Jump to content

Climate: Il fait VRAIMENT CHAUD (fka un petit)


Week
 Share

Recommended Posts

So it's becoming an annual message that the polar region is warming faster than the rest of the planet. But we are learning its warming even faster than previously realized.

"Recent data revealed that the annual average temperature in the Barents region climbed by as much as 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) each decade in the past 20 to 40 years, making the Barents Sea and its islands the fastest warming location on the planet."

Edited by DireWolfSpirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

So it's becoming an annual message that the polar region is warming faster than the rest of the planet. But we are learning its warming even faster than previously realized.

"Recent data revealed that the annual average temperature in the Barents region climbed by as much as 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) each decade in the past 20 to 40 years, making the Barents Sea and its islands the fastest warming location on the planet."

Dawg, we're opening up new shipping routes!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

So it's becoming an annual message that the polar region is warming faster than the rest of the planet. But we are learning its warming even faster than previously realized.

"Recent data revealed that the annual average temperature in the Barents region climbed by as much as 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) each decade in the past 20 to 40 years, making the Barents Sea and its islands the fastest warming location on the planet."

It is, I believe, a tad more complicated than that, at least for a while.

Yes, the glaciers that connect Greenland's ice sheet to the ocean are in fast retreat. Yes, there are almost certainly 'rivers under the ice' accelerating the erosion of the ice sheet. Yes, this will increase ocean levels.

Now, let's move a bit further south. Much of the weather in eastern North America and coastal western Europe is strongly affected by a warm water surface ocean current in the north Atlantic, which funnels warm water from the tropic, along the eastern coast of the US and Canda, then veers over to western Europe. 

What is happening is the extremely cold meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet is forcing that current to a greater depth, which results in colder temperatures in the areas it used to warm. Translates to extremely ugly winters in the NE US and coastal western Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Translates to extremely ugly winters in the NE US and coastal western Europe.

Not particularly -- as a resident of the NE US. Certainly some sudden bursts of extreme cold or snow, but not generally worse winters overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2022 at 12:33 AM, Week said:

Not particularly -- as a resident of the NE US. Certainly some sudden bursts of extreme cold or snow, but not generally worse winters overall.

Well, the gulf stream hasn't stopped yet. It's only severely weakened.  Gulf Stream system threatens collapse, study finds | News | DW | 06.08.2021 

If the gulf stream totally collapses, that would/will definitely be noticeable, I suppose...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

A video about energy storage from a science Youtuber I find both entertaining and credible, Sabine Hossenfelder.

The conclusion being more nuclear energy would be good.

I have watched several of her astrophysics videos.

My main observation here is this video is four years old (2018) and since then the costs of Lithium-Ion batteries have dropped substantially. Additionally, once the bugs are worked out, Lithium Sulfur batteries are several times more efficient than Lithium Ion, and I believe less expensive. (The tech here is advancing extremely fast). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

I have watched several of her astrophysics videos.

My main observation here is this video is four years old (2018) and since then the costs of Lithium-Ion batteries have dropped substantially. Additionally, once the bugs are worked out, Lithium Sulfur batteries are several times more efficient than Lithium Ion, and I believe less expensive. (The tech here is advancing extremely fast). 

Where does it say it's from 2018? I don't think that's correct. Some charts show data more recent than that. And even with progress in technology, there won't be enough storage capacity to stabilise the entire grid any soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My yewtoobes says the Cold Dunkelflaute (why is there no umlaut function here?) video was posted on 21 August 2022. Also I believe Sabine Hossenfelder wasn't doing 'Science without the Gobbledygook' videos until last year, or maybe 2020 at the earliest.

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 9:32 AM, ThinkerX said:

My main observation here is this video is four years old (2018) and since then the costs of Lithium-Ion batteries have dropped substantially. Additionally, once the bugs are worked out, Lithium Sulfur batteries are several times more efficient than Lithium Ion, and I believe less expensive. (The tech here is advancing extremely fast). 

Cost doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of metal necessary, and how easy it is to extract it.

There's a colossal global mining crisis in the making as we speak. Basically, we've mined the ore that was easily accessible for lots of metals, and now it takes far more energy, water (!), and pollution to extract the same amounts as we used to.
Another way to put it is that global mining capabilities are likely to decrease in the near future and that the prices of many raw materials are artificially low at the present (because the "market" is garbage at this kind of thing - really, the "market" may be our biggest problem right now).

The problem here is obvious. The transition as envisioned within the current economic system would be an unmitigated environmental disaster. It would require multiplying our extraction capabilities several times over (from 2 or 3 for basic metals to 50 for some key ones like lithium), thus destroying much of what remains of the environment. Some of the mining projects currently contemplated are insane (in what destruction they entail). And that's not even getting into geopolitics (with China controling key deposits).

In order to mitigate that, we'd need batteries that require 50 times less lithium at least. If we want the entire world to transition, 100 times less would be appreciable.
Now, I personally am no expert, but the last time I talked to one, he told me we're not there, not even close, and that lithium batteries should only be considered in countries that have no electrical grids to begin with (i.e. developing countries). In developed countries, combining "renewables" and lithium batteries would end up being at least as bad for the environment as fossil fuels, and possibly significantly worse (yes, that's what he told me, he did his PhD on batteries, and is now working for one of the ministries implementing electrical grids in French oversea territories, so he knows his shit).

For developed countries, nuclear energy seems to remain the best bet, at least if you're genuinely concerned about the environment.
A more provocative way of putting it is that at present renewables and electric vehicles are a form of greenwashing, meant to make us believe that our way of life is sustainable, when it really isn't.
Now don't get me wrong: they're still part of the solution. But only if renewables require less "rare" metals than they do (no neodymium for these off-shore wind turbines for example), and if EVs are used for mass transportation (not individual vehicles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Cost doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of metal necessary, and how easy it is to extract it.

There's a colossal global mining crisis in the making as we speak. Basically, we've mined the ore that was easily accessible for lots of metals, and now it takes far more energy, water (!), and pollution to extract the same amounts as we used to.
Another way to put it is that global mining capabilities are likely to decrease in the near future and that the prices of many raw materials are artificially low at the present (because the "market" is garbage at this kind of thing - really, the "market" may be our biggest problem right now).

The problem here is obvious. The transition as envisioned within the current economic system would be an unmitigated environmental disaster. It would require multiplying our extraction capabilities several times over (from 2 or 3 for basic metals to 50 for some key ones like lithium), thus destroying much of what remains of the environment. Some of the mining projects currently contemplated are insane (in what destruction they entail). And that's not even getting into geopolitics (with China controling key deposits).

In order to mitigate that, we'd need batteries that require 50 times less lithium at least. If we want the entire world to transition, 100 times less would be appreciable.
Now, I personally am no expert, but the last time I talked to one, he told me we're not there, not even close, and that lithium batteries should only be considered in countries that have no electrical grids to begin with (i.e. developing countries). In developed countries, combining "renewables" and lithium batteries would end up being at least as bad for the environment as fossil fuels, and possibly significantly worse (yes, that's what he told me, he did his PhD on batteries, and is now working for one of the ministries implementing electrical grids in French oversea territories, so he knows his shit).

For developed countries, nuclear energy seems to remain the best bet, at least if you're genuinely concerned about the environment.
A more provocative way of putting it is that at present renewables and electric vehicles are a form of greenwashing, meant to make us believe that our way of life is sustainable, when it really isn't.
Now don't get me wrong: they're still part of the solution. But only if renewables require less "rare" metals than they do (no neodymium for these off-shore wind turbines for example), and if EVs are used for mass transportation (not individual vehicles).

Alas, the fossil fuel situation is even worse.

Which gets into something I have mentioned here in the past:

Globally, we are headed for a 'low energy' future that will result in drastic changes, social and economic. Most, but by no means all of the energy in that scenario will have to come from renewables. 

That said, the one bright spot with Lithium is that it is supposed to be fully recyclable. Make that recycling mandatory and go to higher efficiency Lithium Sulfur batteries...and maybe the situation will be merely 'unpleasant' instead of 'catastrophic.'

The other thing I have been kind of sort of looking into over the past year or two is demographics.  Places like China are looking at a catastrophic population implosion. Birth rates appear to be below replacement levels across much of the first world...and maybe slowing down elsewhere (that is on the 'to be looked into list). More and more, I suspect global population might drop something on the order of 50% over the next century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

That said, the one bright spot with Lithium is that it is supposed to be fully recyclable. Make that recycling mandatory and go to higher efficiency Lithium Sulfur batteries...and maybe the situation will be merely 'unpleasant' instead of 'catastrophic.'

Indeed. Recycling and reuse are crucial. Basically, we're very close to having reached the material limits of our planet, and whatever we haven't used (/wasted) already should be kept for key projects (and emergencies).

Transitioning is one such key project, but that doesn't mean we can just continue to ignore the fact that the resources are fucking limited (that's what got us here in the first place). And the problem with lithium batteries is that we still need to build a bloody lot of them in order to then recycle, and it's absolutely not certain we should mine too much lithium as of now.
We can and should do it to produce and store renewable energy. But if we look at the maths, there's just no way to switch to individual EVs for everyone. That may even be another grievous mistake.

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Globally, we are headed for a 'low energy' future that will result in drastic changes, social and economic. Most, but by no means all of the energy in that scenario will have to come from renewables. 

Amen.
It's the conclusion I've seen reached by every single serious expert I've read/heard these past few years. Our way of life is unsustainable, and nothing can save it.
If we'd started acting sooner, it might have been different. But as it is, we have to prepare for a future in which we'll have less of everything material - except possibly food, as long as we eat far less meat.

TBH, I find it deliciously ironic. There was a path out of this mess back in the 1980s, but that's when capitalism kicked into overdrive and morphed into neo-liberalism, thus condemning itself (or us, which amounts to the same thing).
It's also funny that Marxist theory kept wrongfully predicting the end of capitalism and somehow missed the question of physical constraints (no doubt because most Marxists wanted to produce just as badly as the capitalists they opposed).
 

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

More and more, I suspect global population might drop something on the order of 50% over the next century.

I believe this is a reasonable prediction, for many reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China is suffering from one is the worst heat waves ever.

CNN link

NZ Herald link

Quote

Electricity demand for cooling has spiked at the same time production has plummeted.

Not enough water is flowing through hydroelectric power turbines. Nuclear power plants are struggling to keep their reactors cool.

Nothing new about the fact that hydro power is not actually reliable source of energy during heat waves which are becoming more common.

As usual nuclear power plants not built with climate change in mind are shit at dealing with it. People often forget that heat based power generation needs a lot of cooling. Things suffer even it is just the water temperature that increases because it makes things less efficient and a lot of stuff is not actually built with the temperature rivers reach sometimes nowadays. Plants get less effective long before they run out of cooling water. Ocean based cooling is far more expensive sadly and obviously not an option for many areas.

(Googled some english language articles after reading a local articles.)

Edited by Luzifer's right hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

As usual nuclear power plants not built with climate change in mind are shit at dealing with it. People often forget that heat based power generation needs a lot of cooling. Things suffer even it is just the water temperature that increases because it makes things less efficient and a lot of stuff is not actually built with the temperature rivers reach sometimes nowadays. Plants get less effective long before they run out of cooling water. Ocean based cooling is far more expensive sadly and obviously not an option for many areas.

I don't have much hope that the nuclear industry will have a significant part in addressing climate change until it's too late. All chips will be placed on renewables for the next 10-20 years, until it's realized that there are so many accompanying technological barriers that renewables cannot affect climate change to the extent required. Then we'll once again look at nuclear, and you'll get people saying "maybe if only we had started building plants 10-20 years ago it would have benefitted us greatly, but how can it help now?" But there will be no other choice at that point but proceed with nuclear.

That said, environmental conditions are going to force reactor technologies to adapt, which they certainly can. Light water reactors can be made to function in these conditions, but hopefully this will prompt the industry to favor molten salt or gas cooled reactors. Also microreactors and some Small Modular Reactor models would fair well in conditions of water scarcity.

Edited by IFR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, IFR said:

I don't have much hope that the nuclear industry will have a significant part in addressing climate change until it's too late. All chips will be placed on renewables for the next 10-20 years, until it's realized that there are so many accompanying technological barriers that renewables cannot affect climate change to the extent required.

I expect the development of renewables to start stagnating soon (it's arguably the case in some countries), precisely because of the technological/material barriers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IFR said:

I don't have much hope that the nuclear industry will have a significant part in addressing climate change until it's too late. All chips will be placed on renewables for the next 10-20 years, until it's realized that there are so many accompanying technological barriers that renewables cannot affect climate change to the extent required. Then we'll once again look at nuclear, and you'll get people saying "maybe if only we had started building plants 10-20 years ago it would have benefitted us greatly, but how can it help now?" But there will be no other choice at that point but proceed with nuclear.

That said, environmental conditions are going to force reactor technologies to adapt, which they certainly can. Light water reactors can be made to function in these conditions, but hopefully this will prompt the industry to favor molten salt or gas cooled reactors. Also microreactors and some Small Modular Reactor models would fair well in conditions of water scarcity.

Well the problem is that the companies that run them use a profit for the companies costs for the society approach. They will not even upgrade the old ones in a way that makes them more reliable I suspect. Also water based cooling is still a key element of those other reactor types just no for the reactor core itself afaik. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

Well the problem is that the companies that run them use a profit for the companies costs for the society approach. They will not even upgrade the old ones in a way that makes them more reliable I suspect. Also water based cooling is still a key element of those other reactor types just no for the reactor core itself afaik. 

Water will not be completely eliminated from the system because steam needs to be circulated through a turbine to generate electricity; or hot water can be transported through pipes for district heating and such.

But the amount of water required can be significantly reduced through these alternative cooling systems. For a large PWR (pressurized water reactor), you can have 100,000+ gallons of water per minute circulating through the core as coolant.

Quote

I expect the development of renewables to start stagnating soon (it's arguably the case in some countries), precisely because of the technological/material barriers.

I hope it's recognized if that is the case. Acting sooner than later would be a good thing, and every year delayed has a meaningful impact.

But we can only watch and see, I suppose.

Edited by IFR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A glimmer of sanity from an unexpected source:

Evangelical group releases climate change report, urges a biblical mandate for action (msn.com)

 

---------------------

But the authors admit persuading evangelicals is no small task, considering the religious group has historically been one of the demographics most resistant to action on the issue.

RELATED: Presbyterians to divest from 5 oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, after years of debate

The nearly 50-page report, titled “Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment,” opens with a section that insists protecting the environment is a biblical mandate.

“The Bible does not tell us anything directly about how to evaluate scientific reports or how to respond to a changing environment, but it does give several helpful principles: Care for creation, love our neighbors and witness to the world,” the report reads.

The authors go on to cite passages such as Genesis 2:15 (“God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it”), Matthew 22 (“Love your neighbor as yourself”) and Deuteronomy 15 (“Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart”).

“We worship God by caring for creation,” the report reads.

Another section outlines the basic science behind climate change, but the report, produced in partnership with the NAE’s humanitarian arm World Relief, returns often to the real-world impacts of climate change, such as how air pollution created by fossil fuels can have negative outcomes for children’s health or disproportionately affect the poor.

 

----------------------------------

 

And a grim prediction about the Greenland Ice Sheet - minimum 10.8 inch drop (25cm?) within 100 years, like double that, and possibly triple. Especially disturbing are conservative commentators who don't seem to grasp the difference between 'sea ice' and 'ice sheet.'

Inevitable: Melting Greenland ice sheet will send seas nearly a foot higher, study finds (msn.com)

Melting over the past century has altered the ice sheet's equilibrium, according to the study led by two glaciologists at the National Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. For the ice sheet to correct that imbalance, it will lose an estimated 100 trillion tons of ice, adding at least 10.8 inches to global average sea levels.

That’s “a very conservative rock-bottom minimum,” said Jason Box, a glaciology professor with Denmark's geological survey.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

Greenland's contribution to sea level rise could be more than 2 feet within the century if the pace of warming continues, the authors reported in the journal "Nature Climate Change," even though the study doesn't attach specific time frames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

A glimmer of sanity from an unexpected source:

Evangelical group releases climate change report, urges a biblical mandate for action (msn.com)

 

---------------------

But the authors admit persuading evangelicals is no small task, considering the religious group has historically been one of the demographics most resistant to action on the issue.

RELATED: Presbyterians to divest from 5 oil companies, including Exxon Mobil, after years of debate

The nearly 50-page report, titled “Loving the Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment,” opens with a section that insists protecting the environment is a biblical mandate.

“The Bible does not tell us anything directly about how to evaluate scientific reports or how to respond to a changing environment, but it does give several helpful principles: Care for creation, love our neighbors and witness to the world,” the report reads.

The authors go on to cite passages such as Genesis 2:15 (“God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it”), Matthew 22 (“Love your neighbor as yourself”) and Deuteronomy 15 (“Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart”).

“We worship God by caring for creation,” the report reads.

Another section outlines the basic science behind climate change, but the report, produced in partnership with the NAE’s humanitarian arm World Relief, returns often to the real-world impacts of climate change, such as how air pollution created by fossil fuels can have negative outcomes for children’s health or disproportionately affect the poor.

 

----------------------------------

 

And a grim prediction about the Greenland Ice Sheet - minimum 10.8 inch drop (25cm?) within 100 years, like double that, and possibly triple. Especially disturbing are conservative commentators who don't seem to grasp the difference between 'sea ice' and 'ice sheet.'

Inevitable: Melting Greenland ice sheet will send seas nearly a foot higher, study finds (msn.com)

Melting over the past century has altered the ice sheet's equilibrium, according to the study led by two glaciologists at the National Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. For the ice sheet to correct that imbalance, it will lose an estimated 100 trillion tons of ice, adding at least 10.8 inches to global average sea levels.

That’s “a very conservative rock-bottom minimum,” said Jason Box, a glaciology professor with Denmark's geological survey.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

Greenland's contribution to sea level rise could be more than 2 feet within the century if the pace of warming continues, the authors reported in the journal "Nature Climate Change," even though the study doesn't attach specific time frames.

From what I've seen the ice-melt to sea-rise numbers are all over the place, and at some point that becomes a feed back loop.  Even the conservative estimates are significant in consequences.  

Eta

Also this is the subject of one of the funnier/more pathetic right wing memes, which is a video of a glass of ice water in time lapse, where the ice melts and the water level doesn't change.  Which is obviously an excellent and perfect model for a warning world with significant ice reserves outside of the glass.  And that doesn't even include thermal expansion ....

 

Edited by Larry of the Lake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

From what I've seen the ice-melt to sea-rise numbers are all over the place, and at some point that becomes a feed back loop.  Even the conservative estimate are significant in consequences.  

I have made several attempts to calculate the increase in ocean levels from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past couple of years.  My minimum estimate was about 9 inches by 2100. The worst case was something like five feet and assumed a partial (undermining) collapse of the sheet.  

Of course, that is just Greenland. The situation in Antarctica....well, it be a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...