Really interesting, thank you. And encouraging too. This kind of thing - seeing that there is some change in the right direction - is important to communicate, especially when people are getting demoralised at the rate of progress. We are moving too slowly, but at least we can see the movement now.
This article says nothing about the human-caused INdirect emissions - the permafrost thaw, the methane emissions from growing tropical wetlands and Arctic wetlands... and nothing about the tipping points the IPCC keeps ignoring: The Amazon transition to savannah, the boreal forests turning to ashes, the rate-dependent tipping points such as the "compost bomb instability", and the social compounding tipping points, which affect the imagined techno-optimist scenario towards a wonderful future. The IPCC has a long record of having underestimated the damages of the near future (now the past) during its 33 years in existence. It's guided by the pro-growth economics paradigm within the IPCC (and people like economist Richard Tol and his outrageous disinformation on climate) and ignores the basic thermodynamics of civilization. Also, if you want to know how climate will change, don't follow supposed emissions numbers (which are widely acknowledged to be understated for political reasons from various governments), instead follow the Keeling Curve. It shows no change from its exponential form, and the annual increase of CO2 concentrations continues to be 2.5 ppm per year. I'm not impressed by this article.
Because the Keeling Curve is a lagging indicator since its a function of cumulative emissions. That curve won't flatten out until we get close to net zero, so its not really a good indicator of decadal-scale emissions changes.
Yes but can’t the ppm jump from year to year tell us roughly whether emissions have increased or decreased? If the jump is the same year over year, couldn’t we say emissions have flattened (assuming CO₂ absorption by the planet is constant)?
Or better still, couldn’t we compute a keeling curve into the future for each of the RCP scenarios and compare the real keeling curve against the computed projections to get a good idea which scenario we were tracking?
Unfortunately there is a lot of year to year variability in ppm changes due to ENSO and other factors unrelated to emissions, so it’s a pretty poor short term indicator.
I did a quick google search and according to article above, RCP 2.6 says we need a CO₂ concentration of 421 ppm in 2100. 8.5 is 936 ppm.
So this is roughly what I’m talking about; comparing the actual keeling curve measurements with keeling curve projections from each scenario. But instead of just the endpoint concentrations like I’m the article above, it would compare the entire curve.
Not sure how the Keeling curve is relevant. The Keeling curve tells us the historical atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (not emissions) and it doesn't tell you anything about the future.
But we’re still accelerating. Is it because we’ve crossed tipping points? Perhaps the world is more complicated than our concepts of it in models. Either way, at 422ppm we are well equipped to reach 3C by 2050.
How do we delete and get rid of anything/everything that conveys anything else and actually finally treat this issue like the “national/global security threat” that it is?
Did/does everyone see what is happening to LA (Jan 2025)? LA uses some of the most stringent Building and Energy Code in the U.S! How do you seriously think any of the other cities built to older standards are going to be able to withstand what is coming?
Tropical Storm Trami: Killed more than 100 people in the Philippines.
Chile wildfires: Killed at least 136 people.
Flooding and landslides in Nepal: Killed at least 192 people.
Heavy flooding in Spain: Killed at least 224 people.
Heat wave in Saudi Arabia: Killed at least 1,300 people during the Hajj pilgrimage.
New Year's Earthquake in Japan: Killed at least 213 people.
Landslides in Ethiopia: Killed at least 250 people.
Landslides in Papua New Guinea: Killed at least 670 people.
We need all global cities utilizing the very latest flood, fire, dought, heat, sea level rise, storm maps and building code in their master/urban planning for all public and private infrastructure and building/prepping for AT LEAST what we know to be our new inevitable climate reality. We can limit the warming but we cannot stop it! We are running out of time. The disasters on TV and in the news will only get worse if we fail to prepare!
How do we delete and get rid of anything/everything that conveys anything else and actually finally treat this issue like the “national/global security threat” that it is?
Did/does everyone see what is happening to LA (Jan 2025)? LA uses some of the most stringent Building and Energy Code in the U.S! How do you seriously think any of the other cities built to older standards are going to be able to withstand what is coming?
Tropical Storm Trami: Killed more than 100 people in the Philippines.
Chile wildfires: Killed at least 136 people.
Flooding and landslides in Nepal: Killed at least 192 people.
Heavy flooding in Spain: Killed at least 224 people.
Heat wave in Saudi Arabia: Killed at least 1,300 people during the Hajj pilgrimage.
New Year's Earthquake in Japan: Killed at least 213 people.
Landslides in Ethiopia: Killed at least 250 people.
Landslides in Papua New Guinea: Killed at least 670 people.
We need all global cities utilizing the very latest flood, fire, dought, heat, sea level rise, storm maps and building code in their master/urban planning for all public and private infrastructure and building/prepping for AT LEAST what we know to be our new inevitable climate reality. We can limit the warming but we cannot stop it! We are running out of time. The disasters on TV and in the news will only get worse if we fail to prepare!
This is good news, but what about methane? I live in Pennsylvania and I see no let up in fracking. Everyone is bending over to suppory fracking. Companies have been greatly under-reporting their methane emissions. New LNG terminals are proposed.
I don’t understand. You work very hard on telling us that progress is great then, you say that it’s on track for 2.6 - which is also you say very unacceptable. You can’t have it both ways, there’s little point in arguing for the middle way on this - it’s a middle with people’s lives at stake. And there is no time to worry whether you’re just a glass half full guy or plain wrong.
Reassuring. Maybe. Depends on whether all The class VI wells leak, or just every class VI well so far. And whether we get fugitive methane emissions under control. I wish I could be optimistic.
A valuable update. I do have a question about one line where you describe the flattening of the curve solely to the “rapidly accelerating energy transition driven by falling costs of clean energy technologies” without mentioning the coal-to-gas shift?
We will never willingly cut emissions globally. Just look at past behaviour. Net Zero is another lie to buy enough time to party and kick the can down the road. This is no an ideological stance, just observable truth.
Really interesting, thank you. And encouraging too. This kind of thing - seeing that there is some change in the right direction - is important to communicate, especially when people are getting demoralised at the rate of progress. We are moving too slowly, but at least we can see the movement now.
This article says nothing about the human-caused INdirect emissions - the permafrost thaw, the methane emissions from growing tropical wetlands and Arctic wetlands... and nothing about the tipping points the IPCC keeps ignoring: The Amazon transition to savannah, the boreal forests turning to ashes, the rate-dependent tipping points such as the "compost bomb instability", and the social compounding tipping points, which affect the imagined techno-optimist scenario towards a wonderful future. The IPCC has a long record of having underestimated the damages of the near future (now the past) during its 33 years in existence. It's guided by the pro-growth economics paradigm within the IPCC (and people like economist Richard Tol and his outrageous disinformation on climate) and ignores the basic thermodynamics of civilization. Also, if you want to know how climate will change, don't follow supposed emissions numbers (which are widely acknowledged to be understated for political reasons from various governments), instead follow the Keeling Curve. It shows no change from its exponential form, and the annual increase of CO2 concentrations continues to be 2.5 ppm per year. I'm not impressed by this article.
Why do we pay more attention to emission estimates instead of a more direct measurement like the Keeling Curve?
Because the Keeling Curve is a lagging indicator since its a function of cumulative emissions. That curve won't flatten out until we get close to net zero, so its not really a good indicator of decadal-scale emissions changes.
Yes but can’t the ppm jump from year to year tell us roughly whether emissions have increased or decreased? If the jump is the same year over year, couldn’t we say emissions have flattened (assuming CO₂ absorption by the planet is constant)?
Or better still, couldn’t we compute a keeling curve into the future for each of the RCP scenarios and compare the real keeling curve against the computed projections to get a good idea which scenario we were tracking?
Unfortunately there is a lot of year to year variability in ppm changes due to ENSO and other factors unrelated to emissions, so it’s a pretty poor short term indicator.
https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/earth-and-climate/keeling-s-curve-the-story-of-co2/dataset-information
I did a quick google search and according to article above, RCP 2.6 says we need a CO₂ concentration of 421 ppm in 2100. 8.5 is 936 ppm.
So this is roughly what I’m talking about; comparing the actual keeling curve measurements with keeling curve projections from each scenario. But instead of just the endpoint concentrations like I’m the article above, it would compare the entire curve.
Not sure how the Keeling curve is relevant. The Keeling curve tells us the historical atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (not emissions) and it doesn't tell you anything about the future.
How does the assessment change with non CO2 GHGs included?
But we’re still accelerating. Is it because we’ve crossed tipping points? Perhaps the world is more complicated than our concepts of it in models. Either way, at 422ppm we are well equipped to reach 3C by 2050.
We may have missed our moment.
CLIMATE CHANGE UPDATE
The RCP scenarios are outdated and from 2014!
We are projected to breach 1.5C by 2036 and 2.0C by 2062 with 95% confidence!
https://substack.com/profile/41009896-g-the-esg-enthusiast?
How do we delete and get rid of anything/everything that conveys anything else and actually finally treat this issue like the “national/global security threat” that it is?
Did/does everyone see what is happening to LA (Jan 2025)? LA uses some of the most stringent Building and Energy Code in the U.S! How do you seriously think any of the other cities built to older standards are going to be able to withstand what is coming?
Tropical Storm Trami: Killed more than 100 people in the Philippines.
Chile wildfires: Killed at least 136 people.
Flooding and landslides in Nepal: Killed at least 192 people.
Heavy flooding in Spain: Killed at least 224 people.
Heat wave in Saudi Arabia: Killed at least 1,300 people during the Hajj pilgrimage.
New Year's Earthquake in Japan: Killed at least 213 people.
Landslides in Ethiopia: Killed at least 250 people.
Landslides in Papua New Guinea: Killed at least 670 people.
We need all global cities utilizing the very latest flood, fire, dought, heat, sea level rise, storm maps and building code in their master/urban planning for all public and private infrastructure and building/prepping for AT LEAST what we know to be our new inevitable climate reality. We can limit the warming but we cannot stop it! We are running out of time. The disasters on TV and in the news will only get worse if we fail to prepare!
The RCP scenarios are outdated and from 2014!
We are projected to breach 1.5C by 2036 and 2.0C by 2062 with 95% confidence!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-record-global-heat-means-for-breaching-the-1-5c-warming-limit/
How do we delete and get rid of anything/everything that conveys anything else and actually finally treat this issue like the “national/global security threat” that it is?
Did/does everyone see what is happening to LA (Jan 2025)? LA uses some of the most stringent Building and Energy Code in the U.S! How do you seriously think any of the other cities built to older standards are going to be able to withstand what is coming?
Tropical Storm Trami: Killed more than 100 people in the Philippines.
Chile wildfires: Killed at least 136 people.
Flooding and landslides in Nepal: Killed at least 192 people.
Heavy flooding in Spain: Killed at least 224 people.
Heat wave in Saudi Arabia: Killed at least 1,300 people during the Hajj pilgrimage.
New Year's Earthquake in Japan: Killed at least 213 people.
Landslides in Ethiopia: Killed at least 250 people.
Landslides in Papua New Guinea: Killed at least 670 people.
We need all global cities utilizing the very latest flood, fire, dought, heat, sea level rise, storm maps and building code in their master/urban planning for all public and private infrastructure and building/prepping for AT LEAST what we know to be our new inevitable climate reality. We can limit the warming but we cannot stop it! We are running out of time. The disasters on TV and in the news will only get worse if we fail to prepare!
This is good news, but what about methane? I live in Pennsylvania and I see no let up in fracking. Everyone is bending over to suppory fracking. Companies have been greatly under-reporting their methane emissions. New LNG terminals are proposed.
I don’t understand. You work very hard on telling us that progress is great then, you say that it’s on track for 2.6 - which is also you say very unacceptable. You can’t have it both ways, there’s little point in arguing for the middle way on this - it’s a middle with people’s lives at stake. And there is no time to worry whether you’re just a glass half full guy or plain wrong.
Terrific news. Hope humanity continues on the right trajectory.
LMFAO as if Homosapien has 1/10 of one percent odds of seeing 2100?
Um.....nope.
Hum. Yet AI, cryptocurrencies and the cloud are increasing energy demand exponentially. 🤔
Reassuring. Maybe. Depends on whether all The class VI wells leak, or just every class VI well so far. And whether we get fugitive methane emissions under control. I wish I could be optimistic.
A valuable update. I do have a question about one line where you describe the flattening of the curve solely to the “rapidly accelerating energy transition driven by falling costs of clean energy technologies” without mentioning the coal-to-gas shift?
We will never willingly cut emissions globally. Just look at past behaviour. Net Zero is another lie to buy enough time to party and kick the can down the road. This is no an ideological stance, just observable truth.
Is it a growing gap if we are finally on a lower warming path?