Global warming strikes again...

[hobbsyoyo]

This article is first twisting some facts and continues on those twisted facts with "I believe".

First the key part of the article here, before shredding it.



"The sea level rose when ocean temperature increased by 0.5 degree Celsius between 1920 and 1940, but rose at the same constant rate when ocean temperature cooled between 1945 and 1975"
If you look at the graph below, you can see that between 1940 and 1946 the surface sea temperature goes up with roughly 0.5 C and goes down with 0.5 C, after which it increases, accelerating over time, but in 1975 there is a dip.
So I have to assume that the statement is based on sea surface temperature and not the average temperature of the ocean water from bottom to surface, which is real driver of ocean water expansion.

So... this statement made in 2018 is using three deceiving time dates of the past to get the desired statement as conclusion.
Simply drawing a best fit through the measured temperatures from 1920-1975 would already show that the temperature is steadily going up and the conclusion of the article on temperature is nonsense.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
View attachment 497805


"I believe that evaporation of sea water offsets thermal expansion. The evaporated water causes an increase in precipitation, which turns into snow and ice as it rains over the continent of Antarctica"
Climate change is increasing the amount of water that evaporates from the oceans.
Increased evaporation from higher temperature of the surface seawater, from higher temperature of the air for more water vapor capacity, from higher wind velocity for better air mixing and more vapor capacity, from more sea surface from more and higher waves and from more foam (driven by that higher wind velocity), etc, etc.
I guess not easy to model the increase as function of temperature....... especially the area around Antarctica where the high sea states are of the Roaring Fourties...... so you can say and believe what you want....

However... we can measure the change of the amount of land snow and land ice of Antarctica (the sea ice does not count to lower sea level, because it floats in the sea).
At least as long as NASA is allowed to do that and to make the results public.

From the NASA (2015):


So this precipitation on Antarctica is as far as we can measure now effectively only 0.23 mm sealevel decrease per year, and not offsetting the thermal expansion of the ocean water at all, as the article wants us to believe.

I actually have some good news on the NASA front. The new NASA administrator (Jim Bridenstine - formerly a Congressman from Oklahoma) has fully come around on climate change since taking the job. He previously took a hard stance against AGW while he in Congress (and his election hopes sort of depended on it) but since taking office he says he 'read a lot' on the subject and now believes AGW is real and it's NASA's job to continue studying it.

 

[Samson]

I do not know much about nuclear power, but if it is such a good idea then:

• How come they need so much subsidy? The currently negotiated one, Hinkley C, is being given a guaranteed minimum price of £92.5 per megawatt hour, inflation linked, for 35 years. Currently, £92.50 per Mwh is more than twice the cost of wholesale electricity, and this is completely insuring the company against what appears to be a given, ie. renewables becoming an economic solution to the worlds energy needs.
• Why are they so hard to decommission? As I understand it none have yet been fully decommissioned, so it cannot be that easy.
• Why cannot we find a solution to the long term storage problem? We have been working on it for many decades, but have still to find one that is acceptable to the population that lives there (except possibly Onkalo (Finland)).
• Why is there so much resistance to spreading the technology required? Iran is setting up the nuclear fuel cycle, and there is a lot of resistance to this. Are we really further from the end of the world with every nation having the capacity to make some form of nuclear weapon?

 

[El_Machinae]

 

[Berzerker]

its raining gemstones in Hawaii

 

[El_Machinae]

How come they need so much subsidy? The currently negotiated one, Hinkley C, is being given a guaranteed minimum price of £92.5 per megawatt hour, inflation linked, for 35 years. Currently, £92.50 per Mwh is more than twice the cost of wholesale electricity, and this is completely insuring the company against what appears to be a given, ie. renewables becoming an economic solution to the worlds energy needs.

All new technologies need some type of subsidy. This is actually *fine*, because it's literally the government's job to invest on creating the future.
But they need so much subsidy, specifically, because they are so hard. A subsidy helps bring in the capital, and the loan guarantee actually just acknowledges the defacto state (a failed power project inevitably shifts burden to the local taxpayer). But it would be nice if these subsidies were negotiated much harder, obviously.

Why are they so hard to decommission? As I understand it none have yet been fully decommissioned, so it cannot be that easy.

My answer here would lack detail, nothing you don't already know

Why cannot we find a solution to the long term storage problem? We have been working on it for many decades, but have still to find one that is acceptable to the population that lives there (except possibly Onkalo (Finland)).

Politics, mostly. Also, the current storage solutions actually just *aren't bad*, because we can predict the next ten years. It's only when trying to plan the next 100,000 that we cannot come up with a full solution. As I said, any local storage is just creating an opportunity for future innovation. We also know the trajectory of global warming for the next ten years, so the issue is actually urgent.

Why is there so much resistance to spreading the technology required? Iran is setting up the nuclear fuel cycle, and there is a lot of resistance to this. Are we really further from the end of the world with every nation having the capacity to make some form of nuclear weapon?

Well, a *nation* can actually pretty easily go from fuel-cycle to *bomb* pretty easily, in secret. Especially if they're the least bit authoritarian. Most of the proliferation concerns involve dirty bombs, though.

It's always, always, always a good idea to track the story on the Thorium on this front. That, and breeder reactors. It's not like Bill Gates is an idiot who hates the poor. There will be opportunities to invest in the future, and now is a good idea to start building political support.

 

[Bootstoots]

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-e...s-no-need-to-panic-about-the-rising-sea-level

he's predicting a 6 inch rise in sea levels by 2100

I understand warming increases precipitation therefore snow over ice sheets, but Greenland seems to be the worrisome source of ice melt in our immediate future.

Fred Singer (Wiki link) is one of the scientists who gets heavily subsidized by polluting industries to publish dubious stuff in order to cast doubt on climate change. He started with cigarettes and cancer, then moved on to casting doubt on whether CFCs caused ozone depletion and whether UV-B light caused skin cancer, and then moved onto climate change. He's 93 years old and still going with this stuff. But his understanding of climate change is seriously flawed, and he's obviously biased towards dismissing anything besides his belief that climate change is no big deal.

Merchants of Doubt is a book that carefully traces out how his and several others' careers moved from real science in the Cold War era to cranking out biased industry-funded research in order to sow doubt on basically all environmental and public health concerns. It's an interesting read.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Fred Singer (Wiki link) is one of the scientists who gets heavily subsidized by polluting industries to publish dubious stuff in order to cast doubt on climate change. He started with cigarettes and cancer, then moved on to casting doubt on whether CFCs caused ozone depletion and whether UV-B light caused skin cancer, and then moved onto climate change. He's 93 years old and still going with this stuff. But his understanding of climate change is seriously flawed, and he's obviously biased towards dismissing anything besides his belief that climate change is no big deal.

Merchants of Doubt is a book that carefully traces out how his and several others' careers moved from real science in the Cold War era to cranking out biased industry-funded research in order to sow doubt on basically all environmental and public health concerns. It's an interesting read.

He should have stuck with designing satellites and working in the space industry.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe there’s some sort of weird local effect specific to your location?

I'm having a hard time understanding how it could possibly be anything but false memory. Is it possible that the melting of the montane glaciers on the Iberian peninsula could have caused some post-glacial rebound there? That's the only thing I can think of.

 

[Silurian]

All new technologies need some type of subsidy.

The UK has been using nuclear power to generate electricity for over 60 years.
It is not a new technology.

 

[Hrothbern]

While everywhere environment and people are hit by the changing Climate.
From fires, droughts..... but also almost trivial things as dying stone oaks in Spain that supplied the unique taste of Serrano ham (pigs eating acorns), the mediteraneum olive trees at risk because of easier spreading diseases, etc

As soundbytes:
* The willingness for countries that signed Paris to achieve their goals seems not high enough to take the financial hits needed. Specified plans to reach the goals are lacking because of this.
* Basing the reductions on Renewables, Storage and Electricity Transport are far more costly than desired.
* The enormous Climate change damage because we go too slow: recognised but not articulated in public.
* Nuclear is getting a lot of attention. The basic concept that Solar is covering the peak demand during daylight and nuclear is substantial in covering the dark periods of the day. This to avoid huge Storages and Transport.
* Storage of CO2 under the ground is getting a lot of attention. The basic concept is that traditional power plants catch the CO2 which is to be transported by big pipelines to underground natural storage.
* Traditional plants that catch CO2 also to be used to wash out for decades CO2 out of the atmosphere with forests and plants as intermediate CO2 catcher. This to compensate for the longer period without green Energy generation and the higher CO2 content of our atmosphere.
* low appetite from governments to have state owned energy supply. Big Corporate and Big Investors readying themselves for the spoils.

On nuclear.
The UK seems to have set their mind on the Nuclear concept. If you look at the Forecast supply graph below, you can see that nuclear is heading to be the base level energy supply for 24 hours and solar for the daylight peak.

Robert Davies, the chief operating officer of CGN UK, said: “The UK is open to investment, and we want to invest in clean energy in this country.”
He is acutely aware of the need for future plants to be cheaper, given criticism over the cost of the EDF subsidy deal. “We understand the cost of electricity has to fall significantly from Hinkley Point,” he said.
But the company is open about the bigger prize – the UK as a springboard for exporting Chinese nuclear technology to other countries.
“For us, the UK is an important stepping stone into Europe. The GDA process [UK regulatory approval] is recognised in the nuclear world as having a lot of clout,” said Davies.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...me-to-dominate-nuclear-power-relies-on-the-uk

 

[Berzerker]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018...questions-about-climate-change-narrative.html

Polar bears need sea ice to hunt, they cant just wade offshore and catch their prey like they were fishing. So obviously no one gave the bear a physical to find out why it was starving, but warming the Arctic will result in more starving polar bears. On the other hand, bears further south should benefit from more plant life.

I'm having a hard time understanding how it could possibly be anything but false memory. Is it possible that the melting of the montane glaciers on the Iberian peninsula could have caused some post-glacial rebound there? That's the only thing I can think of.

There are islands just off the west coast of British Columbia on what is called a hinge, a section of land that rises as nearby ice sheets/glaciers melt. In their case, the rising land roughly matched sea rise so people living there did so interrupted by the rising seas most people had to deal with over the last 14,000 years.

 

[Silurian]

On nuclear.
The UK seems to have set their mind on the Nuclear concept. If you look at the Forecast supply graph below, you can see that nuclear is heading to be the base level energy supply for 24 hours and solar for the daylight peak.

Nuclear is only a local solution. There is not enough Uranium too power the world.

On the other hand, bears further south should benefit from more plant life.

Some plants will benefit others will not, will the bears like the plants that benefit.

Plants, insects and animals decide to start growing and breeding in the spring for a variety of reasons.
Some require a certain day length others a temperature etc.
What happens if the insects that eat the plants become active at a certain temperature but the birds that east the insects lay their eggs at a certain day length.
The plants get eaten by the insects because the birds are not hunting them yet because their eggs have not hatched.

 

[Hrothbern]

Nuclear is only a local solution. There is not enough Uranium too power the world.

agree
it is a temporary solution. And a parasitary one.
I checked on internet and see numbers of 200-250 years at current usage and current estimates of availability.
And if nuclear capacity is increased it will melt like snow.
I have always been very fundamentally against using Uranium for utility power plants because it is too valuable for the niche applications, like space travel, to just burn away as coal.
Why would we be entitled to deplete a unique resource for the future of mankind ?
I see happening that far away in the future enormous amounts of solar energy are used during daylight to mill the Mount Everest to extract the minerals, and to get all kinds of minerals out of seawater.....
I wonder how future historians will call our era. The Dark Depletion Era ?

 

[Silurian]

agree
it is a temporary solution. And a parasitary one.
I checked on internet and see numbers of 200-250 years at current usage and current estimates of availability.
And if nuclear capacity is increased it will melt like snow.
I have always been very fundamentally against using Uranium for utility power plants because it is too valuable for the niche applications, like space travel, to just burn away as coal.
Why would we be entitled to deplete a unique resource for the future of mankind ?
I see happening that far away in the future enormous amounts of solar energy are used during daylight to mill the Mount Everest to extract the minerals, and to get all kinds of minerals out of seawater.....
I wonder how future historians will call our era. The Dark Depletion Era ?

We could also extract silt form rivers.


Here is part of a post from an earlier thread

Without Breeders

If the USA goes 100% nuclear but does not produce more electricity and does not increase its share of the world supply of uranium it will run out in 55 years.

If the USA and China go 100% nuclear but do not produce more electricity and do not increase their combined share of the world supply of uranium they will run out in 32 years.

If there was an world wide increase in electricity consumption to US levels and production went 100% nuclear we would run out of uranium in 8 years.


With Breeders

If current nuclear producers go 100% nuclear with no overall increase in electricity output and go for breeder reactors you will run out in 1005 years.

If everyone goes 100% nuclear and increase to current US electricity usage we run out in 238 years. But everyone has nuclear weapons.

 

[Synobun]

agree
it is a temporary solution. And a parasitary one.
I checked on internet and see numbers of 200-250 years at current usage and current estimates of availability.
And if nuclear capacity is increased it will melt like snow.
I have always been very fundamentally against using Uranium for utility power plants because it is too valuable for the niche applications, like space travel, to just burn away as coal.
Why would we be entitled to deplete a unique resource for the future of mankind ?
I see happening that far away in the future enormous amounts of solar energy are used during daylight to mill the Mount Everest to extract the minerals, and to get all kinds of minerals out of seawater.....
I wonder how future historians will call our era. The Dark Depletion Era ?

Isn't it possible to create synthetic uranium?

 

[Hrothbern]

Isn't it possible to create synthetic uranium?

You can enrich Uranium to get a higher fraction U-235
But make U-235 ?
If it would be possible it would I guess use lots of energy
So not fit for standard energy plants

 

[onejayhawk]

Isn't it possible to create synthetic uranium?

You make plutonium from the much more common U-238. Plutonium, ie Pu-239, is closely associated with weapons, so there is significant reluctance to use it for reactors. That said, there are no practical or theoretical problems of which I am aware.

J

 

[Bootstoots]

If breeder reactors were to become commercially viable, thorium breeders would also be a possibility. Thorium is fairly abundant - it's present in most rare-earth minerals, and there is several times as much of it as there is uranium. It's currently considered a nuisance because there's very little market for it, and it makes wastes from rare-earth production radioactive in addition to chemically toxic. Thorium-232, the isotope that makes up virtually all naturally-occurring thorium, is hit with neutrons to make Th-233, which undergoes two beta decays to U-233. Uranium-233 is fissile just like U-235 and Pu-239; further, it is more difficult to make a bomb from it.

I don't actually think that nuclear energy is going anywhere - at least not in the developed world. The political resistance to it is very high, such that the cost of complying with regulations put in place since the 1980s makes it virtually impossible to turn a profit. Given that it inherently involves high start-up costs, this pretty much sank nuclear power such that production in the West plateaued out in the 1990s and is in slow decline, with no reversal on the horizon.

I pretty much take it as a given that we're going to have to do all of the work of transitioning without any significant help from increased nuclear production. This was a pretty horrible own-goal by the environmental movement; had it not been for the political resistance to nuclear power, we'd be burning much less coal today.

 

[Silurian]

You make plutonium from the much more common U-238. Plutonium, ie Pu-239, is closely associated with weapons, so there is significant reluctance to use it for reactors. That said, there are no practical or theoretical problems of which I am aware.

J

One of the reactors at Fukushima was using MOX (94% Uranium 6% Plutonium)
It may have been made in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel

 

[Berzerker]

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-climate-taxes-agriculture-food-insecurity.html

Carbon tax may not be a wise course of action, it'll make food harder to acquire