CBDunkerson's page

So, about a year ago I started suggesting that we may have reached 'peak fossil fuel electricity production'... and now we've got the first major professional analysis reaching that conclusion.

According to the study, India peaked in 2018... leaving China as the only country in the world with growing fossil electricity production, which they project will peak no later than 2025... with any new fossil fuel facilities built in the interim becoming stranded assets (i.e. having to be shut down to avoid losing ever more money) at that point.

The rest of the 'developed and developing world' has seen declining fossil electricity production for many years, and the net global total is now clearly trending downwards. Further, renewables are cheaper in 90% of markets worldwide and as a result 'emerging' markets are 'leapfrogging' over fossil fuel power infrastructure and going straight to renewables... just as they previously skipped ever developing land line telephone infrastructure and went straight to cellular. Thus, there is no foreseeable reason for a fossil electricity 'resurgence' in the future.

The alternative, 'China, India, and emerging markets will develop massive amounts of coal power' narrative always seemed like complete nonsense to me. It becomes even less plausible now that data shows that fossil fuels are in global decline. Poor countries with emerging electric markets are NOT going to pay extra to resurrect dead fossil fuel technologies that the rest of the world has abandoned.

Meanwhile, electric vehicle sales continue to grow exponentially in major markets around the globe and virtually every automaker has announced plans to stop making ICEVs... again, the inevitability of this rapid transition has been obvious for years, but is now reaching the point where it is more 'observed current reality' than 'inevitable future state'.

These developments make a 'two degrees warming above pre-industrial by 2100' global warming result a very real possibility.

Some fun things can be done with metamagic.

I like Arcane Mark + Umbral Spell + Shadow Grasp for a 3rd level spell slot to surround a touched item or person with darkness that entangles everyone entering it EXCEPT the caster. Reflex save to avoid entanglement, but no spell resistance.

A Winter Witch can use the Frozen Caress hex with Arcane Mark to deal 1d4 cold damage on a touch attack with no save or spell resistance.

DOE study finds lots of good news on US power in 2020

Comparing actual 2020 US electricity generation results to what was projected in 2005;

CO2 emissions were 52% lower
Costs were 18% lower
Human health impacts were 92% lower
Coal and oil use were 70% lower
Renewables were 79% higher
Jobs were 29% higher

This is a good demonstration of the issue I have highlighted many times with studies that project 'current state' assumptions forward... they are obviously going to be wrong when applied to rapidly changing systems.

Note that even in absolute terms, US power sector emissions dropped 40% from 2005 to 2020. The population increased. GDP increased. Electrification increased... but CO2 emissions went WAY down. Proving once again that there is absolutely no need to 'cut back' or radically change the way we live to stop AGW. We just need to continue shifting from power sources that emit a lot of CO2 to ones that don't.

It would now be cheaper to replace 80% of existing US coal plants with wind or solar

A 2019 study predicted we'd get to this point by 2025... it actually happened early in 2021.

Coal power in the US was already in freefall.

This development is important because it will result in coal plants closing in the areas where they are still common and widely supported (e.g. the rural south, west, and midwest). Anywhere that there is competitive bidding for power someone will be able to come along and build a new wind or solar farm and undercut the cost of coal. Mere 'tradition' or preference won't keep coal plants chugging along in the face of economic pressure. Yes, politicians could still block construction of renewables or tip the scales with taxes/subsidies, but it has become one step more difficult to keep propping up the coal industry. The NEXT step is coal losing the money race to renewables and finding those political favors suddenly going the other way.

A decade ago coal was at its peak in the US. Over the past ten years coal has been cut in half while natural gas soared and wind/solar began experiencing exponential growth. By the end of the current decade US coal will only exist as a novelty in a handful of places, natural gas will be in the sort of freefall coal is experiencing currently, and wind/solar will be the dominant sources of electricity. Most of the rest of the world is on a similar trajectory. Even the worst case scenarios are looking like we'll have negligible global fossil fuel usage by 2050.

Exactly where did I say anything at all about 'decades of coal plant increases'?

That would be the very next sentence... where you used an article about coal plants in China "As an example".

Great. So how do you get that solar power electrical generation from Ghawar to the EU? To the US and Canada? To Japan? To China?

I mean, what's your point?

The point, as I clearly stated, is that Saudi Arabia isn't the only place in the world with oil fields. It just has the most productive one. So... all other oil fields on the planet are less productive than one which already can't compete with solar in terms of total annual energy production. That means that most oil fields (i.e. all but those not in high oil/low insolation areas like Alaska) could be converted to solar plants.

No need to get solar power from Ghawar to the US when you can just put solar panels on land previously used for oil drilling in Texas.

NYT article on the renewable revolution

There is an interesting observation in the article;

The Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia, the most productive in the world, can generate enough oil to produce just under one petawatt-hour of energy per year (about 1/27th the global total)... until the oil runs out within a few decades.

On the other hand, if you removed all the oil drills and covered the same ~3,000 square mile area of Ghawar with modern solar panels you could produce just over one petawatt-hour per year... indefinitely.

So, we've got yet another option for 'where do we put all those solar panels'... cover over old oil fields and you'll generally wind up producing more power. At lower costs.

Whereas 'developing economies' (China, India and the rest of the world) in orange have all been increasing dramatically and will continue to do so for decades more.

Can you cite even a single major energy forecaster (e.g. IEA, EIA, BNEF, etc) that believes we will see "decades" of coal plants "increasing dramatically" in "developing economies"?

I cannot... because it just isn't remotely plausible. Coal plants will be in decline in every country within five years.

At the outside.

China is the last great exception... and that only because regional managers went on an all out construction binge ahead of planned (and now in effect) central government pullback on coal plants.

The New York Times has released a pretty good summary on the 'current state' of climate science

The belief that automakers will continue selling ICE vehicles for decades becomes more and more difficult to maintain as they move up their dates to stop making them... and now this;

Cadillac ends development of new ICE models, effective immediately

Meanwhile, NOAA is updating US weather maps based on another decade of data (i.e. up to 2020);

Change in US temperature since 1901

Change in US temperature and precipitation over past decade

These clearly show increasing temperatures and shifting precipitation. The southwest US continues to dry out, increasing the incidence of wildfires and the expansion of desert areas.

Finally, the US and China are both expected to announce significant new efforts to reduce emissions today. These two countries represent roughly 43% of global emissions and the major forces behind modern emissions (i.e. consumer culture and rapid economic growth) and thus are key to establishing an effective global strategy.

Put them in competition with one or more other groups... a tournament sponsored by an eccentric noble, an ancient wizard's recently unearthed magical challenge dungeon, a race across untamed wilderness to a fabled treasure.... whatever. It just needs to be some sort of situation where similar groups are facing similar challenges.

Then you just have to show the other team(s) beating them via the sorts of things they COULD be doing, but aren't;

'Oh, the Oni? Yeah, I forgot about them... obviously we always carry a bunch of cheap vials of alchemist fire and acid so it was a complete non issue. I guess you guys ran out?'

'Oh, you guys had to head all the way back to town after the Wraiths? I guess we got lucky there, we had found a scroll of Restoration so we were able to patch up our fighter who took all the hits and just keep going.'

Et cetera.

Ask three people and you will get four different answers. There is no 'official' ruling. In the end, you'll have to see how your GM wants to run it.

My arguments are based on the premise that the signatories to the Paris Agreement are officially aiming for a +1.5°C year 2100, and failing that they are officially aiming for a <+2.0°C year 2100.

CB thinks the latter goal is an odds-on favorite. And I agree that it is if the whole plan, the whole global plan, goes off swimmingly for the next 30 years straight.

Actually, I've assumed roadblocks and delays in my estimate that we'll end up around +2.0°C. Indeed, we've just lived through a rather significant four year 'hiccup' in progress towards that goal.

Let's consider an example;

The Climate Action Tracker has just released their latest estimate of what the US would need to do to meet its 'fair share' of the +1.5°C Paris target. The big ticket items are;

No fossil fuel electricity generation by 2035
Near zero new fossil fuel light vehicle sales by 2030
Reduce building emissions (e.g. heating fuel) by ~65% below 2015 levels by 2030

All of those are within the realm of possibility, and indeed either in line with or only a little more aggressive than the targets being talked about by the current administration.

Further, I tend to think that these 'fair share' estimates are overly pessimistic because they assume that developing countries are going to need to use fossil fuels to 'catch up' with the developed world. That just isn't true anymore. It will now be cheaper for developing countries to use solar and wind power. They also assume that all developing nations will rapidly improve their standard of living as China and India have done over the past few decades. That just ISN'T going to happen. Which means that they assume quite a bit of 'developmental' carbon emissions that aren't actually going to happen... leaving a little more for the developed countries to emit before hitting any given warming level.

That said, I still don't think it is likely that the US (and the world as a whole) will do enough to reach that +1.5°C target. People will resist the massive retrofitting needed to convert existing buildings to more carbon efficient alternatives. Electric vehicles are catching on more slowly in the US than almost anywhere else due to an entrenched opposition to anything and everything 'environmentally friendly'. Some fossil fuel power plants will just refuse to shut down even when they become unprofitable, and may well receive enough subsidies from friendly politicians to keep limping along for years. Et cetera.

That's why I think we'll end up around +2°C. Not because it is the best possible result... it ISN'T. Theoretically, we SHOULD be able to get to +1.5°C... but it just doesn't seem plausible that everyone is going to be willing to work together to get there. Too many people actively oppose action to reduce global warming.

Right now a number of critical metals and rare earths are poised to jump in price significantly - Cu is looking to go past prices we haven't seen in a decade; Lithium is up over 50% since the year began; Cobalt is up over 60% since the start of the year; etc. And those changes make it hard to keep EV prices down

You've been making these claims about the prices going up for several years now... and yet EV (and now grid storage) battery costs continue to plummet.

When exactly do you imagine that these higher costs are actually going to materialize?

Nope. This is about how unusual it is for governments, on the whole, getting large scale problems solved well and in a timely manner.

Well, you've moved from 'government NEVER gets it right' to 'it is unusual for government to get it right'. That's progress at least.

I'd say that, like human endeavors in general, most governments do an adequate job most of the time. Occasionally they make a particularly good (e.g. current US vaccine rollout) or poor (e.g. entire US covid response prior to that) showing, but most of the time they're somewhere between 'not TOO bad' and 'good enough'.

On climate change the collective governments of the world (with a few exceptions) have definitely been lacking, but they've now risen to the 'not TOO bad' level and seem like they may well make it to 'good enough' (e.g. +2°C by 2100).

The final EIA values for 2020 US electricity generation are out.

Renewables have surpassed both coal and nuclear and are now the second largest source of electricity in the US after natural gas... which itself only passed coal in 2015.

The EIA has also analyzed planned additions for 2021 and finds the following breakdown of new US electricity generation for 2021;

39% Solar
31% Wind
16% Natural Gas
11% Battery storage
3% Nuclear

That's 84% zero-emissions power generation, ZERO new coal power, and only 16% natural gas. From this we can see that the tide has already turned and natural gas is following coal in to irrelevancy.

Also note that the natural gas additions are primarily limited to three states with deep fossil fuel roots; Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The entrenched infrastructure, politics, and traditions propping up natural gas in these last few bastions can only hold out so long. Economics will inevitably win in the end, with cheaper solar and wind replacing the last vestige of the old fossil fuel monopoly.

That 11% battery storage also represents more than three times the existing total from all prior years combined. We're adding nearly as much battery storage as we are natural gas. Five years ago nearly everyone would have said that was impossible... decades away at the earliest. Now it is reality and mass battery storage will radically transform how the electricity grid works.

Petroleum, coal, and nuclear (in that order) have all fallen below their replacement rates. That is, more electricity generation from those sources is being retired each year than is added (e.g. for 2021 nuclear is adding 1.1 GW, and retiring 5.1 GW).

Natural gas, in contrast, has a very low retirement rate because it only really started taking off about 20 years ago... leaving the oldest plants in the current natural gas boom still with about 10 years to go before they'd normally be retired. However, I expect that, before we get to that point, annual new natural gas additions will have hit zero and some existing plants will be shutting down early because it will cost more to continue running them (e.g. mostly due to the cost of the fuel) than to replace them with newly built renewable power.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Are we sure the world has done "Exactly nothing measurable" to impact C02 rise?

Three words: The Keeling Curve.

That Mauna Loa data shows that atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. However, if we look at the values for the last few years it also shows that the annual RATE of increase has slowed.

When the data for 2020 is finalized there is no question that it will show that we actually emitted LESS (and thus the atmospheric level increased less) in 2020 then we did in 2019. Yes, that is mainly due to decreased economic activity associated with the pandemic, but even before covid-19 we had seen virtually no growth in emissions since 2017.

In short, there is strong evidence that we are either approaching, at, or perhaps just over the 'peak' in annual GHG emissions. That's not a solution to the problem, but it will be a 'big deal' in that we will finally be 'headed in the right direction'.

People, deciders and influencers, are still advocating a +1.5°C to +2.0°C year 2100 target, all the while pretending we'll get there

So, everyone (that is, all "people") disagrees with you, but...

We won't. ...

CB thinks a +2.0°C year 2100 is still within target range, and it is if you believe the hype, but I'd rather look at the data and see things as they are. And right now, all available data says the year 2100 will be no less than +2.5°C past the pre-indistrial average.

All of the data supposedly supports your position. Only you can properly read it. Everyone else has it wrong.

To return to the original thread topic once again... this is why conspiracy theory nonsense continues around AGW (and many other topics). Ignorant people deluding themselves into believing they know 'the Truth' that all the world's experts (and everyone else) have missed.

We've reached the 'absurd rationalizations for why QB is not wrong' stage of this particular argument.

Suffice it to say; Wind and solar power use less steel and concrete than fossil fuel power plants. Ergo, if we wish to pretend to be concerned about these (ridiculously abundant) resources we'd still want to switch to renewables so that we could meet our power needs using less of them going forward.

Building a Wind Turbine - I recommend watching this on mute. There's #### tons of concrete and steel involved in building those.

According to that video, "Turbines in the 1 to 2 MW range typically use 130 to 240 m^3 of concrete for the foundations."

We use about 4 billion m^3 of concrete... per year.

If we use a (high) figure of 200 m^3 of concrete per 1 MW of wind power we'd come out with the world's annual concrete consumption being enough to build 20,000,000 MW of wind power... which coincidentally also happens to be a little over the world's total power consumption.

Ergo, no the concrete needed for wind turbines will NOT be "massive unlike anything the world has known".

Oh, and wind turbines built "to prevent ice formation in the first place"?

Pfft! Ha! Obviously not!

Correct. The turbines in Texas were not equipped with internal heating units. They did not have a carbon fiber coating on the blades to prevent ice formation. That was the point.

Responsible utilities include these features. Competent regulators require them.

Texas has neither.

His link to the short YouTube video is the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Nonsense. How are some random people on YouTube 'authority'? Where did I claim that they were?

No, the link to YouTube was simply providing evidence. A factual summation that people could evaluate themselves.

There was no 'appeal to authority'.

And I just love those who claim that the wind turbines would do much better had they been de-iced.

Anyone care to guess what Deicer is made of? Can you say, "petrochemicals"? Good, I knew that you could. But we digress....

It's not a car.

Wind turbines are de-iced with hot water... when they aren't equipped with internal heating units and carbon fiber coating to prevent ice formation in the first place.

I don't think anyone participating in this thread has watched Planet of the Humans. You really should if you care to understand how government largess will impact the GND infrastructure rollout.

Planet of the Humans is largely fiction

Texas - how're those wind turbines turning today?

Most of them are doing fine. Unlike natural gas plants.

CB wrote:

The vast majority of that renewable energy will come from solar and wind power... which use virtually no concrete. Steel is used in wind turbines and concentrated solar plants, but not significantly for the dominant photovoltaic power plants.

No, because we are trying to front-load the transition so late in the game

The amount of concrete and steel required to build wind and solar power does not change significantly based on when they are built.

You say these efforts are "tiny" compared to the past but comparisons to the past is hand-wavery at its finest.

I was referring, of course, to your statement, "There is massive, massive unlike anything the world has known, concrete and steel production necessary for this build out."

Which, yes, is 'hand-wavery'... but also just completely false. As explained, wind and solar will use virtually no concrete and very little steel in comparison to countless other things 'the world has known'.

(Remember, we should've been starting this process in earnest circa 1999), it means we will be building more than half of this green infrastructure on fossil fuels.

This isn't logically possible.

Say we get to the point where over 50% of our energy needs are supplied by renewables. From that point onwards all further renewable power will be built primarily using existing renewable energy... and since the amount of energy the human race requires grows over time (due to population growth and increasing average standard of living) the portion built primarily with renewable power will be larger than the portion built primarily with fossil fuels.

Again, this would be true regardless of when the transition took place. The problem with delaying the transition is not that it somehow magically alters the nature of basic math and logic, but with all the CO2 emitted prior to completion that could have been avoided.

Given that we have already passed some climate 'tipping elements' (e.g. onset of ice albedo feedback loop) BOTH of those scenarios, and indeed all possible scenarios, "expressly account for climate Tipping Elements".

If that were true people would've stopped talking seriously about a +1.5°C year 2100 over a decade ago.

It is demonstrably true that we have passed the onset of the ice albedo feedback loop.

Your claim that this would somehow prevent people from doing things they have, in fact, done is therefore inherently false.

To build out this green infrastructure is going to take metric tons of fossil fuel and release gigatons of CO2. There is massive, massive unlike anything the world has known, concrete and steel production necessary for this build out.

No.

The vast majority of that renewable energy will come from solar and wind power... which use virtually no concrete. Steel is used in wind turbines and concentrated solar plants, but not significantly for the dominant photovoltaic power plants.

Put another way, cities currently take up about nine times as much of the Earth's surface area (~1.8 million sq miles) as would be required to generate all of our energy needs from photovoltaic solar power. The cities use massive amounts of steel and concrete per square mile... the photovoltaic solar would use virtually none.

The amount of steel needed to convert the world to renewable energy is tiny compared to past development. The amount of concrete required is negligible. Indeed, we will use less steel and concrete converting to renewable energy than we would if we continued to rely on fossil fuels.

That's a lot of overbuilding. Most of which will be built using fossil fuels.

As our energy production shifts to renewable power the construction driven by that energy will, obviously, also shift. So no, most renewable power overcapacity will NOT be built using fossil fuels... by the time we're building excess renewable power to cover rare exception scenarios most of that construction will, again obviously, be driven by renewable energy.

Which of those scenarios -( +1.5C and +2.0°C )- expressly account for climate Tipping Elements?

Given that we have already passed some climate 'tipping elements' (e.g. onset of ice albedo feedback loop) BOTH of those scenarios, and indeed all possible scenarios, "expressly account for climate Tipping Elements".

Also, does this economic math account for the massive Coronavirus-induced inflation we're setting ourselves up for?

A little hard to build like WWII when you're an obviously ##### investment. Who will loan out hundreds of billions of dollars so that they can get paid back with inflated currency?

Setting aside the fact that the neo-libertarian economic ideas you seem to be referring to are complete nonsense... you are apparently using 'us' as the United States. For global warming we need to be thinking about 'us' as the whole planet. If, as you seem to be implying, the United States is lending money to its own detriment... surely others are therefore benefiting by receiving these loans? If we then accept your statement that the United States has made progress "over virtually any other 'Western' country" wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to help other countries 'catch up'?

So, assuming a semi-concentrated effort, how long would it take for the world to implement the pure solar/hydro/wind power?

If we continue to elect governments that do everything they can to prop up fossil fuels then it could take 50 years or so. We'd very likely go over +2°C warming by 2100.

If we continue to elect governments who do little or nothing to accelerate the transition then it will likely take about 30 years. Warming would most likely be right around +2°C by 2100.

If the whole world engaged in a massive program to transition as quickly as possible, comparable to the US mobilization upon entering WWII, then we might be able to do it in as little as 10 years. We'd very likely stay below the +2°C by 2100 warming target.

Disclaimer: The above estimates are for the point at which carbon emissions would be low enough to no longer be a threat. We will never reach zero. Just as humans still burn wood and ride horses, despite having technologically superior options, there will always be some niche usage of fossil fuels in the future.

So while technically Norway is powered largely by renewable sources you really can't say their economy is Net Zero Carbon. No, not by a long shot.

I didn't say that.

For more than a century now fossil fuels have been the driving force of the global economy. Every time economic activity went up, so did fossil fuel usage. Every time economic activity went down (e.g. depressions) so did fossil fuel usage.

The linkage between fossil fuel consumption and economic activity was so strong that some had long claimed it was unbreakable. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen many individual states and countries have economic growth without increased fossil fuel consumption, and starting in 2016 the whole world reached that point... and the reason was that renewable energy increased instead. Thus, the 'unbreakable link' is between economic activity and energy generation... HOW the energy is generated doesn't matter.

Norway, and the rest of the world, continuing to make money off fossil fuel sales doesn't change the observed reality that renewables can replace fossil fuels and are now doing so. Countries can and do get by just fine without fossil fuels. Norway gets about 18% of its GDP from fossil fuel sales. Iceland gets about 0%... their biggest 'energy' export being fish oil.

There's another real issue.

Namely, to build out this 'green' future is going to use up our remaining CO2 "budget" and then fly right past it to the tune of several hundred gigatons.

Depends on which 'budget' you are talking about. The remaining CO2 which can be emitted before exceeding +1.5°C warming by 2100? The amount remaining before exceeding +2.0°C warming? Or some other factor?

If you mean +1.5°C then you are maybe correct that the CO2 emissions required to build out a global renewable infrastructure would put us over the limit... and it is almost certainly true that the continued fossil fuel emissions during the time required to transition would do so.

However, for +2.0°C it is entirely possible that we can complete the transition in time, and very likely that the emissions required just to build renewable infrastructure would not put us over.

For CC, what's the general thing of that? Is it lots of machines or chemicals that bond with CO2 and release O2 or just take it out entirely? Or something else?

Mostly, it is fiction.

The two primary concepts are;
1: Capture the CO2 as it is being emitted ('carbon capture and storage' / CCS). This is the idea behind the 'clean coal' nonsense. Theoretically, they separate the CO2 out from the other emissions and then store it rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. Problem is that the separation, transport, and storage components are each prohibitively expensive. Which is why there aren't any 'clean coal' plants.

2: Build giant 'CO2 scrubbers' for the entire planet... pull the CO2 back out of the atmosphere and store it. This is even more economically infeasible than the previous.

No one has really studied whether there would be sufficient construction resources, storage sites, et cetera... because there just isn't any way to make this technology remotely feasible from a cost perspective currently.

For renewable only, what's a bit deeper than the general picture? I know wind and solar are part of it, and we need better storage systems, but I'm not enough up on this to know deeper than what the general direction of the issue is.

Several countries (i.e. Iceland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Denmark) have already reached near 100% renewable using primarily hydro power. However, most countries do not have enough hydro resources to cover their needs. Either wind OR solar, on the other hand, could easily cover our global power requirements if fully developed. Over the past decade prices have fallen sufficiently that it would now cost less to power the world with wind and solar than it would to continue using fossil fuels.

The only 'real' issue with wind and solar is that they vary in availability. However, that can easily be solved in various ways;

1: Have stable backup power from hydro, geothermal, nuclear, etc.
2: Overbuild wind and solar generation and the electricity grid to allow areas producing excess power to cover areas falling short.
3: Build various forms of short and long term electricity storage to cover shortfalls.
4: Some combination of the above.

Most studies seem to indicate that currently it would be most cost effective to rely primarily on option 2 with options 1 & 3 only being needed a handful of times per year. However, that may change as battery costs continue to come down.

Except, Lomborg as an expert is claiming that it's not really that big of a deal.

Oddly, when accused of scientific fraud, Lomborg's defense was that he is NOT an expert and simply didn't understand that the things he was saying were blatantly untrue.

Makes one wonder why anyone would admire / cite him as a source on this topic.

In fact this whole section of their web presence is largely about jet travel.

Air travel continues to account for less than 3% of human CO2 emissions

When there is 1cm of sea level rise, what % of that are you claiming comes from melted ice?

The answer changes over time;

The paper QB cited studied the factors contributing to the green line and concluded that the rate of future ice loss for this line could be double what models not including bottom melt would project. It MIGHT then be reasonable to extend that conclusion to the teal line as well... though the paper in question didn't study that.

From that, QB has claimed that we can extrapolate that the rate of growth of the black line will also double.

I disagree... but it also doesn't matter because either way his claim that the paper he cited "expressly stated" that the rate of growth of the black line would double was untrue. It said nothing of the kind... explicitly or implicitly.

This is undeniable... and yet he continues to claim that >I< have made a "gross error" with lots of 'Boom!' nonsense. It is this deliberate dishonesty on QB's part which perpetuates this thread. People like Mark Hoover come here with legitimate questions about how things work and get outright lies from QB. Yes, correcting those lies results in argument... but I strongly believe that just allowing people to spread misinformation is FAR worse.

When rate of something is the major component of another-thing going forward, and that something is stated to "at least double" between now and the end of the century, I think it a fair use of math to say the rate of another-thing will "pretty much double" by the end of the century.

Yet that isn't what you said. No, you falsely claimed that a scientific paper "expressly stated" that the rate of sea level rise would double.

It did not. That is instead, as you say above, something which YOU believe a "fair use of math" can devise from the contents of the paper.

And if between now and then there is an "at least" doubling of glacial ice melting over previously modeled results, it seems imminently reasonable to expect pretty much 2x rate of sea level rise compared to the IPCC average model. No?

Um... no. That isn't reasonable at all.

In any case, you have essentially conceded (without actually saying so) that your original claim, that the paper "expressly stated" that the rate of sea level rise would double, was completely false. This is instead a 'conclusion' of your own based on the 'logic' that if one thing doubles then it is 'imminently reasonable' to believe that some other, related but different, thing will also double.

I wrote: "As to QB, more often that not the papers he cites do not say what he claims they do."

QB then decided that he was obligated to prove my point.

He had previously written: "Expressly stated in another paper - see here -, we can pretty much double the prior modeled rate of global sea level rise if we want to get our best estimate up to a useful scope for mitigation-planning."

...and to 'prove' this 'correct' he then cited the actual text: "These findings suggest that climate models may underestimate glacial ice loss by at least a factor of two if they don’t account for undercutting by a warm ocean."

and: "As warmer waters controlled more than half of the mass removal at calving margins in our ice sheet wide analysis and ocean TF is expected to increase in the coming decades, current numerical models may underestimate future mass losses by at least a factor of 2."

Even if we set aside the fact that many climate models already DO include some factor for ice sheet bottom melt, the primary problem is simply that the rate of "global sea level rise" which QB claimed the paper said would double is NOT the same thing as the rate of "glacial ice loss" / "future mass losses" which it actually stated.

In addition to ice losses from other sources (e.g. mountain glaciers) than the ice sheets, sea level rise is also caused by other factors, including; thermal expansion (i.e. warmer water takes up a larger volume), slower currents (i.e. as ice melts the salt concentration of the oceans decreases and currents move more slowly... allowing runoff water to 'build up' along the coasts more), and land shrinkage (e.g. greater consumption and evaporation of ground water causes the land over them to subside and thus increases relative sea level).

Doubling the rate of mass loss from ice sheets WOULD NOT double the rate of sea level rise because it is not the only factor. It isn't even the largest. Since the industrial revolution, sea levels have risen more from thermal expansion and mountain glacier melt than they have from ice sheet melt. That is changing as ice sheet melt has increased in recent decades, but doubling just one factor contributing to sea level rise DOES NOT double TOTAL sea level rise.

What is the Albedo effect?

Albedo is a measurement of the amount of sunlight which reflects back into space rather than warming the surface. Clouds and ice caps tend to increase the planet's overall albedo, while open oceans and bare land tend to decrease it. This is the same effect seen with sunlight hitting and mostly reflecting off a white sidewalk without warming it, while adjacent black asphalt absorbs more of the light and gets hotter... just on a planetary scale.

The 'albedo effect' is the ice-albedo feedback loop... as the planet gets warmer more and more of the ice covering it melts... which decreases the planetary albedo and thus in turn leads to even MORE warming. This is the second largest 'feedback' effect enhancing the effects of the atmospheric CO2 warming forcing.

What are situ measurements?

In situ just means 'on site'... measurements taken directly at a location rather than by radar, satellite, or some other remote technology.

Is it good science to only use satellite readings, and have those readings only be about 45 years old, to extrapolate all the patterns of changes to the ice sheet throughout history?

Yes and no. Obviously, it would be better to have satellite data stretching back for centuries... but as satellites didn't exist... we don't. Should we therefore NOT use the most detailed and accurate readings that we DO have? Also, estimates of ice sheet changes throughout history rely on a lot more than just satellite readings. Indeed, the best indicators for that particular type of data over the past half million years or so are ice cores.

What are grounded ice sheets, are those attached to the land somehow?

The portion of an ice sheet which extends into the ocean, but is still touching the ground at the bottom of the water is 'grounded'... the portion where there is water between the bottom of the ice sheet and the bottom of the ocean is 'ungrounded' and thus effectively floating.

When floating ice melts it does not significantly change sea level due to Archimedes principle... the ice was already displacing a mass of water equal to its mass. Thus, whether the mass is in the form of ice or water doesn't matter... the total volume occupied by the water is the same. Grounded ice, on the other hand, is being supported by land rather than floating... and thus when it melts it contributes to sea level rise.

Isn't there a difference between south pole ice and north pole ice?

Ice is ice, but most of the ice at the north pole is a few meters thick and floating on the ocean, while most of the ice at the south pole is a few MILES thick and sitting on top of land.

Why does this paper make the distinction between evaporation, melt runoff, wind erosion and so forth, when the reality is it's all part of the same "water cycle" right?

Yes, but our ability to measure and model each of these factors accurately varies. In recent years we've been learning a great deal about 'bottom melt'... the melting rates of the underside of ice sheets, particularly when they extend into the ocean and become ungrounded.

I'd say that the authors are just letting people know that they covered all their bases and considered the latest research on all of those factors. The entire paper is basically a 'state of the science' summary of those issues.

What's "buttressing?"

Ice sheets 'flow' very slowly downhill to the oceans... ice that formed hundreds of miles inland eventually reaches the ocean and breaks off ('calves') or melts. The term 'buttressing' refers to the greater friction where an ice sheet is touching land. If an ice sheet becomes ungrounded it loses this 'buttressing' effect and begins to flow more 'swiftly' (though still really really slow) into the ocean... causing the rate of ice loss to increase.

Is it good science to use all the GIOMAS vand PIOMAS data over a few months and estimate ice sheet density loss over years?

Those sources actually go back to the start of the satellite era and thus are very good sources for ice in recent decades.

The only thing I think I really got is that this paper is concluding that sea ice is melting due to global warming, and in turn, this melt is contributing to the rise in sea levels and increased C02 being released into the atmosphere. This extra C02, as pointed out in a previous citation you posted, will likely continue warming trends even after humans hit net 0 emissions.

Not exactly. Melting ice doesn't impact CO2 emissions much at all. Indeed, by releasing cold water into the oceans it actually increases the amount of CO2 which the oceans take OUT of the atmosphere.

Where melting ice DOES contribute to continued warming is primarily with the ice-albedo feedback as discussed earlier.

...and yes, warming will continue for thousands of years after humans hit net 0 emissions... just at a vastly slower rate as all of the natural feedback effects play out. Again, Antarctica is covered in ice which is MILES thick... melting a little off the top doesn't change the albedo at all. It would take thousands of years for all of that ice to melt, and thus we'll be seeing slow albedo changes for a long long time to come.

As to QB, more often that not the papers he cites do not say what he claims they do. For example, "Expressly stated in another paper - see here -, we can pretty much double the prior modeled rate of global sea level rise if we want to get our best estimate up to a useful scope for mitigation-planning."

Yet the paper in question does NOT 'expressly state' that. It doesn't even implicitly state that. QB tends to see what he wants to see rather than what is actually there.

The 'big picture' issue is "short term" (i.e. decadal) warming. Most species, particularly humans, can adapt to warming spread out over centuries. Warming over the course of mere decades is another matter. That is why you'll constantly hear about 'warming of X degrees by 2100'.

Most estimates indicate that if we can keep warming by 2100 to +1.75°C +/- 0.25°C then most species should be able to adapt to the change and we humans should be able to avoid any significant population decline. That said, we've already passed +1°C and have emitted nearly enough CO2 to make +1.5°C unstoppable w/o some radical new technology (e.g. global CO2 scrubbers). Thus, it is pretty much inevitable that we are going to be somewhere in the uncertainty range around the zone of 'unacceptable losses'.

More intense storms are already here and will continue to worsen. Most of the flooding issues will actually take place over the subsequent centuries (i.e. whatever amount of warming we see by 2100 we will likely see roughly double that amount by the year 3000)... though there are a few extremely low elevation islands (e.g. Tuvalu), cities (e.g. New Orleans), and countries (e.g. Netherlands) for which it is a more immediate concern.

European electricity production from renewables exceeded fossil fuels in 2020

Renewables hit 38% compared to 37% for fossil fuels for the first time. Nuclear accounted for most of the remainder. That means more than 50% of EU electricity generation is now carbon neutral... and the constantly cited 'dangers' of 'renewable intermittency' and 'grid stability' have proved to be easily resolved... even in a large / sprawling and inconsistently designed market like the EU.

Renewables have managed this reversal in market share despite all the entrenched infrastructure and vast financial support behind fossil fuels... the shift will only accelerate as those benefits start to build on their side while dwindling on the other. Renewables cost less... and now they are the dominant force in the market. This is the classic pattern for a market driven technology disruption.

Calling it a "CO2 Cushion" implies if you deplete the cushion you have a hard landing, something to be innately avoided. No?

No... because the difference between coming in just below the designated amount, whatever we call it, vs just above that amount is negligible. It isn't some magical number where things suddenly switch from 'cushioned' to 'hard landing'. The +2.0°C target, like the +1.5°C figure preferred by some scientists, is just an estimate of the point at which things will be 'really bad' <tm>. There will not be any great shift in 'badness' from just before the target to just after the target.

We should 'want to avoid' global warming impacts that have already happened... like massive wildfires, heat waves killing thousands, coastal erosion, famine, etc. As that is obviously impossible, we should then 'want to avoid' as much further damage as we possibly can.

If EVs are comparable in price to ICEs, and a few times a year I want to take significant road trips (holidays, vacations and long weekend getaways), then I'll go with the one that takes 5 minutes to be refueled once a day whenever I want to stop for a break over the one that takes ~45 minutes twice a day and where I also must hope there's a place to recharge and a clean place to wiz.

So... you make your buying decisions primarily on things you might do "a few times a year"... rather than what you do nearly every day? See, most people would instead reason that rather than spending 5 minutes to refuel once a week or so it is preferable to not have to find a place to refuel at all and just recharge for the daily commute automatically from the comfort of their own home (or at work).

EVs are still tiny-##### cars or, if they're not, they're expensive as #### luxury vehicles.

This claim has no basis in reality that I can see. EVs are the same size as other vehicles of the same type.

EV adoption is still fractional of the total transportation market

This statement is essentially meaningless. 999999/1000000ths is a 'fractional total of the transportation market'. So long as one person still has a horse and buggy (let alone an ICE) EVs will not be 100% of the (ground) transportation market.

Again, that doesn't make them 'novelties'. In the original posts on this we talked about them no longer being novelties after a few hundred thousand had been sold with no objections stated. Now we're into multiple millions of EVs and QB is pretending that they will still be novelties until nearly everyone has one.

Places like Norway are doing awesome eh? Might that be because they're subsidizing their verdant lifestyle using North Sea Oil and Natural Gas?

Um... no. As we have discussed before, that's just stupid. Other countries have oil and/or natural gas wealth without large percentage EV sales... or high EV sales w/o fossil fuel wealth. There is no connection between the two at all.

So then, does anyone else have anything on the Co2 cushion?

Because atmospheric CO2 increases take a long time to go back down naturally it doesn't make TOO much difference whether we emit 'X CO2' over the course of one year or ten years... so long as we aren't talking about century timeframes it is the total amount of CO2 emitted which is going to determine the eventual scope of the problem.

When viewed this way it is then possible to calculate an approximate amount of CO2 we can emit before we are likely to get a given result (e.g. cross a given warming threshold). This is more commonly called a "carbon budget" than 'CO2 cushion'. It is a real and valid concept.

HOWEVER, it is important to consider the details of what any given 'budget amount' is referring to. You can get radically different results based on what temperature you set as the pre-industrial baseline, what net temperature increase you are looking to avoid, how long you are allowing for the temperature increase, and dozens of other factors.

Thus, comparing any two 'remaining budget' amount numbers from different sources at different times is likely to be pointless.

EV purchase costs being, relatively, high also isn't the question. They are selling ANYWAY. They are no longer uncommon 'novelty' vehicles because they are selling in large numbers even in the few countries that have adopted policies actively hostile to their introduction.

The suggestion that EV purchase costs need to drop significantly below comparable ICEs in more places (i.e. they already have in Norway) and low cost models become available in more places (e.g. China already has several dirt cheap EV models) in order to not be 'novelties' is ridiculous. When those price points are met EVs become the dominant option... like they have in Norway. Setting that as the bar for not being a 'novelty' is absurd.

You've got 10 months for your prediction to come true. I predict it won't.

It obviously already has. You're just too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Claiming EVs are still just a novelty at this point is ridiculous.

But it's easy to trash those first weeks and to make long term predictions about how disastrous it'll be by just straight out extrapolating "if it goes on like this".

Speaking of 'long term' predictions;

I see electric vehicles spreading in three stages;

1: Early adopters - A small percentage of people willing to pay extra for novelty / bragging rights / drag racing wins (a big selling point for Tesla apparently) / whatever. We are currently in this stage.

We'll be in the "novelty" stage for another 15 years or more.

Five years. At the outside.

That was back at the end of November 2016. Here we are just a little over 4 years later and how are EV sales doing?

Norway continues to lead, becoming the first country with majority EV sales. For 2020 BEVs averaged 54.3% of the market, up from 42.4% in 2019. For December 2020 that figure had risen to 66.7% (2/3rds). They appear to be ahead of their targets of 65% in 2021 and 100% by 2025.

Europe as a whole hit 10% PEVs for 2020, and 20% in December.

In China, 2020 BEV sales are going to be about 6%, with individual months now hitting double digits. That's well over a million cars per year and more than 100% growth over the previous year.

Yes, in North America, where 6 of the top 10 selling European EVs are not even available yet, EV sales are only around 2% of the market. However, given global growth of EVs (e.g. China's auto market is 150% the size of the US's) it won't be long before they become 'mainstream' here too. In any case, with over a million BEVs on the road even the US is well past the 'novelty' phase.

By November 2031 ("15 years or more") a new internal combustion engine car will be a novelty.

If - IF - the wildfires and droughts and Cat 5 hurricanes are the result of AGW

The measured increase in activity of those (and other) types is unquestionably due to global warming.

then without a barely concievable CC&S effort the year 2100 is going to be the biggest #### #### since the War of the Worlds and 2050 will suck beyond historical measure of human suffering.

Nonsense. Neither of those outcomes is unavoidable, and CC&S remains amongst the least likely solutions for stopping them.

Funny thing is just two years ago the clock was saying we've got 11 years, 11 months, + remaining. Now it's 7 years & 10 days.

The 'time remaining' to +1.5°C is an estimate based on emission rates and other factors. If emissions are higher than expected then the 'time remaining' goes down. If we manage to reduce emissions drastically then the 'time remaining' may become infinite.

All of which is IMO silly to begin with, because global warming is NOT a cliff with everything fine on one side of a line and free-fall on the other. Unfortunately, that's the kind of problem many people seem to need in order to 'understand' the issues. In reality, it is already 'too late' to avoid effects of global warming that we are already seeing (e.g. increased wildfires) and will never be too late to avoid effects that global warming just won't reach (e.g. end of all life on Earth).

OTOH the Cornonavirus has mutated significantly somewhere in England and is now spreading about the continent. Perhaps the CO2 impact will be significant after all?

Nope. Math still exists. The ~7% drop in CO2 emissions from 2019 to 2020 is miniscule. Instead of atmospheric totals going up ~2 ppm per year they'll go up ~2 * 93% = ~1.86 = ~2 ppm per year. It is literally within the scope of a rounding error. If covid-19 kept the world in lockdown conditions equivalent to 2020 for a decade (not going to happen) we'd be talking about ~18.6 ppm increase rather than ~20 ppm. The global warming impact of 1.4 ppm by the year 2100 is simply too small to measure. Heck, variability of atmospheric CO2 levels within each year is greater than that.

<squawk> Pieces of eight! <squawk>

Increasingly, though, it seems unlikely that these technologies can address the second half of the energy transition: how to power cement, steel, chemicals, and the other heavy industries that account for at least 40% of worldwide emissions.

Many decision makers in heavy industry are scratching their heads about what to do when they must retire their coal-fired powerplants in the early 2030s, as per their Paris Agreement commitments.

That's odd... as coal-fired power plants have nothing to do with the heavy industry processes mentioned.

As we start 2021, what should be the focus of our Operation Warp Speed for the Climate? I’ll highlight three action areas: lifestyle changes, financing for breakthrough technologies and geoengineering.

Hmmm... so, a person who makes their living by getting people to invest in technology startups is suggesting that we; make lifestyle changes which will require greatly expanded use of relatively new technologies, increase funding and remove roadblocks for government investment in technology startups, and develop radical new technologies to actively 'manage' the global climate. Hmmm... I wonder what his motivations could possibly be?

As to the 'logic' that finding the best of many existing options to (for example) eliminate CO2 production when converting iron into steel will require 'near miracle future technology', while pursuing entirely theoretical planetary scale terraforming technologies is a viable option... again, it's almost like there is another agenda here distorting the realities of the situation.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

All I can say is talk to David Fickling.

I don't see how any of the text you quoted constitutes 'backsliding'.

All I can say is talk to David Fickling.

In which case, you are not really a participant in this discussion... merely a parrot... incapable of really contributing anything, but endlessly repeating a few limited slogans... without really understanding even those.

And this is why I hold out hope for near-miracle tech and/or CC&S at the Gt-scale.

Relying on miracles to solve your problems will inevitably lead to eventually needing one.

All I can say is talk to David Fickling.

I don't see how any of the text you quoted constitutes 'backsliding'.

China's CO2 emissions were expected to have "climbed" from the "mid-2000s" to now. Indeed, if you went back to 2000, the estimates were much higher than the growth we have actually seen... because they hadn't started their massive push for renewable power yet.

Also from the article; "Nearly all new wind and solar projects in China already provide cheaper power than new coal generation, and about half would be cheaper than keeping existing coal and gas plants running, according to BloombergNEF estimates."

Yes, regional managers pushing as much coal (and steel, as cited by Fickling) development as possible to 'make their development numbers look good' has been a problem in China. However, basic economic realities (e.g. renewables are cheaper, unused steel costs money to store and degrades) make that a self correcting issue. As Fickling again alludes to himself; "At some point, as with every credit-fueled boom, the river of cash will dry up and borrowers will have to work harder to justify their loans."

So yes, there is currently irrational behavior in the Chinese market... as there always is in EVERY market. However, there are no mechanisms in place to reward or protect that irrational behavior... so throwing up a bunch of new coal plants that won't be able to sell any electricity because it costs more than buying from the solar plant down the road is going to prove to be a massive mistake (just ask the funders of the Bluewater coal plant in Australia I linked to a story about in my last post). Ditto over-production of steel to 'cook the books'. The bill will come due and when they can't pay those managers and/or the people funding the irrational activity will be out.

Thus Fickling's worry that these activities could represent a larger ongoing trend seem unfounded to me. You can't keep wasting money indefinitely. Eventually you run out or the people whose money you are throwing away notice and stop you.

In any case, the targets set by the Chinese government and the actual results achieved by the country continue to improve every few years.

Or we could discuss this:

Australia's path to net zero emissions is massively behind schedule

The Australian government's (in)action on global warming has been amongst the worst in the world.

In contrast, the fact that Australia has some of the best solar resources in the world has led to a massive increase in private solar power and battery storage.

As such, while the Guardian article is rightly critical of the government, it wrongly assumes that all GHG reductions in the current year are due to the pandemic. Take another look at those 'scary' graphs. If you ignore the dishonesty inherent in projecting "actual emissions" through 2030 and look just at the years we actually have emissions data for (i.e. the PAST)... you'll see that the (projected) drop in 2020 is not new. They'd been averaging ~5Mt annual reductions from 2011-2019... more than double the trend the author projects going forward.

The Australian government, like that in the US, had promised to keep coal strong. In reality, the industry is collapsing into economic ruin. A newly built coal plant is now completely worthless... nobody will pay the rates they'd have to charge just for the cost of the coal to generate power, let alone recouping the cost of building the thing. So it's a complete loss... which means that no bank is going to be willing to loan money for more coal power in the future. That graph showing 35% coal power through 2030? Complete fiction. It may indeed be what the coal friendly government has been claiming... but it isn't going to happen.

China's isn't but China's is only a promise at this point.

Nonsense. The first article linked above notes that China has the highest total and per year solar power installations in the world. They are far far ahead of even the rosiest international estimates from ten or even five years ago. That's reality. Not merely a promise.

For the past five years there has been a merry-go-round of nonsense in this thread where the fact that the "current" Paris Agreement pledges were not sufficient to prevent 2°C warming was advanced as 'proof' that eventual warming must perforce be greater than that amount.

In response, it has been repeatedly pointed out, and just as frequently ignored, that the Paris Agreement pledges were always intended to be revised every five years.

Well, it has been five years... and now revised Paris Agreement pledges starting to come in.

As should have been obvious given improving renewable technologies, the revised pledges are better than the original values. So far 71 countries have improved their pledges. Many are now looking at 2030 targets rather than later decades. China and India are eyeing zero emissions growth decades ahead of previous estimates.

We'll have to wait and see how everything plays out and how much progress countries actually continue making, but both pledges and actual emissions are moving in the right direction... just as repeatedly predicted.

If you want to have some idea of the future, it is important to look at trends rather than 'snapshots'.

Somewhat bold new prediction: We have already passed the peak CO2 emissions year... 2019. That is, no future year will again have 40.1 billion tons (or more) of CO2 emissions. Obviously, 2020 is going to be down sharply (to ~37 billion tons)due to covid-19, but if things returned to 'business as usual' then we'd see emissions growth resuming in 2021 and later years. Instead, I am betting that the economic slowdown has accelerated the demise of coal power and thus even as economic activity returns to previous levels it will be less CO2 intensive. Maybe values tick up for a year here and there in the future, but not enough to get back to the 2019 level.

I love it that people with literally no earned degree in any relevant topic are here to denigrate the contributions of hundreds who've earned degrees and published peer reviewed articles, teach at accredited universities the world over, etc. ad nauseam.

...says the guy who routinely claims that the climate models are completely wrong because he knows feedback effects better than the experts who develop them.

As to the "hundreds of scholars" Lomborg assembled to make suggestions on climate change... there were, in fact, five. All of them economists with no background in climate science and apparently no understanding of it. For example, they concluded that the absolute best course of action would be to spray chemicals into the air to whiten clouds and thus reduce the amount of light reaching the surface. The stupidity is staggering. Let's just go over the most obvious problems;

1: Their economic analysis concluded this was the best choice because it would cost the least to reduce temperatures... on a one time basis. That is, they had so little understanding of climate change that they thought they need only briefly cool the planet down enough to offset the observed warming. In reality, the 'cloud whitening' would last a few months at best. The chemicals would fall back to Earth and end the cooling forcing, but the greenhouse gases would still be up there continuing to cause a warming forcing... and thus they'd have to do it all over again... every few months... for thousands of years going forward. At unimaginably massive expense.

2: Less sunlight coming in would be a 'bad thing' <tm> in its own right. The cost from decreased crop yields alone (a factor they completely overlooked) would be staggering.

3: Let's spray massive amounts of chemicals all over the planet! What could go wrong? Again, they didn't factor in the environmental damage at all.

Basically, those five experts on economics analyzed fictional scenarios provided by Lomborg... 'spray some chemicals in the air for a few weeks and global warming is magically over'. Their math was fine. The 'facts' they based that math on were outright fraud.

Lomborg has repeatedly been demonstrated to spread disinformation. The fact that some of his defenders argued that he shouldn't be held to scientific standards because he isn't a scientist doesn't change that... he is still spreading blatantly false information. The 'maybe he does not know any better' defense is irrelevant (and IMO implausible). His claims are still false.

Inner Sea Intrigue has 'Masked Persona' rules for any character to have a dual identity. However, to the best of my recollection, the transformation sequence is unique to Magical Child.

do you really think Bjorn Lomborg is somehow working WITH some facet of the fossil fuel industry? I can't find any direct ties but then I'm not particularly good at internet digging.

I really do

Still need more information.

How is the ratio calculated for three or more classes? If the goal is really to encourage multiclassing then the most logical method would be that the highest class level be limited to 1/3rd of total character level... but it would be good to get clarification that it isn't instead something like 'highest class level' vs 'lowest class level'.

How many levels before this ratio limit kicks in? It obviously can't apply at 1st level, but theoretically could at character level 2 and later. If it doesn't kick in until around character level 10 then virtually any prestige class and the class(es) needed for its pre-reqs should qualify.

One extreme approach might be to take single level dips in various archetypes and prestige classes that give +1d6 sneak attack at 1st level. That could allow you to build up a significant amount of sneak attack damage around a melee class that doesn't normally get the ability.

The idea that Lomborg and Anderson in any way 'agree' on AGW is just bizarre.

Lomborg essentially argues that AGW is a relatively minor problem and that we can just adapt to it by spending a little money to adjust to the higher temperatures.

Anderson, conversely, claims that we have run out of time and wealthy countries must make immediate drastic cuts in emissions to avoid dooming the majority of the world's population to climate catastrophe.

IMO they are both wrong. Anderson because he considers solar and wind 'future technologies' that cannot reduce emissions fast enough, and Lomborg because he's a professional shill for the fossil fuel industry who has no compunctions whatsoever against deliberately deceiving people.