- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Perhaps instead of being sarcastic, you might explain how we could use almost no Methane by 2030?
This is new from naked capitalism:
The EU Threatens to Cut Itself off From Another of Its Major Natural Gas Suppliers
One issue being increased pollution via even worse US LNG instead of the one provided by Quatar. And in general it hints at the fact that beyond some EU directives supposedly directed at environmental policies reality shows the opposite unfolding.
See for that e.g. the very limited remedy renewables offer in lieu of fossile fuel / nuclear in Germany:
Germany 2022-2023 power generation change:2022: Total 479 Terawatt hours
2023: Total 434.3
Coal down 48.8
Nuclear down 26.1
Hydro up 2.8
Gas up 12
Wind up 16.9Italy is about the same in ratio, just 50% less absolute output numbers.
(how is the comparison between nuclear and gas pollution-wise, leaving out the long-term issue with nuclear waste?)
Also with this hyperlink:
The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States
https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934p.s. the worst is of course picturing what could (have been) possible with a sane EU cooperating closely with RU, CHINA and India. I’m tearing my hair out.
This morning the Natural Gas pipelines from Russia through Ukraine to the E.U. were turned off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1kGLow-LO4
It seems Europe so hates Russia that they are cutting off their own noses.
Energy inflation will take off in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_pipelines_sabotage
Two plus years ago, three of the four pipes from Russia to Germany were blown up.
One could still function, if wanted.
I don’t think Europe is moving away from Methane for Global Warming reasons, just geopolitical reasons.
Now LNG is being transported across the Atlantic from America. This is more expensive, less certain and more harmful to the environment.MN: “Perhaps instead of being sarcastic, you might explain how we could use almost no Methane by 2030?”
Oh, it’s incumbent on me to come up with such answers, here, all of a sudden?
I thought it was incumbent on participants of this thread to explain why they thought climate change is or is not happening, talk about proof of climate change, why denialists are denialists, and so on.
But as ever, it’s simply a dumping ground for some individuals that are desperate for attention. Individuals with no respect whatsoever.
To reiterate – this thread is to welcome people who consider themselves denialists (or ‘sceptics’ if they must) that are brave enough to actually discuss their assertions, instead of posting some form of denialism and running away all the time.
All life on our Earth is Carbon based.
All Carbon for this life comes from the atmosphere or the seas.
There is only the Carbon that there is.
Larger, complex life started about six hundred million years ago.
From that time there has been a reduction in how much Carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere.
During the Pleistocene at times, there was maybe only 150 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you get much below that percentage, plant growth would be very difficult, if not impossible.
So glenn, life has been using up the supply of Carbon dioxide.
I expect the decline of CO2 accelerated when forests covered much of the land.
There has been a huge greening of the Earth, probably since the last World War.
NOOA thinks, that more than half of this greening is the result of the extra Carbon dioxide, that we have been pumping into the air. This greening, will also have been happening in the seas, photosynthetic life absorbing Carbon.
So, not all bad glenn.Interesting set of talking points you’ve reproduced there, Michael. Whoever made them in the first place either doesn’t know – or more likely doesn’t want you to know a few rather important facts, which more than offsets this “Good news!” story.
It’s the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere that drives the greenhouse effect. That is at a record level, and getting greater (by nearly 1% a year) – see here:
https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
So despite all that excited hand-waving about increased greening as a result of increased Co2, we still – rather obviously, I’d say – have increased Co2. And that’s the problem.
Despite paying huge attention to the co2 reduction caused by some greening (temporarily – heat, drought and rising sea levels will reduce it), why do you ignore the vastly greater co2 source that is fossil fuels production? Which is increasing, by the way.
This is like me wrecking my mate’s car, and then asking him why he’s not delighted about not having to pay running costs for a bit.
Perhaps you think greening of what used to be ice and snow covered areas is always a good thing? Trouble is, that area which used to reflect heat back out to space no longer does so. It adds to the heating effect.
Not all bad you say? You’d have to squint pretty hard to see an upside to this rapidly unfolding disaster.
In fairness I have to say, Michael – you have shown more courage in sticking around than anyone else on the blog. If you could also stick to a point and see it through before moving on to another, you would be in a class totally of your own.
Quote michael norton
“All life on our Earth is Carbon based.
All Carbon for this life comes from the atmosphere or the seas.”I have just re read my post and I must update that post. I was of course forgetting about plate Tectonics and volcanism.
Carbon dioxide moves from the air into the seas, from the seas CO2 is used for shells and for coral reefs,
the shells of the sea critters sometimes form limestone at the bottom of the seas, usually these eventually get subducted.
This limestone, CaCO 3 eventually comes out from volcanoes and earthquakes.
If this CO2 was not returned to the air, after a time, there would not be enough Carbon dioxide for plat life to thrive.
This is the very long subduction /cycling of Carbon.Quote E.U.
“Soil is the planet’s second largest active pool of Carbon after the oceans, but its ability to continue to retain the huge amounts of Carbon it stores has been weakened in recent decades, largely due to unsustainable land-management practices and changes in land use. Research suggests that, as a result of these changes, soils are releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, threatening to undermine reductions in emissions made elsewhere, such as in industry or transport.”
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/soil_and_climate_en.pdf
Soil organic matter contains around 60% Carbon, it is the defining factor in soil’s influence on the global Carbon cycle.
When plants take in Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere, some of this Carbon is transferred down into the top soil.
If there is much more green leaf, then it seems fairly likely more Carbon will enter the top soil, as long as bad land use, does not free that carbon, to re enter the Atmosphere.
The amount of extra greening, has been described as twice the size of the continental United States of America.
Apparently, Ralph Keeling, the son of the keeling Curve man, has determined that the amount of Oxygen in the Atmosphere has apparently reduced.“The instrument Keeling developed was able to measure oxygen at a far more precise level than anything previously created, detecting differences of a few molecules per million.
In a “landmark study” in 1996, Keeling demonstrated that land and ocean carbon sinks could be compared by examining the partial pressures of atmospheric oxygen and CO2. Keeling’s data supports the view that the land operates as a major carbon sink. Keeling also discovered that the land, trees and plants are absorbing CO2 at a higher rate than they have in the past.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Keeling
I suspect, part of the problem of ever increasing amounts of CO2 in the Atmosphere, is awful land use practices.
https://www.miragenews.com/hydroclimate-whiplash-intensifies-worldwide-1388470/
cience 09 JAN 2025 9:12 PM AEDT Share
Hydroclimate Whiplash Intensifies WorldwideUCLA
Key takeawaysHydroclimate whiplash – rapid swings between intensely wet and dangerously dry weather – has already increased globally due to climate change, with further large increases expected as warming continues, according to a team of researchers led by UCLA’s Daniel Swain.
The “expanding atmospheric sponge,” or the atmosphere’s ability to evaporate, absorb and release 7% more water for every degree Celsius the planet warms, is a key driver of the whiplash.Co-management of extreme rainfall or extreme droughts, rather than approaching each in isolation, is necessary to find interventions and solutions, researchers said.
Los Angeles is burning, and accelerating hydroclimate whiplash is the key climate connection.After years of severe drought, dozens of atmospheric rivers deluged California with record-breaking precipitation in the winter of 2022-23, burying mountain towns in snow, flooding valleys with rain and snow melt, and setting off hundreds of landslides.
Following a second extremely wet winter in southern parts of the state, resulting in abundant grass and brush, 2024 brought a record-hot summer and now a record-dry start to the 2025 rainy season, along with tinder-dry vegetation that has since burned in a series of damaging wildfires.
This is just the most recent example of the kind of “hydroclimate whiplash” – rapid swings between intensely wet and dangerously dry weather – that is increasing worldwide, according to a paper published today in Nature Reviews.
“The evidence shows that hydroclimate whiplash has already increased due to global warming, and further warming will bring about even larger increases,” said lead author Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with UCLA and UC Agriculture and Natural Resources. “This whiplash sequence in California has increased fire risk twofold: first, by greatly increasing the growth of flammable grass and brush in the months leading up to fire season, and then by drying it out to exceptionally high levels with the extreme dryness and warmth that followed.”
Global weather records show hydroclimate whiplash has swelled globally by 31% to 66% since the mid-20th century, the international team of climate researchers found – even more than climate models suggest should have happened. Climate change means the rate of increase is speeding up. The same potentially conservative climate models project that the whiplash will more than double if global temperatures rise 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The world is already poised to blast past the Paris Agreement’s targeted limit of 1.5 C. The researchers synthesized hundreds of previous scientific papers for the review, layering their own analysis on top.
Anthropogenic climate change is the culprit behind the accelerating whiplash, and a key driver is the “expanding atmospheric sponge” – the growing ability of the atmosphere to evaporate, absorb and release 7% more water for every degree Celsius the planet warms, researchers said.
“The problem is that the sponge grows exponentially, like compound interest in a bank,” Swain said. “The rate of expansion increases with each fraction of a degree of warming.”
The global consequences of hydroclimate whiplash include not only floods and droughts, but the heightened danger of whipsawing between the two, including the bloom-and-burn cycle of overwatered then overdried brush, and landslides on oversaturated hillsides where recent fires removed plants with roots to knit the soil and slurp up rainfall. Every fraction of a degree of warming speeds the growing destructive power of the transitions, Swain said.
Many previous studies of climate whiplash have only considered the precipitation side of the equation, and not the growing evaporative demand. The thirstier atmosphere pulls more water out of plants and soil, exacerbating drought conditions beyond simple lack of rainfall.
“The expanding atmospheric sponge effect may offer a unifying explanation for some of the most visible, visceral impacts of climate change that recently seem to have accelerated,” Swain said. “The planet is warming at an essentially linear pace, but in the last 5 or 10 years there has been much discussion around accelerating climate impacts. This increase in hydroclimate whiplash, via the exponentially expanding atmospheric sponge, offers a potentially compelling explanation.”
That acceleration, and the anticipated increase in boom-and-bust water cycles, has important implications for water management.
“We can’t look at just extreme rainfall or extreme droughts alone, because we have to safely manage these increasingly enormous influxes of water, while also preparing for progressively drier interludes,” Swain said. “That’s why ‘co-management’ is an important paradigm. It leads you to more holistic conclusions about which interventions and solutions are most appropriate, compared to considering drought and flood risk in isolation.”
In many regions, traditional management designs include shunting flood waters to flow quickly into the ocean, or slower solutions like allowing rain to percolate into the water table. However, taken alone, each option leaves cities vulnerable to the other side of climate whiplash, the researchers noted.
“Hydroclimate in California is reliably unreliable,” said co-author John Abatzoglou, a UC Merced climate scientist. “However, swings like we saw a couple years ago, going from one of the driest three-year periods in a century to the once-in-a-lifetime spring 2023 snowpack, both tested our water-infrastructure systems and furthered conversations about floodwater management to ensure future water security in an increasingly variable hydroclimate.”
Hydroclimate whiplash is projected to increase most across northern Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, northern Eurasia, the tropical Pacific and the tropical Atlantic, but most other regions will also feel the shift.
“Increasing hydroclimate whiplash may turn out to be one of the more universal global changes on a warming Earth,” Swain said.
In California this week, although winds are fanning the extreme fires, it’s the whiplash-driven lack of rain that suspended Southern California in fire season.
“There’s not really much evidence that climate change has increased or decreased the magnitude or likelihood of the wind events themselves in Southern California,” Swain said. “But climate change is increasing the overlap between extremely dry vegetation conditions later in the season and the occurrence of these wind events. This, ultimately, is the key climate change connection to Southern California wildfires.”
Under a high warming scenario, California will see an increase in both the wettest and driest years and seasons by later this century.
“The less warming there is, the less of an increase in hydroclimate whiplash we’re going to see,” Swain said. “So anything that would reduce the amount of warming from climate change will directly slow or reduce the increase in whiplash. Yet we are currently still on a path to experience between 2 degrees and 3 degrees Celsius of global warming this century — so substantial further increases in whiplash are likely in our future, and we really need to be accounting for this in risk assessments and adaptation activities.”
Daniel Swain, Ph.D., is a climate scientist focused on the dynamics and impacts of extreme events—including droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires—on a warming planet. Daniel holds joint appointments as a climate scientist within the California Institute for Water Resources within University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR), the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, and as a research fellow at the NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research.
He engages extensively with journalists and other media partners, serving as a climate and weather science liaison to print, television, radio, and web-based outlets to facilitate accessible and accurate coverage and conversations surrounding climate change.
I think it is not science to link a current fire in California with Global Warming.
Like many problems in the Western United States of America, it probably has more to do with a massively increased human presence and poor land use, over using precious water supplies, too much water-based agriculture, too much mineral fertilizer, too much concrete and man made altering of the Earth
and particularly too many people expecting too much out of life.
Essentially they have raped the Earth and are getting the whirlwind/fire.
But this almost certainly is not because the Earth is one to one and a half degrees Celsius warmer than it was in the Little Ice Age.“But this almost certainly is not because the Earth is one to one and a half degrees Celsius warmer than it was in the Little Ice Age.“
You know something all the leading scientists and climatologists don’t? Prove they are wrong and you are correct.
It may not be science to link a current fire in California with Global Warming, Michael, but a lot of scientists are saying that it *is*. What an amazing coincidence though that such a devastating fire – or fires – should break out at the same time that it’s confirmed that 2024 was the first year to exceed 1.5 degrees celsius.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2024-is-officially-the-hottest-year-on-record/
Shibboleth,
I doubt all scientists agree, even the 99% who are said to agree.
I can not prove anything.
I am not a scientist. I have a lot of time for William Happer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happerquote BBC
“Experts want to understand what happened in a period 900,000 to 1.2 million years ago called the Mid-Pleistocene Transition.At this time, the length of the cycle between cold glacial and warm interglacials switched from being 41,000 years to 100,000 years. But scientists have never understood why.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwypyg4vq8koIn 2014, Happer said that the “demonisation of carbon dioxide is just like the demonisation of the poor Jews under Hitler.”
You agree with him Michael? Here’s a question: CO2 has been part of our atmosphere and is released through a number of natural processes. CO2 is also produced by the burning of fossil fuels from human related activities. The latter significantly increases the amount of CO2 within the atmosphere – and with the other greenhouse gasses such as methane – their effect is to trap the heat from the planet which has a warming effect in the atmosphere and on the planet’s surface as well as degrading the quality of the air we breathe.
You will be familiar with the notion of the ‘butterfly effect’. One small change in a seemingly insignificant object or process that has a catastrophic consequence down the line. On a pretty unique planet in a very hostile environment, impacting delicate and critical ecosystems without due regard and care is an act of monumental stupidity. That some people – like you – are still in denial and try to make silly political points, which cannot be substantiated or supported with robust evidence simply confirms that our only hope lies in a near-extinction level event rather than inspired human reasoning. You agree?
Michael N
How about all of us raping the Earth and getting the whirlwind.Michael, when you’ve answered the others and when you’ve had time to review the following two links, please tell me what you make of this lot. Russia has deemed it an “undesirable organisation”. Do they look to you like a bunch of elite militarists?
https://www.youtube.com/@csis/videos
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies&oldid=1258621236
– The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is an American think tank based in Washington, D.C.[5] […] The center conducts policy studies and strategic analyses of political, economic and security issues throughout the world, with a focus on issues concerning international relations, trade, technology, finance, energy and geostrategy.[6] […] Since its founding, CSIS “has been dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world”, according to its website.[7]– For fiscal year 2013, CSIS had an operating revenue of US$32.3 million. The sources were 32% corporate, 29% foundation, 19% government, 9% individuals, 5% endowment, and 6% other. CSIS had operating expenses of $32.2 million for 2013—78% for programs, 16% for administration, and 6% for development.[33]
– In September 2014, The New York Times reported that the United Arab Emirates had donated a sum greater than $1 million to the organization. Additionally, CSIS has received an undisclosed amount of funding from Japan through the government-funded Japan External Trade Organization, as well as from Norway. After being contacted by the Times, CSIS released a list of foreign state donors, listing 13 governments including those of Germany and China.[34] The Center for Strategic and International Studies CSIS lists major funding from defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon Company and General Atomics.[35]
– Significant funding has come from the governments of the United States, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates.[36]
A bit more from Wiki. To me they look like a bunch of warmongers successfully subverting democracy, but maybe I’m biased; what do you think Michael?
– The board of trustees has included former senior government officials, including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, George Argyros, and Brent Scowcroft.[56]– The board also includes major U.S. corporate business leaders as well as prominent figures in the fields of finance, oil & gas, private equity, real estate, academia and media.
– CSIS’ 220 full-time staff[12] and its large network of affiliated scholars conduct to develop policy proposals and initiatives that address current issues in international relations. In 2012, CSIS had a staff of 63 program staffers, 73 scholars and 80 interns. The center also worked with 241 affiliate advisors and fellows as well as 202 advisory board members and senior counselors.[9]
– […] The center has also been highly influential in the creation of the White House’s foreign policy. “For the last four years, every Friday afternoon, I’ve asked my staff to prepare me a reading binder for the weekend,” said National Security Advisor Tom Donilon “The task is to go out and try to find the most interesting things that they can find with respect to national security issues [and] almost every week, there are products from CSIS.”[59] Within the intelligence community, CSIS is known for having “some of the most insightful analysis and innovative ideas for strengthening our national security,” according to CIA Director John Brennan.[60]
Assessments:
– John Kempthorne wrote in Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting that CSIS was “heavily funded by the US government, arms dealers and oil companies, [and] is a consistently pro-war think tank”.[61]
Michael N
How about all of us raping the Earth and getting the whirlwind.Well that’s what is actually happening.
Let’s agree that the World is fractionally warmer since
The Little Ice Age.
Greenland is still covered in ice.
Antarctica is still covered in ice.
The Eastern U.S.A. is experiencing very wintery conditions.
Yes, there has been a large increase in Carbon dioxide, caused by humans, that has entered the atmosphere.
Has anybody died?
About half of the extra Carbon dioxide has been taken up/in by the biosphere.
The other half has escaped into the atmosphere.
Eventually things will even out, I doubt anybody knows how long it will take to equalise.
Let’s guess the World gets three degrees warmer.
Do you really think the World will end in a fireball?OK Michael, just ignore everyone.
Clark,
I am not sure what you mean about ignoring people?The world has seen, a mostly, reducing quantity of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since larger lifeforms came into being, about 600,000,000 years ago.
The more life there is, the more Carbon is stored in that life. There is only the Carbon that there is.
Part of the way through The Little Ice Age, Britain started to use Coal. I expect that the burning of Coal/Limestone to make cement and Iron and Steel started to increase how much Carbon dioxide was in our atmosphere.
However it now seems likely that in the early years of the British Industrial Revolution that the bulk of that human released Carbon dioxide was taken up by the Biosphere, in living things, such as an increase in phytoplankton. Such as an increase in human population numbers.
Eight billion people are going to store more Carbon than one billion people.
From about a hundred years ago, there does seem to have been an increase in how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
It is now being claimed that the Earth has warmed by 1.6 degrees Celsius.
I do not dispute that the Earth has got a little warmer since The Little Ice Age.
It is now being said that ( probably since the Second World War) the World is substantially Greening, much of this extra Greening is because of the additional Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
We are still increasing how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
Probably about half of the extra CO2 is being used by living things, like an increase in extra human beings.
We will have to see if the World dies in a fireball.
I think things will be alright.
Should I be ashamed for being optimistic.
Some, retired very senior scientists, are also optimistic.
Only those who are not afraid of being cancelled speak up.
When they say 99% of scientist agree, what do they actually want you to take from that waffle.
Set each one of these 99% scientist down, name those scientists and ask them exactly what they really think.
I expect most scientists would agree that people are causing extra CO2 to enter the atmosphere.
I doubt most would claim the World will end in the near future because of extra CO2 entering the atmosphere.MH: You keep posting patronising little history lessons as if this is all utterly new to us, followed by a silly “well I don’t reckon…” dismissal of the immediate dangers of climate change.
You’ve done this over and over, what – 50 times at this point? And ignore follow-ups, using them – at best – to launch another silly point along the “Will Labour keep the lights on? How will Labour transfer from gas?” …. like some demented AI bot, unable to contribute anything of worth, but acting as if making *any* post is an achievement in itself.
Why the hell do you keep doing this? And why are mods allowing it?
Congratulations to the denialists! Their insistence on inaction has enabled 2024 to be the hottest on record.
The work must continue, though – and the richest are certainly up for the challenge, doing their part:
M
Do you realize that
CO2 escaping into atmosphere stops/trappes Solar energy reflecting back into the space.
Amount of energy hitting the Earth is collosal so just 0.01% or less trapped is still big.
I still can’t understand connection with The Ice age comparison.
How many Humans were on Earth in the Ice Age?there is about 10k of Carbon in an average Human being
there are about eight billion humans alive, now.
so, I make that about 80,000,000 tonnes of Carbon (temp) locked up in living human beings.
At the start of the British Industrial Revolution, an estimate of the number of people alive was about 500,000,000.
So, a lot more Carbon is now locked up in living people.
Obviously, there will be a lot more Carbon locked up in living livestock.
