# Climate Change Realities



## DBoon (Dec 14, 2014)

The ~30%/year growth in renewables generation capacity is a fantastic growth rate.  That is a roughly 10x capacity increase every 9-10 years.  It seems like it should be fast enough by itself to put us on a path to mitigating the worst effects of climate change.  Is it fast enough?  

This recent article says "no".  
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

The fast renewable growth rates won't get us to where we need to be - the pace needs to be faster and the only way to overcome the entrenched political fossil fuel interests is to make the costs of renewables so low and so easily integrated into daily demand cycles that there is no other logical choice to their use.  

You could make a claim today that the generated costs are low enough, but the integrated costs are not low enough.  The biggest future investments have to be made in lowering the integrated costs, and some disruptive, breakthrough technology is needed (and soon).   

Additionally, if you crunch the numbers, the only way to prevent CO2 levels in the atmosphere beyond what the vast majority of scientists say will create major disruptions is to have technologies that will also remove existing C02 from the air and sequester it.  Otherwise, even with massive cuts in additional emissions, C02 concentrations will continue increasing.  

It reminds me very much of an article I read in a special issue of Scientific American about 10 years ago (and which, unfortunately, I have never been able to locate on-line).  This article described carbon reduction strategies (go nuclear, high renewables, carbon sequestration, etc.) and analyzed which strategies would be needed to mitigate climate change, and the conclusion was "all of them". 

We have a long way to go...it's not hopeless, but more of the same as we have today will not get us there.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 14, 2014)

You should dive into the Deep Decarbonization Project:  http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/deep-decarbonization-pathways/

Bottom line: with current technology the US can reduce its net carbon emissions by 90% by 2050, at a cost of 1±1% of her GDP, and most of the major costs are backloaded to the 2035-2050 period.  And these costs are *not* accounting for FF externalities to balance to books...they are the simple costs for the equipment.

The project is global and undertaking with local scientists and engineers to tailor a similar plan for each country.

What does the US need to do for the next 10 years....continue to exponentially grow its wind, solar RE installs, continue car fleet efficiency improvements (which will require a lot of EVs by the 2020s to continue), and mostly not build a lot of costly infrastructure that will have to be written down 5-10 years later, creating a legal/political battle over recouping the loss.  IOW, pretty much exactly what we are trying to do now.

So, I don't want to be polyanna, but we can do this.

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

That said, there will be blood.  There will be more severe global warming impacts in the future.  There will be a RE revolution. There will be major damage and costs and habitat destruction on a large(r) scale.  The more we do now, the less pain, death, cost and extinction later.  If we hew hard to a plan that looks like the current 'plan', and push harder in that direction as time goes on and we gain experience with virtuous cycles and political will, we will avoid the worst before 2100.

The story of this decade is shaping where the smart money goes.  If folks with deep pockets see building a new coal plant as 'risky' regarding its ability to amortize its costs over the next 30 years, versus the risk it will be shut down prematurely to avoid carbon emission due to future regs, then the plant will simply not be built.  They'll go build a wind farm instead.  In other words, we all need to see high carbon emission projects as financially risky projects, once climate change and associated regs are seen as inevitable, and then we'll be off to the races.


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2014)

We are seeing change in local beaches and bulkheads. Both are disappearing under high tides. Tornadoes are starting to show up on the west coast. That is also a first. Ocean acidification effects are already notable and pushing us toward a mass extinction event that will affect all. 

What is nuts about all of this is that we treat carbon as a waste product instead of a resource. Carbon belongs in the ground, in our plants and crops. Not in excess in the air.


----------



## DBoon (Dec 14, 2014)

Agreed on the next 10 year plan, but what is done the next 10 years after that cannot be he same as the first 10 years. The de-carbonization start is too late - that's the essence of the article - even if all de-carbonization that is ideally needed could be politically implemented, there will be too much CO2 in the air, so a parallel approach is also needed to research ways to get the carbon out.  Not hopeless, but there is no technology today that can do that cost-effectively, and it will need to be developed.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 14, 2014)

Sure.  Right now we are speeding toward a cliff, with our foot on the accelerator.  Step 1 has to be to step off the gas, reach for the brake, and start to turn the wheel.

I would say the current uncertainty about climate sensitivity makes it hard to predict whether the emerging aggressive CO2 reduction plan will be 'enough' or not.  Humans tend to adapt to their current circumstance....if the past climate was different, they won't care if they used to the new one.  Once a habitat is destroyed, it is hard to restore....so why bother.  Of course, I am not saying the AGW is not a big deal, just that adaptation to a degraded environment and forgetting the past is part of the human condition for the last couple centuries.

If we don't get our act together soon (deploy/develop existing tech in a market friendly way) globally, or if the climate is on the more sensitive end of the current models (due e.g. to postive feedbacks), we will need to deploy some decarbonization strategy or geo-engineering. In the end, once we have deployed RE to the max, it will come down to relative costs of further CO2 emission reduction versus decarbonization or geo-E, which are IMO impossible to predict at this point.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 14, 2014)

begreen said:


> We are seeing change in local beaches and bulkheads. Both are disappearing under high tides. Tornadoes are starting to show up on the west coast. That is also a first. Ocean acidification effects are already notable and pushing us toward a mass extinction event that will affect all.
> 
> What is nuts about all of this is that we treat carbon as a waste product instead of a resource. Carbon belongs in the ground, in our plants and crops. Not in excess in the air.


http://www.ecy.wa.http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/Washington/mapgov/programs/sea/coast/erosion/study.html ut oh this is a mild el nino year?


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2014)

Seems to be that we've already seen this play out.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 17, 2014)

begreen said:


> We are seeing change in local beaches and bulkheads. Both are disappearing under high tides. Tornadoes are starting to show up on the west coast. That is also a first. Ocean acidification effects are already notable and pushing us toward a mass extinction event that will affect all.
> 
> What is nuts about all of this is that we treat carbon as a waste product instead of a resource. Carbon belongs in the ground, in our plants and crops. Not in excess in the air.


http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/Oregon


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 17, 2014)

begreen said:


> We are seeing change in local beaches and bulkheads. Both are disappearing under high tides. Tornadoes are starting to show up on the west coast. That is also a first. Ocean acidification effects are already notable and pushing us toward a mass extinction event that will affect all.
> 
> What is nuts about all of this is that we treat carbon as a waste product instead of a resource. Carbon belongs in the ground, in our plants and crops. Not in excess in the air.


the final west coast state  with their first tornados showing up, since 1951 http://www.tornadohistoryproject.com/tornado/California

http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/watorn.htm just needed to check wa.state


----------



## jebatty (Dec 18, 2014)

Climate change > adverse impact on health = clueless American public. Clueless


----------



## branchburner (Dec 18, 2014)

begreen said:


> What is nuts about all of this is that we treat carbon as a waste product instead of a resource.



This might be key. If CO2 can be sequestered in newly innovated for-profit products, such as plastics, such manufacturing and subsequent consumption will increasingly result in lowered emissions.
http://bestofwhatsnew.popsci.com/newlight-technologies-aircarbon

But the fact remains: the future of global CO2 levels lies largely in the East, not in the West. While we are fully responsible for the past 100 years, Asia will be most responsible for changes over the next 100.
http://www.bric-menasa.com/The-global-middle-class-wave_full_600.jpg78933.jpg

http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/China/images/primary_energy_consumption.png


----------



## begreen (Dec 18, 2014)

branchburner said:


> But the fact remains: the future of global CO2 levels lies largely in the East, not in the West. While we are fully responsible for the past 100 years, Asia will be most responsible for changes over the next 100.
> http://www.bric-menasa.com/The-global-middle-class-wave_full_600.jpg78933.jpg



Either way we are fracked.


----------



## Dune (Dec 22, 2014)

Why we need not be fracked;

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030/

Mr. Boon, if I had to guess this the article you are looking for. 

To all; There is hope but we MUST develop the _will_ to do this now. 

We have enough technology, we need the will to implement it.


----------



## DBoon (Dec 23, 2014)

Hi Dune, perhaps that is...I thought it was more in the 2005 timeframe.  Without seeing the entire article, it is hard to know for sure.  But that seems like a good, worthy read, in any case.  

The basic premise of the earlier article I posted was that even if we could get to 100% renewables in a reasonable time period, the excess carbon in the atmosphere will exist for a long time, and would need to be removed in order to prevent damaging climate affects.  I am not advocating for a "go-slow" or "do-nothing" approach - I am advocating for a "do it all as fast as possible, and bet big on something more".


----------



## 9986mkoh (Dec 23, 2014)

The sad reality is that it seems like the majority of the change will have to be done behind the backs of most Americans. I say this because of the number of people that are actually concerned and truly know a little bit about global warming. I feel like most people are actually just completely ignorant to their actions and consequences, environmentally speaking.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 23, 2014)

There's a big age effect with respect to global warming concern.  Very few in the over-60 set.  A good majority in the under 30 set.


----------



## 9986mkoh (Dec 23, 2014)

id agree with that, except I think its probably between 30-40% that are actually concerns, and only around half will even make an effort to change habits or do something about it.

one reason I'm starting to burn wood again is that I'm trying to burn as much wood as possible that would otherwise just be burnt outside with no benefit, effectively cutting my carbon footprint.

and just fyi, I'm a young engineer currently in manufacturing design...but hoping to move more into the green energy sector to do something I actually care about more, and wouldn't mind doing for my entire career. One note though...to my surprise, more people on my field of work than in college, and in general, do have some level of concern for global warming, or at least accept that it is happening. It's actually the opposite of how I thought it might be.

still, I find it hard to get the point across often when the subject comes up. Sone people just done believe it for some reason or another.


----------



## Dune (Dec 25, 2014)

9986mkoh said:


> id agree with that, except I think its probably between 30-40% that are actually concerns, and only around half will even make an effort to change habits or do something about it.
> 
> one reason I'm starting to burn wood again is that I'm trying to burn as much wood as possible that would otherwise just be burnt outside with no benefit, effectively cutting my carbon footprint.
> 
> ...



They don't believe it because of the endless stream of disinformation and propaganda put out by those who profit from the consumption of fossil fuels and conservative outlets such as Fox news


----------



## 9986mkoh (Dec 25, 2014)

yeah, I do get that. Even all of the fracking commercials saying how clean and safe it is. We have fracking wells near us, and a small pond several miles from the nearest well had all the fish killed by some fracking fluid in it. That got covered up really fast and blamed on something stupid like a small leak that travelled along the surface...for miles...


----------



## valuman (Dec 25, 2014)

There are many good reasons to reduce our reliance on oil in addition to the carbon we spew when we burn it. Don't click on this link unless you're pretty good at controlling your reaction to seeing more of the devastation the oil industry brings us. I'm really looking forward to the day we're all driving electric vehicles.

http://www.gagecartographics.com/spills/


----------



## begreen (Dec 25, 2014)

Runoff pollution into the Missouri River. Nah, never happen... Trust us.


----------



## valuman (Dec 25, 2014)

Totally.


----------



## vinny11950 (Dec 26, 2014)

Whatever happens, big climate changes are going to happen in the next 100 years.  Follow the money to find out what we are going to do about it.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 30, 2014)

what an el nino looks like, how about old mother nature . thanks for the post Dr. Spencer


----------



## jebatty (Dec 30, 2014)

It may be that the outcome of risk analysis by businesses and by insurance companies will be a big driver to reduce carbon and increase renewables of all types. Not likely this will happen as fast as is necessary, but ultimately politics will bend to the money stream, and the money stream from a carbon based economy will be far outbalanced by the money stream from reduced risk and lower costs of carbon alternatives.


----------



## jebatty (Dec 31, 2014)

This quote captured a key essence of climate change realties: 





> http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/12/7-most-insightful-comments-about-environment-2014
> 
> December 30, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Where2 (Dec 31, 2014)

9986mkoh said:


> The sad reality is that it seems like the majority of the change will have to be done behind the backs of most Americans. I say this because of the number of people that are actually concerned and truly know a little bit about global warming. I feel like most people are actually just completely ignorant to their actions and consequences, environmentally speaking.


I would guess most Americans got a "C" at best in chemistry and other science classes in high school. For those who continued their education beyond high school, avoiding the sciences was the name of the game unless they were heading into engineering or actually planning on teaching science. Fast forward those hundreds of thousands of bright young minds 10+ years into the future. They still don't understand science, biology, ecology or chemistry enough to understand the interplay between CO2 and everything else.

The Atlantic ocean tides lap up at a dock behind my house, and I have lived on this same canal for 40+ years with access to the same dock for reference. I can tell you low tides are not as low as they once were. Most Americans couldn't tell you that tides run in a 19 year cycle, and I venture to guess most of Congress couldn't tell you that NOAA has a collection of tide stations that have been collecting tide data since before the current members of Congress were born.

This link to NOAA's sea level trends map is an interesting one. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
My nearest station reference: Miami Beach @ +2.39mm/yr doesn't sound like much change, until you realize at that rate, in the 40+ years I have lived on this canal that's nearly +4" of sea level rise. My reference canal has not been dredged since I was born, and the concrete filled PVC piles on my reference dock haven't been modified or replaced in those 40+ years. I've seen the trend with my own eyes, and there definitely is a trend.


----------

