All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

When fish, frogs, cats, dogs, etc. fall from the sky, it is caused by CO2 emitted by humans.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The math on staying below 2°C of global warming looks increasingly brutal

Here's a capsule summary of the big UN climate talks this year:

1) The good news: Every country is submitting a detailed pledge to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

2) The bad: Those pledges, added together, aren't nearly enough to keep us below 2°C of global warming.

The idea that the world can stay below 2°C looks increasingly delusional.

Consider: the Earth’s average temperature has already risen 0.8°C since the 19th century. And if you look at the current rapid rise in global greenhouse-gas emissions,we’ll likely put enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by mid-century to surpass the 2°C limit — and soar past the 4°C limit by century's end. That’s well above anything once deemed "dangerous." Getting back on track for 2°C would, at this point, entail the sort of drastic emissions cuts usually associated with economic calamities, like the collapse of the Soviet Union or the 2008 financial crisis. And we’d have to repeat those cuts for decades.

Predicted temperature increases under various emissions scenarios:

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5551004/two-degrees

Run for your lives! Global warming and nothing you can do to stop it.

 

[Meandering]

Pledges by top three greenhouse gas emitters shut out other nations
Study finds pledges by top greenhouse gas emitters leaves little room for others; urges greater R&D
Date:
October 19, 2015
Source:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Over two weeks in December, delegates from virtually every country in the world will gather in Paris for the 21st annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Their ambitious goal: to hammer out a binding international agreement on climate action.

In advance of the conference, organizers have requested that countries submit Intended Nationally Determined Contributions -- pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by an amount that should be "fair and ambitious," in order to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Based on the pledges submitted, the U.S. plans to reduce emissions by 28 percent by 2025, and 83 percent by 2050, while the EU will work toward reductions of 40 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050. China has not pledged a reduction, but has indicated that its emissions will peak by 2030; China also aims to improve its energy efficiency by 60 to 65 percent.

Despite these substantial commitments, the researchers found that the rest of the world's nations would be forced to adopt per capita emissions 7 to 14 times lower than the EU, U.S., or China, by 2030, in order to keep global temperatures from rising higher than 2 C.

"The challenge of this problem is, we have about 7 billion people on the planet, and about 1 billion of us live pretty well," says Susan Solomon, the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT. "The other 6 billion are struggling to develop, and if they develop using carbon as we did, the planet is going to get quite hot. And hot is, of course, just the beginning of the story in terms of what climate change actually means."

In sum, Solomon and her colleagues conclude that even if the three largest emitters fulfill their pledges, they would "lock the world into a higher long-term temperature increase" of around 3 C.

"People don't realize that 2 degrees Celsius is a big change," Solomon says. For instance, she points to the summer of 2003, in which an unprecedented hot summer killed more than 10,000 people throughout Europe.

"That summer was about 2 degrees Celsius hotter than an average European summer," Solomon says. "By 2050, every summer in Europe will probably be 2 degrees hotter than average, if we keep going the way we're going right now. Three degrees, in my opinion, is a really frightening change."

To stave off additional warming, Solomon says countries will need to significantly ramp up efforts to decarbonize. In the short term, she says, international climate talks must integrate discussions on research and development, to spur technological innovation.

"We have to decarbonize the energy system via research and development, changes in technologies and policies, and we need to encourage those to happen," Solomon says. "We'll get the environment we ask for. History has proven time and again that public engagement is essential in making anything change on this planet."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151019123442.htm

. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-m.../global-and-european-temperature-assessment-4

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Over two weeks in December, delegates from virtually every country in the world will gather in Paris for the 21st annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Their ambitious goal: to hammer out a binding international agreement on climate action.

Obama has said that he would not submit this agreement to the Senate for 2/3 vote and ratification as a treaty. It will be by his executive authority that he will commit the U.S. to the agreement.

researchers found that the rest of the world's nations would be forced to adopt per capita emissions 7 to 14 times lower than the EU, U.S., or China, by 2030, in order to keep global temperatures from rising higher than 2 C.

Like I said, global warming! Run for your lives!

 

[Meandering]

Carbon Nanotube Pollutants Found in Human Lungs


Oct 21, 2015 04:10 PM ET // by Glenn McDonald

Some potentially disturbing news out of France this week: Researchers studying the lungs of young Parisian asthma patients have found evidence that man-made carbon nanotubes are becoming a common air pollutant.

Carbon nanotubes are deliberately manufactured in several industries — their unique physical properties make them useful in electronics and nanotechnology, especially. But they can also be created accidentally, as a byproduct of catalytic converters in automobile engines.

(EEK your cellphone computer, and your car will kill you!)

The study — conducted by researchers in Paris and at Rice University in Houston — found that carbon nanotubes from the asthma patients’ lungs are similar to nanotube samples taken from the exhaust pipes of Paris vehicles. It’s apparently not just a local problem, either: The samples are also similar to nanotubes found in Houston, in spider webs in India and even in polar ice cores.

No direct linkage is suggested between the nanotubes and asthma, but previous studies have questioned whether carbon nanotubes might act like asbestos, a known carcinogen.

“The concentrations of nanotubes are so low in these samples that it’s hard to believe they would cause asthma, but you never know,” says chemist Lon Wilson in press materials provided by Rice University. “What surprised me the most was that carbon nanotubes were the major component of the carbonaceous pollution we found in the samples.”

Nanotube-Infused Clothes Could Disable Nerve Gas Yeah! That was on my Christmas list!

The lung cells were taken from 69 randomly selected asthma patients in Paris between the ages of 2 and 17, and detected by high-resolution electron microscopy equipment. The nanotubes so small — from 10 to 60 nanometers in diameter — that traditional optical microscopes would not have been able to spot them.

Because nanotubes were found in all of the samples, the study led the researchers to conclude that carbon nanotubes are likely to be found in everybody.

Wilson says the carbon nanotubes samples were detected in heavy concentrations in the car tailpipes, but were also found in random swabs of dust in and around the city.

“It’s kind of ironic. In our laboratory, working with carbon nanotubes, we wear facemasks to prevent exactly what we’re seeing in these samples, yet everyone walking around out there in the world probably has at least a small concentration of carbon nanotubes in their lungs,” he said.

The study was published this week in the journal EbioMedicine.

via Phys.org

http://news.discovery.com/tech/carbon-nanotube-pollutants-found-in-human-lungs-151021.htm

.

 

[Meandering]

Cold winter, improved economy fueled 14% rise in N.J. carbon emissions
October 19, 2015, 6:52 PM Last updated: Tuesday, October 20, 2015, 10:52 AM
By JAMES M. O’NEILL

New Jersey’s carbon emissions shot up by 14 percent in 2014 — reversing three straight years of declines even as the Obama administration moves to cut carbon emissions to address climate change.

A combination of factors — a resurgent economy, a particularly cold winter and power plants shutting down in other states — pushed up demand for energy from New Jersey’s plants. They responded, in the process emitting 17 million metric tons of carbon.

The state has made strides to clean up its power plants, and a one-year increase in itself would not have much of an impact on climate change regionally, said Monica Mazurek, a Rutgers University expert on urban air pollution.

But if the increases continue over the next several years, it could make it harder for New Jersey to meet new carbon reduction goals set by the administration. Carbon, generated when fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas are burned, is a greenhouse gas linked to climate change. And as a coastal state, New Jersey is at greater risk to be hurt by the effects of climate change, such as a rise in sea levels.

Sea levels have risen a foot and a half along parts of the New Jersey coast over the past century, and they are expected to rise an additional foot and a half over the next 35 years, according to Ken Miller, an earth and planetary sciences expert at Rutgers. And with seas higher, each storm is able to push that much more water toward land in the form of a surge.

Sea level rise also means more flooding from high tides — which can even occur on sunny days — causing frequent road closures, overwhelming storm water systems and jeopardizing other infrastructure, such as gas lines, public transportation and ground-level electric equipment. Besides towns on the Jersey Shore, the floods are happening in the Meadowlands and along the lower Passaic and Hackensack rivers.

Carbon emissions from the state’s 45 power plants dwarfed such emissions from other sources in 2014, including refineries and chemical companies. But many industries emit carbon — from the state’s food and beverage industry to its pharmaceutical manufacturers and the Marcal paper factory in Elmwood Park. Even colleges with energy plants on their campuses emit carbon.

Overall, the state’s carbon emissions totaled 27 million metric tons, up from 23.75 million the prior year. Emissions from the power plants rose by 17 percent.

The state’s largest carbon polluter was PSEG Power’s Bergen Generating Station in Ridgefield, which burns natural gas and can supply up to 1,200 megawatts of electricity. It alone accounted for nearly 10 percent of the state total, emitting 2.6 million metric tons, up 5 percent.

A spokeswoman, Nancy Tucker, said its location and low cost led the independent operator of the region’s electrical grid to ask for increased production.

“More run time means more total emissions, but Bergen’s emission rate is much lower than other fossil fuel technologies, making it a good choice for the environment,” said Tucker.

PSEG Power’s Jersey City plant had a 9 percent increase in carbon emissions, and emissions more than doubled at its Mercer Generating Station.

Ray Dotter, a spokesman for PJM Interconnection, which operates the grid, pointed to an improving economy and harsh weather as reasons for an increase in energy demand. In January 2014, for example, sustained arctic temperatures forced people in the region to run their heating systems more. Of the 10 highest winter peaks PJM had ever experienced, eight of them occurred that January.

In addition, some power companies shuttered some of their oldest, least efficient coal-burning plants in Midwestern states, deciding it would be too expensive to retrofit them with the new emission control equipment required under new federal air pollution rules.

Finally, when demand increases, the infrastructure can sometimes get congested — there’s only so much electricity that transmission lines can send into a region from the power plants with the cheapest power. When that happens, local plants can be asked to increase production, Dotter said.

The Elmwood Park Power Plant, owned by Talen Energy of Allentown, Pa., saw carbon emissions jump 61 percent in 2014, though its overall numbers were relatively small at 77,789 metric tons. The facility produced far more electricity than in prior years, said spokesman Todd Martin.

Other large carbon polluters in New Jersey included the Phillips 66 Bayway Refinery in Linden, with 2.5 million metric tons, and the Linden Cogeneration and Linden Generating facilities, each with 2.3 million metric tons.

But even these numbers pale by comparison to some of the large coal-fired power plants in the Midwest. One plant in Pennsylvania, called Bruce Mansfield, emitted 15.6 million metric tons of carbon.

Overall, New Jersey emits far less carbon from the sources tracked by the federal Environmental Protection Agency than some other states that rely heavily on coal-fired power plants. Neighboring Pennsylvania’s plants combined had 99 million metric tons of carbon emissions, down from 114 million in 2011. Indiana’s emitted 104 million metric tons of carbon, Ohio’s 98 million metric tons and Kentucky’s 85 million. Texas dwarfed all other states with 239 million metric tons of carbon.

In August, President Obama issued a sweeping plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants by a third nationwide from 2005 levels over the next 15 years. New Jersey’s plants would have to cut emissions by a combined 26 percent.

The Christie administration recently attacked the plan, saying it punishes states that have already made significant reductions — in New Jersey’s case, by a third between 2001 and 2012. Half of New Jersey’s power is generated by nuclear plants, which emit no carbon.

While power plants dominate carbon emissions in New Jersey, many other entities also are in play. Rutgers, for example, reported 95,340 metric tons of emissions, Princeton University reported 85,575 metric tons and Montclair State University reported 36,853.

The Rutgers emissions are primarily produced from the Busch Cogeneration Plant that provides electricity and heat for most of two dozen residence halls and 70 academic buildings, said spokesman E.J. Miranda. Rutgers has constructed two solar energy facilities on the Livingston campus to reduce its carbon footprint, Miranda said.

Montclair State has a cogeneration plant that produces steam and electricity, with the steam cycled to campus buildings for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer.

Marcal reported 62,042 metric tons, and the Passaic Valley Sewer Commission’s Newark treatment plant reported 24,702 metric tons. The capped, retired 1-E Landfill owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority had 42,616 metric tons, mostly methane, which is produced as garbage decays.

The EPA’s annual data on carbon emissions reflects only about half of all such emissions, since small industrial sites and vehicle emissions are not included.

“Although New Jersey energy producers have made important changes by switching from coal to natural gas and municipal solid waste fuels, the state still has significant greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector,” said Mazurek, the air pollution expert. “As a major transportation corridor with multimodal transportation hubs, New Jersey can become a leader in reducing carbon emissions by investing in alternative fueled transportation infrastructure and by accelerating the current pace of its development.”
http://www.northjersey.com/news/col...led-14-rise-in-n-j-carbon-emissions-1.1436320

Freeze to death, to save the planet.

.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Sea levels have risen a foot and a half along parts of the New Jersey coast over the past century, and they are expected to rise an additional foot and a half over the next 35 years, according to Ken Miller, an earth and planetary sciences expert at Rutgers.

Sinking ground should not be mistaken for rising sea level. There is no evidence to support the idea that the oceans have raised by 18" in the past century. Being a space cadet does not make you planetary science "expert"

Miller estimated this from soil sampling in NJ and apparently hasn't completely accounted for compaction of soils - Everyone else - even the Hysterians claim no more than 6" but, of course, since 1992 it is rising faster (according to them).

When marked at low tide in the 18th century on Tasmania, the tide is less than 1 meter. But at low tide the mark is still clearly above sea level. If SL had increased18" it would be under water. Tides vary with the position of the Moon. And sea level varies with moon and sun changes in gravity. "Sea Level" is a constantly moving datum and is arbitrary.

http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm

We get to test science again after NASA predicted a 99% chance of a 5.0 or better earthquake for Los Angeles. USGS gives it no more than 40% ... but if such a quake occurs it will give the USGS a black eye and NASA will look like geniuses. Truth is we can make a lot of predictions and be wrong and no one remembers. If you are right, then you can take the credit even if the prediction was unsupportable. It looks good even when flawed.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

created accidentally, as a byproduct of catalytic converters in automobile engines.

found that carbon nanotubes from the asthma patients’ lungs are similar to nanotube samples taken from the exhaust pipes of Paris vehicles.

nanotubes found in Houston, in spider webs in India and even in polar ice cores.

Because nanotubes were found in all of the samples, the study led the researchers to conclude that carbon nanotubes are likely to be found in everybody.

Wilson says the carbon nanotubes samples were detected in heavy concentrations in the car tailpipes, but were also found in random swabs of dust in and around the city.

Seems to me that CO2 produced by man not only causes climate change but carbon nanotubes. Needless to say, all electric cars would solve the bulk of the problem. Or horse drawn carriages.

 

[Meandering]

Sinking ground should not be mistaken for rising sea level. There is no evidence to support the idea that the oceans have raised by 18" in the past century. Being a space cadet does not make you planetary science "expert"

Miller estimated this from soil sampling in NJ and apparently hasn't completely accounted for compaction of soils - Everyone else - even the Hysterians claim no more than 6" but, of course, since 1992 it is rising faster (according to them).

When marked at low tide in the 18th century on Tasmania, the tide is less than 1 meter. But at low tide the mark is still clearly above sea level. If SL had increased18" it would be under water. Tides vary with the position of the Moon. And sea level varies with moon and sun changes in gravity. "Sea Level" is a constantly moving datum and is arbitrary.

http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm

We get to test science again after NASA predicted a 99% chance of a 5.0 or better earthquake for Los Angeles. USGS gives it no more than 40% ... but if such a quake occurs it will give the USGS a black eye and NASA will look like geniuses. Truth is we can make a lot of predictions and be wrong and no one remembers. If you are right, then you can take the credit even if the prediction was unsupportable. It looks good even when flawed.

New Jersey is a funny place.

The meadow lands had been New York's garbage dump since the English were trying to keep Washington out of New York. After about 150 years of dumping garbage on them, the ground solidified and they built Giants Stadium, industrial complexes and shopping malls. Much of the natural salt marshes have been backfilled. Sinking soils in these areas are a given, but hey! It comes in handy when the state U scientists need something to study.


.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It's all about the research money