Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday July 03 2019, @01:50PM   Printer-friendly
from the The-Heat-is-On!-?? dept.

We've Already Built too Many Power Plants and Cars to Prevent 1.5 °C of Warming:

In a [...] paper published in Nature today[*], researchers found we're now likely to sail well past 1.5 ˚C of warming, the aspirational limit set by the Paris climate accords, even if we don't build a single additional power plant, factory, vehicle, or home appliance. Moreover, if these components of the existing energy system operate for as long as they have historically, and we build all the new power facilities already planned, they'll emit about two thirds of the carbon dioxide necessary to crank up global temperatures by 2 ˚C.

If fractions of a degree don't sound that dramatic, consider that 1.5 ˚C of warming could already be enough to expose 14% of the global population to bouts of severe heat, melt nearly 2 million square miles (5 million square kilometers) of Arctic permafrost, and destroy more than 70% of the world's coral reefs. The hop from there to 2 ˚C may subject nearly three times as many people to heat waves, thaw nearly 40% more permafrost, and all but wipe out coral reefs, among other devastating effects, research finds.

The basic conclusion here is, in some ways, striking. We've already built a system that will propel the planet into the dangerous terrain that scientists have warned for decades we must avoid. This means that building lots of renewables and adding lots of green jobs, the focus of much of the policy debate over climate, isn't going to get the job done.

We now have to ask a much harder societal question: How do we begin forcing major and expensive portions of existing energy infrastructure to shut down years, if not decades, before the end of its useful economic life?

Power plants can cost billions of dollars and operate for half a century. Yet the study notes that the average age of coal plants in China and India—two of the major drivers of the increase in "committed emissions" since the earlier paper—­­­­­­­is about 11 and 12 years, respectively.

[*] Monday.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by RamiK on Wednesday July 03 2019, @05:35PM (23 children)

    by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday July 03 2019, @05:35PM (#862808)

    Just askin', how much % of CO2 is man related, or anthropogenic if you like big words, compared to total emissions?

    You might as well stand in a room beset by fire proudly declaring you refuse to run away until the fire marshal declares the fire accidental.

    --
    compiling...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Touché=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:53PM (#862872)

    No joke, ah well can't fix stupid.

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by deimtee on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:00AM (21 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:00AM (#863041) Journal

    When you stand in a room and people keep telling you it is going to burn in thirty years, you probably do have time to ask how and why.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:30AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @06:30AM (#863048)

      It's not about the time. It's about questioning if its human-made or not as if it matters.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @12:11PM (10 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 04 2019, @12:11PM (#863107) Journal

        It's about questioning if its human-made or not as if it matters.

        Because if the percent of human-made doesn't matter when the Earth is heating up, then it doesn't matter when one is trying to cool the Earth off. You have to understand the argument first.

        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday July 05 2019, @09:58PM (9 children)

          by RamiK (1813) on Friday July 05 2019, @09:58PM (#863655)

          Because if the percent of human-made doesn't matter when the Earth is heating up, then it doesn't matter when one is trying to cool the Earth off.

          What gave you that idea? We can engineer the climate by either releasing chemicals to the atmosphere or building nuclear powered plants that remove CO2 from the air. We can divert rivers. We can plant trees in the deserts. It being a natural disaster or man-made means nothing.

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2019, @03:56PM (8 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 09 2019, @03:56PM (#865020) Journal

            What gave you that idea? We can engineer the climate by either releasing chemicals to the atmosphere or building nuclear powered plants that remove CO2 from the air. We can divert rivers. We can plant trees in the deserts. It being a natural disaster or man-made means nothing.

            The initial premises did. If the radical environmental changes that humanity is currently making to the Earth don't change global temperature (for example, we're already releasing chemicals to the atmosphere, building nuclear plants, etc), then why expect that future such activity will somehow be different?

            • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Wednesday July 10 2019, @09:01PM (7 children)

              by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday July 10 2019, @09:01PM (#865497)

              why expect that future such activity will somehow be different?

              Since just because one cigarette doesn't kill you doesn't mean smoking a pack everyday is safe. That is, even if we amuse the notion current activities aren't causing climate change, it doesn't mean more of them won't worsen it or climate and environmental engineering to "compensate" for won't help.

              That's to say, even if we disagree on some figures, we can agree there should be a limit to how much the ecosystem can regulate. And therefore, it should be possible to reverse certain conditions, human made or otherwise, by breaking those limits.

              --
              compiling...
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2019, @11:46PM (6 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 11 2019, @11:46PM (#866026) Journal

                That is, even if we amuse the notion current activities aren't causing climate change, it doesn't mean more of them won't worsen it or climate and environmental engineering to "compensate" for won't help.

                It's more than that. It's like assume for the sake of argument that smoking a pack a day doesn't increase your health risks, but then claiming if you have health risks from other generic sources similar to what is stereotypically thought of as cigarette smoking health risks, then smoking less will improve your overall health risks. You are implicitly continuing to assume what you claim you aren't assuming.

                In other words, these things, for the sake of argument, are supposed to have very small marginal harm (that is, an increase in the activity results in small harm). Why suddenly do they have large marginal harm in the presence of some other harm? What's the mechanism? You aren't analyzing well enough your assumptions.

                • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday July 12 2019, @01:36PM (5 children)

                  by RamiK (1813) on Friday July 12 2019, @01:36PM (#866223)

                  It's more than that. It's like assume for the sake of argument that smoking a pack a day doesn't increase your health risks, but then claiming if you have health risks from other generic sources similar to what is stereotypically thought of as cigarette smoking health risks, then smoking less will improve your overall health risks. You are implicitly continuing to assume what you claim you aren't assuming.

                  But this is exactly how half-toxicity, infections and the immune system work. Normally you can handle toxins and handle bacteria up to a certain amount, but if your system gets compromised those figures drop. And it doesn't matter if the compromise is over something you did or not. It's there. And cutting on toxins will help.

                  What's the mechanism? You aren't analyzing well enough your assumptions.

                  The mechanism is the science but we've put it aside for the sake of argument and chose to ignore the scientist and just go by logic. And by logic, it's more reasonable to assume limits rather than infinite linear/exponential potential. That is, there are tipping point to large systematic changes that can cause big changes fast irrespective of human activity but that can be averted through human activity.

                  --
                  compiling...
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 13 2019, @04:57AM (4 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 13 2019, @04:57AM (#866500) Journal

                    But this is exactly how half-toxicity, infections and the immune system work.

                    Except, of course, for the huge range of circumstances where it isn't how that "exactly" works - such as climatology for a glaring example. You have claimed for the sake of argument that a certain activity doesn't increase harm and then claim without any subsequent justification that decreasing the activity can decrease harm. Somehow the marginal harm of the activity has changed without explanation. While the toxicity model you describe above, could at certain points of its range of toxicity, justify your argument (and wouldn't at many other points!), you haven't shown it applies at the half-toxicity points of the model that you claim, "exactly" or otherwise.

                    I think fundamentally, the dissonance here is the claim that we have a steering wheel for controlling climate change, even though the steering wheel, for the sake of argument, wasn't strong enough to maneuver us even a little into the situation of global warming. You need some justification stronger than that you could contrive situations where this could somehow be true. You now have to show that these contrived situations are applicable.

                    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday July 14 2019, @02:26PM (3 children)

                      by RamiK (1813) on Sunday July 14 2019, @02:26PM (#866900)

                      Except, of course, for the huge range of circumstances where it isn't how that "exactly" works

                      From a load bearing beam to the climate, limits are shared between all real world systems. Climate models, in the end, reflect the fact the earth can't dissipate heat short of some infra red radiation. The exact limits and mechanisms can be disputed, but eventually we have to concede to the fact that whether or not we're causing the changes, they're happening and stuff like limiting greenhouse gasses is a no brainier.

                      If you want a detailed discussion about the mechanisms you'll have to take it with a climatologist. But I doubt any will humor the man-made or not premise of this thread. After all, the greenhouse model is basic thermodynamics and chemistry and the rise in CO2 levels is such an easily observed and explained phenomena (dig out oil, burn it, measure mass going in, measure mass in the atmosphere, conclude it's man-made) that you might as well ask an engineer to explain alternating current without going into complex numbers.

                      --
                      compiling...
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 15 2019, @03:59AM (2 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 15 2019, @03:59AM (#867072) Journal

                        Climate models, in the end, reflect the fact the earth can't dissipate heat short of some infra red radiation.

                        Which is sufficient once you get to space. Climate models typically don't reflect the more complex dynamics, we call "weather" which can substantially increase the heat radiated to space.

                        But I doubt any will humor the man-made or not premise of this thread.

                        But if they did, they would be subject to the same logical constraints as you.

                        • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday July 16 2019, @08:25AM (1 child)

                          by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday July 16 2019, @08:25AM (#867465)

                          Which is sufficient once you get to space.

                          I was referring to the classic dealing with the absolute limits of earth's energy production and heating issues: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ [ucsd.edu]

                          Not sure how space exploration gets you anywhere given that.

                          --
                          compiling...
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 16 2019, @11:48AM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 16 2019, @11:48AM (#867503) Journal

                            I was referring to the classic dealing with the absolute limits of earth's energy production and heating issues

                            Notice the line that destroys the physicist's whole shtick:

                            I don’t think energy will ever be a limiting factor to economic growth.

                            That was one of the first lines out of the mouth of the economist. Sure, the economist didn't cover himself in glory after that, but that line was never addressed. Exponential energy/population growth is not a requirement for exponential economic growth (notice how the physicist shoe-horned the discussion into such things as "traditional growth" in order to hit the right talking points)..

                            How much energy does it take to know how to do something? Or to live longer? There's a lot of high value things out there that aren't significantly energy or population dependent. Computers didn't increase in speed exponentially because people threw more energy at them

                            Nor does the economy need to grow exponentially till the heat death of the universe in order to check off some important, near future boxes for us, such as the above knowing more stuff and living longer.

                            Finally, there is a bit of hypocrisy here. The physicist after all deals routinely with models that work, but only within a parameter range or for a certain length of time. It's not like someone is using Keynesian economics to predict what Earth will be like in a billion years. These economic models are being used over spans of time where it is reasonable to expect that they will work and not deviate much.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday July 04 2019, @08:37AM (8 children)

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday July 04 2019, @08:37AM (#863077) Journal

      What? You think this is all far off in the future? The room is burning NOW. Do you not watch the news? Are you not aware of the heatwaves, the forest fires, the flooding? The coral die-offs and deforestation that is ALREADY HAPPENING?

      The grand, unplanned experiment in atmospheric modification is already well underway and the results are clearly visible. The only question is, how much worse do you want it to be for your grandkids?

      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday July 04 2019, @05:59PM (4 children)

        by deimtee (3272) on Thursday July 04 2019, @05:59PM (#863180) Journal

        I think whether it is happening now, in thirty years, or never, the correct course of action is not to run around in a panic doing stupid things.

        The correct course is to objectively examine the evidence, propose and debate the various mitigation strategies, evaluate the effectiveness of those strategies and implement the ones that will do the most good for the least cost. Funnily enough, that entails research and design and some far reaching policy decisions.
        It does not include running in circles screaming about the sky falling and how it is heresy to even think about questioning the High Priests of the Church of Carbon, or The Voice Of Panic on Mass Media.

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @11:53PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 04 2019, @11:53PM (#863289)

          That is precisely what has been going on, however the doomsday messages have increased in volume in a vain attempt to reach the brainwashed masses buying the propaganda from rich assholes trying to improve their own bottom line.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @08:48AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 05 2019, @08:48AM (#863409) Journal

            however the doomsday messages have increased in volume in a vain attempt to reach the brainwashed masses buying the propaganda from rich assholes trying to improve their own bottom line.

            If you know anything about science, then you should know why that approach should fail.

        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday July 05 2019, @08:31AM (1 child)

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday July 05 2019, @08:31AM (#863404) Journal

          That's precisely what climate scientists have trying to do for the last 3 or 4 decades. It's not their fault you've been listening to big oil instead of them.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @08:47AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 05 2019, @08:47AM (#863407) Journal

            That's precisely what climate scientists have trying to do for the last 3 or 4 decades.

            Where's the discussion or explanation for the public of the error in important parts of the AGW models? Where's the addressing of the persistent biases in favor of exaggerating climate change? When are those climate scientists going to call out the climate scientists who've made a career out of selling doomsday?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 04 2019, @11:13PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 04 2019, @11:13PM (#863278) Journal

        The room is burning NOW.

        Where's the evidence for your assertion?

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday July 05 2019, @07:45AM (1 child)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday July 05 2019, @07:45AM (#863398) Journal

          Take off your blindfolds, and you'll see it.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 05 2019, @08:43AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 05 2019, @08:43AM (#863405) Journal
            It's telling that all you can do is spout religious bullshit. Telling me I'm not seeing your bogeyman because I don't have the right feelz just isn't doing it for me. Evidence fixes those supposed blindfolds.