The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Will Germany meet its emission reduction obligations?  (Read 2438 times)

Offline MarkPawelek

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Blogger Oscar Archer wistfully said: "Surely we'll see some [German] emissions reductions"[1]

Not in 2015. Energy market research group AB Energiebilanzen report German energy-related CO2 emissions up 0.9% in 2015[2]. The mainstream green movement such as Guardian, Greenpeace, The Ecologist, Climate Progress continue to boost Germany's Energiewende as a model for Europe to copy. They celebrate the closure of zero-CO2 emitting nuclear power such as Grafenrheinfeld in Bavaria last June[4]. They ignore the opening of another CO2-emitting coal plant in Mooburg, Hamburg this November[3]. We already know that Germany will not meet its 2020 emission reduction targets and that there's been no fall in emissions from 2009 through to 2014.[5]

Links:
1. Oscar Archer's blog: http://actinideage.com/2015/12/31/the-lightbulb-moment/ [nofollow]
2. German energy-related CO2 emissions up 0.9% in 2015 http://carbon-pulse.com/13587/ [nofollow]
3. New 1600 MWe coal-fired plant opens at Mooburg, Hamburg: http://www.dw.com/en/german-co2-emissions-targets-at-risk/a-18862708 [nofollow]
4. Grafenrheinfeld NPP closes and Germany loses 1345 MWe of zero-emission electricity: http://energytransition.de/2015/06/germanys-next-nuclear-plant-closes-for-good/ [nofollow]
5. Germany’s 2020 greenhouse gas target is no longer feasible https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/germanys-2020-greenhouse-gas-target-is-no-longer-feasible/ [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 10/01/2016 09:28:14 by chris »


 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
The interesting observation is, the CO2 levels of the earth were flat for 2014. There was no net gain. This seems to suggest the earth is starting to include excess CO2 of part of its carbon cycle, between the oceans, land and atmosphere. Even with Germany, China and India adding CO2, at old levels, the CO2 was still flat. The mantra of destroying  the earth underestimates the resilience of the earth. It is more wishful thinking, that makes human feel powerful.This seems to be intoxicating to many. The flat CO2 is like a cup of coffee to help sober up.

The earth naturally produces about 150 billion tons of CO2 per year. While human add about 5 billion tons of CO2 per year. The reason the earth atmosphere is not building up 155 billions tons of CO2 per year in the atmosphere is the carbon cycle between the atmosphere and earth causes CO2 to be absorbed by natural means, such as by the oceans and plants. It is almost like the rain where water entered the atmosphere each day but most comes back to the earth as rain.

The defined dwell time of the CO2 in the atmosphere; 150 years is therefore misleading, since most of the 155 billions tons added each year, is in the atmosphere for less than a year, before being absorbed via the carbon cycle. I am not sure where they get the 150 years CO2 dwell time, since that would mean 155 billion tons, times 150 year, builds up before any CO2 is reabsorbed? This is not observed. The dwell time for all the CO2 is closer to one year.

Maybe the dwell time was defined as how long to return back to CO2 levels of 100 years ago. The flat CO2 shows the earth is playing a wild card that was not part of that estimate.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
There are two technologies which properly applied would do a great deal of good for mankind but for some bizarre reason there is a great deal prejudice against both I refer of course to fission type nuclear power and genetic engineering instead people seem to want windmills and manure type farming.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The interesting observation is, the CO2 levels of the earth were flat for 2014. There was no net gain.

Just plain wrong.
http://co2now.org/
Do you understand that making false claims like that mikes you look like you are a liar or an idiot?
 

Offline MarkPawelek

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
More CO2 going into the oceans will accelerate ocean acidification putting many carboniferous shelled creatures at risk of extinction. Even if you reject the risk of global warming, you must accept the more CO2 will cause more ocean acidification.

To: syhprum : Here's my explanation why environmentalists campaign so avidly against nuclear power and GMOs: https://theconversation.com/gm-foods-big-biotech-is-quietly-winning-the-war-52715#comment_866660 [nofollow] (the same reason in both cases!)
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4113
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: puppypower
The earth naturally produces about 150 billion tons of CO2 per year. While human add about 5 billion tons of CO2 per year.
It seems that there is a fair spread in estimates (estimates in different years will differ, since the emission rate is increasing year-on-year):
  • Wikipedia suggests numbers like 210 gigatonnes exchanged with the atmosphere per year, but the atmosphere absorbs 6-10 gigatonnes more than it loses, every year.
  • Skepticalscience suggests that the atmosphere exchanges about 200 Gt per year, gaining about 3 gigatonnes per year. 

But the key is that about 60% of human-produced CO2 remains in the atmosphere, without being absorbed. This leads to a steady increase in atmospheric CO2.

Quote
I am not sure where they get the 150 years CO2 dwell time, since that would mean 155 billion tons, times 150 year, builds up before any CO2 is reabsorbed? This is not observed.  The dwell time for all the CO2 is closer to one year.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does show a cyclic annual variation of about 1%, with dips attributed to the summer season in the northern hemisphere. Some of the carbon turned into leaf mass in spring gets turns back into CO22 in the fall and winter.

If humans were not contributing extra CO2 by burning coal, and cutting down forests, you would expect that the summer dips would roughly equal the winter peaks.

But we see that humans are unbalancing this, by burning fossil fuels, by producing cement, and by cutting down forests.

As Mark suggests, something like 30-40% of emitted CO2 is absorbed in the ocean. But that does not mean it is "gone" - it acidifies the ocean waters, which will cause increasing problems for corals and shellfish. If and when the atmospheric CO2 drops, CO2 will be released from the oceans back into the atmosphere, where any remaining land plants will attempt to turn it into plant matter.

So if a pulse of CO2 is injected into the atmosphere (as humans have been doing for a few hundred years, and as volcanoes do occasionally), it will take something like 100 years to return half way to the previous levels after the pulse ends.

See the diagram & explanation at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
The interesting observation is, the CO2 levels of the earth were flat for 2014. There was no net gain.

Just plain wrong.
http://co2now.org/
Do you understand that making false claims like that mikes you look like you are a liar or an idiot?

Your link goes to a site called CO2 Now, whose page has been moved. This site has the bend that corresponds to your belief. I used a different link based on a random web search of CO2 is flat for 2014. This is the first link I found: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3633362/iea-co2-emissions-decouple-growth. We are both making claims based on internet data that meets our political science bias.

Quote from: puppypower
The earth naturally produces about 150 billion tons of CO2 per year. While human add about 5 billion tons of CO2 per year.
It seems that there is a fair spread in estimates (estimates in different years will differ, since the emission rate is increasing year-on-year):
  • Wikipedia suggests numbers like 210 gigatonnes exchanged with the atmosphere per year, but the atmosphere absorbs 6-10 gigatonnes more than it loses, every year.
  • Skepticalscience suggests that the atmosphere exchanges about 200 Gt per year, gaining about 3 gigatonnes per year. 

But the key is that about 60% of human-produced CO2 remains in the atmosphere, without being absorbed. This leads to a steady increase in atmospheric CO2.

Quote
I am not sure where they get the 150 years CO2 dwell time, since that would mean 155 billion tons, times 150 year, builds up before any CO2 is reabsorbed? This is not observed.  The dwell time for all the CO2 is closer to one year.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere does show a cyclic annual variation of about 1%, with dips attributed to the summer season in the northern hemisphere. Some of the carbon turned into leaf mass in spring gets turns back into CO22 in the fall and winter.

If humans were not contributing extra CO2 by burning coal, and cutting down forests, you would expect that the summer dips would roughly equal the winter peaks.

But we see that humans are unbalancing this, by burning fossil fuels, by producing cement, and by cutting down forests.

As Mark suggests, something like 30-40% of emitted CO2 is absorbed in the ocean. But that does not mean it is "gone" - it acidifies the ocean waters, which will cause increasing problems for corals and shellfish. If and when the atmospheric CO2 drops, CO2 will be released from the oceans back into the atmosphere, where any remaining land plants will attempt to turn it into plant matter.

So if a pulse of CO2 is injected into the atmosphere (as humans have been doing for a few hundred years, and as volcanoes do occasionally), it will take something like 100 years to return half way to the previous levels after the pulse ends.

See the diagram & explanation at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

I understand the dwell claim being made, but again this claim can be spun with political science. Say I assume the manmade CO2 is the aspect being absorbed in the 30-40% absorbed by the oceans, with only the natural CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. The math will adds the same, but the political spin is much different. Have they done tests with carbon13 to see the dwell time ratio between manmade and natural †o justify either spin? The current spin assume no man-made CO2 will be recycled quickly, which is not logical.

I would think a higher percent of manmade CO2 is being absorbed, due most of this CO2 being concentrated in the northern hemisphere, while natural is more distributed to both north and south.

There is another consideration that came to mind. CO2 acts like an insulation layer for IR leaving the surface of the earth. What we also know is the sun emits 50% of its energy in the IR. Logically this means the same CO2 blanket should be keeping the solar IR out, since there is nothing special about earth IR. This may explain why although temperature is rising, all 71 model predictions are too high by 100%-1200%. They may ignore the sun's IR being reflected so the earth heat slightly less.

Putting that aside, if we add the sun's IR, this brings up another consideration. Can the sun saturate the insulation affect of the CO2? In other words, say we have X amount of CO2, the CO2 molecules can only absorb so much IR, before all its energy levels are saturated. At that point it will be giving off the same amount of energy, as it absorbs. It becomes IR transparent.

An analogy is placing a sponge on top of the sink drain and letting the water drip on the sponge. At first, the sponge will absorb the water, with no water getting past and down the drain. Once the sponge finally saturates, each drip will now displace another drip down the drain. Has anyone done the calculations of what is the saturation point of the CO2, and can the sun's IR load plus the earth IR load on the CO2 achieve this? Saturation could also explain why the temperature is 100-1200% lower than all the 71 model predictions.

 
« Last Edit: 12/01/2016 12:48:31 by puppypower »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length