Global Warming: 2014 warmest year on record!

[alhoon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30852588

The gist: 2014 was, again, the warmest year on record. If you are about 25-30 years old and you remember a couple more years as being "warmest on record", you remember right. We're breaking records pretty fast.

See that trend?




Now, the oil lobbies and the bribed journalists can say it's all coincidence but truth is, there is climate change. Is it affected by humanity's actions?
That's a different question. My answer is yes, our actions warm the planet. We generate and consume about 500 EJ (500 x 10^18 Joules) yearly. That's a lot of energy.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbprojec...4&pid=44&aid=2

[Caligula's_Horse]

And there's really not much that can be done to stop it.
Its all down to the prisoner's dilemma. If any one nation, or even group of nation decides to make the hard transition away from fossil fuels, they'll be screwing over their own economy, and because the rest of the world didn't transition along with them, everyone suffers from global warming anyway, except you're coming into the crisis in the midst of a recession because you made the switch from fossil fuels.

The only thing that might work is developing some alternative energy source that's more cost efficient then fossil fuels; several decades of research ought to do it, but by then, who knows how much damage will be caused.
Well, either that, or international cooperation on a scale we've never seen before. Seeing how bad nations are at cooperating and making sacrifices for the good of someone other then themselves, nuclear fusion sounds more likely, to be honest.

[chilon]

The only thing that might work is developing some alternative energy source that's more cost efficient then fossil fuels; several decades of research ought to do it, but by then, who knows how much damage will be caused.
Well, either that, or international cooperation on a scale we've never seen before. Seeing how bad nations are at cooperating and making sacrifices for the good of someone other then themselves, nuclear fusion sounds more likely, to be honest.

If by several decades you mean the next 2-4 years then yes. People don't realize that solar is already extremely close to being as cost effective as fossil fuel and the cost is on a downward curve with innovations. In 10 years it won't even be open for debate. Combine solar, wind, geothermal, hydro with probably about a 50% gain in energy efficiency and we are doing fine. Also we need more infrastructure projects in America like Mag-Lev trains like they have in Europe and Asia. Long term thats the future.

I already provided many graphs on this here

[Caligula's_Horse]

If by several decades you mean the next 2-4 years then yes. People don't realize that solar is already extremely close to being as cost effective as fossil fuel and the cost is on a downward curve with innovations. In 10 years it won't even be open for debate. Combine solar, wind, geothermal, hydro with probably about a 50% gain in energy efficiency and we are doing fine. Also we need more infrastructure projects in America like Mag-Lev trains like they have in Europe and Asia. Long term thats the future.

I already provided many graphs on this here

Cheaper solar collectors could be part of the solution, but there's only so much they can do. Being at the mercy of both the weather and nightfall severely limits their application, as is the reduced solar output at higher altitudes.
And let me also add that assuming the reduced price you mentioned is realized, that's still not good enough to compete with coal, gas or even nuclear. Wind suffers from similar issues as solar, while hydroelectric and geothermal requires you strike lucky on geography (with a dam worthy river or thermal vent, respectively). There are also more "exotic" methods like tide power and growing algae to make biofuel, but as of today they're economically unsound to the extreme.

All in all, nuclear is the only technologically mature method with a real capacity to replace fossil fuels, and even that's at an economic loss. Unfortunately, it requires a high initial investment that's beyond the means of most developing nations and even makes developed nations cringe, in addition to being wrapped up in its own brand of politics, and making for a useful cover story for a weapons program.
So either renewables make drastic improvements in the next few years, or we're stuck with fossil fuels while waiting for nuclear fusion ("20 years away" for the last 40 years, and counting).

[chilon]

Cheaper solar collectors could be part of the solution, but there's only so much they can do. Being at the mercy of both the weather and nightfall severely limits their application, as is the reduced solar output at higher altitudes.
And let me also add that assuming the reduced price you mentioned is realized, that's still not good enough to compete with coal, gas or even nuclear. Wind suffers from similar issues as solar, while hydroelectric and geothermal requires you strike lucky on geography (with a dam worthy river or thermal vent, respectively). There are also more "exotic" methods like tide power and growing algae to make biofuel, but as of today they're economically unsound to the extreme.

First you are underestimating how soon grid parity with fossil will be reached and surpassed.

Second, you are underestimating just how much improvement we can gain from energy efficiency in buildings, smart grids, smart homes, etc. At least 50% more efficient as California already is indicating.

All in all, nuclear is the only technologically mature method with a real capacity to replace fossil fuels, and even that's at an economic loss. Unfortunately, it requires a high initial investment that's beyond the means of most developing nations and even makes developed nations cringe, in addition to being wrapped up in its own brand of politics, and making for a useful cover story for a weapons program.
So either renewables make drastic improvements in the next few years, or we're stuck with fossil fuels while waiting for nuclear fusion ("20 years away" for the last 40 years, and counting).

Renewables don't need a "drastic improvement" though. They simply have to keep improving on the curve they are already on and reach more market penetration.

And again, there are all sorts of other things that can be done to improve energy efficiency by 50% or so. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[Sire Brenshar]

And there's really not much that can be done to stop it.
Its all down to the prisoner's dilemma. If any one nation, or even group of nation decides to make the hard transition away from fossil fuels, they'll be screwing over their own economy, and because the rest of the world didn't transition along with them, everyone suffers from global warming anyway, except you're coming into the crisis in the midst of a recession because you made the switch from fossil fuels.

The only thing that might work is developing some alternative energy source that's more cost efficient then fossil fuels; several decades of research ought to do it, but by then, who knows how much damage will be caused.
Well, either that, or international cooperation on a scale we've never seen before. Seeing how bad nations are at cooperating and making sacrifices for the good of someone other then themselves, nuclear fusion sounds more likely, to be honest.

While youre right to invoke game theory, Ill just point out this isnt 'prisoners dilemma' but 'stag hunt'.

[ShockBlast]

Even if the entire world transitions to non-fossil fuel it will not stop the global warming.The CO2 is already there in the atmosphere, it will take thousands of years if not more for the levels to come down.

We need to look into ways of getting that CO2 down ourselves from the atmosphere.

[Stario]

CO2 does not drive the climate. What? We're approaching 400ppm? (last time I checked).
This is nothing, try 4000ppm during the Ordovician Silurian- and guess what even at these high CO2 levels there was glaciation.

This is evidence:
1. CO2 does not drive the climate;
2. CO2 is quite capable of rising without human interventions even as high as 4000ppm (but who cares as even at those levels there was no runaway greenhouse induced global warming, instead the opposite happened, we got glaciation).

This climate change talk is no more that business between individuals with their own personal agendas.
If I can get more power for my buck out of that Nuclear powerplant as opposed to those windmills, guess what I am opting for.

[Odenat]

If I can get more power for my buck out of that Nuclear powerplant as opposed to those windmills, guess what I am opting for.

Nuclear powerplants have a tendency to explode. Nuclear wastes are a big issue too. Anybody heard about a windmill exploding and affecting millions of people? Nope, that's why we must invest to solar and wind energy even if they are more expensive.

History showed us that if invested enough, prices for new technologies will fall sooner or later.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Nuclear powerplants have a tendency to explode. Nuclear wastes are a big issue too. Anybody heard about a windmill exploding and affecting millions of people? Nope, that's why we must invest to solar and wind energy even if they are more expensive.

History showed us that if invested enough, prices for new technologies will fall sooner or later.

Funny thing about that, solar power actually kills more people then nuclear.

There have only been three real nuclear disasters since the technology was adopted--three mile island (single digit death toll), Fukushima (single digit death toll) and Chernobyl (triple digit death toll). All three of these plants had major design flaws, especially Chernobyl, that wouldn't be present in any new plant built today. And even with the design flaws, nuclear plants don't explode so much as leak, which while not much fun, isn't exactly apocalyptic--only 3% of background radiation is of human origin, and that includes nuclear tests that release a great deal more fallout then your average leaking reactor (and again the vast majority of reactors don't leak).

So all in all, the number of people who die in industrial accidents making solar panels is much higher then in the nuclear industry. Turns out the Arsenic they use in the panels is more dangerous then working in a nuclear reactor.

Now, nuclear has its problems, mostly a high initial cost and being political dynamite, but at least it delivers, unlike solar and wind which can only supplement the fossil fuel power grid rather then replacing it. Having mother nature control the on/off switch might appeal to one's inner hippy, but industrially and economically speaking, its a major drawback.

[Odenat]

Funny thing about that, solar power actually kills more people then nuclear.

There have only been three real nuclear disasters since the technology was adopted--three mile island (single digit death toll), Fukushima (single digit death toll) and Chernobyl (triple digit death toll). All three of these plants had major design flaws, especially Chernobyl, that wouldn't be present in any new plant built today. And even with the design flaws, nuclear plants don't explode so much as leak, which while not much fun, isn't exactly apocalyptic--only 3% of background radiation is of human origin, and that includes nuclear tests that release a great deal more fallout then your average leaking reactor (and again the vast majority of reactors don't leak).

So all in all, the number of people who die in industrial accidents making solar panels is much higher then in the nuclear industry. Turns out the Arsenic they use in the panels is more dangerous then working in a nuclear reactor.

Now, nuclear has its problems, mostly a high initial cost and being political dynamite, but at least it delivers, unlike solar and wind which can only supplement the fossil fuel power grid rather then replacing it. Having mother nature control the on/off switch might appeal to one's inner hippy, but industrially and economically speaking, its a major drawback.

Really, you are comparing the number of people died during nuclear disasters to the number of people died during the making of solar panels? How can i defend my point against such a flawless logic, lol. You know, bears are killing more people than nuclear disasters every year, so this also shows how safe nuclear plants are. Meanwhile 156.000 people lost their homes due to Fukushima, radiation levels all over Japan (and the earth of course) are increased.

How many out of hundreds of nuclear power plants all around the world exploded so far? Nuclear energy is by far one of the, if not the most, safest energy sources out there. France figured it out. Rest of the world can too. Nuclear energy is the most efficient option with the least footprint for us to power our world and to be able to reach the stars.

Actually, till today there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants. 57 of them occurred since Chernobyl so these are not old evenements.

Whatever you say, nuclear plants will always be risky, they are potential threats, terrorists can target nuclear plants, they can be bombed during wars etc. etc. Also, the wastes are a continuous problem too. And don't forget, even if nuclear energy is 100% safe (which it isn't), we have limited supply of uranium.

Renewable energy can and will replace oil and coal energy, it's only a matter of time. According to a 2011 projection by the International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world's electricity within 50 years. Combine it with wind and geotermal energy and our future seems to be safe if we focus our resources to the correct energy sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewab...conomic_trends
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/...l-gas-and-oil/

[PointOfViewGun]

Nuclear powerplants have a tendency to explode. Nuclear wastes are a big issue too. Anybody heard about a windmill exploding and affecting millions of people? Nope, that's why we must invest to solar and wind energy even if they are more expensive.

History showed us that if invested enough, prices for new technologies will fall sooner or later.

How many out of hundreds of nuclear power plants all around the world exploded so far? Nuclear energy is by far one of the, if not the most, safest energy sources out there. France figured it out. Rest of the world can too. Nuclear energy is the most efficient option with the least footprint for us to power our world and to be able to reach the stars.

[alhoon]

How many out of hundreds of nuclear power plants all around the world exploded so far? Nuclear energy is by far one of the, if not the most, safest energy sources out there. France figured it out. Rest of the world can too. Nuclear energy is the most efficient option with the least footprint for us to power our world and to be able to reach the stars.

That.

Yes, if your reactor melts \ flood hits it, you have an environmental disaster of epic proportions. But that's rarer than a blue moon.
On the contrary, solar panels and windmills have environmental impact (noise, disrupting bird flight, large area requirement to be exfoliated) that while insignificant compared to a nuclear disaster, it's always there.
You can easily go 50 years without a nuclear disaster in your 1500Mwatt plant. Now, do you know how much land you have to cover with solar panels to get 1500Mwatt? How many hilltops to cover with windmills?

You have a desert like they have in USA? Good for you! Go for solar. All the power to you.
You don't? well, go for nuclear.

[Sphere]

We need to look into ways of getting that CO2 down ourselves from the atmosphere.

A much simpler way to get the same net result is to deposit sulfides into the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratos...engineering%29

CO2 and other similar substances cause a greenhouse effect because they are transparent in the visible spectrum (which accounts for much of the solar spectrum) but opaque to a huge swath of the infrared spectrum (which accounts for essentially the entire spectrum being reflected off of the Earth). I.e. CO2 lets sunlight through, but traps earth-light. Glass in a greenhouse does the same thing, hence the term.

Certain sulfides on the other hand would increase the opaqueness of the atmosphere to sunlight. What makes this practical is that even relatively small amounts of sulfides in the atmosphere would block a great deal of sunlight. So it would not take a very large/expensive program to have a substantial effect. This is in contrast to trying to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. There is currently no practical way of doing it on a large enough scale to have any meaningful effect.

The politics involved in a sulfide deposition program, however, are very tricky. It is intentional climate control. There would be winners and losers involved depending on what sort of global temperature was aimed for.

[ShockBlast]

A much simpler way to get the same net result is to deposit sulfides into the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratos...engineering%29

CO2 and other similar substances cause a greenhouse effect because they are transparent in the visible spectrum (which accounts for much of the solar spectrum) but opaque to a huge swath of the infrared spectrum (which accounts for essentially the entire spectrum being reflected off of the Earth). I.e. CO2 lets sunlight through, but traps earth-light. Glass in a greenhouse does the same thing, hence the term.

Certain sulfides on the other hand would increase the opaqueness of the atmosphere to sunlight. What makes this practical is that even relatively small amounts of sulfides in the atmosphere would block a great deal of sunlight. So it would not take a very large/expensive program to have a substantial effect. This is in contrast to trying to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. There is currently no practical way of doing it on a large enough scale to have any meaningful effect.

The politics involved in a sulfide deposition program, however, are very tricky. It is intentional climate control. There would be winners and losers involved depending on what sort of global temperature was aimed for.

Wow, nice find.

Well, on very long term I still think we should aim at getting CO2 out of the atmosphere, we aren`t there yet technology wise but we will be one day.
Until then, this idea is very good, I like it !

I don`t think it will be a problem in mustering support in the next decades in the EU, if the USA is also up for it then we can team up with Japan and also convince PRC.With those four nations the vast majority will follow.

[Phier]

Always do a bit of digging...
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...is-still-real/

And then you have things like this...



Personally I'd be more worried about the possibility of a coming trough..

[Dr Zoidberg]

Never mind...

[removeduser_487563287433]

Always do a bit of digging...
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...is-still-real/

And then you have things like this...



Personally I'd be more worried about the possibility of a coming trough..

Why are you posting something that's clearly dated from before the end of 2014 and starts with the words "I'm going out on a limb here".

The DATA from two different authorities (that'd be ING NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration not that you give a single ), on the actual full year is clear: it was the hottest year on record.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7556423/2014-hottest-year

The ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. Personally, you may be worried about a coming trough. But that's because you ing despise basing anything you believe in on the facts to hand.

[Phier]

Why are you posting something that's clearly dated from before the end of 2014 and starts with the words "I'm going out on a limb here".

The DATA from two different authorities (that'd be ING NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration not that you give a single ), on the actual full year is clear: it was the hottest year on record.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7556423/2014-hottest-year

The ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. Personally, you may be worried about a coming trough. But that's because you ing despise basing anything you believe in on the facts to hand.

Its only recently that the summer of 1936 got "reinstated" by NASA as the hottest summer on record. How DATA is interpreted, and what DATA is available, will allow claims to be made which are not always quite true. So far long term global warming predictions have all been false and goalposts have been moved in my lifetime more than once. I'm not losing any sleep over global warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/1...erence-update/



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/1...limate-report/

CLOSING

According to NOAA definitions, global surface temperatures for 2014 were “More Unlikely Than Likely” the highest on record, but they failed to note that on the main page of their State of the Climate report. NOAA used a specific ENSO index to claim that El Niño conditions did not exist in 2014, when at least one other index says El Niño conditions existed. And NOAA failed to discuss the actual causes of the elevated global sea surface temperatures in 2014, while making it appear that there was a general warming of the surfaces of the global oceans.

NOAA never stated specifically that 2014’s record high surface temperatures were a result of human-induced global warming, but they implied it…thus all the hoopla. NOAA has omitted key discussions within that report, which biases it toward human-induced global warming. In other words, the NOAA State of the Climate report was misleading. NOAA has once again shown it is a political entity, not a scientific one. And that’s a damn shame. The public needs openness from NOAA about climate; we do not need to be misled by politically motivated misdirection and misinformation.

[alhoon]

A much simpler way to get the same net result is to deposit sulfides into the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratos...engineering%29

Sulfides are very dangerous and one of the main atmosphere emissions that we try to keep under control!

CO2 won't take thousands of years to stabilize; it could be absorbed by the sea and form CaCO3.