Contributed by Evert Andersson © 2020 English: https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2020/06/15/greta-listen-to-the-science-without-preconceptions/ Vi lider båda av Greta Thunberg-effekten. Hon besökte Kanada och gjorde sitt bästa för att påverka valet på ett olagligt sätt. Hennes … Continue reading via Friends of Science Calgary https://ift.tt/2N4spDS June 15, 2020 at 03:52PMGreta Thunberg kräver att lyssna på vetenskapen. Det är en bra idé om vi verkligen gör det utan förutfattade meningar. — Iowa Climate Science Education
Contributed by Evert Andersson © 2020 Swedish: https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2020/06/15/greta-thunberg-kraver-att-lyssna-pa-vetenskapen-det-ar-en-bra-ide-om-vi-verkligen-gor-det-utan-forutfattade-meningar/ Only one nation has made the Paris agreement into law – Sweden. There is a wide spread demand from the alarmists to … Continue reading via Friends of Science Calgary https://ift.tt/2N0cA15 June 15, 2020 at 03:52PMGreta. Listen to the science – without preconceptions. — Iowa Climate Science Education
solar panels and wind turbines under sky and clouds with city on horizon. Sunrise Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to Forbes, plunging renewable is a profitable opportunity for the Federal Government to finance renewable energy at no additional cost to consumers, but they should make sure the market treats renewable energy “fairly”. Plunging Renewable […]Forbes: Plunging Renewable Energy Costs Should be Answered with Massive Federal Funding — Iowa Climate Science Education
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Forbes, plunging renewable is a profitable opportunity for the Federal Government to finance renewable energy at no additional cost to consumers, but they should make sure the market treats renewable energy “fairly”.
Plunging Renewable Energy Prices Mean U.S. Can Hit 90% Clean Electricity By 2035 – At No Extra Cost
Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology
We are a nonpartisan climate policy think tank helping policymakers make informed energy policy choices and accelerate clean energy by supporting the policies that most effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Silvio Marcacci Communications Director
Renewable energy has historically been considered too expensive and too unreliable to power our grid, but new research has overturned that trope for good. Plummeting wind, solar, and storage prices have fallen so fast that the United States can reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 – without raising customer costs at all from today’s levels, and actually decreasing wholesale power costs 10%.
Building a 90% clean electricity system by 2035 would catalyze massive economic growth that helps pull the U.S. out of the COVID-19 recession by supporting more than a half million new net jobs per year, injecting $1.7 trillion into the economy, and recharging domestic manufacturing. Technology-neutral policies can reach a 90% clean power system, help energy developers and investors prosper, and pave the way for technologies of the future.
Fast-falling renewable and energy storage costs have changed this outlook – clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels, and actual costs in 2018-2019 were lower than previously projected costs for 2030-2035. Research has shown that by 2025 86% of the U.S. coal fleet will cost more to run than replacing it with local wind and solar generation, and clean energy portfolios of renewables and storage are cheaper than new natural gas generation.
The 2035 report was accompanied by technology-neutral policy recommendations for Congress, federal department and national labs, governors and state legislatures, and electricity market regulators to help reach a 90% clean electricity future:
- Congress should adopt a federal clean electricity standard reaching 55% by 2025, 75% by 2030, 90% by 2035, and 100% by 2045; states should adopt clean energy standards of 90% by 2035 or earlier and 100% by 2045 (or earlier).
- Congress should extend existing federal clean energy investment and production tax credits, making energy storage eligible, and convert credits to more liquid incentives.
- Federal and state policymakers should help refinance bad coal debt to reduce the costs of a coal-to-clean transition, and support coal-dependent communities by shoring up pension and healthcare services while funding worker retraining for the clean energy economy.
- Congress and federal officials should streamline renewable energy and transmission siting and regional planning, while reducing interconnection costs.
- Federal and state policymakers should invest in R&D policies to develop the future technologies needed to reach 100% clean electricity.
- Federal and state policymakers should reform wholesale markets and utility business models to fairly value clean energy and support investment in a least-cost, technology-neutral portfolio of energy resources.
If renewable energy is such a winner, if “clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels”, why don’t renewable energy entrepreneurs get private bank finance like everyone else, and simply drive the competition out of business with their superior technology?
Why do they need reform of wholesale markets, and federal clean energy standards to drive progress?
via Watts Up With That?
June 15, 2020 at 04:17PM
This article from AGWEB blasts the European Commission and their European Green Deal. To put it bluntly: The European Commission has a plan to eliminate modern farming in Europe. 28 weitere WörterFarmers Fear the European Green Deal — Watts Up With That?
To put it bluntly:
The European Commission has a plan to eliminate modern farming in Europe.
The details emerged last month, as part of a “European Green Deal” announced late last year that calls for the continent to become “climate neutral” by 2050.
The commission speaks of “turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities.” It also talks about “making the transition just and inclusive for all.”
It should have added three words: “except for farmers.”
That’s because the EU Commission just released its “Farm to Fork” strategy, which is the agricultural portion of the European Green Deal. It announces a series of unrealistic goals: In the next decade, farmers like me are supposed to slash our use of crop-protection products by half, cut our application of fertilizer by 20 percent, and transform a quarter of total farmland into organic production.
The article details the various policies and notes the actual problems they would create vs. the stated goals.
What the European Commission now proposes, essentially, is smaller harvests. For consumers, this will lead directly to one thing: Higher prices. Food will cost more.
There’s also a deeper problem. How are farmers supposed to make a living when we’re growing fewer crops and selling less food? The commission fails to consider one of the most likely results of its misbegotten approach to agriculture: When farmers can’t turn a profit, they’ll quit farming.
Farming will be outsourced to other regions.
It also raises the question of where our food will come from, if it doesn’t come from our own farms. We could always import more food from other places. Global trade already is an essential feature of food production. We should encourage more of it.
Yet the European Green Deal will lead to substandard farming in places with less productive farmland. This may help fill bellies in a Europe that has fewer farmers. It may even salve the consciences of activists and bureaucrats in Brussels. It certainly won’t help the climate.
The ancient supervolcano under the national park was much more explosive in its early history and could be slowing down, a new study suggests
- By Shannon Hall on June 15, 2020
Roughly 8.7 million years ago, in areas that would become southern Idaho and northern Nevada, the grasslands began to break open, unleashing curtains of lava and clouds of gas and ash that rolled across the North American landscape. Within hours, if not minutes, the land would have been pummeled by black volcanic glass that rained from above, killing animals such as rhinoceroses, camels, and horses that roamed the region, and destroying plants. Soon the ground would cave in altogether. The event was the largest explosion ever from the supervolcano in Yellowstone National Park.
And scientists just found out about it. A recent study published in Geology identified evidence for this supereruption and estimated it was 30 percent larger than the previous record holder, which occurred 2.1 million years ago. Both eruptions were colossal. Supervolcanoes have the ability to destroy entire regions and send enough ash and gas into the air to alter the climate. The one at Yellowstone, scientists believe, is fueled by a column of hot rock that emerges from deep within the planet. As North America’s tectonic plate slowly drifts over that plume, the supervolcano’s surface activity moves from place to place. Over the past 16.5 million years, it has spouted major eruptions from Oregon to Wyoming. Today it powers Yellowstone’s simmering landscape of geysers and hot springs and is is often a favorite doomsday topic on social media and Web sites trafficking in rumors. The new research indicates the volcano’s history was even more violent than geologists had thought, but there are hints the hotspot could be waning in intensity.
Researchers led by geochemist Thomas Knott of the University of Leicester in England first analyzed volcanic deposits that were previously believed to belong to smaller discrete eruptions. But when Knott and his colleagues took a closer look at the rocks—determining their chemical composition and age—it was clear that they shared the same origin. John Wolff, a volcanologist at Washington State University, who reviewed the new paper but was not directly involved in the research, calls the rock-matching work “first-class.” It took a significant effort from Knott’s team, with months spent in the field and an array of analytic techniques used back in the lab. “I don’t know how many different ways you can look at rocks, but this is most of them,” says Michael McCurry, a geologist at Idaho State University.
The volcanic deposits were scattered across tens of thousands of square kilometers. Only a supereruption could spread gas and ash so far. “When you get your maps out and measure the scale, you think, ‘That can’t be right. They can’t possibly be that far apart and be from the same volcanic eruption,’” Knott says. “And when you realize they are, you realize just how insignificant you are in terms of the colossal power of things that nature can put upon us.”
The event, now dubbed the Grey’s Landing supereruption (after a spot in Idaho where the deposit is best preserved), likely ejected 2,800 cubic kilometers of material, Knott’s team calculated. So much ash and rock could fill nearly three quarters of the Grand Canyon. The amount places Grey’s Landing in the ranks of the top supereruptions of all time. And it puts the event on par with the infamous Toba superuption in Indonesia about 74,000 years ago, which some scientists have theorized may have brought humans to the brink of extinction.
The investigators also uncovered a second supereruption, which occurred nine million years ago and likely blew out 1,700 cubic kilometers of material. Although the extent of both that occurrence and Grey’s Landing are estimates, given that the team was not able to overturn every rock, Wolff agrees that it would be inconceivable for volcanic deposits to stretch across such vast distances unless they were created by supereruptions.
Knott’s team notes that these two events look vastly different from more recent Yellowstone eruptions. Not only were they larger, but they were also hotter and occurred in rapid succession. At that time, supereruptions ravaged the Yellowstone hotspot track once every 500,000 years. Today that rate has dropped to 1.5 million years. All clues indicate that Yellowstone was much more violent in its adolescence, and Knott’s next project is to find out why. Is the hotspot itself is dying out? Or is the continental crust above that plume thicker than it once was, providing a lid that dampened the most recent events?ADVERTISEMENT
Although the current rate of eruptions suggests that another explosion will not occur for roughly 900,000 years, Knott points out this estimate is simply a historical average, and it does not forecast how and when nature will act. “We don’t want to encourage complacency—nor do we want to fearmonger,” he says.Rights & Permissions
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Shannon Hall is an award-winning freelance science journalist based in the Rocky Mountains. She specializes in writing about astronomy, geology and the environment.
Credit: Nick Higgins
No early breakup of Hudson Bay sea ice again this year: there is still extensive thick first year ice over most of Hudson Bay and all female polar bears fitted with tracking collars in Western Hudson Bay are still on the ice: W Hudson Bay polar bears still out on the ice that’s packed together […]No early breakup for W Hudson Bay sea ice again this year: polar bears still on the ice — polarbearscience
on No early breakup for W Hudson Bay sea ice again this year: polar bears still on the ice
No early breakup of Hudson Bay sea ice again this year: there is still extensive thick first year ice over most of Hudson Bay and all female polar bears fitted with tracking collars in Western Hudson Bay are still on the ice:
W Hudson Bay polar bears still out on the ice that’s packed together by winds. AE Derocher, 12 June 2020
Breakup of Hudson Bay sea ice as it relates to polar bear movement to land has been about the same since 1999 (about 2 weeks earlier than in the 1980s) and this year is shaping up to be no different: there is still no declining trend in date of sea ice breakup in Western Hudson Bay despite repeated predictions of imminent doom. An especially ‘early’ breakup year would have bears ashore before 15 June. Last year (2019) the first WH bear onshore was caught on film 5 July and problem bears were not recorded onshore in Churchill until the 2nd week of July.
SEA ICE IN CANADA INCLUDING HUDSON BAY
SEA ICE IN HUDSON BAY BY ICE THICKNESS
Sea ice by stage of development (week of 8 June 2020):
Last year at this time (week of 10 June 2019):
And in 2018 (week of 11 June 2018):
THE ARCTIC PICTURE
At 12 June 2020 (Day 164), sea ice over the entire Arctic looked like this: