Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

The rest of the world really isn't adapting with it in the large picture. I know you are an optimist and I am a pessimist, but the evidence is largely against you. Emissions have never been higher. There is a MASSIVELY cashed up and powerful anti-AGW lobby, and we all know that politics is run on money, not science. Change is happening slowly, and I expect will continue to happen at a rate that is too slow to avoid massive disruptions due to climate.

[macdoc]

wrong - emissions are down for the first world - notably 11% for the US and China has committed to a stiff reduction program

Even in the heart of oil country concerns develop to regulations...

Dallas effectively bans fracking within city limits
By ANDREW NIKIFORUK
Published December 12, 2013 10:30 am | 8 Comments

Dallas, the technical and financial centre for Texas's oil industry, has effectively banned hydraulic fracturing within that city's limits.

City council voted nine-six yesterday to impose 1,500-foot setbacks from well sites. Previous regulations required only a 300-foot setback.

The new rule is one of the most restrictive ordinances on natural gas drilling in the United States. The required setback in nearby Fort Worth, for example, is 600 feet.

In contrast, British Columbia has less stringent setback rules. It is legal to drill hazardous sour gas wells or shale gas wells just 328 feet (100 meters) from schools or buildings.* Sour gas wells can leak hydrogen sulfide, a potent neurotoxin that is lethal in small quantities. It has killed more than half a dozen B.C. oil and gas workers in recent years.

The Dallas News reported that the decision "came after years of arguments over well safety, toxic air emissions, gas leasing rights and drillers' use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Neighborhood groups joined with environmental advocates to press the city for maximum restriction."

In related news, crude oil production in the U.S. increased to 8.075 million barrels a day, a new 25-year high for the oil-importing nation.

The change is largely due to the shale-drilling boom in Texas and North Dakota, where industry has employed hydraulic fracturing.

Analysts expect the shale gas and oil boom to be short-lived due to the rapid depletion rates of tight oil and shale gas plays, as well as the high cost of sustaining production from these extreme and difficult hydrocarbons.

- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/12 ... T5ll8.dpuf

[pErvinalia]

wrong - emissions are down for the first world

So AGW is only a first world problem??

AGW is a global problem and emission have never been higher and they will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. And the only reason they are down in the west is because of the GFC. Once economic growth picks up again, emissions will too.

[macdoc]

Incorrect - 2012 there was good economic growth and emissions in the US were down 11%.

The first world created the problem in the first place and has the resources to mitigate.

There is no moral stance that denies emerging economies access to fossil fuels and they are NOT the problem.

If the G8 alone emulated Sweden's 1/2 way there already plan for carbon neutral then we'd probably keep it under 2 degrees at 2100
If the G20 did we would.

The US due to it's technology might surprise everyone. There are deep pockets including the military looking for solutions for hydrocarbon fuels that are not dependent on foreign sources.
US is set to become the largest solar provider and some developing nations and even some areas of developed nations are set to have solar as the cheapest form next year.

Spain has so much excess solar that it's creating problems with the traditional supplier of electricity.

Catylitic conversion of C02 plant emissions to hydrocarbon feedstock is being pursued around the world as are similar solutions.

The biggest impediment to getting to a combination of baseload and renewables is nuclear fears.

If the right wing are dickheads on AGW the tree huggers have an equal culpability for anti-nuke nonsense.

[Seth]

wrong - emissions are down for the first world - notably 11% for the US and China has committed to a stiff reduction program

Even in the heart of oil country concerns develop to regulations...

Dallas effectively bans fracking within city limits
By ANDREW NIKIFORUK
Published December 12, 2013 10:30 am | 8 Comments

Dallas, the technical and financial centre for Texas's oil industry, has effectively banned hydraulic fracturing within that city's limits.

City council voted nine-six yesterday to impose 1,500-foot setbacks from well sites. Previous regulations required only a 300-foot setback.

The new rule is one of the most restrictive ordinances on natural gas drilling in the United States. The required setback in nearby Fort Worth, for example, is 600 feet.

In contrast, British Columbia has less stringent setback rules. It is legal to drill hazardous sour gas wells or shale gas wells just 328 feet (100 meters) from schools or buildings.* Sour gas wells can leak hydrogen sulfide, a potent neurotoxin that is lethal in small quantities. It has killed more than half a dozen B.C. oil and gas workers in recent years.

The Dallas News reported that the decision "came after years of arguments over well safety, toxic air emissions, gas leasing rights and drillers' use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Neighborhood groups joined with environmental advocates to press the city for maximum restriction."

In related news, crude oil production in the U.S. increased to 8.075 million barrels a day, a new 25-year high for the oil-importing nation.

The change is largely due to the shale-drilling boom in Texas and North Dakota, where industry has employed hydraulic fracturing.

Analysts expect the shale gas and oil boom to be short-lived due to the rapid depletion rates of tight oil and shale gas plays, as well as the high cost of sustaining production from these extreme and difficult hydrocarbons.

- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/12 ... T5ll8.dpuf

What a load of horseshit. Dallas hasn't "effectively banned fracking," all it's done is increase well-head setbacks from residential areas, which is a perfectly appropriate thing to do for any number of very good reasons. The hydrogen sulfide claims are so much bilge added to increase the panic factor of the reader. It's been illegal to allow a hydrogen sulfide leak near populations for nearly a hundred years. And with directional drilling, the need for close-spacing on well-heads is significantly reduced, and it turns out that horizontal drilling and fracking (which is still perfectly legal in Dallas and everywhere else) actually produce more gas and can re-use gas fields thought to be played out long ago.

The drillers just have to locate their operation farther from homes, which is reasonable, and they can drill a dozen to two dozen separate horizontal bores fanning out in every direction UNDER the residences, going two miles or more horizontally from a single drilling pad these days.

You ought to learn something about the industry before you post bullshit enviro-propaganda.

[Seth]

Incorrect - 2012 there was good economic growth and emissions in the US were down 11%.

And down more than 25% in the last decade or so, all without signing anything like Kyoto Protocols.

The first world created the problem in the first place and has the resources to mitigate.

That's not what the third-world wants though. They want us to give them money so they can INCREASE their industrial base and INCREASE their carbon production because they think we owe it to them for being economically successful. Fuck 'em. If they had the capacity or the intelligence to be first-world nations, they would be first world nations.

There is no moral stance that denies emerging economies access to fossil fuels and they are NOT the problem.

I smell a No True Scotsman fallacy. There is a perfectly moral stance if AGW is actually a problem: You came late to the game so you don't get to play with the big boys. Sorry, but tempus fugit and the world cannot afford to let you go through a pollution phase just to improve your economy. You're a day late and a dollar short and there's no "pollution credits" available for you, so you'll have to remain rural, pastoral and undeveloped.

I say we depopulate South America, ship everybody to Europe, and turn the entire sub-continent into a biosphere reserve that's entirely off limits to humans.

If the G8 alone emulated Sweden's 1/2 way there already plan for carbon neutral then we'd probably keep it under 2 degrees at 2100
If the G20 did we would.

Yeah, get back to me when everybody else on the planet has cut their emissions by more than 25%. Until then, fuck all y'all and your redistributionist political machinations.

The US due to it's technology might surprise everyone. There are deep pockets including the military looking for solutions for hydrocarbon fuels that are not dependent on foreign sources.

Yeah, like gas and oil under Dallas...or the ANWR...or North Dakota...or Canada.

US is set to become the largest solar provider and some developing nations and even some areas of developed nations are set to have solar as the cheapest form next year.

My ass. That dog don't hunt I'm afraid. The math only works if you ignore the costs of producing the solar panels and equipment...all of the costs both economic and environmental and political. Most solar panels come from China these days, and it's a really bad political idea to support the Communist Chinese regime, which has long range plans that do not include you or anybody else remaining anything like free.

Spain has so much excess solar that it's creating problems with the traditional supplier of electricity.

Bullshit.There is no such thing as "excess solar." What you're saying is that solar has made enough of a government-subsidized inroad on power production that traditional power producers are feeling the economic pinch. But watch what happens if they decide to shut down every generation facility in Spain because they can't make enough money to keep them running. It won't be pretty at all. That's because solar, as any non-idiot would know, only works at best half the time. Traditional generating capacity must still be built and maintained to deal with times of low solar production, which includes not just night, but foul weather as well. Therefore, the "excess solar" is actually detrimental to energy supply stability because it makes it more difficult to build and maintain the infrastructure that's required even if 100 percent of homes and businesses run 100 percent of the time on solar...during sunny days.

Go take an economics class willya?

Catylitic conversion of C02 plant emissions to hydrocarbon feedstock is being pursued around the world as are similar solutions.

Yup. And capture and sequestration. And that's exactly where the vast majority of research and funding needs to be concentrated...on making existing generation plants net zero for carbon output, not shutting them down and trying to replace them with...nothing that even begins to approach their production capacity.

The biggest impediment to getting to a combination of baseload and renewables is nuclear fears.

If the right wing are dickheads on AGW the tree huggers have an equal culpability for anti-nuke nonsense.

At least we agree on something. Tree-huggers are Luddite fuckwits who ought to be required to dig for roots and berries and live in wattle-and-daub huts in the howling wilderness while wearing nothing but hair-shirts and bark shoes for about five years before being allowed to interfere with anyone else's energy production plans.

[pErvinalia]

Incorrect - 2012 there was good economic growth and emissions in the US were down 11%.

The first world created the problem in the first place and has the resources to mitigate.

There is no moral stance that denies emerging economies access to fossil fuels and they are NOT the problem.

If the G8 alone emulated Sweden's 1/2 way there already plan for carbon neutral then we'd probably keep it under 2 degrees at 2100
If the G20 did we would.

The US due to it's technology might surprise everyone. There are deep pockets including the military looking for solutions for hydrocarbon fuels that are not dependent on foreign sources.
US is set to become the largest solar provider and some developing nations and even some areas of developed nations are set to have solar as the cheapest form next year.

Spain has so much excess solar that it's creating problems with the traditional supplier of electricity.

Catylitic conversion of C02 plant emissions to hydrocarbon feedstock is being pursued around the world as are similar solutions.

The biggest impediment to getting to a combination of baseload and renewables is nuclear fears.

If the right wing are dickheads on AGW the tree huggers have an equal culpability for anti-nuke nonsense.

Mac, it doesn't matter who's producing the gases. All that matters to global warming is if the gases go up, the temperature goes up. And the gases will continue to go up as long as economic growth continues.

[macdoc]

Geez sometimes you don't read at all.

- 2012 there was good economic growth and emissions in the US were down 11%.

Swedens GDP have grown enormously since 1990 and it's emissions have fallen 45 %.

Growth and emissions are NOT connected.

We find that average decarbonization rates sustained from 1971-2006 range across the 26 OECD nations from a 3.6 percent per year decline in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP in Sweden to an 0.7 percent per year increase in carbon intensity of the economy in Portugal. The unweighted average rate for all 26 nations was 1.5 percent per year, only 16.5 percent faster than long-term global decarbonization rates (1.3 percent per year).

Only five nations achieve sustained decarbonization rates more than double the long-term global historic average: Sweden (at 3.6 percent per year), Ireland (at 3.2 percent), the UK and France (each at 2.8 percent), and Belgium (at 2.6 percent).

Six other nations achieved rates between 50 and 100% greater than the global average rate: Germany (2.5 percent per year), the United States, Denmark, and Poland (each at 2.3 percent), Hungary and the Netherlands (at 2.0 percent).

•••

The Drivers of Decarbonization

The decarbonization of the economy (change in CO2 per unit of GDP) is driven by two forces: change in the energy intensity of the economy (or energy use per unit of GDP) and change in the carbon intensity of the energy supply (or CO2 per unit of energy). The compound annual rate of change in CO2/GDP is the sum of the compound annual rate of change in Energy/GDP and CO2/Energy, making it possible to examine how much each nation relied on changes in energy intensity or carbon intensity of energy supply to drive overall decarbonization.

For the top five fastest decarbonizers, a split can be observed, with Sweden and France each relying predominately on decarbonizing their energy supplies, while Ireland and the United Kingdom rely principally on gains in energy intensity. Decarbonization in Belgium is driven fairly evenly on both factors. Two divergent strategies for decarbonization are immediately apparent here:

Sweden and France: State-led Shift to Zero-Carbon Energy Supplies

Sweden and France each achieved rapid rates of decarbonization of their economies via state-led transformations of their energy supplies. Following the oil shocks of the 1970s, Sweden and France each directed state-owned utilities to fully displace oil from the electricity sector, principally by scaling up new nuclear power programs. A lack of indigenous coal resources and fresh memories of conflict with coal-exporting Germany in World War II also contributed to France's push to scale-up nuclear power to displace coal as well as oil from the nation's power generation mix.

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/whic ... educed_car

It IS happening and could be happening faster with aggressive nuclear strategiy as China is pursuing...26 nukes in building stages, more planned.

[pErvinalia]

Geez sometimes you don't read at all.

- 2012 there was good economic growth and emissions in the US were down 11%.

Swedens GDP have grown enormously since 1990 and it's emissions have fallen 45 %.

I read it all. Shame you couldn't do the same. As I said, AGW doesn't give shit where the emissions come from. You know this. Stop being a dick.

Growth and emissions are NOT connected.

Well they are, to a degree. What you should have said is that they are not necessarily connected. And that's true. And I agree that change will happen, but as I said, it will happen too slowly. You keep worshipping at that temple of capitalism. Go you good thing.

[macdoc]

Look either they are or they are not ,,,,they aren't.

There is no connection with capitalism either...Sweden is a highly competitive capitalist nation that will be carbon neutral nation mid century.

Sustainable capitalism creates the wealth to move to carbon neutral. It won't br achieved by hippy dippies in communes aka Factman.
Does not translate well to urban technological society.

Too slowly is a meaningless comment. It IS happening....it is happening in the regions that have the moral responsibility and the techical capability to make the greatest difference.

Wringing hands doesn't do a thing.
Supporting companies that support sustainable activities is one route and electing polticians with sensible decarbonation plans another.

[pErvinalia]

Look either they are or they are not ,,,,they aren't.

C'mon, Mac, you are smarter than this. When China builds a coal fired power station a day, THAT is economic growth and THAT is additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Keep worshipping, Mac. The problem with capitalism is that while it could be heavily regulated and practised far more sustainably, it isn't. For one reason: Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is spreading like a noxious weed. It's come out of the GFC even stronger. Nothing short of revolution is going to stop its progress.

[macdoc]

oooh there are bad people out there let's kill everyone You don't turn a $7 trillion dollar energy system into carbon neutral quickly and you certainly don't by wringing your hands in despair.
Take it to the psych ward.

There is no moral ground to naysay China the right to build on cheap fossil energy especially when it is also bullding more carbon neutral than anyone else.

You have no solution so put or shut up.
Start by getting out there and getting that fuck head abbot out of power

•••

meanwhile this is NOT good news

now we're in it.....this is not good news....watch the video from the link

Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100
5 hours ago

Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.
The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.
"Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation," said lead author from the University of New South Wales' Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.
"When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide."
The key to this narrower but much higher estimate can be found in the real world observations around the role of water vapour in cloud formation.
Observations show when water vapour is taken up by the atmosphere through evaporation, the updraughts can either rise to 15 km to form clouds that produce heavy rains or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.


Prof Steve Sherwood explains research into cloud mixing that indicates our climate is highly sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide. His findings suggest Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is at least 3°C. As a result, unless we curb emissions, …more
When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.
However water vapour is not pulled away from cloud forming regions when only deep 15km updraughts are present.
The researchers found climate models that show a low global temperature response to carbon dioxide do not include enough of this lower-level water vapour process. Instead they simulate nearly all updraughts as rising to 15 km and forming clouds.
When only the deeper updraughts are present in climate models, more clouds form and there is an increased reflection of sunlight. Consequently the global climate in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
However, real world observations show this behaviour is wrong.
When the processes in climate models are corrected to match the observations in the real world, the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of heights in the atmosphere, causing fewer clouds to form as the climate warms.
This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.
The result is that when water vapour processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of carbon dioxide - which will occur in the next 50 years – means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100.
"Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more," said Prof. Sherwood.
"Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don't urgently start to curb our emissions.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-cloud-myst ... c.html#jCp

[Seth]

It IS happening and could be happening faster with aggressive nuclear strategiy as China is pursuing...26 nukes in building stages, more planned.

But guess what China is NOT doing at the same time: Shutting down coal power plants. In fact they are building them as fast as they can (with zero pollution controls) because they know that energy facilitates industry which advances the economy and they aren't going to make the idiotic mistake of strangling their economy and industrial production capacity by killing off coal before they have a "green" replacement in place and operating.

But that's exactly what Obama is doing, and in doing so, Marxist Progressive that he is, he's knowingly handing China yet another huge jump over the US by deliberately damaging our economy by inhibiting our ability to produce the very power we need to develop and deploy the technologies to make our nation "carbon neutral."

[Seth]

"Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more," said Prof. Sherwood.
"Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don't urgently start to curb our emissions.

And we should believe them because all their work has been so pin-point accurate so far? Not.

[cronus]

It IS happening and could be happening faster with aggressive nuclear strategiy as China is pursuing...26 nukes in building stages, more planned.

But guess what China is NOT doing at the same time: Shutting down coal power plants. In fact they are building them as fast as they can (with zero pollution controls) because they know that energy facilitates industry which advances the economy and they aren't going to make the idiotic mistake of strangling their economy and industrial production capacity by killing off coal before they have a "green" replacement in place and operating.

But that's exactly what Obama is doing, and in doing so, Marxist Progressive that he is, he's knowingly handing China yet another huge jump over the US by deliberately damaging our economy by inhibiting our ability to produce the very power we need to develop and deploy the technologies to make our nation "carbon neutral."

For once Seth is right. The cart before the horse is never a good way to change things, as the coming blackouts and social chaos and rushed return to a dirty carbon economy with zero progress towards the alternative, indeed a wariness of anything green, will rapidly show.