Climate change another name for Weather

[Smurf1976]

As discussed a few pages ago, here's an example of how a community could cut CO2 emissions by 20% (compared to 2008 levels) by 2020.

I'm focusing only on energy use here and not counting methane from cows etc. That's primarily due to difficulty getting the data etc.

My purpose here is to give an example of what would be required in a physical sense to achieve the target. It is not my intention to propose that these are the best or only means of reducing emissions.

Also I'm assuming:

1. That the reduction must be permanent. That is, emissions don't jump up again in 2021 etc.

2. That "business as usual" means 2% annual growth in overall energy demand and 4% overall economic growth (the difference between the two reflecting improving energy efficiency)

3. That the economically cheapest methods will be the ones used except where they are presently off-limits for some reason (eg dams in the wilderness). In that case, they will be used only if there is no realistic alternative.

4. Any supply side measures (eg wind farms) already built specifically to address the CO2 issue are assumed not to have been built under a "no action" scenario. That is, we've already taken some limited action to cut CO2 and I'm calculating this out of the figures.

So here's the scenario for Tasmania. I'll post some data for some other states later. All figures are approximate.

2008 (assuming average weather and without CO2 reduction measures already taken).

Energy from oil: 37 PJ (736,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from hydro: 37 PJ (2,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 15 PJ* (380,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from wood: 8 PJ (assumed to be carbon neutral - trees replanted and use of waste wood)
Energy from gas: 5 PJ (72,000 tonnes carbon)
TOTAL: 102 pj (1,190,000 tonnes carbon)

*Includes 4 PJ burnt in other states due to Tas net electrcity imports. Rest is used locally for non-power generation purposes in industry.

2020 "no action" scenario:

Energy from oil: 47 PJ (935,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from hydro: 37 PJ (2,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 32 PJ* (813,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from wood: 6 PJ (assumed to be carbon neutral)
Energy from gas: 22 PJ** (317,000 tonnes carbon)
TOTAL: 144 PJ (2,067,000 tonnes carbon)

*Includes 21 PJ burnt in other states due to Tas net electricity imports.
**Includes 13 PJ burnt in Tas for electricity generation.

Comment: Total energy use rises from 102 PJ to 144 PJ, an increase of 41%, despite an increase in actual delivered energy of only 27%. This reflects the increasing reliance on fossil fuel power generation verus the present high reliance on (far more energy efficient) hydro-electric generation. That is, the difference is due to energy losses at thermal power stations.

Total carbon emissions from energy rise 74%, again reflecting the increasing reliance on coal and gas-fired power generation to meet all increased demand from a very low (historically zero) base for non-hydro generation.

To achieve a 20% reduction on 2008 levels would require that total emissions not exceed 952,000 tonnes of carbon from energy-related purposes.

As is apparent from the figures above, non-power generation sources in themselves exceed the emissions target in 2020. That thus leaves no option, in practice, other than to reduce non-electricity emissions to some extent whilst reducing electricity generation emissions close to zero (given the greater difficulty of reducing non-electricity emissions)

Replacing all coal use (except at TEMCO where there is no alternative) and some oil use (virtually all heavy vehicles) with natural gas would see the situation alter as follows for non-electricity fuel use::

Energy from oil: 35 PJ (697,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 1 PJ (25,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from gas: 31 PJ (446,000 tonnes carbon)
TOTAL: 1,168,000 tonnes carbon - an 2% reduction on 2008 levels.

It is thus clear that fuel switching between fossil fuels, the "easy" option, can not in itself achieve the emissions targets. There is thus a need for far greater reliance on renewables (in practice electricity).

Switching boiler fuel uses to electricity and retaining the use of gas in heavy transport results in the following outcome:

Energy from oil: 35 PJ (697,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from coal: 1 PJ (25,000 tonnes carbon)
Energy from gas: 12 PJ (173,000 tonnes carbon)
TOTAL: 895,000 tonnes carbon from non-electricity energy uses, 25% below total energy emissions in 2008 thus leaving modest room for electricity-related emissions.

So technically, it is possible to achieve the 20% emissions reduction target without major disruption. But the only realistic way to do it is for a major increase in the use of the state's renewable energy resources.

Now, the question that would dominate Tasmanian politics in a rather massive way if this were actually to happen. What needs to be built to get that renewable electricity and achieve the 20% overall emissions cut?

We will still be able to use 4PJ of gas for power generation in order to meet the 20% energy-related emissions reduction exactly. That leaves the overall situation as follows:

Energy from oil: 35 PJ
Energy from existing hydro: 37 PJ
Energy from coal: 1 PJ
Energy from existing wood uses (primarily home heating): 6 PJ
Energy from gas: 16PJ
Energy from new renewables: 26 PJ

So, how to get the electricity?

Wind: Woolnorth (already built due to the CO2 issue), Musselroe, Heemskirk, Robbins Island and another 6 presently unidentified large wind farms. That will push wind to its realistic limit within existing hydro system capacity.

Hydro: Existing plant efficiency upgrades (already done due to the CO2 issue) plus one of the following options:

19 new schemes, none of which is particularly large and one of which is (just) inside a protected area.

OR

3 new dams, which combined would flood virtually the entire length of the Franklin River rather than just the lower third that was the subject of intense debate a quarter century ago.

OR

Burn approximately 4 million tonnes (green weight) of wood per annum as fuel.

In conclusion, yes we can achieve the 20% reduction in energy-related carbon emissions BUT:

1. It requires enormous capital ($ billions) to build the alternatives. Availability of such capital is highly doubtful.

2. It will have a very significant non-CO2 impact on the environment.

3. Politically it would incredibly difficult. Anything involving the Franklin is certain to spark protests across the nation and perhaps even internationally. Likewise anything involving the burning of 4 million tonnes of wood (though ironically it was environmental campaigners who first proposed this). 19 small dams would be possible, if only due to the impracticality of blockading 19 sites at the same time, but actually building that many schemes in little more than a decade is itself problematic given their geographically dispersed nature.

As I said, this isn't meant to be in any way perfect. I'm simply trying to illustrate that there's a lot more to it than changing a few bulbs and catching the bus to work. The only reason for choosing Tasmania is having the data at hand - but the principle that it's not going to be easy applies everywhere.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Pleased to see you agree with the principles of Carbon Trading, Snake - credits for leaving carbon standing vertical for instance.

Thank you for being polite to me 2020.

I believe that forests should not be cleared but selectively logged as it happens in NSW. Young forest is good forest.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

So CO2 is proven to heat up and hold heat longer than air.Fact.

Imagine trying to reverse the effect once (now?) it started, the whole (sane) earth population would band together to correct the imbalance.Ahh yes, the final frontier.Maybe peace and harmony among all (sane) humans for the first time ever with agreement on something bigger than our ego`s.

After all, take away the ego-self and we have a balanced functional productive individual of utmost benefit to the tribe.

Dribble.:freak3:

 

[wayneL]

I look forward to the day when the debate is dominated by science rather than ego, self interest and politics. If/when that day comes, which may take some decades (when folks catch on that the climate cycle has turned and that the beach is still in the same place), the debate may finally turn sensible.

I understand the concern, and the CC debate is one that we should be having; but it should be open to all science and not cherry picked for some hidden agenda.

Until then, we'll have people like 2020 playing kindergarten games instead of proper discussion.

Fortunately, a growing number of scientists have the balls and integrity to speak out against their own self interest and in the interests of science and truth. Godspeed to them. Let's listen to both cases and not have 2020esque closed minded puerility.

 

[wayneL]

Is as simple as that Wayne isn't it? Simply deny that CO2 is a major factor in climate change. It appears that the basis of your whole view on the wrongness of the vast majority of climate scientists conclusion is a simple assertion.

Trouble is your assertion is simply and demonstrably wrong. Simple science experiments in school demonstrate the capacity of extra CO2 to capture warmth.

Scientists for at least 150 years have understood how CO2 is responsible for warming the atmosphere. Of course there are other factors involved in climate change on earth and we can see their effects over time. But the critical issue facing us is that we have injected a huge extra amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years and that this is rapidly warming the planet. Full stop. End of earth as we know it.

For those who would like to see a simple experiment which demonstrates the warming effect of CO2 check out

http://www.rsc.org/education/teachers/learnnet/JESEI/co2green/home.htm

Is this a joke? This is so typical of the totally crap science being used to push the AGW agenda.

In what way does the experiment duplicate the conditions present in the earth's atmosphere? It absolutely does not. CO2 in the atmosphere does not constitute anywhere even remotely close to that used in the "experiment".

As such, to use that as some sort of affirmation of mane made global warming is naive, stupid and dangerous. Look! Let's put a bunch of Hydrogen in an inverted beaker and strike a match... yep, it blows your fingers off. Strike a match in an atmosphere with 0.04% H and.......... nothing happens.

Please, let's get real children. x 100

 

[2020hindsight]

Trouble is Wayne, you're not a sceptic - you're in De Nile.

 

[2020hindsight]

And even if a fair judge came down 50-50 for and against (purely hypothetical since they invariably rule in favour of the action crowd instead of the inaction crowd) - he would still act because of
a) the consequences of getting this wrong, and
b) because of all the other benefits - those ones that you also agree are essential and urgent

 

[2020hindsight]

Dribble.:freak3:

Well I would say "dribble" is better decribed as the stuff that Michael Crichton argues in that debate hosted by "Intelligence Squared" - refer posts #215 -
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369727&highlight=crichton#post369727

i.e. the best defence he can come up with against it is that , yes it's happening, but we should not be distracted from improving the conditions of the third world.

Why not do both (as Sommerville points out in the last video) - in any case they are closely related - the third world, (and countries like Aus and around the Mediterranean) are the major benefactors.

 

[wayneL]

Trouble is Wayne, you're not a sceptic - you're in De Nile.

Hardly.

Let me know when you've emotionally progressed past pre-school level, and when you intellectually capable of distinguishing between propaganda and science. Then I would like to see some evidence of original thought.

As it is, it's just regurgitated and discredited nonsense, straight from "A Convenient Gravy Train". Kindergarten level again.

 

[2020hindsight]

Is this a joke? This is so typical of the totally crap science being used to push the AGW agenda.

In what way does the experiment duplicate the conditions present in the earth's atmosphere? It absolutely does not.

... As such, to use that as some sort of affirmation of mane made global warming is naive, stupid and dangerous.

All 6 participants in the intelligence squared debate agreed that CO2 causes warming Wayne.

btw, I'll let other readers decide who around here is the worst offender in the ad hominem stakes.

 

[basilio]

Wayne the evidence for how science has come to the conclusion that CO2 increases air temperature even at very small levels is in the other reference in my earlier post. The classroom experiment is just proof of concept. The decades of scientific research outlined in the other link proves the facts on the ground.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Nice work Smurf on offering a model to decrease CO2 emissions. As you clearly state it is not necessarily the best or only way.

Because the situation has become so desperate, practical discussion now revolves around ways of actively removing CO2 and storing it safely. Because we also have many other pressing problems solutions need to be clever and address more than one issue. We just don't have the resources or time to try and solve each problem in isolation.

A couple of promising suggestions are

1) The widespread production of char by burning organic material in incomplete combustion and burying the result in the ground. In theory one could plant huge areas of land with fast growing plants, capture the carbon in the char and store it permanently in the soil. The exceptionally good side benefit is boosting the productivity of the soil and therefore its growing capacity

2) Widespread development of organic local farming programs. Again intensive organic farming (possibly using char from above) will result in large increases in the amount of carbon stored in the soil. This strategy will also save huge amounts of CO2 by

• 
  Reducing the need for largescale conventional farming which has very high inputs of fossil fuels ( planting, harvesting, transport, fertiliser )
  Improving the health of the population through better foods, more activity and hopefully more community interaction
  Assist poorer third world countries feed themselves
  Overall reduce the demand for fossil fuels

Interestingly enough the best example of putting into practice the change to organic farming model has been Cuba. In the early 90's Cuba almost collapsed when the USSR stopped providing cheap oil and buying their sugar. Cuba had to go cold turkey fast.

Cheers

References below
_________________________________________________________

Carbon: The Biochar Solution

Lisa Abend, TIME Magazine
... Burn almost any kind of organic material ”” corn husks, hazelnut shells, bamboo and, yes, even chicken manure ”” in an oxygen-depleted process called pyrolysis, and you generate gases and heat that can be used as energy. What remains is a solid ”” biochar ”” that sequesters carbon, keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. In principle, at least, you create energy in a way that is not just carbon neutral, but carbon negative.

And the benefits only begin there. When added to thin and acidic soil of the kind found in much of South America and Africa, char
produces higher agricultural yields and lets farmers cut down on costly, petroleum-heavy fertilizers. Subsistence farmers seeking better soil have traditionally relied on slash-and-burn agriculture, which generates greenhouse gases and decimates forests. If instead those farmers slow-smoldered their agricultural waste to produce charcoal ”” in effect, slash-and-char agriculture ”” they could fertilize existing plots instead of clearing more land. This in turn would reduce emissions in the atmosphere, and so on in a virtuous circle of environmental renewal.

Could it really be that simple? It appears to have been for the original inhabitants of the Amazon basin.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47415

Cuba-A Hope
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

.....Into this mix, we find that "Cuba has disproved the myth that organic agriculture cannot support a modern nation." And in terms of locally privatized agriculture we find a pure form of capitalism advocated by Catherine Austin Fitts (www.solari.com) that centers around neighborhood ownership, place-based financing and decentralized control. Further, the Cuban data shows that privately owned co-op farms are outproducing state-owned ventures. "The CCSs, made up of small, independent farmers, have outperformed the CPAs, the UBPC cooperatives and the state farms."
...

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/1342

Glomalin: Hiding Place for a Third of the World's Stored Soil Carbon[/B]

A sticky protein seems to be the unsung hero of soil carbon storage.

Until its discovery in 1996 by ARS soil scientist Sara F. Wright, this soil "super glue" was mistaken for an unidentifiable constituent of soil organic matter. Rather, it permeates organic matter, binding it to silt, sand, and clay particles. Not only does glomalin contain 30 to 40 percent carbon, but it also forms clumps of soil granules called aggregates. These add structure to soil and keep other stored soil carbon from escaping

...Glomalin is causing a complete reexamination of what makes up soil organic matter. It is increasingly being included in studies of carbon storage and soil quality. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy, as part of its interest in carbon storage as an offset to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, partially funded a recent study by lab technician Kristine A. Nichols, a colleague of Wright's.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/sep02/soil0902.htm

 

[basilio]

Came across a far more accessible story which demonstrates how important farming techniques can be in capturing carbon in the soil

Soil Plays Important Role In Earth's Health

Talk of the Nation, July 11, 2008 · Soil may be good for growing things in; it's also an important player in climate change. Well-nourished soil can help in carbon sequestration, removing carbon dioxide from the air, while depleted soil doesn't have the same carbon-grabbing potential.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92455289

 

[explod]

And the biggest criminal is... Constant Growth!

Yep, let's move to an economic model where the entire concept of "economic growth" is something only found in history books. Ultimately, if we maintain even 0.1% annual growth then we'll eventually consume the entire planet.

Now it's oil, next it's CO2, then it's something else. CO2 is a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. If we fix (or ignore) the CO2 issue but continue the notion of constant growth on a finite planet then we'll simply hit some other limit before long.

In all seriousness, I'd suggest a target GDP change of -2% per annum with tough measures taken should "growth" threaten to occur even briefly. That's the only way we'll fix the CO2 without simply ending up in some other (likely worse) situation.

Odds of that happening? In practice, zero. We're going to burn all we can get until either we end up cooked or run out of things to burn. That's what humans do with practically everything. Sad maybe, but that's my conclusion having been considering this issue since the 1980's.

It would have been 15 years or so until I finally accepted that no real action would actually be taken unless the banking system completely collapsed first and on a scale that all attempts to revive it were abandoned. Then we need an entire new financial system to which "growth" is an irrelevant concept since it's neither required nor likely to happen. That's a massive change from the present system which knows only two things - constant growth or outright collapse.

I'm sure most will reach that conclusion given enough time (it being still a fairly new issue for some).

Had to revisit your great post from yesterday Smurf. Printed it off and mulled it over coffee this morning.

Vegie patches, some windmills and riding push bikes by .005% of our planets content is going to do ziltch.

Karl Marx, socialism, they screwed it into communism.

I was taught once that a new mindset can take place if you can motivate 10% of a group into action. And lets think on that, government keep the sheeple happy with sport(Grand Prix, what a symbol) TV, gambling whilst most flat out working to survive, some working on getting the baby bonus, another percentage are too old and then there are those at school. Then we ask what does guvmint represent, us, money err maybe thereself.

As you say Smurf, economic growth. Could the economic meltdown be anough for us to become equal, take a big drop in living standard, one child per couple and live without money.

You may have hit the bottom line Pal, any other suggestions to the first step.

cheers explod

 

[wayneL]

All 6 participants in the intelligence squared debate agreed that CO2 causes warming Wayne.

Once again, 650 participants of the conference in Poland disagreed, were skeptical, or believe that anthropomorphic effects are grossly overstated.

btw, I'll let other readers decide who around here is the worst offender in the ad hominem stakes.

Fine, just drag yourself from kindergarten level of ad hominem so that your argument will at least have the appearance of considered and open debate. Then I won't have to keep pointing it out.

 

[wayneL]

Rare snow in Louisiana http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwhzTlgiwD8UzoTqAITfOIsD8s0AD950LVGO0

The US Senate Minority Report on the 650 (gasp) dissenters http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84 (PDF)

Comment on ad hominem attacks of the above http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDc2MmEwNWUwYmY5Yjg0ZTgzN2E5ZmUwY2Q3MWYzMzg=

 

[2020hindsight]

Comment on ad hominem attacks of the above http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDc2MmEwNWUwYmY5Yjg0ZTgzN2E5ZmUwY2Q3MWYzMzg=

OK Wayne - This is what your linked website thinks of your (past?) hero David Suzuki (totally ethical I believe you said - or something similar - walks the walk etc) ...

Seems your opinion of Suzuki has turned 180 degrees in a little over a year.

Adding to the conflicts, Hoggan is also chair of the board of directors for the David Suzuki Foundation, a radical environmental activist group run by a man who ”” ironically ”” calls for climate skeptics to join Lefebvre in jail. This spin machine is aimed at discrediting skeptics.

Says Mr. Suzuki: ‘The skeptics are a small group known for their support of corporations like the fossil fuel industry. In fact, many are receiving money directly from the industry.’”

So, one’s supporters dictate one’s opinions. Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Corcoran describes Suzuki’s and Hoggan’s “slanderous campaign” as designed “to portray all who raise doubts about climate change theory ”” so-called skeptics ”” as pawns of corporate PR thugs manipulating opinion

As I've said a few times, I really like Suzuki's proposal that politicians should be held legally responsible if they ignore the evidence and get this wrong. And that obviously goes even if every "t" is not dotted, and every "i" is not crossed, (at this particular point in time)

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/09/2441232.htm

It's the climate, stupid
By Amanda McKenzie
Posted Tue Dec 9, 2008 9:30am AEDT

What does this target mean for Australia? In a recent interview on the ABC's Lateline, Professor Ross Garnaut, the government's climate change advisor, acknowledged that on the balance of probabilities, allowing global emissions to reach 550 ppm would all but destroy the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, the Alpine region and do immense damage to the Murray-Darling Basin.

The risk to the economy from this scenario is substantial. Almost 500,000 people are employed in our tourism industry, while over 400,000 people are employed in agriculture, with the sectors contributing almost 7 per cent of GDP. The loss of Australia's key natural assets would have devastating impacts on these industries and the communities that depend upon them.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a grouping of over 2,000 of the world's best climate scientists, 550 ppm gives us an almost certain chance of warming the planet by 2 degrees. While 2 degrees doesn't sound like much, it is widely agreed to be a dangerous threshold that should not be crossed. Two degrees may trigger "runaway climate change", that is, where natural systems start releasing greenhouse gases in such quantities that temperatures rise 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 degrees, leaving much of the planet uninhabitable.

These substantial risks put the current discussion of economic impacts into perspective. While an emission reduction target of 5 to 15 per cent may be politically "realistic" and economically convenient today, it will result in a significantly changed climate with substantial economic, environmental and societal consequences in the future. This certainly does not represent a prudent approach to managing risks to Australia's key assets or future prosperity.

Amanda McKenzie completed her honours thesis in climate law at Monash University in 2007 and is co-director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, a coalition of 25 youth organisations across Australia. She is currently attending the United Nations climate change conference in Poznañ, Poland.

 

[wayneL]

OK Wayne - This is what your linked website thinks of your (past?) hero David Suzuki (totally ethical I believe you said - or something similar - walks the walk etc) ...

Seems your opinion of Suzuki has turned 180 degrees in a little over a year.

Yes, I hadn't realized at the time, that he'd sold out and compromised his ethics. My bad.

But that is part of evidential and indeed scientific process; evidence changes the hypothesized result, the correct and intellectual response being to modify views and even perhaps the whole hypothesis, as such evidence comes to light. I'm happy with that process and happy to be able to change my mind on things.

However this is something that many scientists have forgotten and what self interested beaurocrats(?) actively discourage. Gratifyingly, there are still many who hold to the scientific process, as the 650 scientific dissenters show.

If evidence for AGW becomes conclusive, I'm happy to change my mind on that too. At the moment however, the best and latest data points in the opposite direction.

As I've said a few times, I really like Suzuki's proposal that politicians should be held legally responsible if they ignore the evidence and get this wrong. And that obviously goes even if every "t" is not dotted, and every "i" is not crossed, (at this particular point in time)

Of course, it would be contingent upon politicians to examine ALL evidence, not just that presented by compromised climate pessimists.

The incontrovertible fact of the matter, is that the climate change hypothesis is very much in dispute and is in fact collapsing before our very eyes as the latest data comes in.

 

[wayneL]

...and you all thought I was BSing about how cold it is atm.

Britain shivers through coldest start to winter for 30 years as bookies slash odds on white Christmas
By DAVID DERBYSHIRE
Last updated at 2:57 PM on 12th December 2008

Britain is shivering through the coldest start to winter for more than 30 years, the Met Office has revealed.

The average temperature for the first third of December was a chilly 1.7C (35.1F)- compared to the long term average of 5.2C (41.4F), according to official figures.

Bookies have slashed their odds on a white Christmas to 4/1 in London and just 2/1 in Aberdeen.

They have even seen a flurry of bets on the Thames freezing over thanks to the freezing weather.

 

[chops_a_must]

We have had an incredibly mild start to summer here.

The coldest and wettest I can remember in Perth Wayne.

The ocean water is also very warm for this time of year, so I think we are in for continued humid but cool weather for a while to come.

Haven't even had the fan on, let alone air con at all yet. I hope it stays like that.

Absolutely no easterlies either, which I'm finding rather odd...