The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_Res Ipsa]

An interesting data point:

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/

Sure, it’s a data point. But it leaves out a ton of context. The IPCC reports list all the models used in the report. They also disclose which models use the type of adjustments discussed in the article. The reports also explain how the models work. So there’s no deep, dark secret that is being covered up about the models.

Second, some of what he’s claiming is fallacious. The fact that we don’t have a model that predict the day to day changes in clouds doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything about the formation of clouds and there effects. For example, we have no reason to suspect that clouds will disappear completely as the the atmosphere forms and we have no reason to expect that a uniform mass of clouds will that will completely block the sun for the foreseeable future. Clouds are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. We can observe cloud formation and behavior under lots of different temperature and humidity conditions and apply that knowledge to a hotter and wetter atmosphere. We also know that clouds have both warming and cooling effects, which we can observe. What the modelers do is use all of that information to determine the reasonable boundaries of cloud effects and other features that cannot be modeled (often because of insufficient or very expensive) computer resources. Then they run the model many times, allowing the results to vary over those ranges. That’s what creates those spaghetti graphs of model results. What the research shows is that the plausible range of cloud effects is small compared to the warming from greenhouse gases.

Finally, his criticisms of the temperature indices reflect a level of understanding that could only be obtained from denier statements. The GHCN is a collection of weather stations. When the stations were built and when the index was formed, nobody had the faintest idea whether any given station would warm or cool in the future. So, by some extraordinary bout of bad luck, they just happened to pick the locations that showed heating over 98% of the earth?

But he has to criticize the temperature index because it undercuts his criticisms about the models. The ensemble of models in the IPCC reports have done a good job of predicting the temperature increase over time. And we shouldn’t forget that the models have predicted a temperature increase over time, while the skeptical outliers have uniformly predicted cooling or, at best, no more warming.

The guy apparently has a paper coming out. I’ll look forward to what it says, as well as any responses to the paper.

[_subgenius]

[_canpakes]

:: cartoon ::

Oh, what was your solution? : )

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

:: cartoon ::

Oh, what was your solution? : )

I'm diggity down with nuclear. What's your solution?

- Doc

[_Chap]

Nuclear power generation is very likely to be part of any package of medium term measures to ensure that the world gets the energy it needs without having to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without burning fossil fuels.

But nuclear power plants are is by no means 'a solution' to global heating, as that silly cartoon suggests it is. Such plants are expensive to construct, can be very dangerous if anything goes wrong, require intense and costly security, and pose major problems ( and more expense) when they have to be decommissioned.

Plants based on renewable sources such as solar energy, wind, hydropower and tidal energy, are much cheaper in terms of construction and running costs, much safer, and are not costly to decommission. When (as will inevitably happen soon, giving the huge benefits to be gained and the intensity of the research effort) we manage to get large-scale energy storage that guarantees continuity of supply despite variable output from renewables, nuclear power will no longer be needed.

TL/DR: the cartoon is the usual ineffectual effort to laugh off the unanswerable case for taking global heating seriously and doing something about it. It has about the same value as the crude stuff about 'Hey, isn't that Swedish kid, you know, weird? I suppose she's that way because she can't get a boyfriend, hnnnh, hnnh!'.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Chap,

Anything we choose to do will have downsides. Hydro and tidal plants have an impact on their respective ecosystems. Solar requires massive mining and production operation (not to mention it isn't really that efficient right now). Nuclear has massive upside, but if something goes sideways, MAN, it goes hard.

Whatever the case may be I'm just interested in sustainable practices, particulate reduction, carbon reduction, and continued funding into potential energy yields that could be a game changer. I agree with your post, though. It'll have to be a multi-pronged approach to energy that hopefully shifts away from fossil fuels.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

I'm diggity down with nuclear. What's your solution?

- Doc

Meh. Not enthusiastic about nuclear. Too much cost up front for many utility companies, extremely costly to insure, and still no solution for the spent material.

We’re still arguing over what’s going to end up with the radioactive crap left behind by the Three Mile Island incident, and that’s from 40 years ago.

Nothing is fit to replace fossil fuels wholesale anytime soon but solar has the best chance to start us down that road. Eventually a combination of alternatives will help us meet the goal. Whatever we do, it will take time, but many things worth the effort take time.

But to the point, subs acts as if folks worried about anthropogenic climate effects are rejecting some sort of solution presented by the other side. In reality, there is no solution being offered. Subs is just being willfully dishonest again. No surprise there.

[_Res Ipsa]

To get US carbon emissions to where they need to be, I don’t think we can do it without nuclear. I’m not concerned about safety, with the exception of waste storage. The Republicans last term could have taken care of the waste problem by finally designating a permanent waste facility. But I guess stuffing themselves with tax cut money and taking away health insurance is pretty time consuming.

The main problem with nuclear is the up front cost, which the financial markets won’t touch. I don’t blame them, as the industry has been over promising and under delivering for decades. That means we the taxpayers will have to pay. Also, nukes need a large amount of water for cooling, which means they need to be located on coasts, with rising sea levels, or rivers, which will be under increasing stress.

This is the consequence of waiting until now to start changes that should have been started 30 years ago. We have to make harder choices.

[_canpakes]

The main problem with nuclear is the up front cost, which the financial markets won’t touch. I don’t blame them, as the industry has been over promising and under delivering for decades. That means we the taxpayers will have to pay. Also, nukes need a large amount of water for cooling, which means they need to be located on coasts, with rising sea levels, or rivers, which will be under increasing stress.

These are limitations that are not easily addressed within areas hosting the majority of the world’s 7.7 billion folks.

It’s easy to claim that nuclear power is the ticket to a worry-free energy future in a place like the US (and even that’s not correct), but try managing that startup cost, the water needs, and the safety and security concerns of handling the required uranium in most other places, and suddenly the challenges becomes a bit clearer.

[_EAllusion]

Non-nuclear renewables are catching up so fast in the area of electricity generation, that I don't think it is correct any longer to argue that nuclear is a necessary cost of rapid transformation of the electric grid into carbon neutral options. I'm not opposed to nuclear per se, but I come down on the side of those who argue it is not needed.

When it comes to decarbonization, the electricity aspect is increasingly looking like the most manageable part. If there was even a little bit of political will, it could be done in the US without too much of a shock. Decarbonizing agriculture to the level that needs to happen in the timeframe it needs to happen is more of a head-scratcher.