The next el Niño---James Hansen

 From James Hansen's Climate Uncensored Substack

You can read the full article yourself, and I'll just post the main chart and the conclusion here.

Fig. 1. Global surface temperature (relative to 1880-1920 base period).[1]
click on chart to enlarge

 Abstract: 

The world seems headed into another El Niño, just 3 years after the last one. Such quick return normally would imply, at most, an El Niño of moderate strength, but we suggest that even a moderately strong El Niño may yield record global temperature already in 2026 and still greater temperature in 2027. The extreme warming will be a result mainly of high climate sensitivity and a recent increase of the net global climate forcing, not the result of an exceptional El Niño, per se. We find that the principal drive[r] for global warming acceleration began in about 2015, which implies that 2°C global warming is likely to be reached in the 2030s, not at midcentury.

The key lines on the chart are the 1970-2010 linear trend, of an increase of 0.18 C per decade, the linear trend from 2010 to the present of 0.3 C per decade (last 15 years) and the linear trend from 2015 to date of 0.41 C per decade.

It's really a clear-cut proposition:  either we slash emissions very fast, or there will be climate catastrophe.  Yes, emissions have probably peaked, but they're only likely to fall slowly at first, and for the rate of increase in temperatures to slow to, say, 0.1 C per decade, we will need to cut emissions by 2/3rds or 3/4qtrs.

Can we do that?  

The chart below, from Our World in Data, shows emissions by sector, which includes direct emissions, as well as indirect emissions.  For example, you could be burning oil directly to heat your house, or using fossil fuels indirectly, via electricity.  Electricity generation produces roughly 30% of global emissions.  Apart from aviation and shipping, almost all of the sectors in the red quadrant can be electrified.  Converting the grid to green tech will be a huge step towards eliminating all emissions from these sectors.

So it is possible.  But that means green electricity, and the electrification of everything.  Wind and solar and batteries instead of coal and gas power stations, plus EVs and heat pumps.  Electric trains, electric planes, electric ships.  Chemicals and cement.  Landfill.

And we need to deal with emissions in agriculture.  That will be complicated and will vary by source, so the sooner we start, the better.

It's doable.  But will we do it?  It's up to us.

Source: Our World in Data

 

New cold-hardy electrolyte could double EV range

With existing battery electrolytes, many electric vehicles struggle to maintain decent range in cold temperatures

Depositphotos

From New Atlas

A joint team of researchers from Nankai University in Tianjin and the Shanghai Institute of Space Power Sources (SISP) has developed a hydrofluorocarbon-based electrolyte that significantly enhances the performance of lithium batteries. As reported by the South China Morning Post, the new electrolyte more than doubles the energy density of existing batteries at room temperature, meaning batteries of the same size can last twice as long.

The researchers also claim that the new electrolyte remains stable in extreme cold, allowing batteries to function seamlessly in temperatures as low as -94 ºF (-70 ºC), well over 2.5 times the temperature of your refrigerator.

Chemical batteries, such as lithium batteries, utilize electrolytes – a chemical medium that allows ions to flow between the positive and negative electrodes, converting stored chemical energy into electrical current. In lithium batteries, the electrolytes are usually nitrogen- and oxygen-based compounds, mainly because of their effectiveness at dissolving lithium salts.


However, these electrolytes are sensitive to operating temperatures. Cold temperatures increase viscosity and slow down ion mobility, reducing charge transfer efficiency. When this happens, the battery delivers less power, takes longer to charge, and loses usable capacity, providing less runtime than its stored energy would suggest. This is why lithium batteries appear to die quickly in extreme cold. In certain conditions, such as charging the battery when the temperature is below 32 °F (0 ºC), permanent damage may occur.

In the study published in Nature, the researchers outlined how their solution, synthesized hydrofluorocarbon-based (hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon) electrolytes, eliminates this problem in lithium batteries. The cold-resistant electrolyte offers improved stability and lower viscosity at low temperatures, enabling batteries to continue operating efficiently below -94 °F.

Another outstanding feature of the electrolyte is its energy density – the amount of charge it can store per weight. In the study, the team created lithium metal pouch cells that achieved an energy density of 317 watt-hours per pound (Wh/lb) at room temperature. The cells still maintained a density of 181 Wh/lb at -50 °F (-46 ºC).

In comparison, conventional lithium batteries, such as those found in Tesla EVs, have an energy density of 73-136 Wh/lb at room temperature. This figure more than halves when temperatures fall to just -4 °F (-20 ºC).Technically speaking, the researcher’s electrolyte could triple the range of some EVs with the same battery size!

“For the same mass of lithium battery, the room temperature energy storage capacity is increased by two to three times,” said study author Li Yong, a researcher at SISP.

Beyond the automotive industry, this development could have far-reaching implications across many sectors and everyday life. We are talking drones, robots, smartphones, and consumer electronics that last twice as long while still being able to operate efficiently in extreme cold.

Research robots operating in Antarctica could function reliably, while subsea exploration vehicles could significantly extend their operational range. Similarly, satellites and spacecraft, which endure extreme temperature swings in orbit, could benefit from more stable and predictable power systems. The list goes on and on.

Before we get carried away, it's important to note that the electrolytes are not exactly “all weather” ... yet. The team noted that the electrolyte’s high-temperature stability still needs improvement. Should they succeed in raising the boiling point of the electrolyte, we could have a true all-climate solution.

 

Source: Nature 

 

This is obviously still at the laboratory stage, and as such, may never enter commercial production. However, you may depend upon it: engineers at Chinese and other countries' battery manufacturers will have read the article in Nature, and will be keenly examining the results to see if there is any way they can increase the range and reduce the cost of their own batteries.  There is a ferment in battery technology and manufacture, and the likely outcome is more of the same: plunging costs, higher energy density, and greater range.  Sodium-ion batteries, for example, which also allow low-temperature use, are just one of the ways battery makers have slashed costs.  This new electrolyte keeps lithium-ion in the game. 

Denmark didn't "transition" its grid—it replaced it.

 From Chris Meder, EVCurveFuturist

Denmark didn’t “transition” its grid—it replaced it. ~15% → 92% renewable electricity in 25 years. Wind did the heavy lifting. Solar is scaling. Interconnection balanced. Flexibility solved variability. Wind built it. Solar is scaling. Fossil lost it. This IS system replacement. ⚡#Bettrification

If little Denmark can we do it, we all can. There are no longer any technological hurdles to overcome. Technical hurdles, yes. There are no longer any economic hurdles either. The only factor standing in the way is vested interests.

The end of oil

From The Conversation

US President Donald Trump is a longtime climate denier and oil industry ally, who sums up his own energy policy as “drill, baby, drill”. Yet he is doing more than almost anyone to speed up the global shift from fossil fuels to clean energy and electric vehicles (EVs).

After the US and Israel struck Iran in late February, Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz and triggered the largest disruption of oil supply in history.

Ironically for Trump and his oil industry donors, this crisis may be an irreversible tipping point for clean energy. For years, fossil fuel advocates spruiked oil, gas and coal as “reliable” energy. That narrative has been reversed. Fossil fuels have become expensive and unreliable, while renewables are cheap, reliable and secure.

For the first time ever, more than 50 nations will gather next week in Colombia to hash out how to wind down and end their dependence on coal, oil and gas. The history-making conference was planned before the Iran war. But this year’s energy crisis has greatly raised the stakes.

The oil crisis is real

Iran’s closure of the narrow Strait of Hormuz stopped oil tankers reaching their destinations. But that wasn’t all. More than 60 gas and oil sites have been damaged in the conflict so far. Even if a durable ceasefire is reached, these impacts will reverberate for months and years to come.

Around 80% of the trapped crude oil was destined for the Asia-Pacific. Faced with dwindling supply, the region’s governments are implementing emergency measures such as sending workers home, banning government travel, rationing fuel and cutting school hours.

The problem is especially bad in the Pacific. Many island nations use diesel for power generation. In response, leaders declared a regional emergency.

Fuel import bills were already a major burden for Pacific nations, leading to efforts to switch to local renewables. Fuel bills could rise by A$933 million in Fiji (nearly three times the healthcare budget).

Scrambling for energy

When energy supplies are disrupted, leaders have three options: find alternate supplies, reduce use or switch to alternatives. In the very short term, countries aim to shore up supply, just as Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did last week in Malaysia.

Countries have also moved to reduce use. This can have lasting effects. During the Middle East oil shocks of the 1970s, oil prices tripled and then doubled again. Authorities responded by improving energy productivity to do more with less. The world’s final oil demand per capita peaked in 1979 and has never recovered.

But the real difference from half a century ago is that fossil fuel alternatives are ready for prime time. Since the 1970s, the price of solar panels has fallen 99.9%, while the cost of wind has fallen 91% since 1984. Battery prices have fallen 99% since 1991.

This means it’s now viable for many nations to switch to these alternatives.

The European Union will accelerate electrification, after its fossil fuel bill increased more than $36 billion since February. France has doubled state aid to help households switch to EVs and electrify home heating. Import-dependent South Korea gets 70% of its crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz. It now plans to double renewables capacity within four years.

Electric vehicles at the tipping point?

This year’s oil shock shows signs of creating an unplanned social tipping point – a threshold for self-propelling change beyond which systems shift from one state to another. Climate scientists warn of climate tipping points which amplify feedback and accelerate warming. But social scientists also point to positive tipping points – collective action that rapidly accelerates climate action.

The rush to EVs is a case in point. In Australia, petrol prices surged almost 50% in March, and diesel more than 70%. It’s no surprise new EV sales are at an all-time high, while secondhand EV sales more than doubled last month.

Australia’s 1.3 million hybrid and battery electric vehicles avoid almost 15 million litres of petrol and diesel use every week.

The rush to electric transport is global. Most new Chinese cars are powered by batteries, not oil. Battery electric vehicles outsold petrol cars for the first time in Europe in January.

A conference to quit fossil fuels

The routine burning of coal, oil and gas is the primary driver of the climate crisis. The world’s highest court last year made clear nations have obligations to stop burning fossil fuels.

But fossil fuels have barely been mentioned in 30 years of global climate negotiations, due in part to blocking efforts by big fossil fuel exporters and lobbyists.

Frustrated by slow progress, a coalition of nations has bypassed global climate talks to discuss how to actually phase out fossil fuels.

The first of these summits will take place next week. More than 50 nations will gather in Santa Marta, Colombia, to discuss a potential standalone treaty to manage fossil-fuel phaseout while protecting workers and financial systems.

Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez Torres says it comes at the “best possible moment”, as the oil crisis focuses global attention on fossil fuel dependency.

If next week’s summit produces real momentum to wean off fossil fuels amid the energy crisis, we might look back at it as a social tipping point where early adopters move in earnest – and make it easier for the rest of the world to follow.

A catastrophic climate event is upon us

Illustration by Ben Jennings

From The Guardian

The poor and middle pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers – and the ultra-rich pay politicians. It’s not an original remark, but it bears repeating until everyone has heard it. The more money billionaires accumulate, the greater their control of the political system – which means they pay less tax, which means they accumulate more, which means their control intensifies.

They reshape the world to suit their demands. One of the symptoms of the pathology known as “billionaire brain” is an inability to see beyond their own short-term gain. They would sack the planet for a few more stones on the pointless mountain of wealth. And we can see it happening. Last week delivered the biggest news of the year so far, perhaps the biggest news of the century. But partly because billionaires own most of the media, most people never heard it. We might find ourselves committed to a civilisation-ending event before we even learn that such a thing is possible.

The news is that the state of a crucial oceanic circulation system has been reassessed by scientists. Some now believe that, as a result of climate breakdown changing the temperature and salinity of seawater, it is more likely than not to collapse. This system – known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) – delivers heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. Recent research suggests that if it shuts down, it could cause both a massive drop in average winter temperatures in northern Europe and drastic changes in the Amazon’s water cycles. This could help tip the rainforest into cascading collapse and trigger further disaster.

Amoc’s shutdown is likely also to cause an acceleration of sea level rise on the east coast of the US, threatening cities. It could also raise Antarctic temperatures by roughly 6C (43F) and release a vast pulse of carbon currently stored in the Southern Ocean, accelerating climate catastrophe.

Even when the countervailing effects of generalised global heating are taken into account, a further paper proposes, the net impact in northern Europe would be periods of extreme cold – including events in which temperatures in London fall to -19C, in Edinburgh to -30C and in Oslo to -48C. Sea ice in February would extend as far as Lincolnshire. Our climate would change drastically, with the likelihood of far greater extremes, such as massive winter storms. Rain-fed arable agriculture would become impossible almost everywhere in the UK.

This shift, on any realistic human scale, would be irreversible. Its speed is likely to outrun our ability to adapt. Amoc shutdowns, driven by natural climate variability, have happened before. But not in the era of large-scale human civilisation.

The first paper proposing that Amoc might have an on-state and an off-state was published in 1961. Since then, many studies have confirmed the finding and explored potential triggers and likely implications. Until recently, Amoc collapse caused by human activity fell into the category of a “high impact, low probability” event, devastating if it happens, but unlikely to occur. Research over the past few years prompted a reassessment: it began to look more like a “high impact, high probability” event. Now, in response to last week’s paper, Prof Stefan Rahmstorf – perhaps the world’s leading authority on the subject – says the chances of a shutdown look like “more than 50%”. We could pass the tipping point, he says, “in the middle of this century”.

So why is this not all over the news? Why is it not the top priority for the governments that claim to protect us from harm? Well, in large part because oligarchic power has championed a model of climate impact that bears little relation to reality: that is, they have a hypothesis about how the world works that is completely detached from scientific findings. This model underpins official responses to the climate crisis.

It began with the work of the economist William Nordhaus, who sought to assess the economic effects of global heating. His modelling suggests that a “socially optimal” level of heating is between 3.5C and 4C. Most climate scientists see a temperature rise of this kind as catastrophic. Even 6C of heating, Nordhaus suggests, would cause a loss of just 8.5% of GDP. Climate science suggests it would look more like curtains for civilisation.

As the eminent economists Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz and Charlotte Taylor have argued, the mild effects Nordhaus forecasts are merely artefacts of the model he has used. For example, his modelling assumes that catastrophic risks do not exist and that climate impacts rise linearly with temperature. There is no climate model that proposes such a trend. Instead, climate science forecasts nonlinear impacts and greatly escalating risk. The likely impacts of high levels of heating include the inundation of major cities, the closure of the human climate niche (the conditions that sustain human life) across large parts of the globe, the collapse of the global food system and cascading regime shifts – that is, abrupt transitions in ecosystems – releasing natural carbon stores, potentially leading to a “hothouse Earth” in which very few survive. Never mind a few points off GDP: there would be no means of measurement and scarcely an economy to measure.

Bizarrely, the modelling also applies discount rates to future people: their lives, it assumes, are worth less than ours. In other words, it has taken a method used to calculate returns to capital and applied it to human beings. As the three economists point out, “it is very difficult to find a justification for this in moral philosophy.” Moreover, climate impacts disproportionately affect the poor – but under the models, their lives are also priced down.

Unsurprisingly, models of this kind, Stern, Stiglitz and Taylor note, have been seized on by “special interests” such as the fossil fuel industry to argue for minimal responses to the climate crisis. And it’s not just the oil companies. Bill Gates, who claims to want to protect the living planet, has given $3.5m (£2.6m) to a junktank run by Bjorn Lomborg, who has built his career on promoting Nordhaus’s model, thus helping to downplay the need for climate action. Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Memorial prize for economics for his pernicious nonsense – and it is deeply embedded in government decision-making.

A billionaire death cult has its fingers around humanity’s throat. It both causes and downplays our existential crisis. The oligarchs are not just a class enemy but, as they have always been, a societal enemy: a few thousand people can destroy civilisations. It’s the billions v the billionaires, and the stakes could not possibly be higher.

Want your flag signed

 By Mike Luckovich

Clap on, clap off, the clapper!

 By Mike Luckovich