20 years of satellite data reveal 'staggering' levels of glaciers melting, sea levels rising

[Admin]

Over the past two decades, glaciers worldwide have lost 273 billion tonnes of ice to a warming world, driving sea levels to rise at an accelerated pace, according to a decades-long comprehensive analysis.

20 years of satellite data reveal 'staggering' levels of glaciers melting, sea levels rising : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

As a home owner who lives daily with the effects of sea level rise (and local land level subsidence), I do understand the effects on property and life style.

However, this article seems to miss some points that are crucial to understanding the situation properly - and tends to use hyperbole to make its points, rather than the more involved science.

The hyperbole is such statements as "Every centimeter of sea level rise exposes another 2 million people to annual flooding somewhere on our planet." OK, but how serious is 1 cm of flood depth to those 2 million people - not likely more than the problems most get from extreme rainfall events.

From my perspective, the problem with an increment in sea level rise comes mainly from adding that to the flood levels that are already a problem for me. My defenses against rising water are not unbreachable, and at some tide height, they will be overcome and cause me major damage. So, the issue is mainly the probability of a major damaging flood increases as the static sea level increases. That is a much harder concept to get non-scientific folks to understand in any sort of quantitative manner.

And, then there are the other aspects of global warming that also affect flooding probability, from both the static sea level parameter and the probability parameter for the frequency and additional rise associated with events like severe storms, wind pattern changes, ocean current changes, etc.

Plus, sea level rise does not come just from adding fresh water that was previously resting on land above sea level. It also comes from the thermal expansion of the water already in the oceans as they also heat up. So, an article such as this should have had some graphical presentation of the sea level data, preferably 2 presentations. One would be the measured sea level from about 1900 to present, to show the "acceleration" in perspective. The other should show the sea level from the last global warm spell, during which sea level maxed out at about 25 feet higher than it is today. It would also show some even more "stunning" fast changes in the past. And, it would drive home the point that we need to expect sea level to rise above where it is today, even if we stop emitting CO2 completely. There is geological data that obviously shows that sea level can rise as much as 760 times that "one centimeter" even without any human causation.

So, we aren't going to turn sea level change around just with solar panels for everyone. We need to be realistic in telling the public both what is happening and to what extent we can really change that.

 

[RockyMtnMan25]

Thank you Unclear Engineer! for your critical thinking and intelligent response & analysis. The author of this article and editors of Space.com could learn from your integrity, better educate their readership, and enhance the value of their content. But I understand that might not fit Space.com's narrative and agenda. Looking at the study, I am not sure about what conflicts there are or might be in terms of the study's funding; however, I do know there are highly complex methods, statistical analyses, projections, and modeling that defy the simplistic, alamist, and selective approach taken by the author and Space.com editors.

 

[Ken Fabian]

My problem with lack of clarity is that the article makes it sound like 273 billion tons of ice was lost over 20 years when it is actually an average of 273 billion tons each year, with significantly faster ice loss during the latter 10 years than the previous 10 - more like 314 billion tons. The acceleration is very significant - clearly in line with what the expert advice has been saying... for a long time now.

As clear evidence of a significant effect of global warming global ice loss deserves media-therefore-public attention. More importantly those sitting in the relevant Offices, where the duty of care lies should be paying attention.

34 metric tons of ice lost for each person on Earth for 20 years (with acceleration) is a lot, on top of a similar amount from Greenland, plus a lot from Antarctica.

So, we aren't going to turn sea level change around just with solar panels for everyone.

It is an important point that these changes are effectively irreversible over the time scales of human lifetimes - it only goes one way, with a ratchet. We can stop turning it up but do not have the means to make it go back down. That makes not turning it up more even more important.

Without the switch to low (potentially zero) emissions energy to stop the ongoing increase in atmospheric GHG's the problem continues to get worse, so it is very important. Not all with solar panels, but solar is now the most built new electricity generation globally, by a large margin - with a lot more solar panel factories coming online. And with continuing expectations of lower costs.

Other factors do come into play - an AMOC shutdown for example will be very bad for the Eastern USA for example, adding a lot to sea level rise there, potentially very rapidly. Southern US coast is already experiencing some of the fastest sea level rise. And then there will be serious regional climate effects to N. America and to Europe with it.

Delaying or abandoning commitment to zero emissions will have serious consequences, not immediately, but irrevocably.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The ramped-up production of solar panels is actually one part of the increased CO2 releases. It takes some time for the net effect of solar panel production to be a decrease in CO2 emissions, I forget the number of years. There have been attempts to use solar power to make solar panels, including one near where I live. Even with Federal financial assistance, that one went bankrupt.

And, of course, solar panels don't last forever, and are currently not very recyclable. We have a long way to go to develop a totally carbon-free or carbon-neutral energy infrastructure.

I am not arguing that we should not be working in that direction. But, I am trying to get people to understand that just doing that is not going to address the near-term effects of climate change. We need to be preparing to deal with the changes, not kidding ourselves that we can avoid them (or could do so if "everybody would just behave responsibly").

 

[Classical Motion]

I’ll bet we(the world) have greatly misjudged our future electricity demands. And I don’t see any opposition to it like we do with manufacturing industry use. It seems they’re even willing to give nuclear permits to private billionaires.

My, how times have changed.

We need an amped up grid whatever we do.

Interesting times ahead. All western countries will have AI and need power for it. Dependable fossil power. Liquid Gas will be promoted but lots of oil and coal will be used.

Only AI can save and secure us but we have to feed it first.

Who will oppose this? Who will sue AI?

I believe a very heavy dose of fossil emissions is on the way.

Just a guess.

 

[Ken Fabian]

The ramped-up production of solar panels is actually one part of the increased CO2 releases. It takes some time for the net effect of solar panel production to be a decrease in CO2 emissions,

That will be true of every option for achieving energy abundance with low emissions, including Hydro and Nuclear. Suggesting solar is counterproductive and makes the problem worse is... disappointing.

As the proportion of low emissions electricity in the grids that power factories grows the manufacturing emissions decline and that is already happening. Here electricity is already above 40% RE and one state - adding RE to legacy hydro - is above 90%.

RE industries don't exist in self reliant zero emissions isolation and should not be expected or required to; options that have so much potential to be near to zero emissions with a low emissions grid should not be singled out for onerous manufacturing emissions requirements that other options are exempted from. Using fossil fuels to make the factories that mean we can stop using fossil fuels - even for making and running factories - seems like the best of possible uses; each ton of coal burned for that will displace many tons of coal burning into the future.

We start from where we are. The world's existing FF heavy industrial base is both serious emissions problem and essential to successful and rapid transition to low emissions, including for the goal of zero emissions manufacturing, all manufacturing.

And, of course, solar panels don't last forever, and are currently not very recyclable.

As for waste - that is relative. Solar will never make the quantities of problem wastes that FF's do - we could bury the next century's solar panels unrecycled in existing coal ash dumps and need a map to ever find them again. Coal ash is the world's number 2 biggest problem waste by quantity, after CO2 -

Anything unrecyclable, just bury here -

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The point about solar panels not lasting forever and not being recycled (yet?) was not about burying the waste. It was about needing to keep producing them even after we have produced enough to completely power everything. It does take a lot of energy to produce them, and it was a problem trying to get much ahead of the game using just solar power to do it. So, it is not going to be so easy to just stop using fossil fuels to do it in the near future.

And, energy storage is another issue with similar problems that solar needs to supplant base-load electric generators that we are using now (coal, oil, gas, nuclear), which can be run on demand and work at night, when people will be wanting to recharge all of those electric cars, etc. Is that going to be batteries, which also need replacement and require a lot of mining and manufacturing? Or, will it be a lot of infrastructure to make, store and use hydrogen? Both?

There is a lot of hype about solar power being most of the new generating capacity, but that is being reported in a misleading manner in many instances. The real measure is what fraction of total generation, over a period like a year, comes from solar (and wind). And that is where the energy storage issue comes in.

I am still not betting on fusion making much of a contribution in a manner that is timely for addressing global warming. Fission might be a growing contributor, again, but it would have to really ramp up to overcome the decrease due to all of the 50+ year old nuclear power plants that are shutting down, soon.

The deep hole geothermal concept is sort of a wild card that I would like to see prioritized by the Federal Dept. of Energy for prompt research and potential development. If it can be done and if it does not have any serious risks to public safety or the ecosystem, then it could be a real game changer. Conceptually, holes could be drilled where we already have fossil fuel burning plants, with power lines already in place, and the fossil burning apparatus removed and replaced by steam from the wells. However, here is a critique of the concept that makes it sound infeasible: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gEbfCs2oxmwN2mfLM/microwave-drilling-is-impractical . Still, maybe some smart people can solve those issues if we work on it.

So, I am not getting any feeling like "we are almost there" in dealing with decarbonization of our industrial infrastructure.

 

[Ken Fabian]

The 40% figure for electricity here (Eastern Australia) is GWh supplied, not (misleading) peak power. But it doesn't measure 'behind the meter' use of rooftop solar - which reduces daytime grid demand by providing more electricity than that. Yes, solar and associated equipment takes energy to make but as the proportion of RE grows the manufacturing emissions decline; the idea that it is counterproductive to pursue further growth is false. And the total installed solar and wind will top out and production will probably decline back just to replacement - potentially a lot sooner than the pessimistic pundits think and without significant loss of agricultural land or it's productivity. Replacement will likely be cheaper than new installation. If there were massive growth in some (extravagantly wasteful) consumer product, would there be as much faux angst about stopping it? At the heart of opposition to and obstruction of clean energy is persistent denial and downplaying of the science based expert advice.

It is clearly true that we aren't getting the decarbonisation we need from industry - I think that is because commerce and industry really don't want to and have had enough influence to assure governments don't required it of them. That isn't a failure of technology but of politics; clean energy R&D has been extraordinarily successful and technology-wise we are better placed than ever before.

That there isn't a lot of long term foresight and planning with respect to storage is also political failure; the default 'just in time' deferring of decisions approach to storage has favored batteries (only 7 years since South Australia got what was then the biggest lithium battery in world and whole mega battery factories have been built and in production since then.) Pumped hydro will work fine for longer, deeper storage - but until very recently it was uncertain solar and wind would grow enough to justify those investments. I think the confidence to make such investments is emerging.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Note that I did not say that solar should not continue to be deployed.

What I did say is that we are not as close to decarbonization as some (Ken?) keep saying we are. Ken is blaming that on "industry" and "government" not doing what he says they should do. But, if it was both available and cost effective, it seems like they would be doing it of their own interests. But, for instance, solar powered mining, etc. is not as easy as solar powered homes. And don't forget that we are talking about adding electric cars for everybody to the existing power demands.

 

[Classical Motion]

I guess my idea of deep boring is different from most. I say drill now, conventionally.

And yes it will be expensive. We have to lobby wealthy people. Rich people wanting to help this earth.

We need a dozen test holes around the country, hopefully near existing plants. At a certain depth we should hit super-heated water. At great pressure. No matter the geology. No fracking needed. A vertical hole. All the power in this world. No heating required.

We want to throttle that water to the surface and save that flash. A dozen holes around the country will give us a base line for an engineering protocol. And an idea of the contaminates and discharge reclamation if needed. Part of the overhead. We can use the water. It should not be as dirty as present geothermal.

How many oil wells does a plant burn over the years? Or coal fields? And the transportation for all of it?

It’s a win, win, win. And the price should never go up. There’s plenty of supply.

And the best ideas and tech will come from drilling. That will bring knowledge and improvement.

At least that’s the way it use to work.

I really don’t see all the fuss. Give a few companies a tax credit and see what it takes. Energy is a great security concern. Especially now with AI and data centers.

Wouldn’t it be silly if the solution is just a hole in the ground. And we scienced and marketed our way out of it.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Drilling "conventionally" has been done before, several times, and never got as deep as intended, due to actual physical difficulties. Conventional drilling does not appear to be capable of reaching the depths we are talking about for "geothermal energy available everywhere". But, there is still such a conventional drilling project in the works. It is all a scientific endeavor, to get actual data on what is beneath our feet.

These past drilling efforts provided data that did not match theories of those times, so making assumptions about what is there as the basis for planned new infrastructure development is clearly not wise. We need data first.

And, we are apparently going to need new methods to be developed in order to get to the depths desired to get real data. The Quaise Energy project is a private capital funded effort to do exactly that. We will probably get real information about whether those methods work much sooner than the government funded conventional drilling gets a hole very deep into the seabed.

What I am proposing it to have the government make sure that the Quaise group does not fail due to lack of investment, buy providing a research subsidy, if necessary. I think that is a far wiser use of tax payers' funds than using conventional drilling methods at multiple existing power plant sites.

As for

We have to lobby wealthy people. Rich people wanting to help this earth.

"rich people" are going to do their homework before investing their money in a project, even if they are thinking of it as a charitable contribution, rather than an investment with hope for eventual profit. I don't think they are gullible enough to fund "a dozen test holes" to be drilled with technology that has been proven to be inadequate. It might be hard to even get them to invest in the Quaise Energy start-up company. That project is going to need another $200 million, soon, from what I have read.

 

[Classical Motion]

OK, I'm the gullible one.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Note that I did not say that solar should not continue to be deployed.

What I did say is that we are not as close to decarbonization as some (Ken?) keep saying we are. Ken is blaming that on "industry" and "government" not doing what he says they should do. But, if it was both available and cost effective, it seems like they would be doing it of their own interests. But, for instance, solar powered mining, etc. is not as easy as solar powered homes. And don't forget that we are talking about adding electric cars for everybody to the existing power demands.

There is in fact a lot of growth of renewable energy for remote mines, and electrification of mining machinery. In some respects (as with RE over all) this has only become cost effective within the past decade and uptake purely for commercial reasons (mostly they don't care and not their job to care about global warming and - because of political weakness on this matter) have for the most part not been required to).

It isn't instantaneous, it takes time to flow through and it is flowing through. A company that has just installed new diesel generators and bought new diesel machinery is unlikely to switch now. On their next project they might. Even mines owned by climate science denying opponents of emissions reductions are doing it.

Like RE elsewhere it is flowing through and the rates of growth are more indicative of the way future mining is powered than "but it is only a small percentage right now".

This example is supplying a Rio Tinto mine in Australia and there are plenty of other examples around the world (not all in desert regions) -

As for EV uptake - that can become a significant way that daytime solar can be utilised and stored for later use - at large uptake that is a LOT of storage. Plus has the ability to assist managing grid reliability by smart management of the charging of parked EV's - a buffer as well as added demand. I note that so far growth of RE is exceeding the growth in electricity demand from EV's.

Being clever about it plus some can-do rather than pessimistic can't-do attitude goes a long way. Alarmist (false) economic fear of reduced dependence on fossil fuels has been a powerful and successful meme in the pursuit of saving fossil fuels from global warming and accountability.

 

[DarkMatterMuncher]

Over the past two decades, glaciers worldwide have lost 273 billion tonnes of ice to a warming world, driving sea levels to rise at an accelerated pace, according to a decades-long comprehensive analysis.

20 years of satellite data reveal 'staggering' levels of glaciers melting, sea levels rising : Read more

Very alarming!

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Ken, Perhaps you have forgotten that I have previously posted links here about being able to either electrify mining machinery (with huge power cables from on-site power generators of some sort - maybe solar), or by using hydrogen in internal combustion engines, mixed with 10% diesel fuel.

So, I am aware of the efforts to diminish CO2 emissions from mining and other industrial processes.

What I am saying is only that the statistics on such things reflect the easy changes, the "low hanging fruit". So, when looking at the rate of replacement of fossil fuels, you can't logically just extrapolate the early rate to the later adoption phase. It will be more difficult and more costly in the last steps, for sure.

So, just arguing that the "industry" and "government" are not being "cooperative" is really missing the point. Some are probably not willing to cooperate. Others are probably assessing whether there are options that work for them, financially as well as technologically.

Maryland has a surcharge on electric power usage that provides subsidies for conversions of infrastructure to lower carbon emissions. It is now getting some push-back due to rising costs. See https://wjla.com/news/local/empower...polis-state-leaders-greenhouse-gas-low-income . (I was somewhat disappointed to see the quote " Governor Wes Moore . . . said the long-term issue of a lack of electric supply needs to be addressed and the EmPower fund does that by reducing demand." But, that is not really the situation - it reduces CO2 releases by means that increase the demand for electrical power.

As more people use government funded subsidies, they cost more, and eventually, the citizen/ratepayer ends up paying for the changes, even if they also benefit, or not, from subsidies. So, looking at the subsidy-modified demand is also misleading for the longer term, full conversion costs and change rates.

As for pushback issue, your idea of using private individuals electric cars for power grid support while they are parked at homes overnight is extremely naïve. Would you really want to take the chance that your vehicle would not be able to get you to your job in the morning because the government or electric company decided to use your stored electrical charge to support something/somebody else? A lot of people are not going to take that risk, because they don't trust the electric company or the government. And many more will refuse to take that risk as soon as they see news media accounts of the hardships created by events that the apologists swear are mistakes that "won't happen again".

All I am asking is that people be realistic. But, that is apparently too far an "ask" for many activists.