climate change

Try harder Telegraph

City officials have made some effort in recent years to wean Angeleans off the diesel, but without offering much incentive.

Sigh. America pretty much doesn’t use diesel in cars. Only 3%, as opposed to 50% in Europe.

Yes, yes, nice turn of phrase and all but this is something that a journalist should know.

One explanation for this

Record-breaking heatwaves have dominated the news recently

In a system with natural variance around the mean then the longer the record of that variance the larger the record deviances from it.

3 sigma events happen more rarely than 2 sigma. But keep records for long enough and you’ll have a 3. And a 4 etc.

We’ve been – accurately – recording temperature for a century or three – dependent upon your definition of accuracy – so one and three century records should be appearing.

What could, possibly, be the explanation here?

The silvery blue waters of the Great Salt Lake sprawl across the Utah desert, having covered an area nearly the size of Delaware for much of history. For years, though, the largest natural lake west of the Mississippi River has been shrinking. And a drought gripping the American west could make this year the worst yet.

Concentrate on that word “salt” to try to get an idea of what is happening here.

Then think about Lake Bonneville. Then ponder that this is a process that has been going on for perhaps 15,000 years…..

Bollocks, nonceboy bollocks

A study that will be published on July 1st in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution challenges claims that early human hunters slaughtered prehistoric elephants, mammoths and mastodonts to extinction over millennia. Instead, its findings indicate the extinction of the last mammoths and mastodonts at the end of the last Ice Age marked the end of progressive climate-driven global decline among elephants over millions of years.

Via PR email.

That the megafauna disappeared everywhere and every time early humans turned up for the first time rather puts this conclusion into dispute…..moas in NZ were bugger all to do with climate change after all.

Waida minute

So seeing the effects of climate change engulf both ends of the country in recent days, with extreme heat in the Northwest and a potentially climate-fueled building collapse in the Southeast,

The condo building collapse in Miami is climate change?

Experts say that while the role of the rising seas in this collapse is still unclear,

Ah, bandwagon jumping.

We’ve a solution here

Nearly 2 million people living in the greater Glasgow area face severe disruption from climate heating unless billions of pounds are invested in protecting homes, businesses and transport links, a report says.

Is Glasgow worth billions to save?

If the answer is not then don’t spend the money……

The new supersonic airliners

According to Bednarek, the airline historian, the future of flight needs to be focused on being energy efficient and less damaging to the environment, not on speed or size.

Well, OK, that’s your opinion. What does everyone else think?

Something we’ll find out when people can buy supersonic tickets again, isn’t it? Because what people want is the correct definition of “need”, right?

Well, yes, but it doesn’t matter

Airships for city hops could cut flying’s CO2 emissions by 90%

By all means try it out and see what happens.

But aviation is only 2% of emissions anyway. It’s simply not important to reduce them further.

That is, even if we accept – I know, I know – the initial claims it’s still true that reducing aviation emissions is a rounding error. Which does rather produce some wonder at the insistences made about it.

Love to know where this number comes from

According to HCVA, a classic car generates 563kg of C02 a year, which equates to 20pc of the emissions from powering a computer for a year.

2.5 tonnes of CO2 for one computer for one year? Actually, closer to 3 tonnes. The UK average emissions per capita are only just over 5 tonnes I think that’s without counting imported and embedded emissions.

A complete desktop uses an average of 200 Watt hours (Wh). This is the sum of the average consumption per hour of the computer itself (171 W), the internet modem (10 W), the printer (5 W) and the loudspeakers (20 W). Assuming that a computer is on for eight hours a day, the annual consumption comes to 600 kWh. That corresponds to CO2 emissions of about 175 kg per year, i.e. 1.75 % of the average annual emission of a Belgian.

A laptop uses considerably less: between 50 and 100 Wh that it is on, depending on the model. If it is used for eight hours a day, consumption therefore varies between 150 and 300 kWh/year. That corresponds to CO2 emissions of between 44 and 88 kg per year (or between 0.44 and 0.88 % of the average annual emission of a Belgian).

Someone, somewhere, is spouting bollocks, aren’t they?

Fortunately we don’t have to worry about this

A third of global food production will be at risk by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current rate, new research suggests.

Many of the world’s most important food-growing areas will see temperatures increase and rainfall patterns alter drastically if temperatures rise by about 3.7C, the forecast increase if emissions stay high.

It’s not going to happen. That projection of 3.7 C. Just not part of our future.

The ‘rising coal’ assumption on which the RCP8.5 climate model is based is implausible in the first place, but has now been shown to be false: the shift from coal to unconventional gas means that the world is on a much lower emissions trajectory than worst case scenarios assume.

However, many climate scientists continue to use – or misuse – the RCP8.5 scenario, claiming that it represents a plausible future under “business as usual” CO2 emissions.

Every year, thousands of scientists adopt it to make scary claims about future climate disasters while environmental journalists report these misleading claims to an unsuspecting public, unaware that the claims are based on a non-credible assumption.

Another, and equally valid, way to make the point is that to beat extreme climate change all that was ever needed was cheaper renewables. Renewables are cheaper – we’ve beaten extreme climate change.

This is fun

A dun question at least and perhaps we’ve a farming type that can tell us:

Instead of confining thousands of animals and managing their millions of litres of waste in lagoons that release methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), the Bradleys raise 200 pigs at a time on pasture and in wooded areas, where the animals’ manure is integrated into the ground naturally as fertiliser.

Does the decomposition process of pig poo differ in the two sets of circumstances? Does the atmosphere get less methane from one or the other?

Nonsense

Potatoes and lettuce will have to be replaced in the UK by small, mustardy root vegetables and dandelion leaves as a warming climate means we cannot rely on traditional crops, Kew Gardens has said.

We get most of our lettuce from Spain already. Climate change means w’ll get it from a bit of Spain 50 miles north of where we currently do.

And?

Interesting question

Silicon fabs in Austin TX were closed over the power outage. They’re a several percentage of global production of certain types of ships.

Certain car manufacturers are halting production for lack of chips.

How much of the second is due to the first? That first being the penetration of renewables into the TX grid of course…..

This isn’t in fact the problem

Timmermans’ warnings reflect a growing concern among climate experts that politicians have failed to show people the benefits of a low-carbon society, which include cleaner air and water, more livable cities, and higher levels of health and wellbeing, as well as defusing the climate crisis.

Rather, we the people don’t think those things worth what we need to give up to gain them.

This is easy enough

Anglo American has struck a partnership with Umicore, of Belgium, to develop technology that would enable vehicles to be filled with hydrogen that is chemically bonded to a liquid.

The FTSE 100 miner said that using such “liquid organic hydrogen carrier technologies” could accelerate the adoption of hydrogen vehicles by avoiding the need for compressed gas refuelling infrastructure. It is funding Umicore to develop technology using Anglo’s metals as catalysts to separate the hydrogen back out of the liquid on board the vehicle to provide “a simpler and cheaper alternative to onboard storage of compressed hydrogen”.

Called methanol. Other alternatives are also available. Like, even, petrol……Although that does mean you don;t need the fuel cell either…..

The Germans and logic

Merkel’s failure to tackle Germany climate woes risks rise of Green power
Coalition government is the likely price for Chancellor’s perceived inaction on cleaning up nation’s act

UndSo, Hans. Angela’s idea of beating climate change with plans and directives has not worked.”

“Ja, so let’s vote Green and have more plans and directives to not beat climate change.”

This is something that the Stern Review warned about. Socialism, planned economics, is less efficient than market such. So, if we try to beat climate change via plans, socialism, then we will be doing it inefficiently. As humans do less of what costs more then we’ll do less climate change beating if we do it by socialism rather than markets.

It’s not obvious that Stern was wrong either. The UK and US have rather better emissions records than Germany despite the Energiewende…..

What a strange assertion

Insanely cheap energy’: how solar power continues to shock the world
Australian smarts and Chinese industrial might made solar power the cheapest power humanity has seen – and no one saw it coming

Bjorn Lomborg predicted exactly this in Sceptical Environmentalist. Of course, everyone shouted at him for having done so too……

There is no scenario in which this is true

Without climate finance, poor countries face a bleak future of extreme weather, water and food shortages, and climate-driven migration, which all threaten to reverse decades of progress in lifting people out of poverty.

If we actually go look at the science – yes, agreed, the science they tell us is science but all the same – there is no outcome in which the poor do not continue to get richer.

The SRES, the RCPs, anything from 2.0 to 8.5, from A1FI through to B2, there just isn’t a socioeconomic model in which the poor regress.

They’re lying that is, lying by their own evidence.