Catholic Climate Movement

[lynnvinc]

I think that perhaps those figures for wind turbine economics include some inappropriate use of wind power, such as trying to send it over very long distances and incurring transmission losses, or trying to store energy for later use which is also very expensive. But using wind power only when it is available, and only within a reasonable distance of where it is generated is a much better deal.

Not to mention there is a whole big Alt Energy Denialist Industry propagating falsehoods and false comparisons with fossil fuels…no doubt also funded by the fossil fuel industries. All of a sudden they are concerned about birds??! What about the 50% extinction of bird species within 100 or so years from global warming, which is already happening?

They act as if there are no externalities re fossil fuels. The don’t count the costs and env destruction and health harms from extractions, shipping, accidents and spills, leakages, processing (those cancer alleys), burning (local, regional, and global harms), and waste disposal and spills (such as coal ash spills) and dumping in rivers (which Trump has now allowed with impunity).

They never mention of the tremendous subsidies and tax-break fossil fuels get directly or indirectly in terms of infrastructure help and such…which are now on the increase with Trump. It might even slide into “boondoggle” if, say, there is more (or equal) energy (name removed by moderator)ut into extracting oil from tar sand (including all stages of the process) than the energy we get out of it – hidden by all those subsidies; then taxpayers will be throwing their money down the toilet. Who gains? The fossil fuel industry, not the people.

Everything I’ve read from many and various sources say wind is now competitive with (or cheaper than) fossil fuel based energy, and solar has come down drastically and is (or is almost) competitive.

This Alt Energy Denial Campaign is just spewing out other jerk-you-around lies and deceptions so as to prevent us from having a more viable, life-hospitable world for the kids and their kids and progeny.

 

[lynnvinc]

On a more positive note, China is forging ahead with their green programs.

See “China is building first ‘forest city’ of 40,000 trees to fight air pollution”
msn.com/en-in/travel/news/china-is-building-first-forest-city-of-40000-trees-to-fight-air-pollution/ar-BBDtkSb?li=AAggbRN&ocid=mailsignout

Fortunately though, there are some good news stories on the horizon; with many of them coming from China. The country has been leading the way when it comes to ‘green living’ in recent years, with the government announcing it had completed construction of the world’s largest floating solar farm. Now, in an attempt to curb the production of toxic gasses, the country is continuing to pave the way (so to speak)*with the construction of one of the world’s first ‘forest cities’.

Designed by Stefano Boeri, who you might remember also designed two vertical skyscraper ‘forests’, the city is currently under construction in Liuzhou, Guangxi Province.
Once completed, the new city will reportedly host 30,000 people and - thanks to the abundance of trees and plants - will absorb almost 10,000 tons of CO2, 57 tons of pollutants per year and produce approximately 900 tons of oxygen annually.*
The city will achieve these rather impressive figures thanks to roughly a million plants from over 100 species, as well as 40,000 trees being planted in facades over almost every surface imaginable.

The new Liuzhou Forest City will connect to the existing Liuzhou via a series of fast rail services and electric cars;*it will also reportedly house a number of schools and two hospitals. There are also plans to make the city self-sustainable with regards to power, thanks to geothermal and solar energy resources.

Maybe the Catholic Climate Movement can devise some symbol of approval for such programs. (I remember when we had a water conservation program in Aurora, IL, we thought to giving approval notices to the brownest lawns at the end of summer…grass being a fairly drought-resistant plant and the water in the city wells having gone down 800 feet in the past 100 years).

 

[otjm]

Yes, you need to mention it, if only to recognize that many who support wind and solar also support nuclear (if done right). You should not paint all alternative energy advocates with the same brush.

I don’t paint them all with the same brush - there are too many brushes and too many sub groups.

I was simply going over some of the alternatives, many of which can find ample resistance by fairly large numbers of people.

 

[otjm]

On a more positive note, China is forging ahead with their green programs.

See “China is building first ‘forest city’ of 40,000 trees to fight air pollution”
msn.com/en-in/travel/news/china-is-building-first-forest-city-of-40000-trees-to-fight-air-pollution/ar-BBDtkSb?li=AAggbRN&ocid=mailsignout

Maybe the Catholic Climate Movement can devise some symbol of approval for such programs. (I remember when we had a water conservation program in Aurora, IL, we thought to giving approval notices to the brownest lawns at the end of summer…grass being a fairly drought-resistant plant and the water in the city wells having gone down 800 feet in the past 100 years).

Your comment about China planting plants and trees is a bit amusing. It reminds me of articles several decades ago which bemoaned the deforestation occurring in Asian countries (and others) and the almost total lack of reforestation. Even back then it was known that plants can balance out CO2 emissions, a point that seems to have been lost in history. The world might be farther ahead if we put aside arguments over emission taxes/credits, and get down to a natural means of dealing with them.

 

[lynnvinc]

Your comment about China planting plants and trees is a bit amusing. It reminds me of articles several decades ago which bemoaned the deforestation occurring in Asian countries (and others) and the almost total lack of reforestation. Even back then it was known that plants can balance out CO2 emissions, a point that seems to have been lost in history. The world might be farther ahead if we put aside arguments over emission taxes/credits, and get down to a natural means of dealing with them.

I think we need an “all of the above” approach…even carrying hankies to wipe hands in public restroom. All offered up to God, our Creator, Redeemer, and Friend. Nothing is too big or to small to offer to God.

 

[Ridgerunner]

On a more positive note, China is forging ahead with their green programs.

See “China is building first ‘forest city’ of 40,000 trees to fight air pollution”
msn.com/en-in/travel/news/china-is-building-first-forest-city-of-40000-trees-to-fight-air-pollution/ar-BBDtkSb?li=AAggbRN&ocid=mailsignout

Maybe the Catholic Climate Movement can devise some symbol of approval for such programs. (I remember when we had a water conservation program in Aurora, IL, we thought to giving approval notices to the brownest lawns at the end of summer…grass being a fairly drought-resistant plant and the water in the city wells having gone down 800 feet in the past 100 years).

Undoubtedly this Chinese program is better than nothing. But I’ll say a lot of what people think are “green” programs really aren’t all that “green” when it comes to CO2 sequestration.

The comment about Aurora Ill is interesting. Some grasses don’t “brown out” in the summertime at all. Some of them need a little water, but some don’t at all. But a lot of times, the temperature requirements preclude people using those species. Tall fescue, for example, is green all year where I live. When it gets hot, it just goes dormant. A lot of seed is produced in my part of the country to sell in the Deep South for lawn grass. But it doesn’t stand cold climates very well, so they don’t even recommend it for northern Missouri, though it’s everywhere in southern Missouri.

Bermuda will stay green all summer. Needs a little water, but rainfall is usually sufficient for that. But you can’t grow that very far north either.

The problem with lawn grasses, normally, is that people cut it too low for its own good. Grasses are “meant” to be higher than anyone cuts it for one’s lawn. It’s the same thing as “overgrazing” a pasture, just more even. That causes roots to die back so they can’t reach more moist ground down lower. It also encourages dessication of the ground because a well-trimmed lawn lets too much sunlight reach the ground. Consequently, the plants can’t convert much sunlight to energy or much CO2 to plant material.

Not being critical, and no city would allow it, probably, but a better way to conserve in Aurora, Ill, probably would have been to allow people to grow their lawns higher than most cities will tolerate. That would also improve the water table. Water runs off well-cut lawns far more readily than a “shaggy” lawn. Consequently, more water from the former goes into the storm drains, while more from the latter goes deep into the earth and into the water tables.

Lawns in the U.S. fascinate me. Probably because of cultural inheritance, we all want a lawn that looks like an English lawn…green and even and lush. But notwithstanding that England gets less rainfall that we do in, say, my part of the country (about half), but in England it rains just a little, very frequently, and in cooler temps. That’s terrible for CO2 sequestration, but it works well for a green appearance. England has been overgrazed for centuries without a lot of harm being done. But in most of the U.S., overgrazing (or mowing) leads to bad results because rainfall is concentrated in two seasons of the year, and it’s full sun most of the time.

In most Mediterranean countries, most don’t try for that “English pasture” look because it takes too much water and care to achieve it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Undoubtedly this Chinese program is better than nothing. But I’ll say a lot of what people think are “green” programs really aren’t all that “green” when it comes to CO2 sequestration.

The comment about Aurora Ill is interesting. Some grasses don’t “brown out” in the summertime at all. Some of them need a little water, but some don’t at all. But a lot of times, the temperature requirements preclude people using those species. Tall fescue, for example, is green all year where I live. When it gets hot, it just goes dormant. A lot of seed is produced in my part of the country to sell in the Deep South for lawn grass. But it doesn’t stand cold climates very well, so they don’t even recommend it for northern Missouri, though it’s everywhere in southern Missouri.

Bermuda will stay green all summer. Needs a little water, but rainfall is usually sufficient for that. But you can’t grow that very far north either.
…

Not sure what our grass type was, but we would go away for the entire summer many times, with no watering of our grass. It would not be green when we got back (just went dormant as you mentioned). Then when late summer and early fall rains would come, it would spring back to life and greenness.

Only one summer were there 3 or 4 brown spots where the grass had permanently died (and I think some grub worms had taken over below). So we did have to replant those small patches (about the size of large pizzas). But that was only one summer and I think the heat and drought stress caused the grass in those places to weaken enough that other creatures came in and damaged the grass.

Another positive about not watering the lawn (or less watering) is that you don’t have to mow it as much during dry times. Good for lazy people and for mitigating GW.

 

[Theo520]

That happens only on one specific kind of solar farm - the kind that focuses sunlight to a central tower where the intense heat drives a turbine to generate electricity. There is no such problem with the more common silicon photo-voltaic panels that do not bother birds at all.

It happens on the only type of solar farm that can cost effectively produce base load power, even storing it to produce power after the sun sets.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It happens on the only type of solar farm that can cost effectively produce base load power, even storing it to produce power after the sun sets.

Both types of power generation - photovoltaic and concentrating thermal - are used by utilities. But on this issue I disagree with the Sierra Club. The few birds that fly into the focal point of a concentrating array are nothing. Feral cats kill thousands of times more birds. Wind power has a greater chance of killing birds than solar, and even that is nothing compare to feral cats.

 

[lynnvinc]

Both types of power generation - photovoltaic and concentrating thermal - are used by utilities. But on this issue I disagree with the Sierra Club. The few birds that fly into the focal point of a concentrating array are nothing. Feral cats kill thousands of times more birds. Wind power has a greater chance of killing birds than solar, and even that is nothing compare to feral cats.

I’ve read they are doing things to prevent bird kills from wind, like using radar to detect when they are coming and shut down the wind generators, and locating wind farms away from bird migration paths.

There is also the issue of GW causing some 50% of bird species to go extinct within 100 years or so, and many harms to birds from fossil fuel extraction, spills & accidents, processing, burning, etc.

It’s always good to look at the whole picture, not just a small corner of it.

BTW, our cat caught and ate a pheasant in our back yard, out of hunting season , and all we have left are the beautiful tail feathers.

 

[TeenCatholicGuy]

Would you also march to end abortion? Taking care of our planet is important but so is taking care of the unborn.

The planet is more important then an issue that we already lost.x

 

[lynnvinc]

”Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998,”
Zeke Hausfather, GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, 30 June 2017, at carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

QUOTE:
A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.

Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The figure above shows a comparison between the new RSS record and the global surface temperature record produced by NASA. RSS v4 shows about 5% more warming than the NASA record since 1979, when satellite observations began….
END QUOTE

---

And for the study on which this article is based see: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

Now all that fuss about models being totally wrong, about no warming based on satellite data, or there being a “pause” after 1998 can be thrown in the wastebasket (toxic, do not recycle), and at long last we can hop to mitigating global warming in earnest!

 

[lynnvinc]

The planet is more important then an issue that we already lost.x

Note my post above about satellite data showing much more warming than previously thought. It was put up as a new thread, I think by Frobert, but that thread must have been deleted, because I can’t find it anywhere, even tho I posted to it.

I think one of the reasons threads get deleted is that the truth sometimes hurts so much that people go off the handle and say very mean things (response to your other thread that was closed about why they delete threads).

 

[vz71]

There is also the issue of GW causing some 50% of bird species to go extinct within 100 years or so, and many harms to birds from fossil fuel extraction, spills & accidents, processing, burning, etc.

When did speculation of a future event become fact?
But what should we expect from and argument that wants to convince people of temperature changes to a tenth of a degree of accuracy going back to the 1800s.

 

[Theo520]

Note my post above about satellite data showing much more warming than previously thought. It was put up as a new thread, I think by Frobert, but that thread must have been deleted, because I can’t find it anywhere, even tho I posted to it.

I think one of the reasons threads get deleted is that the truth sometimes hurts so much that people go off the handle and say very mean things (response to your other thread that was closed about why they delete threads).

Lynn, your charts are not correct. here is the actual comparison of the update.

remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated

 

[Xystus]

I think that perhaps those figures for wind turbine economics include some inappropriate use of wind power, such as trying to send it over very long distances and incurring transmission losses, or trying to store energy for later use which is also very expensive. But using wind power only when it is available, and only within a reasonable distance of where it is generated is a much better deal.

I call BS on calling long distance transmission of electrictity an innaapropriate use simply because it was generated via wind turbine. Once the electricity is generated it is transmitted the same way as electricity generated from fossile fuels, nuculear, hydro or any other source. The transmission lines cannot tell how the electricity itself was generated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I call BS on calling long distance transmission of electrictity an innaapropriate use simply because it was generated via wind turbine. Once the electricity is generated it is transmitted the same way as electricity generated from fossile fuels, nuculear, hydro or any other source. The transmission lines cannot tell how the electricity itself was generated.

The reason it might be relevant is that wind power is only cost-effective in areas that have a lot of wind, just as hydro power is only suitable where you have a river falling a considerable distance. But fossil fuel plants can be placed within a reasonable distance of where the power is most needed, thus minimizing transmission losses.

But we are a long way from generating so much wind power that it must be sent long distances to where it is used.

 

[Theo520]

The reason it might be relevant is that wind power is only cost-effective in areas that have a lot of wind, just as hydro power is only suitable where you have a river falling a considerable distance. But fossil fuel plants can be placed within a reasonable distance of where the power is most needed, thus minimizing transmission losses.

But we are a long way from generating so much wind power that it must be sent long distances to where it is used.

This is an intriguing science question but my google skills weren’t up to the task this morning.

My recollection is that distances up to 1000 km have nominal impact on the loss and thus cost of the power. I think in a modern HV grid, distances of several thousand km are practical.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, your charts are not correct. here is the actual comparison of the update.

remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated

Those might not be correct either, even tho they are by the same author, bec they are from over a year ago, and the current paper was just published online June 26th and indicates an update to previous work.

Their previous paper is:
“Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment,” Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, Journal of Climate, May 2016, Vol. 29, No. 10, Published online on 3 May 2016.

Their recent paper is:
“A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects,” Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz, Journal of Climate, Early Online Release-Posted online on 26 Jun 2017

ABSTRACT:
Temperature sounding microwave radiometers flown on polar-orbiting weather satellites provide a long-term, global-scale record of upper-atmosphere temperatures, beginning in late 1978 and continuing to the present. The focus of this paper is a lower-tropospheric temperature product constructed using measurements made by the Microwave Sounding Unit channel 2, and the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit channel 5. The temperature weighting functions for these channels peak in the mid to upper troposphere. By using a weighted average of measurements made at different Earth incidence angles, the effective weighting function can be lowered so that it peaks in the lower troposphere. Previous versions of this dataset used general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time on the measured temperatures. In this paper, we present a method to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves. The new method finds a global-mean land diurnal cycle that peaks later in the afternoon, leading to improved agreement between measurements made by co-orbiting satellites. The changes result in global-scale warming (global trend (70S-80N, 1979-2016) = 0.174 C/decade), ~30% larger than our previous version of the dataset (global trend, (70S-80N, 1979-2016) = 0.134C/decade). This change is primarily due to the changes in the adjustment for drifting local measurement time. The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde data. However, comparisons with total column water vapor over the oceans suggest that the new dataset may not show enough warming in the tropics.

Anyway, if you are very keen about this you can get the article at journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

You could probably get it for free from the author by writing to him: Carl A. Mears, mears@remss.com

---

The graphs I posted were from the article about the article, and they may or may not be the same graphs used in the actual paper, but I would think they would be.

 

[Theo520]

Lynn, the dataset reference is V4.0, it’s mentioned in your graph and on the RSS page I linked to. The RSS site has the right data, they control it, they released it last year.

Your article is fake news, pretending last year’s announcement is now a new Revelation (the news story, not the paper)

The RSS site also details how the data changed from it’s predecessor (v3.3 not v3.0)