Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (74619)	2/2/2017 1:02:42 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Renewables can't deliver Paris climate goals: studyJanuary 31, 2017 by Marlowe Hood Even if solar and wind capacity continues to grow at breakneck speed, it will not be fast enough to cap global warming under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the target set down in the landmark 2015 Paris climate treaty, they reported in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The rapid deployment of wind, solar and electric cars gives some hope," lead author Glen Peters, a researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway, told AFP. "But at this stage, these technologies are not really displacing the growth in fossil fuels or conventional transportation." Earth is overheating mainly due to the burning of oil, gas and especially coal to power the global economy. Barely 1C (1.8F) of warming so far has already led to deadly heatwaves, drought and superstorms engorged by rising seas. The 196-nation Paris Agreement set a collective goal to cap warming, but lacks the tools to track progress, especially at the country level. To provide a better toolkit, Peters and colleagues broke down the energy system into half-a-dozen indicators—GDP growth, energy used per unit of GDP, CO2 emissions per unit of energy, share of fossil fuels in the energy mix, etc. What emerged was a sobering picture of narrowing options. Barely a dent "Wind and solar alone are not sufficient to meet the goals," Peters said. The bottom line, the study suggests, is how much carbon pollution seeps into the atmosphere, and on that score renewable have—so far—barely made a dent. Investment in solar and wind has soared, outstripping fossil fuels for the first time last year. And renewables' share of global energy consumption has increased five-fold since 2000. But it still only accounts for less than three percent of the total. Moreover, the share of fossil fuels—nearly 87 percent—has not budged due to a retreat in nuclear power over the same 15-year period. [ If the people who believe the carbon scare stories believed them, they'd be gungho on nuclear power. ] Even a renewables Marshall Plan would face an unyielding deadline: To stay under 2C, the global economy must be carbon neutral—producing no more CO2 than can be absorbed by oceans and forests—by mid-century. Compounding the challenge, other key policies and technologies deemed essential for holding down temperatures remain woefully underdeveloped, the study cautioned. In particular, the capacity to keep or pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it securely—a cornerstone of end-of-century projections for a climate-safe world—is practically non-existent. Vetted by the UN's top climate science panel, these scenarios presume that thousands of industrial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities will be up-and-running by 2030. As of today, there are only one or two, with a couple of dozen in various stages of construction. Negative emissions Another form of clean energy pencilled into most medium- and long-term forecasts that does not yet exist on any meaningful scale is carbon-neutral biofuels. The idea is that CO2 captured while plants grow will compensate for greenhouse gases released when they are burned for energy. On paper, that carbon pollution will also be captured and stored, resulting in "negative emissions"—a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. But here again, reality is dragging its feet. "It is uncertain whether bioenergy can be sustainably produced and made carbon-neutral at the scale required," the researchers noted. All of these technologies must come on line if we are to have a fighting chance of keeping a lid of global warming, which is currently on track to heat the planet by 3C to 4C (5.4F to 7.2F), the study concluded. Market momentum alone is not enough, Peters added. "There need to be a shift in focus," he said in an email exchange. "Politician seem happy to support wind, solar and electric vehicles through subsidies. But they are not willing to put prices"—a carbon tax, for example—"on fossil fuels." "Unless the emissions from fossil fuels goes down, the 2C target is an impossibility." In an informal survey last week of top climate scientists, virtually all of them said that goal is probably already out of reach. phys.org

To: Brumar89 who wrote (74619)	2/3/2017 9:31:01 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Climate change Climate Consensus - the 97% A punchy climate book from a citizen scientist ‘Twenty-eight Climate Change Elevator Pitches’ delivers basic, accurate climate information 28 Climate Change Elevator Pitches book cover John Abraham Thursday 2 February 2017 11.00 GMT Last modified on Thursday 2 February 2017 22.22 GMT We know the climate is changing, the Earth is warming, and humans are the cause. As a scientist who studies this daily, I know the evidence is compelling and mutually reinforcing. In fact, the evidence is so compelling that it’s almost impossible to find scientists who disagree. We also know that it’s possible to solve this problem using today’s technology. We don’t need to wait for fairy dust or cold fusion. Using energy more wisely, increasing renewable energy, modernizing nuclear power, and other actions are all things we can do right now to make the future better. But we also know that there are many groups and companies that are trying to stop meaningful action on climate change. Sure, many are fossil fuel companies that want to continue to sell their product. Others are ideological groups and people that for various reasons reject the compelling science. They cannot bring themselves to understand the facts because it conflicts with their belief system. These groups and people spread misinformation and purposely try to muddy the waters by creating a “fake news” environment of sorts. The Guardian's Science Weekly Cross Section: Uta Frith – Science Weekly podcast Nicola Davis sits down with Professor Uta Frith to talk autism, passion, rebellion and the role of women in science Listen theguardian.com For the rest of us who are interested in making this world better but not experts on climate change, it’s a real challenge to separate the science from the baloney. Not only do you have to know the science, but you may have to communicate it in a very concise situation. We scientists are trained to bloviate, not to persuade. Fortunately, there is help. For anyone who wants easy to access, short elevator-speech responses to the most common questions and myths about climate change, a new resource is available. Interestingly, it was authored not by a climate scientist but by a citizen scientist. I’ve read the text and can vouch for its scientific accuracy. The book is entitled Twenty-eight Climate Change Elevator Pitches written by Rob Honeycutt - a contributor to Skeptical Science. This book covers topics typically in 2-3 pages. Really short, really concise, always on point. Rob uses analogies to help describe climate science in ways that the rest of us can relate. He includes both basic science chapters as well as myth debunking. For instance, he relates geological climate change to a boxing match The basic science topics he covers include titles such as “Ancient Sunlight”, “Radiative Gases”, and “The Climate System”. He also includes 2-3 page discussions on temperature measurements, ocean warming and sea level rise, acidification, ice, past climate change, tipping points, and more. Included with each chapter are rich and engaging graphics. Why do I like this book so much? Well, part of it is that the discussions are short and punchy. They really are elevator speeches. They don’t get bogged down in too much detail. Crucially, his science is correct. Rob finds a way to identify what are the essential things people need to know and focuses on those items. I also like that this book is simultaneously a warning but also optimistic. He is correct that climate change is a serious problem that we need to face. But, he is also right on in recognizing that there are solutions to this problem that can be implemented immediately. Furthermore, as Rob writes, ignoring the problem will be more injurious than facing it head on. I asked Rob why he decided to write this book and he responded: After finding and taking an online climate change quiz, I noted that the average score for those taking the quiz was only 54%. People who were self-selecting to take the quiz – people who were interested in the topic – were missing basic climate information. I figured what was needed was a way to access basic, accurate climate information in a more time-efficient manner. The book is available on the iBooks store and through Blurb. theguardian.com My comments: Looks like the judge needs to read this book and get some education in actual science! Eric