This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I have a few issues here. Showing that the deep ocean has a "capacity" without having a clearly proven mechanism for transferring that CO2 absorption between the layers does not inspire confidence when the stakes are so high. Also the articles linked so far tend to be based on research which mainly end around 2005, more than a decade ago. Even research which is published in 2011 tends to lean heavily on decade old research. Just today, whilst looking over the articles, I found a NASA publication which shows that the CH4 being emitted by the Arctic through natural mechanisms is "massively" underestimated and that CH4 is being emitted for a large part of the winter by dry, higher, ground, not the wetlands. As the papers I did read rely heavily on the "assumptions" of where CO2 and CH4 is being produced, it tends to highlight errors. In fact the publication being discussed above and the conclusions written in Scrips clearly states that they assume the biosphere is absorbing all naturally occurring CH4. When the "assumptions" as to the levels of CH4 and where it comes from is incorrect, based on 2015 research, how much reliance can we put on the studies which attempt to determine the absorption capacity of the oceans in the future under certain conditions? The more I look, the more I find that I get more questions than answers. Not a position to make me believe that just reducing CO2 is going to do it.
Rob, I never said that reducing emissions was not desirable. Not only is it desirable, it's critical. What I said was that waiting to see if emissions reductions will do the job, before starting on other mitigations, either in CO2 reductions or heat budget reductions, was not such a good idea and might do us in over the long run. The fact that the article finds that the biosphere responds to the forcing and, essentially, grows to "eat" the CO2 being emitted, therefore, most likely shrinking when the CO2 shrinks, is a concern. The fact that we have overwhelmed the ocean annual absorption rate is also seriously bad news. I was still working on the 50% figure. If it really is only 25% then things are much worse than I had expected and is the answer, in itself, as to why annual CO2 ppm increases continue to grow even though we have levelled off in emissions. I have no argument that cutting CO2 emissions right now is critical. I have issues that it is enough. I'm a cup half full kind of person. I prefer to plan for the worst. The issue right now is that we're not even planning for the very best possible case, we're planning for some wet dream vision of what life could be like if physics was not a real and ever present factor. What the arguments are over is whether we need to do enough for the very best possible case. Not only are we not planning for the worst. We're still arguing about whether the very best case will happen or not. My nightmare scenario is that we fight the good fight for a decade, get the world to "dig shallow" and reduce CO2 emissions, only to find that two decades after that we suffer the middle range catastrophe instead of the E.L.E. It's a slightly different position. The opposite of delaying, I want to run much faster. I'd rather convince Trump that a US base on the moon with a permanent colony is something the US really needs; in order to meet my goals; than try and force reductions in fossil fuels down his neck when I know he won't go for it. In fact if you look at it from my viewpoint, going all out for CO2 reductions ONLY on the basis that they'll do the job then playing "wait and see"; is a delaying tactic. Inflammatory as that statement might be I really don't want to cause offence or upset as we really are all arguing for the same thing. We just have different views as to how it will be achieved.
Rob, I think the article D-Penguin linked is pretty clear. It assumes that human CO2 emissions will continue, but decrease, until 2050. Then it assumes that Negative Emissions Technology (NET's) will take the CO2 towards negative in the next 50 years, finally going negative within the following 50 years. The following is the findings of the article (you have to read it). •2000–2050. The application of NETs begins but anthropogenic activity remains dominated by positive emissions (figure 4(a)). Land and ocean sinks persist. The AF remains close to half of emissions and CO2 concentration continues to rise. •2050–2100. Fossil fuel emissions decline and NETs grow further in this scenario. The anthropogenic total is still positive but much smaller (figure 4(b)). Natural sinks persist—a little reduced but still absorbing carbon due to past history and therefore CO2 begins to decrease, despite the anthropogenic total still being positive. •2100–2150. NETs exceed fossil inputs and human activity removes more CO2 than it emits at a global scale (figure 4(c)). During this first 50 years of anthropogenic net carbon removal, the natural sinks weaken significantly due to the rapid decrease in atmospheric CO2. Hence there is an atmospheric CO2 reduction due to the combination of net negative anthropogenic emissions and land and ocean still absorbing carbon, however not as strong as might have been expected if strong natural sinks had persisted. •2150–2200 and on to 2250. Behaviour is qualitatively similar to figure 4(c), but now natural sinks have weakened further and CO2 decrease is slowed. Towards 2250 natural sinks are all but gone. In fact 3 out of 4 ESMs simulate a reversal of the land carbon sink to become a source. •2250–2300. In the final stage the land and ocean system has become a net source of CO2. Most ESMs still simulate the ocean as a sink, but the overall (land plus ocean) flux is positive (figure 4(d)). The atmospheric CO2 decrease is weakened as the natural carbon cycle is releasing carbon to the atmosphere, working in the opposite direction to the anthropogenic removal via NETs. In short, the faster we stop producing CO2 the faster the natural sinks stop absorbing. The faster the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, the faster the carbon sinks (including the oceans), will start to emit carbon back into the atmosphere. This makes sense, because in the natural scheme of things, without humans, the planet always trends towards balance. Humans have been acting like a strong solar brightening. So the CO2 emitted is sored away for the next solar dimming. Because that CO2 will be needed to keep the planet warm and the biosphere as close to liveable as possible. What this article, essentially, says, is that the faster you stop emitting CO2, the faster the carbon sinks will stop absorbing it. It also says that the faster you remove CO2 from the atmosphere, the faster the carbon sinks will top it back up again. In short if we want to bring the planet back to balance, we're going to have to remove ALL the carbon we put into the atmosphere and ALL the carbon we put into the carbon sinks, using NET's such as forestation or even direct CCS from the atmosphere. In the meantime what about all that heat we're going to sequester? This just goes full circle. All over again, about what I'm saying. There is no quick fix like "just stop emitting". Because of the signature lag in the natural carbon sinks recognising the stopping of emissions, this article, essentially, says that the carbon sinks themselves will cause the flip from net consumers to net emitters. In essence if we just stop what we are doing now, the planet will finish the job for us by flipping backwards and forwards between emitting and absorbing whilst maintaining the CO2 levels close to 400ppm. If we reduce our emissions to 50%, the oceans, within a decade or two, will reduce their absorption to ensure that our emissions continue as a net growth. The article states that Reducing uncertainty in projected carbon sinks behaviour, especially under low emissions scenarios, is a pressing research priority. No Kidding!
I was careful to talk about current scientific articles and logical deductions. What bothers me more is that our CO2 emissions levelled in 2013, but our CO2 ppm count continued to rise. Yes there was a huge El Nino, yes EN raises CO2 levels. But, our emissions were flat but the jump was significant. 2.9ppm globally in 2015. 2016 is still to be seen but ML came out with 3.3ppm. What Global will be we won't know till mid Feb, but I'm betting it will be over 3ppm. So my problems are three fold and overlap D-Penguins issue too. 1. Fristly we're not going to reduce emissions any time soon. Simply put, it will take at least 2 more decades to engineer the worst excesses of fossil fuel dependency out of the environment and to engineer the replacement solutions in place. 2. The planet has a finite CO2 uptake capability and we don't know what that is. We don't know if we have already exceeded it or not. So postulating that x will happen when y action is done, in an environment which is not fully quantified, is a logical strategy but carries risks which are not fully mitigated 3. There are feedbacks in place which we already know but are not fully reflected in scientific articles because they are logical deductions and not observed effects (so far). Those feedbacks amplify the CO2 growth for the same input. So I worry if we have already passed one CO2 amplification milestone without recognising it and that it will take us a decade of recording to prove and document it in a peer reviewed paper. It is two decades since I used my rolling stone as an analogy for what we are doing to our climate and our biosphere. It is like rolling a huge stone (miles in diameter), up a hill towards a saddle. The emissions to around 2000 rolled the huge stone up to the top. The emissions since are rolling it over the flat top land, faster and faster. If we don't start putting retarding barriers in place, it's going to start rolling down the hill. At the bottom of which is going to be Village Earth, blithely unaware of what is rolling down on them. It is harder to push the stone if you make the ground more resistant. It is harder to generate momentum, downhill, if you put retarding force on it. Once you have it over the edge, it doesn't matter if you stop pushing or not. Momentum and gravity will do the rest. This analogy and the way the climate works is what leads me to say that just stopping pushing is not going to do the trick. We need to kill some of the momentum we've already imparted to it and we need to try and halt it before it starts going downhill and we need to make those retarding actions stronger and stronger. Stopping is one thing. Assisting nature in retarding is another. But. In the end. The momentum, heat, has to be reduced. I don't want to be here, 20 years from now, having finally stopped emissions, only to find that 10 years ago we pushed the climate over the edge and it's happy on it's own finishing the job for us. Which is why I say active mitigation activities today are a vital tool in the armoury of the fight against AGW. Not the only one, but, potentially, the most important in the long run. I won't be standing here 20 years from now saying "Hmmmm, I wonder how long it will take us to actively get rid of all that climate destroying heat". I might be standing here 20 years from now saying "I told you so". That would be very sad.
Toggle Commented Jan 10, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob is assuming, based on current findings, that the planet would absorb the other 50%. Leading to a complete halt to any growth in CO2. Can't fault the logic behind the argument. I just don't believe we'll do it.
Toggle Commented Jan 9, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
RobertS, yes I had the same problem with my Grandson. "We're clever we'll just fix it if it's really a problem". My response was simple. "It's already more than a problem, it's going to impact your later life more than any event we have seen in the 20th century and unless you get your head around it and learn about it and make your politicians do the right thing now, then you are totally screwed. Your generation is already screwed. Me, I'll be dead, so it won't be a concern of mine". But I totally understand your fears, they are mine too. Introduce some kind of "quick fix" and they will procrastinate. It's why I'm careful to say that we need to do ALL of the fixes but if we don't do THAT one the end result will be a lot worse. Nothing in my life to date has confirmed that doing one thing badly and praying it will have the desired effect, even though the evidence is that even 1.3c warming will be catastrophic, is as constructive as working out all the things we could do then driving forward on all of them. Yes we have scarce resources. Yes we need to change attitudes. But, no, failure is not an option and we've been doing far too much of that. My day job is to ensure that the light at the end of the tunnel is not a train coming. To ensure that you have to anticipate the bad stuff and do everything you can to head it off. It's also to anticipate the actions of others and put in place a regime which will deliver despite them.
Toggle Commented Jan 9, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, there are some quite large error bars on that chart. Also the Direct effect Aerosols would go away almost immediately, which are as large or larger than N2O and Halocarbons. We would expect CH4 to continue or even increase with the breakdown of the cyroshpere due to increased warming and also due to cloud warming effect in the Arctic at least. I don't have time to read the entire article, but that table doesn't read to me like we'll get 1.3 warming only. Also we have the heat budget in the Oceans which will be released over at least 40 more years from when that article was written. Still not looking like 1.3C to me. I recall the rapid warming of the late 90's. I also recall it was at a time of world wide efforts to reduce Sulphur from the atmosphere because of acid rain. Of course Sulphur is a reflectant and adds to the Aerosol albedo effect. I just don't believe we can blithely assume that we will get Utopian heat increases with a total removal of gas emissions tomorrow. I believe we need to plan and engage to do multiple things at the same time. I happen to think our window of opportunity for only doing one thing at a time has expired and that people really need to take that on board. That's my belief.
Toggle Commented Jan 6, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Ah the joy of statistics. 1969 2.1%, 3.6billion people. Annual growth 72 million. 2017 1.1%, 7.4 billion people. Annual growth 81.4 million. Slowing? Yes, only on a spreadsheet.
Toggle Commented Jan 5, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
I'm with Neven on that. As long as we can talk solutions, then it is better than talking doom all the time. Yes, I don't like being called a troll just because I don't agree with the mainstream. But I'm a big boy and will get over it. It won't stop me posting what I think. I recall reading a speech by Obama, just a few weeks after I had publicly defended his stance on climate change. His speech writer had lifted chunks of my post Alost verbatim. You never know who is reading or what the impact of what you write will be. So better to write it than not..
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
To paraphrase, to Python fans, saying "this climate is dead" would elicit the right response immediately...
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven get well soon. I was sick most of November. I always get sick when I'm working with a lot of people who take the flu vaccine. GSK (who make it), was the worst I've ever experienced. Needless to say it was "free" so about 60% of the people took it. I do try to keep things shorter but when you are trying to cover many points raised it just gets longer and longer. Yes the forum is better, but, I think, the blog is more visible. Some things need to be visible.
Watch the youtube link. The Monty Python parrot sketch is a classic on denialism and hugely funny too.
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, you force me to make another comment. Your point is that we must take the cheapest and most effective measure to reduce CO2 emissions to 0% as fast as possible and everything else is a sideshow. My point is that whilst reducing CO2 emissions to 0% is critical, other mitigating factors to remove CO2 and to reduce the energy entering the atmosphere and the CO2 sequestration zone (not the sea or the land), are critical to the survival of humanity as we are currently constituted today. I'm wondering which part of the Abstract of that article you were not conversant with? The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures.. That is "observed" or to put it another way, what has happened and been recorded so far. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels So we'll see 2.4 regardless. Now if I read the IPCC statements, over 2C is catastrophic warming. Yes they excluded aerosols, but as we're removing them faster than we are removing CO2 (not at all), expect that impact to be nearer to the upper end. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century So, yes, if we stop CO2 at 2005 levels we'll see equalisation around 22xx some time long after a few billion people are dead of famine and territory wars. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries Comforting to know that if we just stop CO2 at 2005 levels we'll still be flooded out, hit by bigger storms etc, etc. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C. Remember that this was based on 2005 levels, rising at circa 2ppm pa. In the last two years alone we will have seen (I'm sure when the figures come in), 6ppm rise. In the 11 years since that figure was set at 2005 we have emitted more than 25ppm CO2, additional, over the 2005 baseline of the article, into the atmosphere. Honestly how you can turn even the abstract of that article into "stop CO2 now" as the best, fastest and cheapest option I have no idea. Personally I would have thought that introducing CO2 reduction means right now alongside reductions in CO2 emissions would have meant that by the time we finally stopped emitting CO2, we would immediately go into reduction mode faster and faster as we turned the entire efforts to reduction rather than both reduction and stopping emitting. But then I'm not a scientist, don't write articles and only read them.
The canary doesn't sing, it stops singing, or dies. Allowing the miners time to protect themselves from the present danger or exit the mine. This, I believe, is the time to trot out the Monty Python Parrot sketch. You can see who is denying what... It is a sad fact that few democracies are doing enough about CO2 emissions which cause Climate Change. Two of the strongest proponents, right now, are China and the EU. Neither of which are representative, or accountable, governments. There is a message there somewhere. Something like the old joke about a man who falls out of a window in a high rise. He can be seen to be saying something. On opening a window he is heard to be saying: "Looking good so far". I prefer Forrest Gump. "Stupid is as Stupid does".
Toggle Commented Jan 3, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, I'd love to keep it civil. However I do have a legitimate gripe. I was arguing the case for the economic drivers for PV and EV on renewables, before this site existed. The "climate lobby" was shouting about TAX, TAX, TAX, driving the deniers into a frenzy. I note Obama used the economic method and the regulation method and not the TAX method. He got more done than any president before him. What did the "climate lobby" do to him? They vilified him for using the wrong words and doing the wrong thing. Where has the TAX ranting got us? I humbly submit Trump. You think for the next 8 years we're going to see reductions in the US? I suspect not. Go figure. So when I talk about my frustrations, I was not trolling and I was not trying to delay. I was trying to get people to see that we need to MOVE FORWARD right the hell NOW, on all fronts. Cost cannot be seen as a factor any more. If we can't sell the cost we need to sell the opportunity of the spend. Wind will never get the money that coal does because it is simply not enough. PV, tidal and HDR Geothermal, yes, but not wind. We all hate the subsidies on Coal but they are there because they produce jobs and wealth for companies. PV subsidies, up until the financial crisis, were beginning to replace this. In the end they were the first real cut after the crisis. You say I've produced no study. I've told you to take Hansens work and turn it on it's head. It produces all the figures you require. I don't care about costing. This is no longer a money thing, per se, this is a survival thing. I note people can come on the blog and say "move to a war footing to remove CO2" and it is accepted as both possible and an acceptable method. Because it talks about CO2 emission mitigation. As a minor study of human behaviour, I respectfully submit that moving to a war footing with everyone having their lives restricted, without having made the case for the catastrophic impacts of 2C and above AGW, is a fantasy. People are less likely to vote for that than they are to vote for Clinton. On the 0% emissions and the halting of CO2 rises. I have an issue with this too. A warming planet already has an increasing CO2 signature. The oceans actually absorb less CO2 as the planet warms, exacerbating the problem. I didn't mention the mitigating factor of the oceans because there is growing evidence that the oceans are beginning to reduce their CO2 uptake. It will take another 3 decades for the studies to produce the results. But the trend is beginning. As for warmth and ongoing CO2? I noted that our CO2 emissions, from 2013, were flat, if not reducing slightly, globally. I also note that 2015 and 2016 saw the largest jumps in CO2, either side of 1998, that we have ever recorded. Granted the El Nino helped a bit, but something boosted that CO2 figure and it was not increased emissions from the human element. I've noted that the heat signature from a huge El Nino tends to be incorporated into the base temperature scenario within about 1.5 to 2 decades. We have now overwhelmed the 1998 temperature spike in the baseline and it was done on CO2 emissions much lower than we have reached today. Meaning we have, at max, 2 decades before we reach 1.5C. Let's be realistic here. You are not going to go from 3ppm increase to 0ppm increase in those two decades. That's FACT, not surmise. Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, the CO2 ppm signature has risen, not fallen. That doesn't mean we have to stop trying, it means we have to TRY HARDER. But there is an element of realism which is missing here. If we can't stop we have to kick start sequestration. Not now but 10 years ago. Nobody was talking sequestration 10 years ago because of CCS and the "case for coal". More than 10 years ago I argued the case for making PV and EV an economic initiative which drove GDP growth and made the Renewables industry a darling of the stock market. Years later it began only to be smacked down by the financial crisis. Today I'm arguing for a 3 way mitigation strategy. Reduce CO2, Sequestrate CO2, Reduce energy input from the Sun. I'll still be here, making my case, 20 years from now. Here's my prediction. CO2 ppm increase will still be over 1.5 every year. We will have a baseline heat of 1.5C over preindustrial. El Nino years will be flirting with 2C over preindustrial levels People who fight for core climate changes will start to talk about a multi pronged attack on warming. What am I going to do now? I'm going to go and revisit my personal ideas on multi stage high pressure compression of air, by a method which blends the power of the piston compressor and the inline through flow of the multi stage turbine. Plus my ideas on orbital mechanics to take that high pressure air and use it later. I'm going to step out and forget what I'm saying for a few years or so. I throw these ideas out for consideration. I get the response I expect. What I do is called "blue sky thinking" in the business world. I have been met with an accountancy response. Accountants never create anything, although they do often make the critical funding for creations.
Lodger, I guess you’ll also need to put me on “ignore” now then too? Am I trolling? I don’t believe I have “ever” trolled on climate change and I’ve been in the viewing and understanding mode a hell of a lot longer than many of the people I argue with. The “other D” is arguing the same argument I am. You didn’t listen when I pointed out the Hansen calculations; just, basically assumed I was wrong. Let’s put it this way. If a simple reduction in solar output to the levels of a Maunder Minimum, can delay the rise in temperature at current emission levels, by 25 years, then the reduction by global dimming might give us a century because it reduces a hell of a lot more w/sqm than a Maunder Minimum because the fluctuation of the solar output is very small compared to direct reflection of solar energy. This is one of the reasons I get really frustrated with the Climate Lobby. Total fixation on a single thing. Followed by “holy shit” when the environment changes and step changes force a different focus. I was not joking when I said Greenpeace would have the cleanest planet 2 Billion people had ever seen. A pity for the other, estimated, 7 Billion who “didn’t make it”. Personally I was just throwing out ideas and following them up, because it’s 100% crystal clear that simple CO2 emission reduction is not going to cut it. Even if we get down to 0% which is a total fantasy land fairy story, given the current political commitment and the state of our technology. We have absolutely NO technology, at this time, to replace truck CO2 emissions, Bus CO2 emissions or, even worse, shipping CO2 emissions. Unless there is a 130,000bhp solar powered shipping solution out there I’ve never heard of. I don’t count Hydrogen at this time; it takes more energy to create than we gain in CO2 emissions from using it. A clear case of not doing either the simplest or even most effective thing to solve the problem. Whilst I laud the dedication to reduction in CO2 emissions as an ongoing goal; I respectfully submit that this was a goal to be achieved in the 20th century. For the 21st century, given that failure, we need to be thinking laterally. We can no longer believe that “only” reducing CO2 emissions to 0% is a viable course to a human viable biosphere. Remember when I said “how do you get it over to people that when they are impacted the time for action was 100 years ago”? My next challenge, following that one, is “how do you get it over to the climate lobby that we no longer have the luxury of doing one thing at a time”?? Because we simply don’t! If that message is trolling and it puts me on the “ignore” list. Then I have one more sad event in my climate watching life to add to add to all the others.
D, yes I'd say we're on the same page. I believe in all too, but I also believe waiting for space based, instead of going for it right now, along with all the others, will do us in eventually. Rob, Zero emissions will halt global warming, no doubt about that. I'm wondering how you come to that conclusion. Regardless of the fact that we haven't felt the full impact of 400ppm CO2 or 480ppm CO2e yet, there is also the 30 year ocean signature. There are articles and clear empirical evidence, that 90% of the current warming goes into the ocean and not into the atmosphere. There are also several articles which state that this heat is released after, potentially, 30 years. So we have locked in warming for the next 30 years even if we stop, right now, today. Then, for the next 30 years, we will lock in 480ppm CO2e into the oceans, whilst we "experience" the released warming of 360ppm CO2. For the 30 years following that (up to 60 years from now), the heat sequestrated in the oceans under 480ppm CO2e will be released. I'm really struggling to understand how reducing to 0% emissions, tomorrow, stops global warming in it's tracks. At 480ppm CO2e the entire Cryosphere is going to state change, at +2C over preindustrial the entire Cryosphere is going to state change. With the loss of the Cryosphere, the impact of the warming, already sequestrated in the oceans and the sequestration ongoing right now, will be magnified many times. Every w/sqm of energy that falls into the atmosphere will have a greater and greater impact even at 0% emissions. Yes it will limit the impact by falling to 0%, but stop Global Warming? Not as I understand everything I've read. On the energy distribution question I'm leaning towards high pressure air (300 - 1000 bar). Have some thoughts on the creation and utilisation of it and it can be created and stored local to the renewable source and even moved to where it is required for when it is required. Sounds a lot like current fossil fuels really. On the ice, I note that Extent is going to finish at the 2010 level at the end of the year. Or, put another way, equal to the lowest level recorded in the satellite era. However I expect volume to be lower. We've never seen Ice this thin over such an area before.
D, I'll put it aside if you accept that our most direct method of reducing solar insolation moves from a potential 2050 inception to a likely 2100. If you put that with your statement above and also to the fact that we are one El Nino away from 1.5C already and then 2C is not far, or long, behind it. Let me reiterate. I'm not saying stop anything else like solar PV, but I am saying look at it ALL and NOW, not when it's so critical that we've already lost. Rob D, when costing PV, you might want to also calculate the ~50 year viable useful life of a PV cell. That is vitally important to calculate because PV is not a long term solution, not by a long shot. It is, potentially, quite expensive and maintenance intensive. To avoid accusations of "selling a pup", it's important to factor in the replacement schedule. 50 years is being kind, current manufacturers warranties are only 25 years with a 40 year useful life. We can't present solutions which can be ripped apart and holes shown in them. That is worse, in some ways, than presenting no solution at all if we are going to influence the doubting masses. On the Hansen calculations, he was using pre 2008 growth figures. Our CO2e output has jumped since then. If he were to do that again with current figures, assuming they stay stable, that 25 years would, I'm sure, be shorter. Which kind of means that even low solar cycles from now for 25 years would still see the impact. The other point I'd like to make, before putting a solar dimming solution to bed, is the assumption that it will have to be replaced constantly. I see no reason why a ceramic glass based solution should need to be replaced so regularly. Unless there is some degradation of ceramics I'm unaware of by particles and solar radiation.
That should have been one 25 years, not two. Wife calling for dinner, rushing.
Rob, you don't have to look hard to know what is coming and you don't have to read all the articles either. Just the headers. When 2008/9 produced the lowest solar minimum since the Dalton Minimum a century ago, the fake skeptics were prophesying a new ice age. Hansen got a crew together and did the math. In 25 years our CO2 growth, at the pace at that time, would overcome a Maunder Minimum in 25 years. So we didn't hit either a Dalton or Maunder, in fact it's just a slightly lower cycle with a slow start. But the calculations are now out there. Unless we reduce CO2, right now, we will incur an additional warming equivalent to the difference between the Maunder Minimum "mini ice age" and the temperatures just prior to the industrial revolution. It's not very hard to work out the consequences, the time frame or the fact that we're going to see that impact unless we drop to 0% emissions tomorrow. A solar dimming mirror would impact the heat budget more than a solar minimum and be more controllable. But it would take 25 - 50 years to achieve it, starting right now. We have no luxury whatsoever to do nothing, to try only one thing or to "wait and see". My prediction? The people who need to know what to do will recognise that about 20 years too late to take the action needed. plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...
I'm with that. For far too many people, time has already run out for action. The more we fail to act the more likely I'll see the beginnings of the catastrophic changes in my lifetime.
Don't get me wrong, solar is absolutely needed. As is HDR geothermal, river (weir), based power and the whole gamut in-between. Let me talk a little about unintended consequences of geoengineering. Take the water smashing project pushed into the high arctic. Great, in summer it will mitigate some of the heat. But in the winter it will create a heat loss blanket and we know that water vapour has a CO2e level far, far higher than CO2. By far the biggest impact in temperatures, in the arctic, seen so far, is insolation in winter and the winter warmth anomalies caused by CO2e which are preventing ice regeneration in winter to replace the loss in summer and by export. I can't think of a much more damaging way of trying to "shield" the arctic than that. Especially this summer where we saw heavy cloud cover from storms but continued summer melting at high rates due to bottom melt from exceptional water temps due to early water exposure to the sun. Essentially due to weak thin FYI in spring. Then the solar PV part. Great, if we create floating platforms it mitigates oceanic uptake. But because of the CO2e in the atmosphere, the energy not consumed and reflected back is still trapped, if we reflect more back and it does not go into the sea, then we could, effectively, cause a huge jump in atmospheric temperatures. We know that the oceans are sequestrating circa 90% of the heat energy which reaches the earth. If we reflect even 30% of that back into the atmosphere to be trapped by GW gasses, we could be in a lot more trouble than with slow oceanic expansion. End game? Stop the heat getting in, gradually and you stop the warming. Not like flicking a light switch or permanent dimming, but with gradual shading which can be controlled. Yep, we need ALL the mitigations on the gasses, but we also need to stop the energy coming in. We have introduced circa 15-20,000 years heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere in 150 years. To believe that if we just stop now we're going to stabilise in 150 years is the worst kind of wishful thinking. You don't overwhelm the environmental systems of a whole planet then just switch it back in 150 years. It will take centuries, using biology, to just get out the heat we have already injected and the heat we will continue to inject over the next century. That is with 0% emissions and 100% extraction at the full capacity of the entire human species. As to a shield and escaping the gravity well. I wasn't thinking earth. Lunar Regolith is essentially full of the ingredients to make high strength low mass glass. The moon has no atmosphere 1/6th the gravity well of the earth and you could shoot mass of the surface with a linear accelerator. The moon also has zones which are, essentially, always in sunlight. Glass requires heat energy to produce and solar on the moon, without an atmosphere, would be more effective than on the Earth. If we want most of our humans to survive what is coming, we need to start thinking permanent colony on the moon and forward thinking engineering. Everything I have said is viable with the technology we have today. All we lack is the will and the vision. Until people begin to realise that AGW is priced in billions of lives, they are going to be unwilling to foot the bill. Even then some will only foot the bill if they think their lives or their immediate families lives are at risk. Right Now. AGW simply isn't like that. How do you get it over to some people that by the time they are in danger, right now, the time to do something to fix it was 100 years ago???
Merry xmas all. Sorry I was being taken out of context. Absolutely, we need to STOP burning crap right the hell now and change to CO2 neutral technologies. That's step 1. But, we've already introduced 20,000 years of warming into the atmosphere and it will _NOT_ go away by stopping burning shit. So we have to mitigate it or we're going to see the whole array of impacts already predicted by the climate scientists. So regardless of whether we reduce CO2 right now or not, the survival of our societies, as they are now, depend on geoengineering in the long run. Whilst I say that foresting the Sahara, re-foresting areas of the Amazon and, potentially, central Australia and the Gobi, are likely to play a large part in this; in the end the fastest way to cool the planet is to stop sunlight getting in. If you want to talk lack of monsoon and rainfall patterns changing, we're already there as far as the Horn of Africa is concerned and other areas in the world. Or are we saying we're only concerned when that same condition hits more dangerous, powerful or wealthy countries? Because that would be a slippery slope. I must admit that I often find myopia to be a big issue in the climate change lobby arena. Never mind Greenpeace and their "let's recycle glass" at 100 million tonnes of CO2e emissions over dumping it in Landfill and creating new glass..... Greenpeace, will have the cleanest planet 2 Billion people have ever seen. Time to break out of the tunnel vision and see the whole scope of the problem. We're already screwed. Big time. What we need to do is stop AND fix it. Fix later is no option if we don't stop and stopping will not fix it. Just make it "slightly less lethal"
The funny thing is that a sunshade in our atmosphere would be a monstrous engineering project. In space it would require tin foil covered plastic inflated with a minimum of air pressure. Something that light could easily be turned to provide on/off shading. A complete new level of science would be required to use it and when to activate it, but it is a real possibility and we have the technology to do it today. Just not the will or the development to make it easy....
Should we apply Occam's Razor to the whole situation? Let's see. Claim 1. Greedy climate scientists have falsified results and made grandstanding claims so they can.... Gain more research funding and get a higher profile on the world stage. Claim 2. Greedy and unscrupulous mega business conglomerates are well aware of the impact of CO2 and what it will do to the livable biosphere of the planet and the lives of those who rely on that biosphere. However they have chosen to ignore it in the belief that they can continue to make obscene amounts of money and will be completely protected from the fallout of CO2 emissions due to that money.... I know which one works for me....