US report on climate change

[billvon 2,400]

The US government just published their annual National Climate Assessment, a report on climate change and its effects on the US. It is remarkable in what it states. Not because there's anything really new in it, but because it does so despite strenuous efforts by the current administration to hide, suppress and minimize any discussion of climate change. So this report is what was able to be published even under such scrutiny.

From the BBC:
=========================
Climate change: Report warns of growing impact on US life

The report warns that the frequency of wildfires could increase if climate change is unchecked
Unchecked climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars and damage human health and quality of life, a US government report warns.

"Future risks from climate change depend... on decisions made today," the 4th National Climate Assessment says.

The report says climate change is "presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth".

The warning is at odds with the Trump administration's fossil fuels agenda.

The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity.

The US climate assessment - compiled with help from numerous US government agencies and departments - outlines the prospective impacts of climate change across every sector of American society.

"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many US states," the report says.

"Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century."

The report notes that the effects of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country, including more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events.

But it says that projections of future catastrophe could change if society works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and "to adapt to the changes that will occur".

Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the report's authors, said the report made it clear that climate change was not "some problem in the distant future".

"It's happening right now in every part of the country," she said.

In October, President Trump accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda", telling Fox News he was unconvinced that humans were responsible for the earth's rising temperatures.

After taking office he announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement, which commits another 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels.

At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage US businesses and workers.

During his election campaign in 2016 Mr Trump said climate change was "a hoax". However he has since rowed back on that statement saying in a recent interview: "I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference."

Earlier this week, the US president appeared to deride the idea of climate change in a tweet about the weather. . . .

A report released in October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the leading international body evaluating climate change - said it could only be stopped if the world made major, and costly, changes.

That means reducing global emissions of CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and reducing coal use to almost zero and using up to seven million sq km (2.7 million square miles) for land energy crops.

If the world fails to act, the researchers warned, there would be some significant and dangerous changes to our world, including rising sea levels, significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops such as rice, maize and wheat.
==================

[BIGUN 1,053]

Only ten years for the government to come up with a report acknowledging "The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity."

I am more concerned about this for our children than I am the deficit. We can reverse the deficit; but at what point does this become irreversible. My experience with mankind is when it becomes too late. Is it possible that we get past the point of no return that we eradicate more of the world's population more so than any nuclear war could have?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Phil1111 910]

BIGUN

Only ten years for the government to come up with a report acknowledging "The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity."

I am more concerned about this for our children than I am the deficit. We can reverse the deficit; but at what point does this become irreversible. My experience with mankind is when it becomes too late. Is it possible that we get past the point of no return that we eradicate more of the world's population more so than any nuclear war could have?

Yes and wars will be the result.
NATO joins the Pentagon in deeming climate change a threat multiplier
A new NATO special report concludes that climate change is the ultimate “threat multiplier”—meaning that it can exacerbate political instability in the world’s most unstable regions—because by intensifying extreme weather events like droughts, climate change stresses food and water supplies. In poor, arid countries already facing shortages, this increased stress can lead to disputes and violent conflicts over scarce resources. As the report concludes:
https://thebulletin.org/2017/05/nato-joins-the-pentagon-in-deeming-climate-change-a-threat-multiplier/

It would be a mistake to think that decreased population in less industrialized countries. Would mitigate long term changes due to a reduced worldwide human footprint. Poor countries are not substantial contributors to climate change now.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Thank you for the information

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[rushmc 18]

And yet we just found out the math was flawed. What a conundrum

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lippy 771]

Was wondering how long before you poked your head in and on what Breitbart-derived basis you would dismiss the entire thing?

Turns out they told you the math was flawed. I’m guessing that they used the fact that there was some flawed math on a climate study 2 years ago to dismiss anything related to climate change from that point forward. That about right?

I got nuthin

[billvon 2,400]

>And yet we just found out the math was flawed. What a conundrum

Only to you. The "argument from incredulity" doesn't really work any more.

[DJL 232]

rushmc

And yet we just found out the math was flawed. What a conundrum

So...is that reflected in Trump's report? Again....Trump's report. As in he has every chance to accurately report the findings.....in his report. And no, he's not the one putting pen to paper but we know he has access to a bit more data than you do regarding ways to contradict or dilute the material.

So again.....Trump's Report.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[ryoder 1,384]

billvon

That means reducing global emissions of CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and reducing coal use to almost zero and using up to seven million sq km (2.7 million square miles) for land energy crops.

DENVER – Xcel Energy announced Tuesday its hope to deliver 100 percent of its electricity to customers carbon-free by 2050 and to reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2030.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/xcel-energy-pledges-goal-of-delivering-carbon-free-electricity-by-2050

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[AtrusBatleth 0]

ryoder

DENVER – Xcel Energy announced Tuesday its hope to deliver 100 percent of its electricity to customers carbon-free by 2050 and to reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2030.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/xcel-energy-pledges-goal-of-delivering-carbon-free-electricity-by-2050

I can't seem to find details on how they expect to practically achieve this goal given the intermittent nature of renewables other than "technologies not economical at the time", but reading between the lines I can only assume massive battery storage. I feel like it's a race between grid-scale economical battery storage (without creating it's own environmental crisis) and economical fusion: which one will I see in my lifetime (if any)?

It's either massive battery storage or they think they might put up some new nuclear plants, perhaps why they say 100% "carbon free" vs renewable.

Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

[ryoder 1,384]

AtrusBatleth

***DENVER – Xcel Energy announced Tuesday its hope to deliver 100 percent of its electricity to customers carbon-free by 2050 and to reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2030.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/xcel-energy-pledges-goal-of-delivering-carbon-free-electricity-by-2050

I can't seem to find details on how they expect to practically achieve this goal given the intermittent nature of renewables other than "technologies not economical at the time", but reading between the lines I can only assume massive battery storage. I feel like it's a race between grid-scale economical battery storage (without creating it's own environmental crisis) and economical fusion: which one will I see in my lifetime (if any)?

It's either massive battery storage or they think they might put up some new nuclear plants, perhaps why they say 100% "carbon free" vs renewable.

A battery does not need to be chemical; It might also be gravitational.

I just recently saw this, which gave me quite a surprise.
I thought the idea of pumped water storage was new, but the construction started in 1974:

Tom Scott video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jx_bJgIFhI

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

And CO has lots of elevation variation.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

I can't seem to find details on how they expect to practically achieve this goal given the intermittent nature of renewables other than "technologies not economical at the time", but reading between the lines I can only assume massive battery storage.

And/or pumped storage, compressed air storage, gravitational storage and thermal storage.

Quote

I feel like it's a race between grid-scale economical battery storage (without creating it's own environmental crisis) and economical fusion: which one will I see in my lifetime (if any)?

Given that there's already grid scale storage out there that's cheaper than grid power - I suspect you have your answer.

Quote

It's either massive battery storage or they think they might put up some new nuclear plants, perhaps why they say 100% "carbon free" vs renewable.

Perhaps. New fission plant designs may make nuclear power economical.

[ryoder 1,384]

Another CO power utility just out-did Xcel's target: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/12/07/platte-river-power-to-go-100-zero-carbon-by-2030/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

>Another CO power utility just out-did Xcel's target:

With a lot of caveats.

Overall I think 100% renewable power by X date is a bad idea. A much better goal would be 70-80% renewable power by (X/2) date. That solves most of the problem and is much easier to reach. Like anything else, the last 10% will take 90% of the effort, and cost a whole lot more than the first 50%. We'd be better off getting to 70%, saving the money and using that money to bring the next city over to 70%.

[ryoder 1,384]

World's largest container shipper Maersk aims to be CO2 neutral by 2050

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maersk-emissions/worlds-largest-container-shipper-maerskaims-to-be-co2-neutral-by-2050-idUSKBN1O40QW

But no details in the article about how they intend to do it.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ScottishJohn 25]

Maersk are building the worlds largest Rotor Ships to transport good etc.
While this will not eliminate the use of fossil fuel it could improve fuel efficiency by as much as 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship

John

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers