Some good digging - indeed it is hard to understand all the different ways to define and interpret climate sensitivity.
benjhm
joined 1 year ago
Well, in most countries wind and solar are rapidly growing compared to hydro. A more critical question for India is what else could replace the melting Himalayan glaciers and reducing snow cover, as a storage of water for the dry season?
Well written!
Indeed that's strange, and the flat slope in 2060 seems inconsistent with declared net-zero policies of China and even India. Russia has no such policy, but still strange to assume continuation of current government concepts there until 2060. (you can see the regional breakdown in supplem Fig 1. )
Regarding the map - an annual average cost is not so meaningful - in higher latitudes solar is not enough in winter - especially where it’s mostly cloudy during the first half of winter. Wind helps the balance but not everywhere, always. Of course, the sophisticated models behind the article know all that, the issue is simplistic presentation. I note "we assume hydrogen is used for seasonal storage" - this may be rather optimistic - how many dark months can that cover?
Clearly there's a big gap between greenwash rhetoric and practical reality, but that's not unusual all over the world.
The big question here is not the design of the central buildings, but whether it makes sense, as long-term sustainable development, to relocate the capital, and it seems to me there are arguments both ways. Jakarta is low-lying, literally sinking into the rising sea, and the island of Java is overcrowded - so something had to change. The new capital will lead to some deforestation on Borneo, on the other hand by bringing elites nearby they may re-evaluate the value of the jungle, it could be harder to hide destruction. The new location has potential for sea transport, but may lead to an over-dependence on air-transport.
Maybe useful to compare with other countries that moved their capital for geographical balance, and to avoid rising sea-level and overcrowding, for example Lagos to Abuja, or the new egyptian constructions SE of Cairo.
Also the global impact would likely be much greater, due to the co-operation factor.
On the other hand, there is a time-lag to policy impact, also exogenous surprises (superimposing past presidents on that plot may be revealing).
Scala-js is working on it - as its compiler design may facilitate this.
I haven't yet tried (on todo list) and am not an expert, but bookmarked in passing:
recent github implementation, some history, following older discussion
Curious that the richer (western) countries seem more enthusiastic about taxing the rich ...
It slows down, an effect of cold water from melting ice passing south of greenland, which has a local cooling effect, while the atlantic as a whole gets warmer. Consequence is a greater heat contrast along that front, which may intensify the sequence of low pressures bringing wind and rain, which is what Ireland has just experienced this summer. But the high-resolution models do not show that AMOC stops abruptly, that was a feature of simpler models designed to replicate palaeoclimatic changes at the end of the ice ages, when the amount of ice available to melt was much higher.
It's useful to systematically compare the quantitative impact of policies across countries. However the headline does no credit to the analysis. What matters is the fraction of emissions that are reduced, not the fraction of policies. Probably just a few big policies in a few big countries make most of the difference. Many smaller developing countries were recently obliged (by Paris NDC process) to state some kind of policies, but they are still in an early stage of the learning by doing process - which is still valuable.
Trying to imagine what's the application of mats of electric seaweed - if the energy could somehow make them self propelling, and self replicating, could get interesting, big potential surface area ...?