensive policy framework must also recognize the direct role of landscapes in climate stabilization at all scales.
This year, in addition to voting for your favorite national candidate then kicking back to observe the political aftermath, consider finding a plot of one square meter in your community and engage in your own landscape stewardship project in the name of realclimates (+direct drought and flood attenuation, increased biodiversity, resilience, community, and renewed spirit).
thanks for the interest
Davidsays
To JCM,
I apologize for the delay in responding due to matters beyond my control.
Thank you very much for the suggestions. I’m only familiar with T.R. Oke, who’s work I recall from a mesoscale meteorology course years and years ago, when I argued with the professor about my thoughts on urban heat island influences on thunderstorms. It was in the end a humbling experience; though my efforts to research my idea in the library did lead to a few extra points from her :-)
Off topic- I certainly endorse your m2 landscape stewardship suggestion. I’m a few meters ahead of that at my home. I am trying to use what I have observed happen positively for local biodiversity (and money saved) as a springboard to discussions with neighbors and the occasional interested passerby. It may sound silly, but it has amazed this old guy how much native life will return if given a little bit of habitat that is a semblance of what existed before.
JCMsays
To David,
rediscovery of timeless wisdom is a wonderful thing.
Assuming native life includes also a return of animals/insects and fungi, this is an essential ingredient for a functional biosystem. The abundance of animals and fungi is estimated to have decreased 50-75% since the 1970s.
Specifically, by the accommodation of munching critters and fungi, these enhance nitrogen cycling, decomposition of litter, and the production of glomalin and plant exudates.
These elements are vital for conserving spongy low density living soils, and moisture retention in-place.
Soil evaporation is a missing element in remote sensing indices of evapotranspiration, which represents up to 50% of terrestrial latent flux.
JCMsays
correction: 2.5 million MW
Barton Paul Levensonsays
JCM: Climate science still falls short of providing the comprehensive, actionable insights needed to address changing climates at any scale.
that the role of soils and vegetation is much more complex than presented in the cited document “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” .
As I focus on one aspect of this complexity only, namely on the relationship between hydrological cycle and global climate and on its coverage in present climate change mitigation policies, I can hardly add anything to the general complex perspective emphasized by JCM.
Nevertheless, I think that from my (much narrower) perspective, the cited document can serve as a good example of the prevailing approach, treating soils and terrestrial vegetation mostly as a “carbon sink” or “carbon source” and basically omitting their important role in climate regulation through their participation in the hydrological cycle.
Greetings
Tomáš
Mal Adaptedsays
CJ, quoting one Holly Buck last month: That’s because the focus on “climate disinformation” sets up a negative feedback loop. No one doubts that misinformation is often an issue in today’s politics, especially around climate. But instead of focusing on misinformation alone, we should think of the challenge of engaging the public with climate as a triangle with three points: misinformation, conflicts over values, and distrust of elites.
Ms. Buck said some wise things in her Jacobin piece. By definition, I’m one of the online climate commentariat, though not one anyone else listens to. I’m certainly not a politician, but I’m sure reminding Americans that their addiction to fossil carbon is the principal cause of global warming, that the warming is a predictable result of the free market’s propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with, that only collective (i.e. government) action can decarbonize the US economy, and only by either taxing carbon, subsidizing renewables or regulating emissions, is a hard sell with the 28% who are still disengaged, doubtful, or dismissive of the inconvenient truth.
Conflicts over values? You’re referring to the values of resolute culture warriors who equate all collective action with Communism. They’ll never admit that climate change isn’t just a liberal preoccupation. Thankfully, we don’t have to persuade those people, we just have to outvote them! For the 57% of us “concerned” or even “alarmed” about climate change, the choice of whom to vote for is a no-brainer. Trump and the Republicans will return the US government to a state of denial, leaving the costs of anthropogenic global warming open-ended. Harris and the Democrats will try to enact stronger decarbonization policies, although those are as yet unspecified; why should the Democrats propose a plan to get us to zero emissions, when the Republicans will throw every obstacle they can in the way from sheer spite, and reverse any previous, painful progress when they regain office? I’ll settle for a series of market interventions until nobody wants to buy fossil carbon anymore. Let the market do the hard work. Meanwhile, more doubters become believers whenever weather records get broken again. I’m optimistic climate realists will soon have a solid majority. Then it will be time to talk about a long-term plan.
You and Ms. Buck are entitled to your opinions. But distrust of elites? How come the documented funding of decades of official denialism by carbon capitalists doesn’t piss off the dimissives, CJ? Maybe angrily calling out mercenary denial won’t win the upcoming elections, but denying denial won’t either. I take seriously Dark Money author Jane Mayer’s remarks about a book by another business journalist, tracing the history of the Koch family’s long-term profit maximization strategy (my bolding):
If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.
Please, all ye who pass by, reject false equivalencies and vote for the sanest climate policy on offer!
And organize, to the best of your ability, to encourage others to do the same.
Radge Haverssays
Escobar,
“[etc., etc.]…I was obviously speaking to THE different physics of different drivers/forcings that produce past and present climate change. The same as climate scientists and the IPCC address such things all the time when trying to explain what THE PHYSICS of Different Forcing over Time and Space are behind climate science is all about in the past VERSUS the present and the future.
“Yes, THE PHYSICS of the pattern of regular Ice Ages across Millions of Years is NOT THE PHYSICS of the forcing producing global heating and climate change today. It is a different dynamic – it is not new physics – it is a different kind of Physics in play forcing heating and climate change responses…[etc., etc.]“
Trivial jibber jabber with Portentous Intonations. You’re headed into Time Cube territory, Sparky.
UAH have posted for August with a TLT anomaly of +0.88ºC, that’s up on July’s +0.80ºC and the 14th ‘scorchyisimo!!! month in a row,
These TLT anomalies as not dropping like the SAT anomalies. UAH is still sitting at the “bananas” level reached in September last year, having averaged +0.90ºC Sept-Aug with the highest anomaly in April (+1.05ºC) and the lowest June (+0.80ºC). This bunch of “bananas” monthly anomalies sit head-&-shoulders above previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! months, (averaging a whopping +0.4ºC above their respective previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! month).
That’s a big gap.
UAH is not unique for TLT with these ongoing “bananas”. NOAA STAR (which is yet to post for August) shows a not-dissimilar situation with no dip in the anomalies, Sept-July anomalies averaging +0.78ºC (+0.89ºC max, +0.72ºC min) with an average headroom above previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! months of +0.33ºC.
To better illustrate this difference between SAT anomalies (which show a significant drop since the new year) & TLT anomalies (which remain high and even peaked since the new year), I’ve posted a graphic here (posted 3rd August). This TLT & SAT graphic plots 5-month rolling averages to smooth the data out and also it is repeated with NH & SH to demonstrate the declining SAT anomaly is solely a NH thing. It is actually a NH Land thing (as show in a graphic on the same web-page posted in the above link four graphic below, first posted 13th February). Previous El Niños have seen NH Ocean and SH anomalies running roughly steady before a drop in the last months of the year (a decline in their 5-month rolling aves starting with the July-Nov average).
And given all that, as with the “bananas” SAT anomalies of late last year, I’m still of the mind that these unusually high temp anomalies are all an amplified response to El Niño as was seen in 2015-16 but now super-amplified, this speculatively all due to increasing stratification of ocean temperatures.
The ERA5 reanalysis as per Climate Pulse is showing daily numbers which give a average August 2024 global anomaly of +0.71ºC, identical to the August 2023 anomaly and a small increase on the last few months (May-Jul run +0.65ºC, +0.67ºC, +0.68ºC) which together show little sign of continuing cooling. (The global graphic linked above plots these monthly global ERA5 anomalies to Aug.)
But note that the cooling post-2016-El Niño continued into 2018.
As for a multi-month wobble interrupting such an inter-year cooling, given the decline in global SAT so-far has pretty-much all been NH Land, and given there is an annual cycle buried in these NH Land anomalies (due to Oct-Dec warming at a significantly faster rate over NH Land prior to 2005) resulting in a NH Land wobble, and given that wobble is considerably lessened in La Niña years, and given the La Niña is struggling to appear this year: given all that, I can see the decline in global SAT would pause for a bit before the NH Ocean & SH begin strongly contributing to the post-El Niño cooling.
One measure at ClimatePulse I have been watching is the 60N-60S SST. This represents about 63% of the globe so is a big player in the global average. The 60-60 SST is cooling relative to 2023 as it did in previous El Niño years,
in that it dipped below 2023 levels mid-July. Whether it continues cooling and reverses the super-warming seen prior to July 2023 (but warming not in seen in previous El Niño) is yet to be determined.
Susan Andersonsays
to our good colleagues: Do you all remember the way Ned Ward monopolized this comment section, attacking all and sundry, flooding the zone with information and claiming it was to the discredit of our excellent hosts and climate science in general, and that none of us understood or were good enough?
Escobar is doing something similar. It doesn’t matter from which point of the compass the flooding comes, it still stifles open discussion and interesting material relevant to the subject matter of Real Climate.
I strongly recommend that we not encourage him with detailed responses and back and forth, becoming ever more elaborate in call and response, but rather treat it with dignified silence.
Davidsays
The annual “LAND-BASED WIND MARKET REPORT. 2024 EDITION” for the United States is out:
. https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/Land-Based%20Wind%20Market%20Report_2024%20Edition.pdf
.
For those unfamiliar with this annual report, this is a soup-to-nuts comprehensive (92 pages) analysis of the wind market in the U.S.
.
Recommend it to anyone with an interest in renewable energy (even though its focus is the U.S.).
It uses a variety of new and improved approaches to constructing an instrumental temperature dataset, including using deck metadata to improve sea surface temperature datasets, using improved land temperature homogenization methods that account for temporal autocorrelation, and using an energy balance model to compare sea surface temperatures with land surface temperatures to better account for biases in sea surface temperature datasets.
Mal Adaptedsays
Hey, Russell: it’s your favorite Progressive social engineer!
It is possible that my questions to you got buried under other posts accumulated during the previous long moderation timespan and that you have not noted them.
Therefore, I would like to repeat them herein again:
a) You speak about water vapour increase, however, Figures 1c and 1d show latent heat flux development of the tested models in time. Could you clarify?
b) You ascribe the course of the depicted time curves to the water vapour feedback, although there is no such commentary accompanying Fig. 1. The discussion of results provided by authors is, however, based mostly on results shown in Figures 3 to 9, and seems to give a more complex picture, I think.
c) Figures 3 to 9 depict differences between swamp land and desert land. I have not noted any other reference system throughout the article. Could you specify where you found the information that in the desert land, water vapour concentration increased commensurately to the water vapour residence time increase which is about 50 %? What was the baseline for this estimation?
Yes, Tomas. You are correct that Fig. 1 doesn’t show the water vapor concentration in the lower panels. However, it is well-described as follows in the text:
We find that fully suppressing terrestrial evaporation leads to increased water vapor concentrations throughout the atmospheric column over most continental and ocean regions. While terrestrial relative humidity decreases with suppressed evaporation, strong cloud feedbacks enhance the energy content and specific humidity of air over land.
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
As to your question under c), the discussion about these matters is the first in the Results and Discussion section. I would particularly direct your attention to this passage:
The reduction in global mean precipitation and increase in global mean water vapor content together imply an increase in the residence time of atmospheric water vapor. Specifically, this residence time has been defined as the ratio of global mean precipitable water Q to global mean precipitation P (Trenberth 1998),
τ ≡ Q/P
Here we find that τ increases from 6.7 days in SwampLand to 10.2 days in DesertLand.
I would additionally note an interesting passage about LW feedback:
The longwave effects of increased water vapor act against the negative longwave cloud effect (figures 8 and S2(b), (d)). Increased water vapor itself drives a feedback on the surface energy balance, with more water vapor leading to more longwave radiation into the surface (7.9 W m−2); this term is of comparable magnitude to (though slightly smaller than) net cloud radiative effects (11.4 W m−2) over land; figures 8 and S2). Previous work has shown how changes in terrestrial evaporation modulate the water vapor greenhouse effect; specifically, Lagu¨e et al (2021a) show that while reducing land evaporation directly warms the surface, over very large idealized continents, reductions in land evaporation lead to reduced atmospheric water vapor and drive an overall cooling at the surface by reducing the water vapor greenhouse effect. In this study (with the modern Earth’s continental configuration), our results show that land’s control on water vapor is still an important contribution to the radiation budget, with the changes in surface and TOA fluxes driven by changes in water vapor of comparable magnitude to the combined shortwave
and longwave effects of changes in cloud cover.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: I read the summaries of IPCC reports, I have a strong feeling that the land use was mostly treated from the viewpoint if (and if so, how) it influences grrenhouse gas absorption or release.
And that didn’t make you think? You see this means that there are 3 possibilities:
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
Now, Tomas, which of these 3 possibilities strikes you as the most likely?
In my view, shaped by this 18 months long discussion, the most likely explanation is:
IPCC does it so because
(i) there is widely shared strong common belief that non-GHG effects of changes in land use may not be significant in comparison with GHG, and
(ii) there is still very strong focus on the observed global warming and much less interest in other aspects of the climate change.
The reasons may arise from following circumstances:
1) AGW is most apparent aspect of the observed climate change, and, quire likely, still the only one for which reliable data do exist, partly because these other aspect,
2) Although the mechanism of the GHG action is not simple, it was still the easiest one from all mechanisms driving Earth climate from the accessibility to a thorough physical analysis and quantitative computational modelling,
3) Anthropogenic increase in atmospheric GHG concentration is still the only driving force of the observed climate change that could be quantitatively measured,
4) whereas for other anthropogenic influences on Earth climate, it appears that no reliable data do exist yet.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
As zebra says – the deniers never answer the question. The question to you, Tomas Kalisz, was simple. I quote:
======
“There are 3 possibilities:
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
Now, Tomas, which of these 3 possibilities strikes you as the most likely?
========
The ANSWER to this is simple = “1′ , “2” or “3”. So which is it, Tomas?
Why do you think that only the three answers which you offered are possible?
I think that in my post of 15 Sep 2024 at 7:47 AM, I quite clearly explained why I see another option more likely.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
T. Kalisz 18 Sep: “ Dear Piotr, Why do you think that only the three answers which you offered are possible?
Because these three answers cover the entire spectrum of plausible answers to your question: “[Why IPCC discusses the mitigation of AGW via] the land use mostly from the viewpoint of influencing [GHGs”]
INCLUDING your ” quite clearly explained another option”, which is covered under answers 2 and/or 3:
======
“There are 3 possibilities:
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
=====
So the only question remains – which better reflects you – “2” or “3”?
And no, you won’t be able wiggle out of this, my “Dear Tomas”.
Thank you for your reply and clarifying your view that there is such a clear trichotomy.
As I do not share this view, I am sorry that I cannot answer your question as unequivocally as you request it. Nevertheless, I can at least try, once again, explain why I do not think that the real world is as simple as you see it, and why I, actually, think that your question does not make much sense.
1) As an alternative to your first option, I proposed a few other possible reasons in my post of 15 Sep 2024 at 7:47 AM,
Basically, a reluctance to process in models / publications / summary reports a difficult topics, for which perhaps no reliable quantitative data are available yet, may be quite understandable.
2) I do not think that there must be a conspiracy to arrive at a situation that, according to a common consensus in an expert community, the basic questions of their discipline were already resolved and there remain only smaller tasks which will further precise the picture in the framework of an established paradigm. Perhaps the situation in physics at the end of nineteenth century could serve as an example.
3) I am definitely not the single person asking questions if such climate forcings like water availability for evaporation from the land, currently considered as “secondary”, can be indeed neglected in explanations of the anthropogenic climate change.
Moreover, should my questions be as trivial as you suggest, I do not understand why you do not simply cite publications which already clearly showed the irrelevance of these questions.
Greetings
Tomáš
Barton Paul Levensonsays
TK: 3) I am definitely not the single person asking questions if such climate forcings like water availability for evaporation from the land, currently considered as “secondary”, can be indeed neglected in explanations of the anthropogenic climate change.
BPL: Nobody’s neglecting it. They’ve calculated it and found it to be of low magnitude. Land use is indeed a contributor to global warming, especially in the matter of forests being clear-cut, but it is not AS BIG a problem as greenhouse gases.
You keep making this mistake.
Piotrsays
T. Kalisz Sep.19 “ Thank you for your reply and clarifying your view ”
I didn’t “clarify my view” – I held your feet to fire, by not allowing you to escape answering a direct question: (“ As I do not share this view, I am sorry that I cannot answer your question“)
This is a DISCUSSION forum, and a DISCUSSION is NOT a collection of monologues in which each person announces their views, and refuses to defend them, by implying that all arguments are subjective, and as such ALL ARE EQUALLY valid.
Here, in my response to your complaints that IPCC treats the influence of changes in the land use on AGW via its influences on GHGs, thus ignoring your and JCM ideas about modifying AGW via increases in evaporation, I have offered 3 possibilities that covered the entire spectrum of plausible interpretation of your claims:
====
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
Now, Tomas, which of these 3 possibilities strikes you as the most likely?
=======
Since each of the answers was not complementary to you (“1” would mean your admission to being wrong; 2. would prove your denier anti-science views, while “3” – would prove the depth of your delusions about yourself) – you tried to avoid the answer, by implying that there is DIFFERENT, 4th possibility:
===TK: ” Why do you think that only the three answers which you offered are possible? [and provided your 4th possibility that] IPCC does it so because
(i) there is widely shared strong common belief that non-GHG effects of changes in land use may not be significant in comparison with GHG, and
(ii) there is still very strong focus on the observed global warming and much less interest in other aspects of the climate change.
=====
– To which I replied that the above IS ALREADY COVERED by the possibilities “2” and “and “3”.
– You “responded” with “ I do not share this view and tried to walk away from the question (“ I am sorry that I cannot answer your question“)
No need to be sorry, Tomas, you can’t dismiss my reply as a subjective “view” – it is a FALSIFIABLE argument, and the only way to defeat it is to prove it wrong – prove that your 4th possibility is OUTSIDE possibilities “2” and “3”. So you are still on the hook for the answer
to my question.
P.S. To keep your mind from wandering off toward a yet another convenient tangent, I will make my argument more detailed:
*** How Tomas’s “4th” is covered by possibility “2”: ****
a) you insinuated that IPCC follows NOT the outcome of research, but “ strong common BELIEFS” – with word “beliefs” implying being driven not by reason but by ideology.
b) following your guru, JCM, who attacked climate science for “ artificial fixation and overemphasis [on] a trace gas you attack IPCC for having “ much less interest in other aspects of the climate change“. Since you stated “ I read the summaries of IPCC reports ” – then YOU KNOW it is a lie: the “other aspects of the climate change” are widely discussed in the IPCC reports.
Both of a) and b) are covered under possibility “2” (“2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour”)
*** As for possibility “3” ****
If 1000s of climate scientists ignore your and your friends beliefs that AGW can be effectively mitigated by humans increasing global evaporation, and does so NOT because of their ideological/political motives (“2”), but because they don’t know better – then this is straight from “possibility “3”:
“Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.”
=====================================
So which is closer to you – the deniers anti-science narrative (“2”) or psychological reward of thinking that you must be really really smart to figure out something that 1000s of climate researchers in the world failed to do (possibility “3”)?
Don’t be “sorry”, answer the question.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 20 Sep 2024 at 7:37 AM,
I am not aware of any publication showing that anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial hydrology, such as land deforestation or changes in the content of organic matter in soils, have no detectable influence on global climate not only directly, but also through possible changes in climate sensitivity to other forcings.
If you know such articles, could you share the respective references?
Tomas, BPL already answered your question, but his answer did not imply (as you put it in your response) that “anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial hydrology, such as land deforestation or changes in the content of organic matter in soils, have no detectable influence on global climate not only directly.” On the contrary!
A couple of quotes from AR6, chapter 8.
Land-use change and water extraction for irrigation have influenced local and regional responses in the water cycle (high confidence). Large-scale deforestation has likely decreased evapotranspiration and precipitation and increased runoff over the deforested regions. Urbanization has increased local precipitation (medium confidence) and resulting runoff intensity (high confidence). Increased precipitation intensities have enhanced groundwater recharge, most notably in tropical regions (medium confidence). There is high confidence that groundwater depletion has occurred since at least the start of the 21st century as a consequence of groundwater withdrawals for irrigation in agricultural areas in drylands (e.g., the southern High Plains and California Central Valley of the USA, North China Plain, and north-west India).”
It is well understood that global precipitation and evaporation changes are determined by Earth’s energy balance (Section 8.2.1). At regional scales smaller than about 4000 km, water cycle changes become dominated by the transport of moisture (Dagan et al., 2019a; Jakob et al., 2019; Dagan and Stier, 2020), which depend on both thermodynamic and dynamical processes (Section 8.2.2). The constraints of energy budgets at global scales and moisture budgets at regional scales cause key water cycle characteristics such as precipitation intensity, duration and intermittence to alter as the climate warms (Pendergrass and Hartmann, 2014b; Döll et al., 2018). Future water availability is also determined by changes in evaporation, which is driven by a general increase in the atmospheric evaporative demand (Scheff and Frierson, 2014) and modulated by vegetation controls on evaporative losses (Milly and Dunne, 2016; Lemordant et al. , 2018; Vicente-Serrano et al. , 2020). At regional scales, water cycle changes result from the interplay between multiple potential drivers (CO2, aerosols, land use change and human water use; Section 8.2.3). This section assesses advances in physical understanding of global to regional drivers of water cycle changes.
I think that our understanding to Lague 2023 is, if not identical, similar. What I found new, particularly in view of many times repeated assertions in discussions herein, was the message that more intensive evaporation from the land can result in globally lower surface temperature and globally lower mean absolute air humidity.
Before Lague 2023 was presented by JCM, many participants herein, including Barton Paul and Piotr, assumed oppositely that more intensive evaporation from the land must be necessarily accompanied by an increase in global mean absolute humidity, and in this basis expected that increased greenhouse effect caused by water vapour may diminish or completely cancel the surface cooling effect that results from the increased latent heat flux.
Don’t you see this counter-intuitive message of Lague 2023 surprising in view of the above mentioned previous discussions?
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz:
“ Barton Paul and Piotr, assumed oppositely that more intensive evaporation from the land must be necessarily accompanied by an increase in global mean absolute humidity,
To quote Ray L.: “You really don’t understand what you’re reading, do you, sweetie?
(what’s good for Escobar is good for Kalisz …)
TK: , our concerns that anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial hydrology might have contributed to climate changes observed during anthropocene, including the industrial era, will be taken as mere unsupported speculations.
as follows:
BPL: Climate scientists found decades ago that land use was important to global warming. It is, however, a minor effect compared to that of greenhouse gases. The idea that it is being ignored is not true; please read the IPCC reports.
I would like to add that as much as I read the summaries of IPCC reports, I have a strong feeling that the land use was mostly treated from the viewpoint if (and if so, how) it influences grrenhouse gas absorption or release.
The second aspect which is treated quite frequently in IPCC reports is the influence of “land use” on Earth surface albedo.
As regards possible influences of anthropogenic interferences with land hydrology, it was so far only the summary of the sixth IPCC report where I found a short note that irrigation may be among forcings that cool Earth surface.
I have not found any evaluation how such human interferences with water cycle like landscape sealing and drainage could (or could not) contribute to the observed global warming in the IPCC reports yet.
As regards other climate parameters than global surface temperature, such as e.g. global precipitation and surface distribution thereof, I am afraid that even you will have hard time if you try to find any study about relationship between human interferences with land hydrology through land use on one hand, and these parameters of the global climate on the other hand.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Barton Paul,
In addition, please refer also to my post of 9 Sep 2024 at 5:23 AM,
may be the first swallow, signalizing that the community of climate scientists will perhaps once look on the terrestrial hydrology (and human interferences therewith) also as a possible forcing and not as a mere feedback only.
If you, however, find in IPCC reports some references to earlier publications on this topics (or to the variance analysis which you mentioned several times, showing unequivocally that the contributions of this forcing to all observable parameters of the present climate change are negligible compared to the contribution of the rising atmospheric GHG concentration), please share.
Tomas, the problem remains that radiative effects (including feedbacks) are sufficient to reproduce the historic record quite skillfully. Therefore, there is no causal ‘room’ for a significant effect from terrestrial water availability: it would be necessary not only to demonstrate the TWA effect itself, but also to understand why the GHG effect were smaller than believed. It’s not impossible in principle, I suppose, but for now at least you are up against Occam’s hoary adage that “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.”
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Hallo Kevin,
I think that the reproduction of historical (temparature) record (it appears that none more-less reliable global record of any other climate parameter than temperature is available yet) by the simple model “GHG and their feedbacks”* is sufficient only if we are satisfied with the very blurred picture of the climate change as characterized in the Palmer and Stevens 2019 PNAS article
*I think that this “GHG+feedbacks” approacch can be characterized as an assumption that the observed climate change can be accurately modelled in terms of “true” forcings directly influencing the radiative balance (insolation, greenhouse gases, aerosols, albedo), everything else can be considered as feedbacks that depend solely from the initial setup and from changes in the primary forcings, and that for good projections of the future, we do not need anything else than an accurate description of these forcings and feedbacks plus enough computation power.
As Palmer and Stevens, however, admit, this blurred picture is hardly suitable for anything else than for acknowledging that greenhouse gases indeed play an important role in the observed global warming.
I think that with the above described simple approach, we may in fact never come to the desired sharper picture that could effectively support practical policies. It is well possible that the picture is not blurred (only) because we do not have GW or TW computers yet, but also by the circumstance that the above mentioned oversimplistic view on forcings and feedbacks in fact cannot fit the complex reality better than very roughly.
Tomas, you seem to be overestimating the “blurriness,” or should I say, underestimating the resolution of the picture Palmer and Stevens think we have. They say in the very first sentence of their Box 1 that “the basis for decarbonizing rests on simple, unequivocal, physical principles…”
Yet you insist on questioning the basis for decarbonization, in favor of a speculation utterly unsupported by positive evidence. Why? No-one is saying that hydrology shouldn’t be investigated, or that local and regional environments, species or ecosystems aren’t worth protecting.
But the need for decarbonizing in order to cut the GHE remains not only unequivocal, but more urgent than ever.
…it is well possible that cloud formation is in fact a result of a complex interplay between water vapour supply (intensity of evaporation) and availability of suitable condensation centers (which can at least partly depend also on aerosol pollution), wherein the water supply definitely does not depend on GHG concentration only, because water availability for evaporation is undoubtedly involved in the process, too?
Is it, though?
While in the abstract “water availability for evaporation is undoubtedly involved,” it does not follow that in today’s Earth system water availability is actually limiting cloud formation. If that were true, one might expect to see at a minimum some interesting soil moisture trends at continental scale, because anything less would certainly be insufficient to modulate cloud response at a global scale.
To obtain a quick proxy for this question, I had a look at China: it is well-studied, geographically large, has undergone rapid industrialization in the last couple of decades, and is perceived to have relatively weak environmental protections. So if anyplace was going to show a signature of anthropogenic water limitation, you’d think it might well be China.
With the aid of good ol’ Google Scholar, I found this study:
It’s mostly methodological, but they do present some results, which they summarize as follows:
…soil moisture in China has been shown to generally exhibit cyclical fluctuations, which can be summarized as a slight downward trend in the southeast and a slight upward trend in the northwest. Most areas have a drying trend in summer, while most areas have the opposite in autumn. The main reason for soil moisture variation in northwestern China may be that global warming drives the intensification of the water cycle, which is the fundamental reason for the warming and humidification of the climate in northwestern China. For the northwest, water vapor mainly comes from the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. As the Arctic warms, water vapor from the Arctic Ocean increases. Under the action of air currents, water vapor in the three places concentrated in the northwest, and precipitation in the northwest increased rapidly, which leads to an increase in soil moisture. The dryness of southeastern China is mainly due to the increase in evaporation caused by the increase in temperature, which leads to the decrease in soil moisture.
In other words, there is no evidence of a national-scale water availability trend, much less a continental-scale one.
I do not think there should be a discussion if economy “decarbonization” (in the sense “transition towards a state wherein anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into Earth atmosphere are minimized to a harmless level”) is advisable.
I think that the recommendation to “decarbonize” is based on sufficiently solid basis, starting with the mentioned physical principles from which it can be inferred that rising atmospheric GHG concentration should be expected to enhance the greenhouse effect, continuing with a solid experimental evidence (e.g. by isotopic analyses) that a significant contribution to the observed rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during industrial era can be ascribed to fossil fuel burning, and finishing with computational models that also support the conclusion that the observed global warming can be hardly explained without taking anthropogenic GHG emissions into account.
Nevertheless, I read Palmer and Stevens the way that this very certain but rather qualitative conclusion may not be sufficient as an advice for policy makers and for everyday human life, because more granular aspects of the picture, such as “How quickly should we “decarbonize” to avoid major harm?” may be more relevant from the practical point of view than mere wisdom that “we should”. And herein, I see the blurriness mentioned by Palmer and Stevens, and understood their message the way that the differences between projections provided for the same emission scenarios by various models may be still too big to enable a practically applicable advice in this direction. I think that fierce arguments on this website between people who do not share the exactly same concern about the level of “decarbonization” urgency may at least partly arise just from this blurriness.
As regards the question whether or not (and if so, in which extent) anthropogenic “land use” may influence cloud formation through changes in water availability for evaporation, I am afraid that the interesting Chinese study cited by you (thanks for the reference!) cannot provide any clear answer. I think so because there is no dataset “soil moisture 2002-2018 in reference China without anthropogenic land use” which could be shown as statistically indistinguishable from the observations made by the authors (and thus enable the conclusion that human interferences with landscape ability to retain precipitation and reevaporate water are insignificant with respect to the observed climate change and/or mitigation thereof).
Such a reference – of course, with all limitations given by the used model – might be perhaps possible in a computational study. That is why I see studies like Lague 2023 valuable, and why I hope that the role of water availability for evaporation from the land (and human interferences therewith) will be explored more extensively this way in a near future.
At the end, an additional question. I noted that the sentence in the last paragraph of the abstract comprised in the cited article
“In the past 17 years, China’s soil moisture has shown cyclical fluctuations and a slight downward trend and can be summarized as wet in the south and dry in the north, with increases in the west and decreases in the east.”
and thus somewhat differs from the reading
“…soil moisture in China has been shown to generally exhibit cyclical fluctuations, which can be summarized as a slight downward trend in the southeast and a slight upward trend in the northwest.”
cited in your post.
Could you indicate the source paragraph of the article from which the sentence cited by you originates?
Tomas, thank you for clarifying that in your view there is indeed an urgent need to decarbonize. However, I would differ from you that there is any uncertainty surrounding the question you pose: “How quickly should we “decarbonize” to avoid major harm?”
Subjective differences concerning the characterization of the term “major” aside, I think the great majority of climate scientists, and probably a majority of the global public as well, would agree that the only sane answer to that question is “as quickly as possible.” If you seek support for that view, I would refer you to the entirety of the the AR 6 WG 2 report, which focuses on impacts, mitigation, and adaptation. The “summary statements” are here:
I’ll only cite the first, which I think is pretty indicative in the present regard:
Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability. Some development and adaptation efforts have reduced vulnerability. Across sectors and regions the most vulnerable people and systems are observed to be disproportionately affected. The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt (high confidence).
To be sure, there are many practical questions falling under the ‘blurriness’ Palmer and Stevens note–especially in the realm of regional medium-term impacts. It would be very useful if policy makers in, say, the Gulf of Maine knew just how much longer their fisherman will be able to continue to harvest lobster commercially. (And so on, in thousands of cases from all around the globe.)
With regard to the lack of a “control study” of Chinese soil moisture, I think your point fails. That’s because the issue isn’t quantifying an effect WRT a “no anthropogenic influence” case; the issue is that despite known human activities which we would a priori expect to possibly be able to affect soil moisture, and thus water availability for evaporation, there was little trend to be seen.
Remember, your point was that there “could be” an anthropogenic influence on GMST via limiting water availability for evaporation. To this, I responded that GMST could be adequately accounted for by the current theory, and that hence there was no “conceptual room” for your putative mechanism.
In the present instance, I have now pointed out that not only is that the case, there is also no empirical evidence of the sort of change necessary for your mechanism to exist in the first place.
Lastly, you ask about the slight difference in wording between the portion I quoted, and the similar phrase in the abstract. I believe that the passage I quoted–which I cut and pasted with little or no editing–came from near the beginning of the “Results” section of the paper.
Apologies for my late response – I somehow missed your post and read it just today.
First of all, thank you for your thorough reply.
Meanwhile, I have also found the paragraph in the article you have cited. It is interesting that the abstract sounds like the authors found a weak downwards trend in the soil moisture over entire China, whereas the corresponding paragraph in result discussion seems to merely state a “slight downward trend in the southeast and a slight upward trend in the northwest”, which could perhaps well compensate each other. If the latter applies and this finding could be extrapolated on the entire globe, we could say that “hydrological alarmists” warning that continents (for whatever reason) desiccate during last decades, may not be correct.
Let us therefore hope that the method used by the authors will be applied to the entire land and that the obtained results confirm that there is indeed no global desiccation trend. In other words, it would be amazing if we knew with more certainty that the increasing evaporation from the land, due to increasing global mean surface temperature (GMST), is just compensated, at least in average, by increasing precipitation falling on the continents.
It appears, however, that so far even this very blurry picture of the future terrestrial precipitation is still quite uncertain – and that is the reason of my concerns regarding the reliability of available tools for climate projections. I am afraid that precipitation distribution can matter more than GMST change. In this respect, I do not feel so much impressed by the circumstance that results of climate models more-less fit with the observed trends in GMST, taking into account that their projections of precipitation distribution may be still practically useless.
This uncertainty is the reason why I (possibly) perceive the need to decarbonize the economy “as fast as possible” differently from the majority on this forum. It is my feeling that many people understand under “as fast as possible” “by all available means, irrespective of costs”, because they think that everything with the observed climate change is basically clear, the only problem which we have are greenhouse gases and if we manage to stop the GMST rise, we have won. I am afraid that if anthropogenic interferences with Earth climate are more complex than in this simple picture, it is well possible that we stop the GMST rise and find out, with a surprise, that we have not won. I think it can happen if we in fact have not changed GMST only but also something else, equally or even more important for our existence. Precipitation distribution between land and ocean may be a possible example. For this uncertainty, I think that we should not decarbonize as “quickly as possible at any cost”, but rather “as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible with respect to use of available resources”, and strive to build maximal flexibility with the aim to maximize our ability to react to unexpected / unpredicted developments.
Basically, I think that “decarbonization first” may be a wrong approach if it should be enforced by an arbitrarily selected approach or on expenses of basic democratic values and principles. I think that if we do not voluntarily resign on these values and principles and rely on human creativity where we still lack suitable means, we will finally decarbonize quicker and more sustainably than if we try to act as quickly as possible ignoring economical reality and trying to overcome insufficiency of available means and/or their unsuitability for the purpose by money printing.
To be specific, I think that the sole thing which we currently lack for a spontaneous, economically advantageous economy decarbonization is a cheap technology for large scale electricity storage. I think that as soon as we have it, no one will be interested in further fossil fuel exploitation for electricity production, and that it may then very quickly apply for basically any energy production. I am quite optimistic in this respect because no one needed such an electricity storage technology until electricity from wind and sun became cheaper than from fossil fuels. It happened a few years ago only, and I am pretty sure that suitable technologies emerge soon, if we not suppress their development by subsidies for already available but economically uncompetitive storage technologies.
Greetings
Tomáš
Nigeljsays
Tomas Kalisz, your response to KM 28 Sept. Your analysis has at least two flaws.
1) While land use change causes changes in precipitation, there is no evidence this change has been massive or will be massive in the future, compared to the potential impacts of anthropogenic warming.
2) While the modelling on future distribution of precipitation is imprecise, it is not practically useless ( as in the link below), and its clear there will be massive changes in the distribution of precipitation, and also more droughts and floods. This scale of the overall negative impacts is the salent point in terms of climate policy, not the exact details of the distribution.
So there is in fact a very good case to agressively cut emissions.
JCMsays
If it’s not already understood, all the thermodynamic and dynamical effects of continental configuration, their properties and biosystems, are inherently embedded in the climate sensitivity factor λ
The notation ΔT = λΔF tends to obscure this, as λ is often misconceived as constant to be discovered.
Additionally, the definition of climate sensitivity itself – based on a doubling of CO2 via ΔF – diminishes λ in such a way that it is perceived as merely a passive property of the system.
This misconception might lead to the mistaken belief that one can analytically derive a precise 288K GMST without accounting at all for terrestrial condition, which is simply false. Lague’s CESM idealized experiment demonstrates you would have a minimum resolution in the order of 10K.
And if I dare say in relation to Occam, it’s taking some serious complexity and mental gymnastics to arrive at energy accumulation solely in the SW based on LW radiative forcing concept, as described by Raghuraman.
Could you specify what you mean under “energy accumulation solely in the short waves based on long waves radiative forcing concept”?
Is it the circumstance that currently, it appears that big part of the measured Earth energy imbalance can be assigned to decrease in cloud cover / in visible light reflection and this decrease is interpreted solely as a feedback of the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, while it is well possible that cloud formation is in fact a result of a complex interplay between water vapour supply (intensity of evaporation) and availability of suitable condensation centers (which can at least partly depend also on aerosol pollution), wherein the water supply definitely does not depend on GHG concentration only, because water availability for evaporation is undoubtedly involved in the process, too?
Greetings
Tomáš
JCMsays
Hi Tomas,
observationally I think by now there is consensus that radiative forcing and feedback is resulting in cancellation of an increasing greenhouse effect – while energy continues to accumulate in the system.
This language is borrowed from Raghuraman and I believe Hartmann has also touched on possible reasons why this could be.
The mechanisms are not so straightforward. Schmidt’s CERESMIP proposal highlights model biases and recommends a renewed focus on things that are going wrong.
Saravanan has remarked that “the imbalance is not being driven by the canonical greenhouse effect (less OLR) but by shortwave cloud feedbacks (more ASR).”
In this context, I believe these observations are being framed strictly within an “AGW” paradigm, which specifically addresses the effects of fossil fuel combustion and the resulting changes in trace gas and aerosol emission, along with their associated feedbacks.
There are still some misunderstandings in the discussions here. Namely, there’s no reason to suspect that stabilizing biosystems would directly mitigate “AGW” itself (fossil fuel related problems), but stabilizing these systems can mitigate the climate changes that have arisen due to their direct profound deterioration in recent decades.
As previously discussed, under the forcing-feedback paradigm of AGW, which dominates climate science today, these changes are likely to be embedded within the climate stability factor.
The magnitude of these effects remain unknown. My personal suspicion is that biogeophysical changes are being obscured and possibly tuned-out in process level parameterization in CMIP members, and so they remain largely undetectable. This suspicion arises based on the expected ongoing large increase of ET along with AGW in models, which seems doubtful to exist in reality.
cheers
Barton Paul Levensonsays
TK: may be the first swallow, signalizing that the community of climate scientists will perhaps once look on the terrestrial hydrology (and human interferences therewith) also as a possible forcing and not as a mere feedback only.
BPL: I’m sure it is a forcing, but its magnitude compared to other forcings is minor.
Davidsays
“Today, The New York Times unveiled the lineup of interviewees for Climate Forward, a one-day event to be held at The Times Center in New York City on Wednesday, Sept. 25th.
Now in its fifth year, and coinciding with the 79th session of the United Nations (U.N) General Assembly, Climate Forward promises to be an immersive and dynamic experience for both in-person and virtual attendees. It will bring together some of the world’s most engaged climate voices as part of a community focused on change.
This year’s theme is “Confronting Our New Reality,” showing how the world has shifted due to the acceleration of climate change. Sessions will explore energy sources and solutions, the changing life cycle of food and water supplies and debates about where individuals and policymakers should center their attention now and in the years to come.”
More than 100 hours have passed since last moderation / since posting new contributions.
I came to an idea / suggestion in this respect:
Could perhaps the moderators consider implementing an indicator showing when the publication of the next posts is expected?
Any time when an obstacle delays moderation, the expected time of the next publication could be actualized accordingly.
I think it could reduce the time spent by regular readers / commenters on fruitless inspecting the website, to merely find out that there is still no news there.
Many thanks to the moderators for reading the comments, and best regards
Tomáš
Davidsays
Tomáš,
Based on what I’ve observed, it appears that there are times when the comments accumulate until about the number twenty (20) end up in the backlog. I know it can be frustrating, but remember that running this site is not their primary job. I don’t think implementation of your ‘indicator’ idea is needed.
Susan Andersonsays
TK: Moderators almost never post comments over the weekend. AFAICT, they don’t peruse every hypothetical pearl of wisdom in our amateur writings, nor, as our hosts, are they required to do anything but what they do. They appear to pass comments no more than once a day, if that.
They are our hosts. It never ceases to amaze me how rude and/or demanding some of their guests presume to be.
They have day jobs.
cjsays
1980 – It is not about the
ecological processes of ‘overshoot’ and ‘collapse’ specifically;
it is about us!, and how we collectively react to those issues.
At a time when the world seems incapable of addressing itself to the
issue of climate change, ‘Overshoot’ provides a valuable framework
to understand our predicament. For example: Simply swap
‘consumption’ for ‘emissions’, ‘tipping points’ for ‘overshoot’, and
‘climate breakdown’ for ‘collapse’, and book’s arguments easily map
to the climate debate; and thus how the world is, but practically, is not,
adapting to the objective ecological realities of climate breakdown.
The difficulty is, if you do transpose ‘Overshoot’ onto the ‘climate crisis’,
the results are not exhilarating. That’s because – as a sociological work
– you can see how the denial and deflection methods that ‘Overshoot’
outlines at length run throughout the climate change debate today;
and more importantly, that addressing those obstacles has little to do with
the technicalities of climate issues, and everything to do with the
self-delusion, and short-term, magical thinking that plagues human reasoning.
Perhaps more critically, the way ‘Overshoot’ addresses ‘Cargo cultism’,
or the belief that technology can insulate the individual from
radical systemic change, can equally be seen as critical of
the environmental movement itself. Environmentalism arose as a
‘deep ecological’ focus on the relation- ship of humans to their environment.
Unfortunately, as the issue became adopted into mainstream society, that
insightful focus was distorted by cultural forces into responses such
as ‘green consumerism’ or ‘green technologies’ – which operate,
as Catton outlines in the book, as a very effective distraction
from the deep systemic change which is actually required.
For those who choose to read, ‘Overshoot’, I suggest that
you keep this distinction in your mind:
Between the ‘phenomena’ of ecological collapse; and
the human interpretation of that phenomena.
When the book is read as a description of how humans respond to
existential threats, rather than how those threats evolve,
Catton’s work provides a really useful set of tests and tools
to pick-apart the environmental debate today.
‘Overshoot – The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change’ (1980) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEZLPudq6JQ
cj,
1980?
Is the dating of this message a bit wrong?
The transcription is not from the book Catton (1980) ‘Overshoot – The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change’ or from 1980, but from an ‘afterthought’ presented in the 2023 YouTube-review you link-to – ‘A Book in Five Minutes’ No.27 Podcast (a transcript of the full 13-minute narration being available HERE).
The idea behind Catton’s ‘Overshoot is that mankind’s burgeoning population will inevitably result in us running out of resources and so-doing also wreck the planet. That’s a bit different from the problem of AGW which can be solved by sourcing the energy that is presently pumping GHGs into the atmosphere from ‘alternatives’ that do not ‘pump’.
It appears to me that this ‘A Book in Five Minutes’ No.27 Podcast is less a genuine review of Catton’s book and more an interpretation of what the reviewer would like it to say. (I feel emboldened to write that because there is a 2009 review which bears no resemblance to this 2023 review.)
I’m not sure whether the ’causes’ of humanity’s inability to mitigate AGW is usefully explained by Catton’s book. The book itself is available to read on-line HERE and runs to 320 pages which I have not delved into beyond the Contents page which shows a large amount of the book could be dealing with ‘those causes’.
I suppose Catton would brand me a “cargoist” in that I do consider the technological abilities of humanity to mitigate AGW are available to us. And likewise, I am of the view that the other unsustainable uses of the planet’s resources will likely be replaced by techno-fixes. What I see a the problem is this:- Do we manage these many techno-fixes in a timely fashion or do we wreck the planet in the process? The AGW example doesn’t suggest the former as the default outcome.
cjsays
Small mindedness is a part of the problem for sure.
The quote was openly ref’d to the yt video source. No hand holding or wild reinterpretations are required. Especially by someone who has not read Catton’s book.
What comes instead is another “very effective distraction from the deep systemic change which is actually required” from someone who wouldn’t know or care what deep systemic change would look like or why it is required despite 44 years of accumulated evidence since Cattons 320 page book was published. Blindness and denial persists.
cj,
You present yet another quote from the ‘Afterthought’ of the 2023 review of Catton’s 1980 book. And note that that ‘Afterthought’ presents your quote only in the context of the reviewer suggesting “[the] book’s arguments easily map to the climate debate” and it is only in this context is it that the reviewer boldly tells us the book “[shows] how the world is, but practically, is not, adapting to the objective ecological realities of climate breakdown. ” [My bold]
You yourself do not appear to have read Catton (1980). My reason for boldly suggesting this is because the ‘dipping’ I did into Catton (1980) shows no appreciation of the abilities of humanity to power a modern society from renewable sources. His appreciation of AGW mitigation and ‘renewable’ energy extends only to suggest wind and hydro were once a very modest supplement to ‘renewable’ plant fuels and animal muscle-power and that to replace fossil fuels we would have to be further expanding our eco-footprint and diminishing our natural environment.
In my ‘dipping’ I got only a strong whiff of Malthusianism. There likely is some interesting stuff buried in there, perhaps something applicable to why humanity finds AGW mitigation so difficult, but I didn’t see signs of it. Perhaps somebody who has read the book could point to the relevant chapter.
There is a difference between the climate crisis and the ecological crisis, the latter being the sixth mass extinction event the planet has witnessed and which so-far has not been properly analysed. This eco-crisis is the net result of that burgeoning human population trying to squeeze non-renewable resources out of our planet without any proper understanding of the consequences.
The methods employed by humanity by which that squeezing of non-renewables is first promoted and the resulting supply-failure then dodged [eventually] are, I would suggest, exemplified by the bane of this site back-in-the-day, nuclear power. However, those ‘squeeze-promoting/dodging’ methods do not, in my eyes, ‘translate’ into us, as Catton insists, having to “remain human in the face of dehumanising pressures.” And I am reluctant to read an entire book (or parts V & VI thereof) to discover whether or not Catton (1980) manages that ‘translation’ and thus makes discussion of eco-crisis relevant to addressing climate crisis.
So I would question whether “[the] book’s arguments easily map to the climate debate” and if there is any ‘mapping’ at all, whether it could “easily map to the climate debate”
Nigeljsays
MAR I have listened to the video link posted by CJ on ecological overshoot. Its interesting but it mixes numerous issues in together so its a bit confused. I have not read Cattons book but I’ve read enough similar sounding material to get the general idea. This is my take on what Catton is really saying and what it means especially for the climate issue.
Firstly Catton points out that the earths resources are clearly finite. We are using those resources up quite fast to the point its inevitable we will run short and find it impossible to maintain our high consuming lifestyles. While technology and recycling etcetera can prolong our lifestyles it cant stop us reaching hard limits eventually and having to reduce our consumption levels. And of course we are causing biodiversity loss and pollution. I have no argument with any of this although its near impossible to quantify any of it. Presumably humanity in the future will adapt to the new reality although it would likely be painful.
Cattons other point is we have to accept these realities and only then can we make the “required changes” to our socio economic system. Now Catton didnt specify these changes in the video but others who are like minded have suggested we should move as quickly as possible to a low consuming culture and zero economic growth economy to 1) preserve as many resources as possible for future generations and 2) reduce pollution and biodiversity loss.
IMO its a nice idea in theory but it could cause our economic system to crash and its not clear how we would persuade people. There may be a compromise solution where growth is eased down gradually, being the managed degrowth Catton despises but it might be the most practical option.
Now we get to the climate connection. Building a renewable energy system is resource intensive, and thus you have a conflict with the plan to reduce consumption levels. As a result there is a subset of academics suggesting renewables are not the solution and are just a fantasy techno fix. Which leaves us with either burning fossil fuels or burning vast volumes of timber or getting by with hugely reduced energy consumption implimented quite rapidly . None of which look like viable options to me. So I come down on the side of trying the renewable energy techno fix, even with its obvious downsides and the fact it wont last literally forever, but nothing does anyway. There is much we could still do to minimise its environmental impacts.
Nigelj,
I too have sympathy for the view that mankind’s plans for AGW mitigation are (so far) suffering a very big serving of global denial. And I don’t mean the denial of the “It’s all a hoax!!” variety. Net-zeroing CO2 emissions will mean a world reliant on renewables and they will be in very short supply. It will be a veritable famine for many decades as the technology develops while increasing proportions of humanity metamorphosizes into Catton’s ‘homo colossus’ and the energy-hungry requirements for net-negative CO2 have also to be addressed. While net-zero is an aspirational goal, the need to develop an energy-efficient blackout-free society is being entirely ignored.
But I’d seen no relevant message about this from Catton (1980), either from dipping into his book or from reading three accounts of it, the 2023 transcript of the Video with its Afterthough (the URL failed in my comment up-thread), the 2009 review, the book’s Foreword by Stewart L. Udall. And with nobody here seemingly having read Catton (1980), continuing this discussion would surely be a little silly.
So I thought to read the last chapter or two of Catton (1980) which should shed some light onto his message, 40 pages of his 320 page book. I didn’t find anything new in his 1980’s message.
Here is a summary:- Chapter 14 – Turning Around
Partial Reorientation
Jimmy Carter made three very important speeches in 1977 about energy. Transitional Thinking
Carter partly explains the required paradigm. He calls for energy efficiency because oil and gas use is unsustainable. But he also calls for a switch from scarce oil & gas to abundant coal. Catton wonders if Carter realises coal will also become scarce in time. Persistence of Obsolete Thoughtways
Carter’s political opposition disagree being definitely stuck in “a pre-ecological paradigm.”. Questions for an Old World
(1) “Most fundamentally,” can we “begin to make ourselves less detritovorous*? Can we begin to phase out our use of “fossil fuels” as combustible sources of energy?” (*Detritovorous= adjective for a detritus-feeding creature. Catton has no time for the nobility of earth worms!!) Here Catton also stresses the potential for both AGW and Global Dimming to add to human woes. “Human actions have appreciably changed the C02 and dust content of the atmosphere.”
(2) “The next most fundamental challenge to consider is whether enough of us can recognize at last the inescapable intricacy of any non-detritovorous relationship between the human species and its habitat.”
(3) Can we greatly increase energy efficiency?
(4) Will we gracefully accept a compelled return to a simpler life?
(5) ) Is there any chance that we can be spared the widespread, deliberate badgering of people into wanting more, more, more? Sapiens? Radical?
Catton then tells us these questions are not being acknowledged and then actually poses further difficult ones resulting from overshoot and the supply of less, less, less. He argues for a new “ecological” paradigm of thought (but strangely in the past tense). Paradigm versus Paradigm
A new world view is required for which homo sapiens, who are good at adapting, won’t find easy as “habits are hard to break; cultural inertia is hard to overcome.”
15 – Facing the Future Wisely
Perilously Persistent Cargoism
Beware cargoism and its “soft energy paths” (which here includes solar water heaters, apparently). The overshoot crash cannot be dodged as non-renewable consumption always has a limit. Opportunity Becomes Necessity
We should remember the population-size impacted by the Irish potato famine. Remember lynx & rabbit population dynamics. Remember western ghost towns. And remember we cannot all emigrate from planet Earth. Pasts and Their Futures
But there is no lynx/rabbit dynamics. There is but a single overshoot (as in his Fig 3 Panel D) with the assumption made that today we are below the temporary carrying capacity but well above the actual carrying capacity. Light from Alaska
The lemming’s ecosystem is simplified enough to show mankind’s destiny. Back to the Takeover Method?
This ‘takeover’ method (‘2nd Street’ below) is us expanding our eco-footprint, by clearing jungles and irrigating deserts for farms, hopefully (but seldom) without unwanted consequences. Likewise massive solar-power-use “might produce ecosystem changes detrimental to human interests.” He tells us “Nevertheless, I consider it ironic that solar energy enthusiasts can criticize advocates of coal and fission for disregarding ecological costs and calculating only monetary costs, while they themselves glibly regard solar energy as “free” just because we can’t be billed for the incoming sunshine.” And in this ‘takeover’ method, we are simplifying the ecosystem down toward lemming-like levels. (In 1980 he was not correct arguing that “biomass consumption already exceeds replacement,” Global biomass had been in decline, but only up to 1970 according to Global Carbon Project numbers.) A Third Way: Modesty
It is the 3rd road because 1st & 2nd Street are (a) using up the finite resources and (b) extending out global** footprint which is also a finite resource (**which remains true even with them colonies on the Moon and Mars). We need to be sustainable. Red Herring or Rubicon?
And even preventing species extinction can be a battle on 1st & 2nd Street. Our Best Bet: Expect the Worst
The urge to put a situation “right” needs replacing with the desire to seek long-term outcomes that do not make “a bad situation unnecessarily worse” and do so “with all deliberate speed.” Catton’s parting words run:-
History will record the period of global dominance by Homo colossus as a brief interlude. Our most urgent task is to develop policies designed not to prolong that dominance, but to ensure that the successor to Homo colossus will be, after all, Homo sapiens. Developing such policies must be so enormously difficult that it is not easy even to accept the urgency of the task. But the longer we delay beginning, the more numerous and colossal we become-thereby trapping ourselves all the more irredeemably in the fatal practice of stealing from our future.
Nigeljsays
MAR, thanks for the information and thoughts.
Other reasons some people including academics argue against renewables is because 1) Renewables allegedly perpetuates the dominance of corporations and capitalist system and rich investors, which they see as an unjust and doomed system and 2) Renewables requires ‘exploiting’ the resources of poor countries 3) it could be a bumpy road with materials suppy bottle necks, and may leave us with less energy during the transition, or even after the transition. For example in the movie “Planet of the Humans”. But youre probably aware of all this.
I find the logic frustrating, because while there is a level of validity in their concerns, they are in effect adding together all the potential problems of renewables to say its a bad idea, without thinking through the options that leaves us, which look even worse (as I mentioned). Or thinking through the rather obvious ways we can mitigate the downsides of renewables, eg if renewables do struggle to provide enough energy, it will force us to be more energy efficient and to priortise. Although as you mention we should be proactive and plan efficiencies into the system and prioritise, before problems develop because right now with things like bitcoin and its energy demands we are sleep walking to a bit of a crisis. Sorry its all just a pet peeve of mine.
Yes nothing in the last chapter of Cattons work that we aren’t aware of, although I might still read the book given it appears to be one of those stand out books.
Mal Adaptedsays
MAR: This eco-crisis is the net result of that burgeoning human population trying to squeeze non-renewable resources out of our planet without any proper understanding of the consequences.
It’s sadly true that far too few humans have a proper understanding of the relationship between their consumption habits and “environmental”, i.e. social ills, from the fetor of their garbage to the sixth Great Extinction event. You all know I like to borrow otters’ words, when they’re so much smarter than my own:
One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. -A. Leopold
The collective action problem is not simply one of knowledge deficit, however. Again, I appreciate the reader’s patience, as I’ve spent way too much time on this for a blog comment:
The Tragedy of the Commons isn’t only in the conventional sense of grief felt by the victims, but in the classical one of inescapable fate due to “the remorseless working of things” (G. Hardin). One foundation of Economics that makes it a dismal science, is the general helplessness of every human against economic forces that determine the survival and reproductive success of our extended phenotypes, defined culturally as well as genetically. As we’ve now learned, “rational” economic decisions are made with imperfect information but also trade-offs among all the ancient, non-rational cognitive motivators humans are demonstrably prone to, such as hunger or love of our perceived kin. IOW, our economic choices always seem like good ideas to us at the time, even when we retain some regrets. That has inevitable consequences in the “free” market, a natural phenomenon attested by paleontology at our emergence as a species. Occam’s Razor, if nothing else, suggests that markets have been socializing every transaction cost they can get away with for at least that long. Today, even if you know you’re shooting the last black rhino, the money for its horn will put food on your family’s table tonight. Even when we know damn well that we’re socializing a high cost every time we purchase fossil carbon or goods and services produced with it at prices we’re willing to pay at the time of sale, and that socializing it doesn’t mean we won’t pay for it later with our own homes, livelihoods and lives, we can only sacrifice today what we can tolerate on our private bottom lines today, heavily discounting any future costs. For example, voluntarily reducing our private carbon footprints to zero right now requires living entirely off “the grid”, i.e. the global marketplace. Speaking for myself, that’s too big an ask, yet. Left to ourselves, we all do what we feel we must, when we feel we must.
All that is why reducing our aggregate emissions to zero requires “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (Hardin*). Thankfully, in the USA that doesn’t actually require everyone to understand the phbysical science rational as well as RC regulars do. It does require the science and art of politics, which at a minimum means holding our noses and voting. We’ve all seen politicians focus-grouping, obfuscating, and lying to get elected or enact their policy proposals, but that’s how the founders set up mutual coercion in this country. Somehow we, or sufficient pluralities of voters at least, muddled through 234 years of our unique, evolving form of democracy. To date we’ve forestalled tyranny [Mal knocks on his head in lieu of wood], but we’ve also managed to overcome, at critical junctures, our Constitutional aversion to change through collective action. Voting is literally the least we as individuals can do! The 57% of Americans “alarmed” or “concerned” about global warming have no practical choice but to vote Democratic, then keep political pressure on to decarbonize ASAP. We can debate optimum decarbonization strategies to the limit of our hosts’ tolerance here, but they all start with Democratic control of Congress and the White House next year and subsequently, until some Republican candidate openly supports taking the profit out of selling fossil fuels in our country and gets elected. I for one will vote for Harris more gladly than I have for any Presidential candidate in decades. Climate policy would be sufficient reason by itself, nonetheless. My fellow Americans, please vote the Democratic ticket this November. Climate realists in swing states, please remember that voting for POTUS candidate but Harris, or not voting at all, is numerically equivalent to voting for Trump. If you read this far, thanks!
* When Hardin published his article in Science in 1968, the global human population “problem”, namely its open-ended growth absent mutual coercion, was Hardin’s titular tragedy in the sense of inexorable fate. Ironically, it has turned out not to be one, simply because women around the globe have been voluntarily (with some exceptions) choosing smaller families ever since then. Although Hardin’s been accused of “life boat ethics” and worse, it’s true that global total fertility rate in 1968 was 5.0 offspring per average female, and he thought natural selection would maintain it there. Yet it has declined over the next 55 years and is now approaching bare replacement level, demonstrating the importance of global cultural evolution over less than three human generations. Regardless, “tragedy of the commons” entered the vocabulary of Economics as an evocative label for a class of phenomena including anthropogenic climate change.
Mal Adaptedsays
cj (credit where due), MAR and nigelj: thanks for the discussion of Catton’s 1980 book Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Thanks especially to Nigel for clicking on cj’s video link so I don’t have too, because life’s too short! Having been educated in ecology, economics and environmental science in the 1970s and ’80s, IMO Catton’s predictions were highly credible in qualitative terms when he published them, though lacking a definite timeline. And they’re predicated on open-ended population growth within Malthusian limits, which turns out to be counterfactual.
Further prolix disambiguation, for my benefit if no one else’s:
Again, IMHO human population “overshoot” has been going on at least since the widespread adoption of cereal agriculture by the mid-Holocene. As temporary food surpluses allowed our populations to exceed local carrying capacity for a foraging-only economy, more land came under cultivation. As the land became more crowded, food production grew more intensive. Farming drastically simplified the wild ecosystem on each new patch of ground under intensive cultivation, chasing off or killing all but a few desired species, to divert larger shares of the energy and nutrient fluxes through that ground into human biomass: otherwise, why bother? By then the 6th Great Extinction event, underway around the world due to climate change beginning before our species’ irruption from Africa, was accelerating on every new landmass we occupied. And soon, the vulnerability of obligate sedentary farmers to hungry neighbors and self-aggrandizing Big Men condemned vast numbers of our conspecifics to serfdom.
Without overburdening the comparison, biological and cultural evolution both proceed by random variation and selective retention on countless abstract dimensions, making them unpredictable a priori: IOW, no actual science of Psychohistory is possible. In hindsight only, Holocene cultural evolution led to today’s global economy of 8 billion busy cost-externalizers. Devoid of verifiable universal teleology (sorry BPL), it has resulted in the short, miserable lives of masses of land-bound peasants and landless refugees over millennia, and my own relatively stable comfort and security. It didn’t happen all at once, and isn’t over yet.
And now something unpredicted is evolving: global affluence, imperfectly measured by per-capita GDP, is growing rapidly (widely considered meliorative from a humane perspective), even as global population growth, adequately measured by total fertility rate, is slowing and expected by experts to become negative around the end of this century (also meliorative IMHO, though not everyone’s). The future quantitative trajectory of global overshoot under those two observed trends is hardly clear, AFAICT: even without anthropogenic global warming at greater than 0.2°C/decade, can global economic growth continue in a declining global population? Beats the heck out of me! I’ll most likely be gone by then, anyway.
Meanwhile, biodiversity erosion accelerates, while old and new resource limits threaten continued economic development at least as long as our population is growing. And then there’s climate change, a another time-dependent threat, beginning in the 18th century and accelerating up to today, and already taking a toll in grief and expense. Once again, the “best” thing anyone can do for “the Earth” is die, childless, right now. I for one have remained childless, but if anyone asks me to kill myself I’ll reply “you first”. Realistically, I’m along for the ride until my body quits, which may be as long as 30 years (thunk, thunk). Because history is not predictive but radically contingent, I’m simultaneously apprehensive and curious to watch it unfold outside my windows! Thanks for reading. Otherwise, I’m just a recreational typist!
CJsays
MA Rodger says
16 Sep 2024 at 11:30 AM
Thanks for the summary of Catton’s thoughts. AS prescient as ever. He was on the ball, as are some others.
for example re “habits are hard to break; cultural inertia is hard to overcome.” ??
Tim Garrett
@nephologue
17 Jun 2022
New paper in @EGU_ESD with @ProfSteveKeen and @prof_grasselli shows a 50-year fixed relationship between world economic “wealth” – not the GDP – and global primary energy consumption. Implication? Our future is tied to even our quite distant past
The real GDP is not tied to energy consumption as many have claimed but more precisely to the *increase* in world energy consumption
Just to maintain the *inflation-adjusted* GDP we must continue to increase world energy consumption. Or, if energy consumption growth stalls, the nominal GDP may continue, but the real, inflation-adjusted, GDP will fail due to hyper-inflation
We must maintain resource-consumption growth for the economic system to survive. Of course, resources run out and their consumption produces pollution. So, that doesn’t end well.
Thermodynamically, we use an excess of energy, beyond what we need for sustenance, to effect a phase change, turning raw resources into civilization networks. Current production is offset by inflationary fraying of previously produced networks
Civilization growth is no different in essence than that of a tree, child, or snowflake. With an excess of energy, a remainder can be used to transform matter, building on past growth to overcome ever-present decay, if it is possible
SEE https://xcancel.com/nephologue/status/1537848492323876865#m
They will never speak of this at the next UNFCCC COP meeting. Such science ideas are Banned. Because >>> “it does not end well.”
Educate yourselves better.
CJsays
PS
iow all of today’s “civilization” has been slowly cumulatively built upon the use of high energy density fossil fuels according to the Laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy.
It is impossible to separate other notions of GDP, consumption, fertility, agriculture output, species extinctions, or modern finance from this fundamental truth.
When things like ev / backup electricity lithium batteries only provide one tenth the energy density of Oil the outcome of social economic disruption followed on by global civilization and population collapse is unavoidable.
Oil supply cannot meet the global demand anymore. Using longer and wider straws to suck it up faster from reserves are no longer filling the ‘supply gap’. The temporary addition of tight oil/shale oil and gas ex-US are no longer able to fill the ‘supply gap’ caused by ongoing growth in demand either.
Renewable energy (incl hydrogen/biomass) and nuclear are incapable of replacing cheap high density high EROI fossil fuel energy supply and the ongoing future growth of that supply demanded by modern civilization.
Current manufacturing of renewable energy equipment and infrastructure is 100% reliant upon the increasing use of fossil fuel energy from RE needed resource extraction, transportation to installation and use.
No where on earth today does renewable energy manufacturing use 100% renewable energy in the supply chain that produces and installs that infrastructure.
Future theories of CO2 DAC and CCS are unfounded impossible unrealizable illogical myths in a world that lacks sufficient energy to maintain the existing civilisation energy requirements and future growth upon which it depends … in a world with insufficient fossil fuel energy supply.
Global civilization and population collapse is therefore, logically, unavoidable. The only real questions left is when where and how fast will it happen once it starts?
Catton and the ecological overshoot problem. Part of this problem is indisputably caused by 8 billion people wanting food and part by high levels in per capita industrial consumption. I agree technology can only solve some of the problem and is not a panacea.
The population component might be self correcting in that populations growth has already stopped in several countries. The whole socio-economic system is dependent on industrialisation and economic growth, so changing that will be very hard, and planned degrowth might cause considerable unemployment.
We are probably stuck with solving the worst aspects or symptoms. For example there is a very worrying decline in pollinating insects, mostly caused by overuse of insecticides, all for small gains in productivity and because people like pristine looking food. We really need laws limiting the use of pesticides, or some form of regenerative farming less reliant on presticides, before things get catastrophic. We do not really want to be reliant on pollinating crops by hand or by robots. It would just be crazy. But we are sleep walking towards this.
cjsays
has the website passed away?
Nigeljsays
Ive noticed that comments dont get published in the weekends. Presumably its because the moderators dont work in the weekends, due to family commitments etc,etc.
During the last few months, there usually was at least one moderation round during the weekends, sometimes more. What was exceptional on the last long moderation delay was its timespan from Wednesday September 4 till Monday September 9, covering not only complete weekend but also three full week days.
I understand that it can happen. It would be nice to have a means which enables to see ehat just happens – how long the moderation can take.
Greetings
Tomáš
Radge Haverssays
TK,
It is what it is. It’s not like it’s costing you money.
If you’re bored, you could set up a spreadsheet.
If it pains you to visit and not get your daily fix of commentary, try hitting the subscribe button on the top right of this page (it’s free). Then you can go about your business like a normal person.
Piotrsays
Radge Havers to TK: “ If it pains you to visit and not get your daily fix of commentary ”
;-)
Now imagine the alternative – no delays in replies: Mr. Kalisz and other Escobars furiously typing before they even finished reading the comments somebody had just posted…
A perfect setup for trolling and sealioning:
=== Wikipedia:
“Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”).[…] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate” and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.”
====
reminds you of anybody, “Dear Radge” ? ;-)
Radge Haverssays
Piotr,
?
Do I sealion/troll?
I certainly agree that that pacing the rate of postings, calms things down.
Mal Adaptedsays
Radge: . “Do I sealion/troll?”
No. I, for one, always appreciate your comments. It seems clear, to me at least, that Piotr is mocking TK, not you.
Piotrsays
Piotr: “reminds you of anybody, “Dear Radge” ? ;-)
Radge: . “Do I sealion/troll?”
Not at all. It was directed to Tomas K. who matches the definition of a sealion to a “T” … ;-)
“ consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ”
Hence my reference of TK referring to the objects of his sealioning per “Dear [your name here]” . I.e, fulfilling the “maintaining a pretense of civility” part of the definition.
The knowledge feedback cycle is all over the map. Consider the following processes:
In a strictly-moderated online discussion forum, one learns to be patient.
In the team software development world, any latency in issue reporting or resolution is not tolerated. Holding a message or comment for a day will blow all delivery milestones.
In climate science, predictions are made for years in advance, and we all patiently wait for the results to fail or succeed (and even then with residual statistical significance). So years later, a new prediction is made to replace the failed one.
Meanwhile, the machine learning community perfects cross-validation strategies [1] and is able to throw away all the non-performing models w/o having to wait at all. Progress is made in leaps and bounds.
In traditional peer-review, reviewers are assigned and do their job as time permits.
Reference:
[1] Sweet, L., C. Müller, M. Anand, and J. Zscheischler, 2023: Cross-Validation Strategy Impacts the Performance and Interpretation of Machine Learning Models. Artif. Intell. Earth Syst., 2, e230026, https://doi.org/10.1175/AIES-D-23-0026.1
CJsays
a question about 2023 excessive heat and subsequent comments and research.
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory If the anomaly does not stabilize by August — a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events — then the world will be in uncharted territory. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.
article by Gavin Schmidt in early 2024 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
Last year there was an active el nino. Now there isn’t. Large shipping IMO sulfur reductions are still operating globally. So DID the anomaly “stabilise” by now @ClimateOfGavin ?
To me it doesn’t look like it has stabilised because it is now as bad as or higher temps in 2024 than it was last year. Especially now it seems even worse an impact absent the ElNino we have moved out of as Zeke indicates here https://x.com/hausfath/status/1830820053496819752#m as do many others.
Zeke Hausfather @hausfath
Sep 3
With all of August now in, 2024 has effectively tied 2023 as the warmest August on record in the @Copernicus ECMWF dataset. August 2024 was 1.49C above preindustrial levels, and 2024 is now virtually certain to be the warmest year on record.
Global Monthly Anomalies https://cdn.x.com/pic/orig/media%2FGWhhII1XAAAptN2.jpg
Here is how August 2024 stacks up against all of the prior Augusts on record. Its around two thousandths of a degree above 2023 levels, which is well below the level of uncertainty in monthly records in the datasets making the two months a tie.
ERA5 August Historical https://x.com/pic/orig/media%2FGWhhKT6W0AEJCcY.png
Is this now what being in uncharted territory looks like?
Anyone have an answer or contribution post-aug 2024? the questions raised by the “unexpected heat” in 2023 now seems to be of little interest now, as if it never happened or is of no importance anymore. a history forgotten, we’ve moved on.
As I recall, there is typically a lag with ENSO-modulated warming and cooling, so it should not be unexpected that 2024 has continued to be warm–particularly as we remain in ENSO-neutral mode. But I think there’s a very good chance that 2025 will see slightly cooler temps–always guaranteed to bring out the “global warming has stopped!” brigade.
cjsays
I much prefer Gavin, Zeke and climate science over feedback from amateurs who miss the point (and the data behind) the question/s being asked. Thanks anyway.
Your concern (?) about the deniers brigade could be sated by spending much more time on wuwt or twitter; and leaving me and the other readers here out of it.. Why? Because I am not interested.
So I will look elsewhere instead, and keep an eye open (blueskysocial etc) in case an answer to this “unchartered territory” comment by Gavin is ever addressed by him or other climate scientists.
Those who know what the Data has been saying for decades and that the anomaly is higher than it has ever been in the scientific record – as clearly outlined in my wasted comment above. Thanks for confirming asking and posting anything here is a waste of time.
Make sure you have not much in your stomach and are sitting/lying down for that.
To answer your question, what goes down, must come up. After our 2nd straight La Nina I started worrying about a large El Nino to follow. After the 3rd, I was certain. Surprisingly, it wasn’t as large as expected, but I reason that is because the oceans had started showing signs of What Goes Down Must Come Up Syndrome (minted that just now) aka everything went batshit crazy starting in 2023.
It might have been Steenbergen who suggested the same thing a couple/few months ago.
I think this is correct and think it started with the 2014-2016 time frame with the 2015-2016 very large EN acting as a booster. (I am certain large extremes are drivers of tipping points and/or indicators of them. This is why I hate smoothing data; we need to SEE those outliers. If there is a usefulness in smoothing, show the raw, too.)
I have seen at least two papers indicating the current sudden rise in temps started in the ’14-’16 time frame.
We are, I am 99% certain, smack in the middle of a massive tipping point. Sad because you cannot reverse a tipping point that has already begun at this scale and good because if it is not TOO massive, it might serve to wake everyone completely the #$%^ up.
Skimming some of your comments. we seem to be of like minds. As you have seen, it’s a hostile environment for people who are systems/sustainability/regenerative systems thinkers/solutioneers. I don’t post much because after 17 years of posting here, it’s more than clear this space is one of the least productive spaces to discuss regenerative climate solutions and existential risk, aka an 80% get you 20% of your outcomes place rather than 20% of your effort getting you 80% of your results.
It’s gotten so the peanut Gallery must grudgingly engage, but they still go all piranha on you if you dare to be correct about something they are not able to understand or are not ready to accept. Try asking about my El Nino/ASI effect theory. (Confirmed again this summer, btw.)
Cheers
Compliciussays
Hi Killian,
I know CJ. She’s been banned from posting here. And grateful for it. She has better things to do than manage children like this here. Being correct too soon is socially unacceptable.
Will Gavin ever address properly his “uncharted territory” comment? We doubt it and frankly, don’t even care. It is irrelevant. It was as a used a distraction then away from the reality of the 2023 early 2024 massive temp spike (as you say out of the oceans heat content accumulated over many years) and if he ever addresses it again it will be for the purposes of distraction again.
Same as the thread here about the myriad of weak knee jerk biased studies claiming to know what happened – but they don’t know anything, obviously – blinded by their own nonsense and self-importance imo. That thread is and will go no where.
Maybe tomorrow there will be a another “denier scientist” paper he and the peanut gallery can get their teeth into. More than sad, more than pathetic while world rapidly cooks.
Were it happening just in one place, a compassionate world could figure out how to offer effective relief. But it’s happening in so many places. The same day that Helene slammed into the Gulf, Hurricane John crashed into the Mexican state of Guerrero, dropping nearly 40 inches of rain and causing deadly and devastating floods in many places including Acapulco, which is still a shambles from Hurricane Otis last year. In Nepal this afternoon at least 148 people are dead and many still missing in the Kathmandu Valley. Just this month, as one comprehensive twitter thread documented, we’ve seen massive flooding in Turkey, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Marseilles, Milan, India, Wales, Guatemala, Morocco, Algeria, Vietnam, Croatia, Nigeria, Thailand, Greece, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, with the Danube hitting new heights across Central Europe. It is hard to open social media without seeing cellphone videos from the cars-washing-down-steep-streets genre; everywhere the flows are muddy-brown, and swirling with power.
But Kamala and the Democratic Party (with the help of Michael Mann of course) will save the world, no doubt about it! LOL
Delusional. Justice is coming. We won’t recognize the place after 2030. Websites like here will be gone, shut down in shame, and forgotten.
The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked. Good riddance.
The chances of 2024 cooling off enough to bring the annual average SAT below 2023 are indeed shrinkingly small.
The 2024 average Jan-Aug was +0.70ºC while the 2023 annual average was +0.60ºC. That means 2024 bcomes the hottest-year-on-record unless the 2024 Sept-Dec average cools below +0.40ºC. That’s almost impossible, not because +0.40ºC is that cold, (only 2015, 2019 & 2023 had Sept-Dec averages that weren’t that cold) but because there is no sign of the required cooling being underway, making it a cooling which would now be unprecidented in size. Sept-Dec would have to be -0.31ºC cooler than Jul-Aug. 1998 managed the greatest such cooling (-0.27ºC). 1992 managed -0.23ºC, 1988 -0.19ºC, 1990 -0.18ºC, 1996 -0.15ºC & 2011 -0.14ºC, this last cooling half the 2024 ‘requirement’. The bigger coolings also tend to be earlier years as the rate of Sept-Dec AGW had been running above-annual-average (up to 2005).
While declaring 2024 a ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ year will make news headlines, what is actually important is an explanation for those “bananas” SAT anomalies and the implications that will entail.
In general, the 2023 temperature anomaly has come out of the blue, revealing an unprecedented knowledge gap perhaps for the first time since about 40 years ago, when satellite data began offering modellers an unparalleled, real-time view of Earth’s climate system. If the anomaly does not stabilize by August — a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events — then the world will be in uncharted territory. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated. It could also mean that statistical inferences based on past events are less reliable than we thought, adding more uncertainty to seasonal predictions of droughts and rainfall patterns. [My bold]
My own humble view of it** is that August is too early to dismiss ENSO as the cause. Yes it would mean the climate response to El Niño is transforming, (with bigger NH Ocean SAT response and that causing giant NH Land anomalies) which might be seen as presenting “an unprecedented knowledge gap”.
The NH Ocean SAT (5-month rolling aves**) in 1998 presented a flat ‘plateau’ that has become less flat over the past three decades of ENSO. 2015-16 shows an high initial peak rather than a flat ‘plateau’, but that initial peak is far higher in 2023-24. And are we now also seeing a second later peak appearing? There was a tiny late bulge in 2010 and a bigger bulge in 2016. So is the ‘plateau’ transforming into ‘twin-peaks’?
The up-shot of all this nerdiness is that I would not expect SAT levels to start dropping from that NH Ocean ‘plateau’ until after August.
MA Rodger, your prescient statement above on 2023 “My own humble view of it** is that August is too early to dismiss ENSO as the cause.” has support from the following:
‘The 2023 global warming spike was driven by El Niño/Southern Oscillation’
This work was added 9/11 to the Gavin Schmidt post ‘New journal: Nature 2023?’ via this: “NEW (9/11/2024) Raghuraman et al. (2024) (preprint) argue that the jump in 2023 is not inconsistent with El Niño (from looking at pe-industrial control runs).”
Nice work MAR :-) Your commentary here is a plus.
Davidsays
For anyone unaware, there are post-August (and prior) updates regarding 2023 here at RealClimate in this post:
As I looked at the flat haze that was the clear-weather sky in Chicago yesterday (and again today) I’m wondering if there has been much work done to incorporate trends in wildfire smoke plumes into climate models. I know that soot on Greenland and on ice fields in general reduces albedo and increases melt rates, but the reflectance of the plumes from wildfires is increasing as wildfire seasons expand, and overall ice field area outside of Antarctica is declining – especially in wildfire season.
Use settings to turn on the NOAA smoke plumes display in https://fire.airnow.gov/ and you can see much of the atmosphere over the US and Canada is now probably reflecting some of the incoming sunlight due to high haze.
There’s a lot of changes going on with reflectance as ships reduce their emissions, as electrification esp. with transport and renewable generation will reduce other haze, but as fire seasons are increasing everywhere. I doubt the increased albedo makes up for the CO2 released from the burning materials, just curious about how it might be factored into global models.
Øyvindsays
On the question of wildfire plumes: Similarly to shipping emissions, reflectance from wildfire plumes are included in many global models, inlcuding both climate models and weather forecasts models. The uncertainties are dependent on both the information about the plumes and the representation in models. The historical re-creation of the climate in the climate models often use monthly mean averages and assumptions about plume heights. There are attempts / parameterisations that try to take into account climate change but these are quite uncertain.
Thanks Øyvind, Thanks, Susan,
Seems there will be lots more data to aid in model parameterizations in coming years. The hopeful (relatively speaking) note at the end of your second link, Susan, is that our fueled emissions are still much higher. Not comforting as we will find out how much a thawing, burning boreal and tundra zones girdling the Arctic will compete with reduced emissions as we decarbonize the global economy.
Silicon Valley’s High tech data centers already require massive amounts of electricity and that demand is exploding with the move to AI. The defense industry also. Climate scientists who criticize Jem Bendell are being rather optimistic.
S.B. Ripmansays
This comes from a non-scientist who browses this site from time to time. I’ve been thinking about the summer of ’23 temperature surge into “uncharted territory” and the persistence of the surge into the summer of ’24 … and the lack of any solid scientific proof of causation. Obviously heat doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. Where could the massive amount needed for the anomaly have come from? For a layman like me the most likely, prime suspect has to be the oceans. They’ve been acting as a vast storehouse for a long time now and maybe they’ve reached a point where they just can’t take in as much heat as before … and/or maybe, under the old “heat raises pressure and tends to rise” rule, they are now letting out some of what’s been stored. Sorry if this is an unbelievably stupid comment, but it’s in the context of news of extremely high SSTs around the world. No doubt many visitors to this site find it disconcerting that the otherwise knowledgeable moderators and commentators here seem stumped at what could be a momentous moment in the history of climate science.
Piotrsays
S.B. Ripman “ find it disconcerting that the otherwise knowledgeable moderators and commentators here seem stumped at what could be a momentous moment in the history of climate science.”
I find it disconcerting when non-scientist disparage scientists based on their amateur mis-understanding of the “climate science”.
Such as not getting the critical importance of the time-scales. Climate change is about the changes that persist over MANY DECADES, So unless the signal from “summer of 2023” persists over decades – it is of marginal importance to CLIMATE, it’s a statistical “noise” around the climatological trend, that will be mostly cancelled out by colder than avg. summers, when averaging over decades. Hardly the stuff of “ momentous moment in the history of climate science.”
What’s more important, climate are DOMINATED by different mechanisms than short-term (“weather”) events – Global Warming by the GHGs increases; “summer of 2023” by the fluctuations in the atm. and oceanic circulation
Consequently, “summer of 2023” is NOT necessarily a “momentous moment in the history of CLIMATE science”, and “being stumped” in terms of quantitative attribution of the short term (i.e. “weather”) events, says close to nothing about the credibility of the CLIMATE science.
So your “disconcert” is either self-inflicted, or, if used as cover for attacking the credibility of climate scientists – disingenuous..
Given recent comments about smokey skies, wildfires, and previous ones about indigenous communities and traditional knowledge WRT climate change, this CBC item seems like an apropos bit to share.
[Text begins]
When Dave Pascal began working as a forest firefighter, it was a three-months-a-year job. He spent the summers fighting wildfires, then went back to his regular job as a forest technician.
“It was like the little boys’ club. And we would just jump on helicopters, fly out into the bush, go and put fires out and come home and go back to our regular job,” he said.
But then, with climate change, the fire seasons kept getting longer — and so did Pascal’s work.
“All of a sudden, I don’t have another job anymore,” he said. “Now, it’s a career.”
Climate change has changed almost every industry — and provided opportunities to rethink established practices. Pascal, a member of the Líl̓wat First Nation, is a cultural and prescribed fire specialist at the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society of British Columbia, where he’s bringing traditional Indigenous knowledge back to managing wildfire.
Communities across the province come to him with proposals for prescribed burns, which are controlled and planned burns to reduce the amount of fuel around their lands and make them safer during fire seasons.
“It’s their territory, it’s their land,” Pascal said.
“They know how to manage it. So they’ll tell me what their plan is, and I’m there to support their plan.”
The need for bringing back those practices is growing, especially after the historically bad 2023 fire season in Canada, and the devastating fires in Jasper this year.
That means greatly expanding the number of people working in this field, just like Canada needs more people to work in green retrofitting or to drill for geothermal energy. And like other parts of the green economy, that can mean changing the way the agencies fund these job positions and choose the people for them.
Amy Cardinal Christianson, a former research scientist at the Canadian Forest Service, advocates for more Indigenous wildland firefighters. She says the recruitment process requires a change to what some typically consider as “expertise,” especially when many Indigenous firefighters may not have had access to the usual degree programs and certificates for leadership positions in their field.
“They know their area, they know the values, they know how fire moves on the land, but they’re totally withheld from decision-making in their territories,” she said.
Along with changing that rigid template of who qualifies for certain jobs, stable funding from the government for year-round job security is also important to attract new people to the job, said Christianson.
“We need to stop thinking about fire as something that we can just throw money at in the summer and the problem will go away,” she said.
“What we’re seeing now with these summers of smoke is that it’s something that we need to invest in year round.”
Hi Kevin,
It made me think of a few things. First was articles I’d seen pre-pandemic discussing the beginning of breakdown of an equipment-timesharing that worked between Australian and US Western firefighters – aircraft could go from one at end of season to be at the start of the other season. Not as possible with overlapping seasons.
So along with more people, more equipment. And with some of the fires being changed in their scale – more need for a trained core of coordinators and modelers to increase safety for crews and improve predictions for evacuations. It would be a good candidate, I think, for a combination of profession and something akin to the old Civilian Conservation Corps.
Finally, the usefulness of localized knowledge from people used to a landscape before western approaches upended management – reminded me of a tangential topic and very good book
“Water Always Wins: Thriving in an Age of Drought and Deluge” by Erica Gies.
Part of managing fire in arid regions is to take steps to keep some water in the ground, and several of the places Gies visits feature that lost practice.
cjsays
Looks like Zeke thinks “unchartered territory” is what is happening, and might be here to stay.
2024’s unusually persistent warmth
This year is increasingly diverging from past El Nino years.
Zeke Hausfather
Sep 09, 2024
Quote:
While its possible that global temperatures will finally start to fall in the next few weeks, given the highly anomalous trajectory of 2023 and 2024 to-date I would not bet on it.
What might this mean going forward?
Unfortunately we still lack a good explanation for what drove the exceptional warmth the world saw in 2023 and 2024. We have a lot of potential mediocre explanations (e.g. low sulfur marine fuel regulations, the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in 2022, an uptick in the 11 year solar cycle, El Nino behaving weirdly, etc.). But these have increasingly been modeled, and it is hard to explain the magnitude of the global temperature anomaly the world has experienced even adding all of these estimates together.
Many of us hoped that if 2024 returned to a more predictable post-El-Nino regime it would provide evidence that what happened in the second half of 2023 was a blip – some short lived internal variability that drove a spike in global temperatures but did not persist.
However, with temperatures remaining elevated into September 2024, its looking increasingly less likely that last year’s elevated temperatures were a mostly transient phenomenon. Rather, some combination of forcings or changes in feedbacks may be driving higher global temperatures going forward.
Re Zeke and the Data – While the engineer clings to the hopium of unscientific wishful thinking it has to be ENSO all there is is crickets. It’s in the too hard basket to comment on. There’s always Carbon Tracker when you’re really in a jam.
cjsays
Dessler says: The doom spiral – There are two facts that keep me grounded, and here they are:…….
Mal Adapted, can two ‘possibilities’ happening decades in the future really be defined as “Facts”?
And no matter what the US does, isn’t it practically guaranteed that we will exceed +3C this century, as per most climate scientists expectations and what the data also indicates repeatedly? I only ask because it looks to me that Dessler is clearly the outlier as his future scenario isn’t based on the evidence or the known facts and future possibilities but unfounded Hope alone.
Susan Andersonsays
nothing wrong with hope. We are alive, we must try. Please honor those who are still pushing us to do better.
cjsays
Delusion is not hope. It’s a lie. It’s not science.
Ray Ladburysays
CJ, I ask you to permit me to address your dismissal of hope with an analogy.
Before every voyage I’ve ever undertaken, I have been aware that the voyage could end in disappointment perhaps even disaster. There are always uncertainties when we start out. We may not know where we will sleep or how we will get from point A to point B. We may be victims of theft or violence. And while we may develop plans for such eventualities, they may not be adequate to address the demands when adversity strikes. Indeed, it could simply be that the voyage may be a disappointment. All of these adversities are possible.
The thing that gets us out the door on our trip is the hope that the voyage will yield experiences that make it worthwhile, and that our past experiences have equipped us with what we will need to surmount the obstacles the voyage tosses in our path. And again and again, in my travels I have been rewarded not just with the experiences I anticipated, but with serendipity I could not have imagined, and I have each time arrived safe and more or less sound back home. All of those good experiences have become memories. But more than that, even the bad experiences have become stories.
Our species is on a journey. It is full of uncertainties, and it will no doubt include calamities. But it will also allow us to discover things about our world and about ourselves–and the calamities will become the stories of our species.
As Robert Louis Stevenson said: “To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.”
Barton Paul Levensonsays
RL: As Robert Louis Stevenson said: “To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.”
BPL: Then how could anyone ever travel hopefully? Much as I like Stevenson, I think there’s a logical disconnect there somewhere.
cjsays
Ray, when I get on a train or a plane or an Uber I expect to arrive and have hope I will barring some unforeseen nature event or an accident.
Past evidence proves that Hope is justified based upon long term accumulated evidence.
It is far wiser to recognize narrative propaganda spin and advertising not actually based on real data and definitely not on any hard evidence for what it is.
The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie. Especially that useless Carbon Tracker site offered up as some kind of stupid ‘authority’ that all is well. It isn’t. Jacobson WWS wishful thinking is also false and is not genuine credible science. Far from it.
Robert Louis Stevenson was not a Scientist – and clearly nor are you.
Delusion is not hope. It’s a lie. It’s not science.
Enjoy your religiosity though.
Davidsays
Really nice Ray. Thank you for that.
Radge Haverssays
BPL, “Then how could anyone ever travel hopefully? Much as I like Stevenson, I think there’s a logical disconnect there somewhere.”
I see it as a more elegant way of saying that it’s about the journey, not the destination– more psychologically and philosophically foundational than some disconnected, ectoplasmic thing.
Very simply put: “Think good thoughts,” as opposed to thinking, say, “Be a smart alec, antisocial emo” when faced with difficulties, which pretty much implies screwing the destination.
Perhaps in more martial terms, better to go down swinging than whining when it comes to AGW.
Happy warrior?
Barton Paul Levensonsays
cj: The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie.
BPL: You mean you don’t agree with it or like it, therefore it isn’t true?
CJsays
Asks BPL: “You mean you don’t agree with it or like it, therefore it isn’t true?”
No. Not at all. What I mean is what I said, being: “cj: The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie.”
Me not agreeing or not liking “it” is irrelevant. What I said is based upon knowledge the Data, Logic and Math.
It is you who doesn’t agree with me or like what I said and therefore claim it isn’t true.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that the Stevenson “travel hopefully” quote comes from 1881, by which time the perennially sickly author had already been close to death for relatively prolonged periods twice. He’d experienced a great deal of rejection, and when his spiritual journey led him to a period of convinced atheism had suffered the agony of ‘coming out’ as such to his parents. That experience led him to write to a friend: “O Lord, what a pleasant thing it is to have just damned the happiness of (probably) the only two people who care a damn about you in the world.” (Although he presumably didn’t really intend to imply that his friend didn’t ‘give a damn’!)
The point here being that the optimism of ‘traveling hopefully’ shouldn’t be mistaken for a Pollyanna-ish notion; Stevenson had endured and still would endure much, and had long since accepted suffering and darkness as a lived reality. His acceptance, in my view, was precisely what enabled him to enjoy multiple journeys, literal and otherwise–including what was probably an unlooked-for marriage–for the remaining 13 years of his life.
I try to do–maybe ‘try to be’?–something or someone somewhat analogous. Some years ago in online conversation with a denialist, I was told that I ‘must be’ miserable by virtue of accepting the reality that climate change is very, very dangerous; very, very urgent; and very, very under-recognized as such. To me, it read as an inadvertent confession on the part of the interlocutor that their concern for their own psychic well-being was motivating their cognition–AKA, “motivated reasoning.”
But after all, as I wrote in a song some years ago, “Nobody gets out of here alive.” Stevenson surely knew he wouldn’t. It didn’t stop him from advocating fiercely for the Samoa that he saw being encroached upon by European colonialism, any more than it stopped him from caring for those he loved. (And letting them care for him, of course.)
cjsays
PS
Ray Ladbury says
19 Sep 2024 at 9:56 AM CJ, I ask you to permit me to address your dismissal of hope with an analogy.
Ray, there is no point when you have no idea what I said means in the first place. Your poor judgement does not and never will define me.
– I never dismissed Hope — I dismissed Hopium … unfounded Hope.
– I dismissed the reliance e upon delusions and disinformation masquerading as Hope.
– I openly promoted reliance upon data, logic and math … good rational judgment and accumulated Knowledge. For THAT IS where all Hope resides.
I am a very happy traveller. People’s extreme responses to my simple factual evidence based commentary points to them (you) not being happy travellers or being Hopeful at all. You’re all so easily shaken and threatened by alternative perspectives.
and Radge Havers says
22 Sep 2024 at 10:04 PM
Thanks for adding in your ‘people in glass houses throwing stones’ framing.
The irony was Phantastic! :-)
Barton Paul Levensonsays
BPL: You mean you don’t agree with it or like it, therefore it isn’t true?
CJ: No. Not at all. What I mean is what I said, being: “cj: The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie.”
CJ: Ray, there is no point when you have no idea what I said means in the first place. Your poor judgement does not and never will define me.
BPL: CJ, if people constantly don’t get what you’re saying, the problem is more likely to reside in what you’re writing than in how others are reading. A poor workman blames his tools; a poor writer blames his readers.
Ray Ladburysays
CJ, I have heard this quote attributed to Leonardo, but have never found a definitive attribution. Nonetheless, it summarizes my attitude fairly well:
“As to my critics, I pay no more attention to the wind coming from their mouths than to that coming from their anuses.”
Radge Haverssays
cj,
I hesitate to respond to your trolling, but I might as well point out; My “framing” was an indirect reference to you. I didn’t necessarily expect you to pick up on that, but I hope I didn’t accidentally offend anyone else.
Mal Adaptedsays
Hope is inversely related to certainty, and science doesn’t offer certainty. All climate science can do, is project what will happen to global heat content under specified emissions scenarios. Which emissions scenario actually occurs will be determined by politics. Unless you’re an expert in the politics of collective action, you don’t know which emissions scenario will occur any more than we do, believe it or not.
Since the political future is unknowable even as far the next election, your certainty of climate doom is delusional. Your insistence that you can see the future when other, equally well educated and informed RC commenters can’t, manifests a narcissistic personality. The Abrahamic religions call it pride, the deadliest of sins, for it enables all others. Just sayin’!
Mal Adaptedsays
In case it’s not clear, my comment at 21 SEP 2024 AT 9:02 AM was in response to cj’s at 18 SEP 2024 AT 4:56 AM. Ray’s response to cj wasn’t as overtly sarcastic as his can be, but was wise and overtly beneficent, as he can also be. Although beneficence is a stretch for me, I can only aspire to be as wise. That means borrowing other people’s words a lot.
cj: “Delusion is not hope. It’s a lie.”
I’m not a Christian, but IMHO Matthew 7:3 theistically expresses plain human wisdom.
Ray Ladburysays
The only reason to dismiss hope is to justify one’s own defeatism. Indeed hope is distilled into its purest form as the probability for success diminishes. And as Kolmogorov has shown, even zero probability (zero measure) of success does not equate to the impossibility of success. It is not wise to rely solely on hope, but it is essential to hold onto it.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
Hope is a virtue,
Virtue is a grace.
Grace is a little girl who didn’t wash her face.
…isn’t it practically guaranteed that we will exceed +3C this century..?
Actually, cj, no. It’s not even expected, at least according to this analysis.
“Current policies presently in place around the world are projected to result in about 2.7°C warming above pre-industrial levels. NDCs alone will limit warming to 2.5°C. When binding long-term or net-zero targets are included warming would be limited to about 2.1°C above pre-industrial levels.”
Now, I’m not saying that’s good news, exactly. But it’s at least better than the 3 C you dread.
cjsays
to Kevin McKinney my question was specifically for Mal.
I’m not interested in flawed amateur opinions, or the unscientific deeply fraudulent / not credible & distorted propaganda / disinformation from ‘think tanks’ like carbon tracker.
Susan Andersonsays
cj: facile insults and opinionated accusations tell us more about you than they do about the target of your attack(s).
Since I’m here, I’ll risk further opprobrium by trying once again to point out that since each of us is now alive, we must support that life as best we can. In the face of relentless opposition, error, and stupidity, It is sad that people who comprehend the harms in progress are busy encouraging despair and/or apathy while making a great noise about them.
As for “my question was intended for Mal,” perhaps you need a refresher course on how public discussion fora work?
Piotrsays
CJ: ” to Kevin McKinney my question was specifically for Mal. I’m not interested in flawed amateur opinions, or the unscientific deeply fraudulent / not credible & distorted propaganda / disinformation”
You could have remained silent at the risk of being thought a fool, but you chose to talk and remove all doubt of it.
Mal Adaptedsays
Heh. Speaking from experience: the upside of being thought a fool is that the pressure’s off. You can spout all the damn-fool nonsense you want, and nobody pays any attention!
Davidsays
CJ, I will take a world filled with the hope of people like Kevin McKinney and Susan Anderson over the attitude you present here at RC. For in the end, it is those who hope and aspire that help get the world on a better path that the science shows is achievable.
Mal Adaptedsays
I won’t presume to speak for otters, but IMHO you are a welcome voice of sanity on these pages, David. Thank you.
Mal Adaptedsays
Again with the plank in your eye! I’m not interested in flawed amateur opinions, or the unscientific deeply fraudulent / not credible & distorted propaganda / disinformation from ‘think tanks’ either. Where do you get your ideas? If you say “science”, well, so do I. Never mind, you’ve earned the label of “persistent, gratuitous irritant”. I’m done taunting you. I’ll leave that to otters.
Piotrsays
Mal to CJ: “ Where do you get your ideas? Never mind, you’ve earned the label of “persistent, gratuitous irritant”. I’m done taunting you. I’ll leave that to otters.”
Fetchez La Vache!
Mal Adaptedsays
Dang. I just figured out Monty Python and the Holy Grail is where Michael Fry got the idea! It won’t win me any Trivial Pursuit playoffs, but thanks, Piotr!
Walt Huisays
China is obviously an evil Empire rising to destroy the Wests’s benign and beneficial international rules based order. Ready with BRICS to undermine all attempts to stop using fossil fuels. Right? Yes of course! We all know that because we are told everyday in mass media with indisputable proofs. All the facts and figures are clear. Trust the political science and the main stream western media, they do not lie nor spread propaganda for autocratcic totalitarian regimes like China. Right?
Maybe it is not that simple after all?
The Vatican is quite consistent in expressing tremendous admiration for China. For instance here with Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, one of the main intellectual figures of the Vatican (Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences):
He said that “at this moment, those who best realize the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese”, adding that “they [the Chinese] seek the common good, subordinate things to the general good… You do not have shantytowns, you do not have drugs, young people do not have drugs. There is a positive national consciousness… China has defended the dignity of the human person.”
Quite a different discourse from Western media. Sorry for being off topic. I just thought another example of how far off base the western media is might prod a bit of double checking now and then. Good luck to all.
Mal Adaptedsays
Walt, you know none of us, whether we acknowledge the Pope’s moral authority or not, has said China is the most evil empire ever in a world which has never seen a good one, nor does anyone here think it’s intent on destroying anything wholly benign. IOW, you are belaboring a strawman. It only makes you look fanatical! I suggest you’re not doing China a service that way. Meanwhile, the rest of us have moved on.
cjsays
I find it quite amusing you accusing others of looking fanatical. And to still believe you can speak for others. But it fits.
Piotrsays
CJ to Mal: I find it quite amusing you accusing others of looking fanatical.
Seeing an imaginary straw in the eye of Mal, and not seeing a beam in your own?
Must be all that self-amusement at OTHERS…
Mal Adaptedsays
cj, whether you read my comments in their entirety or not, I’m confident I speak for myself and some other RC commenters who aren’t professional climate scientists, but recognize the authority of science to discipline both hope and fear by refusing to offer certainty. My background doesn’t make me any kind of expert, but does give me the skills to identify whether or not a consensus of actual subject matter experts has emerged. WRT the future quantitative trajectory of global heat content, I see a consensus that’s not overwhelming, but mainly is less dramatic than your predictions. Seeking to avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect, I acknowledge I’m not an SME, thus unable to contribute to their consensus one way or another, and knowing no more than they do in aggregate. I therefore have no choice but to accept the modal expert consensus represented by RC’s authors and peers such as Zeke Hausfather and Andrew Dessler, albeit tentatively and provisionally, as the scientists do. That allows me to retain a tentative, provisional hope for the coming decades.: a supplemental cognitive motivator, if you will.
What are your motivators, cj? Certainty of the future and denial of one’s vulnerability to the D-K effect are manifestations of a narcissistic personality, if not a disorder. You are here aggressively proclaiming certainty of a future that’s actually knowable only within error parameters, and taking challenges personally, but your narcissism prevents you from recognizing you’re the fanatic. IMHO, that is.
Piotrsays
– CJ to Mal: “I find it quite amusing you accusing others of looking fanatical”
– Mal “fanatical” response: “I acknowledge I’m not an SME, thus unable to contribute to their consensus one way or another, and knowing no more than they do in aggregate. I therefore have no choice but to accept the modal expert consensus represented by RC’s authors and peers such as Zeke Hausfather and Andrew Dessler, albeit tentatively and provisionally, as the scientists do.”
Now, who expects CJ to respond to that with something along the lines:
*****
Mal, this was a remarkably thoughtful response to my contemptuous and completely unjustified attack. You have given me a lot to think about. Yes, you have convinced me that your approach to climate science, and life in general, is so much better than mine. Therefore, I would like to apologize to you and all others on this group from my arrogant behaviour so far, and will strive, from this point on, to do, and be, better.
Thank you again, Mal, for helping me to critically look at myself, and learn from it, with an honest unblinking introspection being the basis for a meaningful change. Life unexamined is not worth living, eh?
******
So, please raise hand – who thinks that this will be the gist of CJ’s response. Anybody?
CJsays
to Mal Adapted
Well if your fanatical ad hominem lies and verbal abuse are only “IMHO” then must be ok then.
Classy.
The rest of your “commentary” has nothing to do with me or what I have said here. Enjoy your beliefs. LOL
Barton Paul Levensonsays
WH: China is obviously an evil Empire rising to destroy the Wests’s benign and beneficial international rules based order. . . . Quite a different discourse from Western media
BPL: You didn’t notice the 1.5 million Uighurs and Turkmen in labor camps because they’re Muslim? The Han settlers flooding Tibet? Hong Kong turned into a tightly controlled police state? Laying claim to international waters and pushing around Philippine and Vietnamese fishermen? China is A) evil, and B) an empire, the latter being defined by taking over other countries. BTW, China being evil doesn’t mean the west has to be “benign and beneficial.” Fallacy of bifurcation.
Don Williamssays
Forbes reporting on the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy:
Fossil Fuels: 81.3%, Nukes/Hydro: 10.4% (No CO2 but established plant, no big increase)
Renewables: 8.2% However, here in the USA about 60% of “renewables” is biofuels — which I consider CO2 emitting fossil fuels. Worldwide, that would suggest only roughly 4% of primary energy to be solar/wind/geotherm etc.
However, energy DEMAND is increasing about 2% a year, which gives us the Forbes Money Quote:
“Global energy consumption increased by 12.3 exajoules from 2022. Fossil fuels contributed 7.8 exajoules (63.6% of the increase) while renewables contributed the remaining 4.5 exajoules. Global energy demand continues to grow faster than the ability of renewables to keep pace, much less displace fossil fuels.”
cjsays
True. But facts data and evidence never matter in this game. It’s not about the reality it is only ever all about the ‘perceptions’. . . . . the narrative. Sustained by the hopium. Once we hit Zet Zero we’re all saved. You must have Faith.
Nigeljsays
Don Williams, you consider biofuels are not renewables because they are just CO2 emitting fossil fuels. I think thats maybe not very well considered, because you left out the fact that biofuels are carbon neutral. So the number for 8.2% renewables is correct.
A more valid criticism of biofuels would be we that don’t have enough land for them to be anything more than a small part of the solution. But right now they are helpful.
While its true that renewables are still struggling to displace fossil fuels. the renewables growth curve has been exponential, with no compelling reason why that curve wont continue, so its just a matter of time before renewables displace fossil fuels. This time frame looks like it will still be a bit slower than ideal, but it could be speeded up with stronger policies to encourage renewables. For example stronger carbon taxes, ETS schemes with strong settings, or other incentives. And policies and laws that make it easier to build wind and solar farms.
Don Williamssays
1) Good point re biofuels.
2) One problem I see here in the USA is local/state controls. My neighbor put solar on his roof but had a year long struggle with the local utility company to come out and make the necessary connection to the grid. The red state/rural area governments might slow roll solar due to hidden influence from fossil fuel donors. But in the urban blue state areas the local electric utility may oppose/slow roll installation of solar on the only space available (residential rooftops) because it undercuts their earnings from providing residential electricity. Plus utliity companies may want to use coal plants to their full life instead of scrapping what they see as a valuble asset before its time.
3) Our energy policy also needs a complete cradle to grave evaluation of sources. There have been news reports of China using coal for the energy needed to make solar panels they sell to us.
“While Chinese solar panels may produce carbon-emissions-free energy, producing these panels is not so environmentally friendly. Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, accounts for a majority of China’s electricity generation. In Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where the most energy-intensive step in the solar panel manufacturing process, polysilicon refining, is concentrated, coal accounts for 77% of power generation. As a result, a recent study found that solar panels manufactured in China produce 30% more greenhouse gas emissions than if this supply chain was reshored to the U.S.”
4) Somehow I don’t see the CO2 value in the USA shipping coal to CHina so China can use it to make solar panels to ship back to us. What is the carbon footprint to mine the coal, transport the coal to the other side of the earth and then ship the solar panels back to here?
“US exports of met coal rise in September
US coking coal exports rose by 4.8pc on the year in September to 4mn t, driven by increased deliveries to India and China, trade data show……
…The US shipped 4mn t to China in January-September 2023, almost doubling on the year as Chinese buyers returned for cargoes after focusing on purchases of Russian and Mongolian coal the previous year. Chinese met coal imports from the US in September rose nearly fivefold on the year.”
“Terminals in Hampton Roads loaded 3.21mn short tons (2.91mn metric tonnes) of coal last month, up by 24pc from a year earlier, the Virginia Maritime Association estimates.
Year-to-date volumes climbed to 32.2mn st, up by 9.5pc compared with the same 11 months in 2022.”
Don Williamssays
1) Good point re biofuels. However, there is carbon emitted in the plowing, fertilizing and transport of biofuels (e.g, for maize.)
2) One problem I see here in the USA is local/state controls. My neighbor put solar on his roof but had a year long struggle with the local utility company to come out and make the necessary connection to the grid. The red state/rural area governments might slow roll solar due to hidden influence from fossil fuel donors. But in the urban blue state areas the local electric utility may oppose/slow roll installation of solar on the only space available (residential rooftops) because it undercuts their earnings from providing residential electricity. Plus utliity companies may want to use coal plants to their full life instead of scrapping what they see as a valuble asset before its time.
3) Our energy policy also needs a complete cradle to grave evaluation of sources. There have been news reports of China using coal for the energy needed to make solar panels they sell to us.
“While Chinese solar panels may produce carbon-emissions-free energy, producing these panels is not so environmentally friendly. Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, accounts for a majority of China’s electricity generation. In Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where the most energy-intensive step in the solar panel manufacturing process, polysilicon refining, is concentrated, coal accounts for 77% of power generation. As a result, a recent study found that solar panels manufactured in China produce 30% more greenhouse gas emissions than if this supply chain was reshored to the U.S.”
4) Somehow I don’t see the CO2 value in the USA shipping coal to CHina so China can use it to make solar panels to ship back to us. What is the carbon footprint to mine the coal, transport the coal to the other side of the earth and then ship the solar panels back to here?
“US exports of met coal rise in September
US coking coal exports rose by 4.8pc on the year in September to 4mn t, driven by increased deliveries to India and China, trade data show……
…The US shipped 4mn t to China in January-September 2023, almost doubling on the year as Chinese buyers returned for cargoes after focusing on purchases of Russian and Mongolian coal the previous year. Chinese met coal imports from the US in September rose nearly fivefold on the year.”
“Terminals in Hampton Roads loaded 3.21mn short tons (2.91mn metric tonnes) of coal last month, up by 24pc from a year earlier, the Virginia Maritime Association estimates.
Year-to-date volumes climbed to 32.2mn st, up by 9.5pc compared with the same 11 months in 2022.”
Er, per the source, “Renewable energy grew at six times the rate of total primary energy, making up 14.6% of total consumption.” So, not sure where the number 8.2% came from; I didn’t see it anywhere, but I’ll admit I was scanning quickly.
The Forbes “money quote” is a great example of misframing the issue. The fact that the share of primary energy produced by renewables is increasing–to re-iterate, “at six times the rate of total primary energy”–implies that renewable energy is displacing fossil fuel capacity in the energy mix NOW.
Moreover, the framing obfuscates the fact that RE deployment is presently increasing in exponential fashion (albeit the longer trajectory will certainly approximate a logistic S-curve.) The absolute decline in FF capacity is coming, and coming fast–and given declining FF capacity factors in most places, an absolute decline in actual FF generation is coming even faster. (That is, with high penetrations of RE, the merit order effect means that increasingly, FF generation is there for back-up purposes–whether that reality is acknowledged officially, or not.)
Don Williamssays
1) The Forbes writer used “renewable” inconsistently – referring to solar/wind/biofuel at one point (8.2 % of Primary Energy) but then lumping in Hydro (6.4%) later to get 14.6 %. While Hydro is renewable in a sense, it is irrelevant to net zero transition since most dams were built well in the past. Hydro power actually dropped about 2% in 2023.
2) The picture is best shown by the table on page 14 of the actual EI report:
3) Primary Energy consumption increased from 607.35 ExJ in 2022 to 619.63 ExJ in 2023 (2 %).
Non-Hydro Renewables increased from 45.18 ExJ to 50.58 ExJ — a gain of 12% but they are still such a small percentage of Primary Energy that the their 5.4 ExJ gain was outweighed by Fossil Fuels increase of 6.9 ExJ.
4) NOTE that Nukes (25 ExJ) are flat and Hydro (40 ExJ) is dropping. If that energy production continues to decline it will have to be replaced by Fossil Fuels or Renewables.
5) NOTE: Renewables include Biofuels (I think about 4 ExJ of the 50 if my calculations from Appendix A are correct). However, Biofuels have a pretty low Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) – around 3 to 5?. Plus their planting, fertilizing, harvesting, transport and use emits carbon. Not totally carbon neutral IMO.
6) My apologies for the double post above — I thought I was just editing the first copy.
Regarding your point #3, that’s basically just reiterating the point the OP made, albeit with more detail. My rejoinder to that would remain unchanged thereby.
About #4, I’m working from my sometimes less than stellar memory here, but IIRC, last year was a down year for hydro due to dry conditions in some specific regions. If that’s correct, then it’s unlikely to be a trend–just, as MAR often says, a “wobble.”
And to reiterates a point I made earlier today, China added “217 gigawatts of solar-power capacity in 2023 alone…” More than the US all time! As they say, “that’s going to leave a mark.”
Barton Paul Levensonsays
KM: The absolute decline in FF capacity is coming, and coming fast–and given declining FF capacity factors in most places, an absolute decline in actual FF generation is coming even faster.
BPL: I keep hearing good news about renewable energy. I just hope it keeps up. If the Trumpers win in the US, it will be a big setback.
The record rains are part of a slow-moving, low-pressure system called Storm Boris that has dumped five times September’s average rainfall over four days.
The weather system was fueled by a blast of Arctic air that moved in from the north, causing temperatures to plummet within 24 hours. While it’s not unprecedented for a polar blast to hit Europe in late summer, it could become more likely to happen in the future under a changing climate, said Richard Rood, a climatologist at the University of Michigan.
That cold air collided with warmer air from the south that was dense with water vapor. The overloaded moisture came from an unusually warm Mediterranean Sea that hit the highest temperature ever recorded last month.
The climate is so warm that every storm or weather event is influenced by a warming climate,” Dr. Rood said. “It’s impossible to have an event, especially an extreme event, that doesn’t have some relation to climate change.”
And then there’s physics. So, if anyone says “you can’t blame that event on climate change”, say “yes I can”.
CJsays
My best Reference today -> Global Crisis Inventory: August 2024
The Climate Data and Oil / Energy
BY: Antonio Turiel.
Graduate in Physics from the UAM (1993).
Graduate in Mathematics from the UAM (1994).
PhD in Theoretical Physics from the UAM (1998).
Scientific Researcher at the Institut de Ciències del Mar del CSIC .
The pre-eminence of the Climate Crisis might make one think that the Energy Crisis has taken a backseat, but this is not the case. There is little and discontinuous information about the situation, but the truth is that the Energy Crisis continues its course of deterioration, preferentially affecting peripheral countries of the great metropolis that is still the global North, but advancing inexorably.
When it comes to oil, global production of crude and condensate (the stuff that can be turned into fuel) remains fairly stagnant, about 3 million barrels per day (Mb/d) below November 2018 levels. The U.S. Department of Energy’s one-year outlook revisions continue to assume we’ll be back to 2018 levels a year from now, but that’s hardly credible given that we’ve been hearing the refrain (“we’ll be back to 2018 levels in a year”) since at least 2022.
Of course, when you add to the accounting of what is called “all petroleum liquids” the category of “natural gas liquids”, which are mostly only used to make plastics, you get that we have recovered the levels of 2018. Misleading advertising to disguise the reality in which we are. And the fact is that, apart from the price of oil, the world has been in a situation of hardship for some time. A few days ago, Art Berman showed a very revealing graph : how much oil is in floating storage, that is, in tankers that are not circulating.
There is none – it is fast approaching ZERO spare.
There is virtually no margin, no oil stored in tankers, everything available is on the move. There are no reserves and no capacity to deal with unforeseen events. The last times this happened was in 2008, when the price of a barrel went to almost $150, and in 2022, when we reached $132. The price of oil has fluctuated a lot in recent weeks, sometimes up and sometimes down, but it is clear that they are trying to keep it at the $80/barrel that OPEC feels comfortable with, enough to offset its expenses and not too expensive to strangle the battered global economy. Despite this, European industry continues its process of destruction, especially in Germany, and manufacturing indicators in the European Union, the United States and China indicate a tendency towards contraction.
But, regardless of whether energy is cheap enough for a mass production industry (which it probably isn’t anymore, and that explains both the progressive European deindustrialisation and the persistent inflation), the decline in oil production is already having a very direct effect on the availability of fuels, and above all and most prominently, diesel.
Big trouble ahead when everyone finally realizes the transition to Renewable energy is a myth and the world especially the USA has *suddenly* run out of Oil.
There is no suddenly about it. Everyone knows, who is plugged into Reality, where this is heading and fast.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
CJ: Big trouble ahead when everyone finally realizes the transition to Renewable energy is a myth
BPL: I’m not sure you’re clear on what a “myth” is. In any case, the transition to renewable energy isn’t one.
CJsays
More unscientific false myths and memes presented and believed.
Hot Tip – Research the meaning of the word “Logic” – then have another look at the real Data and the Math.
Ad Hoc Rescue (also known as: making stuff up, MSU fallacy)
Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hoc-Rescue
[ my emphasis – as if it makes an difference saying that ]
The world might be witnessing the bending of a key climate curve. Various projections have suggested that carbon emissions from China, the world’s largest emitter, will probably peak soon — if they haven’t already — well ahead of Beijing’s pledge that they would peak before 2030.
“What happens with China’s emissions in the next year and next decade is absolutely decisive for the success of the global climate effort,” says Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst who has tracked China’s emissions trends for more than a decade and is a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, a think-tank based in Washington DC.
“Once China’s emissions peak, it’s likely that global emissions will also reach their peak,” says Dave Jones, an electricity analyst at Ember, a London-based think-tank.
[snip]
Assessments by Myllyvirta suggest that China’s emissions have been declining since March. This points to a possible 2023 peak, he says, but only if China’s clean-energy production can stick to last year’s record-breaking growth rate in 2024 and its energy consumption drops to its pre-pandemic level. China installed a staggering 217 gigawatts of solar-power capacity in 2023 alone. The United States has installed 137 gigawatts in its entire history.
SecularAnimistsays
Perhaps one of the climate scientists who operate and/or frequent this site might comment on this.
(PAUL P – 8 or 9 attempts, some data was very good so I will try to post it separately and skip the rest as time wasting because something is being blocked)
When talking about “imports” one should not forget about exports (smile)
May Non-OPEC & World Oil Production Drops
Countries Ranked by Oil Production Global scene https://peak oil barrel .com/april-non-opec-and-world-oil-production-drops-2/
USA things are already in a bit of a pickle — broken down in states includes NGLs / Condensate
US June Oil Production Lower than November 2023.
US oil production has been flat since November 2023 when it was 13,281 kb/d.
These 11 states accounted for 84% of all U.S. oil production out of a total production of 13,214 kb/d in June 2024. https://peak oil barrel .com/us-june-oil-production-lower-than-november-2023/
CJsays
4 above = Crickets.
Too hard to compute.
Susan Andersonsays
Ocean Encounters: Restless Seas
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) did an hour on ocean currents, which is now up and available. Real information and research by working scientists. I’ve set it to start after the filler at the beginning (about 6 minutes; back up a few seconds for speaker intro). Great animations etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv81i7Di8Lc&t=350s
How do ocean currents shape weather, climate, and life?
Even on the calmest day, the ocean is constantly in motion. From powerful ocean currents to the smallest eddy, moving seawater is a key driver of the Earth system, distributing heat, nutrients, and carbon—sustaining life at every scale and shaping weather and climate around the globe.
Join three WHOI scientists for a discussion about ocean currents, how they are changing, and the implications for marine life and all of us.
Davidsays
In the U.S., Republicans are now beginning to make a powerful public push (not even comparable to what is/has been going on in private) to put increasing pressure on Nebraska state legislators to make a last minute change to the state’s Electoral College award procedure to a winner-take-all.
If enacted, it will close off V.P. Harris from her most likely path to 270 by holding the “blue wall” of winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Nebraska 2nd district. Denying her Ne 2, this results in 269-269, which will lead to a Trump win via the subsequent vote in The House of Representatives as Republicans will control the majority of state delegations.
And with that go much of the federal action/support where the climate is concerned. Trump has made clear he will pull back unspent money in the IRA, as well as make things more difficult for wind operations to get built, plus his vow to remove climate change from even being addressed at the federal level as part of a stunning anti-science approach to governing.
As usual, Republicans play chess and the Democrats play checkers. Republicans have quietly bid their time waiting for the point where the state of Maine could have also countered a move by Nebraska by also changing to winner-take-all had passed. Thus the seemingly abrupt public push this week (though the screws have already been tightening in private since the start of September).
They’ll hold the line. Nebraska’s conservative governor already called one special session of the legislature this summer. His agenda was for a sales tax to replace a large part of property taxes and some income tax.
After a bunch of maneuvering, it was largely cancelled by a mostly conservative, but fractious, legislature. The measure to select Nebraska’s electors on a winner-take-all basis would require another special session on short notice before the election, and there are sufficient legislators to keep a filibuster going. The governor won’t be eager for another embarrassment.
Davidsays
John, based on what I’m hearing, looks like you correctly assessed the situation, at least to this point (Tue. afternoon). Governor Pillen said he will not call for a special session unless his fellow Republicans can prove they have the 33 votes to override a filibuster. And they remain two to four votes shy (depending on who is counting). Apparently, the key holdout is a guy I’ve never heard of, Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat who switched parties after being censured by his fellow “D’s” over his position on abortion.
A very rare display of courage by Republican state Senator Mike McDonnell standing up to “the MAGA freight train of corrupt politics and their ongoing attempt to steal the 2024 election” as Rick Wilson noted:
. https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/24/courage-in-nebraska/
.
Hope that’s the end of it, but if the election looks like it will come down to Ne2, and given they can legally still change the rules up to Election Day, We will see.
CJsays
Makes no difference who wins. Both sides run gerrymandered undemocratic elections. Both operate tax payer funded boondoggles for their wealthy benefactors. Both Harris and Trump are incompetent lying frauds.
There is no genuine democracy or rule of law or rights left in the US. It is a totalitarian fascist dictatorship already operated by and behalf of the mega wealthy who own the country and they own you too.
Collapse comes slowly at first, then suddenly.
Davidsays
CJ: “There is no genuine democracy or rule of law or rights left in the US. It is a totalitarian fascist dictatorship already operated by and behalf of the mega wealthy who own the country and they own you too.”
Hush. We’re trying to keep that a secret. You’re going to ruin the whole thing. Now go, before the next sector surveillance sweep happens.
Wrong on multiple counts, as usual. There’s no certainty like the certainty of folly.
CJsays
We need less false dogma and more fact based decision-making.
BREAKING: BLOCKBUSTER MICROSOFT DATACENTER DEAL RESURRECTING THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR PLANT
Microsoft and nuclear plant owner Constellation have agreed to a massive, unprecedented deal to restart the closed Three Mile Island by 2028 to power its datacenters, per the New York Times.
The deal? Microsoft purchasing as much power as possible from its 880 MW reactor over 20 years for prices rumored to be above $100 per MWh.
Most famous for its 1979 meltdown, TMI closed in 2019 because of cheap fossil fuels and tech companies refusing at the time to consider buying its electricity to meet clean energy goals.
Susan Andersonsays
For more information:
Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI: The owner of the shuttered Pennsylvania plant plans to bring it online by 2028, with the tech giant buying all the power it produces gift link ->https://wapo.st/3MRuFgG
the acquisition of so much energy by one company underscores how insatiable the power appetite of AI has become.
“It doesn’t address the core issues that are making the current practice of AI unsustainable by definition,” she said of the deal. “Instead of monopolizing decommissioned nuclear power plants, we should be focusing on integrating sustainability into AI.” ….concerns among clean-energy advocates that tech companies are shifting from driving the transition to clean energy to elbowing others out of it by claiming such large amounts of available clean electricity for themselves.
…. a setback when federal nuclear regulators disclosed that “a large number of steam generator tubes” could be faulty and need further inspection. Holtec said the finding does not alter its plans. But some nuclear safety advocates argue the company’s push to quickly reopen the plant puts the public at risk.
The huge cost and regulatory headaches associated with nuclear power are not deterring the tech industry from betting on it. In a remarkable turn of fortune for an industry that just a few years ago was struggling to stay competitive and focused mostly on closing plants, it now finds itself in expansion mode. Beyond seeking contracts for power from existing plants, tech companies are also bullish on next-generation nuclear technologies.
CJsays
Are we all “pro-nuclear” now on real climate?
But Secular Animist said there was no shortage of Energy. How could they be so very wrong unless they don’t know the facts? Maybe if a left several scientific research references to the facts it would help. No it would not.
John Pollacksays
Keep the true dogma, but eliminate the false dogma?
Radge Haverssays
Heh, I was in the area when TMI melted down. Major freak-out. I see that it eventually shut down due to lack of support from the state.
For now I’ll reserve judgement on all the corporate jawboning… makes me think of blue-sky propeller hats trying to sell used cars. It’s interesting that it seems to have a lot of support though. My-o-my, how times have changed!
CJsays
My-o-my, how times have changed!
to Radge Havers
Indeed.
Begs the question: if Renewable energy is so cheap and reliable and long lasting Versus Nukes and Fossil fuel electricity then Why-O-Why would they be signing a supply contract to pay above $100 per MWh for 20 years?
Someone is not telling the whole truth.
Who could that be besides the usual culprits being the mega wealthy fossil fuel industry?
John Pollacksays
What has changed is the need for constant power to run data centers and especially devoted to AI. This is a great match for nuclear power, which has huge capital costs, and is too expensive to turn off once you’ve built it. With AI cost is no object, at least in the fad stage we’re having at present. Whether it will still be seen as cost effective once the luster has worn off AI and the enormous costs of keeping old nuke plants running become apparent, is another question.
Modular nukes have a different set of problems. They might be cheaper from the get-go, but it is hard to believe that no engineering shortfalls will be discovered subsequently. If one has a problem, they all will. There goes your reliability, if they all have the same safety problem.
Then, there are the unsolved problems of nuclear waste and proliferation. Maybe AI can solve those for us – hah!
Selling used cars may be a good comparison, another one could be refurbishing a railway depot for steam engines.
I somewhat wonder where the authors of the idea expect hiring the necessary qualified personnel – especially reactor operators who should secure that no further nearly-meltdown will occur.
If the people who worked there till the shutdown are still available, I suppose they may be mostly close to retirement. And I somewhat doubt that young people will be eager for a career in a such technical open-air museum.
Greetings
Tomáš
CJsays
People like this, in the EU and US, are never going to be able to solve the global heating or the problem that come with it. They are far too incompetent stupid corrupt immoral and dishonest.
The resolution just passed by the EU Parliament on Ukraine is a sad illustration of how undemocratic and dangerously deluded it’s become.
Undemocratic because it acts against the will of the people. Deluded because it asks for things everyone knows are impossible.
BUT approximately two-thirds of Europeans want their leaders to “push for a negotiated settlement for the war in Ukraine
For this purpose the resolution “calls on Member States to immediately lift restrictions on the use of Western weapons systems delivered to Ukraine against legitimate military targets on Russian territory”.
In other words, a dramatic expansion of the war: no limits anymore.
As I still remember occupation of my country by former Soviet Union which ended shortly before this empire of evil crushed, I no way wish to anyone except Russia what Ukraine experiences.
I take CJ’s attempt to spread Russian propaganda as a direct attack against my country and condemn it as a particularly immoral and dishonest behaviour.
I think that any form of support for murderers attacking peaceful countries does not deserve any excuse. From my point of view, this attempt shows rather clearly that CJ is a toxic subject and automatically disqualifies such a person as a serious partner for any further discussion,
Tomáš Kalisz
CJsays
There are hard resource and energy limits that we will be running into. The end of abundant oil and natural gas will come sooner or later, more likely is sooner.
The industrial technological system we now live in will begin to stutter and then fade over the next century.
Resources and Ag vs Population support are the fundamental constraints. I’ve written about the oil and gas situation. Russia’s Fareast and Arctic development plans face high energy and infrastructure hurdles.
Both China and Russia are sponsoring major research and investment in next generation nuclear technology. This takes the form of small modular reactors with inherent safety features, unlike current large scale power plants. Central Asia has abundant reserves of uranium to fuel these reactors which can power the entire economic corridor that I like to call the New Silk Road.
China and much of Central Asia have enormous coal reserves which, utilizing nuclear generated electricity, can be converted to transportation fuel via the Fischer–Tropsch process. It adds flexibility t6o overcome constraints as they arise. Most nations do not have this flexibility.
The collective west, with its idiotic dysfunctional ‘green agenda’ will no doubt experience severe energy and fuel shortages in the years to come, but the Asian continent will forge ahead based on nuclear power, enabling electrification of rapid rail networks in lieu of air and road transportation. Electric cars will play a role over short distances – they already are – but high speed rail as you already see in Japan and China is the wave of the future. Mass Air travel, especially tourism, will collapse the further into the Oil shortage we go.
The neoliberal neocon globalist agenda of the totalitarian US centric western empire will fall by the wayside under it’s own weight in due course. This is not an ideological position but one based on fundamentals of resource limits, social constraints and disruptions, impacts from climate catastrophes, the collapse of extreme capitalism, and the social imperatives of genuine human nature and the common good principles of life that have been abandoned in recent decades. Democratic totalitarianism and financial totalitarianism will whither on the vine soon enough. The end of the capitalist class rule.
Sure technology will continue but it will directed toward the social well being of all people and not the mega wealthy owners of corporations demanding more power and more control. Such shifts are inevitable and already begun. It will not be easy and it will not be pretty at times but it will be the future because humanity’s survival depends on it.
MA Rodgersays
Interestingly, Russia, China & other central Asian countries have between them a third of global uranium reserves, of which, the lion’s share is found in Kazakhstan who is now by far the biggest world uranium supplier, providing 40% of global production in recent years. Yet with only 12% of the global reserves, Kazakhstan will have run through its “abundant reserves of uranium” in fifty years.
And how long are nuclear power stations expected to run before they are shut down and dismantled? According to the WNA who presumably are an authority on the matter “In the USA nearly all of the almost 100 reactors have been granted operating licence extensions from 40 to 60 years. This justifies significant capital expenditure in upgrading systems and components, including building in extra performance margins. Some will operate for 80 years or more..” [My bold]
Secular Animistsays
All you are accomplishing with your interminable, belligerent and boorish regurgitation of the fossil fuel industry’s long-since debunked “peak oil” nonsense is to establish the fact that you are utterly ignorant of the reality of the renewable energy industry (solar, wind, batteries, EVs, smart grids, etc) as it actually exists today.
The big picture: We receive orders of magnitude more energy from sunlight in one year — EVERY YEAR — than ALL the energy contained in ALL the fossil fuels and uranium on Earth. We receive more energy from sunlight in ONE HOUR than all of human civilization uses in a YEAR. The wind energy of just four midwestern states could power the entire USA.
And the technologies to harvest, store and distribute that vast, ubiquitous supply of FREE energy is getting more powerful and cheaper by the day.
Human civilization faces many difficult problems, but a shortage of energy is not one of them.
CJsays
Secular Animist “We receive orders of magnitude more energy from sunlight in one year — EVERY YEAR — than …>
. is irrelevant to everything energy and technology and human survival related topics. Educate yourself better, drop the false propaganda and marketing of wealthy corporate shills sucking on govt handouts.
Try harder not to make false and illogical statements like this : – “a shortage of energy is not one of them.”
Try to stop importing China made renewable energy equipment, technology and infrastructure into the USA if energy is not in short supply!
And RODGER — the UK comes first, then the US has only 3% of Oil reserves so they run out next and no one besides Canada will be selling them any more soon.
But when China annexes Australia they will have all the coal, uranium and food they need for centuries. (smile) I can say really silly illogical things too. Words are cheap and too easy to throw around.
Educate yourself. Peak Oil was not a myth. It’s science data logic and math.
[my emphasis]
CJsays
PS to Secular Animist … there is always Rodger’s pov to grapple with — please argue the point with him, I have no time for time wasters.
MA Rodger says
16 Sep 2024 at 11:30 AM
Nigelj,
I too have sympathy for the view that mankind’s plans for AGW mitigation are (so far) suffering a very big serving of global denial. And I don’t mean the denial of the “It’s all a hoax!!” variety. Net-zeroing CO2 emissions will mean a world reliant on renewables and they will be in very short supply. It will be a veritable famine for many decades as the technology develops while increasing proportions of humanity metamorphosizes into Catton’s ‘homo colossus’ and the energy-hungry requirements for net-negative CO2 have also to be addressed. While net-zero is an aspirational goal, the need to develop an energy-efficient blackout-free society is being entirely ignored. [cut – see above]
“…will mean a world reliant on renewables and they will be in very short supply.”
A prediction rapidly being invalidated, pretty much in front of our eyes… if, that is, we actually look.
However, the wider point about the need to restructure our society to be inherently sustainable, that is, to move beyond mere substitution, does IMO remain valid. Which is why I periodically try to encourage, or even sometimes instigate, conversations here about what that might look like in practice.
Nigeljsays
CJ you say we face “hard resource limits” and quote peak oil then tell us us how wonderful Chinas nuclear power will be, and that “The collective west, with its idiotic dysfunctional ‘green agenda’ will no doubt experience severe energy and fuel shortages in the years to come”.
Except you failed to mention that that uranium also faces hard resource limits, and is is a relatively scarce sort of metal and its mineral ores are not common, and once it is burned in reactors it is essentially gone for good. There just isnt enough to power the whole planet for any decent length of time documented in numerous studies. building nuclear power is also proving to be ‘challenging’ with small modular reactors still failing to eventuate.
You also failed to mention that in comparison the sun is essentially endless energy, and the resources to build renewable energy are much more extensive than uranium, and the component parts of renewable energy plant can at least be recycled. It has potential to power the planet for a long time. Plenty of published, peer reviewed studies show there are enough resources to build renewables at scale, although it will be challenging.
CJsays
to Nigelj
YES I say a lot of things. And you can quote me all you wish. And YES I also FAIL to mention all kinds of thinsg I know about. Would you like me to tell you everything I know, and quote verbatim the content of all my sources as well? I doubt the moderators would like it.
Nuclear power today is complex. Educate yourself better about that. I provided a few hints and avenues to explore. Good luck. But what I said, stands. In all my comments to date.
Everything is “challenging” but the more you say it the more you sound very negative like a “doomer” and a “denier” – someone whom people love to hate these days.
Good to know the “sun is endless energy” — news to me. Big chnace the Sun will continue to cook the planet making it hotter more stormy with even less Ice. (smile) I humbly suggest beware the unfounded spurious claims you’re throwing around. Though understand you probably won’t.
——
And YES there are — Plenty of published, peer reviewed studies show there are enough resources to build renewables at scale.
There are Plenty of published, peer reviewed studies that show and claim all manner of things. 99% of the published, peer reviewed studies discussed here by the ‘experts’ get thoroughly trashed and have done for years.
Was there a specific point you had to make besides your entrenched trust of published, peer reviewed studies </b when it suits your purposes to make make an unfounded generalist claim? (smile)
Well-said, Nigel, and I believe correct. Yes, there are still limits, and yes, we need to figure out how to structure our societies in accordance with them. And on the other hand, no, success is not a given.
You are completely right – I wopuld like to emphasize only that all what the nuclear industry was able to bring into commercial practice during ca 70 years of development is a technology which is, as regards the efficiency of conversion of the released thermal energy, on the level comparable with steam engines of the end of 19th century, and with respect to utilization of the scarce natural fissile+fissionable material comprised in uranium ores on the level of fraction of one per cent.
It is a sad truth that the technology touted by nuclear industry (and some other players on the present scene) as a salvation for nature and mankind in fact leaves about 99.5 % of the overall amount of this valuable, non-renewable natural resource unexploited and converts it in a useless dangerous waste that has to be buried into underground for millenia.
Greetings
Tomáš
Nigeljsays
Addendum. Commentary discussing a very recent published, peer reviewed study on renewables: “Yes, we have enough materials to power the world with renewable energy”
PS to Nigelj
If your “false interpretation” of what I said was correct, then why would I be saying this at almost the same time in another comment?
You cannot dismiss the Laws of Thermodynamics. It’s Physics.
QUOTE:
“Renewable energy (incl hydrogen/biomass) and nuclear are incapable of replacing cheap high density high EROI fossil fuel energy supply and the ongoing future growth of that supply demanded by modern civilization.
Current manufacturing of renewable energy equipment and infrastructure is 100% reliant upon the increasing use of fossil fuel energy from (the required) RE resource extraction, (manufacturing) transportation to installation and use.
No where on earth today does renewable energy manufacturing use 100% renewable energy in the supply chain that produces and installs that infrastructure.
Future theories of CO2 DAC and CCS are unfounded impossible unrealizable illogical myths in a world that lacks sufficient energy to maintain the existing civilisation energy requirements and future growth upon which it depends … in a world with insufficient fossil fuel energy supply.”
aka insufficient gross energy supply.
False accounting hides all manner of truths from the world.
Headlines touting RE electricity supply growth in the US this year has offset X amount coal/fossil fuel and reduced emissions is a fraud.
The reality is that several decades of excessive unproductive fossil fuel energy consumption/use has cumulatively built and installed all the RE electricity supply and ancillary infrastructure over DECADES which has finally delivered some electricity this year. They dismiss, ignore all that fossil energy used and the emission generated which enabled this years RE production. It’s a false accounting trick. They do the same with the stock markets claiming false returns over time by always dismissing and ignoring every LOSS that ever been incurred by an Investor since year dot.
If it was not for the massive wealth and resources (stolen) gained from the centuries of high carbon intensive energy use – and therefore massively high historical GHG emissions contribution – the US would never have been in a position to build out it latest RE infrastructure to begin with — it would be more Ghana or Zimbabwe or Cuba.
Same with China but over a much shorter period of time. The recent years emission drop is from an over extended expenditure of Fossil Fuel energy in recent decades as well. Our present is based solely on our past.
See the Lokta Wheel study I ref’d (or don’t. Ignoring it is an option)
patrick o twentysevensays
re Darth Nedious, follower of Palpatine of Moscow:
The reality is that several decades of excessive unproductive fossil fuel energy consumption/use has cumulatively built and installed all the RE electricity supply and ancillary infrastructure over DECADES which has finally delivered some electricity this year. They dismiss, ignore all that fossil energy used and the emission generated which enabled this years RE production. It’s a false accounting trick. They do the same with the stock markets claiming false returns over time by always dismissing and ignoring every LOSS that ever been incurred by an Investor since year dot.
Idk about the stock market, but this seems to say that all the R&D and built up infrastructure etc. is tied to one year’s output of RE. But it doesn’t all need to be done all over again for every year. You don’t need to relearn how to read every time you start a new book. Invention doesn’t need repetition; the effort is a one time upfront cost for each innovation. Each factory produces many units over some number of years; each unit installed at each constructed site produces energy for many years. Etc. The future LCA emissions are not tied to past emissions as such (that would be the “false accounting trick”); the past is fixed so our decisions now have no effect on past emissions. (So long as existing infrastructure can be maintained or replaced as needed with RE it doesn’t matter that fossil fuels were used originally.)
“ the US would never have been in a position to build out it latest RE infrastructure to begin with — it would be more Ghana or Zimbabwe or Cuba.” – now that’s an interesting point. Yes, history was not fair. But that’s orthogonal to the question of RE sustainability+feasibility.
(I skimmed some of the rest of your comment so sorry if I missed something.)
I get that there is some question about the actual EROEI values but (more later…?)
Why couldn’t the supply chain be entirely RE? I get that mining equipment might be better run with liquid(?) fuels given mines may not be on the grid – although if a mine could have a second life as an energy storage site, a grid connection might make sense. Anyway RE liquid fuels can be made (it’s not all corn ethanol – algae, agricultural/food/etc. waste and electrolysis and etc.) Or Portable easy-setup thin perovskite panels might be used for remote industries (I imagine a potential 2-class solar tech future – durable high-efficiency tech, and cheaper less durable tech that can be very quickly manufactured and deployed eg: war-zones, natural disasters. Although if the really cheap, easy to manufacture stuff gets really durable than there wouldn’t be a benefit to such specialization.
(PS nuclear (fissionable) fuel supply could be extended with breeder reactions…)
Barton Paul Levensonsays
cj: The neoliberal neocon globalist agenda of the totalitarian US centric western empire will fall by the wayside under it’s own weight in due course. This is not an ideological position
BPL: Not much.
Do you work for the tenth bureau?
Ray Ladburysays
This one goes up to eleven!
CJsays
There is no argument worth having anymore. No point to any biased/cherry-picked ‘data’ disagreements because all reason and respect has gone out the door years ago now. Once I would have shared everything word for word; but now I have come to the conviction that nothing is as expected. When I was born there were 2 billion inhabitants on this earth and it was said that oil would last until 2020; now we have moved the bar a little further but the result is always the same, sooner or later we will return to the stone age. We are 8 billion and increasing and world tensions are aligning with what the catastrophists had predicted, that is, the fight for energy sources, urbanization and the impossibility of an acceptable coexistence without a rigid control of social dynamics, to this we add that economic power is almost all in the hands of an economic religious, eschatological minority that believes it is above natural laws, the succession of events means that the old and dear horsemen of the apocalypse are arriving or perhaps they are already among us! I could go on and on in demonstrating the reasons for my pessimism, but it is useless, the facts are there for all to see and conclusions are not always dictated by the season. See them or remain blind. Why would I care either way?
Davidsays
Ned, the correct question is why should anyone listen to you? If you’ve given up hope and only calamity awaits mankind in your view, why should anyone who still aspires listen to your never ending angry lament?
I may be a old foolish fart, but even so, I think I’ll keep trying to do what I can to improve the trajectory of the future for those younger than me. As insignificant as my attempts may be, it is still FAR better than throwing in the towel.
Do you also think that “CJ” may be well the same subject as “Ned Kelly”, because the avalanches of posts created by both seem to be practically identical with respect to their content and their style?
What I cannot tolerate is spreading Russian war propaganda.
Supporting thieves, rapists and murderers in attacking peaceful people is in my opinion also a crime.
Greetings
Tomáš
Radge Haverssays
David,
Good questions.
TK,
Also a good question.
And…
My question is, why keep feeding the troll?
Nigeljsays
CJ,
Its possible humanity could end up back in the stone age, given the number of risk factors, eg: resource depletion, climate change, pollution, asteriod strike, global nuclear. war. And these could combine. together. Somebody said “humanity exists on a knife edge” which really resonated with me. But nobody can say for sure we will end up back in the stone age. We dont know enough to make accurate predictions like that. At best we can say we will face resource shortages but the results of this are less certain.
And it seems unlikely we would end up back in the stone age. Humanity does some stupid stuff but has also shown its capable of fixing problems in highly innovative ways. A lot depends on population trends. If Zebra was proven right and the demographic transition causes global population to shrink quite rapidly, we might avoid serious stone age inducing resource scarcity.
The question for me is what if anything humanity should do right now? It seems to me it would be helpful to deliberately slow down our use of resources, but this is really difficult because 1) it could destabilse the economy causing an immense crash and immense hardship and 2) mitigating climate change requires a new energy system and so will peak oil, which is all going to require resources. So we are likely going to be reliant on innovative solutions to resource scarcity, and solutions driven by circumstances.
Why should you care? Well you must care a lot because you keep repeating this stuff over and over. I can understand your pessimism – and I share it to some extent, But your pessimism is off the chart! I hope its not getting you down.
Stefan on MODELS “…of course you like to run them at a high resolution to get as much Regional detail as
possible and that’s why a lot of runs stop in 2100 because already that takes many months of
supercomputer time to do that um but you can also run coarser simpler models that are good for paleoclimate research for doing thousands of years or even hundreds of thousands of years simulations and they they are also done into the future because of course there are slow responding parts of the climate system like ice sheets like the sea level rise that will go on for thousands of years after we have stopped warming because Antarctica will take so long to melt to a new equilibrium state
for example the IPCC says you know sea level rise um is probably um half a meter to a meter by 2100;
but it could be up to 2 meters by 2150; it could already be up to five meters and for the year 2300; they can’t rule out even more than 15 meters of global sea level rise so there are simulations for these slow responding aspects like sea level that actually have been done for much longer into the future
Nate Q: “How often does this become too much for you to Bare uh as a human um because I really enjoy this conversation uh We’ve shared some warmth and a few jokes and quite a few scientific insights but when you just described 2150 and Beyond I I got that that pit in my stomach that I often do when my brain started to visualize some of the things that are going to happen to this earth after we’re gone how how do you manage this over your whole career ?”
53:47 – National vs Planetary Commons
(eg amazon forest and more)
– Probable Futures
“How likely is it that Earth is headed towards a 3° Celsius increase versus
pre-industrial times — there are two kinds of answers to that the first
one would be uh would the global economy collapse before we even
reach it and therefore we don’t reach it so because the emissions stop
by disaster rather than by um organized uh transition to Renewables uh some [ SCIENTIFIC CLIMATE ] colleagues believe we simply wouldn’t
reach three degrees because already long before we’d be in
such deep trouble um that basically the the economy collapses
um there’s another way of looking at it which is more positive …… ”
so that um I’m not I haven’t got the latest number in my head but is
there’s the climate action tracker where you can look it
up where we’re heading with u current implemented policies and
currently announced uh climate policies and uh I think we’re
already below 2.5 or so at least but we certainly need to redouble our efforts
to keep the warming uh as close to 1.5 as we possibly can.
ONE should have been that the Carbon Tracker does not track all nations, nor do they do it accurately, and nor is it a science website but a think tank ….. you’d think a climate scientist who is committed to scientific accuracy would tell people this? Yes? No?
Apparently, no, is the answer. (smile)
01:28:14 – Climate Promises vs Business as Usual
— what if for instance Germany the United Kingdom the United States where I live did
everything perfectly according to what the politicians at the Paris Accord uh agreed to
to adopt net zero plans by 2050 with appropriate Technologies and cuts would that
even make a dent in the temperature and some of the impacts you’ve discussed by
the year 2100 if the rest of the world um all the other countries continued uh business
as usual Pace? — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF2TwJ5d6w&t=5294s
————————
Now something even ‘realer’ – The Energy Collapse | Louis Arnoux | System Failure by 2030
19 Sept 2024 Energy Crisis – What happens when economics takes precedence over thermodynamics?
Eventually, the system collapses—because being incompatible with thermodynamics is impossible.
That’s the stark message of this week’s guest, Louis Arnoux, a scientist, engineer and managing director of Fourth Transition, who has been working on this problem for decades. Louis and his team’s research point to our energy systems collapsing by 2030 because we’re having to spend more energy than ever before to extract fuel. Soon, the energy cost of extraction will equal the energy benefit. Such an equilibrium is, in his words, a dead state.
In the episode, Louis gives a phenomenal overview of the three thermodynamic traps human civilisation is caught in, including how decarbonising to renewables is exacerbating the thermodynamic problem. He explains how our current energy systems work antithetically to the sun and the planet, including the waste problem, before highlighting the role of economics in the creation of an impossible system. He then explains what a possible energy system could look like with the technology we have available, and how we can engineer that system to mimic the efficiency and productivity of life on the planet.
My apologies the end part — possible energy system could look like with the technology we have available, and how we can engineer that system to mimic the efficiency and productivity of life on the planet. — looks decidedly loopy or a private boondoggle (beware and sceptical) … the thermodynamics part and energy supply trouble ahead post-2030 may be useful.
A semi-controlled impulse from the calving of a glacier in Greenland last year leads to surprising observations and perhaps empirical results to our knowledge of large-scale fluid dynamics
“The subsequent mega-tsunami — one of the highest in recent history — set off a wave which became trapped in the bendy, narrow fjord for more than a week, sloshing back and forth every 90 seconds.
The phenomenon, called a “seiche,” refers to the rhythmic movement of a wave in an enclosed space, similar to water splashing backwards and forwards in a bathtub or cup. One of the scientists even tried (and failed) to recreate the impact in their own bathtub.
While seiches are well-known, scientists previously had no idea they could last so long.
This took place in a large Greenland fjord — massive but not as massive as the ocean. And that’s where global-scale geophysical forces also take place, such as from tidal pull. Is not AMO ad ENSO just a massive seiche operating on the subsurface thermocline?
It is so amazing to watch the beautiful satellite views using the various GOES channels of the initial formation of the low level spin that is now T.S. Helene, which is forecast to become a very large (90th percentile) major hurricane that will lash portions of the U.S. over the next few days.
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
Fact: efficiency in nature, except for human artifacts, is very low. The efficiency of photosynthesis, the foundation of life on Earth, is 2% nominal, 0.3 to 0.8% real. It does not matter, as it is resilience that is critical to survive and flourish.
We need to re-learn or learn how the living, in all its complexity, exists and persists, in order to solve our current existential crises. And we need to take action. I stand with all the people on this blog and anywhere else who are doers, instead of lamenters. All necessary solutions exists today, including technological. All kind of critics, more or less competent to evaluate those solutions or those who claim to have other solutions, but have not delivered after decades, are wasting our time, and it is time that we do not have.
Solutions for energy: Mark Jacobson “No Miracles Needed”
“To those who wrongly insist we lack the tools to decarbonize our economy today, I say:
read energy systems expert Mark Jacobson’s amazing new book. In No Miracles Needed,
Jacobson presents a comprehensive and detailed, yet highly accessible and readable blueprint
for the options we have right now to address the climate crisis by taking advantage of
existing renewable energy, storage, and smart grid technology combined with electrification
of transportation systems, and efficiency measures. Read this book and be informed and
engaged to help tackle the defining challenge of our time.”
Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at
Penn State University and author of
The New Climate War
Tomáš Kaliszsays
In Re to Silvia Leahu-Aluas, 25 Sep 2024 at 3:07 AM,
Many thanks for your summary, to which I fully agree.
I would like to add two points:
1) The low efficiency of biomass production in comparison with available technology for direct solar energy conversion into electricity is a clear sign that “biofuels” (and/or biomass combustion) are in fact an utterly nonsense and their support by subsidies a totally mad policy, effectively incentivizing and rewarding destruction of valuable natural biotopes and significant reduction of vital “ecological services” provided to us (free of charge!) by nature. Unfortunately, all this evil is touted as a progress towards better future of mankind, in the name of “decarbonization”.
I think that these would-be environmental policies represent a good example of the “phony environmentalism” often mentioned by JCM.
2) I admire the clear insights provided by professor Mark Jacobson, with a single exception. I agree that we have all the necessary technical means for economy decarbonization. What I doubt about is the economical/political feasibility of the desired transformation, if we should rely solely on the technologies that already are commercially mature.
There is still a weak link which makes economy transition to renewable energy sources economically uncompetitive with continuing in fossil fuel exploitation, and I doubt that more-less artificial incentives like carbon tax, emission allowances and especially direct subsidies for arbitrarily selected technologies or administrative equivalents thereto help overcoming it – because
(i) I am afraid that economy will matter anyway and ignoring it may hit us as a boomerang, and
(ii) more importantly, especially direct subsidies (which can be financed by public debt creation and thus are dangerously appealing for politicians, equally as keeping in parallel existing direct or indirect/hidden subsidies for fossil fuel use in force) may provide totally false signals to economy and direct the necessary innovation towards dead end solutions.
The weak link is the absence of an efficient and cheap technology for electricity storage, which could enable temporal separation of electricity production from its consumption.
I participate in a project
that might bring us closer to a first more-less satisfying technical solution for a large scale / seasonal electricity storage, and do believe that the solution developed by us is definitely not a single option.
Therefore, I do not think there is any reason for despair. I am aware that we can easily lose our civilization and allow its destruction, but I think that it can happen only if we resign on technical creativity and on core values of a democratic society. Our future is not out of our control – it depends on us.
I believe that common acceptance of values like individual freedom, mutual respect and tolerance, discussion culture and willingness to defend these values against enemies is crucial, because it not only creates the space for human creativity but also enables that products of technical creativity will address public needs and societal problems.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “What I doubt about is the economical/political feasibility of the desired transformation”
says with a straight face the same Tomas Kalisz, who to the quantitative criticism of the economical/political feasibility of his irrigation schemes he promoted in dozens?, 100s ? of posts – answered:
TK “Unfortunately, I cannot confirm how accurate [his opponent’s] quantitative estimations of the economical feasibility are because I have never analyzed [his own proposal] with respect to its technical and economical feasibility.“.
Criticizing imaginary straw in the eye of Jacobson, and not noticing a 10s of TRILLIONS dollars A YEAR for a fraction of 0.3K cooling beam in your own, eh?
“I have never analyzed the idea of “artificial Sahara greening” with respect to its technical and economical feasibility.”
One of the possible explanations for the contradiction objected in your post could be that Tomáš Kalisz / Tomas Kalisz is a split personality, randomly switching between Jožin z bažin and Mr. Hyde.
Another possible explanation is that the strange Tomas Kalisz tirelessly promoting Sahara irrigation scheme with annual operational costs in trillions USD, in hope that he helps saving Saudi Arabia and Russia as fossil fuel sources for the world economy and important international players, does in fact exist in your posts only.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz One of the possible explanations for the contradiction objected in your post could be that Tomáš Kalisz / Tomas Kalisz is a split personality, randomly switching between Jožin z bažin and Mr. Hyde.
That’s your BEST response to my challenging your intellectual dishonesty ?
I quote:
P: “Criticizing imaginary straw in the eye of Jacobson, and not noticing a 10s of TRILLIONS dollars A YEAR for a fraction of 0.3K cooling beam in your own, eh?”
“I have never analyzed [your Sahara scheme] with respect to its technical and economical feasibility. Tomas Kalisz.
Don Williamssays
China produces about 80% of the world’s solar panels and one reference I cited in an earlier comment said much of the polysilicon smelting is being done with COAL. In fact, we have the case of coal being mined in the USA and shipped to China. China emits 31.2% of world’s CO2, US emits only 12.7% (but much higher on a per capita basis) One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels, not with renewable energy. At the same time, more fossil fuels are being burned to meet growing demands for Primary energy.
a) From 2019 to 2023, China’s Primary Power Consumption increased by 20% or 5% per year. From 2022 to 2023, P increased by 6%.
b) From 2019 to 2023 China’s Energy CO2 emissions increased by 12% or 3% per year. In 2022-2023, energy CO2 emission increased by 6%.
c) From 2019 to 2023, China’s coal consumption increased by 12% or 3% per year. In 2022-2023 her coal consumption increased by 4%.
d) From 2019 to 2023, China’s Renewable Energy (RN) increased by 240% or 60% per year. In 2022-2023 it increased by 21%.
I.e China’s demand for energy, her coal consumption rate and her rate of CO2 emissions are INCREASING while her growth rate in Renewable energy is SLOWING.
CJsays
Don, thanks for that information.
Don, one could also frame that last part as – China is the primary manufacturing base for the world’s technology and equipment and infrastructure besides looking after it’s own 1.4 billion Souls [ 17.5% of the world population vs 4.1% for the USA ] therefore looking at a bigger picture THE WORLD’s demand for energy, her coal consumption rate and her rate of CO2 emissions are INCREASING while her growth rate in Renewable energy is SLOWING.
A major driver for this increasing demand of energy remains the USA and not China alone.
It is no accident but intentional distortions and disinformation that Govts / Political Parties of the USA of Europe, of the first world, the OECD and the Middle east Oil producers constantly avoid any mention of PER CAPITA CO2 / CH4 / GHG emissions versus the rest of the world including China, Russia, and the Global South nations of the world which are all much lower.
They do this both currently and Historically to (intentionally) manipulate misinform the audience – it’s everyday propaganda:101. It is no less dishonest and fraudulent than what the fossil fuel companies have done to minimise and distort emissions impacts.
Biden, Obama, Harris the Democrat and the republican parties are experts at this kind of propaganda manipulation and people fall for it constantly. Then they vote based on these kinds of false beliefs, about emissions and China’s role.
I see no way to overcome this information manipulation by the powerful and wealthy who typically offer little more than “lip service policies” to driving down emissions while blaming China for being the biggest emitting “nation” and “economy” today.
I expect they will continue to succeed in order to avoid accountability and hide the facts from the world at large and their own voters (if there are any).
Piotrsays
Don Williams: One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Answer this:
What is the whole life-cycle energy produce/GHG emitted ratio of:
a) wind turbine
b) solar power
c) gas power plant
d) coal power plant
When you can PROVE that a) and b) are COMPARABLE to those of c) and d) – only then you may disparage a) and b) as “not renewable” .
Until then, you are deliberately comparing apples and orangutans.
Don Williamssays
1) Actually I’m wondering if poor policy/solar advocacy is going to ensure the renewable airliner runs out of runway before it can take off.
2) Again, if you look at the Energy Institute Statistical Report for 2024 you see Fossil Fuel use worldwide rose 1.48% and CO2 emissions rose 1.59%. Extending that trend Over 20 years if Primary Energy Demand rose 50% then CO2 emissions in 2043 would rise 32% even at current rate of making renewables. That would mean 812 GT of CO2 emitted. Plus we have another 10 GT/year from Industrial Processes and Land Use. , giving a total of 1012 GT CO2 (Assuming CO2 emissions from those sources do not increase even with high population growth/demand for energy)..
3) 1012 GT is getting close to the forecast level at which the odds of staying below 2 deg C drop to 50%. — and that assumes we immediately go to net zero in 2043.
4) On 22 Sept 2024 Nigelj gave a link above to a technology review article reporting that we have enough materials to make the energy transition and with an acceptable level of associated CO2 from making renewables. However, that article in turn is just reciting a summary of a second report –located here: https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(23)00001-6#
5) I blinked at the article’s claim the authors have no “competing interests” given that the lead author is with The Breakthrough Institute. (See Wiki –especially the Michael Mann quote.) However facts are facts whether Jesus or Lucifer cite them. Article does admit to some shortcomings — doesn’t address battery storage and waves hands re electrical transmission infrastructure.
6) NOTE however the large CO2 emissions associated with polysilicon smelting (Figure 3) and the article’s comment:
“The high carbon footprint of solar-grade polysilicon, caused by the dominance of coal-intensive manufacturing in China, also highlights the importance of China’s future transition away from coal-fired energy and the value of diversifying solar-grade polysilicon manufacturing beyond China. Developing alternative, less energy-intensive industrial pathways for raw material production can reduce the climate and environmental impacts associated with these supply chains.”
7) Another interesting item is the current high CO2 associated with cement may rule out expansion of Hydro given the enormous amount of cement needed to build a dam.
Nigeljsays
Don Williams,
“1) Actually I’m wondering if poor policy/solar advocacy is going to ensure the renewable airliner runs out of runway before it can take off……”
You havent answered Piotrs questions. As pointed out by Piotr and zebra people who dont answer questions and who instead raise other points, make themsleves look like trolls. I find it frustrating and impolite and a short answer is perfectly viable.
“2) Again, if you look at the Energy Institute Statistical Report for 2024 you see Fossil Fuel use worldwide rose 1.48% and CO2 emissions rose 1.59%. ”
Your detailed numbers on progress with renewables arent saying anything new. We know renewables are not being built fast enough. You make youself look like a denialist spreading negativity about renewables. There is no clarity about whether you support renewables, or what alternative you promote. In my internet experience such people either turn out to be climate denialists, or solutions denialists, or anti capitalist dogmatists who dont like the fact corporations profit from renewables. Could you clarify your position?
“5) I blinked at the article’s claim the authors have no “competing interests” given that the lead author is with The Breakthrough Institute….”
The Breakthrough Institute is a global research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges. I think its completely unsurprising that the author would belong to such a group. The point is its not the same as the author having financial interests in renewables so Im not seeing an undisclosed conflict of interest.
“5)….Article does admit to some shortcomings — doesn’t address battery storage ”
I quoted a study on renewables finding the world has enough materials and you raised those issues with it. Batteries were not included because I suspect they are not electricity generation per se, and nobody is arguing batteries are the main answer to wind and solar intermittency. They are only suitable for very short term storage. We will be mostly reliant on other forms of storage such as carbon neutral electrofuels, or pumped hydro. The required resources are abundant. Even lithium is quite abundant although there are issues with cobalt.
“The high carbon footprint of solar-grade polysilicon, caused by the dominance of coal-intensive manufacturing in China, also highlights the importance of China’s future transition away from coal-fired energy and the value of diversifying solar-grade polysilicon manufacturing beyond China….:
Ok its a valid concern. However it involves geopolitics and its hard to see an easy solution. The transition to renewables is likely to be messy like this. Famous quote: The perfect is the enemy of the good (voltaire). We just do the best we can.
Just a general comment to your previous post arguing renewables are not really renewable because of fossil fules in their manufactur and repacement etc. Yes building renewables uses fossil fuels. There is obviously no other way. We are in a transition phase to a fully renewable system free of need for fossil fuels. Therefore I think that saying our wind farms etc are not truly renewables is technically correct, but is also useless pedantry.
“7) Another interesting item is the current high CO2 associated with cement may rule out expansion of Hydro given the enormous amount of cement needed to build a dam.”
Yes cement is carbon intensive, and so raises questions about building more hydro power or pumped hydro storage. However low carbon cements are being developed. And Mark Z Jacobson is an engineer and has done multiple in depth studies finding renewables can power the entire world, and his approach relies mostly on dealing with intermittency issues by over building generation and smart grids, rather than with energy storage. This may be the best approach long term especially given that renewables are now cheap to build (refer to the Lazard enegy analysis available free online).
Renewables clearly face many difficulties, and have some environmental impacts, but I just find it hard to see a better overall alternative to our climate predicament. Nuclear power might have some role to play, but there are huge reasons to believe its not a viable stand alone solution and its very slow to build and this is a major problem from a climate perspective. Expecting people to slash their energy consumption by huge levels doesn’t look particularly viable. Fusion power might possibly provide gazillions of watts of cheap power, but its not going to be quick enough to deal with keeping warming under 2 degrees, unless you believe in miracles. Its still at very early prototype phase and the technology is massively complex and challenging. Peak oil and coal will likely force us towards renewables anyway.
Don Williamssays
@Nigelj
1) Re Piotr, see my response to him below.
2) I have no obligation to join Piotr’s religious cult nor anyone else’s in the course of gathering information.
3) I mentioned the Wiki article on The Breakthrough Institute because I was citing their article and did not want any paranoid people suggesting I was being their stalking horse. I also noted that people’s ideology or covert funding does not affect the truth or nontruth of facts either way. That the facts, not people , should be judged. A concept seemingly foreign here.
The Wiki article cited Michael Mann as follows:
4) Thank you for the Mark Z Jacobson cite. Do you know of anyone who has done a Delphi analysis of global energy geopolitics, economics, detailed tradeoffs and developed a technology roadmap for the next 20 years of energy transition? EU and UK have done several ones, I don’t see any in the USA. Delphi analysis: multiple experts — from multiple factions and different disciplines debating through multiple iterations In this case, experts in foreign policy, military strategy, economists, financiers, various scientists and engineers in energy related disciplines, etc. Method was developed here in the USA during the Cold War. I would also be interested in any Net Assessments done in this area.
5) 5) I have seen multiple works (Jem Bendell, Nate Hagens, Pablo Servigne/Raphael Stevens etc ) expressing scepticism re the climate energy transition/continued existence and growth of our economy. I would be interested in info that confirms or refutes their concerns.
Nigeljsays
Don Williams
“4) Thank you for the Mark Z Jacobson cite. Do you know of anyone who has done a Delphi analysis of global energy geopolitics, economics, detailed tradeoffs and developed a technology roadmap for the next 20 years of energy transition? EU and UK have done several ones, I don’t see any in the USA. ”
No sorry. Could you please answer my previous question namely: “There is no clarity about whether you support renewables, or what alternative you promote…. Could you clarify your position?”
“55) I have seen multiple works (Jem Bendell, Nate Hagens, Pablo Servigne/Raphael Stevens etc ) expressing scepticism re the climate energy transition/continued existence and growth of our economy. I would be interested in info that confirms or refutes their concerns.”
Some of these people have expressed scepticism that the world has enough materials to build renewables. I have already posted a link above:
“Yes, we have enough materials to power the world with renewable energy”
Please understand this link is related to a published peer reviewd paper in a reputable journal and this carries more weight than someones informal opinion on an internt blog or you tube lecture.
I have read some material by Nate Higgins on The Great Simplification. I think hes a smart guy and expresses some valid concerns. I agree we will run short of some materials eventually or they will get expensive to extract, and so it is likely economic growth will thus slow and we may have to make do with less technology than we are used to currently. Its obvious because the worlds resources are finite and we are rapidly using the ones that are easy to extract.
But in my view its very hard to predict how much we will end up simplifying, and when we will hit serious trouble, because there are dozens of variables like future discoveries of minerals (its recently been found there are millions of tons of rich deposits of rare minerals in geothermal brines) human ingenuity and population trends. Its easy to get a bit too pessimistic.
Barton Paul Levensonsays
DW: One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels, not with renewable energy.
BPL: Both can be recycled, and recycling is already starting:
https://www.startribune.com/wind-turbine-recycling-blades-landfills/600234699
“Despite recycling efforts, many older wind turbine blades still end up in landfills”
Not totally true — lots of wind turbine blades are buried on coal strip mines. But this problem will grow as wind is deployed unless a good solution is found.
To show the logical fallacy at the root of your argument – one does not need “data” – an analysis of your logic suffices:
1. Your claim: Don Williams 25 Sep:
“ One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels ”
2. My challenge to the LOGIC of your claim: Piotr 26 Sep:
” The perfect is the enemy of the good. Answer this: What is the whole life-cycle energy produce/GHG emitted ratio of:
a) wind turbine
b) solar power
c) gas power plant
d) coal power plant
When you can PROVE that a) and b) are COMPARABLE to those of c) and d) – only then you may disparage a) and b) as “not renewable” . Until then, you are deliberately comparing apples and orangutans.
=================
3. Your “respons” – Don Williams Sep 27 …. 7 points, brimming with % , numbers and links , yet NONE of the 7 points, nor your “data”, … addressing my challenge to your claim:
“When you can PROVE that [life-cycle GHG emissions/Energy of the wind and solar] are COMPARABLE to those of gas and coal power plants – ONLY THEN you may disparage
the renewables as “not renewable”.
You wouldn’t be by any chance a politician? You know, one of the people who when asked a direct question that challenges their ideologically based-claim – “answer” instead … questions nobody has asked them?
Don Williamssays
1) Actually, the usual trick of politicians, lawyers – and self-appointed cult leaders – is to “frame” a discussion to allow only one view. In this case, that the current policy is the only viable one and beyond criticism.
2) The point of my comment was that massive imports of Chinese solar panels – made with coal we shipped across the Pacific to them – might not keep temps below 2 deg C and might not be the best use of our resources. Will that supply continue if this new Cold War heats up? Should we make the panels here with less CO2 emissions? Should we place greater emphasis on wind turbines? Should we force local utility companies to move quickly to connect residential roofmounted panels instead of letting them slow roll homeowners for years? Wouldn’t mounting the panels in densely populated urban centers – where the demand is – work better than transporting the electricity over great distances with the transmission losses? Can we reduce energy demand?
3) You make a habit of constantly attacking people here who do not agree with your views – instead of polite discussion. Yet what you –and I – think does not matter. What matters is the opinion of billionaires who dump $90 million into an election – EACH. What matters is that the S&P 500 index continues to climb so long as our financiers want — and then not. What matters is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can run on a platform of no-fracking and no-drilling permits in 2020 and 4 years later suddenly be supporting fracking and with massive oil production/ oil permitting over the past 4 years.
4) I have seen multiple works (Jem Bendell, Nate Hagens, Pablo Servigne/Raphael Stevens) expressing scepticism re the climate energy transition/continued existence and growth of our economy. I would be interested in info that confirms or refutes their concerns. In the course of collecting that info I have no obligation to join your religious Cargo Cult or that of any other nobody.
CMIP6 models exhibit a huge range in annual mean evapotranspiration (ET) with estimates ranging from 406.9 mm yr−1 (FGOALS-f3-L) to 757.6 mm yr−1 (Amon-NESM3). This substantial range underpins why temperature could not be resolved better than several degrees Celsius along with little practical information about the drivers of cloud fraction, precipitation area/intensity, SW effective forcing, EEI, or GSAT.
Reanalysis shows a decreasing evapotranspiration (ET) trend of -0.20 mm yr-2, while the CMIP6 mean indicates an increase of +0.37 mm yr-2. Multi-source ensemble products such as REA, DOLCE V3.0, and CAMELE report a decline of -0.28 mm yr-2 during the same period. By contrast, land surface models (LSMs) show an increase of +0.32 mm yr-2. LSMs, which are typically coupled to CMIP-style ocean-atmosphere systems, likely share intercorrelated deficiencies that contribute to these disparities.
As previously alluded by Bjorn Stevens, the only way CMIP style models could have matched historical temperature change is by significant error compensation.
“”” Many of the key processes influencing land climate are spatially heterogeneous, difficult to simulate, and/or poorly observed. For example, land surface models have longstanding problems in simulating turbulent fluxes of heat and water for reasons that are not well understood. Sparse and time-limited observational records of important land-climate variables, including root-zone soil moisture and near-surface humidity, further impede efforts to advance knowledge of the land-climate system. The role of humanity presents another challenge, with large uncertainties in modelling the influences of land use and management on fluxes of carbon, energy, and water in the past, present, and future””” … “””Persistent and poorly constrained deficiencies in land surface models—highlighted by the PLUMBER project suggest that model development alone, though necessary, is unlikely to answer the key questions about land climate highlighted above.”””
In summary, a return to fundamental thermodynamic constraints and theory is essential because the tuned process level parameterization is simply not working.
“””The Protocol for the Analysis of Land Surface Models (PALS) Land Surface Model Benchmarking Evaluation Project (PLUMBER) illustrated the value of prescribing a priori performance targets in model intercomparisons. It showed that the performance of turbulent energy flux predictions from different land surface models, at a broad range of flux tower sites using common evaluation metrics, was on average worse than relatively simple empirical models. For sensible heat fluxes, all land surface models were outperformed by a linear regression against downward shortwave radiation. For latent heat flux, all land surface models were outperformed by a regression against downward shortwave radiation, surface air temperature, and relative humidity.”””
Cutting-edge researchers in geophysical fluid dynamics discussing ECS and cloud feedback and subsequent Q&A appear to have no awareness of thermodynamic land surface process constraints whatsoever in their training. This highlights a damaging disconnect between disciplines within climate science. https://youtu.be/CJAY5kvT7MQ?si=xGOgDrBPXK1v6bSN&t=1811
In reimagining Earth in the Earth System, Gordon Bonan and co remark:
“””Nature-based climate solutions have been advocated for centuries, but have been distorted by academic bias and colonialist prejudice”””
“””Today’s Earth system science, with its roots in global models of climate, unfolds in similar ways to the past. With Earth system models, geoscientists are again defining the ecology of the Earth system. Here we reframe Earth system science so that the biosphere and its ecology are equally integrated with the fluid Earth to enable Earth system prediction for planetary stewardship. Central to this is the need to overcome an intellectual heritage to the models that elevates geoscience and marginalizes ecology and local land knowledge. The call for kilometer-scale atmospheric and ocean models, without concomitant scientific and computational investment in the land and biosphere, perpetuates the geophysical view of Earth and will not fully provide the comprehensive actionable information needed for a changing climate.”””
“””Earth system science, while recognizing the climate services of the biosphere, has a geophysical bias in interdisciplinary collaboration”””
“””To realize the potential for planetary stewardship, Earth system models must embrace the living world equally with the fluid world”””
“””…intellectual bias is evident in today’s Earth system science and the associated Earth system models, which are the state-of-the-art models used to inform climate policy. The popular characterization of Earth system science lauds its interdisciplinary melding of physics, chemistry, and biology, but the models emphasize the physics and fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans and present a limited perspective of terrestrial ecosystems in the Earth system.”””
It is undeniable that humanity is directly depleting Earth System stability through its profound disruption of land systems. Those who actively deny, distort, minimize or misrepresent this reality are doing more harm than they may realize.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vp-harris-as-president-i-will-not-ban-fracking-165710122.html
Yet another indication on the critical nature of the cultural question. I have no doubt Harris and her team understand the situation with climate. Yet there is considerable evidence to suggest that promising a fracking ban will cost her the election.
If we are to be governed by some version of democracy and meet the climate threat, we’re not yet were we need to be with mass public understanding
Exactly so. And it may not even be in this case driven by national opinion, but rather by the public’s view in the swing state of Pennsylvania–in quite a few scenarios, as I understand it, the election could potentially turn on the result there. And a fracking ban is not popular in Pennsylvania.
(For readers not so familiar with the political landscape here, the US elects Presidents indirectly, via an 18th-century institution called the “Electoral College,” in which each state is allotted a specific number of electors based on population. State officials conduct the election according to their state’s laws; almost all use a winner-takes-all system by which all the state’s electors are pledged to vote for the candidate who received the most votes. In today’s landscape, a few states–so-called “swing states”–are closely competitive, and thus receive much attention and effort from both sides, as they are quite likely to be decisive. Pennsylvania (Harris +0.5 this morning) is one; the others generally considered as such right now are Arizona (Trump +0.5), Nevada (tied), Georgia (Trump +0.2), North Carolina (Trump +0.6), Wisconsin (Harris +1.4), and Michigan (Harris +1.1). All numbers are poll averages aggregated by RealClearPolitics. For the country as a whole, Harris is currently leading by 1.8%–a value that has been steady since last week. To our shame as a nation, this election is very, very close–margin of error of these polls is typically about +/- 3%.)
Kevin, you’re right about Pennsylvania. The whole thing is going to come down to Pennsylvania. If Harris wins the state, the probability is high of her maintaining the “blue wall.” If she loses the state, the probability of her replacing those 19 electoral votes via some combination of sunbelt states is depressing very low.
Given how battleground state polling has under-polled Trump votes in 2016 & 2020 (a polling issue that the pollsters admit they’ve no reasonable certainty has been corrected), the warning signs are flashing brightly. When the Harris campaign says they’re currently underdogs, that’s accurate. Whom ever is guiding her economic messaging is doing her a disservice, it’s killing her chances of winning.
From last months UV thread posted by CJ on 1st September: Holly Buck says (my paraphrasing) that people are genuinely worried about whether renewables will work, and that we should listen and not claim their concerns are all all a result of denialist missinformation / disinformation, and that we should do something about addressing their concerns. This sounds right in principle, because many people would have had these thoughts because they are natural concerns (although some people might have raised the issues after reading denialist websites). And if we say the general publics concerns are a result of missinformation, they might prefer to believe the missinformation, because this is easier than admitting to themselves they were fooled.
However millions of words have already been written in many forums answering questions about renewables and showing problems are over stated, and all this based on careful peer reviewed studies and experts views and without referencing denialist views. Despite this some people refuse to accept that renewables are the best solution overall. You can lead a horse to water….But fortunately polling shows the majority of people support renewables:
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/majorities-of-americans-prioritize-renewable-energy-back-steps-to-address-climate-change/
https://www.renewableuk.com/news/672538/Polling-shows-strong-support-for-pro-renewables-policies-as-RenewableUK-launches-manifesto-.htm
It looks like Escobar has hijacked the discussion, but he made the crucial admission of defeat by stating: “which is clearly a lie / disinformation because “renewables” are NOT ETERNAL”.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIqrYFbXMAANUk6.jpg
Anybody see why one must not talk about Fight Club?
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q
IOW: They need to extract the crude oil to power the technology that will find a replacement for that same crude oil which will eventually price its way out of existence
.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIqrYFbXMAANUk6.jpg
I linked the above chart because it shows that the USA consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day, but only extracts 12-13 million barrels of crude oil per day from its territory. Yet, both political parties claim the USA is “energy independent”. The misappropriated euphemism for that situation is Climate Change.
Yes Paul, politicians play politics all the time and Stats are the best tool for that, unless there are reports of people eating Pets and when someone who is accused of about to wipe out democracy and become the next Hitler dictator.
.The main point first though is that Oil is one component of the “energy” supply in the US. Not all that Oil is used as energy either — the imported stuff (heavy crude) to the US is what they need for lubricants, plastics, bitumen and petrochemicals because the light sweet crudes and shale oils are lacking in those components.
Much used to come from Venezuela btw until the US demolished their oil industry, sanction the nation and destroyed their society leading to record refugee numbers from there running to the US border for years.
Add to that the US exports large amounts of Natural Gas and a portion of the natural Gas (fracked supply especially) is actually “liquids” that are removed for other uses including mixed into fuels at refineries, then all in all, throw in coal, nuclear, hydro then +/- swings and roundabouts it ends up the US is close to “energy independent” .
Of course it wouldn’t take much to stick a pin in that narrative balloon. I too very much agree with Charles — until it is possible to mine the minerals, ores, produce the metals from that, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies, build out the new electricity networks with back battery supply, transport everything, without the use of any fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy supply” in the sense which the term is currently promoted by climate scientists and activists.
The Just Stop Oil is another spurious misadventure in the making
In a hypothetical dream world where 100% renewable energy/electricity supply for every use exists – zero fossil fuels, zero Oil for gasoline diesel being used in cars trucks or planes or shipping etc.
If you assume Oil will still be pumped in order to supply Lubricants Plastics and all the Petrochemicals needed for a modern civilization -then the same amount of OIL will still need to be processed through OIL Refineries like happens today.
But what do we do with the ~70% by Volume of the left over components of Bitumen, diesel, gasoline, kerosene, AV Gas, benzine, butane and all the other ‘flammable gases/fluids’ left over as “waste” that is left behind after extracting what we wanted from the Oil?
Where does all that go as a waste stream if we cannot burn it? Curious minds are asking but this issue does not exist (apparently)
You still didn’t address the 20 million barrels/day of oil consumed vs only 12 million barrels extracted. Place this in the context of if the USA consumed 20 wheat bushels for every 12 wheat bushels harvested from farms. Would the USA still be considered the breadbasket of the world? Considering that the USA is supposedly the number one producer of crude oil in the world, this should get everyone thinking. Need a Sankey diagram to show where all the flows go. About 1 million of oil consumed is from biofuels, and I don’t think LNG is part of “liquid oil”.
CJ, renewables are indeed not really renewables until they are completely independent of the need for any fossil fuels in the manufacturing chain etcetera. But this is in a strict technical sense. We have to call solar and wind power something, and I would say renewables is a decent approximation, because 1) they rely on the near limitless energy of the sun and 2) you can recycle the components, or most of them. We dont need to get too pedantic about terminology.
Manufacturing things like petrochemicals like bitumen creates waste products with global warming potential and so what do we do with the waste products, burn them or bury them? Burning them is not a huge problem, because the quantities are so small compared to burning fossil fuels for energy use that the impact on global warming would be small, and it could be countered anyway by carbon sequestration.
The waste products left over from manufacturing fuels like diesel are not a problem, because once diesel is phased out so are the waste products.
Just a bit of a rant about the thing that worries me. Tidying up the petrochemicals industry as a whole might be the greater challenge. So it is only used where really necessary, so it doesn’t rely on fossil fuels for its energy inputs, and doesnt cause other forms of pollution, or used products just dumped in landfill. There are feasible tecnical solutions to most of this, but sometimes I despair that its possible given the nature of humanity and its tendency to be wasteful and to ignore environmental degradation, and socialise its costs. But I feel we have to hope it will be done better and lobby for that. One positive is most peope appear to be sympathetic to recycling schemes and that is a step in the right direction and solves a range of problems.
cj: Much used to come from Venezuela btw until the US demolished their oil industry, sanction the nation and destroyed their society leading to record refugee numbers from there running to the US border for years.
BPL: Venezuela is still pumping oil. The sanctions came about because Venezuela used to be a showcase Latin American democracy, but was taken over by a dictator who fixes elections and who, quite without help from American sanctions, destroyed the economy and society. People are leaving because Venezuela is now a tightly-controlled dictatorship. You seem to have forgotten that part of the story.
to Paul Pukite
“You still didn’t address the 20 million barrels/day of oil consumed vs only 12 million barrels extracted.”
I do not need to address it again, because I already did, as have others.
I repeat, “energy independent” captures all energy, not only oil.
RE “I don’t think LNG is part of “liquid oil”.”
Whatever. Natural Gas Liquids etc are counted as part of the global Oil supply. extracted Oil from the ground only accounts for +80% of what reports say is the ~100mb/d of “Oil” production/supply etc.
Go check it out. I’m right. I am also right that hydro geothermal wind/solar will never replace this liquid energy, plastics, bitumen, critical fertilizer / petrochemical supply.
I am also right that holding temps to 1.5C by 2050 (or even 2C) is disinformation / false hope, as is the fraudulent theory about ZEC. We are surrounded with unscientific wishful thinking and gullible mysticism essentially on all side – pro/con climate science and catastrophic heating.
Nigelj
“We dont need to get too pedantic about terminology.”
Oh really? And since when did terminology not matter to the pedantic meat computers on this forum? I’ll tell you – Never.
Until, like now, it suits the distorted unscientific and fraudulent propaganda narratives – to you can say the correct logical terminology and physics no longer matters that much.
Nature bats last, not hope in delusions disinformation and lies.
cj: “ In a hypothetical dream world where 100% renewable energy/electricity supply for every use exists
That would be relevant if anybody here advocated such hypothetical world. You can stabilize the atmospheric CO2 without bringing “every use” if fossil fuels to zero -its enough to bring them to the same level as the natural uptake of CO2 from atm (via net sequestration in biomass and soils, and reaction of atm CO2 with calcareous and silicate rocks. plus whatever human sequestration) .
The perfectionist strawman “100% renewable energy/electricity supply for every use“, is an example of “ all or nothing” fallacy. Has been used by denier industry for year, with the implication: If you didn’t give up ALL fossil fuels then you are a hypocrite and therefore you are in no position to criticize your neighbour who uses 5 times more of fossil fuels than you, nor criticize the fossil fuel industrial complex, and their trillions of dollars in profits
For the same reason Ogilvy and Mather PR firm, hired by BP, created and promoted “the carbon footprint calculator” – so people try it, find out that no matter what they could realistically do – they still won’t reduce their Co2 emissions close to zero, so in the resulting feeling of hopelessness, they will give up trying and won’t even do what they could – because: what’s the point – you CAN’T eliminate “every use” of fossil fuels.
For more details see the letter by Mark Kaufman, or its description in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook
And even if we can’t immediately cut our emissions to match the uptake – a world with 500 ppm would still be a less lethal place than the one with 800ppm.
On the contrary, no one addresses this elephant in the room enough. Condensates often are a byproduct of oil extraction — ethane, propane, butane, hexane, pentane, so the numbers are 85-92% of “oil” is crude-related. With the remainder 3-5% biofuels and the rest from natural gas and coal and other fossil-fuel sources.
So many politicians intentionally conflate oil independent with energy independent, which can’t be stressed enough. There is an enormous crude oil problem, which tries to be hidden by playing around with the numbers. The biggest “creative bookkeeping” ploy that the USA uses is to claim imported oil is from domestic sources, because the oil refinement is done here. That’s a load of BS when they then use this to claim that the USA is a dominant “producer” of oil.
Here, let me fix it:
“It is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies [needed to create renewable energy technology] without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process–period.”
Are we actually doing it that way now? No, we are not. However, increasingly the electric power doing large chunks of that work are RE, and we can see very notable progress in in the decarbonization of the transportation involved as well. And the transition in both those areas figures to be a whole lot faster than most people expect, or can even envision. See, for example:
https://rmi.org/the-eight-deadly-sins-of-analyzing-the-energy-transition/
to Kevin McKinney
Your and other’s unscientific fanciful beliefs and hopes have no effect on the Laws of Physics and the limits of human made technology nor the finite amount of mineral resources (and ecosystems/organic life) present on Earth. I can only recommend people educate yourselves better. Ignorance is not a valid excuse anymore.
I’ve been educating myself on these topics for easily 20 years now, cj.
How ’bout you?
Housekeeping to clear up other people’s confusions
[Response: Seriously, what are you even talking about? What new physics do you think we have invented? Radiative transfer? Conservation of energy and mass? Heat capacity? Navier-Stokes? Stefan-Boltzmann? Henry’s Law? Thermal expansion? Seems like pretty standard stuff to me… – gavin]
Yes, you don’t understand so try reading it again – it is you not me at fault here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/comment-page-2/#comment-824223
If you wanted to understand what I was talking about you could. It’s not complicated nor a trick. I’m not talking about any “new” physics, I never used that term, so why did you strawman me?
I was obviously speaking to THE different physics of different drivers/forcings that produce past and present climate change. The same as climate scientists and the IPCC address such things all the time when trying to explain what THE PHYSICS of Different Forcing over Time and Space are behind climate science is all about in the past VERSUS the present and the future.
Yes, THE PHYSICS of the pattern of regular Ice Ages across Millions of Years is NOT THE PHYSICS of the forcing producing global heating and climate change today. It is a different dynamic – it is not new physics – it is a different kind of Physics in play forcing heating and climate change responses.
I say that as per the IPCC reports and climate research papers.
And that is still changing faster than the climate models and the research papers can keep up with. Obviously, or you would have known what was happening in 2023 during or before 2023.
Climate scientists know the physics of meteor hits and flood basalts and variations in orbits and insolation and continental shelfs (everything) were forcing and produced a paleo / ice ages climate very different from the physics of shipping sulfur emissions, the sea level and land use, the amoc, the volume of global ice that are forcing and impacting the climate dynamics of today.
I repeat, if you, Radge or anyone else wanted to understand what was being said then you could. You appear to chose not to.
…………………….
and then Radge — – was addressed to CJ.
I have thought and/or said almost the exact same things about this aspect (was it posted?) and wasn’t paying proper attention, Mea culpa for being ‘confusing’ this time. 1 time out of a 100 isn’t a bad result.
But I can’t compete with your wild judgements about ‘why” X happens so make up your own as usual. You’ll never believe me anyway because you do not care in the least.
FOR Radge: Quoting
Escobar says
30 Aug 2024 at 5:59 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824178
Anyone suggesting global heating can be stopped by unfounded unproven net zero theories (opinions & beliefs) and the proposed ‘actions’ globally by 2050 is overtly saying:- “global heating is no big deal” – if it is that easy and so quick to stop.
Beliefs like this are much closer to schizophrenia delusions than a science based material reality.
Good paper ref. It is obvious and undeniable what is happening today is nothing like what happened in the past (causes and outcomes) and is orders of magnitude faster.
As well as totally out of control with a body of climate science unable to explain what is happening and what is coming with any degree of intelligent physics based logic or certainty.
E: Anyone suggesting global heating can be stopped by unfounded unproven net zero theories . . . Beliefs like this are much closer to schizophrenia delusions than a science based material reality. . . . climate science unable to explain what is happening and what is coming with any degree of intelligent physics based logic or certainty. . . .
BPL: This is just insults, slander, and name-calling. If you can locate a specific error, spell it out. Show your work.
Or STFU.
…and that would be flatly false. There are certainly many uncertainties remaining, but the big picture is very, very clear.
Escobar, there is no such thing as physics based logic. If you feel you have to post wild inflammatory, incorrect, evidence free trolling rants at least get the terminology right.
You really don’t understand what you’re reading, do you, sweetie?
For Radge and Gavin – everything is connected, what I post now is connected to what came before – on this forum. If you wanted to understand what I and others are talking about, you could. But you choose not to understand and then blame others for what you do not know or remember.
Karsten V. Johansen says
29 Aug 2024 at 9:51 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824109
The reasons for this is obvious: over millions of years other external factors like plate tectonics, changing volcanism etc. play a bigger role, difficult to quantify.
The main characteristic of our human “global climate experiment” is that we are changing the tropospheric greenhouse gas content *at least an order of magnitude – ten times or more – faster than during any known comparable event from the whole geological history*, fx. the end permian basalt volcanism creating the siberian traps 252 m. yrs BP and the PETM 56 m. yrs BP.
This means that we should not only be extremely reluctant continuing along this path, in fact we would be better off, the sooner we manage to put an end to this global experiment, which was unconsciously startet by our ancestors a couple of hundred years ago.
Our climate models of course may all be very sophisticated mathematically etc., but they clearly have this serious weakness: because our “experiment” lacks parallels in the geological history, we really can’t calibrate the model results with anything known. Compared to the reality our models are indeed very simplistic.
…………………………….
Some people are allowed to use the word uncertainty, while others are not and automatically condemned as “deniers” or climate science illiterates.
From late last month
1 Sep 2024 at 3:11 AM
Obsessing Over Climate Disinformation Is a Wrong Turn
By Holly Buck
Much of the climate movement is now pouring its energies into combating disinformation. But this focus fails to address real concerns about a green transition and obscures what is needed to win the public over to effective climate action.
from https://jacobin.com/2024/08/climate-disinformation-green-transition-workers
The people who really need to act on this info / research will not read it, and if they do I suspect they will not know what it is talking about!
E: Our climate models of course may all be very sophisticated mathematically etc., but they clearly have this serious weakness: because our “experiment” lacks parallels in the geological history, we really can’t calibrate the model results with anything known. Compared to the reality our models are indeed very simplistic.
BPL: The physics remains the same. And I doubt you are familiar enough with the models to call them simplistic. How much model code have you read?
C’mon, BPL, Surely you know “THE PHYSICS” of forest fires set by people and those set by lightning are simply not the same???!!!
“I never suggested that the rate of change would somehow represent a change in (The Laws of) Physics! – was another example of me discussing these related issues on the Miocene page:
JCM says
30 Aug 2024 at 8:27 AM
The headpost article attempts to demonstrate that the climate sensitivity of the distant past, when including factors like solar forcing, topographic configuration, and minor trace gases, is directly comparable to today’s conditions, with a fast ECS estimated at only 3.5°C.
However, this could be misleading. Left unperturbed, the paleo Earth had total freedom in biogeochemical and biogeophysical response. As you noted, as the CO2 rose, it’s likely that life diversified, soils enriched, and nutrient cycling intensified.
Today, the situation is markedly different. As humanity artificially drives up CO2 levels, life is being drastically diminished, soils are actively eroded, and biodiversity is in sharp decline. This by direct ongoing intervention. This is the exact opposite of what occurred in the past. Today’s unnatural and unprecedented combination of rising CO2 and declining biosystems suggests that paleo climate sensitivity estimates may not be directly comparable to those of today. Alarmingly, this implies that today’s climate sensitivity is likely higher than in the past.
REPLY – Escobar says
30 Aug 2024 at 6:10 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824179
Climate science keeps on saying and implying and suggesting that they know things they do not know. Then basing their recommendations out of the IPCC and other bodies based on this not knowing unproven guesswork and assumptions, guesses and opinions of the most outspoken who declare they are certain about things when they and the science is clearly uncertain and unproven.
Resulting in – “it’s ‘easy’ to stop global heating, just hit zet nero (sic) emissions by 2050 and the warming will be stopped! The UNFCCC agrees.” That isn’t science. Or real.
[end quotes]
There would be far less confusion if people read what had already be said and remembered it better and were better equipped “to connect the dots” and not rush to judgement. There would be far less posts required to FIX other people’s ERRORS and ignorance of what recently happened.
Paying attention in the first place, not making assumptions, and asking questions respectfully is a far better approach. Oh, did I mention this new article yet? I think maybe I did.
https://jacobin.com/2024/08/climate-disinformation-green-transition-workers
E: Climate science keeps on saying and implying and suggesting that they know things they do not know. Then basing their recommendations out of the IPCC and other bodies based on this not knowing unproven guesswork and assumptions, guesses and opinions of the most outspoken who declare they are certain about things when they and the science is clearly uncertain and unproven.
BPL: This is about the tenth time you have posted basically the same rant. You don’t seem to have any specifics to go with the charges you make. Until you do that, STFU. We’re tired of reading the same abuse over and over and over again.
Agree with BPL 100%.
Another reference for good measure:
Mal Adapted says
29 Aug 2024 at 1:55 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/oh-my-oh-miocene/#comment-824116
We’re talking about changes occurring over millions of years. Species evolved and went extinct as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and oceans rose and fell. Continents were moving. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current formed.
Climate is changing orders of magnitude faster now. We know with more than adequate confidence that ~300 years of economically-driven (i.e. anthropogenic) transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere is the principal driver of the contemporaneous rise of global heat content.
[end quote]
Nothing I have said contradicts Mal, nor does he contradict what I said yet many have found “wanting” here.
As Weird as Trump!
With all due respect, sir, your posts here are boorish, self-indulgent, pointless nonsense, and your responses to other commenters consist of little but name-calling and insults. All you are accomplishing here is to make a fool of yourself in public.
When someone’s comment begins with “With all due respect, sir,” it is guaranteed that zero respect is coming. So ‘secular animist’ you too are admitting what escobar said went way over the top of your head. No ‘comprender’! It was above your ‘pay grade’ too I assume given your illogical emotional response. Bringing insult and judgemental ridicule instead.
How nice of you, You should be proud of the good job you are doing on this forum and in your professional life. Kudos Señor!
JCM, I’d read your comments to Tomáš in the August UV on the 30th and 31st regarding the land/soil’s part in the C cycle, mankind’s impacts upon them, and your views on climate change modeling choices (or lack of) regarding this piece of the cycle as continuation of your discussion with others here:
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824195
.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824227
.
While working in the yard this afternoon, I vaguely remembered I’d come across the following I’ve linked below somewhere sometime. If you have time/inclination to look at:
.
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/soil_and_climate_en.pdf
.
Does this “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” document address (in whole, in part, or not at all) your position?
BTW, if you or someone else here was the original source for this item previously, please forgive my memory lapse. I’d do a little digging to see how/when I came across this, but frankly Im too tired and hungry :-)
To David,
the article “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” focuses exclusively on the biogeoChemical effects related to the carbon exchange and oxidation between land and atmosphere.
This is the framing of all types of ClimateSmart™ initiatives, driven by the narrowly defined climate science and associated CO2 politics of today.
This naive framing results in enrolling landowners into carbon trading schemes (scams?), incentives for planting carbon sticks, and spreading stony reactive materials.
It’s part of a broader effort to commodify landscapes and trade them on global financial markets – where CO2 is treated as interchangeable across continents and fully fungible in investment portfolios. In the process, landscapes are detached from the places and communities they support, and the enormous power of self-motivation is diminished. This is catastrophic from a local governance perspective.
My interests are primarily in the biogeoPhysical land-atmosphere interactions and related effects of desertification. By marginalizing these effects in the study of climates, conservation stewardship has become undervalued by several times.
Climate science still falls short of providing the comprehensive, actionable insights needed to address changing climates at any scale. The European Commission report only reinforces a biased perspective which seems driven more by financialization than the needs of communities.
cheers
JCM,
Thanks for replying. Your advocacy in support of your position impresses. Not having a substantive grasp of the matter has lead me to pretty much refrain from engaging in the interesting “soil/land degradation, climate change, modeling etc) conversation here concerning your perspective thus far. That’s something I aim to rectify, at least a little, in time (a lengthy amount of time no doubt ;-) If for no other reason than to gain a further understanding of how things work. And perhaps be a better advocate for things I care a great deal about.
I had that item I asked about in my files and thought it was a place to start. Doing a subsequent google scholar search using different search terms has lead me to a number of works (many quite recent) that at first glance look like papers worth the efforts to study. If you have a recommendation, please pass it along.
To David,
I recommend a good foundation in the boundary layer and surface budget. A classic resource is T.R. Oke’s Boundary Layer Climates textbook which gives an overview of those climates formed near the ground and cycling of energy and mass through systems.
A few hostile contributors on these pages have attempted to engage with me without any foundation at all, and they always fail or continue to move the goalposts in a spirit akin to denialists.
Reasonable discussions which clearly make a distinction between the indirect effect of landscapes as a source or sink of greenhouse gases vs the direct thermodynamic effects of desertification are provided by people like Hanna Huryna, Jan Pokorny, and Petra Hesslerova. Strong overviews of thermodynamic constraints are provided by Axel Kleidon and Ghausi.
It’s useful to understand why a barren desertified landscape with relatively low surface net radiation has higher avg temperature compared to an ecologically functional one. Drainage and erosion of billions of hectares and removal of optimal biosystems brings about a large shift from latent heat to sensible heat flux. Latent heat prevails and uses 80% of surface net radiation in moisture unlimited regions. This reduces vertical temperature gradients, cools the surface air, and increases relative humidity and low cloud formation.
Evapotranspiration-condensation processes slow down over a barren landscape and solar radiation is increasingly transformed into sensible heat at the surface. The overheated surfaces warm the adjacent air layer which rises turbulently upwards and is capable of absorbing higher amounts of water vapour. For each 1 million hectares degraded releases additionally as sensible heat up to 2.5 MW to the lower atmosphere in mid-latitudes. Land-atmospheric interactions are relevant in planetary energy balance through global circulation as demonstrated by Maryssa Lague.
IPCC reports do not adequately take into account this direct thermodynamic effect of landscapes on climates because these documents are prescribed to support policies related to a trace gas global governance framework. A comprehensive policy framework must also recognize the direct role of landscapes in climate stabilization at all scales.
This year, in addition to voting for your favorite national candidate then kicking back to observe the political aftermath, consider finding a plot of one square meter in your community and engage in your own landscape stewardship project in the name of realclimates (+direct drought and flood attenuation, increased biodiversity, resilience, community, and renewed spirit).
thanks for the interest
To JCM,
I apologize for the delay in responding due to matters beyond my control.
Thank you very much for the suggestions. I’m only familiar with T.R. Oke, who’s work I recall from a mesoscale meteorology course years and years ago, when I argued with the professor about my thoughts on urban heat island influences on thunderstorms. It was in the end a humbling experience; though my efforts to research my idea in the library did lead to a few extra points from her :-)
Off topic- I certainly endorse your m2 landscape stewardship suggestion. I’m a few meters ahead of that at my home. I am trying to use what I have observed happen positively for local biodiversity (and money saved) as a springboard to discussions with neighbors and the occasional interested passerby. It may sound silly, but it has amazed this old guy how much native life will return if given a little bit of habitat that is a semblance of what existed before.
To David,
rediscovery of timeless wisdom is a wonderful thing.
Assuming native life includes also a return of animals/insects and fungi, this is an essential ingredient for a functional biosystem. The abundance of animals and fungi is estimated to have decreased 50-75% since the 1970s.
Specifically, by the accommodation of munching critters and fungi, these enhance nitrogen cycling, decomposition of litter, and the production of glomalin and plant exudates.
These elements are vital for conserving spongy low density living soils, and moisture retention in-place.
Soil evaporation is a missing element in remote sensing indices of evapotranspiration, which represents up to 50% of terrestrial latent flux.
correction: 2.5 million MW
JCM: Climate science still falls short of providing the comprehensive, actionable insights needed to address changing climates at any scale.
BPL: Have you actually read the IPCC reports?
In Re to David, 1 Sep 2024 at 9:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824261
Hallo David,
I agree to JCM, 3 Sep 2024 at 9:58 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824308 ,
that the role of soils and vegetation is much more complex than presented in the cited document “The Hidden Part of the Climate Cycle” .
As I focus on one aspect of this complexity only, namely on the relationship between hydrological cycle and global climate and on its coverage in present climate change mitigation policies, I can hardly add anything to the general complex perspective emphasized by JCM.
Nevertheless, I think that from my (much narrower) perspective, the cited document can serve as a good example of the prevailing approach, treating soils and terrestrial vegetation mostly as a “carbon sink” or “carbon source” and basically omitting their important role in climate regulation through their participation in the hydrological cycle.
Greetings
Tomáš
CJ, quoting one Holly Buck last month: That’s because the focus on “climate disinformation” sets up a negative feedback loop. No one doubts that misinformation is often an issue in today’s politics, especially around climate. But instead of focusing on misinformation alone, we should think of the challenge of engaging the public with climate as a triangle with three points: misinformation, conflicts over values, and distrust of elites.
Ms. Buck said some wise things in her Jacobin piece. By definition, I’m one of the online climate commentariat, though not one anyone else listens to. I’m certainly not a politician, but I’m sure reminding Americans that their addiction to fossil carbon is the principal cause of global warming, that the warming is a predictable result of the free market’s propensity to socialize every transaction cost it can get away with, that only collective (i.e. government) action can decarbonize the US economy, and only by either taxing carbon, subsidizing renewables or regulating emissions, is a hard sell with the 28% who are still disengaged, doubtful, or dismissive of the inconvenient truth.
Conflicts over values? You’re referring to the values of resolute culture warriors who equate all collective action with Communism. They’ll never admit that climate change isn’t just a liberal preoccupation. Thankfully, we don’t have to persuade those people, we just have to outvote them! For the 57% of us “concerned” or even “alarmed” about climate change, the choice of whom to vote for is a no-brainer. Trump and the Republicans will return the US government to a state of denial, leaving the costs of anthropogenic global warming open-ended. Harris and the Democrats will try to enact stronger decarbonization policies, although those are as yet unspecified; why should the Democrats propose a plan to get us to zero emissions, when the Republicans will throw every obstacle they can in the way from sheer spite, and reverse any previous, painful progress when they regain office? I’ll settle for a series of market interventions until nobody wants to buy fossil carbon anymore. Let the market do the hard work. Meanwhile, more doubters become believers whenever weather records get broken again. I’m optimistic climate realists will soon have a solid majority. Then it will be time to talk about a long-term plan.
You and Ms. Buck are entitled to your opinions. But distrust of elites? How come the documented funding of decades of official denialism by carbon capitalists doesn’t piss off the dimissives, CJ? Maybe angrily calling out mercenary denial won’t win the upcoming elections, but denying denial won’t either. I take seriously Dark Money author Jane Mayer’s remarks about a book by another business journalist, tracing the history of the Koch family’s long-term profit maximization strategy (my bolding):
If there is any lingering uncertainty that the Koch brothers are the primary sponsors of climate-change doubt in the United States, it ought to be put to rest by the publication of “Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America,” by the business reporter Christopher Leonard. This seven-hundred-and-four-page tome doesn’t break much new political ground, but it shows the extraordinary behind-the-scenes influence that Charles and David Koch have exerted to cripple government action on climate change.
Yes, yes, yes and again I say “yes.”
Please, all ye who pass by, reject false equivalencies and vote for the sanest climate policy on offer!
And organize, to the best of your ability, to encourage others to do the same.
Escobar,
Trivial jibber jabber with Portentous Intonations. You’re headed into Time Cube territory, Sparky.
UAH have posted for August with a TLT anomaly of +0.88ºC, that’s up on July’s +0.80ºC and the 14th ‘scorchyisimo!!! month in a row,
These TLT anomalies as not dropping like the SAT anomalies. UAH is still sitting at the “bananas” level reached in September last year, having averaged +0.90ºC Sept-Aug with the highest anomaly in April (+1.05ºC) and the lowest June (+0.80ºC). This bunch of “bananas” monthly anomalies sit head-&-shoulders above previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! months, (averaging a whopping +0.4ºC above their respective previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! month).
That’s a big gap.
UAH is not unique for TLT with these ongoing “bananas”. NOAA STAR (which is yet to post for August) shows a not-dissimilar situation with no dip in the anomalies, Sept-July anomalies averaging +0.78ºC (+0.89ºC max, +0.72ºC min) with an average headroom above previous ‘scorchyisimo!!! months of +0.33ºC.
To better illustrate this difference between SAT anomalies (which show a significant drop since the new year) & TLT anomalies (which remain high and even peaked since the new year), I’ve posted a graphic here (posted 3rd August). This TLT & SAT graphic plots 5-month rolling averages to smooth the data out and also it is repeated with NH & SH to demonstrate the declining SAT anomaly is solely a NH thing. It is actually a NH Land thing (as show in a graphic on the same web-page posted in the above link four graphic below, first posted 13th February). Previous El Niños have seen NH Ocean and SH anomalies running roughly steady before a drop in the last months of the year (a decline in their 5-month rolling aves starting with the July-Nov average).
And given all that, as with the “bananas” SAT anomalies of late last year, I’m still of the mind that these unusually high temp anomalies are all an amplified response to El Niño as was seen in 2015-16 but now super-amplified, this speculatively all due to increasing stratification of ocean temperatures.
The ERA5 reanalysis as per Climate Pulse is showing daily numbers which give a average August 2024 global anomaly of +0.71ºC, identical to the August 2023 anomaly and a small increase on the last few months (May-Jul run +0.65ºC, +0.67ºC, +0.68ºC) which together show little sign of continuing cooling. (The global graphic linked above plots these monthly global ERA5 anomalies to Aug.)
But note that the cooling post-2016-El Niño continued into 2018.
As for a multi-month wobble interrupting such an inter-year cooling, given the decline in global SAT so-far has pretty-much all been NH Land, and given there is an annual cycle buried in these NH Land anomalies (due to Oct-Dec warming at a significantly faster rate over NH Land prior to 2005) resulting in a NH Land wobble, and given that wobble is considerably lessened in La Niña years, and given the La Niña is struggling to appear this year: given all that, I can see the decline in global SAT would pause for a bit before the NH Ocean & SH begin strongly contributing to the post-El Niño cooling.
One measure at ClimatePulse I have been watching is the 60N-60S SST. This represents about 63% of the globe so is a big player in the global average. The 60-60 SST is cooling relative to 2023 as it did in previous El Niño years,
in that it dipped below 2023 levels mid-July. Whether it continues cooling and reverses the super-warming seen prior to July 2023 (but warming not in seen in previous El Niño) is yet to be determined.
to our good colleagues: Do you all remember the way Ned Ward monopolized this comment section, attacking all and sundry, flooding the zone with information and claiming it was to the discredit of our excellent hosts and climate science in general, and that none of us understood or were good enough?
Escobar is doing something similar. It doesn’t matter from which point of the compass the flooding comes, it still stifles open discussion and interesting material relevant to the subject matter of Real Climate.
I strongly recommend that we not encourage him with detailed responses and back and forth, becoming ever more elaborate in call and response, but rather treat it with dignified silence.
The annual “LAND-BASED WIND MARKET REPORT. 2024 EDITION” for the United States is out:
.
https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/Land-Based%20Wind%20Market%20Report_2024%20Edition.pdf
.
For those unfamiliar with this annual report, this is a soup-to-nuts comprehensive (92 pages) analysis of the wind market in the U.S.
.
Recommend it to anyone with an interest in renewable energy (even though its focus is the U.S.).
Thanks, David. Interesting stuff.
I am very excited by the new DCENT dataset. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-03742-x
It uses a variety of new and improved approaches to constructing an instrumental temperature dataset, including using deck metadata to improve sea surface temperature datasets, using improved land temperature homogenization methods that account for temporal autocorrelation, and using an energy balance model to compare sea surface temperatures with land surface temperatures to better account for biases in sea surface temperature datasets.
Hey, Russell: it’s your favorite Progressive social engineer!
Biden’s Top Climate Negotiator to Visit China This Week.
Here’s a gift link if you need one. You’re welcome.
To Kevin McKinney, referring to your post of 30 Aug 2024 at 2:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824170
Dear Kevin,
I read your post carefully, but have not understood several points therein, to that I subsequently asked a few questions on 31 Aug 2024 at 8:27 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824209
It was the very end of the previous month, so you might have overlooked them. Could you look thereon and clarify?
Greetings
Tomáš
To Kevin McKinney, referring to your post of 30 Aug 2024 at 2:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824170
Dear Kevin,
It is possible that my questions to you got buried under other posts accumulated during the previous long moderation timespan and that you have not noted them.
Therefore, I would like to repeat them herein again:
a) You speak about water vapour increase, however, Figures 1c and 1d show latent heat flux development of the tested models in time. Could you clarify?
b) You ascribe the course of the depicted time curves to the water vapour feedback, although there is no such commentary accompanying Fig. 1. The discussion of results provided by authors is, however, based mostly on results shown in Figures 3 to 9, and seems to give a more complex picture, I think.
c) Figures 3 to 9 depict differences between swamp land and desert land. I have not noted any other reference system throughout the article. Could you specify where you found the information that in the desert land, water vapour concentration increased commensurately to the water vapour residence time increase which is about 50 %? What was the baseline for this estimation?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Yes, Tomas. You are correct that Fig. 1 doesn’t show the water vapor concentration in the lower panels. However, it is well-described as follows in the text:
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
As to your question under c), the discussion about these matters is the first in the Results and Discussion section. I would particularly direct your attention to this passage:
I would additionally note an interesting passage about LW feedback:
Tomas Kalisz: I read the summaries of IPCC reports, I have a strong feeling that the land use was mostly treated from the viewpoint if (and if so, how) it influences grrenhouse gas absorption or release.
And that didn’t make you think? You see this means that there are 3 possibilities:
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
Now, Tomas, which of these 3 possibilities strikes you as the most likely?
In Re to Piotr, 13 SEP 2024 AT 6:54 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824501
Dear Piotr,
In my view, shaped by this 18 months long discussion, the most likely explanation is:
IPCC does it so because
(i) there is widely shared strong common belief that non-GHG effects of changes in land use may not be significant in comparison with GHG, and
(ii) there is still very strong focus on the observed global warming and much less interest in other aspects of the climate change.
The reasons may arise from following circumstances:
1) AGW is most apparent aspect of the observed climate change, and, quire likely, still the only one for which reliable data do exist, partly because these other aspect,
2) Although the mechanism of the GHG action is not simple, it was still the easiest one from all mechanisms driving Earth climate from the accessibility to a thorough physical analysis and quantitative computational modelling,
3) Anthropogenic increase in atmospheric GHG concentration is still the only driving force of the observed climate change that could be quantitatively measured,
4) whereas for other anthropogenic influences on Earth climate, it appears that no reliable data do exist yet.
Greetings
Tomáš
As zebra says – the deniers never answer the question. The question to you, Tomas Kalisz, was simple. I quote:
======
“There are 3 possibilities:
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
Now, Tomas, which of these 3 possibilities strikes you as the most likely?
========
The ANSWER to this is simple = “1′ , “2” or “3”.
So which is it, Tomas?
In Re to Piotr, 17 Sep 2024 at 9:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824530
Dear Piotr,
Why do you think that only the three answers which you offered are possible?
I think that in my post of 15 Sep 2024 at 7:47 AM, I quite clearly explained why I see another option more likely.
Greetings
Tomáš
T. Kalisz 18 Sep: “ Dear Piotr, Why do you think that only the three answers which you offered are possible?
Because these three answers cover the entire spectrum of plausible answers to your question: “[Why IPCC discusses the mitigation of AGW via] the land use mostly from the viewpoint of influencing [GHGs”]
INCLUDING your ” quite clearly explained another option”, which is covered under answers 2 and/or 3:
======
“There are 3 possibilities:
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
=====
So the only question remains – which better reflects you – “2” or “3”?
And no, you won’t be able wiggle out of this, my “Dear Tomas”.
In Re to Piotr, 17 Sep 2024 at 9:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824607
Hallo Piotr,
Thank you for your reply and clarifying your view that there is such a clear trichotomy.
As I do not share this view, I am sorry that I cannot answer your question as unequivocally as you request it. Nevertheless, I can at least try, once again, explain why I do not think that the real world is as simple as you see it, and why I, actually, think that your question does not make much sense.
1) As an alternative to your first option, I proposed a few other possible reasons in my post of 15 Sep 2024 at 7:47 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824530 ,
specifically in points 1)-4).
Basically, a reluctance to process in models / publications / summary reports a difficult topics, for which perhaps no reliable quantitative data are available yet, may be quite understandable.
2) I do not think that there must be a conspiracy to arrive at a situation that, according to a common consensus in an expert community, the basic questions of their discipline were already resolved and there remain only smaller tasks which will further precise the picture in the framework of an established paradigm. Perhaps the situation in physics at the end of nineteenth century could serve as an example.
3) I am definitely not the single person asking questions if such climate forcings like water availability for evaporation from the land, currently considered as “secondary”, can be indeed neglected in explanations of the anthropogenic climate change.
Moreover, should my questions be as trivial as you suggest, I do not understand why you do not simply cite publications which already clearly showed the irrelevance of these questions.
Greetings
Tomáš
TK: 3) I am definitely not the single person asking questions if such climate forcings like water availability for evaporation from the land, currently considered as “secondary”, can be indeed neglected in explanations of the anthropogenic climate change.
BPL: Nobody’s neglecting it. They’ve calculated it and found it to be of low magnitude. Land use is indeed a contributor to global warming, especially in the matter of forests being clear-cut, but it is not AS BIG a problem as greenhouse gases.
You keep making this mistake.
T. Kalisz Sep.19 “ Thank you for your reply and clarifying your view ”
I didn’t “clarify my view” – I held your feet to fire, by not allowing you to escape answering a direct question: (“ As I do not share this view, I am sorry that I cannot answer your question“)
This is a DISCUSSION forum, and a DISCUSSION is NOT a collection of monologues in which each person announces their views, and refuses to defend them, by implying that all arguments are subjective, and as such ALL ARE EQUALLY valid.
Here, in my response to your complaints that IPCC treats the influence of changes in the land use on AGW via its influences on GHGs, thus ignoring your and JCM ideas about modifying AGW via increases in evaporation, I have offered 3 possibilities that covered the entire spectrum of plausible interpretation of your claims:
====
1 . IPCC does it so because non-GHG effects of changes in land-use are insignificant to AGW.
2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour
3. Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.
Now, Tomas, which of these 3 possibilities strikes you as the most likely?
=======
Since each of the answers was not complementary to you (“1” would mean your admission to being wrong; 2. would prove your denier anti-science views, while “3” – would prove the depth of your delusions about yourself) – you tried to avoid the answer, by implying that there is DIFFERENT, 4th possibility:
===TK: ” Why do you think that only the three answers which you offered are possible? [and provided your 4th possibility that] IPCC does it so because
(i) there is widely shared strong common belief that non-GHG effects of changes in land use may not be significant in comparison with GHG, and
(ii) there is still very strong focus on the observed global warming and much less interest in other aspects of the climate change.
=====
– To which I replied that the above IS ALREADY COVERED by the possibilities “2” and “and “3”.
– You “responded” with “ I do not share this view and tried to walk away from the question (“ I am sorry that I cannot answer your question“)
No need to be sorry, Tomas, you can’t dismiss my reply as a subjective “view” – it is a FALSIFIABLE argument, and the only way to defeat it is to prove it wrong – prove that your 4th possibility is OUTSIDE possibilities “2” and “3”. So you are still on the hook for the answer
to my question.
P.S. To keep your mind from wandering off toward a yet another convenient tangent, I will make my argument more detailed:
*** How Tomas’s “4th” is covered by possibility “2”: ****
a) you insinuated that IPCC follows NOT the outcome of research, but “ strong common BELIEFS” – with word “beliefs” implying being driven not by reason but by ideology.
b) following your guru, JCM, who attacked climate science for “ artificial fixation and overemphasis [on] a trace gas you attack IPCC for having “ much less interest in other aspects of the climate change“. Since you stated “ I read the summaries of IPCC reports ” – then YOU KNOW it is a lie: the “other aspects of the climate change” are widely discussed in the IPCC reports.
Both of a) and b) are covered under possibility “2” (“2. There is a global conspiracy of thousands of scientists trying to hide, for non-specified reasons, the role of water vapour”)
*** As for possibility “3” ****
If 1000s of climate scientists ignore your and your friends beliefs that AGW can be effectively mitigated by humans increasing global evaporation, and does so NOT because of their ideological/political motives (“2”), but because they don’t know better – then this is straight from “possibility “3”:
“Tomas Kalisz, a guy without any climatic knowledge figured out something what 1000s of scientists over many decades didn’t think about.”
=====================================
So which is closer to you – the deniers anti-science narrative (“2”) or psychological reward of thinking that you must be really really smart to figure out something that 1000s of climate researchers in the world failed to do (possibility “3”)?
Don’t be “sorry”, answer the question.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 20 Sep 2024 at 7:37 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824690
Hallo Barton Paul,
I am not aware of any publication showing that anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial hydrology, such as land deforestation or changes in the content of organic matter in soils, have no detectable influence on global climate not only directly, but also through possible changes in climate sensitivity to other forcings.
If you know such articles, could you share the respective references?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Tomas, BPL already answered your question, but his answer did not imply (as you put it in your response) that “anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial hydrology, such as land deforestation or changes in the content of organic matter in soils, have no detectable influence on global climate not only directly.” On the contrary!
A couple of quotes from AR6, chapter 8.
You can explore the chapter here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-8/
That would include bibliographic links to the papers cited, which I think you would find of considerable interest.
In Re to Kevin McKinney,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824489
Hallo Kevin,
Many thanks for your explanation.
I think that our understanding to Lague 2023 is, if not identical, similar. What I found new, particularly in view of many times repeated assertions in discussions herein, was the message that more intensive evaporation from the land can result in globally lower surface temperature and globally lower mean absolute air humidity.
Before Lague 2023 was presented by JCM, many participants herein, including Barton Paul and Piotr, assumed oppositely that more intensive evaporation from the land must be necessarily accompanied by an increase in global mean absolute humidity, and in this basis expected that increased greenhouse effect caused by water vapour may diminish or completely cancel the surface cooling effect that results from the increased latent heat flux.
Don’t you see this counter-intuitive message of Lague 2023 surprising in view of the above mentioned previous discussions?
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz:
“ Barton Paul and Piotr, assumed oppositely that more intensive evaporation from the land must be necessarily accompanied by an increase in global mean absolute humidity,
To quote Ray L.: “You really don’t understand what you’re reading, do you, sweetie?
(what’s good for Escobar is good for Kalisz …)
Not really, no. And I find its support of my comments about the water vapor feedback still less surprising.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 1 Sep 2024 at 7:08 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/unforced-variations-aug-2024/#comment-824236
Dear Barton Paul,
you commented on my sentence
TK: , our concerns that anthropogenic interferences with terrestrial hydrology might have contributed to climate changes observed during anthropocene, including the industrial era, will be taken as mere unsupported speculations.
as follows:
BPL: Climate scientists found decades ago that land use was important to global warming. It is, however, a minor effect compared to that of greenhouse gases. The idea that it is being ignored is not true; please read the IPCC reports.
I would like to add that as much as I read the summaries of IPCC reports, I have a strong feeling that the land use was mostly treated from the viewpoint if (and if so, how) it influences grrenhouse gas absorption or release.
The second aspect which is treated quite frequently in IPCC reports is the influence of “land use” on Earth surface albedo.
As regards possible influences of anthropogenic interferences with land hydrology, it was so far only the summary of the sixth IPCC report where I found a short note that irrigation may be among forcings that cool Earth surface.
I have not found any evaluation how such human interferences with water cycle like landscape sealing and drainage could (or could not) contribute to the observed global warming in the IPCC reports yet.
As regards other climate parameters than global surface temperature, such as e.g. global precipitation and surface distribution thereof, I am afraid that even you will have hard time if you try to find any study about relationship between human interferences with land hydrology through land use on one hand, and these parameters of the global climate on the other hand.
Greetings
Tomáš
Dear Barton Paul,
In addition, please refer also to my post of 9 Sep 2024 at 5:23 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/the-need-for-pluralism-in-climate-modelling/#comment-824433,
in Re to your posts of 5 Sep 2024 at 3:49 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/the-need-for-pluralism-in-climate-modelling/#comment-824392 ,
and 5 Sep 2024 at 3:52 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/08/the-need-for-pluralism-in-climate-modelling/#comment-824393 .
I still think that Lague 2023
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1/pdf ,
may be the first swallow, signalizing that the community of climate scientists will perhaps once look on the terrestrial hydrology (and human interferences therewith) also as a possible forcing and not as a mere feedback only.
If you, however, find in IPCC reports some references to earlier publications on this topics (or to the variance analysis which you mentioned several times, showing unequivocally that the contributions of this forcing to all observable parameters of the present climate change are negligible compared to the contribution of the rising atmospheric GHG concentration), please share.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas, the problem remains that radiative effects (including feedbacks) are sufficient to reproduce the historic record quite skillfully. Therefore, there is no causal ‘room’ for a significant effect from terrestrial water availability: it would be necessary not only to demonstrate the TWA effect itself, but also to understand why the GHG effect were smaller than believed. It’s not impossible in principle, I suppose, but for now at least you are up against Occam’s hoary adage that “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.”
Hallo Kevin,
I think that the reproduction of historical (temparature) record (it appears that none more-less reliable global record of any other climate parameter than temperature is available yet) by the simple model “GHG and their feedbacks”* is sufficient only if we are satisfied with the very blurred picture of the climate change as characterized in the Palmer and Stevens 2019 PNAS article
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1906691116
*I think that this “GHG+feedbacks” approacch can be characterized as an assumption that the observed climate change can be accurately modelled in terms of “true” forcings directly influencing the radiative balance (insolation, greenhouse gases, aerosols, albedo), everything else can be considered as feedbacks that depend solely from the initial setup and from changes in the primary forcings, and that for good projections of the future, we do not need anything else than an accurate description of these forcings and feedbacks plus enough computation power.
As Palmer and Stevens, however, admit, this blurred picture is hardly suitable for anything else than for acknowledging that greenhouse gases indeed play an important role in the observed global warming.
I think that with the above described simple approach, we may in fact never come to the desired sharper picture that could effectively support practical policies. It is well possible that the picture is not blurred (only) because we do not have GW or TW computers yet, but also by the circumstance that the above mentioned oversimplistic view on forcings and feedbacks in fact cannot fit the complex reality better than very roughly.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas, you seem to be overestimating the “blurriness,” or should I say, underestimating the resolution of the picture Palmer and Stevens think we have. They say in the very first sentence of their Box 1 that “the basis for decarbonizing rests on simple, unequivocal, physical principles…”
Yet you insist on questioning the basis for decarbonization, in favor of a speculation utterly unsupported by positive evidence. Why? No-one is saying that hydrology shouldn’t be investigated, or that local and regional environments, species or ecosystems aren’t worth protecting.
But the need for decarbonizing in order to cut the GHE remains not only unequivocal, but more urgent than ever.
Tomas wrote:
Is it, though?
While in the abstract “water availability for evaporation is undoubtedly involved,” it does not follow that in today’s Earth system water availability is actually limiting cloud formation. If that were true, one might expect to see at a minimum some interesting soil moisture trends at continental scale, because anything less would certainly be insufficient to modulate cloud response at a global scale.
To obtain a quick proxy for this question, I had a look at China: it is well-studied, geographically large, has undergone rapid industrialization in the last couple of decades, and is perceived to have relatively weak environmental protections. So if anyplace was going to show a signature of anthropogenic water limitation, you’d think it might well be China.
With the aid of good ol’ Google Scholar, I found this study:
A fine-resolution soil moisture dataset for China in 2002–2018 (Meng et al, 2021).
It’s mostly methodological, but they do present some results, which they summarize as follows:
In other words, there is no evidence of a national-scale water availability trend, much less a continental-scale one.
In Re to Kevin McKkinney, 18 Sep 2024 at 1:35 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824587
and 18 Sep 2024 at 2:24 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824588
Hallo Kevin,
Many thanks for your feedback!
I do not think there should be a discussion if economy “decarbonization” (in the sense “transition towards a state wherein anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into Earth atmosphere are minimized to a harmless level”) is advisable.
I think that the recommendation to “decarbonize” is based on sufficiently solid basis, starting with the mentioned physical principles from which it can be inferred that rising atmospheric GHG concentration should be expected to enhance the greenhouse effect, continuing with a solid experimental evidence (e.g. by isotopic analyses) that a significant contribution to the observed rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during industrial era can be ascribed to fossil fuel burning, and finishing with computational models that also support the conclusion that the observed global warming can be hardly explained without taking anthropogenic GHG emissions into account.
Nevertheless, I read Palmer and Stevens the way that this very certain but rather qualitative conclusion may not be sufficient as an advice for policy makers and for everyday human life, because more granular aspects of the picture, such as “How quickly should we “decarbonize” to avoid major harm?” may be more relevant from the practical point of view than mere wisdom that “we should”. And herein, I see the blurriness mentioned by Palmer and Stevens, and understood their message the way that the differences between projections provided for the same emission scenarios by various models may be still too big to enable a practically applicable advice in this direction. I think that fierce arguments on this website between people who do not share the exactly same concern about the level of “decarbonization” urgency may at least partly arise just from this blurriness.
As regards the question whether or not (and if so, in which extent) anthropogenic “land use” may influence cloud formation through changes in water availability for evaporation, I am afraid that the interesting Chinese study cited by you (thanks for the reference!) cannot provide any clear answer. I think so because there is no dataset “soil moisture 2002-2018 in reference China without anthropogenic land use” which could be shown as statistically indistinguishable from the observations made by the authors (and thus enable the conclusion that human interferences with landscape ability to retain precipitation and reevaporate water are insignificant with respect to the observed climate change and/or mitigation thereof).
Such a reference – of course, with all limitations given by the used model – might be perhaps possible in a computational study. That is why I see studies like Lague 2023 valuable, and why I hope that the role of water availability for evaporation from the land (and human interferences therewith) will be explored more extensively this way in a near future.
At the end, an additional question. I noted that the sentence in the last paragraph of the abstract comprised in the cited article
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3239/2021/essd-13-3239-2021.html
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/3239/2021/essd-13-3239-2021.pdf
reads
“In the past 17 years, China’s soil moisture has shown cyclical fluctuations and a slight downward trend and can be summarized as wet in the south and dry in the north, with increases in the west and decreases in the east.”
and thus somewhat differs from the reading
“…soil moisture in China has been shown to generally exhibit cyclical fluctuations, which can be summarized as a slight downward trend in the southeast and a slight upward trend in the northwest.”
cited in your post.
Could you indicate the source paragraph of the article from which the sentence cited by you originates?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Tomas, thank you for clarifying that in your view there is indeed an urgent need to decarbonize. However, I would differ from you that there is any uncertainty surrounding the question you pose: “How quickly should we “decarbonize” to avoid major harm?”
Subjective differences concerning the characterization of the term “major” aside, I think the great majority of climate scientists, and probably a majority of the global public as well, would agree that the only sane answer to that question is “as quickly as possible.” If you seek support for that view, I would refer you to the entirety of the the AR 6 WG 2 report, which focuses on impacts, mitigation, and adaptation. The “summary statements” are here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/resources/spm-headline-statements/
I’ll only cite the first, which I think is pretty indicative in the present regard:
To be sure, there are many practical questions falling under the ‘blurriness’ Palmer and Stevens note–especially in the realm of regional medium-term impacts. It would be very useful if policy makers in, say, the Gulf of Maine knew just how much longer their fisherman will be able to continue to harvest lobster commercially. (And so on, in thousands of cases from all around the globe.)
With regard to the lack of a “control study” of Chinese soil moisture, I think your point fails. That’s because the issue isn’t quantifying an effect WRT a “no anthropogenic influence” case; the issue is that despite known human activities which we would a priori expect to possibly be able to affect soil moisture, and thus water availability for evaporation, there was little trend to be seen.
Remember, your point was that there “could be” an anthropogenic influence on GMST via limiting water availability for evaporation. To this, I responded that GMST could be adequately accounted for by the current theory, and that hence there was no “conceptual room” for your putative mechanism.
In the present instance, I have now pointed out that not only is that the case, there is also no empirical evidence of the sort of change necessary for your mechanism to exist in the first place.
Lastly, you ask about the slight difference in wording between the portion I quoted, and the similar phrase in the abstract. I believe that the passage I quoted–which I cut and pasted with little or no editing–came from near the beginning of the “Results” section of the paper.
in Re to Kevin McKinney, 20 Sep 2024 at 1:02 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824707
Hallo Kevin,
Apologies for my late response – I somehow missed your post and read it just today.
First of all, thank you for your thorough reply.
Meanwhile, I have also found the paragraph in the article you have cited. It is interesting that the abstract sounds like the authors found a weak downwards trend in the soil moisture over entire China, whereas the corresponding paragraph in result discussion seems to merely state a “slight downward trend in the southeast and a slight upward trend in the northwest”, which could perhaps well compensate each other. If the latter applies and this finding could be extrapolated on the entire globe, we could say that “hydrological alarmists” warning that continents (for whatever reason) desiccate during last decades, may not be correct.
Let us therefore hope that the method used by the authors will be applied to the entire land and that the obtained results confirm that there is indeed no global desiccation trend. In other words, it would be amazing if we knew with more certainty that the increasing evaporation from the land, due to increasing global mean surface temperature (GMST), is just compensated, at least in average, by increasing precipitation falling on the continents.
It appears, however, that so far even this very blurry picture of the future terrestrial precipitation is still quite uncertain – and that is the reason of my concerns regarding the reliability of available tools for climate projections. I am afraid that precipitation distribution can matter more than GMST change. In this respect, I do not feel so much impressed by the circumstance that results of climate models more-less fit with the observed trends in GMST, taking into account that their projections of precipitation distribution may be still practically useless.
This uncertainty is the reason why I (possibly) perceive the need to decarbonize the economy “as fast as possible” differently from the majority on this forum. It is my feeling that many people understand under “as fast as possible” “by all available means, irrespective of costs”, because they think that everything with the observed climate change is basically clear, the only problem which we have are greenhouse gases and if we manage to stop the GMST rise, we have won. I am afraid that if anthropogenic interferences with Earth climate are more complex than in this simple picture, it is well possible that we stop the GMST rise and find out, with a surprise, that we have not won. I think it can happen if we in fact have not changed GMST only but also something else, equally or even more important for our existence. Precipitation distribution between land and ocean may be a possible example. For this uncertainty, I think that we should not decarbonize as “quickly as possible at any cost”, but rather “as quickly as possible and as efficiently as possible with respect to use of available resources”, and strive to build maximal flexibility with the aim to maximize our ability to react to unexpected / unpredicted developments.
Basically, I think that “decarbonization first” may be a wrong approach if it should be enforced by an arbitrarily selected approach or on expenses of basic democratic values and principles. I think that if we do not voluntarily resign on these values and principles and rely on human creativity where we still lack suitable means, we will finally decarbonize quicker and more sustainably than if we try to act as quickly as possible ignoring economical reality and trying to overcome insufficiency of available means and/or their unsuitability for the purpose by money printing.
To be specific, I think that the sole thing which we currently lack for a spontaneous, economically advantageous economy decarbonization is a cheap technology for large scale electricity storage. I think that as soon as we have it, no one will be interested in further fossil fuel exploitation for electricity production, and that it may then very quickly apply for basically any energy production. I am quite optimistic in this respect because no one needed such an electricity storage technology until electricity from wind and sun became cheaper than from fossil fuels. It happened a few years ago only, and I am pretty sure that suitable technologies emerge soon, if we not suppress their development by subsidies for already available but economically uncompetitive storage technologies.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz, your response to KM 28 Sept. Your analysis has at least two flaws.
1) While land use change causes changes in precipitation, there is no evidence this change has been massive or will be massive in the future, compared to the potential impacts of anthropogenic warming.
2) While the modelling on future distribution of precipitation is imprecise, it is not practically useless ( as in the link below), and its clear there will be massive changes in the distribution of precipitation, and also more droughts and floods. This scale of the overall negative impacts is the salent point in terms of climate policy, not the exact details of the distribution.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall/
So there is in fact a very good case to agressively cut emissions.
If it’s not already understood, all the thermodynamic and dynamical effects of continental configuration, their properties and biosystems, are inherently embedded in the climate sensitivity factor λ
The notation ΔT = λΔF tends to obscure this, as λ is often misconceived as constant to be discovered.
Additionally, the definition of climate sensitivity itself – based on a doubling of CO2 via ΔF – diminishes λ in such a way that it is perceived as merely a passive property of the system.
This misconception might lead to the mistaken belief that one can analytically derive a precise 288K GMST without accounting at all for terrestrial condition, which is simply false. Lague’s CESM idealized experiment demonstrates you would have a minimum resolution in the order of 10K.
And if I dare say in relation to Occam, it’s taking some serious complexity and mental gymnastics to arrive at energy accumulation solely in the SW based on LW radiative forcing concept, as described by Raghuraman.
In Re to JCM, 12 SEP 2024 AT 11:09 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824484
Hallo JCM,
Could you specify what you mean under “energy accumulation solely in the short waves based on long waves radiative forcing concept”?
Is it the circumstance that currently, it appears that big part of the measured Earth energy imbalance can be assigned to decrease in cloud cover / in visible light reflection and this decrease is interpreted solely as a feedback of the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, while it is well possible that cloud formation is in fact a result of a complex interplay between water vapour supply (intensity of evaporation) and availability of suitable condensation centers (which can at least partly depend also on aerosol pollution), wherein the water supply definitely does not depend on GHG concentration only, because water availability for evaporation is undoubtedly involved in the process, too?
Greetings
Tomáš
Hi Tomas,
observationally I think by now there is consensus that radiative forcing and feedback is resulting in cancellation of an increasing greenhouse effect – while energy continues to accumulate in the system.
This language is borrowed from Raghuraman and I believe Hartmann has also touched on possible reasons why this could be.
The mechanisms are not so straightforward. Schmidt’s CERESMIP proposal highlights model biases and recommends a renewed focus on things that are going wrong.
Saravanan has remarked that “the imbalance is not being driven by the canonical greenhouse effect (less OLR) but by shortwave cloud feedbacks (more ASR).”
In this context, I believe these observations are being framed strictly within an “AGW” paradigm, which specifically addresses the effects of fossil fuel combustion and the resulting changes in trace gas and aerosol emission, along with their associated feedbacks.
There are still some misunderstandings in the discussions here. Namely, there’s no reason to suspect that stabilizing biosystems would directly mitigate “AGW” itself (fossil fuel related problems), but stabilizing these systems can mitigate the climate changes that have arisen due to their direct profound deterioration in recent decades.
As previously discussed, under the forcing-feedback paradigm of AGW, which dominates climate science today, these changes are likely to be embedded within the climate stability factor.
The magnitude of these effects remain unknown. My personal suspicion is that biogeophysical changes are being obscured and possibly tuned-out in process level parameterization in CMIP members, and so they remain largely undetectable. This suspicion arises based on the expected ongoing large increase of ET along with AGW in models, which seems doubtful to exist in reality.
cheers
TK: may be the first swallow, signalizing that the community of climate scientists will perhaps once look on the terrestrial hydrology (and human interferences therewith) also as a possible forcing and not as a mere feedback only.
BPL: I’m sure it is a forcing, but its magnitude compared to other forcings is minor.
“Today, The New York Times unveiled the lineup of interviewees for Climate Forward, a one-day event to be held at The Times Center in New York City on Wednesday, Sept. 25th.
Now in its fifth year, and coinciding with the 79th session of the United Nations (U.N) General Assembly, Climate Forward promises to be an immersive and dynamic experience for both in-person and virtual attendees. It will bring together some of the world’s most engaged climate voices as part of a community focused on change.
This year’s theme is “Confronting Our New Reality,” showing how the world has shifted due to the acceleration of climate change. Sessions will explore energy sources and solutions, the changing life cycle of food and water supplies and debates about where individuals and policymakers should center their attention now and in the years to come.”
On the confirmed list of interviewees for ‘Climate Forward’ is Real Climate’s Stephan Rahmstorf. The entire list and additional info is here:
.
https://www.nytco.com/press/2024-climate-forward-speaker-lineup/
.
You can register to join the live stream for this sold-out event here:
.
https://nyt.swoogo.com/climateforward2024/livestream-registration
.
.
One individual on the list is Kevin Roberts, president of Heritage Foundation and of Project 2025 fame of late. Media Matters article about this:
.
https://www.mediamatters.org/project-2025/project-2025s-kevin-roberts-speak-ny-times-climate-week-nyc-event
Dear all,
More than 100 hours have passed since last moderation / since posting new contributions.
I came to an idea / suggestion in this respect:
Could perhaps the moderators consider implementing an indicator showing when the publication of the next posts is expected?
Any time when an obstacle delays moderation, the expected time of the next publication could be actualized accordingly.
I think it could reduce the time spent by regular readers / commenters on fruitless inspecting the website, to merely find out that there is still no news there.
Many thanks to the moderators for reading the comments, and best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš,
Based on what I’ve observed, it appears that there are times when the comments accumulate until about the number twenty (20) end up in the backlog. I know it can be frustrating, but remember that running this site is not their primary job. I don’t think implementation of your ‘indicator’ idea is needed.
TK: Moderators almost never post comments over the weekend. AFAICT, they don’t peruse every hypothetical pearl of wisdom in our amateur writings, nor, as our hosts, are they required to do anything but what they do. They appear to pass comments no more than once a day, if that.
They are our hosts. It never ceases to amaze me how rude and/or demanding some of their guests presume to be.
They have day jobs.
1980 – It is not about the
ecological processes of ‘overshoot’ and ‘collapse’ specifically;
it is about us!, and how we collectively react to those issues.
At a time when the world seems incapable of addressing itself to the
issue of climate change, ‘Overshoot’ provides a valuable framework
to understand our predicament. For example: Simply swap
‘consumption’ for ‘emissions’, ‘tipping points’ for ‘overshoot’, and
‘climate breakdown’ for ‘collapse’, and book’s arguments easily map
to the climate debate; and thus how the world is, but practically, is not,
adapting to the objective ecological realities of climate breakdown.
The difficulty is, if you do transpose ‘Overshoot’ onto the ‘climate crisis’,
the results are not exhilarating. That’s because – as a sociological work
– you can see how the denial and deflection methods that ‘Overshoot’
outlines at length run throughout the climate change debate today;
and more importantly, that addressing those obstacles has little to do with
the technicalities of climate issues, and everything to do with the
self-delusion, and short-term, magical thinking that plagues human reasoning.
Perhaps more critically, the way ‘Overshoot’ addresses ‘Cargo cultism’,
or the belief that technology can insulate the individual from
radical systemic change, can equally be seen as critical of
the environmental movement itself. Environmentalism arose as a
‘deep ecological’ focus on the relation- ship of humans to their environment.
Unfortunately, as the issue became adopted into mainstream society, that
insightful focus was distorted by cultural forces into responses such
as ‘green consumerism’ or ‘green technologies’ – which operate,
as Catton outlines in the book, as a very effective distraction
from the deep systemic change which is actually required.
For those who choose to read, ‘Overshoot’, I suggest that
you keep this distinction in your mind:
Between the ‘phenomena’ of ecological collapse; and
the human interpretation of that phenomena.
When the book is read as a description of how humans respond to
existential threats, rather than how those threats evolve,
Catton’s work provides a really useful set of tests and tools
to pick-apart the environmental debate today.
‘Overshoot – The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change’ (1980)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEZLPudq6JQ
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285677670_Environmental_Sociology_A_New_Paradigm
The best guidance was always out there.
cj,
1980?
Is the dating of this message a bit wrong?
The transcription is not from the book Catton (1980) ‘Overshoot – The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change’ or from 1980, but from an ‘afterthought’ presented in the 2023 YouTube-review you link-to – ‘A Book in Five Minutes’ No.27 Podcast (a transcript of the full 13-minute narration being available HERE).
The idea behind Catton’s ‘Overshoot is that mankind’s burgeoning population will inevitably result in us running out of resources and so-doing also wreck the planet. That’s a bit different from the problem of AGW which can be solved by sourcing the energy that is presently pumping GHGs into the atmosphere from ‘alternatives’ that do not ‘pump’.
It appears to me that this ‘A Book in Five Minutes’ No.27 Podcast is less a genuine review of Catton’s book and more an interpretation of what the reviewer would like it to say. (I feel emboldened to write that because there is a 2009 review which bears no resemblance to this 2023 review.)
I’m not sure whether the ’causes’ of humanity’s inability to mitigate AGW is usefully explained by Catton’s book. The book itself is available to read on-line HERE and runs to 320 pages which I have not delved into beyond the Contents page which shows a large amount of the book could be dealing with ‘those causes’.
I suppose Catton would brand me a “cargoist” in that I do consider the technological abilities of humanity to mitigate AGW are available to us. And likewise, I am of the view that the other unsustainable uses of the planet’s resources will likely be replaced by techno-fixes. What I see a the problem is this:- Do we manage these many techno-fixes in a timely fashion or do we wreck the planet in the process? The AGW example doesn’t suggest the former as the default outcome.
Small mindedness is a part of the problem for sure.
The quote was openly ref’d to the yt video source. No hand holding or wild reinterpretations are required. Especially by someone who has not read Catton’s book.
What comes instead is another “very effective distraction from the deep systemic change which is actually required” from someone who wouldn’t know or care what deep systemic change would look like or why it is required despite 44 years of accumulated evidence since Cattons 320 page book was published. Blindness and denial persists.
cj,
You present yet another quote from the ‘Afterthought’ of the 2023 review of Catton’s 1980 book. And note that that ‘Afterthought’ presents your quote only in the context of the reviewer suggesting “[the] book’s arguments easily map to the climate debate” and it is only in this context is it that the reviewer boldly tells us the book “[shows] how the world is, but practically, is not, adapting to the objective ecological realities of climate breakdown. ” [My bold]
You yourself do not appear to have read Catton (1980). My reason for boldly suggesting this is because the ‘dipping’ I did into Catton (1980) shows no appreciation of the abilities of humanity to power a modern society from renewable sources. His appreciation of AGW mitigation and ‘renewable’ energy extends only to suggest wind and hydro were once a very modest supplement to ‘renewable’ plant fuels and animal muscle-power and that to replace fossil fuels we would have to be further expanding our eco-footprint and diminishing our natural environment.
In my ‘dipping’ I got only a strong whiff of Malthusianism. There likely is some interesting stuff buried in there, perhaps something applicable to why humanity finds AGW mitigation so difficult, but I didn’t see signs of it. Perhaps somebody who has read the book could point to the relevant chapter.
There is a difference between the climate crisis and the ecological crisis, the latter being the sixth mass extinction event the planet has witnessed and which so-far has not been properly analysed. This eco-crisis is the net result of that burgeoning human population trying to squeeze non-renewable resources out of our planet without any proper understanding of the consequences.
The methods employed by humanity by which that squeezing of non-renewables is first promoted and the resulting supply-failure then dodged [eventually] are, I would suggest, exemplified by the bane of this site back-in-the-day, nuclear power. However, those ‘squeeze-promoting/dodging’ methods do not, in my eyes, ‘translate’ into us, as Catton insists, having to “remain human in the face of dehumanising pressures.” And I am reluctant to read an entire book (or parts V & VI thereof) to discover whether or not Catton (1980) manages that ‘translation’ and thus makes discussion of eco-crisis relevant to addressing climate crisis.
So I would question whether “[the] book’s arguments easily map to the climate debate” and if there is any ‘mapping’ at all, whether it could “easily map to the climate debate”
MAR I have listened to the video link posted by CJ on ecological overshoot. Its interesting but it mixes numerous issues in together so its a bit confused. I have not read Cattons book but I’ve read enough similar sounding material to get the general idea. This is my take on what Catton is really saying and what it means especially for the climate issue.
Firstly Catton points out that the earths resources are clearly finite. We are using those resources up quite fast to the point its inevitable we will run short and find it impossible to maintain our high consuming lifestyles. While technology and recycling etcetera can prolong our lifestyles it cant stop us reaching hard limits eventually and having to reduce our consumption levels. And of course we are causing biodiversity loss and pollution. I have no argument with any of this although its near impossible to quantify any of it. Presumably humanity in the future will adapt to the new reality although it would likely be painful.
Cattons other point is we have to accept these realities and only then can we make the “required changes” to our socio economic system. Now Catton didnt specify these changes in the video but others who are like minded have suggested we should move as quickly as possible to a low consuming culture and zero economic growth economy to 1) preserve as many resources as possible for future generations and 2) reduce pollution and biodiversity loss.
IMO its a nice idea in theory but it could cause our economic system to crash and its not clear how we would persuade people. There may be a compromise solution where growth is eased down gradually, being the managed degrowth Catton despises but it might be the most practical option.
Now we get to the climate connection. Building a renewable energy system is resource intensive, and thus you have a conflict with the plan to reduce consumption levels. As a result there is a subset of academics suggesting renewables are not the solution and are just a fantasy techno fix. Which leaves us with either burning fossil fuels or burning vast volumes of timber or getting by with hugely reduced energy consumption implimented quite rapidly . None of which look like viable options to me. So I come down on the side of trying the renewable energy techno fix, even with its obvious downsides and the fact it wont last literally forever, but nothing does anyway. There is much we could still do to minimise its environmental impacts.
Nigelj,
I too have sympathy for the view that mankind’s plans for AGW mitigation are (so far) suffering a very big serving of global denial. And I don’t mean the denial of the “It’s all a hoax!!” variety. Net-zeroing CO2 emissions will mean a world reliant on renewables and they will be in very short supply. It will be a veritable famine for many decades as the technology develops while increasing proportions of humanity metamorphosizes into Catton’s ‘homo colossus’ and the energy-hungry requirements for net-negative CO2 have also to be addressed. While net-zero is an aspirational goal, the need to develop an energy-efficient blackout-free society is being entirely ignored.
But I’d seen no relevant message about this from Catton (1980), either from dipping into his book or from reading three accounts of it, the 2023 transcript of the Video with its Afterthough (the URL failed in my comment up-thread), the 2009 review, the book’s Foreword by Stewart L. Udall. And with nobody here seemingly having read Catton (1980), continuing this discussion would surely be a little silly.
So I thought to read the last chapter or two of Catton (1980) which should shed some light onto his message, 40 pages of his 320 page book. I didn’t find anything new in his 1980’s message.
Here is a summary:-
Chapter 14 – Turning Around
Partial Reorientation
Jimmy Carter made three very important speeches in 1977 about energy.
Transitional Thinking
Carter partly explains the required paradigm. He calls for energy efficiency because oil and gas use is unsustainable. But he also calls for a switch from scarce oil & gas to abundant coal. Catton wonders if Carter realises coal will also become scarce in time.
Persistence of Obsolete Thoughtways
Carter’s political opposition disagree being definitely stuck in “a pre-ecological paradigm.”.
Questions for an Old World
(1) “Most fundamentally,” can we “begin to make ourselves less detritovorous*? Can we begin to phase out our use of “fossil fuels” as combustible sources of energy?” (*Detritovorous= adjective for a detritus-feeding creature. Catton has no time for the nobility of earth worms!!) Here Catton also stresses the potential for both AGW and Global Dimming to add to human woes. “Human actions have appreciably changed the C02 and dust content of the atmosphere.”
(2) “The next most fundamental challenge to consider is whether enough of us can recognize at last the inescapable intricacy of any non-detritovorous relationship between the human species and its habitat.”
(3) Can we greatly increase energy efficiency?
(4) Will we gracefully accept a compelled return to a simpler life?
(5) ) Is there any chance that we can be spared the widespread, deliberate badgering of people into wanting more, more, more?
Sapiens? Radical?
Catton then tells us these questions are not being acknowledged and then actually poses further difficult ones resulting from overshoot and the supply of less, less, less. He argues for a new “ecological” paradigm of thought (but strangely in the past tense).
Paradigm versus Paradigm
A new world view is required for which homo sapiens, who are good at adapting, won’t find easy as “habits are hard to break; cultural inertia is hard to overcome.”
15 – Facing the Future Wisely
Perilously Persistent Cargoism
Beware cargoism and its “soft energy paths” (which here includes solar water heaters, apparently). The overshoot crash cannot be dodged as non-renewable consumption always has a limit.
Opportunity Becomes Necessity
We should remember the population-size impacted by the Irish potato famine. Remember lynx & rabbit population dynamics. Remember western ghost towns. And remember we cannot all emigrate from planet Earth.
Pasts and Their Futures
But there is no lynx/rabbit dynamics. There is but a single overshoot (as in his Fig 3 Panel D) with the assumption made that today we are below the temporary carrying capacity but well above the actual carrying capacity.
Light from Alaska
The lemming’s ecosystem is simplified enough to show mankind’s destiny.
Back to the Takeover Method?
This ‘takeover’ method (‘2nd Street’ below) is us expanding our eco-footprint, by clearing jungles and irrigating deserts for farms, hopefully (but seldom) without unwanted consequences. Likewise massive solar-power-use “might produce ecosystem changes detrimental to human interests.” He tells us “Nevertheless, I consider it ironic that solar energy enthusiasts can criticize advocates of coal and fission for disregarding ecological costs and calculating only monetary costs, while they themselves glibly regard solar energy as “free” just because we can’t be billed for the incoming sunshine.” And in this ‘takeover’ method, we are simplifying the ecosystem down toward lemming-like levels. (In 1980 he was not correct arguing that “biomass consumption already exceeds replacement,” Global biomass had been in decline, but only up to 1970 according to Global Carbon Project numbers.)
A Third Way: Modesty
It is the 3rd road because 1st & 2nd Street are (a) using up the finite resources and (b) extending out global** footprint which is also a finite resource (**which remains true even with them colonies on the Moon and Mars). We need to be sustainable.
Red Herring or Rubicon?
And even preventing species extinction can be a battle on 1st & 2nd Street.
Our Best Bet: Expect the Worst
The urge to put a situation “right” needs replacing with the desire to seek long-term outcomes that do not make “a bad situation unnecessarily worse” and do so “with all deliberate speed.” Catton’s parting words run:-
MAR, thanks for the information and thoughts.
Other reasons some people including academics argue against renewables is because 1) Renewables allegedly perpetuates the dominance of corporations and capitalist system and rich investors, which they see as an unjust and doomed system and 2) Renewables requires ‘exploiting’ the resources of poor countries 3) it could be a bumpy road with materials suppy bottle necks, and may leave us with less energy during the transition, or even after the transition. For example in the movie “Planet of the Humans”. But youre probably aware of all this.
I find the logic frustrating, because while there is a level of validity in their concerns, they are in effect adding together all the potential problems of renewables to say its a bad idea, without thinking through the options that leaves us, which look even worse (as I mentioned). Or thinking through the rather obvious ways we can mitigate the downsides of renewables, eg if renewables do struggle to provide enough energy, it will force us to be more energy efficient and to priortise. Although as you mention we should be proactive and plan efficiencies into the system and prioritise, before problems develop because right now with things like bitcoin and its energy demands we are sleep walking to a bit of a crisis. Sorry its all just a pet peeve of mine.
Yes nothing in the last chapter of Cattons work that we aren’t aware of, although I might still read the book given it appears to be one of those stand out books.
MAR: This eco-crisis is the net result of that burgeoning human population trying to squeeze non-renewable resources out of our planet without any proper understanding of the consequences.
It’s sadly true that far too few humans have a proper understanding of the relationship between their consumption habits and “environmental”, i.e. social ills, from the fetor of their garbage to the sixth Great Extinction event. You all know I like to borrow otters’ words, when they’re so much smarter than my own:
One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. -A. Leopold
The collective action problem is not simply one of knowledge deficit, however. Again, I appreciate the reader’s patience, as I’ve spent way too much time on this for a blog comment:
The Tragedy of the Commons isn’t only in the conventional sense of grief felt by the victims, but in the classical one of inescapable fate due to “the remorseless working of things” (G. Hardin). One foundation of Economics that makes it a dismal science, is the general helplessness of every human against economic forces that determine the survival and reproductive success of our extended phenotypes, defined culturally as well as genetically. As we’ve now learned, “rational” economic decisions are made with imperfect information but also trade-offs among all the ancient, non-rational cognitive motivators humans are demonstrably prone to, such as hunger or love of our perceived kin. IOW, our economic choices always seem like good ideas to us at the time, even when we retain some regrets. That has inevitable consequences in the “free” market, a natural phenomenon attested by paleontology at our emergence as a species. Occam’s Razor, if nothing else, suggests that markets have been socializing every transaction cost they can get away with for at least that long. Today, even if you know you’re shooting the last black rhino, the money for its horn will put food on your family’s table tonight. Even when we know damn well that we’re socializing a high cost every time we purchase fossil carbon or goods and services produced with it at prices we’re willing to pay at the time of sale, and that socializing it doesn’t mean we won’t pay for it later with our own homes, livelihoods and lives, we can only sacrifice today what we can tolerate on our private bottom lines today, heavily discounting any future costs. For example, voluntarily reducing our private carbon footprints to zero right now requires living entirely off “the grid”, i.e. the global marketplace. Speaking for myself, that’s too big an ask, yet. Left to ourselves, we all do what we feel we must, when we feel we must.
All that is why reducing our aggregate emissions to zero requires “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” (Hardin*). Thankfully, in the USA that doesn’t actually require everyone to understand the phbysical science rational as well as RC regulars do. It does require the science and art of politics, which at a minimum means holding our noses and voting. We’ve all seen politicians focus-grouping, obfuscating, and lying to get elected or enact their policy proposals, but that’s how the founders set up mutual coercion in this country. Somehow we, or sufficient pluralities of voters at least, muddled through 234 years of our unique, evolving form of democracy. To date we’ve forestalled tyranny [Mal knocks on his head in lieu of wood], but we’ve also managed to overcome, at critical junctures, our Constitutional aversion to change through collective action. Voting is literally the least we as individuals can do! The 57% of Americans “alarmed” or “concerned” about global warming have no practical choice but to vote Democratic, then keep political pressure on to decarbonize ASAP. We can debate optimum decarbonization strategies to the limit of our hosts’ tolerance here, but they all start with Democratic control of Congress and the White House next year and subsequently, until some Republican candidate openly supports taking the profit out of selling fossil fuels in our country and gets elected. I for one will vote for Harris more gladly than I have for any Presidential candidate in decades. Climate policy would be sufficient reason by itself, nonetheless. My fellow Americans, please vote the Democratic ticket this November. Climate realists in swing states, please remember that voting for POTUS candidate but Harris, or not voting at all, is numerically equivalent to voting for Trump. If you read this far, thanks!
* When Hardin published his article in Science in 1968, the global human population “problem”, namely its open-ended growth absent mutual coercion, was Hardin’s titular tragedy in the sense of inexorable fate. Ironically, it has turned out not to be one, simply because women around the globe have been voluntarily (with some exceptions) choosing smaller families ever since then. Although Hardin’s been accused of “life boat ethics” and worse, it’s true that global total fertility rate in 1968 was 5.0 offspring per average female, and he thought natural selection would maintain it there. Yet it has declined over the next 55 years and is now approaching bare replacement level, demonstrating the importance of global cultural evolution over less than three human generations. Regardless, “tragedy of the commons” entered the vocabulary of Economics as an evocative label for a class of phenomena including anthropogenic climate change.
cj (credit where due), MAR and nigelj: thanks for the discussion of Catton’s 1980 book Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Thanks especially to Nigel for clicking on cj’s video link so I don’t have too, because life’s too short! Having been educated in ecology, economics and environmental science in the 1970s and ’80s, IMO Catton’s predictions were highly credible in qualitative terms when he published them, though lacking a definite timeline. And they’re predicated on open-ended population growth within Malthusian limits, which turns out to be counterfactual.
Further prolix disambiguation, for my benefit if no one else’s:
Again, IMHO human population “overshoot” has been going on at least since the widespread adoption of cereal agriculture by the mid-Holocene. As temporary food surpluses allowed our populations to exceed local carrying capacity for a foraging-only economy, more land came under cultivation. As the land became more crowded, food production grew more intensive. Farming drastically simplified the wild ecosystem on each new patch of ground under intensive cultivation, chasing off or killing all but a few desired species, to divert larger shares of the energy and nutrient fluxes through that ground into human biomass: otherwise, why bother? By then the 6th Great Extinction event, underway around the world due to climate change beginning before our species’ irruption from Africa, was accelerating on every new landmass we occupied. And soon, the vulnerability of obligate sedentary farmers to hungry neighbors and self-aggrandizing Big Men condemned vast numbers of our conspecifics to serfdom.
Without overburdening the comparison, biological and cultural evolution both proceed by random variation and selective retention on countless abstract dimensions, making them unpredictable a priori: IOW, no actual science of Psychohistory is possible. In hindsight only, Holocene cultural evolution led to today’s global economy of 8 billion busy cost-externalizers. Devoid of verifiable universal teleology (sorry BPL), it has resulted in the short, miserable lives of masses of land-bound peasants and landless refugees over millennia, and my own relatively stable comfort and security. It didn’t happen all at once, and isn’t over yet.
And now something unpredicted is evolving: global affluence, imperfectly measured by per-capita GDP, is growing rapidly (widely considered meliorative from a humane perspective), even as global population growth, adequately measured by total fertility rate, is slowing and expected by experts to become negative around the end of this century (also meliorative IMHO, though not everyone’s). The future quantitative trajectory of global overshoot under those two observed trends is hardly clear, AFAICT: even without anthropogenic global warming at greater than 0.2°C/decade, can global economic growth continue in a declining global population? Beats the heck out of me! I’ll most likely be gone by then, anyway.
Meanwhile, biodiversity erosion accelerates, while old and new resource limits threaten continued economic development at least as long as our population is growing. And then there’s climate change, a another time-dependent threat, beginning in the 18th century and accelerating up to today, and already taking a toll in grief and expense. Once again, the “best” thing anyone can do for “the Earth” is die, childless, right now. I for one have remained childless, but if anyone asks me to kill myself I’ll reply “you first”. Realistically, I’m along for the ride until my body quits, which may be as long as 30 years (thunk, thunk). Because history is not predictive but radically contingent, I’m simultaneously apprehensive and curious to watch it unfold outside my windows! Thanks for reading. Otherwise, I’m just a recreational typist!
MA Rodger says
16 Sep 2024 at 11:30 AM
Thanks for the summary of Catton’s thoughts. AS prescient as ever. He was on the ball, as are some others.
for example re “habits are hard to break; cultural inertia is hard to overcome.” ??
Tim Garrett
@nephologue
17 Jun 2022
New paper in @EGU_ESD with @ProfSteveKeen and @prof_grasselli shows a 50-year fixed relationship between world economic “wealth” – not the GDP – and global primary energy consumption. Implication? Our future is tied to even our quite distant past
The real GDP is not tied to energy consumption as many have claimed but more precisely to the *increase* in world energy consumption
Just to maintain the *inflation-adjusted* GDP we must continue to increase world energy consumption. Or, if energy consumption growth stalls, the nominal GDP may continue, but the real, inflation-adjusted, GDP will fail due to hyper-inflation
We must maintain resource-consumption growth for the economic system to survive. Of course, resources run out and their consumption produces pollution. So, that doesn’t end well.
Thermodynamically, we use an excess of energy, beyond what we need for sustenance, to effect a phase change, turning raw resources into civilization networks. Current production is offset by inflationary fraying of previously produced networks
Civilization growth is no different in essence than that of a tree, child, or snowflake. With an excess of energy, a remainder can be used to transform matter, building on past growth to overcome ever-present decay, if it is possible
SEE
https://xcancel.com/nephologue/status/1537848492323876865#m
Lotka’s wheel and the long arm of history: how does the distant past determine today’s global rate of energy consumption?
Timothy J. Garrett, Matheus R. Grasselli, and Stephen Keen
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1021/2022/esd-13-1021-2022.html
They will never speak of this at the next UNFCCC COP meeting. Such science ideas are Banned. Because >>> “it does not end well.”
Educate yourselves better.
PS
iow all of today’s “civilization” has been slowly cumulatively built upon the use of high energy density fossil fuels according to the Laws of Thermodynamics and Entropy.
It is impossible to separate other notions of GDP, consumption, fertility, agriculture output, species extinctions, or modern finance from this fundamental truth.
When things like ev / backup electricity lithium batteries only provide one tenth the energy density of Oil the outcome of social economic disruption followed on by global civilization and population collapse is unavoidable.
Oil supply cannot meet the global demand anymore. Using longer and wider straws to suck it up faster from reserves are no longer filling the ‘supply gap’. The temporary addition of tight oil/shale oil and gas ex-US are no longer able to fill the ‘supply gap’ caused by ongoing growth in demand either.
Renewable energy (incl hydrogen/biomass) and nuclear are incapable of replacing cheap high density high EROI fossil fuel energy supply and the ongoing future growth of that supply demanded by modern civilization.
Current manufacturing of renewable energy equipment and infrastructure is 100% reliant upon the increasing use of fossil fuel energy from RE needed resource extraction, transportation to installation and use.
No where on earth today does renewable energy manufacturing use 100% renewable energy in the supply chain that produces and installs that infrastructure.
Future theories of CO2 DAC and CCS are unfounded impossible unrealizable illogical myths in a world that lacks sufficient energy to maintain the existing civilisation energy requirements and future growth upon which it depends … in a world with insufficient fossil fuel energy supply.
Global civilization and population collapse is therefore, logically, unavoidable. The only real questions left is when where and how fast will it happen once it starts?
It’s the undeniable Laws of Physics in action
https://crashoil-blogspot-com.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Catton and the ecological overshoot problem. Part of this problem is indisputably caused by 8 billion people wanting food and part by high levels in per capita industrial consumption. I agree technology can only solve some of the problem and is not a panacea.
The population component might be self correcting in that populations growth has already stopped in several countries. The whole socio-economic system is dependent on industrialisation and economic growth, so changing that will be very hard, and planned degrowth might cause considerable unemployment.
We are probably stuck with solving the worst aspects or symptoms. For example there is a very worrying decline in pollinating insects, mostly caused by overuse of insecticides, all for small gains in productivity and because people like pristine looking food. We really need laws limiting the use of pesticides, or some form of regenerative farming less reliant on presticides, before things get catastrophic. We do not really want to be reliant on pollinating crops by hand or by robots. It would just be crazy. But we are sleep walking towards this.
has the website passed away?
Ive noticed that comments dont get published in the weekends. Presumably its because the moderators dont work in the weekends, due to family commitments etc,etc.
In Re to Nigel, 11 SEP 2024 AT 4:51 PM, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824466
Hi Nigel,
During the last few months, there usually was at least one moderation round during the weekends, sometimes more. What was exceptional on the last long moderation delay was its timespan from Wednesday September 4 till Monday September 9, covering not only complete weekend but also three full week days.
I understand that it can happen. It would be nice to have a means which enables to see ehat just happens – how long the moderation can take.
Greetings
Tomáš
TK,
It is what it is. It’s not like it’s costing you money.
If you’re bored, you could set up a spreadsheet.
If it pains you to visit and not get your daily fix of commentary, try hitting the subscribe button on the top right of this page (it’s free). Then you can go about your business like a normal person.
Radge Havers to TK: “ If it pains you to visit and not get your daily fix of commentary ”
;-)
Now imagine the alternative – no delays in replies: Mr. Kalisz and other Escobars furiously typing before they even finished reading the comments somebody had just posted…
A perfect setup for trolling and sealioning:
=== Wikipedia:
“Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”).[…] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate” and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.”
====
reminds you of anybody, “Dear Radge” ? ;-)
Piotr,
?
Do I sealion/troll?
I certainly agree that that pacing the rate of postings, calms things down.
Radge: . “Do I sealion/troll?”
No. I, for one, always appreciate your comments. It seems clear, to me at least, that Piotr is mocking TK, not you.
Piotr: “reminds you of anybody, “Dear Radge” ? ;-)
Radge: . “Do I sealion/troll?”
Not at all. It was directed to Tomas K. who matches the definition of a sealion to a “T” … ;-)
“ consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ”
Hence my reference of TK referring to the objects of his sealioning per “Dear [your name here]” . I.e, fulfilling the “maintaining a pretense of civility” part of the definition.
The knowledge feedback cycle is all over the map. Consider the following processes:
In a strictly-moderated online discussion forum, one learns to be patient.
In the team software development world, any latency in issue reporting or resolution is not tolerated. Holding a message or comment for a day will blow all delivery milestones.
In climate science, predictions are made for years in advance, and we all patiently wait for the results to fail or succeed (and even then with residual statistical significance). So years later, a new prediction is made to replace the failed one.
Meanwhile, the machine learning community perfects cross-validation strategies [1] and is able to throw away all the non-performing models w/o having to wait at all. Progress is made in leaps and bounds.
In traditional peer-review, reviewers are assigned and do their job as time permits.
In open peer-review, anybody can jump in and make their criticisms known immediately. Example => https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2024-30/#discussion
It all depends on the intellectual drive and/or fiscal desperation level of those involved.
Reminder that a climate science forum open 24×7 exists at:
https://github.com/orgs/azimuth-project/discussions
Reference:
[1] Sweet, L., C. Müller, M. Anand, and J. Zscheischler, 2023: Cross-Validation Strategy Impacts the Performance and Interpretation of Machine Learning Models. Artif. Intell. Earth Syst., 2, e230026, https://doi.org/10.1175/AIES-D-23-0026.1
a question about 2023 excessive heat and subsequent comments and research.
Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory
If the anomaly does not stabilize by August — a reasonable expectation based on previous El Niño events — then the world will be in uncharted territory. It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.
article by Gavin Schmidt in early 2024
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
Last year there was an active el nino. Now there isn’t. Large shipping IMO sulfur reductions are still operating globally. So DID the anomaly “stabilise” by now @ClimateOfGavin ?
To me it doesn’t look like it has stabilised because it is now as bad as or higher temps in 2024 than it was last year. Especially now it seems even worse an impact absent the ElNino we have moved out of as Zeke indicates here https://x.com/hausfath/status/1830820053496819752#m as do many others.
Zeke Hausfather @hausfath
Sep 3
With all of August now in, 2024 has effectively tied 2023 as the warmest August on record in the @Copernicus ECMWF dataset.
August 2024 was 1.49C above preindustrial levels, and 2024 is now virtually certain to be the warmest year on record.
Global Monthly Anomalies
https://cdn.x.com/pic/orig/media%2FGWhhII1XAAAptN2.jpg
Here is how August 2024 stacks up against all of the prior Augusts on record. Its around two thousandths of a degree above 2023 levels, which is well below the level of uncertainty in monthly records in the datasets making the two months a tie.
ERA5 August Historical https://x.com/pic/orig/media%2FGWhhKT6W0AEJCcY.png
Is this now what being in uncharted territory looks like?
Anyone have an answer or contribution post-aug 2024? the questions raised by the “unexpected heat” in 2023 now seems to be of little interest now, as if it never happened or is of no importance anymore. a history forgotten, we’ve moved on.
As I recall, there is typically a lag with ENSO-modulated warming and cooling, so it should not be unexpected that 2024 has continued to be warm–particularly as we remain in ENSO-neutral mode. But I think there’s a very good chance that 2025 will see slightly cooler temps–always guaranteed to bring out the “global warming has stopped!” brigade.
I much prefer Gavin, Zeke and climate science over feedback from amateurs who miss the point (and the data behind) the question/s being asked. Thanks anyway.
Your concern (?) about the deniers brigade could be sated by spending much more time on wuwt or twitter; and leaving me and the other readers here out of it.. Why? Because I am not interested.
So I will look elsewhere instead, and keep an eye open (blueskysocial etc) in case an answer to this “unchartered territory” comment by Gavin is ever addressed by him or other climate scientists.
Those who know what the Data has been saying for decades and that the anomaly is higher than it has ever been in the scientific record – as clearly outlined in my wasted comment above. Thanks for confirming asking and posting anything here is a waste of time.
Kris Van Steenbergen tracks this issue diligently. Responds to questions, too.
https://x.com/KrVaSt/status/1840616995550593532
Make sure you have not much in your stomach and are sitting/lying down for that.
To answer your question, what goes down, must come up. After our 2nd straight La Nina I started worrying about a large El Nino to follow. After the 3rd, I was certain. Surprisingly, it wasn’t as large as expected, but I reason that is because the oceans had started showing signs of What Goes Down Must Come Up Syndrome (minted that just now) aka everything went batshit crazy starting in 2023.
It might have been Steenbergen who suggested the same thing a couple/few months ago.
I think this is correct and think it started with the 2014-2016 time frame with the 2015-2016 very large EN acting as a booster. (I am certain large extremes are drivers of tipping points and/or indicators of them. This is why I hate smoothing data; we need to SEE those outliers. If there is a usefulness in smoothing, show the raw, too.)
I have seen at least two papers indicating the current sudden rise in temps started in the ’14-’16 time frame.
We are, I am 99% certain, smack in the middle of a massive tipping point. Sad because you cannot reverse a tipping point that has already begun at this scale and good because if it is not TOO massive, it might serve to wake everyone completely the #$%^ up.
Skimming some of your comments. we seem to be of like minds. As you have seen, it’s a hostile environment for people who are systems/sustainability/regenerative systems thinkers/solutioneers. I don’t post much because after 17 years of posting here, it’s more than clear this space is one of the least productive spaces to discuss regenerative climate solutions and existential risk, aka an 80% get you 20% of your outcomes place rather than 20% of your effort getting you 80% of your results.
It’s gotten so the peanut Gallery must grudgingly engage, but they still go all piranha on you if you dare to be correct about something they are not able to understand or are not ready to accept. Try asking about my El Nino/ASI effect theory. (Confirmed again this summer, btw.)
Cheers
Hi Killian,
I know CJ. She’s been banned from posting here. And grateful for it. She has better things to do than manage children like this here. Being correct too soon is socially unacceptable.
Will Gavin ever address properly his “uncharted territory” comment? We doubt it and frankly, don’t even care. It is irrelevant. It was as a used a distraction then away from the reality of the 2023 early 2024 massive temp spike (as you say out of the oceans heat content accumulated over many years) and if he ever addresses it again it will be for the purposes of distraction again.
Same as the thread here about the myriad of weak knee jerk biased studies claiming to know what happened – but they don’t know anything, obviously – blinded by their own nonsense and self-importance imo. That thread is and will go no where.
Maybe tomorrow there will be a another “denier scientist” paper he and the peanut gallery can get their teeth into. More than sad, more than pathetic while world rapidly cooks.
McKibbon did a fair review about climate off the scale https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/water
Were it happening just in one place, a compassionate world could figure out how to offer effective relief. But it’s happening in so many places. The same day that Helene slammed into the Gulf, Hurricane John crashed into the Mexican state of Guerrero, dropping nearly 40 inches of rain and causing deadly and devastating floods in many places including Acapulco, which is still a shambles from Hurricane Otis last year. In Nepal this afternoon at least 148 people are dead and many still missing in the Kathmandu Valley. Just this month, as one comprehensive twitter thread documented, we’ve seen massive flooding in Turkey, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Marseilles, Milan, India, Wales, Guatemala, Morocco, Algeria, Vietnam, Croatia, Nigeria, Thailand, Greece, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, with the Danube hitting new heights across Central Europe. It is hard to open social media without seeing cellphone videos from the cars-washing-down-steep-streets genre; everywhere the flows are muddy-brown, and swirling with power.
But Kamala and the Democratic Party (with the help of Michael Mann of course) will save the world, no doubt about it! LOL
Delusional. Justice is coming. We won’t recognize the place after 2030. Websites like here will be gone, shut down in shame, and forgotten.
The great reckoning is upon us. The US empire and the west are going to be wrecked. Good riddance.
The chances of 2024 cooling off enough to bring the annual average SAT below 2023 are indeed shrinkingly small.
The 2024 average Jan-Aug was +0.70ºC while the 2023 annual average was +0.60ºC. That means 2024 bcomes the hottest-year-on-record unless the 2024 Sept-Dec average cools below +0.40ºC. That’s almost impossible, not because +0.40ºC is that cold, (only 2015, 2019 & 2023 had Sept-Dec averages that weren’t that cold) but because there is no sign of the required cooling being underway, making it a cooling which would now be unprecidented in size. Sept-Dec would have to be -0.31ºC cooler than Jul-Aug. 1998 managed the greatest such cooling (-0.27ºC). 1992 managed -0.23ºC, 1988 -0.19ºC, 1990 -0.18ºC, 1996 -0.15ºC & 2011 -0.14ºC, this last cooling half the 2024 ‘requirement’. The bigger coolings also tend to be earlier years as the rate of Sept-Dec AGW had been running above-annual-average (up to 2005).
While declaring 2024 a ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ year will make news headlines, what is actually important is an explanation for those “bananas” SAT anomalies and the implications that will entail.
The Gavin quote above runs:-
My own humble view of it** is that August is too early to dismiss ENSO as the cause. Yes it would mean the climate response to El Niño is transforming, (with bigger NH Ocean SAT response and that causing giant NH Land anomalies) which might be seen as presenting “an unprecedented knowledge gap”.
The NH Ocean SAT (5-month rolling aves**) in 1998 presented a flat ‘plateau’ that has become less flat over the past three decades of ENSO. 2015-16 shows an high initial peak rather than a flat ‘plateau’, but that initial peak is far higher in 2023-24. And are we now also seeing a second later peak appearing? There was a tiny late bulge in 2010 and a bigger bulge in 2016. So is the ‘plateau’ transforming into ‘twin-peaks’?
The up-shot of all this nerdiness is that I would not expect SAT levels to start dropping from that NH Ocean ‘plateau’ until after August.
(** I base this all on NOAA SAT numbers of past El Niño years which are plotted out in a graphic posted here (a link which may not work) and if the ‘hot’ link doesn’t work here First POSTED 14th February 2024.)
MA Rodger, your prescient statement above on 2023 “My own humble view of it** is that August is too early to dismiss ENSO as the cause.” has support from the following:
‘The 2023 global warming spike was driven by El Niño/Southern Oscillation’
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1937/
This work was added 9/11 to the Gavin Schmidt post ‘New journal: Nature 2023?’ via this: “NEW (9/11/2024) Raghuraman et al. (2024) (preprint) argue that the jump in 2023 is not inconsistent with El Niño (from looking at pe-industrial control runs).”
Nice work MAR :-) Your commentary here is a plus.
For anyone unaware, there are post-August (and prior) updates regarding 2023 here at RealClimate in this post:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/05/new-journal-nature-2023
As I looked at the flat haze that was the clear-weather sky in Chicago yesterday (and again today) I’m wondering if there has been much work done to incorporate trends in wildfire smoke plumes into climate models. I know that soot on Greenland and on ice fields in general reduces albedo and increases melt rates, but the reflectance of the plumes from wildfires is increasing as wildfire seasons expand, and overall ice field area outside of Antarctica is declining – especially in wildfire season.
Use settings to turn on the NOAA smoke plumes display in https://fire.airnow.gov/ and you can see much of the atmosphere over the US and Canada is now probably reflecting some of the incoming sunlight due to high haze.
There’s a lot of changes going on with reflectance as ships reduce their emissions, as electrification esp. with transport and renewable generation will reduce other haze, but as fire seasons are increasing everywhere. I doubt the increased albedo makes up for the CO2 released from the burning materials, just curious about how it might be factored into global models.
On the question of wildfire plumes: Similarly to shipping emissions, reflectance from wildfire plumes are included in many global models, inlcuding both climate models and weather forecasts models. The uncertainties are dependent on both the information about the plumes and the representation in models. The historical re-creation of the climate in the climate models often use monthly mean averages and assumptions about plume heights. There are attempts / parameterisations that try to take into account climate change but these are quite uncertain.
Very good question, thanks. Meanwhile, here’s a good place to look at North American smoke:
https://fire.airnow.gov/#2/52.62/-62.96
[my source suggested unclicking most of the choices, leaving NOAA smoke plumes in.]
I did see something that suggested this is now a major input. Found these two on a quick search:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/the-climate-connections-of-a-record-fire-year-in-the-us-west/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082018/extreme-wildfires-climate-change-global-warming-air-pollution-fire-management-black-carbon-co2/ How Wildfires Can Affect Climate Change (and Vice Versa) – It’s complicated: While CO2 causes long-term warming, aerosols can have both a warming and a temporary cooling effect.
Thanks Øyvind, Thanks, Susan,
Seems there will be lots more data to aid in model parameterizations in coming years. The hopeful (relatively speaking) note at the end of your second link, Susan, is that our fueled emissions are still much higher. Not comforting as we will find out how much a thawing, burning boreal and tundra zones girdling the Arctic will compete with reduced emissions as we decarbonize the global economy.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/debate-2024-did-harris-join-the-all-of-above-energy-club-appears-so-112015703.html
Silicon Valley’s High tech data centers already require massive amounts of electricity and that demand is exploding with the move to AI. The defense industry also. Climate scientists who criticize Jem Bendell are being rather optimistic.
This comes from a non-scientist who browses this site from time to time. I’ve been thinking about the summer of ’23 temperature surge into “uncharted territory” and the persistence of the surge into the summer of ’24 … and the lack of any solid scientific proof of causation. Obviously heat doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. Where could the massive amount needed for the anomaly have come from? For a layman like me the most likely, prime suspect has to be the oceans. They’ve been acting as a vast storehouse for a long time now and maybe they’ve reached a point where they just can’t take in as much heat as before … and/or maybe, under the old “heat raises pressure and tends to rise” rule, they are now letting out some of what’s been stored. Sorry if this is an unbelievably stupid comment, but it’s in the context of news of extremely high SSTs around the world. No doubt many visitors to this site find it disconcerting that the otherwise knowledgeable moderators and commentators here seem stumped at what could be a momentous moment in the history of climate science.
S.B. Ripman “ find it disconcerting that the otherwise knowledgeable moderators and commentators here seem stumped at what could be a momentous moment in the history of climate science.”
I find it disconcerting when non-scientist disparage scientists based on their amateur mis-understanding of the “climate science”.
Such as not getting the critical importance of the time-scales. Climate change is about the changes that persist over MANY DECADES, So unless the signal from “summer of 2023” persists over decades – it is of marginal importance to CLIMATE, it’s a statistical “noise” around the climatological trend, that will be mostly cancelled out by colder than avg. summers, when averaging over decades. Hardly the stuff of “ momentous moment in the history of climate science.”
What’s more important, climate are DOMINATED by different mechanisms than short-term (“weather”) events – Global Warming by the GHGs increases; “summer of 2023” by the fluctuations in the atm. and oceanic circulation
Consequently, “summer of 2023” is NOT necessarily a “momentous moment in the history of CLIMATE science”, and “being stumped” in terms of quantitative attribution of the short term (i.e. “weather”) events, says close to nothing about the credibility of the CLIMATE science.
So your “disconcert” is either self-inflicted, or, if used as cover for attacking the credibility of climate scientists – disingenuous..
Given recent comments about smokey skies, wildfires, and previous ones about indigenous communities and traditional knowledge WRT climate change, this CBC item seems like an apropos bit to share.
[Text begins]
When Dave Pascal began working as a forest firefighter, it was a three-months-a-year job. He spent the summers fighting wildfires, then went back to his regular job as a forest technician.
“It was like the little boys’ club. And we would just jump on helicopters, fly out into the bush, go and put fires out and come home and go back to our regular job,” he said.
But then, with climate change, the fire seasons kept getting longer — and so did Pascal’s work.
“All of a sudden, I don’t have another job anymore,” he said. “Now, it’s a career.”
Climate change has changed almost every industry — and provided opportunities to rethink established practices. Pascal, a member of the Líl̓wat First Nation, is a cultural and prescribed fire specialist at the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society of British Columbia, where he’s bringing traditional Indigenous knowledge back to managing wildfire.
Communities across the province come to him with proposals for prescribed burns, which are controlled and planned burns to reduce the amount of fuel around their lands and make them safer during fire seasons.
“It’s their territory, it’s their land,” Pascal said.
“They know how to manage it. So they’ll tell me what their plan is, and I’m there to support their plan.”
The need for bringing back those practices is growing, especially after the historically bad 2023 fire season in Canada, and the devastating fires in Jasper this year.
That means greatly expanding the number of people working in this field, just like Canada needs more people to work in green retrofitting or to drill for geothermal energy. And like other parts of the green economy, that can mean changing the way the agencies fund these job positions and choose the people for them.
Amy Cardinal Christianson, a former research scientist at the Canadian Forest Service, advocates for more Indigenous wildland firefighters. She says the recruitment process requires a change to what some typically consider as “expertise,” especially when many Indigenous firefighters may not have had access to the usual degree programs and certificates for leadership positions in their field.
“They know their area, they know the values, they know how fire moves on the land, but they’re totally withheld from decision-making in their territories,” she said.
Along with changing that rigid template of who qualifies for certain jobs, stable funding from the government for year-round job security is also important to attract new people to the job, said Christianson.
“We need to stop thinking about fire as something that we can just throw money at in the summer and the problem will go away,” she said.
“What we’re seeing now with these summers of smoke is that it’s something that we need to invest in year round.”
[End text]
Original source–if the link works:
https://subscriptions.cbc.ca/newsletter_static/messages/whatonearth/2024-09-12/
Hi Kevin,
It made me think of a few things. First was articles I’d seen pre-pandemic discussing the beginning of breakdown of an equipment-timesharing that worked between Australian and US Western firefighters – aircraft could go from one at end of season to be at the start of the other season. Not as possible with overlapping seasons.
So along with more people, more equipment. And with some of the fires being changed in their scale – more need for a trained core of coordinators and modelers to increase safety for crews and improve predictions for evacuations. It would be a good candidate, I think, for a combination of profession and something akin to the old Civilian Conservation Corps.
Finally, the usefulness of localized knowledge from people used to a landscape before western approaches upended management – reminded me of a tangential topic and very good book
“Water Always Wins: Thriving in an Age of Drought and Deluge” by Erica Gies.
Part of managing fire in arid regions is to take steps to keep some water in the ground, and several of the places Gies visits feature that lost practice.
Looks like Zeke thinks “unchartered territory” is what is happening, and might be here to stay.
2024’s unusually persistent warmth
This year is increasingly diverging from past El Nino years.
Zeke Hausfather
Sep 09, 2024
Quote:
While its possible that global temperatures will finally start to fall in the next few weeks, given the highly anomalous trajectory of 2023 and 2024 to-date I would not bet on it.
What might this mean going forward?
Unfortunately we still lack a good explanation for what drove the exceptional warmth the world saw in 2023 and 2024. We have a lot of potential mediocre explanations (e.g. low sulfur marine fuel regulations, the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in 2022, an uptick in the 11 year solar cycle, El Nino behaving weirdly, etc.). But these have increasingly been modeled, and it is hard to explain the magnitude of the global temperature anomaly the world has experienced even adding all of these estimates together.
Many of us hoped that if 2024 returned to a more predictable post-El-Nino regime it would provide evidence that what happened in the second half of 2023 was a blip – some short lived internal variability that drove a spike in global temperatures but did not persist.
However, with temperatures remaining elevated into September 2024, its looking increasingly less likely that last year’s elevated temperatures were a mostly transient phenomenon. Rather, some combination of forcings or changes in feedbacks may be driving higher global temperatures going forward.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/2024s-unusually-persistent-warmth
Re Zeke and the Data – While the engineer clings to the hopium of unscientific wishful thinking it has to be ENSO all there is is crickets. It’s in the too hard basket to comment on. There’s always Carbon Tracker when you’re really in a jam.
Dessler says: The doom spiral – There are two facts that keep me grounded, and here they are:…….
Mal Adapted, can two ‘possibilities’ happening decades in the future really be defined as “Facts”?
And no matter what the US does, isn’t it practically guaranteed that we will exceed +3C this century, as per most climate scientists expectations and what the data also indicates repeatedly? I only ask because it looks to me that Dessler is clearly the outlier as his future scenario isn’t based on the evidence or the known facts and future possibilities but unfounded Hope alone.
nothing wrong with hope. We are alive, we must try. Please honor those who are still pushing us to do better.
Delusion is not hope. It’s a lie. It’s not science.
CJ, I ask you to permit me to address your dismissal of hope with an analogy.
Before every voyage I’ve ever undertaken, I have been aware that the voyage could end in disappointment perhaps even disaster. There are always uncertainties when we start out. We may not know where we will sleep or how we will get from point A to point B. We may be victims of theft or violence. And while we may develop plans for such eventualities, they may not be adequate to address the demands when adversity strikes. Indeed, it could simply be that the voyage may be a disappointment. All of these adversities are possible.
The thing that gets us out the door on our trip is the hope that the voyage will yield experiences that make it worthwhile, and that our past experiences have equipped us with what we will need to surmount the obstacles the voyage tosses in our path. And again and again, in my travels I have been rewarded not just with the experiences I anticipated, but with serendipity I could not have imagined, and I have each time arrived safe and more or less sound back home. All of those good experiences have become memories. But more than that, even the bad experiences have become stories.
Our species is on a journey. It is full of uncertainties, and it will no doubt include calamities. But it will also allow us to discover things about our world and about ourselves–and the calamities will become the stories of our species.
As Robert Louis Stevenson said: “To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.”
RL: As Robert Louis Stevenson said: “To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.”
BPL: Then how could anyone ever travel hopefully? Much as I like Stevenson, I think there’s a logical disconnect there somewhere.
Ray, when I get on a train or a plane or an Uber I expect to arrive and have hope I will barring some unforeseen nature event or an accident.
Past evidence proves that Hope is justified based upon long term accumulated evidence.
It is far wiser to recognize narrative propaganda spin and advertising not actually based on real data and definitely not on any hard evidence for what it is.
The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie. Especially that useless Carbon Tracker site offered up as some kind of stupid ‘authority’ that all is well. It isn’t. Jacobson WWS wishful thinking is also false and is not genuine credible science. Far from it.
Robert Louis Stevenson was not a Scientist – and clearly nor are you.
Delusion is not hope. It’s a lie. It’s not science.
Enjoy your religiosity though.
Really nice Ray. Thank you for that.
BPL,
“Then how could anyone ever travel hopefully? Much as I like Stevenson, I think there’s a logical disconnect there somewhere.”
I see it as a more elegant way of saying that it’s about the journey, not the destination– more psychologically and philosophically foundational than some disconnected, ectoplasmic thing.
Very simply put: “Think good thoughts,” as opposed to thinking, say, “Be a smart alec, antisocial emo” when faced with difficulties, which pretty much implies screwing the destination.
Perhaps in more martial terms, better to go down swinging than whining when it comes to AGW.
Happy warrior?
cj: The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie.
BPL: You mean you don’t agree with it or like it, therefore it isn’t true?
Asks BPL: “You mean you don’t agree with it or like it, therefore it isn’t true?”
No. Not at all. What I mean is what I said, being: “cj: The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie.”
Me not agreeing or not liking “it” is irrelevant. What I said is based upon knowledge the Data, Logic and Math.
It is you who doesn’t agree with me or like what I said and therefore claim it isn’t true.
Perhaps it’s worth noting that the Stevenson “travel hopefully” quote comes from 1881, by which time the perennially sickly author had already been close to death for relatively prolonged periods twice. He’d experienced a great deal of rejection, and when his spiritual journey led him to a period of convinced atheism had suffered the agony of ‘coming out’ as such to his parents. That experience led him to write to a friend: “O Lord, what a pleasant thing it is to have just damned the happiness of (probably) the only two people who care a damn about you in the world.” (Although he presumably didn’t really intend to imply that his friend didn’t ‘give a damn’!)
The point here being that the optimism of ‘traveling hopefully’ shouldn’t be mistaken for a Pollyanna-ish notion; Stevenson had endured and still would endure much, and had long since accepted suffering and darkness as a lived reality. His acceptance, in my view, was precisely what enabled him to enjoy multiple journeys, literal and otherwise–including what was probably an unlooked-for marriage–for the remaining 13 years of his life.
I try to do–maybe ‘try to be’?–something or someone somewhat analogous. Some years ago in online conversation with a denialist, I was told that I ‘must be’ miserable by virtue of accepting the reality that climate change is very, very dangerous; very, very urgent; and very, very under-recognized as such. To me, it read as an inadvertent confession on the part of the interlocutor that their concern for their own psychic well-being was motivating their cognition–AKA, “motivated reasoning.”
But after all, as I wrote in a song some years ago, “Nobody gets out of here alive.” Stevenson surely knew he wouldn’t. It didn’t stop him from advocating fiercely for the Samoa that he saw being encroached upon by European colonialism, any more than it stopped him from caring for those he loved. (And letting them care for him, of course.)
PS
Ray Ladbury says
19 Sep 2024 at 9:56 AM
CJ, I ask you to permit me to address your dismissal of hope with an analogy.
Ray, there is no point when you have no idea what I said means in the first place. Your poor judgement does not and never will define me.
– I never dismissed Hope — I dismissed Hopium … unfounded Hope.
– I dismissed the reliance e upon delusions and disinformation masquerading as Hope.
– I openly promoted reliance upon data, logic and math … good rational judgment and accumulated Knowledge. For THAT IS where all Hope resides.
I am a very happy traveller. People’s extreme responses to my simple factual evidence based commentary points to them (you) not being happy travellers or being Hopeful at all. You’re all so easily shaken and threatened by alternative perspectives.
and Radge Havers says
22 Sep 2024 at 10:04 PM
Thanks for adding in your ‘people in glass houses throwing stones’ framing.
The irony was Phantastic! :-)
BPL: You mean you don’t agree with it or like it, therefore it isn’t true?
CJ: No. Not at all. What I mean is what I said, being: “cj: The narrative you and others are believing in (about net zero ZEC, 1.5C, and renewables being able to replace fossil fuel energy is a fraud, a con, it’s false and it’s a lie.”
CJ: Ray, there is no point when you have no idea what I said means in the first place. Your poor judgement does not and never will define me.
BPL: CJ, if people constantly don’t get what you’re saying, the problem is more likely to reside in what you’re writing than in how others are reading. A poor workman blames his tools; a poor writer blames his readers.
CJ, I have heard this quote attributed to Leonardo, but have never found a definitive attribution. Nonetheless, it summarizes my attitude fairly well:
“As to my critics, I pay no more attention to the wind coming from their mouths than to that coming from their anuses.”
cj,
I hesitate to respond to your trolling, but I might as well point out; My “framing” was an indirect reference to you. I didn’t necessarily expect you to pick up on that, but I hope I didn’t accidentally offend anyone else.
Hope is inversely related to certainty, and science doesn’t offer certainty. All climate science can do, is project what will happen to global heat content under specified emissions scenarios. Which emissions scenario actually occurs will be determined by politics. Unless you’re an expert in the politics of collective action, you don’t know which emissions scenario will occur any more than we do, believe it or not.
Since the political future is unknowable even as far the next election, your certainty of climate doom is delusional. Your insistence that you can see the future when other, equally well educated and informed RC commenters can’t, manifests a narcissistic personality. The Abrahamic religions call it pride, the deadliest of sins, for it enables all others. Just sayin’!
In case it’s not clear, my comment at 21 SEP 2024 AT 9:02 AM was in response to cj’s at 18 SEP 2024 AT 4:56 AM. Ray’s response to cj wasn’t as overtly sarcastic as his can be, but was wise and overtly beneficent, as he can also be. Although beneficence is a stretch for me, I can only aspire to be as wise. That means borrowing other people’s words a lot.
cj: “Delusion is not hope. It’s a lie.”
I’m not a Christian, but IMHO Matthew 7:3 theistically expresses plain human wisdom.
The only reason to dismiss hope is to justify one’s own defeatism. Indeed hope is distilled into its purest form as the probability for success diminishes. And as Kolmogorov has shown, even zero probability (zero measure) of success does not equate to the impossibility of success. It is not wise to rely solely on hope, but it is essential to hold onto it.
Hope is a virtue,
Virtue is a grace.
Grace is a little girl who didn’t wash her face.
CJ asks:
Actually, cj, no. It’s not even expected, at least according to this analysis.
“Current policies presently in place around the world are projected to result in about 2.7°C warming above pre-industrial levels. NDCs alone will limit warming to 2.5°C. When binding long-term or net-zero targets are included warming would be limited to about 2.1°C above pre-industrial levels.”
Now, I’m not saying that’s good news, exactly. But it’s at least better than the 3 C you dread.
to Kevin McKinney my question was specifically for Mal.
I’m not interested in flawed amateur opinions, or the unscientific deeply fraudulent / not credible & distorted propaganda / disinformation from ‘think tanks’ like carbon tracker.
cj: facile insults and opinionated accusations tell us more about you than they do about the target of your attack(s).
Since I’m here, I’ll risk further opprobrium by trying once again to point out that since each of us is now alive, we must support that life as best we can. In the face of relentless opposition, error, and stupidity, It is sad that people who comprehend the harms in progress are busy encouraging despair and/or apathy while making a great noise about them.
I think carbon tracker has considerably more credibility than you do, my friend. And similar analyses are out there as well–for example, UNEP:
https://www.ft.com/content/9bbd39e8-eccc-4827-989d-0a2c3bfd934d
As for “my question was intended for Mal,” perhaps you need a refresher course on how public discussion fora work?
CJ: ” to Kevin McKinney my question was specifically for Mal. I’m not interested in flawed amateur opinions, or the unscientific deeply fraudulent / not credible & distorted propaganda / disinformation”
You could have remained silent at the risk of being thought a fool, but you chose to talk and remove all doubt of it.
Heh. Speaking from experience: the upside of being thought a fool is that the pressure’s off. You can spout all the damn-fool nonsense you want, and nobody pays any attention!
CJ, I will take a world filled with the hope of people like Kevin McKinney and Susan Anderson over the attitude you present here at RC. For in the end, it is those who hope and aspire that help get the world on a better path that the science shows is achievable.
I won’t presume to speak for otters, but IMHO you are a welcome voice of sanity on these pages, David. Thank you.
Again with the plank in your eye! I’m not interested in flawed amateur opinions, or the unscientific deeply fraudulent / not credible & distorted propaganda / disinformation from ‘think tanks’ either. Where do you get your ideas? If you say “science”, well, so do I. Never mind, you’ve earned the label of “persistent, gratuitous irritant”. I’m done taunting you. I’ll leave that to otters.
Mal to CJ: “ Where do you get your ideas? Never mind, you’ve earned the label of “persistent, gratuitous irritant”. I’m done taunting you. I’ll leave that to otters.”
Fetchez La Vache!
Dang. I just figured out Monty Python and the Holy Grail is where Michael Fry got the idea! It won’t win me any Trivial Pursuit playoffs, but thanks, Piotr!
China is obviously an evil Empire rising to destroy the Wests’s benign and beneficial international rules based order. Ready with BRICS to undermine all attempts to stop using fossil fuels. Right? Yes of course! We all know that because we are told everyday in mass media with indisputable proofs. All the facts and figures are clear. Trust the political science and the main stream western media, they do not lie nor spread propaganda for autocratcic totalitarian regimes like China. Right?
Maybe it is not that simple after all?
The Vatican is quite consistent in expressing tremendous admiration for China. For instance here with Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, one of the main intellectual figures of the Vatican (Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences):
Vatican official praises China for witness to Catholic social teaching
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37694/vatican-official-praises-china-for-witness-to-catholic-social-teaching
He said that “at this moment, those who best realize the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese”, adding that “they [the Chinese] seek the common good, subordinate things to the general good… You do not have shantytowns, you do not have drugs, young people do not have drugs. There is a positive national consciousness… China has defended the dignity of the human person.”
Quite a different discourse from Western media. Sorry for being off topic. I just thought another example of how far off base the western media is might prod a bit of double checking now and then. Good luck to all.
Walt, you know none of us, whether we acknowledge the Pope’s moral authority or not, has said China is the most evil empire ever in a world which has never seen a good one, nor does anyone here think it’s intent on destroying anything wholly benign. IOW, you are belaboring a strawman. It only makes you look fanatical! I suggest you’re not doing China a service that way. Meanwhile, the rest of us have moved on.
I find it quite amusing you accusing others of looking fanatical. And to still believe you can speak for others. But it fits.
CJ to Mal: I find it quite amusing you accusing others of looking fanatical.
Seeing an imaginary straw in the eye of Mal, and not seeing a beam in your own?
Must be all that self-amusement at OTHERS…
cj, whether you read my comments in their entirety or not, I’m confident I speak for myself and some other RC commenters who aren’t professional climate scientists, but recognize the authority of science to discipline both hope and fear by refusing to offer certainty. My background doesn’t make me any kind of expert, but does give me the skills to identify whether or not a consensus of actual subject matter experts has emerged. WRT the future quantitative trajectory of global heat content, I see a consensus that’s not overwhelming, but mainly is less dramatic than your predictions. Seeking to avoid the Dunning-Kruger effect, I acknowledge I’m not an SME, thus unable to contribute to their consensus one way or another, and knowing no more than they do in aggregate. I therefore have no choice but to accept the modal expert consensus represented by RC’s authors and peers such as Zeke Hausfather and Andrew Dessler, albeit tentatively and provisionally, as the scientists do. That allows me to retain a tentative, provisional hope for the coming decades.: a supplemental cognitive motivator, if you will.
What are your motivators, cj? Certainty of the future and denial of one’s vulnerability to the D-K effect are manifestations of a narcissistic personality, if not a disorder. You are here aggressively proclaiming certainty of a future that’s actually knowable only within error parameters, and taking challenges personally, but your narcissism prevents you from recognizing you’re the fanatic. IMHO, that is.
– CJ to Mal: “I find it quite amusing you accusing others of looking fanatical”
– Mal “fanatical” response: “I acknowledge I’m not an SME, thus unable to contribute to their consensus one way or another, and knowing no more than they do in aggregate. I therefore have no choice but to accept the modal expert consensus represented by RC’s authors and peers such as Zeke Hausfather and Andrew Dessler, albeit tentatively and provisionally, as the scientists do.”
Now, who expects CJ to respond to that with something along the lines:
*****
Mal, this was a remarkably thoughtful response to my contemptuous and completely unjustified attack. You have given me a lot to think about. Yes, you have convinced me that your approach to climate science, and life in general, is so much better than mine. Therefore, I would like to apologize to you and all others on this group from my arrogant behaviour so far, and will strive, from this point on, to do, and be, better.
Thank you again, Mal, for helping me to critically look at myself, and learn from it, with an honest unblinking introspection being the basis for a meaningful change. Life unexamined is not worth living, eh?
******
So, please raise hand – who thinks that this will be the gist of CJ’s response. Anybody?
to Mal Adapted
Well if your fanatical ad hominem lies and verbal abuse are only “IMHO” then must be ok then.
Classy.
The rest of your “commentary” has nothing to do with me or what I have said here. Enjoy your beliefs. LOL
WH: China is obviously an evil Empire rising to destroy the Wests’s benign and beneficial international rules based order. . . . Quite a different discourse from Western media
BPL: You didn’t notice the 1.5 million Uighurs and Turkmen in labor camps because they’re Muslim? The Han settlers flooding Tibet? Hong Kong turned into a tightly controlled police state? Laying claim to international waters and pushing around Philippine and Vietnamese fishermen? China is A) evil, and B) an empire, the latter being defined by taking over other countries. BTW, China being evil doesn’t mean the west has to be “benign and beneficial.” Fallacy of bifurcation.
Forbes reporting on the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/06/22/breaking-records-2024-statistical-review-of-world-energy-highlights/
Fossil Fuels: 81.3%, Nukes/Hydro: 10.4% (No CO2 but established plant, no big increase)
Renewables: 8.2% However, here in the USA about 60% of “renewables” is biofuels — which I consider CO2 emitting fossil fuels. Worldwide, that would suggest only roughly 4% of primary energy to be solar/wind/geotherm etc.
However, energy DEMAND is increasing about 2% a year, which gives us the Forbes Money Quote:
“Global energy consumption increased by 12.3 exajoules from 2022. Fossil fuels contributed 7.8 exajoules (63.6% of the increase) while renewables contributed the remaining 4.5 exajoules. Global energy demand continues to grow faster than the ability of renewables to keep pace, much less displace fossil fuels.”
True. But facts data and evidence never matter in this game. It’s not about the reality it is only ever all about the ‘perceptions’. . . . . the narrative. Sustained by the hopium. Once we hit Zet Zero we’re all saved. You must have Faith.
Don Williams, you consider biofuels are not renewables because they are just CO2 emitting fossil fuels. I think thats maybe not very well considered, because you left out the fact that biofuels are carbon neutral. So the number for 8.2% renewables is correct.
A more valid criticism of biofuels would be we that don’t have enough land for them to be anything more than a small part of the solution. But right now they are helpful.
While its true that renewables are still struggling to displace fossil fuels. the renewables growth curve has been exponential, with no compelling reason why that curve wont continue, so its just a matter of time before renewables displace fossil fuels. This time frame looks like it will still be a bit slower than ideal, but it could be speeded up with stronger policies to encourage renewables. For example stronger carbon taxes, ETS schemes with strong settings, or other incentives. And policies and laws that make it easier to build wind and solar farms.
1) Good point re biofuels.
2) One problem I see here in the USA is local/state controls. My neighbor put solar on his roof but had a year long struggle with the local utility company to come out and make the necessary connection to the grid. The red state/rural area governments might slow roll solar due to hidden influence from fossil fuel donors. But in the urban blue state areas the local electric utility may oppose/slow roll installation of solar on the only space available (residential rooftops) because it undercuts their earnings from providing residential electricity. Plus utliity companies may want to use coal plants to their full life instead of scrapping what they see as a valuble asset before its time.
3) Our energy policy also needs a complete cradle to grave evaluation of sources. There have been news reports of China using coal for the energy needed to make solar panels they sell to us.
https://time.com/6564184/chinese-solar-panels-cost/
“While Chinese solar panels may produce carbon-emissions-free energy, producing these panels is not so environmentally friendly. Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, accounts for a majority of China’s electricity generation. In Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where the most energy-intensive step in the solar panel manufacturing process, polysilicon refining, is concentrated, coal accounts for 77% of power generation. As a result, a recent study found that solar panels manufactured in China produce 30% more greenhouse gas emissions than if this supply chain was reshored to the U.S.”
4) Somehow I don’t see the CO2 value in the USA shipping coal to CHina so China can use it to make solar panels to ship back to us. What is the carbon footprint to mine the coal, transport the coal to the other side of the earth and then ship the solar panels back to here?
5) https://uscoalexports.org/2023/12/07/us-exports-of-met-coal-rise-in-september/
“US exports of met coal rise in September
US coking coal exports rose by 4.8pc on the year in September to 4mn t, driven by increased deliveries to India and China, trade data show……
…The US shipped 4mn t to China in January-September 2023, almost doubling on the year as Chinese buyers returned for cargoes after focusing on purchases of Russian and Mongolian coal the previous year. Chinese met coal imports from the US in September rose nearly fivefold on the year.”
6) https://uscoalexports.org/2023/12/21/hampton-roads-coal-exports-exceed-2022-volume/
“Terminals in Hampton Roads loaded 3.21mn short tons (2.91mn metric tonnes) of coal last month, up by 24pc from a year earlier, the Virginia Maritime Association estimates.
Year-to-date volumes climbed to 32.2mn st, up by 9.5pc compared with the same 11 months in 2022.”
1) Good point re biofuels. However, there is carbon emitted in the plowing, fertilizing and transport of biofuels (e.g, for maize.)
2) One problem I see here in the USA is local/state controls. My neighbor put solar on his roof but had a year long struggle with the local utility company to come out and make the necessary connection to the grid. The red state/rural area governments might slow roll solar due to hidden influence from fossil fuel donors. But in the urban blue state areas the local electric utility may oppose/slow roll installation of solar on the only space available (residential rooftops) because it undercuts their earnings from providing residential electricity. Plus utliity companies may want to use coal plants to their full life instead of scrapping what they see as a valuble asset before its time.
3) Our energy policy also needs a complete cradle to grave evaluation of sources. There have been news reports of China using coal for the energy needed to make solar panels they sell to us.
https://time.com/6564184/chinese-solar-panels-cost/
“While Chinese solar panels may produce carbon-emissions-free energy, producing these panels is not so environmentally friendly. Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, accounts for a majority of China’s electricity generation. In Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where the most energy-intensive step in the solar panel manufacturing process, polysilicon refining, is concentrated, coal accounts for 77% of power generation. As a result, a recent study found that solar panels manufactured in China produce 30% more greenhouse gas emissions than if this supply chain was reshored to the U.S.”
4) Somehow I don’t see the CO2 value in the USA shipping coal to CHina so China can use it to make solar panels to ship back to us. What is the carbon footprint to mine the coal, transport the coal to the other side of the earth and then ship the solar panels back to here?
5) https://uscoalexports.org/2023/12/07/us-exports-of-met-coal-rise-in-september/
“US exports of met coal rise in September
US coking coal exports rose by 4.8pc on the year in September to 4mn t, driven by increased deliveries to India and China, trade data show……
…The US shipped 4mn t to China in January-September 2023, almost doubling on the year as Chinese buyers returned for cargoes after focusing on purchases of Russian and Mongolian coal the previous year. Chinese met coal imports from the US in September rose nearly fivefold on the year.”
6) https://uscoalexports.org/2023/12/21/hampton-roads-coal-exports-exceed-2022-volume/
“Terminals in Hampton Roads loaded 3.21mn short tons (2.91mn metric tonnes) of coal last month, up by 24pc from a year earlier, the Virginia Maritime Association estimates.
Year-to-date volumes climbed to 32.2mn st, up by 9.5pc compared with the same 11 months in 2022.”
Er, per the source, “Renewable energy grew at six times the rate of total primary energy, making up 14.6% of total consumption.” So, not sure where the number 8.2% came from; I didn’t see it anywhere, but I’ll admit I was scanning quickly.
The Forbes “money quote” is a great example of misframing the issue. The fact that the share of primary energy produced by renewables is increasing–to re-iterate, “at six times the rate of total primary energy”–implies that renewable energy is displacing fossil fuel capacity in the energy mix NOW.
Moreover, the framing obfuscates the fact that RE deployment is presently increasing in exponential fashion (albeit the longer trajectory will certainly approximate a logistic S-curve.) The absolute decline in FF capacity is coming, and coming fast–and given declining FF capacity factors in most places, an absolute decline in actual FF generation is coming even faster. (That is, with high penetrations of RE, the merit order effect means that increasingly, FF generation is there for back-up purposes–whether that reality is acknowledged officially, or not.)
1) The Forbes writer used “renewable” inconsistently – referring to solar/wind/biofuel at one point (8.2 % of Primary Energy) but then lumping in Hydro (6.4%) later to get 14.6 %. While Hydro is renewable in a sense, it is irrelevant to net zero transition since most dams were built well in the past. Hydro power actually dropped about 2% in 2023.
2) The picture is best shown by the table on page 14 of the actual EI report:
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
3) Primary Energy consumption increased from 607.35 ExJ in 2022 to 619.63 ExJ in 2023 (2 %).
Non-Hydro Renewables increased from 45.18 ExJ to 50.58 ExJ — a gain of 12% but they are still such a small percentage of Primary Energy that the their 5.4 ExJ gain was outweighed by Fossil Fuels increase of 6.9 ExJ.
4) NOTE that Nukes (25 ExJ) are flat and Hydro (40 ExJ) is dropping. If that energy production continues to decline it will have to be replaced by Fossil Fuels or Renewables.
5) NOTE: Renewables include Biofuels (I think about 4 ExJ of the 50 if my calculations from Appendix A are correct). However, Biofuels have a pretty low Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) – around 3 to 5?. Plus their planting, fertilizing, harvesting, transport and use emits carbon. Not totally carbon neutral IMO.
6) My apologies for the double post above — I thought I was just editing the first copy.
Thanks for clarifying, Don.
Regarding your point #3, that’s basically just reiterating the point the OP made, albeit with more detail. My rejoinder to that would remain unchanged thereby.
About #4, I’m working from my sometimes less than stellar memory here, but IIRC, last year was a down year for hydro due to dry conditions in some specific regions. If that’s correct, then it’s unlikely to be a trend–just, as MAR often says, a “wobble.”
And to reiterates a point I made earlier today, China added “217 gigawatts of solar-power capacity in 2023 alone…” More than the US all time! As they say, “that’s going to leave a mark.”
KM: The absolute decline in FF capacity is coming, and coming fast–and given declining FF capacity factors in most places, an absolute decline in actual FF generation is coming even faster.
BPL: I keep hearing good news about renewable energy. I just hope it keeps up. If the Trumpers win in the US, it will be a big setback.
Ricky Rood, quoted in a NYTimes report on the floods in Central Europe this week:
The record rains are part of a slow-moving, low-pressure system called Storm Boris that has dumped five times September’s average rainfall over four days.
The weather system was fueled by a blast of Arctic air that moved in from the north, causing temperatures to plummet within 24 hours. While it’s not unprecedented for a polar blast to hit Europe in late summer, it could become more likely to happen in the future under a changing climate, said Richard Rood, a climatologist at the University of Michigan.
That cold air collided with warmer air from the south that was dense with water vapor. The overloaded moisture came from an unusually warm Mediterranean Sea that hit the highest temperature ever recorded last month.
The climate is so warm that every storm or weather event is influenced by a warming climate,” Dr. Rood said. “It’s impossible to have an event, especially an extreme event, that doesn’t have some relation to climate change.”
And then there’s physics. So, if anyone says “you can’t blame that event on climate change”, say “yes I can”.
My best Reference today -> Global Crisis Inventory: August 2024
The Climate Data and Oil / Energy
BY: Antonio Turiel.
Graduate in Physics from the UAM (1993).
Graduate in Mathematics from the UAM (1994).
PhD in Theoretical Physics from the UAM (1998).
Scientific Researcher at the Institut de Ciències del Mar del CSIC .
The pre-eminence of the Climate Crisis might make one think that the Energy Crisis has taken a backseat, but this is not the case. There is little and discontinuous information about the situation, but the truth is that the Energy Crisis continues its course of deterioration, preferentially affecting peripheral countries of the great metropolis that is still the global North, but advancing inexorably.
When it comes to oil, global production of crude and condensate (the stuff that can be turned into fuel) remains fairly stagnant, about 3 million barrels per day (Mb/d) below November 2018 levels. The U.S. Department of Energy’s one-year outlook revisions continue to assume we’ll be back to 2018 levels a year from now, but that’s hardly credible given that we’ve been hearing the refrain (“we’ll be back to 2018 levels in a year”) since at least 2022.
Of course, when you add to the accounting of what is called “all petroleum liquids” the category of “natural gas liquids”, which are mostly only used to make plastics, you get that we have recovered the levels of 2018. Misleading advertising to disguise the reality in which we are. And the fact is that, apart from the price of oil, the world has been in a situation of hardship for some time. A few days ago, Art Berman showed a very revealing graph : how much oil is in floating storage, that is, in tankers that are not circulating.
There is none – it is fast approaching ZERO spare.
There is virtually no margin, no oil stored in tankers, everything available is on the move. There are no reserves and no capacity to deal with unforeseen events. The last times this happened was in 2008, when the price of a barrel went to almost $150, and in 2022, when we reached $132. The price of oil has fluctuated a lot in recent weeks, sometimes up and sometimes down, but it is clear that they are trying to keep it at the $80/barrel that OPEC feels comfortable with, enough to offset its expenses and not too expensive to strangle the battered global economy. Despite this, European industry continues its process of destruction, especially in Germany, and manufacturing indicators in the European Union, the United States and China indicate a tendency towards contraction.
But, regardless of whether energy is cheap enough for a mass production industry (which it probably isn’t anymore, and that explains both the progressive European deindustrialisation and the persistent inflation), the decline in oil production is already having a very direct effect on the availability of fuels, and above all and most prominently, diesel.
https://crashoil-blogspot-com.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
and here is my second best reference today:
“The overshoot myth: you can’t keep burning fossil fuels and expect scientists of the future to get us back to 1.5°C”
https://xcancel.com/JamesGDyke/status/1825870212622598222#m
Big trouble ahead when everyone finally realizes the transition to Renewable energy is a myth and the world especially the USA has *suddenly* run out of Oil.
There is no suddenly about it. Everyone knows, who is plugged into Reality, where this is heading and fast.
CJ: Big trouble ahead when everyone finally realizes the transition to Renewable energy is a myth
BPL: I’m not sure you’re clear on what a “myth” is. In any case, the transition to renewable energy isn’t one.
More unscientific false myths and memes presented and believed.
Hot Tip – Research the meaning of the word “Logic” – then have another look at the real Data and the Math.
Ad Hoc Rescue
(also known as: making stuff up, MSU fallacy)
Description: Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hoc-Rescue
[ my emphasis – as if it makes an difference saying that ]
A counterpoint reference:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02877-6
Perhaps one of the climate scientists who operate and/or frequent this site might comment on this.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads1526
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet/
As a layperson, it sounds to me like a significant advance in paleoclimatology — with some very disturbing implications for our current situation.
Real Climate’s Stefan Rahmstorf in an excellent video (link courtesy of the ‘Resilience’ site):
“Global Heating 101: Rapid-Fire Answers to the Biggest Climate Questions”
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2024-09-19/stefan-rahmstorf-global-heating-101-rapid-fire-answers-to-the-biggest-climate-questions/
Video: Can a colossal extreme weather event galvanize action on the climate crisis? Many extremes over the past 40 years might have triggered transformational change – but didn’t. Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters explains.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2024/09/video-can-a-colossal-extreme-weather-event-galvanize-action-on-the-climate-crisis/
Alternative link, just the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjs8h33HZHo
“Defeating cap-and-trade: How the fossil fuel industry and climate change counter movement obstruct U.S. Climate Change Legislation”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024001237?via%3Dihub
(PAUL P – 8 or 9 attempts, some data was very good so I will try to post it separately and skip the rest as time wasting because something is being blocked)
When talking about “imports” one should not forget about exports (smile)
Oil exports from the United States 1998 to 2023
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265304/us-oil-exports/
From Ban To Boom: U.S. Set New Oil Export Record In 2023
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/03/19/from-ban-to-boom-us-set-new-oil-export-record-in-2023/
The U.S. does not, however, have world-class oil reserves. It holds roughly 3% of the world’s reserves compared to Iraq’s 9%, Iran’s 12% and Saudi Arabia’s 15%.
https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-oil-and-energy-macro/
May Non-OPEC & World Oil Production Drops
Countries Ranked by Oil Production Global scene
https://peak oil barrel .com/april-non-opec-and-world-oil-production-drops-2/
USA things are already in a bit of a pickle — broken down in states includes NGLs / Condensate
US June Oil Production Lower than November 2023.
US oil production has been flat since November 2023 when it was 13,281 kb/d.
These 11 states accounted for 84% of all U.S. oil production out of a total production of 13,214 kb/d in June 2024.
https://peak oil barrel .com/us-june-oil-production-lower-than-november-2023/
4 above = Crickets.
Too hard to compute.
Ocean Encounters: Restless Seas
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) did an hour on ocean currents, which is now up and available. Real information and research by working scientists. I’ve set it to start after the filler at the beginning (about 6 minutes; back up a few seconds for speaker intro). Great animations etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv81i7Di8Lc&t=350s
How do ocean currents shape weather, climate, and life?
Even on the calmest day, the ocean is constantly in motion. From powerful ocean currents to the smallest eddy, moving seawater is a key driver of the Earth system, distributing heat, nutrients, and carbon—sustaining life at every scale and shaping weather and climate around the globe.
Join three WHOI scientists for a discussion about ocean currents, how they are changing, and the implications for marine life and all of us.
In the U.S., Republicans are now beginning to make a powerful public push (not even comparable to what is/has been going on in private) to put increasing pressure on Nebraska state legislators to make a last minute change to the state’s Electoral College award procedure to a winner-take-all.
If enacted, it will close off V.P. Harris from her most likely path to 270 by holding the “blue wall” of winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Nebraska 2nd district. Denying her Ne 2, this results in 269-269, which will lead to a Trump win via the subsequent vote in The House of Representatives as Republicans will control the majority of state delegations.
And with that go much of the federal action/support where the climate is concerned. Trump has made clear he will pull back unspent money in the IRA, as well as make things more difficult for wind operations to get built, plus his vow to remove climate change from even being addressed at the federal level as part of a stunning anti-science approach to governing.
As usual, Republicans play chess and the Democrats play checkers. Republicans have quietly bid their time waiting for the point where the state of Maine could have also countered a move by Nebraska by also changing to winner-take-all had passed. Thus the seemingly abrupt public push this week (though the screws have already been tightening in private since the start of September).
Right now, the whole thing literally hangs on what a tiny few Nebraska Republican legislators will do. Will they hold the line or cave in to the mounting pressure? And with that, conceivably the entire country’s federal course on climate for 2025-2028 unless Harris can also kwin one of either Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, or North Carolina.
.
https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/09/19/sen-mike-mcdonnell-says-hes-a-no-on-winner-take-all-as-of-today/
.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/harris-trouble-nebraska-maine-electoral-college
They’ll hold the line. Nebraska’s conservative governor already called one special session of the legislature this summer. His agenda was for a sales tax to replace a large part of property taxes and some income tax.
After a bunch of maneuvering, it was largely cancelled by a mostly conservative, but fractious, legislature. The measure to select Nebraska’s electors on a winner-take-all basis would require another special session on short notice before the election, and there are sufficient legislators to keep a filibuster going. The governor won’t be eager for another embarrassment.
John, based on what I’m hearing, looks like you correctly assessed the situation, at least to this point (Tue. afternoon). Governor Pillen said he will not call for a special session unless his fellow Republicans can prove they have the 33 votes to override a filibuster. And they remain two to four votes shy (depending on who is counting). Apparently, the key holdout is a guy I’ve never heard of, Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat who switched parties after being censured by his fellow “D’s” over his position on abortion.
A very rare display of courage by Republican state Senator Mike McDonnell standing up to “the MAGA freight train of corrupt politics and their ongoing attempt to steal the 2024 election” as Rick Wilson noted:
.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/24/courage-in-nebraska/
.
Hope that’s the end of it, but if the election looks like it will come down to Ne2, and given they can legally still change the rules up to Election Day, We will see.
Makes no difference who wins. Both sides run gerrymandered undemocratic elections. Both operate tax payer funded boondoggles for their wealthy benefactors. Both Harris and Trump are incompetent lying frauds.
There is no genuine democracy or rule of law or rights left in the US. It is a totalitarian fascist dictatorship already operated by and behalf of the mega wealthy who own the country and they own you too.
Collapse comes slowly at first, then suddenly.
CJ: “There is no genuine democracy or rule of law or rights left in the US. It is a totalitarian fascist dictatorship already operated by and behalf of the mega wealthy who own the country and they own you too.”
Hush. We’re trying to keep that a secret. You’re going to ruin the whole thing. Now go, before the next sector surveillance sweep happens.
Wrong on multiple counts, as usual. There’s no certainty like the certainty of folly.
We need less false dogma and more fact based decision-making.
BREAKING: BLOCKBUSTER MICROSOFT DATACENTER DEAL RESURRECTING THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR PLANT
Microsoft and nuclear plant owner Constellation have agreed to a massive, unprecedented deal to restart the closed Three Mile Island by 2028 to power its datacenters, per the New York Times.
The deal? Microsoft purchasing as much power as possible from its 880 MW reactor over 20 years for prices rumored to be above $100 per MWh.
Most famous for its 1979 meltdown, TMI closed in 2019 because of cheap fossil fuels and tech companies refusing at the time to consider buying its electricity to meet clean energy goals.
For more information:
Microsoft deal would reopen Three Mile Island nuclear plant to power AI: The owner of the shuttered Pennsylvania plant plans to bring it online by 2028, with the tech giant buying all the power it produces
gift link -> https://wapo.st/3MRuFgG
Are we all “pro-nuclear” now on real climate?
But Secular Animist said there was no shortage of Energy. How could they be so very wrong unless they don’t know the facts? Maybe if a left several scientific research references to the facts it would help. No it would not.
Keep the true dogma, but eliminate the false dogma?
Heh, I was in the area when TMI melted down. Major freak-out. I see that it eventually shut down due to lack of support from the state.
For now I’ll reserve judgement on all the corporate jawboning… makes me think of blue-sky propeller hats trying to sell used cars. It’s interesting that it seems to have a lot of support though. My-o-my, how times have changed!
My-o-my, how times have changed!
to Radge Havers
Indeed.
Begs the question: if Renewable energy is so cheap and reliable and long lasting Versus Nukes and Fossil fuel electricity then Why-O-Why would they be signing a supply contract to pay above $100 per MWh for 20 years?
Someone is not telling the whole truth.
Who could that be besides the usual culprits being the mega wealthy fossil fuel industry?
What has changed is the need for constant power to run data centers and especially devoted to AI. This is a great match for nuclear power, which has huge capital costs, and is too expensive to turn off once you’ve built it. With AI cost is no object, at least in the fad stage we’re having at present. Whether it will still be seen as cost effective once the luster has worn off AI and the enormous costs of keeping old nuke plants running become apparent, is another question.
Modular nukes have a different set of problems. They might be cheaper from the get-go, but it is hard to believe that no engineering shortfalls will be discovered subsequently. If one has a problem, they all will. There goes your reliability, if they all have the same safety problem.
Then, there are the unsolved problems of nuclear waste and proliferation. Maybe AI can solve those for us – hah!
In Re to Radge Havers, 22 Sep 2024 at 10:36 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824782
Dear Radge,
Selling used cars may be a good comparison, another one could be refurbishing a railway depot for steam engines.
I somewhat wonder where the authors of the idea expect hiring the necessary qualified personnel – especially reactor operators who should secure that no further nearly-meltdown will occur.
If the people who worked there till the shutdown are still available, I suppose they may be mostly close to retirement. And I somewhat doubt that young people will be eager for a career in a such technical open-air museum.
Greetings
Tomáš
People like this, in the EU and US, are never going to be able to solve the global heating or the problem that come with it. They are far too incompetent stupid corrupt immoral and dishonest.
The resolution just passed by the EU Parliament on Ukraine is a sad illustration of how undemocratic and dangerously deluded it’s become.
Undemocratic because it acts against the will of the people. Deluded because it asks for things everyone knows are impossible.
BUT approximately two-thirds of Europeans want their leaders to “push for a negotiated settlement for the war in Ukraine
For this purpose the resolution “calls on Member States to immediately lift restrictions on the use of Western weapons systems delivered to Ukraine against legitimate military targets on Russian territory”.
In other words, a dramatic expansion of the war: no limits anymore.
https://nitter.poast.org/RnaudBertrand/status/1836990200104505803#m
Comment to CJ, 21 Sep 2024 at 4:04 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824724
As I still remember occupation of my country by former Soviet Union which ended shortly before this empire of evil crushed, I no way wish to anyone except Russia what Ukraine experiences.
I take CJ’s attempt to spread Russian propaganda as a direct attack against my country and condemn it as a particularly immoral and dishonest behaviour.
I think that any form of support for murderers attacking peaceful countries does not deserve any excuse. From my point of view, this attempt shows rather clearly that CJ is a toxic subject and automatically disqualifies such a person as a serious partner for any further discussion,
Tomáš Kalisz
There are hard resource and energy limits that we will be running into. The end of abundant oil and natural gas will come sooner or later, more likely is sooner.
The industrial technological system we now live in will begin to stutter and then fade over the next century.
Resources and Ag vs Population support are the fundamental constraints. I’ve written about the oil and gas situation. Russia’s Fareast and Arctic development plans face high energy and infrastructure hurdles.
Both China and Russia are sponsoring major research and investment in next generation nuclear technology. This takes the form of small modular reactors with inherent safety features, unlike current large scale power plants. Central Asia has abundant reserves of uranium to fuel these reactors which can power the entire economic corridor that I like to call the New Silk Road.
China and much of Central Asia have enormous coal reserves which, utilizing nuclear generated electricity, can be converted to transportation fuel via the Fischer–Tropsch process. It adds flexibility t6o overcome constraints as they arise. Most nations do not have this flexibility.
The collective west, with its idiotic dysfunctional ‘green agenda’ will no doubt experience severe energy and fuel shortages in the years to come, but the Asian continent will forge ahead based on nuclear power, enabling electrification of rapid rail networks in lieu of air and road transportation. Electric cars will play a role over short distances – they already are – but high speed rail as you already see in Japan and China is the wave of the future. Mass Air travel, especially tourism, will collapse the further into the Oil shortage we go.
The neoliberal neocon globalist agenda of the totalitarian US centric western empire will fall by the wayside under it’s own weight in due course. This is not an ideological position but one based on fundamentals of resource limits, social constraints and disruptions, impacts from climate catastrophes, the collapse of extreme capitalism, and the social imperatives of genuine human nature and the common good principles of life that have been abandoned in recent decades. Democratic totalitarianism and financial totalitarianism will whither on the vine soon enough. The end of the capitalist class rule.
Sure technology will continue but it will directed toward the social well being of all people and not the mega wealthy owners of corporations demanding more power and more control. Such shifts are inevitable and already begun. It will not be easy and it will not be pretty at times but it will be the future because humanity’s survival depends on it.
Interestingly, Russia, China & other central Asian countries have between them a third of global uranium reserves, of which, the lion’s share is found in Kazakhstan who is now by far the biggest world uranium supplier, providing 40% of global production in recent years. Yet with only 12% of the global reserves, Kazakhstan will have run through its “abundant reserves of uranium” in fifty years.
And how long are nuclear power stations expected to run before they are shut down and dismantled? According to the WNA who presumably are an authority on the matter “In the USA nearly all of the almost 100 reactors have been granted operating licence extensions from 40 to 60 years. This justifies significant capital expenditure in upgrading systems and components, including building in extra performance margins. Some will operate for 80 years or more..” [My bold]
All you are accomplishing with your interminable, belligerent and boorish regurgitation of the fossil fuel industry’s long-since debunked “peak oil” nonsense is to establish the fact that you are utterly ignorant of the reality of the renewable energy industry (solar, wind, batteries, EVs, smart grids, etc) as it actually exists today.
The big picture: We receive orders of magnitude more energy from sunlight in one year — EVERY YEAR — than ALL the energy contained in ALL the fossil fuels and uranium on Earth. We receive more energy from sunlight in ONE HOUR than all of human civilization uses in a YEAR. The wind energy of just four midwestern states could power the entire USA.
And the technologies to harvest, store and distribute that vast, ubiquitous supply of FREE energy is getting more powerful and cheaper by the day.
Human civilization faces many difficult problems, but a shortage of energy is not one of them.
Secular Animist “We receive orders of magnitude more energy from sunlight in one year — EVERY YEAR — than …>
. is irrelevant to everything energy and technology and human survival related topics. Educate yourself better, drop the false propaganda and marketing of wealthy corporate shills sucking on govt handouts.
Try harder not to make false and illogical statements like this : – “a shortage of energy is not one of them.”
Try to stop importing China made renewable energy equipment, technology and infrastructure into the USA if energy is not in short supply!
And RODGER — the UK comes first, then the US has only 3% of Oil reserves so they run out next and no one besides Canada will be selling them any more soon.
But when China annexes Australia they will have all the coal, uranium and food they need for centuries. (smile) I can say really silly illogical things too. Words are cheap and too easy to throw around.
Educate yourself. Peak Oil was not a myth. It’s science data logic and math.
[my emphasis]
PS to Secular Animist … there is always Rodger’s pov to grapple with — please argue the point with him, I have no time for time wasters.
MA Rodger says
16 Sep 2024 at 11:30 AM
Nigelj,
I too have sympathy for the view that mankind’s plans for AGW mitigation are (so far) suffering a very big serving of global denial. And I don’t mean the denial of the “It’s all a hoax!!” variety. Net-zeroing CO2 emissions will mean a world reliant on renewables and they will be in very short supply. It will be a veritable famine for many decades as the technology develops while increasing proportions of humanity metamorphosizes into Catton’s ‘homo colossus’ and the energy-hungry requirements for net-negative CO2 have also to be addressed. While net-zero is an aspirational goal, the need to develop an energy-efficient blackout-free society is being entirely ignored. [cut – see above]
“…will mean a world reliant on renewables and they will be in very short supply.”
A prediction rapidly being invalidated, pretty much in front of our eyes… if, that is, we actually look.
However, the wider point about the need to restructure our society to be inherently sustainable, that is, to move beyond mere substitution, does IMO remain valid. Which is why I periodically try to encourage, or even sometimes instigate, conversations here about what that might look like in practice.
CJ you say we face “hard resource limits” and quote peak oil then tell us us how wonderful Chinas nuclear power will be, and that “The collective west, with its idiotic dysfunctional ‘green agenda’ will no doubt experience severe energy and fuel shortages in the years to come”.
Except you failed to mention that that uranium also faces hard resource limits, and is is a relatively scarce sort of metal and its mineral ores are not common, and once it is burned in reactors it is essentially gone for good. There just isnt enough to power the whole planet for any decent length of time documented in numerous studies. building nuclear power is also proving to be ‘challenging’ with small modular reactors still failing to eventuate.
You also failed to mention that in comparison the sun is essentially endless energy, and the resources to build renewable energy are much more extensive than uranium, and the component parts of renewable energy plant can at least be recycled. It has potential to power the planet for a long time. Plenty of published, peer reviewed studies show there are enough resources to build renewables at scale, although it will be challenging.
to Nigelj
YES I say a lot of things. And you can quote me all you wish. And YES I also FAIL to mention all kinds of thinsg I know about. Would you like me to tell you everything I know, and quote verbatim the content of all my sources as well? I doubt the moderators would like it.
Nuclear power today is complex. Educate yourself better about that. I provided a few hints and avenues to explore. Good luck. But what I said, stands. In all my comments to date.
Everything is “challenging” but the more you say it the more you sound very negative like a “doomer” and a “denier” – someone whom people love to hate these days.
Good to know the “sun is endless energy” — news to me. Big chnace the Sun will continue to cook the planet making it hotter more stormy with even less Ice. (smile) I humbly suggest beware the unfounded spurious claims you’re throwing around. Though understand you probably won’t.
——
And YES there are — Plenty of published, peer reviewed studies show there are enough resources to build renewables at scale.
There are Plenty of published, peer reviewed studies that show and claim all manner of things. 99% of the published, peer reviewed studies discussed here by the ‘experts’ get thoroughly trashed and have done for years.
Was there a specific point you had to make besides your entrenched trust of published, peer reviewed studies </b when it suits your purposes to make make an unfounded generalist claim? (smile)
Nature Bats Last.
Well-said, Nigel, and I believe correct. Yes, there are still limits, and yes, we need to figure out how to structure our societies in accordance with them. And on the other hand, no, success is not a given.
But then neither is failure.
In Re to Nigelj, 22 Sep 2024 at 3:22 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824765
Hallo Nigel,
You are completely right – I wopuld like to emphasize only that all what the nuclear industry was able to bring into commercial practice during ca 70 years of development is a technology which is, as regards the efficiency of conversion of the released thermal energy, on the level comparable with steam engines of the end of 19th century, and with respect to utilization of the scarce natural fissile+fissionable material comprised in uranium ores on the level of fraction of one per cent.
It is a sad truth that the technology touted by nuclear industry (and some other players on the present scene) as a salvation for nature and mankind in fact leaves about 99.5 % of the overall amount of this valuable, non-renewable natural resource unexploited and converts it in a useless dangerous waste that has to be buried into underground for millenia.
Greetings
Tomáš
Addendum. Commentary discussing a very recent published, peer reviewed study on renewables: “Yes, we have enough materials to power the world with renewable energy”
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/31/1067444/we-have-enough-materials-to-power-world-with-renewables/
PS to Nigelj
If your “false interpretation” of what I said was correct, then why would I be saying this at almost the same time in another comment?
You cannot dismiss the Laws of Thermodynamics. It’s Physics.
QUOTE:
“Renewable energy (incl hydrogen/biomass) and nuclear are incapable of replacing cheap high density high EROI fossil fuel energy supply and the ongoing future growth of that supply demanded by modern civilization.
Current manufacturing of renewable energy equipment and infrastructure is 100% reliant upon the increasing use of fossil fuel energy from (the required) RE resource extraction, (manufacturing) transportation to installation and use.
No where on earth today does renewable energy manufacturing use 100% renewable energy in the supply chain that produces and installs that infrastructure.
Future theories of CO2 DAC and CCS are unfounded impossible unrealizable illogical myths in a world that lacks sufficient energy to maintain the existing civilisation energy requirements and future growth upon which it depends … in a world with insufficient fossil fuel energy supply.”
aka insufficient gross energy supply.
False accounting hides all manner of truths from the world.
Headlines touting RE electricity supply growth in the US this year has offset X amount coal/fossil fuel and reduced emissions is a fraud.
The reality is that several decades of excessive unproductive fossil fuel energy consumption/use has cumulatively built and installed all the RE electricity supply and ancillary infrastructure over DECADES which has finally delivered some electricity this year. They dismiss, ignore all that fossil energy used and the emission generated which enabled this years RE production. It’s a false accounting trick. They do the same with the stock markets claiming false returns over time by always dismissing and ignoring every LOSS that ever been incurred by an Investor since year dot.
If it was not for the massive wealth and resources (stolen) gained from the centuries of high carbon intensive energy use – and therefore massively high historical GHG emissions contribution – the US would never have been in a position to build out it latest RE infrastructure to begin with — it would be more Ghana or Zimbabwe or Cuba.
Same with China but over a much shorter period of time. The recent years emission drop is from an over extended expenditure of Fossil Fuel energy in recent decades as well. Our present is based solely on our past.
See the Lokta Wheel study I ref’d (or don’t. Ignoring it is an option)
re Darth Nedious, follower of Palpatine of Moscow:
Idk about the stock market, but this seems to say that all the R&D and built up infrastructure etc. is tied to one year’s output of RE. But it doesn’t all need to be done all over again for every year. You don’t need to relearn how to read every time you start a new book. Invention doesn’t need repetition; the effort is a one time upfront cost for each innovation. Each factory produces many units over some number of years; each unit installed at each constructed site produces energy for many years. Etc. The future LCA emissions are not tied to past emissions as such (that would be the “false accounting trick”); the past is fixed so our decisions now have no effect on past emissions. (So long as existing infrastructure can be maintained or replaced as needed with RE it doesn’t matter that fossil fuels were used originally.)
“ the US would never have been in a position to build out it latest RE infrastructure to begin with — it would be more Ghana or Zimbabwe or Cuba.” – now that’s an interesting point. Yes, history was not fair. But that’s orthogonal to the question of RE sustainability+feasibility.
(I skimmed some of the rest of your comment so sorry if I missed something.)
I get that there is some question about the actual EROEI values but (more later…?)
See Ray Ladbury https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824638
and Kevin McKinney https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824592
Why couldn’t the supply chain be entirely RE? I get that mining equipment might be better run with liquid(?) fuels given mines may not be on the grid – although if a mine could have a second life as an energy storage site, a grid connection might make sense. Anyway RE liquid fuels can be made (it’s not all corn ethanol – algae, agricultural/food/etc. waste and electrolysis and etc.) Or Portable easy-setup thin perovskite panels might be used for remote industries (I imagine a potential 2-class solar tech future – durable high-efficiency tech, and cheaper less durable tech that can be very quickly manufactured and deployed eg: war-zones, natural disasters. Although if the really cheap, easy to manufacture stuff gets really durable than there wouldn’t be a benefit to such specialization.
(PS nuclear (fissionable) fuel supply could be extended with breeder reactions…)
cj: The neoliberal neocon globalist agenda of the totalitarian US centric western empire will fall by the wayside under it’s own weight in due course. This is not an ideological position
BPL: Not much.
Do you work for the tenth bureau?
This one goes up to eleven!
There is no argument worth having anymore. No point to any biased/cherry-picked ‘data’ disagreements because all reason and respect has gone out the door years ago now. Once I would have shared everything word for word; but now I have come to the conviction that nothing is as expected. When I was born there were 2 billion inhabitants on this earth and it was said that oil would last until 2020; now we have moved the bar a little further but the result is always the same, sooner or later we will return to the stone age. We are 8 billion and increasing and world tensions are aligning with what the catastrophists had predicted, that is, the fight for energy sources, urbanization and the impossibility of an acceptable coexistence without a rigid control of social dynamics, to this we add that economic power is almost all in the hands of an economic religious, eschatological minority that believes it is above natural laws, the succession of events means that the old and dear horsemen of the apocalypse are arriving or perhaps they are already among us! I could go on and on in demonstrating the reasons for my pessimism, but it is useless, the facts are there for all to see and conclusions are not always dictated by the season. See them or remain blind. Why would I care either way?
Ned, the correct question is why should anyone listen to you? If you’ve given up hope and only calamity awaits mankind in your view, why should anyone who still aspires listen to your never ending angry lament?
I may be a old foolish fart, but even so, I think I’ll keep trying to do what I can to improve the trajectory of the future for those younger than me. As insignificant as my attempts may be, it is still FAR better than throwing in the towel.
In Re to David, 24 Sep 2024 at 12:57 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824814
Dear David,
Do you also think that “CJ” may be well the same subject as “Ned Kelly”, because the avalanches of posts created by both seem to be practically identical with respect to their content and their style?
What I cannot tolerate is spreading Russian war propaganda.
Supporting thieves, rapists and murderers in attacking peaceful people is in my opinion also a crime.
Greetings
Tomáš
David,
Good questions.
TK,
Also a good question.
And…
My question is, why keep feeding the troll?
CJ,
Its possible humanity could end up back in the stone age, given the number of risk factors, eg: resource depletion, climate change, pollution, asteriod strike, global nuclear. war. And these could combine. together. Somebody said “humanity exists on a knife edge” which really resonated with me. But nobody can say for sure we will end up back in the stone age. We dont know enough to make accurate predictions like that. At best we can say we will face resource shortages but the results of this are less certain.
And it seems unlikely we would end up back in the stone age. Humanity does some stupid stuff but has also shown its capable of fixing problems in highly innovative ways. A lot depends on population trends. If Zebra was proven right and the demographic transition causes global population to shrink quite rapidly, we might avoid serious stone age inducing resource scarcity.
The question for me is what if anything humanity should do right now? It seems to me it would be helpful to deliberately slow down our use of resources, but this is really difficult because 1) it could destabilse the economy causing an immense crash and immense hardship and 2) mitigating climate change requires a new energy system and so will peak oil, which is all going to require resources. So we are likely going to be reliant on innovative solutions to resource scarcity, and solutions driven by circumstances.
Why should you care? Well you must care a lot because you keep repeating this stuff over and over. I can understand your pessimism – and I share it to some extent, But your pessimism is off the chart! I hope its not getting you down.
Rapid-Fire Answers to the Biggest Climate Questions with Stefan Rahmstorf | TGS 141
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF2TwJ5d6w&t=4961s
Stefan on MODELS “…of course you like to run them at a high resolution to get as much Regional detail as
possible and that’s why a lot of runs stop in 2100 because already that takes many months of
supercomputer time to do that um but you can also run coarser simpler models that are good for paleoclimate research for doing thousands of years or even hundreds of thousands of years simulations and they they are also done into the future because of course there are slow responding parts of the climate system like ice sheets like the sea level rise that will go on for thousands of years after we have stopped warming because Antarctica will take so long to melt to a new equilibrium state
for example the IPCC says you know sea level rise um is probably um half a meter to a meter by 2100;
but it could be up to 2 meters by 2150; it could already be up to five meters and for the year 2300; they can’t rule out even more than 15 meters of global sea level rise so there are simulations for these slow responding aspects like sea level that actually have been done for much longer into the future
Nate Q: “How often does this become too much for you to Bare uh as a human um because I really enjoy this conversation uh We’ve shared some warmth and a few jokes and quite a few scientific insights but when you just described 2150 and Beyond I I got that that pit in my stomach that I often do when my brain started to visualize some of the things that are going to happen to this earth after we’re gone how how do you manage this over your whole career ?”
…….
30:35 – A 3 Degrees Celsius World
(are we 1C or 1.5C ? ) what does a 3 degree world look like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF2TwJ5d6w&t=1835s
53:47 – National vs Planetary Commons
(eg amazon forest and more)
– Probable Futures
“How likely is it that Earth is headed towards a 3° Celsius increase versus
pre-industrial times — there are two kinds of answers to that the first
one would be uh would the global economy collapse before we even
reach it and therefore we don’t reach it so because the emissions stop
by disaster rather than by um organized uh transition to Renewables uh
some [ SCIENTIFIC CLIMATE ] colleagues believe we simply wouldn’t
reach three degrees because already long before we’d be in
such deep trouble um that basically the the economy collapses
um there’s another way of looking at it which is more positive …… ”
so that um I’m not I haven’t got the latest number in my head but is
there’s the climate action tracker where you can look it
up where we’re heading with u current implemented policies and
currently announced uh climate policies and uh I think we’re
already below 2.5 or so at least but we certainly need to redouble our efforts
to keep the warming uh as close to 1.5 as we possibly can.
NATE – I have a bunch of follow-ups to that Stefan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF2TwJ5d6w&t=3227s
ONE should have been that the Carbon Tracker does not track all nations, nor do they do it accurately, and nor is it a science website but a think tank ….. you’d think a climate scientist who is committed to scientific accuracy would tell people this? Yes? No?
Apparently, no, is the answer. (smile)
01:28:14 – Climate Promises vs Business as Usual
— what if for instance Germany the United Kingdom the United States where I live did
everything perfectly according to what the politicians at the Paris Accord uh agreed to
to adopt net zero plans by 2050 with appropriate Technologies and cuts would that
even make a dent in the temperature and some of the impacts you’ve discussed by
the year 2100 if the rest of the world um all the other countries continued uh business
as usual Pace? —
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF2TwJ5d6w&t=5294s
————————
Now something even ‘realer’ –
The Energy Collapse | Louis Arnoux | System Failure by 2030
19 Sept 2024 Energy Crisis – What happens when economics takes precedence over thermodynamics?
Eventually, the system collapses—because being incompatible with thermodynamics is impossible.
That’s the stark message of this week’s guest, Louis Arnoux, a scientist, engineer and managing director of Fourth Transition, who has been working on this problem for decades. Louis and his team’s research point to our energy systems collapsing by 2030 because we’re having to spend more energy than ever before to extract fuel. Soon, the energy cost of extraction will equal the energy benefit. Such an equilibrium is, in his words, a dead state.
In the episode, Louis gives a phenomenal overview of the three thermodynamic traps human civilisation is caught in, including how decarbonising to renewables is exacerbating the thermodynamic problem. He explains how our current energy systems work antithetically to the sun and the planet, including the waste problem, before highlighting the role of economics in the creation of an impossible system. He then explains what a possible energy system could look like with the technology we have available, and how we can engineer that system to mimic the efficiency and productivity of life on the planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9YCzrHugJI
Embrace Reality – Educate Yourself Better (smile)
My apologies the end part — possible energy system could look like with the technology we have available, and how we can engineer that system to mimic the efficiency and productivity of life on the planet. — looks decidedly loopy or a private boondoggle (beware and sceptical) … the thermodynamics part and energy supply trouble ahead post-2030 may be useful.
A semi-controlled impulse from the calving of a glacier in Greenland last year leads to surprising observations and perhaps empirical results to our knowledge of large-scale fluid dynamics
“The subsequent mega-tsunami — one of the highest in recent history — set off a wave which became trapped in the bendy, narrow fjord for more than a week, sloshing back and forth every 90 seconds.
The phenomenon, called a “seiche,” refers to the rhythmic movement of a wave in an enclosed space, similar to water splashing backwards and forwards in a bathtub or cup. One of the scientists even tried (and failed) to recreate the impact in their own bathtub.
While seiches are well-known, scientists previously had no idea they could last so long.
“Had I suggested a year ago that a seiche could persist for nine days, people would shake their heads and say that’s impossible,” said Svennevig, who likened the discovery to suddenly finding a new colour in a rainbow. — http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/techandscience/what-caused-the-mysterious-9-day-earth-vibration-scientists-point-to-650-ft-mega-tsunami-that-rocked-greenland/ar-AA1qwIqk“
This took place in a large Greenland fjord — massive but not as massive as the ocean. And that’s where global-scale geophysical forces also take place, such as from tidal pull. Is not AMO ad ENSO just a massive seiche operating on the subsurface thermocline?
https://geoenergymath.com/2024/09/23/amo-and-the-mt-tide/
It is so amazing to watch the beautiful satellite views using the various GOES channels of the initial formation of the low level spin that is now T.S. Helene, which is forecast to become a very large (90th percentile) major hurricane that will lash portions of the U.S. over the next few days.
Fact: efficiency in nature, except for human artifacts, is very low. The efficiency of photosynthesis, the foundation of life on Earth, is 2% nominal, 0.3 to 0.8% real. It does not matter, as it is resilience that is critical to survive and flourish.
Great source on this topic: Olivier Hamant’s, French biologist, public courses
https://youtu.be/JabP5wfqaLk?si=Pfrp3VA0vxZvvekx
We need to re-learn or learn how the living, in all its complexity, exists and persists, in order to solve our current existential crises. And we need to take action. I stand with all the people on this blog and anywhere else who are doers, instead of lamenters. All necessary solutions exists today, including technological. All kind of critics, more or less competent to evaluate those solutions or those who claim to have other solutions, but have not delivered after decades, are wasting our time, and it is time that we do not have.
Solutions for energy: Mark Jacobson “No Miracles Needed”
“To those who wrongly insist we lack the tools to decarbonize our economy today, I say:
read energy systems expert Mark Jacobson’s amazing new book. In No Miracles Needed,
Jacobson presents a comprehensive and detailed, yet highly accessible and readable blueprint
for the options we have right now to address the climate crisis by taking advantage of
existing renewable energy, storage, and smart grid technology combined with electrification
of transportation systems, and efficiency measures. Read this book and be informed and
engaged to help tackle the defining challenge of our time.”
Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at
Penn State University and author of
The New Climate War
In Re to Silvia Leahu-Aluas, 25 Sep 2024 at 3:07 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824855
Dear Silvia,
Many thanks for your summary, to which I fully agree.
I would like to add two points:
1) The low efficiency of biomass production in comparison with available technology for direct solar energy conversion into electricity is a clear sign that “biofuels” (and/or biomass combustion) are in fact an utterly nonsense and their support by subsidies a totally mad policy, effectively incentivizing and rewarding destruction of valuable natural biotopes and significant reduction of vital “ecological services” provided to us (free of charge!) by nature. Unfortunately, all this evil is touted as a progress towards better future of mankind, in the name of “decarbonization”.
I think that these would-be environmental policies represent a good example of the “phony environmentalism” often mentioned by JCM.
2) I admire the clear insights provided by professor Mark Jacobson, with a single exception. I agree that we have all the necessary technical means for economy decarbonization. What I doubt about is the economical/political feasibility of the desired transformation, if we should rely solely on the technologies that already are commercially mature.
There is still a weak link which makes economy transition to renewable energy sources economically uncompetitive with continuing in fossil fuel exploitation, and I doubt that more-less artificial incentives like carbon tax, emission allowances and especially direct subsidies for arbitrarily selected technologies or administrative equivalents thereto help overcoming it – because
(i) I am afraid that economy will matter anyway and ignoring it may hit us as a boomerang, and
(ii) more importantly, especially direct subsidies (which can be financed by public debt creation and thus are dangerously appealing for politicians, equally as keeping in parallel existing direct or indirect/hidden subsidies for fossil fuel use in force) may provide totally false signals to economy and direct the necessary innovation towards dead end solutions.
The weak link is the absence of an efficient and cheap technology for electricity storage, which could enable temporal separation of electricity production from its consumption.
I participate in a project
https://orgpad.info/s/zj_UNH1l_u6
that might bring us closer to a first more-less satisfying technical solution for a large scale / seasonal electricity storage, and do believe that the solution developed by us is definitely not a single option.
Therefore, I do not think there is any reason for despair. I am aware that we can easily lose our civilization and allow its destruction, but I think that it can happen only if we resign on technical creativity and on core values of a democratic society. Our future is not out of our control – it depends on us.
I believe that common acceptance of values like individual freedom, mutual respect and tolerance, discussion culture and willingness to defend these values against enemies is crucial, because it not only creates the space for human creativity but also enables that products of technical creativity will address public needs and societal problems.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “What I doubt about is the economical/political feasibility of the desired transformation”
says with a straight face the same Tomas Kalisz, who to the quantitative criticism of the economical/political feasibility of his irrigation schemes he promoted in dozens?, 100s ? of posts – answered:
TK “Unfortunately, I cannot confirm how accurate [his opponent’s] quantitative estimations of the economical feasibility are because I have never analyzed [his own proposal] with respect to its technical and economical feasibility.“.
Criticizing imaginary straw in the eye of Jacobson, and not noticing a 10s of TRILLIONS dollars A YEAR for a fraction of 0.3K cooling beam in your own, eh?
“I have never analyzed the idea of “artificial Sahara greening” with respect to its technical and economical feasibility.”
In Re to Piotr, 27 Sep 2024 at 6:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/09/unforced-variations-sep-2024/#comment-824929
Dear Piotr,
One of the possible explanations for the contradiction objected in your post could be that Tomáš Kalisz / Tomas Kalisz is a split personality, randomly switching between Jožin z bažin and Mr. Hyde.
Another possible explanation is that the strange Tomas Kalisz tirelessly promoting Sahara irrigation scheme with annual operational costs in trillions USD, in hope that he helps saving Saudi Arabia and Russia as fossil fuel sources for the world economy and important international players, does in fact exist in your posts only.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz One of the possible explanations for the contradiction objected in your post could be that Tomáš Kalisz / Tomas Kalisz is a split personality, randomly switching between Jožin z bažin and Mr. Hyde.
That’s your BEST response to my challenging your intellectual dishonesty ?
I quote:
P: “Criticizing imaginary straw in the eye of Jacobson, and not noticing a 10s of TRILLIONS dollars A YEAR for a fraction of 0.3K cooling beam in your own, eh?”
“I have never analyzed [your Sahara scheme] with respect to its technical and economical feasibility. Tomas Kalisz.
China produces about 80% of the world’s solar panels and one reference I cited in an earlier comment said much of the polysilicon smelting is being done with COAL. In fact, we have the case of coal being mined in the USA and shipped to China. China emits 31.2% of world’s CO2, US emits only 12.7% (but much higher on a per capita basis) One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels, not with renewable energy. At the same time, more fossil fuels are being burned to meet growing demands for Primary energy.
From the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy at https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review (multiple annual issues )
a) From 2019 to 2023, China’s Primary Power Consumption increased by 20% or 5% per year. From 2022 to 2023, P increased by 6%.
b) From 2019 to 2023 China’s Energy CO2 emissions increased by 12% or 3% per year. In 2022-2023, energy CO2 emission increased by 6%.
c) From 2019 to 2023, China’s coal consumption increased by 12% or 3% per year. In 2022-2023 her coal consumption increased by 4%.
d) From 2019 to 2023, China’s Renewable Energy (RN) increased by 240% or 60% per year. In 2022-2023 it increased by 21%.
I.e China’s demand for energy, her coal consumption rate and her rate of CO2 emissions are INCREASING while her growth rate in Renewable energy is SLOWING.
Don, thanks for that information.
Don, one could also frame that last part as –
China is the primary manufacturing base for the world’s technology and equipment and infrastructure besides looking after it’s own 1.4 billion Souls [ 17.5% of the world population vs 4.1% for the USA ] therefore looking at a bigger picture THE WORLD’s demand for energy, her coal consumption rate and her rate of CO2 emissions are INCREASING while her growth rate in Renewable energy is SLOWING.
A major driver for this increasing demand of energy remains the USA and not China alone.
It is no accident but intentional distortions and disinformation that Govts / Political Parties of the USA of Europe, of the first world, the OECD and the Middle east Oil producers constantly avoid any mention of PER CAPITA CO2 / CH4 / GHG emissions versus the rest of the world including China, Russia, and the Global South nations of the world which are all much lower.
They do this both currently and Historically to (intentionally) manipulate misinform the audience – it’s everyday propaganda:101. It is no less dishonest and fraudulent than what the fossil fuel companies have done to minimise and distort emissions impacts.
Biden, Obama, Harris the Democrat and the republican parties are experts at this kind of propaganda manipulation and people fall for it constantly. Then they vote based on these kinds of false beliefs, about emissions and China’s role.
I see no way to overcome this information manipulation by the powerful and wealthy who typically offer little more than “lip service policies” to driving down emissions while blaming China for being the biggest emitting “nation” and “economy” today.
I expect they will continue to succeed in order to avoid accountability and hide the facts from the world at large and their own voters (if there are any).
Don Williams: One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Answer this:
What is the whole life-cycle energy produce/GHG emitted ratio of:
a) wind turbine
b) solar power
c) gas power plant
d) coal power plant
When you can PROVE that a) and b) are COMPARABLE to those of c) and d) – only then you may disparage a) and b) as “not renewable” .
Until then, you are deliberately comparing apples and orangutans.
1) Actually I’m wondering if poor policy/solar advocacy is going to ensure the renewable airliner runs out of runway before it can take off.
2) Again, if you look at the Energy Institute Statistical Report for 2024 you see Fossil Fuel use worldwide rose 1.48% and CO2 emissions rose 1.59%. Extending that trend Over 20 years if Primary Energy Demand rose 50% then CO2 emissions in 2043 would rise 32% even at current rate of making renewables. That would mean 812 GT of CO2 emitted. Plus we have another 10 GT/year from Industrial Processes and Land Use. , giving a total of 1012 GT CO2 (Assuming CO2 emissions from those sources do not increase even with high population growth/demand for energy)..
3) 1012 GT is getting close to the forecast level at which the odds of staying below 2 deg C drop to 50%. — and that assumes we immediately go to net zero in 2043.
4) On 22 Sept 2024 Nigelj gave a link above to a technology review article reporting that we have enough materials to make the energy transition and with an acceptable level of associated CO2 from making renewables. However, that article in turn is just reciting a summary of a second report –located here: https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(23)00001-6#
5) I blinked at the article’s claim the authors have no “competing interests” given that the lead author is with The Breakthrough Institute. (See Wiki –especially the Michael Mann quote.) However facts are facts whether Jesus or Lucifer cite them. Article does admit to some shortcomings — doesn’t address battery storage and waves hands re electrical transmission infrastructure.
6) NOTE however the large CO2 emissions associated with polysilicon smelting (Figure 3) and the article’s comment:
“The high carbon footprint of solar-grade polysilicon, caused by the dominance of coal-intensive manufacturing in China, also highlights the importance of China’s future transition away from coal-fired energy and the value of diversifying solar-grade polysilicon manufacturing beyond China. Developing alternative, less energy-intensive industrial pathways for raw material production can reduce the climate and environmental impacts associated with these supply chains.”
7) Another interesting item is the current high CO2 associated with cement may rule out expansion of Hydro given the enormous amount of cement needed to build a dam.
Don Williams,
“1) Actually I’m wondering if poor policy/solar advocacy is going to ensure the renewable airliner runs out of runway before it can take off……”
You havent answered Piotrs questions. As pointed out by Piotr and zebra people who dont answer questions and who instead raise other points, make themsleves look like trolls. I find it frustrating and impolite and a short answer is perfectly viable.
“2) Again, if you look at the Energy Institute Statistical Report for 2024 you see Fossil Fuel use worldwide rose 1.48% and CO2 emissions rose 1.59%. ”
Your detailed numbers on progress with renewables arent saying anything new. We know renewables are not being built fast enough. You make youself look like a denialist spreading negativity about renewables. There is no clarity about whether you support renewables, or what alternative you promote. In my internet experience such people either turn out to be climate denialists, or solutions denialists, or anti capitalist dogmatists who dont like the fact corporations profit from renewables. Could you clarify your position?
“5) I blinked at the article’s claim the authors have no “competing interests” given that the lead author is with The Breakthrough Institute….”
The Breakthrough Institute is a global research center that identifies and promotes technological solutions to environmental and human development challenges. I think its completely unsurprising that the author would belong to such a group. The point is its not the same as the author having financial interests in renewables so Im not seeing an undisclosed conflict of interest.
“5)….Article does admit to some shortcomings — doesn’t address battery storage ”
I quoted a study on renewables finding the world has enough materials and you raised those issues with it. Batteries were not included because I suspect they are not electricity generation per se, and nobody is arguing batteries are the main answer to wind and solar intermittency. They are only suitable for very short term storage. We will be mostly reliant on other forms of storage such as carbon neutral electrofuels, or pumped hydro. The required resources are abundant. Even lithium is quite abundant although there are issues with cobalt.
“The high carbon footprint of solar-grade polysilicon, caused by the dominance of coal-intensive manufacturing in China, also highlights the importance of China’s future transition away from coal-fired energy and the value of diversifying solar-grade polysilicon manufacturing beyond China….:
Ok its a valid concern. However it involves geopolitics and its hard to see an easy solution. The transition to renewables is likely to be messy like this. Famous quote: The perfect is the enemy of the good (voltaire). We just do the best we can.
Just a general comment to your previous post arguing renewables are not really renewable because of fossil fules in their manufactur and repacement etc. Yes building renewables uses fossil fuels. There is obviously no other way. We are in a transition phase to a fully renewable system free of need for fossil fuels. Therefore I think that saying our wind farms etc are not truly renewables is technically correct, but is also useless pedantry.
“7) Another interesting item is the current high CO2 associated with cement may rule out expansion of Hydro given the enormous amount of cement needed to build a dam.”
Yes cement is carbon intensive, and so raises questions about building more hydro power or pumped hydro storage. However low carbon cements are being developed. And Mark Z Jacobson is an engineer and has done multiple in depth studies finding renewables can power the entire world, and his approach relies mostly on dealing with intermittency issues by over building generation and smart grids, rather than with energy storage. This may be the best approach long term especially given that renewables are now cheap to build (refer to the Lazard enegy analysis available free online).
Renewables clearly face many difficulties, and have some environmental impacts, but I just find it hard to see a better overall alternative to our climate predicament. Nuclear power might have some role to play, but there are huge reasons to believe its not a viable stand alone solution and its very slow to build and this is a major problem from a climate perspective. Expecting people to slash their energy consumption by huge levels doesn’t look particularly viable. Fusion power might possibly provide gazillions of watts of cheap power, but its not going to be quick enough to deal with keeping warming under 2 degrees, unless you believe in miracles. Its still at very early prototype phase and the technology is massively complex and challenging. Peak oil and coal will likely force us towards renewables anyway.
@Nigelj
1) Re Piotr, see my response to him below.
2) I have no obligation to join Piotr’s religious cult nor anyone else’s in the course of gathering information.
3) I mentioned the Wiki article on The Breakthrough Institute because I was citing their article and did not want any paranoid people suggesting I was being their stalking horse. I also noted that people’s ideology or covert funding does not affect the truth or nontruth of facts either way. That the facts, not people , should be judged. A concept seemingly foreign here.
The Wiki article cited Michael Mann as follows:
4) Thank you for the Mark Z Jacobson cite. Do you know of anyone who has done a Delphi analysis of global energy geopolitics, economics, detailed tradeoffs and developed a technology roadmap for the next 20 years of energy transition? EU and UK have done several ones, I don’t see any in the USA. Delphi analysis: multiple experts — from multiple factions and different disciplines debating through multiple iterations In this case, experts in foreign policy, military strategy, economists, financiers, various scientists and engineers in energy related disciplines, etc. Method was developed here in the USA during the Cold War. I would also be interested in any Net Assessments done in this area.
5) 5) I have seen multiple works (Jem Bendell, Nate Hagens, Pablo Servigne/Raphael Stevens etc ) expressing scepticism re the climate energy transition/continued existence and growth of our economy. I would be interested in info that confirms or refutes their concerns.
Don Williams
“4) Thank you for the Mark Z Jacobson cite. Do you know of anyone who has done a Delphi analysis of global energy geopolitics, economics, detailed tradeoffs and developed a technology roadmap for the next 20 years of energy transition? EU and UK have done several ones, I don’t see any in the USA. ”
No sorry. Could you please answer my previous question namely: “There is no clarity about whether you support renewables, or what alternative you promote…. Could you clarify your position?”
“55) I have seen multiple works (Jem Bendell, Nate Hagens, Pablo Servigne/Raphael Stevens etc ) expressing scepticism re the climate energy transition/continued existence and growth of our economy. I would be interested in info that confirms or refutes their concerns.”
Some of these people have expressed scepticism that the world has enough materials to build renewables. I have already posted a link above:
“Yes, we have enough materials to power the world with renewable energy”
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/31/1067444/we-have-enough-materials-to-power-world-with-renewables/
Please understand this link is related to a published peer reviewd paper in a reputable journal and this carries more weight than someones informal opinion on an internt blog or you tube lecture.
I have read some material by Nate Higgins on The Great Simplification. I think hes a smart guy and expresses some valid concerns. I agree we will run short of some materials eventually or they will get expensive to extract, and so it is likely economic growth will thus slow and we may have to make do with less technology than we are used to currently. Its obvious because the worlds resources are finite and we are rapidly using the ones that are easy to extract.
But in my view its very hard to predict how much we will end up simplifying, and when we will hit serious trouble, because there are dozens of variables like future discoveries of minerals (its recently been found there are millions of tons of rich deposits of rare minerals in geothermal brines) human ingenuity and population trends. Its easy to get a bit too pessimistic.
DW: One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels, not with renewable energy.
BPL: Both can be recycled, and recycling is already starting:
https://bartonlevenson.com/Renewables&Environment.html
Anecdotes are not data.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/beyond-recycling-reducing-waste-solar-modules-theyre-even-made
“However, solar panel recycling—and most recycling overall—is not currently cost-effective or widely adopted. ”
https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/
https://www.startribune.com/wind-turbine-recycling-blades-landfills/600234699
“Despite recycling efforts, many older wind turbine blades still end up in landfills”
Not totally true — lots of wind turbine blades are buried on coal strip mines. But this problem will grow as wind is deployed unless a good solution is found.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2024/09/27/iowa-wind-turbine-blade-dumping-lawsuit/75408593007/
Don Williams Sep 27: “Anecdotes are not data.
To show the logical fallacy at the root of your argument – one does not need “data” – an analysis of your logic suffices:
1. Your claim: Don Williams 25 Sep:
“ One concern is that Renewable Energy is not renewable –in the sense that wind turbines and solar panels wear out and new ones have to be made and they are being made with fossil fuels ”
2. My challenge to the LOGIC of your claim: Piotr 26 Sep:
” The perfect is the enemy of the good. Answer this: What is the whole life-cycle energy produce/GHG emitted ratio of:
a) wind turbine
b) solar power
c) gas power plant
d) coal power plant
When you can PROVE that a) and b) are COMPARABLE to those of c) and d) – only then you may disparage a) and b) as “not renewable” . Until then, you are deliberately comparing apples and orangutans.
=================
3. Your “respons” – Don Williams Sep 27 …. 7 points, brimming with % , numbers and links , yet NONE of the 7 points, nor your “data”, … addressing my challenge to your claim:
“When you can PROVE that [life-cycle GHG emissions/Energy of the wind and solar] are COMPARABLE to those of gas and coal power plants – ONLY THEN you may disparage
the renewables as “not renewable”.
You wouldn’t be by any chance a politician? You know, one of the people who when asked a direct question that challenges their ideologically based-claim – “answer” instead … questions nobody has asked them?
1) Actually, the usual trick of politicians, lawyers – and self-appointed cult leaders – is to “frame” a discussion to allow only one view. In this case, that the current policy is the only viable one and beyond criticism.
2) The point of my comment was that massive imports of Chinese solar panels – made with coal we shipped across the Pacific to them – might not keep temps below 2 deg C and might not be the best use of our resources. Will that supply continue if this new Cold War heats up? Should we make the panels here with less CO2 emissions? Should we place greater emphasis on wind turbines? Should we force local utility companies to move quickly to connect residential roofmounted panels instead of letting them slow roll homeowners for years? Wouldn’t mounting the panels in densely populated urban centers – where the demand is – work better than transporting the electricity over great distances with the transmission losses? Can we reduce energy demand?
3) You make a habit of constantly attacking people here who do not agree with your views – instead of polite discussion. Yet what you –and I – think does not matter. What matters is the opinion of billionaires who dump $90 million into an election – EACH. What matters is that the S&P 500 index continues to climb so long as our financiers want — and then not. What matters is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can run on a platform of no-fracking and no-drilling permits in 2020 and 4 years later suddenly be supporting fracking and with massive oil production/ oil permitting over the past 4 years.
4) I have seen multiple works (Jem Bendell, Nate Hagens, Pablo Servigne/Raphael Stevens) expressing scepticism re the climate energy transition/continued existence and growth of our economy. I would be interested in info that confirms or refutes their concerns. In the course of collecting that info I have no obligation to join your religious Cargo Cult or that of any other nobody.
There can be little doubt that variation in evaporative fraction is analytically linked to variation in relative humidity.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/4/JCLI-D-23-0342.1.xml
The evaporative fraction (EF) is the ratio of the surface latent heat flux to the available energy at the surface
There can be little doubt that regions with moisture limited EF are warmer than other regions at the same latitudinal and topographic position.
Trends in relative humidity, and by extension trends in EF, are deeply troubling and remain poorly understood.
1979–2014 HadISDH and the ERA-Interim datasets
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/9/915/2018/esd-9-915-2018-f04.jpg
from https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/9/915/2018/
Additionally:
CMIP6 models exhibit a huge range in annual mean evapotranspiration (ET) with estimates ranging from 406.9 mm yr−1 (FGOALS-f3-L) to 757.6 mm yr−1 (Amon-NESM3). This substantial range underpins why temperature could not be resolved better than several degrees Celsius along with little practical information about the drivers of cloud fraction, precipitation area/intensity, SW effective forcing, EEI, or GSAT.
For the period 1980 to 2014:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024WR037608
Reanalysis shows a decreasing evapotranspiration (ET) trend of -0.20 mm yr-2, while the CMIP6 mean indicates an increase of +0.37 mm yr-2. Multi-source ensemble products such as REA, DOLCE V3.0, and CAMELE report a decline of -0.28 mm yr-2 during the same period. By contrast, land surface models (LSMs) show an increase of +0.32 mm yr-2. LSMs, which are typically coupled to CMIP-style ocean-atmosphere systems, likely share intercorrelated deficiencies that contribute to these disparities.
As previously alluded by Bjorn Stevens, the only way CMIP style models could have matched historical temperature change is by significant error compensation.
A large multi-author pre-print is extremely critical of land surface model development:
https://pages.charlotte.edu/hcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/1187/2024/04/Byrne-et-al-Theory-and-the-future-of-land-climate-science-REVISED.pdf
“”” Many of the key processes influencing land climate are spatially heterogeneous, difficult to simulate, and/or poorly observed. For example, land surface models have longstanding problems in simulating turbulent fluxes of heat and water for reasons that are not well understood. Sparse and time-limited observational records of important land-climate variables, including root-zone soil moisture and near-surface humidity, further impede efforts to advance knowledge of the land-climate system. The role of humanity presents another challenge, with large uncertainties in modelling the influences of land use and management on fluxes of carbon, energy, and water in the past, present, and future””” … “””Persistent and poorly constrained deficiencies in land surface models—highlighted by the PLUMBER project suggest that model development alone, though necessary, is unlikely to answer the key questions about land climate highlighted above.”””
In summary, a return to fundamental thermodynamic constraints and theory is essential because the tuned process level parameterization is simply not working.
The Plumbing of Land Surface Models: Is Poor Performance a Result of Methodology or Data Quality?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/17/6/jhm-d-15-0171_1.xml
“””The Protocol for the Analysis of Land Surface Models (PALS) Land Surface Model Benchmarking Evaluation Project (PLUMBER) illustrated the value of prescribing a priori performance targets in model intercomparisons. It showed that the performance of turbulent energy flux predictions from different land surface models, at a broad range of flux tower sites using common evaluation metrics, was on average worse than relatively simple empirical models. For sensible heat fluxes, all land surface models were outperformed by a linear regression against downward shortwave radiation. For latent heat flux, all land surface models were outperformed by a regression against downward shortwave radiation, surface air temperature, and relative humidity.”””
Cutting-edge researchers in geophysical fluid dynamics discussing ECS and cloud feedback and subsequent Q&A appear to have no awareness of thermodynamic land surface process constraints whatsoever in their training. This highlights a damaging disconnect between disciplines within climate science.
https://youtu.be/CJAY5kvT7MQ?si=xGOgDrBPXK1v6bSN&t=1811
In reimagining Earth in the Earth System, Gordon Bonan and co remark:
“””Nature-based climate solutions have been advocated for centuries, but have been distorted by academic bias and colonialist prejudice”””
“””Today’s Earth system science, with its roots in global models of climate, unfolds in similar ways to the past. With Earth system models, geoscientists are again defining the ecology of the Earth system. Here we reframe Earth system science so that the biosphere and its ecology are equally integrated with the fluid Earth to enable Earth system prediction for planetary stewardship. Central to this is the need to overcome an intellectual heritage to the models that elevates geoscience and marginalizes ecology and local land knowledge. The call for kilometer-scale atmospheric and ocean models, without concomitant scientific and computational investment in the land and biosphere, perpetuates the geophysical view of Earth and will not fully provide the comprehensive actionable information needed for a changing climate.”””
“””Earth system science, while recognizing the climate services of the biosphere, has a geophysical bias in interdisciplinary collaboration”””
“””To realize the potential for planetary stewardship, Earth system models must embrace the living world equally with the fluid world”””
“””…intellectual bias is evident in today’s Earth system science and the associated Earth system models, which are the state-of-the-art models used to inform climate policy. The popular characterization of Earth system science lauds its interdisciplinary melding of physics, chemistry, and biology, but the models emphasize the physics and fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans and present a limited perspective of terrestrial ecosystems in the Earth system.”””
It is undeniable that humanity is directly depleting Earth System stability through its profound disruption of land systems. Those who actively deny, distort, minimize or misrepresent this reality are doing more harm than they may realize.