COP26 Glasgow 31st OCT to 12th NOV

[dirty dingus]

8 hours ago, virginton said:

The rain is natural punishment for attending a shan climate march when there are football games on.  

Had a grand day out, the rain was a pain in the hoop but enough pubs to dive in to miss the worst of it. The keyboard karaoke in The Old Ship was a highlight as was the brass band in gold lame suits playing bitching funk.

[Clown Job]

 

“Solely” 

[KingRocketman II]

8 hours ago, Clown Job said:

 

“Solely” 

ha. The GB News reporter has erroneously added an "r" to the second word of his tweet....

[BigDoddyKane]

Unless theres some big announcements still to come next week its not looking that good a Cop26, doesnt feel like anything near what is needed has been agreed.

Lets hope the last few days of it can produce something 

[Meldrew]

21 hours ago, Saltire said:

Your post is rather unfortunate in tone.

Basic thermal science explains that 1.5 oC is a huge concern. Basically, the earth isn't able to reject enough of the radiant heat absorbed from the sun (and other sources) due to the change in the composition of the earth's atmosphere (such as CO2, CH4, SF6 and water vapour). Landmass and water are collecting this heat and the earth needs to be able to radiate some of this heat back to the sky (it is easy to radiate heat to a black or dark surface, like finding frost on your car in the morning where heat radiates to the dark night sky).

The earth's atmosphere is acting as an insulating layer, reducing the amount of heat rejected. This leads to gradual expansion of seawater, melting of ice caps and glaciers adding to the mass of water in the oceans and leading to rising seawater levels. This also changes the thermal gradients around the globe which changes atmospheric pressures and therefore wind patterns. This in turn increases the amount of seawater and fresh water evaporation leading to more rainfall but not necessarily in the parts of the world where it is needed due to those changing wind patterns. 

Fission nuclear power is a complex issue. I can't recall a nuclear project in many decades (if ever) that was delivered anywhere close to time and budget. The nuclear fuel cycle is also complex. Extraction, transport, processing, generation and waste handling (a billions of years legacy problem) are expensive and high risk. In the current world, these establishments are targets for terrorists and hostile powers and proliferation greatly increases these risks as there are then more targets. Nuclear fission is a hugely expensive technology, much more than renewables or conventional thermal generation technologies. It does not create a significant direct greenhouse gas problem but transportation and processing do.

Nuclear fusion technology, may offer some hope, but is still struggling to yield much more than the energy input. If successful, it has fewer waste issue than fusion as the by products have much, much lower radiation half-lives than post fission isotopes (a hundred years compared to billions). We'll see how this develops.

Our energy problem is growing as the world's population and therefore consumption grow. We need to reduce consumption whilst finding affordable energy solutions which are sustainable (environmentally, socially and economically). We may need to accept lower overall efficiencies if we want to move to a significant hydrogen economy, but if we can convert direct solar, wind and tidal generation to hydrogen, the primary fuel is free it's what we do next that counts. Other storage media are of course available which the industry is actively expanding (battery and pumped storage hydro being the primary technologies, but there are others)

Carbon Capture and storage is still worth exploring and would allow us to maintain larger generation sets feeding the grid and reducing voltage control issues and reducing the power electronics costs where we have large numbers of smaller generators.

All of us can play a part by consuming responsibly and voting pragmatically. We need a responsible transition and people pressure can work. If we don't buy it, companies can't afford to make it and governments can't tax it.

[vikingTON]

On 06/11/2021 at 12:19, Saltire said:

Your post is rather unfortunate in tone.

Basic thermal science explains that 1.5 oC is a huge concern. Basically, the earth isn't able to reject enough of the radiant heat absorbed from the sun (and other sources) due to the change in the composition of the earth's atmosphere (such as CO2, CH4, SF6 and water vapour). Landmass and water are collecting this heat and the earth needs to be able to radiate some of this heat back to the sky (it is easy to radiate heat to a black or dark surface, like finding frost on your car in the morning where heat radiates to the dark night sky).

The earth's atmosphere is acting as an insulating layer, reducing the amount of heat rejected. This leads to gradual expansion of seawater, melting of ice caps and glaciers adding to the mass of water in the oceans and leading to rising seawater levels. This also changes the thermal gradients around the globe which changes atmospheric pressures and therefore wind patterns. This in turn increases the amount of seawater and fresh water evaporation leading to more rainfall but not necessarily in the parts of the world where it is needed due to those changing wind patterns. 

What is your point here exactly? There is already a global commitment in place to limit the overall increase in global temperature to 2C. The Swampy brigade are demanding that COP reduces this to 1.5C. Even they understand that some level of temperature increase from the pre-industrial norm is inevitable and already baked into the system. 

The relevant question then is 'why is 1.5C of warming acceptable, but 2C of warming the harbinger of a global apocalypse'? The difference between the two targets is relatively marginal and a compromise target of, say, 1.7C of heating, would be even more so. 

You'd think that world leaders were gunning for 10C of heating going by the hysteria surrounding this conference. 

Quote

 

Fission nuclear power is a complex issue. I can't recall a nuclear project in many decades (if ever) that was delivered anywhere close to time and budget. The nuclear fuel cycle is also complex. Extraction, transport, processing, generation and waste handling (a billions of years legacy problem) are expensive and high risk. In the current world, these establishments are targets for terrorists and hostile powers and proliferation greatly increases these risks as there are then more targets. Nuclear fission is a hugely expensive technology, much more than renewables or conventional thermal generation technologies. It does not create a significant direct greenhouse gas problem but transportation and processing do.

Nuclear fusion technology, may offer some hope, but is still struggling to yield much more than the energy input. If successful, it has fewer waste issue than fusion as the by products have much, much lower radiation half-lives than post fission isotopes (a hundred years compared to billions). We'll see how this develops.

 

Nuclear fission can generate power now and reduce the reliance on coal and gas in markets such as Europe, which is objectively a worse energy choice from a carbon perspective, as well as a geopolitical perspective, with Russia able and willing to squeeze supply to suit its own interests. You cannot yet power Europe in December on a calm day with solely renewable sources of energy. The environmental lobby can't have it both ways here. If the carbon crisis is indeed the most urgent priority for the world, then nuclear power has to be promoted as a dependable non-carbon energy source for the next 50 years if not more. 

The claim about terrorist threats is a ridiculous straw man. There have been no successful attacks carried out on a nuclear power facility and the idea that we shouldn't use technology because someone might target it is utter nonsense. You'd have been as well closing all airports after 9/11. 

Quote

 

Our energy problem is growing as the world's population and therefore consumption grow. We need to reduce consumption whilst finding affordable energy solutions which are sustainable (environmentally, socially and economically). We may need to accept lower overall efficiencies if we want to move to a significant hydrogen economy, but if we can convert direct solar, wind and tidal generation to hydrogen, the primary fuel is free it's what we do next that counts. Other storage media are of course available which the industry is actively expanding (battery and pumped storage hydro being the primary technologies, but there are others)

 

Technological and social progress have gone hand in hand with increased energy consumption for hundreds of years. While it is true that we should be improving the efficiency of energy use, the idea that overall consumption in the world must or even can be reduced by peaceful consensus is dangerous folly. The developing world is not going to sign up for permanent dependence and horrendous standards of living to reduce global temperature by an insignificant margin. 

Quote

All of us can play a part by consuming responsibly and voting pragmatically. We need a responsible transition and people pressure can work. If we don't buy it, companies can't afford to make it and governments can't tax it.

And a responsible transition would include nuclear power to meet the existing energy demands across the world, instead of hairshirt concern trolling about cutting individual consumption while continuing to import gas to keep the lights on across Europe every single winter. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by vikingTON

[Saltire]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

What is your point here exactly? There is already a global commitment in place to limit the overall increase in global temperature to 2C. The Swampy brigade are demanding that COP reduces this to 1.5C. Even they understand that some level of temperature increase from the pre-industrial norm is inevitable and already baked into the system. 

The relevant question then is 'why is 1.5C of warmth acceptable, but 2C the harbinger of a global apocalypse'? The difference between the two targets is relatively marginal and a compromise target of, say, 1.7C of heating, is even more so. 

You'd think that world leaders were gunning for 10C of heating by the hysteria surrounding this conference. 

Nuclear fission can generate power now and reduce the reliance on coal and gas in markets such as Europe, which is objectively a worse energy choice from a carbon perspective as well as a geopolitical perspective, with Russia able and willing to squeeze supply to suit its own interests. You cannot yet power Europe in December on a calm day with solely renewable sources of energy. 

The claim about terrorist threats is a ridiculous straw man. There have been no successful attacks carried out on a nuclear power facility and the idea that we shouldn't use technology because someone might target it is utter nonsense. You'd have been as well closing airports after 9/11. 

Technological and social progress have gone hand in hand with increased energy consumption for hundreds of years. While it is true that we should be improving the efficiency of energy use, the idea that overall consumption in the world must or even can be reduced is dangerous folly. The developing world is not going to sign up for permanent dependence and horrendous standards of living to reduce global temperature by an insignificant margin. 

And a responsible transition would include nuclear power to meet the existing energy demands across the world, instead of hairshirt concern trolling about cutting individual consumption while continuing to import gas to keep the lights on across Europe every single winter. 

I was going to give a detailed reply but decided against it. I have decades of professional experience in the energy sector across technologies and sectors and it's great that we are seeing such engagement in the debate across the globe. Sadly, It is clear to me from reading your reply that you don't understand the scale of what is required nor the technologies involved, all of which is my day job. Please take the time to do a bit more research (build up to the second law of thermodynamics).

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, Saltire said:

I was going to give a detailed reply but decided against it. I have decades of professional experience in the energy sector across technologies and sectors and it's great that we are seeing such engagement in the debate across the globe. Sadly, It is clear to me from reading your reply that you don't understand the scale of what is required nor the technologies involved, all of which is my day job. Please take the time to do a bit more research (build up to the second law of thermodynamics).

Or you could just use your 'decades of professional experience' to explain what your point is and address the issues stated. Your inability to do so is not convincing in the slightest. 

 

[Saltire]

Just now, virginton said:

Or you could just use your 'decades of professional experience' to explain what your point is and address the issues stated. Your inability to do so is not convincing in the slightest. 

 

Sigh

[BigDoddyKane]

Nuclear power as part of solution and along with wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc shouldnt be written off it seems to work in some countries and until we hit the targets if it could help us hit them, shouldnt be ruled out yet

got to be kept in the discussion for now at least

 

[Baxter Parp]

17 hours ago, Clown Job said:

 

“Solely” 

 

[Lurkst]

9 hours ago, BigDoddyKane said:

Unless theres some big announcements still to come next week its not looking that good a Cop26, doesnt feel like anything near what is needed has been agreed.

Lets hope the last few days of it can produce something 

I confidently predict it will be the best Cop26 of all time.

 

[Barney Rubble]

5 hours ago, virginton said:

Or you could just use your 'decades of professional experience' to explain what your point is and address the issues stated. Your inability to do so is not convincing in the slightest. 

 

Do us all a favour and f**k off you ignorant c**t.

[Suspect Device]

1 hour ago, Lurkst said:

I confidently predict it will be the best Cop26 of all time.

 

 

I reckon it'll be the worst COP26.

 

And we'll both be right.

[renton]

19 hours ago, virginton said:

What is your point here exactly? There is already a global commitment in place to limit the overall increase in global temperature to 2C. The Swampy brigade are demanding that COP reduces this to 1.5C. Even they understand that some level of temperature increase from the pre-industrial norm is inevitable and already baked into the system. 

The relevant question then is 'why is 1.5C of warming acceptable, but 2C of warming the harbinger of a global apocalypse'? The difference between the two targets is relatively marginal and a compromise target of, say, 1.7C of heating, would be even more so. 

You'd think that world leaders were gunning for 10C of heating going by the hysteria surrounding this conference. 

Nuclear fission can generate power now and reduce the reliance on coal and gas in markets such as Europe, which is objectively a worse energy choice from a carbon perspective, as well as a geopolitical perspective, with Russia able and willing to squeeze supply to suit its own interests. You cannot yet power Europe in December on a calm day with solely renewable sources of energy. The environmental lobby can't have it both ways here. If the carbon crisis is indeed the most urgent priority for the world, then nuclear power has to be promoted as a dependable non-carbon energy source for the next 50 years if not more. 

 

The impact of global temperature rises are highly non linear. 

For example,  under 1.5 target 14% of the human population will be exposed to extreme heat waves on a 5 year cycle. Under the 2 degree target that becomes 37% of the population. In mid latitudes the average temperature jump goes from 3 degrees vs pre industrial times under the 1.5 deg target to 4 degrees under the 2 degree target. That is a big difference in how livable these areas will be for future generations.

in terms of biodiversity that 0.5 degree difference is a trebling of the number of species (animal and plant) expected to decline to half of their current geographical range.

Those two alone will place massive pressures on crop yields.

It's the difference between the Arctic ocean being ice free once every 100 years and once every 10 years (with the related issues on reflecting sunlight and carbon capture)

It's the difference between losing 70% of coral reefs and losing 99% of them.

It's raising  increase in the sea level from 0.75m to 0.9m

On the best scientific advice available, it seems that maintaing a 1.5 degree ceiling is imperative, while at the same time already having some fairly gross negative effects on the human race in decades to come.

Nuclear fission power, when viewed in isolation does look attractive in terms of its lack of greenhouse emissions during operation.  Obviously the extraction of fissile material, the heavy use of concrete during construction of the plant, those things add a lot of up front capital costs in terms of carbon. Add to that the increased risk of a major accident if we multiply the number of active reactors by ten or hundred fold, across borders and some fairly widely varied safety regulation. That in itself could constitute a major environmental and human disaster so I can see why it tends to be pushed to the fringes of these discussions (on the other hand it looks like Rolls Royce will be getting the green light for their Small Modular Reactor technology this week)

 

 

[coprolite]

It's "nucular"

[strichener]

47 minutes ago, renton said:

The impact of global temperature rises are highly non linear. 

For example,  under 1.5 target 14% of the human population will be exposed to extreme heat waves on a 5 year cycle. Under the 2 degree target that becomes 37% of the population. In mid latitudes the average temperature jump goes from 3 degrees vs pre industrial times under the 1.5 deg target to 4 degrees under the 2 degree target. That is a big difference in how livable these areas will be for future generations.

in terms of biodiversity that 0.5 degree difference is a trebling of the number of species (animal and plant) expected to decline to half of their current geographical range.

Those two alone will place massive pressures on crop yields.

It's the difference between the Arctic ocean being ice free once every 100 years and once every 10 years (with the related issues on reflecting sunlight and carbon capture)

It's the difference between losing 70% of coral reefs and losing 99% of them.

It's raising  increase in the sea level from 0.75m to 0.9m

On the best scientific advice available, it seems that maintaing a 1.5 degree ceiling is imperative, while at the same time already having some fairly gross negative effects on the human race in decades to come.

Nuclear fission power, when viewed in isolation does look attractive in terms of its lack of greenhouse emissions during operation.  Obviously the extraction of fissile material, the heavy use of concrete during construction of the plant, those things add a lot of up front capital costs in terms of carbon. Add to that the increased risk of a major accident if we multiply the number of active reactors by ten or hundred fold, across borders and some fairly widely varied safety regulation. That in itself could constitute a major environmental and human disaster so I can see why it tends to be pushed to the fringes of these discussions (on the other hand it looks like Rolls Royce will be getting the green light for their Small Modular Reactor technology this week)

 

 

If the Covid pandemic has shown us anything it is that scientific modelling, especially when extrapolation is used is not worth a damn.  Of course warming is going to have an impact but the impact is not as black and white as your numbers suggest.

Edited November 8, 2021 by strichener

[renton]

18 minutes ago, strichener said:

If the Covid pandemic has shown us anything it is that scientific modelling, especially when extrapolation is used is not worth a damn.  Of course warming is going to have an impact but the impact is not as black and white as your numbers suggest.

All models are subject to the law of Garbage In, Garbage Out and all models are only as good as their underlying methodologies. 

For example, I can model the bending of a plate under combined mechanical, thermal and electrostatic loads or the flow of a fluid through a micro channel to an astonishing degree of accuracy when compared to really physical constructs.

The SEIR models for pandemics are not the same as the advanced climate change models used today. The latter solves numerically physics based equations, the former requires the tweaking of various parameters under a number of more wooly assumptions about contacts and distances and the basic parameters of the virus.

Just because there is a perception of inaccuracy about the SEIR modelling of Covid, doesn't mean the same scepticism should should aimed at the far more advanced, involved and ultimately more dependent on known physical phenomena climate change models.

 https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, renton said:

The impact of global temperature rises are highly non linear. 

For example,  under 1.5 target 14% of the human population will be exposed to extreme heat waves on a 5 year cycle. Under the 2 degree target that becomes 37% of the population. In mid latitudes the average temperature jump goes from 3 degrees vs pre industrial times under the 1.5 deg target to 4 degrees under the 2 degree target. That is a big difference in how livable these areas will be for future generations.

in terms of biodiversity that 0.5 degree difference is a trebling of the number of species (animal and plant) expected to decline to half of their current geographical range.

Those two alone will place massive pressures on crop yields.

It's the difference between the Arctic ocean being ice free once every 100 years and once every 10 years (with the related issues on reflecting sunlight and carbon capture)

It's the difference between losing 70% of coral reefs and losing 99% of them.

It's raising  increase in the sea level from 0.75m to 0.9m

On the best scientific advice available, it seems that maintaing a 1.5 degree ceiling is imperative, while at the same time already having some fairly gross negative effects on the human race in decades to come.

1) The clue is in the name - mid latitudes. But for a handful of places where wet bulb temperatures will be an issue under any circumstance, it will absolutely be 'livable' under a 4C increase compared to a 3C increase anyway. The difference between the two outcomes is not substantial.

NB: Given that the polar regions expected to warm by a greater margin than anywhere else, I'm not seeing how this '3-4C increase in mid-latitudes' is actually consistent with a global increase of half that figure. Unless somewhere is being dumped in an enormous freezer, that simply does not stack up. 

2) A mere 15cm of sea level change is hardly compelling and in fact demonstrates the point. 1.5C of warming is not good and 2C is obviously worse. But when you look at how much worse it would be, the estimates do not back up the existential dread of planetary destruction being peddled by the Swampy brigade. The only rational question is whether the costs of that adjustment outweigh the costs of making a huge set of compromises now to make 1.5C. 

Quite clearly, there are grounds to aim for somewhere in between those two targets for now, which would be both more feasible politically and in terms of existing technologies. 

Quote

Nuclear fission power, when viewed in isolation does look attractive in terms of its lack of greenhouse emissions during operation.  Obviously the extraction of fissile material, the heavy use of concrete during construction of the plant, those things add a lot of up front capital costs in terms of carbon. Add to that the increased risk of a major accident if we multiply the number of active reactors by ten or hundred fold, across borders and some fairly widely varied safety regulation. That in itself could constitute a major environmental and human disaster so I can see why it tends to be pushed to the fringes of these discussions (on the other hand it looks like Rolls Royce will be getting the green light for their Small Modular Reactor technology this week)

Europe faces a choice between the up front carbon costs of using concrete to build nuclear power stations, or the ongoing carbon costs of directly burning fossil fuels to keep the lights and heating on every day of every winter for the foreseeable future. If climate change is indeed an emergency then the green lobby should demonstrate this by ditching their irrational opposition to nuclear power to deal with a higher priority issue.

If the situation isn't serious enough for the Green lobby to take a rational approach to solving the 'crisis', then the general public has no need to take their catastrophist arguments seriously. 

Edited November 8, 2021 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

NB: As for pressure on crop yields, if only there was a demonstrably safe way of modifying crop plants to make them more resilient to changes in climate, that the green lobby in Europe are also irrationally opposed to!