Changing Attitudes: Climate Change

[Methuselah]

 

[WYorksWeather]

 Midlands Ice Age Not sure if you've misread the chart or have some different figures - UK emissions are down by 50% not 75% - the 75% would be if we were on course for a 1.5C compatible emissions drop, and is for 2030. Current projections have our emissions dropping slightly by 2030.

On China, I think there are good reasons to expect a peak and gradual decline (not a fast one). Their population growth will go negative soon, and their economic growth is slowing, plus they are becoming leaders on some things like electric vehicles. I do think though that given their level of wealth these days, China should be treated more and more like a developed country, in the sense that they should contribute to climate-related funds and adopt more stringent emissions targets.

The case of India is a trickier one I think. For the size of their country, their emissions are actually relatively modest - far lower than the UK or China, for example. 3,500 megatons per year is about nine times the UK total now (and only about 4.5x greater than our 1990 total), and yet they have 20x our population. Obviously we don't want them to become the next China though from that perspective - ideally their emissions should flatten off soon. But I'm much more wary of saying that they are doing anything massively wrong when their per capita emissions are in fact much lower than ours are.

The question of how you go about promoting reductions in emissions in other countries is of course the difficult one, and more political than scientific.

[raz.org.rain]

 Methuselah funnily enough I've been reading about the clathrate gun hypothesis recently. There's a study from 2022 that suggests that even a small change in AMOC circulation would be enough to destabilise methane hydrate slurries. Proxies suggest that the last time this happened, during the Eamian, global temperatures shot up considerably.

Just a moment...

WWW.PNAS.ORG

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

 WYorksWeather

1 hour ago, WYorksWeather said:

Not sure if you've misread the chart or have some different figures - UK emissions are down by 50% not 75% - the 75% would be if we were on course for a 1.5C compatible emissions drop, and is for 2030. Current projections have our emissions dropping slightly by 2030.

I used the data portal in your link to the data. It represents the drop in coal in the production of electricity and I used the data portal in comparison with the China data see below -

    cf         

 

I thought that coal was agreed by all to be the major greenhouse gas enabler. China is the huge utiliser. The UK has exceeded most countries in the reduction of the use of coal.

The graph above also shows how China (despite its switch to wind and solar) is still producing 85% (minimum) of its electricity from coal (as per 2020). I am not decrying China by the way, but they will be producing 80% of the worlds CO2 in 15 years time. If CO2 is the problem then excusing China will not help the CC problem.!!!  

My data  has nothing to do with required pathways or the like as you suggest , and it is the actual data.

If you are talking about the actual proportions of the various types of current electricity production up to date then refer to the current National Grid usages as displayed in several links that I can provide for the UK. There we are running about 55% renewables at the moment, as we have made extensive use  of wind power at the moment.

I am not aware that China provides the same information so no current analysis is possible. However I would be amazed if the figures had altered that much with China building another 400 coal powered  power stations in the last 2 years as part of the expansion to get their population linked to power.

Also, I did in fact under-estimate the reduction in coal  in the UK as it is nearer to 95% than 80%,               as opposed to it being nearer to 15% for China.

MIA

 

Edited April 8 by Midlands Ice Age

[WYorksWeather]

 Midlands Ice Age I was comparing the total CO2 emissions from the main pages - it's not just the coal utilisation percentage. For example, countries can decrease their emissions by becoming more energy efficient, or having a lower population. Here's the total CO2 emissions for China.

The black line is the CO2 emissions equivalent up to the present, and then the coloured lines  are the various future projections. I think it's pretty clear from this that China's emissions are likely flatlining - even if you ignore the current policies projection, there are lots of reasons to suggest that will be the case. China's economic growth is slowing, their population is also approaching a peak, and the carbon intensity of their energy generation is falling. Again, they're not moving fast enough compared to us and many other developed countries, but I think it's hard to draw a plausible curve for future emissions in China that doesn't at least level off and fall slightly over the next 5-10 years.

In terms of the UK - you're right that our coal usage has absolutely fallen off a cliff. But of course a lot of that has been replaced by gas, which we still require in fairly large amounts of cold and still days in winter with our current energy mix. And though it has a lower carbon intensity than coal (about half), that's why our emissions haven't fallen as much as you might think from the coal statistics alone. Again, this is not to say that we shouldn't give ourselves credit for lowering emissions, but again sticking to the overall data rather than focusing on specific indicators, it's clear that the drop from 1990 is about 50%.

In short, the energy sector is only one part of it - the whole emissions picture is far more complicated than just coal usage.

Again, my point is not to either understate the UK's achievements or to be overly optimistic about China - I'm really quite critical of where they're currently heading. All I'm saying is that the downward trajectory in the UK looks to be levelling off as we enter a more difficult phase (replacing gas with renewables, and reducing emissions from non-electricity sectors), whilst China does at least look to be approaching a peak.

EDIT: Just realised the label on the second graph got lost somehow when I downloaded it - it should say 'electricity emissions intensity', and the index is 1990 = 1, so values below 1 can be converted to percentage reductions by subtracting them from 1 and multiplying by 100, e.g. 0.7 = (1 - 0.7) * 100 = 30% reduction on 1990. Hope that clarifies what that second graph is showing!

Edited April 8 by WYorksWeather
Clarified second chart.

[Midlands Ice Age]

 WYorksWeather

Thanks for the above...

We are in basic agreement  on the data. although the data for China since 2015  up to 2020  (end of your chart is missing) seems to have got worse again.

I think that you are understating the problem the world has got with these Chinese emissions and not giving the UK enough credit. (not just the UK, but most of the democratic western world in fact).  To fully go non zero by 2030 (or even close )  was never a realistic possibility as there was not the technology available to support such a change.

We have made large strides, and reducing to zero from where we are now will mean little change to the ultimate temperatures.  That does not apply if we leave China to go on its planned path of increasing the coal generation output of its power usage. You yourself mention that it is twice as 'potent' as per natural gas emissions, when discussing the UK.. This does not mean we should not keep going with (our) the current plans.

I'll be back later with more details on the UK  current actual position.

MIA

Edited April 9 by Midlands Ice Age

[sundog]

And the laughter continues.....

 

[WYorksWeather]

 Midlands Ice Age 

I found a different source for my chart from Statista that does extend beyond 2015 - the trend for China does indeed continue. 

China: power sector carbon intensity 2022 | Statista

WWW.STATISTA.COM

---

 The carbon intensity of electricity generation in China was 531.15 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/kWh) in 2022.

 

About your broader point - I'm not saying we don't give ourselves credit, or that China shouldn't do more. In fact that was the point I made - they're now a fairly developed and wealthy country, and should start to pull their weight a lot more.

The point about net zero by 2030 - I'm not sure what you're going for there, I've not heard anyone say we should be at net zero by 2030, usually 2050 is the date with a substantial cut between 2020 and 2030 (typically about a third to limit warming to 2C, or half to limit warming to 1.5C).

My personal view is that the 1.5C target is completely unattainable - we're there already pretty much. Best case scenario is probably near 2C (30% global emissions cut by 2030, about 80% by 2050, net zero by 2075 ish). More realistically, I think we'll end up at 3-4C, and though we should do as much as we can to try to prevent that outcome, we should also try to prepare for it as best we can, since as you say, we cannot prevent it just by ourselves.

I think our previous discussions about being prepared for fairly regular 40C heatwaves in summer for much of southern and eastern England, and over-engineering our coastal and flood defences, are probably a good idea anyway. Since as you say, we don't have full control over what other countries do, beyond the usual diplomatic and economic pressure etc.

[Midlands Ice Age]

As promised yesterday (was too busy last night) I am supplying the latest data from the National Grid as to the UK demand and also the emissions and also 'generation' over the current period, and also the 12 year history (which is very revealing), and indicates that the UK is in fact in the top few countries on its 'progress' currently. 

Firstly the current snapshot (on a very wet, cool and relatively quiet wednesday afternoon), so fairly typical of the last few months -

Demand and emissions (snapshot for today)

      and emissions     (Below 100g KWH)   

   and the generation graph is here   

As can be seen the green (renewables) has been mainly used except for a small period (1 hr) when fossil fuels (red line) were increased (though still less than renewables), and  mainly  to cater for overseas transfers on early morning start ups.

This looks quite encouraging, but only the longer term charts give the true information as to the changes the UK has made to its energy production -

Demand     as can be seen total demand has reduced (average) from about 36.5GW  to 34KW,after dropping lower to about 30KW during the Covid epidemic and the Russian energy crisis. This represents an actual reduction of about 10 - 15 percent in our energy usage. Well done to everyone.

I cannot show the graph, but this was even higher during the 'zeroes'.

So 'Demand' is a good news story.

Whether this fall continues may well be affected by the use of EV cars (see below).

So usage has fallen... what about the  'generation' meeting this demand ?  

   well coal has fallen off the cliff. 'Gas' has remained steady though has fallen a bit in the last few years after peaking in the 2010 to 2016 period, and a further drop can be expected  as yet more wind power comes online. 

Nuclear has also fallen and has dropped by over a half since 2010 as plants have been decommissioned.  (see below). However the really noticeable feature is the rise of wind power from 2KW to 11.7KW (on an average)........           

So where does this leave our actual 'EMISSIONS'?

Where inspection reveals that we have dropped from 503g per KW hr to 136g per KW hr. This number is a rate change not an actual figure.

A reduction of about 72%

Truly a very good performance.

But that is not all in terms of the hydrocarbon output, since  as I detailed above we have also seen a reduction of about 10-15% on our usage, So the total reduction is of the order of 85% on our emissions since 2010 and is even greater if we go further back to look at the 'coal' powered era that we had been through.  No comments about China please!

So where to - next?

Well the Grid supplies all our usage energy. The last few months are indicating that we can get down to around 70g KGH (average) emissions without doing too much more (see todays chart below), That should reduce our outputs down by a further 50% (at least) on the current  annual figures. 

  

The above 'National Grid' reports represents about two thirds of our annual total energy production. With travel and transport and shipping also having  impacts.

There is a current plan to move to EV's. This will improve further the 'total' emissions figure, and a reduction in the fossil fuel line. However, we need to consider that it will increase the demand on the power network considerably, and the initial costs are prohibitive for many people. 

I always think of the law that 80% (name?) of any changes can be made without too much hassle. 

The remaining 20% is where the problems will occur in the UK, and I do  wonder whether we need to adjust our approach at this stage to one of mitigation, whilst new scientific breakthroughs come through to help with our final push to zero emissions..

The worlds future climate will not be determined by the UK!!!

These are my personal views based upon the data coming out of the UK.  I accept that some with  perhaps personal long term held views may disagree.

I wish that all countries where equally as transparent as the UK!!! 

The above is the actual current data.

All data from the link below -

https://grid.iamkate.com/

MIA

Edited April 10 by Midlands Ice Age

[WYorksWeather]

 Midlands Ice Age I think you're right in that our energy sector emissions are not the issue at this point - we already have a relatively clean grid. 

I found the following quote from the UK's final figures for 2022, and you can view the full report below.

Quote

In 2022, 28% of net greenhouse gas emissions in the UK were estimated to be from the domestic transport sector, 20% from buildings and product uses, 14% from industry, 14% from electricity supply and 12% from agriculture.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c0d15863a23d0013c821e9/2022-final-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistical-release.pdf

In short, what this means is that further emissions reductions will likely move away from a focus on the electricity supply sector and on to other areas. Hence, the move of the main focus onto transport does make sense - it is now by far the largest emitting sector.

In terms of the former 2030 (2035 with hybrids I think) target, now 2035 target, one of the things that I think is often not focused on is that that deadline is for new cars. A country like Norway has set a deadline of 2025, and have actually met it quite easily. I therefore think the 2030 or 2035 deadlines will turn out to be quite easy to meet for passenger vehicles.

The idea is that with a 2030 or 2035 deadline, most of the cars on the road will be EVs by 2050. In terms of technology, we can expect at least another halving in battery prices by the time the 2030 or 2035 mandate comes in, and probably another halving by 2050, at which point there'll just be no debate left to be had - EVs will be low emission (and getting lower all the time as the grid continues to get cleaner) and much cheaper. At the moment there is still an EV premium which then has to be paid back in fuel savings - that will disappear and in fact reverse.

Key issues to be solved will be - very long distance travel with few breaks (maybe taxi drivers, long-distance couriers, rural health visitors, etc.), heavier road vehicles, and charging infrastructure for those with limited parking space.

In terms of what the UK does - you're right that we can't determine the future climate. I suppose the balance to be struck, which we all have our own opinion on at the end of the day, is to what extent is being a 'climate leader' a positive or negative. There are costs involved, undoubtedly. But equally, suppose we become leaders in an industry and can export to the world, or do things that have both an emissions and a social benefit (for example, a massive energy efficiency / home insulation project would cost a huge amount of money, but it would lower emissions and cut people's bills). In short, it's two sides of the same coin.

[LetItSnow!]

I thought this video was great. It may not be perfect but we’re making more progress than I thought we were. I do believe it’s possible we could avoid the very worst. Also seemed to dispel the emissions myth. 

[Midlands Ice Age]

Thanks for the above..

Its the same message that I outlined to WYW .....   for the UK.

I am not quite so certain that the guy is giving the correct story for China however.

I have heard it before 10 times in the last 10 years!! 

Sorry to be a grinch...

MIA

[cheeky_monkey]

 sundog calling BS on the statement on sea surface temps hitting "shocking new high" average global sea surface temperatures are exactly the same as they were a year ago in April 2023 as they are now at 21.1c in 2016 they were 21.0c (last el nino).

[sundog]

Shows the level of intelligence on the subject that's out there lol.

[matty40s]

 sundog

As reported by Centurion Marcus de Satelito after his travels over there.

[sundog]

The worst science on the planet according to this guy. He's checked lol. Thinks  climate scientists and anyone who believes in the science is a Climatard clown. The irony of calling others clowns. 

[WYorksWeather]

 sundog What's always interesting about these people is how little they actually know about the scientific theories they challenge. I've genuinely never encountered a single denialist argument that can't be debunked with a few minutes of basic fact-checking.

To be clear here, by denial, I mean here anyone who would disagree with the following statement: the Earth is presently warming, primarily due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. There are plenty of arguments to be had about the political side on what we do about it, and also the speed of warming, exact severity of consequences and effects, etc, and I don't mean to call anyone who disagrees with me on any of those a denier. 

[jonboy]

 WYorksWeather wow why am I not surprised by your statement. 

So it appears that changing attitudes to climate change means a hardening of attitudes that holds no truck with anyone who may disagree in the slightest with your definition. 

Perhaps this thread should close because no matter what your opinion might be if it differs your a denier.

To be clear therefore I'm a denier. Unbelievable 

[LetItSnow!]

 jonboy The earth is warming. Basic science shows this, science that actually predates just the 20th century - 1856 to be exact, by Eunice Foote. We may not know exactly where we’ll end up. We—or I should say, the guys in suits—have a say how far we do end up though. With such undeniable evidence and solid science, anyone who disagrees with it should not be shocked to be called a denier. It is denial, nothing more. I’m not saying this to start an argument and I anticipate this being removed, but interesting conversations and theories must start in reality and the reality we face is clear. 

[Wold Topper]

 jonboy many pages back i posted a 'what if' post, (I'm not a denier) just inquisitive, wow what a pile on i got, take about entrench views , i gave up with this thread after that.

[Wold Topper]

 LetItSnow! case in point cheers!

[WYorksWeather]

 jonboy Read the post again. I didn't say if your opinion differs to mine you're a denier.

But if you're off the opinion that either a. the Earth isn't warming, or b. it is but not mainly due to human activity, then I would call that denialist. The reason being that the evidence for it is about as solid as the fact that if I were to throw a rock off a building, it would hit the ground rather than levitating up into the sky.

The reason I have very little time for 'it's natural' or 'the Earth isn't warming' as an argument is because it's frankly boring. I mean you can hit me with an argument for either of those positions if you like - if it's a new one I've not heard before I'll take an interest. But the issue has been absolutely done to death - the scientific debate on whether the Earth is warming and on the cause ended decades ago for a reason.

Here is just a brief, non-exhaustive list of factors that have been considered as alternative explanations for the main part of the warming, all of which have been examined and rejected:

• Solar activity
• Internal variability
• Milankovich cycles
• Ocean currents
• ENSO
• Volcanoes
• Urban heat islands

Those issues make up easily 90% or more of the talking points I read online, probably more than that. And every one of them takes about five minutes to debunk. That's the reason there's no point debating it any more. I mean, if you have a brand new contribution on the issue I've not heard before, I'm happy to reopen the discussion.

In terms of the use of the term denier, the reason it is used is in contrast to the term sceptic - you could perhaps more neutrally call them those with a non-mainstream view on climate change, but of course that doesn't roll off the tongue.

The reason to use the term denier is that sceptic implies scepticism in the scientific sense - which is perfectly natural and healthy. But if scepticism goes beyond demanding evidence, double checking data, and interrogating sources and so on (all perfectly normal in science), and instead proceeds to casting aside all the data, alleging grand conspiracies without evidence, or even in the most egregious cases just making stuff up or misrepresenting the mainstream science, then it is often referred to as denial. I'm afraid that I don't think that's particularly unfair.