1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

China's CO2 emissions

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by bwilson4web, May 29, 2015.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Source: China's CO2 emissions have been plummeting lately. What's going on? - Vox

    Arguably the most important climate story in the world right now is the question of what's happening in China. A recent analysis by Greenpeace International found that China's carbon dioxide emissions have plunged nearly 5 percent, year over year, in the first four months of 2015:
    [​IMG]
    But suddenly, China's emissions are falling, spurred by a sharp decline in coal use. As Greenpeace's Lauri Myllyvirta explains, China's coal consumption dropped in 2014 for the first time this century. Then, in the first four months of 2015, coal use fell another 8 percent, year on year — which translates to a roughly 5 percent decline in CO2 emissions. ​

    This is good news!

    Bob Wilson
     
  2. ETC(SS)

    ETC(SS) The OTHER One Percenter.....

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    7,668
    6,481
    0
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera (Gulf South)
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I hope it's not temporary.
    China's growth has flattened over the last few years, and all of the recent whoopdi-do in the South China Sea indicates that somebody is going to want to do some undersea drilling very soon.

    It's not just the Spratlys either.
    Territorial spats include:
    • Vietnam, China, and Taiwan over waters west of the Spratly Islands. Some or all of the islands themselves are also disputed between Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
    • Singapore and Malaysia along the Strait of Johore and the Strait of Singapore.
    Drill baby drill?
     
    #2 ETC(SS), May 29, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2015
  3. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Interesting but I don't know what to make of it: slow economy or fundamental shift? Also note we are talking Greenpeace analysis, not to criticize Greenpeace, but we'd like to also hear it from an impartial source without an agenda.
     
    GrumpyCabbie likes this.
  4. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,590
    11,212
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Does Greenpeace have a crush on China? I would think they'd be the most critical.
     
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Well I know China is starting to address their 'clean air' issue. I agree, independent confirmation is necessary. . . .

    Perhaps OCO2: Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) | NASA

    [​IMG]

    Easter egg:
    [​IMG]



    This map shows solar-induced fluorescence, a plant process that occurs during photosynthesis, from Aug. through Oct. 2014 as measured by NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. This period is springtime in the Southern Hemisphere and fall in the Northern Hemisphere. Photosynthesis is highest over the tropical forests of the Southern Hemisphere but still occurs in much of the U.S. Grain Belt. The northern forests have shut down for the winter.

    Bob Wilson
     
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    China's coal use falling faster than expected| Reuters
    Chinese are becoming wealthier and don't want to be stuck with the coal pollution. IMHO coal consumption will rise in china but in new plants that are as advanced as the german ones, producing much less NOx, SO2, particulates, and mercury than the old plants. THe chinese are much more concerned about these than carbon dioxide.


    The chinese government wants growth too much to not build more coal, but it will decrease in importance because these new plants may be more expensive than wind, so wind, solar and nuclear will be favored over coal where possible.
     
  7. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I just finished another week of Denial 101x and they pointed out the recent easing of global warming is handled by including:
    • volcanic
    • decline of El Nino
    • solar minimum
    • increased pollution particles like [​IMG]
    As the Chinese reduce particulate pollution, the cleaner air will increase GW as more sunlight reaches the earth and oceans.

    Bob Wilson
     
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I am not quite sure how to respond to this.

    First I would point out that unscrubbed coal is probably a bigger environmental hazzard than scrubbed coal. The particulates, NOx, SO2 and mercury - land air and water pollution from burning and mining - are known health hazards to humans, crops, livestock and wildlife. This is a serious problem in china, big enough that the government is reducing coal use temporarily.
    670,000 smog-related deaths a year: the cost of China's reliance on coal | South China Morning Post

    We should not fool ourselves that the chinese would do this to reduce ghg emissions. It is key to understand motivation.

    Probably using "denial 101x" as a source weakens whatever point you are trying to make, and I would never take a course with that type of label. I am guessing that you really do understand the negative environmental impacts of the cheap chinese coal plants, but are ignoring that for something else.

    Adding pollution control or building new plants with pollution control makes coal electricity more expensive. It is about 60% of china's mix today, similar to the United states mix in the past. As coal pollution is now partially taken into account in the US (requirements for new plants, cap and trade, shut down of grandfathered plants through lawsuits), its percentage of the grid has decreased. I expect this to happen in china, which is a good thing for the environment. It also creates an opportunity. China wants german and american technology to reduce coal pollution. Mercury pollution from Chinese coal plants hurt health in the US. These 3 governments could work together for that technology transfer, and as part of the negotiation also pledge to cap then reduce coal ghg pollution. Per capita the US still produces more ghg from coal than china, but china is the number one producer and its increasing its lead.

    I severely doubt that the impact of increased unscrubbed coal electricity in china has caused a decrease in net ghg since 1998, it should have increased warming potential. Particulates, Sulfur dioxide, Nitrous oxides, methane, and carbon dioxide are all looked at in the models, and the increase in Chinese coal use adds to global temperature potential. Sure scrubbed produces a bigger potential than unscrubbed, but that is no reason to simply let these plants pollute. They don't put the pollution in the correct part of the atmosphere. Perhaps some geoengineering could be done, but these plants do it badly. I doubt that was your point though.

    The rest is natural variation, which seems recently to be as strong a cooling effect as ghg has warmed. Note solar radiation and volcanic eruptions are handled in the models that have predicted warmer temperatures. These models may have inccorrect sensitivity. We know from the IPCC V that the big problem is the models appear to be poor about modeling oceans especially ocean oscillations. It is not that ENSO is weakening, it is in a different phase. The different weather phase of ENSO is very clear with the texas floods, which locally are just short of memorial day 1981, and in other places stronger. That looks to be a multidecadal variation locally with the opposite phase causing a big drought in 2011 (biggest local drought was the decade without rain in the 1940s and 1950s).
     
    tochatihu likes this.
  9. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Cleaning up shipping industry in early 2000s (they were banned from burning unprocessed sulfur containing oil) increased GW. Sulfur in upper levels of atmosphere helps cloud-forming and if shipping industry were a nation, they would have been #6 on polluting list.

    Would be interesting to see what their footprint be when they switch to LNG.
     
  10. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    This is an interesting thing, a bunker fuel when out to sea does not have nearly the negative environmental impact as sulphur in diesel in land transportation or unscrubbed coal power plants. It does cause a great deal of problems in environmentally sensitive area that alaska cruise see, or when docked in LA or other polluted cities.

    Removal of the sulphur requires producing hydrogen often by using parts of the oil or natural gas. This process also makes the fuel more expensive and produces more ghg. Still pollution control for in port does not work with the high sulfur content of bunker fuel. Still particulates are best in the upper atmosphere, and could be spread by aircraft much more efficiently and in the right place than shipping or coal pollution.
     
  11. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    All three fossil fuels seem to march together whether they are going up or down.
    That would seem to imply general economic trends rather than energy substitution(s).
     
  12. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    That's an interesting thought, but where is proof of that? We are experiencing a hiatus in global warming last 15 years or so, which Bob was just trying to rationalize with Denial 101 teachings. So how can reduced shipping SOx be said to worsen AGW except as a hypothesis that does not seem too good? I see SOX/particulate reduction (in shipping) as important and not a causal factor for AGW. I would think the shipping SOx reductions did not start as early as 2000 and are probably still being phased in. Not sure status.

    My personal philosophy is that reducing SOx/NOx, particulates, maybe methane may be easier to accomplish than just reducing CO2, and may have excellent results as far as reducing ice melt, ocean acidifcation etc. I see the CO2 issue maybe more complex than CO2 but politically a lot of folks want to condemn CO2 per se when we got other issues negative for the planet.
     
  13. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    Tell that to the animals that live in the Ocean
     
  14. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    No problem, the natural world doesn't care either.

    The Chinese have begun to realize they are subject to the same air pollution they produce. Regardless of the reasons and means, I suspect we'll see less high-carbon fuels in the Chinese future. After all, they also make solar cells and wind turbines.

    BTW, Denial 101x pointed out the IPCC works on a consensus and often underestimates the effects compared to those working directly in climate research. This makes sense as I've often seen stuff 'at the cutting edge' that others take a little longer to see.

    There is no single, simple fix for CO{2} forced climate change. Defunding research leads to 'insider information' to exploit the consequences and that is where Denial 101x provides insight.

    Bob Wilson
     
  15. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Are you sure you want to stand by this claim?
    I prepared the following chart to find out if there was a correlation between recent global warming, the Berkeley record, and sea level rise (NOAA satellite record):
    [​IMG]
    • Both temperature and sea level trend lines are 12 month averages
    • Upper line is the slope of peak temperature events (monthly Berkeley data.)
    • Lower line is the slope of minimum temperature events
    • Both lines show a 0.4/14 year or ~0.286 C / 10 years, ~40 years to next +1 C
    • Sea level = F(surface_temperature,land_ice_melt)
    This chart and analysis came from my career that included analyzing noisy network data. Denial 101x introduced the three, primary temperature record noise sources:
    1. Aerosols and dust from volcanos and air pollution - cooling
    2. Solar radiance, the ~11 year solar minimum and maximum - varies
    3. El Nino / La Nina cycles, currently seeing early El Nino - varies
    Knowing the duration of and intensity of these noise events, something Denial 101x introduced, we can see the 'hiatus' is just concurrent noise events that can easily be taken out IF you have been dealing with noisy data. But if you want to 'cherry pick' the start and stop of a straight-line average, one can "discover" everything from a hiatus to global cooling.

    Like the seven Indian blind men and the elephant, it is easy to recognize how sincere people can latch on to one part and declare that to be what is going on. What education does is tie the pieces into a whole. It also makes the willful or accidentally ignorant, 'dead meat.'

    No, my chart disproving the 'hiatus' hypothesis did not come from Denial 101x. Rather it was created to address something I've asserted about sea level.

    My hypothesis is the oceans that cover 70% of our planet's surface are God's thermometer. My next version of the chart using a Gaussian average will take out the 'deadening' effect of a straight-line average. But we'll discuss that another day.

    Bob Wilson
     
    #15 bwilson4web, May 31, 2015
    Last edited: May 31, 2015
  16. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    I vaguely remember having this discussion a couple years back in environmental forum. Need to find the article, but as I recall the study had referenced NASA data, which found unusually high cloud formation alone shipping route due to SO2 and particular emissions from ships and made some reasonable calculations on how much sunlight was reflected.

    I would disagree b/c for example 1/3 of LA pollution comes from China, and elevated levels of SO2 cause acid rains.

    While I 100% agree that if we want to take GW under control in addition to reducing emissions we also need to put serious effort into Geo-engineering, as I recall introducing sulfur dioxide into atmosphere is not practical solution. The amounts of sulfur needed to make the difference would have a dire consequences and disrupt Eco-systems all over the world. And it would be overly expensive, the amounts of sulfur needed annually dwarf current production.

    Out of geo-engineering projects on the table iron ocean seeding is one of the few which relatively inexpensive and with lesser side-effects. You need a few tons of finely (micrometer) ground iron particles seeded in the ocean to produce algae bloom. I suppose you could fence in some shallow coastal areas and use it for algae farming with the idea of turning it into bio-diesel, but I am not sure how competitive it would be to Saudi $10/bbl crude.
     
  17. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,972
    3,501
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I 'liked' #8 because of

    "China wants german and american technology to reduce coal pollution."

    Both true and important with regards water pollution as well, and the technology to track both.

    It might be said that limits to high-tech sales to China are only from 'sensitive' technology, but that may get into touchy territory.

    Concerning the top post, I did not respond earlier because everything in VOX seemed reasonable to me. Nothing to add.

    Cyclo and I disagree about Fe for the oceans. There, ecological networks remain incompletely defined. Thinking about viruses, but not only them. A larger (than previous) iron dump maybe a good way to learn more about that stuff, though.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  18. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    it is not that we agree or disagree on this matter.. what are alternatives? time is ticking out

    I suppose based on Ami Ben-Amotz, Solazyme etc experience you can grow algae for fuel, but despite high yield as is it is more expensive than any other bio-fuel source. Dumping it into wild may be risky, but cheap way to create CO2 sink

    Jatropha could be planted in semi-desert environments, but wouldn't it disrupt eco-systems as well?
     
  19. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    No nature doesn't care if you source information from denial 101, or like imhofe an interpretation of the bible. It just makes it hard to believe you are looking at the science of coal burning in china. If you are there are probably much more authoritative sources. That doesn't mean they are wrong in what you are quoting, but the kansas school board and koch brothers also say a lot of right things, but I wouldn't believe them as the only source.

    sure and visit china to understand what is going on. I expect that the chinese are truthful that coal use will peak their in the 2020s. It would be a mistake to believe that this lull as they deal with pollution control technology means that the upward trend is broken.

    Well I specifically brought up the IPCC climate models that overestimated warming in the last decade. These are the models that look at carbon dioxide, volcanic eruptions, etc. Can you be specific in your criticism. I have mainly heard the criticism that IPCC under pachurri has often used grey literature that overestimates the catastrophic probability of climate change. I can give you the examples if you like.


    I'm not sure who you think is trying to defund research here. That seems like a straw man. I believe there are questions that need to be answered, but leaving chinese coal unscrubbed is not one of them.
     
  20. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    27,066
    15,372
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    The article about coal burning in China did not come from Denial 101x. It was just a happy accident. The course is bringing a lot of parts together into a consistent understanding.

    To be effective, the course has to address not only the characteristics of deniers but also make sure the students have a basic understanding of climate science and what is going on. Heck, I wouldn't even be interested except for a silly kid from UAH, one of Christie's students, who interpreted my Prius as being somehow evidence of a 'green' attitude.

    This is from the course material:

    Tendency to Underestimate Climate Impacts
    Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 327-337. Link to PDF

    IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Projections of Future Changes in Climate - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

    Freudenberg, WR, Muselli, V (2010) Global warming estimates, media expectations, and the asymmetry of scientific challenge. Glob Environ Chang 20: pp. 483-491. Link to PDF

    Stroeve, J., Holland, M. M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., & Serreze, M. (2007). Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical research letters, 34(9). Link to paper

    There was also a video lecture but I'd like to get a copyright OK before posting much more content.

    I think we have a thread in Fred's House of Politics about the defunding effort. Of course, if you'd sign up for the 'free' version . . . (said the spider to the fly.)

    Bob Wilson
     
    #20 bwilson4web, Jun 1, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2015