New report on climate change released today

[DrZoidberg]

It's very complicated. I am sure there are upsides and downsides to both. It does not seem to be either or.

There does not seem to be agreement, for example, that renewables are only a suitable option in extreme climates and I think it is going a bit far to say that the ones in the list are extreme, given that there are so many who are getting or aiming for significant results.

For most countries we only have a single option, nuclear. In Sweden we have lots of big rivers. So we've expanded our hydro power. But now we've reached a wall. If we expand it any more we'll get ecological disasters. Or geological disasters. About half of Sweden's power comes form hydro power. It's also dependent on that it rains a lot. This summer was extremely dry. The other half of Sweden's power comes from nuclear. And that's the lowest possible point of nuclear dependence. Any less nuclear and we're screwed. About ten years ago Sweden shut down one of our nuclear power stations. So now, instead of exporting power, we import power. Where do we import it from? Germany. It's German coal power that has now replaced that Swedish power station. This is bad.

 

[ruby sparks]

For most countries we only have a single option, nuclear.

I doubt that very, very much.

According to that list, Sweden already gets two thirds of its energy production from renewables, and this is set to rise.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but as often, I think you're over-egging it.

 

[ruby sparks]

A 'nuclear versus renewables' ding-dong bores me almost as much as a 'technology versus population' one does.

 

[Worldtraveller]

A 'nuclear versus renewables' ding-dong bores me almost as much as a 'technology versus population' one does.

And yet, here you are.....

 

[DrZoidberg]

For most countries we only have a single option, nuclear.

I doubt that very, very much.

According to that list, Sweden already gets two thirds of its energy production from renewables, and this is set to rise.

I'm not saying you don't have a point, but as often, I think you're over-egging it.

From what? I think Sweden has already pushed this to the limit. Solar power up here is never going to be a major source of energy. Wind. Only in the extreme south of Sweden. Sweden has been very enthusiastic about renewables for 30 years now. The people and government are fully onboard. Swedes are fine about the government using the tools at it's disposal to encourage this as much as possible. Research into this is well funded. The problem with Swedish renewables isn't for lack of trying, nor lack of funding. We've simply hit a technological wall.

 

[ruby sparks]

A 'nuclear versus renewables' ding-dong bores me almost as much as a 'technology versus population' one does.

And yet, here you are.....

Well, there are the climate change denialists to liven things up.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think Sweden has already pushed this to the limit........We've simply hit a technological wall.

I very, very much doubt that also.

Sweden has committed itself to 100% renewables by 2040 for energy production (and a fossil-free vehicle fleet by 2030). Even if it fails to reach that, there is significant scope for more from renewables, and it isn't just about technology (much of which already exists) it's about economics and specifically subsidies and other incentives. In other words, it's about political will. And the same is true in most countries, no matter what countermeasure or set of them is talked about.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think Sweden has already pushed this to the limit........We've simply hit a technological wall.

I very, very much doubt that also.

Sweden has committed itself to 100% renewables by 2040 for energy production (and a fossil-free vehicle fleet by 2030). Even if it fails to reach that, there is significant scope for more from renewables, and it isn't just about technology (much of which already exists) it's about economics and specifically subsidies and other incentives. In other words, it's about political will. And the same is true in most countries, no matter what countermeasure or set of them is talked about.

Yeah, but these politicians who have made these promises knows they'll be long gone by then. This commitment is a so called "utter bollocks politicians shameless lie".

Sweden has no oil. So we're highly motivated to shift to electric cars. But the power has still to come from somewhere. And if it's coming from German coal, what exactly has improved?

Trust me, Sweden has pushed incentives and tax breaks as far as it can go. Swedes are not afraid of socialism or getting the state involved. That's not the problem.

The problem is science. We've reached the wall of what is possible. We can perhaps tweak it here and there. But we won't make it much better than the current situation. It's not possible

 

[bilby]

It's very complicated. I am sure there are upsides and downsides to both. It does not seem to be either or.

There does not seem to be agreement, for example, that renewables are only a suitable option in extreme climates and I think it is going a bit far to say that the ones in the list are extreme, given that there are so many who are getting or aiming for significant results.

For most countries we only have a single option, nuclear. In Sweden we have lots of big rivers. So we've expanded our hydro power. But now we've reached a wall. If we expand it any more we'll get ecological disasters. Or geological disasters. About half of Sweden's power comes form hydro power. It's also dependent on that it rains a lot. This summer was extremely dry. The other half of Sweden's power comes from nuclear. And that's the lowest possible point of nuclear dependence. Any less nuclear and we're screwed. About ten years ago Sweden shut down one of our nuclear power stations. So now, instead of exporting power, we import power. Where do we import it from? Germany. It's German coal power that has now replaced that Swedish power station. This is bad.

It's also what Denmark uses - German (and Danish) coal. When it's windy, Denmark pays Germany to take their excess electricity. When it's calm, Denmark buys coal power from Germany.

The total kWh/year Danish wind makes is roughly equal to Danish consumption; But their actual consumption is about 50% from coal, while their actual production is about 50% unusable in Denmark, and has to be exported or wasted. Essentially they use Germany as a big coal powered battery that costs a fortune. So their claims of 100% renewable is an accounting trick that only works for small countries with larger neighbours who don't rely on renewables.

If that neighbour also doesn't rely 100% on low carbon power when it's dark and calm (ie Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal or Wave power), then your environmental credentials are an expensive fraud.

Right now, Denmark is burning coal and exporting the power from it.



The 100% renewable nation that's getting ~20% of its electricity right now from coal, and ~5% from gas. How very environmentally friendly of them

https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DK-DK1

 

[repoman]

It's not a scam. The science has shown over and over and over again that this current period (speaking in geological terms) of climate change is man-made. Al Gore got a lot wrong and did sensationalize and put forward information that is not accurate, however, in essence, he is right.

go bury your head in the sand angelo, and get your butt burned by the temperature increase - I don't really care. Continue to deny so you can keep your precious untruth so that you can continue to try and keep things always the same - because change scares the shit out of you. The rest of us will move forward with science and facts.

Is this the " consensus" you're alluding to? https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

First off, I'm glad that you tried to find some scientific links that support your position. You're making progress! But you gotta keep looking. The source you found is crap. The skeptical science group are a bunch of Christian fanatics desperately trying to find "science" that fits their ideology. According to Wiki, John Cook is a solar physicist who says that he is "... he is motivated by his Christian beliefs. He is one of a number of Christians publicly arguing for scientific findings on anthropogenic global warming, and is an evangelical Christian."

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

Broken clock right twice a day in regards to him be motivated by Christianity? If he was a goofball "New Ager" and not a goofball Christian it would not really matter.

I have been on his website many times and perused the comment section a lot. I had no idea of him being a Christian at all. Really don't care.

Seems like a balanced website.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Geologists deal in the millions of years, not in decades like most alarmists do. There were times when Greenland was ice free just a short time ago [measured in earth times]. The Vikings actually established agriculture there. Any Geologist worth his salt and honest can put up a strong argument against the activists and alarmists. There's nothing new under the sun. There are too many climate variables to point the finger at one cause. The main one is our parent the Sun among many others including tectonic plates and natural causes!

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/

The Greenland ice cores go back 110,000 years. Are you saying the Vikings were farther back in time than that??

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ry-ice-from-the-base-of-greenlands-ice-sheet/

Lesson 2. Life flourished during both warm and cold periods; changes in climate produced both winners and losers.

The hottest time in Earth's history is all but devoid of fossils--little survived it. The coldest is even worse, probably the only survivors were near volcanic vents.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As far as I can see, the case for being able to produce most or all of the world's energy needs via nuclear is roughly on a par with the case for being able to produce most or all of our energy via renewables. Both are in theory possible. The main obstacle in both cases seems to be political will.

You're still ignoring the storage problem. We have no viable storage technologies to permit renewables to do more than supplement.

As well as the well-known examples of Costa Rica (99% of energy production from renewables), Paraguay (100%) and Iceland (100%), there is Norway at 98%, New Zealand at 81%, Austria at 80%, Denmark at 70%, Switzerland at 65% and Portugal at 50%. Most of these percentages are rising and several more developed countries (and most undeveloped ones) have signed up to significant renewables targets for 2050.

List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

Lets look more closely:

Costa Rica: It's almost all geothermal and hydro. Both of those power sources are basically maxed already, you can't expect them to pick up much more of the world's load.

Paraguay is all hydro. Same problem.

Iceland is hydro & geothermal.

Only 2% of Norway's renewable power is from sources other than geothermal/hydro.

There's no point in looking further--you inadvertently cherry-picked countries that are not representative of what the world can do.

 

[bilby]

Geologists deal in the millions of years, not in decades like most alarmists do. There were times when Greenland was ice free just a short time ago [measured in earth times]. The Vikings actually established agriculture there. Any Geologist worth his salt and honest can put up a strong argument against the activists and alarmists. There's nothing new under the sun. There are too many climate variables to point the finger at one cause. The main one is our parent the Sun among many others including tectonic plates and natural causes!

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/

The Greenland ice cores go back 110,000 years. Are you saying the Vikings were farther back in time than that??

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ry-ice-from-the-base-of-greenlands-ice-sheet/

Lesson 2. Life flourished during both warm and cold periods; changes in climate produced both winners and losers.

The hottest time in Earth's history is all but devoid of fossils--little survived it. The coldest is even worse, probably the only survivors were near volcanic vents.

And as a Homo Sapiens, I would distinctly prefer my species not to be one of those 'losers'.

It sounds so harmless if you say it quickly enough.

 

[angelo]

You are an embarrassment to rational thinking.

No you are! Like most activists alarmists you believe in the irrational thinking worse than a religious fundamentalist. By the way, why haven't you lot explained the Medieval warming, or the disgusting tampering by the infamous discreteted Michael Mann's Hockey Stick which tried to hide that trend plus the little ice age and falsely show a rapid rise of temperature in the 20th century? Funny how the IPCC after so much fanfare and two reports had the " Hockey Sticch " in a prominent front cover of two of their reports then suddenly it vanished in their third report and no mention has been made of it since.
Again I ask. What's to be done with the main cause of climate change. Water vapor, and the sun itself? Perhaps we could try to move the planet a little further out from the it's star? But then it may trigger a real threat to all life on planet earth: a devastating ice age.

 

[angelo]

Geologists deal in the millions of years, not in decades like most alarmists do. There were times when Greenland was ice free just a short time ago [measured in earth times]. The Vikings actually established agriculture there. Any Geologist worth his salt and honest can put up a strong argument against the activists and alarmists. There's nothing new under the sun. There are too many climate variables to point the finger at one cause. The main one is our parent the Sun among many others including tectonic plates and natural causes!

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-say-about-global-warming/

The Greenland ice cores go back 110,000 years. Are you saying the Vikings were farther back in time than that??

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ry-ice-from-the-base-of-greenlands-ice-sheet/

Lesson 2. Life flourished during both warm and cold periods; changes in climate produced both winners and losers.

The hottest time in Earth's history is all but devoid of fossils--little survived it. The coldest is even worse, probably the only survivors were near volcanic vents.

For fucks sake!!!! ......................http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/news13/greenland-ice-cores-reveal-warm-climate-of-the-past/

 

[ruby sparks]

There's no point in looking further--you inadvertently cherry-picked countries that are not representative of what the world can do.

Yeah, but 'what the world can do' (my bold, above) is very different to 'what the world is and has been doing'. That the countries currently achieving the top figures are already using certain technologies that they adopted in the past because they were available in that country says nothing about the potential for huge increases from all sorts of other technologies, in every country on the planet. For example, the potential for solar power in the USA is massive. Unfortunately, there is not the political or individual will to switch to it (and other renewables) from fossil, or indeed to reduce energy consumption in the first instance, which is the other key component of the decoupling from fossil fuels that is needed.

As for the nuclear option, there is already a nuclear power plant currently generating more than the USA needs or will need in future, and it is already supplying it directly to the country. Best of all, the power plant is located at a relatively safe distance of 93 million miles away.

Do you have solar panels?

 

[ruby sparks]

As for developing nations:



"The report further highlights the growing trend that shows developing nations are skipping the fossil fuel stage of economic development which has so plagued their more developed brethren."


https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/2...pping-up-into-global-clean-energy-leadership/

 

[untermensche]

You are an embarrassment to rational thinking.

No you are! Like most activists alarmists you believe in the irrational thinking worse than a religious fundamentalist. By the way, why haven't you lot explained the Medieval warming, or the disgusting tampering by the infamous discreteted Michael Mann's Hockey Stick which tried to hide that trend plus the little ice age and falsely show a rapid rise of temperature in the 20th century? Funny how the IPCC after so much fanfare and two reports had the " Hockey Sticch " in a prominent front cover of two of their reports then suddenly it vanished in their third report and no mention has been made of it since.
Again I ask. What's to be done with the main cause of climate change. Water vapor, and the sun itself? Perhaps we could try to move the planet a little further out from the it's star? But then it may trigger a real threat to all life on planet earth: a devastating ice age.

No scientist bases their conclusions on this hand waving nonsense.

You don't know any of the science no less how all of it comes together.

You know the shit created by the people destroying the environment to convince a few morons that they not the scientists have predictive abilities.

You are saying you know better than the scientists about what the future holds.

And you base your conclusions on no science.

It is just shit pulled from thin air.

Shit like: The weather has always changed therefore any unusual patterns we see are meaningless.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

By the way, why haven't you lot explained the Medieval warming, or the disgusting tampering by the infamous discreteted Michael Mann's Hockey Stick which tried to hide that trend plus the little ice age and falsely show a rapid rise of temperature in the 20th century? Funny how the IPCC after so much fanfare and two reports had the " Hockey Sticch " in a prominent front cover of two of their reports then suddenly it vanished in their third report and no mention has been made of it since.

Is it a congenital thing? All you had to do was go to Wiki ffs:

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

Here is a screenshot of the graphs used in the latest IPCC report from 2014. Every single one resembles a hockey stick:



And this: List of large-scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2,000 years

You are not a scientist nor an expert nor very good at doing basic research on your own.

Now that you have been proved wrong, what will you do, no-one wonders?

 

[ruby sparks]

Those graphs are a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.