Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 514646 times)

847badgerfan · « **Reply #2506 on:** May 12, 2020, 01:30:23 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 12, 2020, 01:19:27 PM

marking a third year of growth after emissions had appeared to level out between 2014 and 2016.

Their stock market crashed in 2015.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2507 on:** May 12, 2020, 02:02:48 PM »

I still don't know where global CO2 generation will be in 2030 under two plausible scenarios.

Optimistic, and business as usual. If we knew that, we could figure how much difference it would make on climate change using the models.

And yes, I understand that longer term the changes are magnified, so let's look at them as well.

The MIT Climate Group has done that already of course.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2508 on:** May 12, 2020, 02:51:18 PM »

Quote from: NorthernOhioBuckeye on May 12, 2020, 12:55:02 PM

While I don't have the data in front of me and am really too busy go find it at the moment, there is debate as to whether or not C02 is a cause of warming is disputed. There is no concensus that it causes warming. There are those that believe that it is simply a by product of warming.

Well, the idea that it's a byproduct of warming doesn't make sense, because if you look at the CO2 in the atmosphere, we can determine due to the isotope that it's caused by burning fossil fuels as opposed to natural sources of CO2. So unless the argument is that warming caused man to burn a bunch of fossil fuels, it doesn't make any sense that atmospheric CO2 concentration would be a byproduct of warming.

The idea that atmospheric CO2 concentration and measured warming are simply unrelated phenomena may be something some people believe, but the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that higher CO2 concentrations would cause warming is not particularly up for debate, even among most skeptics.

The idea that CO2 is not the ONLY cause of our warming planet is a point of legitimate debate, and thus how much of the experienced warming is attributed to man is up for debate. As mentioned there is natural drift in climate for any number of reasons, but I don't think you'd find anyone inside the scientific mainstream that would argue mankind's effect is zero.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2509 on:** May 12, 2020, 02:52:09 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 12, 2020, 01:19:27 PM

China’s greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise until at least 2030, although the rate of increase is projected to slow towards the end of the 2020s. Under optimistic renewables growth assumptions, energy-related CO₂ emissions could level off over the next few years, but these emissions continue to grow in our upper-bound scenario.

In Washington, that's defined as a cut.

(At least as applied to gov't spending.)

Riffraft · « **Reply #2510 on:** May 12, 2020, 03:13:59 PM »

Quote from: NorthernOhioBuckeye on May 12, 2020, 12:55:02 PM

You make a lot of valid points, but I do want to address the one in red.

While I don't have the data in front of me and am really too busy go find it at the moment, there is debate as to whether or not C02 is a cause of warming is disputed. There is no concensus that it causes warming. There are those that believe that it is simply a by product of warming.

And my point about the sun dictating out climate is that there is nothing we can do about that. The climate will do what the sun dictates. As for a massive nuclear event, if that happens, the climate will be the least of our worries.

And this is where those who believe that climate change is "man-made" are going to have a problem.

There are a large number of people, including myself who believe the climate is changing, but are not convince that man is the cause of it.

Then to top it, there are those of us who believe that economic decisions should be allowed follow "natural" course so there are not market inefficiency and Adam Smith's blind hand will determine how resources are allocated. I am firm believer that if left alone (which isn't the case in most markets) that supply and demand will determine the correct level and mix of supply that is most beneficial. So people like me will continue to oppose subsidies and other methods to prop up an alternative energy source that is not economically efficient.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2511 on:** May 12, 2020, 03:16:47 PM »

The Invisible Hand approach doesn't work well when the problem is off in the future and there is benefit today in ignoring it.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2512 on:** May 12, 2020, 03:34:28 PM »

https://theconversation.com/why-the-next-two-years-are-critical-for-the-paris-climate-deals-survival-107931

A critical juncture
If countries don't commit to – and deliver on – more ambitious emissions cuts in the next two years, it will be difficult to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degree Celsius compared to preindustrial times.
30.040.050.060.070.0201520202025203020352040Current national pledges201555.2Current national pledges201555.2

Global emissions path needed to limit warming to 2 degree goal, measured in billions of tons of equivalent CO2

Current national pledges
Chart: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: MIT 2018 Climate Outlook, Henry Jacoby and Jennifer Morris

The pledges for 2030 are just the first step, however. Getting the globe onto a path to the 2°C Paris goal, much less to meet its stretch objective of 1.5°C, will require stronger action beyond 2030.

How tough the emissions restrictions must be in the next decade or two depends on the pace of reduction that may be feasible later in the century – and here emerging technology could possibly play a role. For example, a significant effort is underway to develop techniques to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air and store it underground. If we could count on this option becoming available and affordable in the future, participating nations in the Paris Agreement could relax their emissions controls a bit now and the temperature goal could potentially still be met.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2513 on:** May 12, 2020, 03:34:42 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 12, 2020, 03:16:47 PM

The Invisible Hand approach doesn't work well when the problem is off in the future and there is benefit today in ignoring it.

Especially given that the economic concept of an externality post-dates The Wealth of Nations by almost a century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2514 on:** May 12, 2020, 03:36:23 PM »

Trees are probably the most efficient practicable means of storing carbon IF you cut them after their initial growth spurt and bury them somewhere. It is of course feasible to extract CO2 from air artificially, but you're working against a heavy entropic load, which requires enthalpy to offset.

The Paris targets are insufficient, and they won't be met anyway globally.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/31/paris-climate-deal-2c-warming-study

There is only a 5% chance that the Earth will avoid warming by at least 2C come the end of the century, according to new research that paints a sobering picture of the international effort to stem dangerous climate change.

Global trends in the economy, emissions and population growth make it extremely unlikely that the planet will remain below the 2C threshold set out in the Paris climate agreement in 2015, the study states.
The Paris accord, signed by 195 countries, commits to holding the average global temperature to “well below 2C” above pre-industrial levels and sets a more aspirational goal to limit warming to 1.5C. This latter target is barely plausible, the new research finds, with just a 1% chance that temperatures will rise by less than 1.5C.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2515 on:** May 12, 2020, 03:52:30 PM »

https://scitechdaily.com/the-truth-behind-the-paris-agreement-climate-pledges-insufficient-to-address-climate-change/

Almost 75% of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change; Only 28 European Union nations and 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40% by 2030.

Almost 75 percent of 184 Paris Agreement pledges were judged insufficient to slow climate change
Only 28 European Union nations & 7 others will reduce emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030
China & India, top emitters, will reduce emissions intensity, but their emissions will increase

Another indicator that reflects the lack of action to fight climate change: 97 percent of the 184 climate pledges are the same as those initially submitted in 2015-2016 after the Paris Agreement was adopted. Only six countries have reviewed their pledges: 4 countries increased their plan to cut emissions; 2 nations weakened their pledges.

“Even if all climate pledges which are voluntary are fully implemented, they will cover less than half of what is needed to limit the acceleration of climate change in the next decade,” says Dr. Watson.

FearlessF · « **Reply #2516 on:** May 12, 2020, 04:03:45 PM »

we're all doomed

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2517 on:** May 12, 2020, 04:23:11 PM »

Quote from: NorthernOhioBuckeye on May 12, 2020, 12:55:02 PM

You make a lot of valid points, but I do want to address the one in red.

While I don't have the data in front of me and am really too busy go find it at the moment, there is debate as to whether or not C02 is a cause of warming is disputed. There is no concensus that it causes warming. There are those that believe that it is simply a by product of warming.

And my point about the sun dictating out climate is that there is nothing we can do about that. The climate will do what the sun dictates. As for a massive nuclear event, if that happens, the climate will be the least of our worries.

No, there isn't. Not seriously, anyway. There's debate as to whether the earth is flat. Doesn't mean it is.

Absolutely CO2 causes global warming. That's a fact.

You can run experiments to prove it.

Even mythbusters did one

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2518 on:** May 12, 2020, 04:27:11 PM »

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. How much the level in our atmosphere impacts global temperatures is less well understood.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2519 on:** May 12, 2020, 04:31:06 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 12, 2020, 01:05:00 PM

So, put it another way, two scenarios, what is our CO2 output in the US by 2030?

1. Government intervention to accelerate change, and

2. No government intervention.

That's an impossible question to answer.

Scenario 1: Ohio State is awarded a federal grant from funds created by the Biden climate Buckeye fund. They create cheap nuclear fusion and a viable carbon capture system. Biden's election solves one of humanity's great problems.

Scenario 2: Ohio State is awarded a federal grant from funds created by the Biden climate Buckeye fund. Research is done, but no meaningful changes result.

In reality the answer is somewhere in between.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Riffraft

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment