Great elaboration by Andrew and his explanation of Dr Hansen's intent. Andrew alludes a good point.. we can do everything right to reverse climate change but war will still feed the beast.
Thanks as always! I worry about the effects of climate on future agriculture. The planet already has lots of hungry people, and current agricultural practices are destroying our soil. Add in the effects of climate change, and I think we are in real trouble!
Global malnutrition is at record lows, crop yields are are record highs, and deaths from climate events are down 95% in the last 100 years despite massive population growth.
Recommend diversifying your sources of information.
I am under the (misapprehension?) that there are two additional and related climate bomb possibilities: methane clathrates and permafrost decay itself releasing vast quantities of CH4. Yes methane has a relatively brief atmospheric lifespan, but 80 years is plenty long enough to entirely destabilize the cryosphere, hugely increase polar albedos, and cause havoc in Europe as the AMOC slows or shuts down, with enormous consequences globally. Rightly so, not Venus, yet not a bright future for humanity within broader stable ecosystems either.
Globally about $1.9 trillion was spent last year on CO2-reducing initiatives. Similar to years before. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are not diminishing nor is the percentage of fossil fuel used as primary energy going down, it's about the same as 30 years ago. At some point you'll need to come to grips with the fact that in the real world, physics and economics trump fear mongering. You'll need to adjust.
Efficiency losses vs. unfathomable amounts of land mass to deliver expensive electricity, from dilute chaotic sources, requiring a massive transmission build out and an even more expensive band-aid (batteries) to cover intermittency.
Great elaboration by Andrew and his explanation of Dr Hansen's intent. Andrew alludes a good point.. we can do everything right to reverse climate change but war will still feed the beast.
Excellent analysis as usual
Thanks as always! I worry about the effects of climate on future agriculture. The planet already has lots of hungry people, and current agricultural practices are destroying our soil. Add in the effects of climate change, and I think we are in real trouble!
Global malnutrition is at record lows, crop yields are are record highs, and deaths from climate events are down 95% in the last 100 years despite massive population growth.
Recommend diversifying your sources of information.
Prudent countries concerned about national and economic security are moving to be less dependent on petrostates and volatile fuels.
“Sunlight doesn’t depend on narrow and vulnerable shipping straits. Wind blows without massive taxpayer-funded naval escorts.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16032026/un-climate-chief-iran-war-fossil-fuel-dependency
I am under the (misapprehension?) that there are two additional and related climate bomb possibilities: methane clathrates and permafrost decay itself releasing vast quantities of CH4. Yes methane has a relatively brief atmospheric lifespan, but 80 years is plenty long enough to entirely destabilize the cryosphere, hugely increase polar albedos, and cause havoc in Europe as the AMOC slows or shuts down, with enormous consequences globally. Rightly so, not Venus, yet not a bright future for humanity within broader stable ecosystems either.
Those are probably not going to push the planet into a runway. They would be better thought as a tipping point that could bring a lot more warming in a short amount of time. I wrote about that here: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/a-truly-worst-case-climate-scenario
Good point about dependency on oil as a vulnerability.
What about supporting instillation of solar panels in Ukraine. What would the relative cost be supplying arms to make a difference?
Globally about $1.9 trillion was spent last year on CO2-reducing initiatives. Similar to years before. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are not diminishing nor is the percentage of fossil fuel used as primary energy going down, it's about the same as 30 years ago. At some point you'll need to come to grips with the fact that in the real world, physics and economics trump fear mongering. You'll need to adjust.
primary energy is an inaccurate measurement when comparing fossil fuels to renewables ....because of waste heat generated by fossil fuels
https://theconversation.com/this-widely-used-chart-makes-the-clean-energy-switch-seem-much-harder-than-it-actually-is-264322
Efficiency losses vs. unfathomable amounts of land mass to deliver expensive electricity, from dilute chaotic sources, requiring a massive transmission build out and an even more expensive band-aid (batteries) to cover intermittency.
I'll take the former.