Climate Change(d)?

[steve_bank]

List of tornado events by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A trend upwards.

From reporting global warming is affecting the jet stream.

The study, in Nature Climate Change, suggests that the fastest upper-level jet stream winds will accelerate by about 2% for every degree Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) that the world warms. Furthermore, the fastest winds will speed up 2.5 times faster than the average wind.Dec 6, 2023\

Tornado Alley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tornado Alley is a loosely defined location of the central United States and Canada where tornadoes are most frequent.[1] The term was first used in 1952 as the title of a research project to study severe weather in areas of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska. Tornado climatologists distinguish peaks in activity in certain areas[2] and storm chasers have long recognized the Great Plains tornado belt.[3]

As a colloquial term there are no definitively set boundaries of Tornado Alley, but the area common to most definitions extends from Texas, through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana, Ohio, and eastern portions of Colorado and Wyoming.[4] Research suggests that the main alley may be shifting eastward away from the Great Plains,[5][6] and that tornadoes are also becoming more frequent in the northern and eastern parts of Tornado Alley where it reaches the Canadian Prairies, Ohio, Michigan, and Southern Ontario.[7][8]

 

[TV and credit cards]

Climate and health benefits of wind and solar dwarf all subsidies

By displacing fossil fuels, wind and solar saved the US $250 billion over 4 years.

arstechnica.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

List of tornado events by year - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A trend upwards.

From reporting global warming is affecting the jet stream.

The study, in Nature Climate Change, suggests that the fastest upper-level jet stream winds will accelerate by about 2% for every degree Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) that the world warms. Furthermore, the fastest winds will speed up 2.5 times faster than the average wind.Dec 6, 2023\

Tornado Alley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tornado Alley is a loosely defined location of the central United States and Canada where tornadoes are most frequent.[1] The term was first used in 1952 as the title of a research project to study severe weather in areas of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska. Tornado climatologists distinguish peaks in activity in certain areas[2] and storm chasers have long recognized the Great Plains tornado belt.[3]

As a colloquial term there are no definitively set boundaries of Tornado Alley, but the area common to most definitions extends from Texas, through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana, Ohio, and eastern portions of Colorado and Wyoming.[4] Research suggests that the main alley may be shifting eastward away from the Great Plains,[5][6] and that tornadoes are also becoming more frequent in the northern and eastern parts of Tornado Alley where it reaches the Canadian Prairies, Ohio, Michigan, and Southern Ontario.[7][8]

I'd be hesitant to read much into that. The Enhanced Fujita scale is based on damage so that is going to be a bit random. So we'd need to look at the lower end a bit, but that can be impacted by our ability to track minimal tornados better thanks to improved radar. Looking at the higher end, we don't appear to be in a rising trend for E3 to E5 at all.

As backed up by your second link, the climate change aspect of tornados isn't necessarily the number but the location.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Fracking wastewater has “shocking” amount of clean-energy mineral lithium

40% of US need for lithium could be covered by Pennsylvania's fracking byproduct.

arstechnica.com

Now, a new “astounding” calculation has caught the attention of the gas industry: A study from researchers at the National Energy Technology Laboratory shows the wastewater produced by Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells could contain enough lithium to meet 38 to 40 percent of current domestic consumption.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group dedicated to the Marcellus Shale formation, the natural gas deposit beneath Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and New York, reacted to the news with enthusiasm. “This scientific analysis by one of the leading energy laboratories in the world shows once again how abundant Pennsylvania natural gas can enhance America’s energy, environmental and national security,” the coalition said in a statement.

They were probably cumming all over themselves in the boardroom.

Extracting lithium doesn’t solve the ongoing problem of what to do with the highly toxic wastewater produced by fracking, which contains salts, metals and radioactive elements. “There’s no way to clean this stuff up,” Quigley said. “You might be able to get something beneficial out of it. But you still have really nasty wastewater that you’ve got to get rid of.”

I'm sure poor people can use it somehow.

 

[Elixir]

I'm sure poor people can use it somehow.

Africa needs drinking water.

 

[thebeave]

Fracking wastewater has “shocking” amount of clean-energy mineral lithium

40% of US need for lithium could be covered by Pennsylvania's fracking byproduct.

arstechnica.com

Now, a new “astounding” calculation has caught the attention of the gas industry: A study from researchers at the National Energy Technology Laboratory shows the wastewater produced by Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells could contain enough lithium to meet 38 to 40 percent of current domestic consumption.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group dedicated to the Marcellus Shale formation, the natural gas deposit beneath Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and New York, reacted to the news with enthusiasm. “This scientific analysis by one of the leading energy laboratories in the world shows once again how abundant Pennsylvania natural gas can enhance America’s energy, environmental and national security,” the coalition said in a statement.

They were probably cumming all over themselves in the boardroom.

Extracting lithium doesn’t solve the ongoing problem of what to do with the highly toxic wastewater produced by fracking, which contains salts, metals and radioactive elements. “There’s no way to clean this stuff up,” Quigley said. “You might be able to get something beneficial out of it. But you still have really nasty wastewater that you’ve got to get rid of.”

I'm sure poor people can use it somehow.

Dang, I could cancel my pornhub subscription and just read TV &CC's commentary from now on. Save me about $25/month.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Climate and health benefits of wind and solar dwarf all subsidies

By displacing fossil fuels, wind and solar saved the US $250 billion over 4 years.

arstechnica.com

I find this suspicious, they appear to be slicing and dicing numbers for no good reason and that usually means someone's p-hacking or other such games.

Your carbon is pretty much just the inputs of solar and wind minus the amortized carbon of the generators, then subject to transmission loss. Batteries are for stabilization, they don't hold enough to be a meaningful destination of power. I also note no accounting for negative energy prices, that's energy that was simply wasted.

The real answer is to take those $/ton for pollutant numbers and apply them.

$50/ton? We emit about 5Gt of CO2/year. Ok, scrap all subsidies of renewables. Tax all sources of carbon emissions at $50/ton, yielding $250B. Total personal income tax is $2.2T, apply a 10% cut to every tax bracket for a total reduction of $220B. That's close enough to revenue neutral that it shouldn't have a big effect, but it would make those external costs internal instead.

If you're going to go with a higher figure per ton adjust the math to balance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fracking wastewater has “shocking” amount of clean-energy mineral lithium

40% of US need for lithium could be covered by Pennsylvania's fracking byproduct.

arstechnica.com

Now, a new “astounding” calculation has caught the attention of the gas industry: A study from researchers at the National Energy Technology Laboratory shows the wastewater produced by Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells could contain enough lithium to meet 38 to 40 percent of current domestic consumption.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group dedicated to the Marcellus Shale formation, the natural gas deposit beneath Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and New York, reacted to the news with enthusiasm. “This scientific analysis by one of the leading energy laboratories in the world shows once again how abundant Pennsylvania natural gas can enhance America’s energy, environmental and national security,” the coalition said in a statement.

They were probably cumming all over themselves in the boardroom.

I'm uncertain about that. Isn't the fracking boom over, and they flushed this allegedly valuable water down several large holes? Sure, it can have lithium in it, but getting the lithium out, while managing the harmful stuff, probably not easy.

 

[steve_bank]

Everything we do has an environmental downside. The news report said the UN predictscalories will have to double in 40 or 50 years.

The industrialized west is eating more and getting bugger. Houses in the 1800s had smaller doors.

Adding to western consumption the rest of the world is moving up from subsistence levels. Certainly India and China. McDonald's is everywhere in the world, and fast food chains drive an increase n demand for cattle,

Once again, US and Europe way ahead on daily calorie intake

The number of calories per person consumed globally, increased by a full nine per cent on average last year, to 2,960 per day, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Monday, in its latest annual statistics report.

news.un.org

The number of calories per person consumed globally, increased by a full nine per cent on average last year, to 2,960 per day, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said on Monday, in its latest annual statistics report.

The finding is in line with a trend showing that people in all regions of the world have been eating more calories since the year 2000, with the highest spike, in Asian countries in 2021.

Europe and North America consumed most calories last year – at 3,540 per day – while African nations consumed the least: 2,600. Oceania’s calorie count was closest to the United States’ and Europe’s, at around 3,150.

The UN agency’s Statistical Yearbook 2022 also noted that while cattle emit around 50 times more carbon dioxide than chickens, growing rice emits five times more carbon into the atmosphere, than wheat and coarse grains.

Based on data from more than 20,000 indicators covering more than 245 countries and territories, FAO’s number-crunchers have found that 866 million people work in agriculture today.


That number amounts to more than a quarter of the global labour market and its worth is $3.6 trillion; compared to the year 2000, this represents “a 78 per cent increase in economic value, produced by 16 percent fewer people, with Africa posting double that pace of growth”, the UN agency said.

Since 2000, the production of primary crops, such as sugarcane, maize, wheat and rice, grew by 52 per cent from 2000 to 2020 to reach 9.3 billion tonnes.

Vegetable oil production increased by 125 per cent over that period, with palm oil output up by 236 per cent. Meat output, led by chicken, grew by 45 per cent, while fruits and vegetables saw growth of 20 per cent or less.

Among the dizzying number of facts provided by FAO that could quite conceivably crop up in a pub quiz, sugarcane is the world’s largest harvest by volume, with 1. 9 million tonnes annually. Maize is next, at 1.2 million tonnes.

 

[Swammerdami]

As a clueless layman, what is most confusing is that clueful experts have vehement disagreements! Is "renewable energy" the path to Paradise? Or just a multi-trillion dollar scam? I dunno.

Bill Gates apparently attracted much criticism on Twitter X because he "doesn't plant trees." The funny lady with the funny name discusses that:

 

[bilby]

Is "renewable energy" the path to Paradise? Or just a multi-trillion dollar scam? I dunno.

I do!

It's a HUGE scam.

"Renewable energy" cannot supply more than about 40% of the power required by a modern technological civilisation.

And "storage" cannot fill the gap, without some spectacular new technology becoming available.

Dreaming about nuclear fusion power at least has the benefit (over viable storage for 100% renewables) that it only invokes known processes.

 

[Elixir]

"storage" cannot fill the gap, without some spectacular new technology becoming available.

So it's down to "what do we have a better chance of attaining? An overhaul in technology or an overhaul of public attitude toward nuclear power?

 

[DBT]

It seems that Politics comes down to appearances, where just appearing to address an issue is assumed to be sufficient to keep the voters happy.

 

[steve_bank]

As a clueless layman, what is most confusing is that clueful experts have vehement disagreements! Is "renewable energy" the path to Paradise? Or just a multi-trillion dollar scam? I dunno.

Bill Gates apparently attracted much criticism on Twitter X because he "doesn't plant trees." The funny lady with the funny name discusses that:

Alternative energy as far as I can tell will not be able to replace all other forms, the numbers do not add up.

This was confirmed by an executive from the solar power industry I heard in an interview.

From a solar eergy text I read there was a growing solar heating and power business, cut short by cheap natural gas. Large Stirling engines for mechanical power.

 

[steve_bank]

It seems that Politics comes down to appearances, where just appearing to address an issue is assumed to be sufficient to keep the voters happy.

Politics 101, it is not what you actually do, it is what people think you do.

 

[bilby]

"storage" cannot fill the gap, without some spectacular new technology becoming available.

So it's down to "what do we have a better chance of attaining? An overhaul in technology or an overhaul of public attitude toward nuclear power?

The latter has the slight advantage of not being physically impossible.

 

[blastula]

What a shame, and they're doing another in Vegas on Sunday.

Eleven Trump rally attendees sent to hospital due to Arizona heat

Millions of Americans are under heat warnings as temperatures surge, including in Phoenix, Arizona

www.bbc.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So in Ohio this spring we've had a lot more talk about shear, though truthfully, that was more in the winter in February. Usually the talk of shear in NWS weather discussions was always to the far west of the forecast area (Toledo). But that has shifted this way, this year. The other thing is the storm systems have been more moist, with moisture levels well ahead of when we typically see them.

This isn't catastrophic, but again, it is change. It also means the chance of more severe weather or flooding will increase. We aren't going from 0 tornadoes to 100 tornadoes, but you really just need that 1 to make a difference.

"storage" cannot fill the gap, without some spectacular new technology becoming available.

So it's down to "what do we have a better chance of attaining? An overhaul in technology or an overhaul of public attitude toward nuclear power?

The latter has the slight advantage of not being physically impossible.

You clearly don't live in America. We have tens of millions who are very against wind and solar... but not because of sustainability issues. Because they were told to hate it. Those same people would protest a nuclear plant in their county. And this is if you can at least get them to accept carbon free energy is crucial to not making Earth a harsher environment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As a clueless layman, what is most confusing is that clueful experts have vehement disagreements! Is "renewable energy" the path to Paradise? Or just a multi-trillion dollar scam? I dunno.

It isn't a scam. Renewable energy in the US has helped drop emissions notably. The problem with renewable is it isn't the solution that gets you to the target. So things are better, but not nearly good enough.

Bill Gates apparently attracted much criticism on Twitter X because he "doesn't plant trees." The funny lady with the funny name discusses that:

"Planting trees" is a scam. And actually planting trees isn't adequate. We need to plant forests. Forests don't consist of one plant species.

 

[Elixir]

"storage" cannot fill the gap, without some spectacular new technology becoming available.

So it's down to "what do we have a better chance of attaining? An overhaul in technology or an overhaul of public attitude toward nuclear power?

The latter has the slight advantage of not being physically impossible.

Nobody has “proven the impossibility” of a sudden, radical, transformative advance in technology. Some such things have happened in the past.
That said, it’s unarguable that they are few, far between and usual of serendipitous origin. Whereas public attitudes are shockingly malleable, predictable and subject to profound influence at the whim of those who control public media.
So yeah, that’s the more worthwhile thing to work on - if only we could get our collective head screwed on straight…