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.
You seem to be ignoring that methane emissions are rising fast, particularly due to melting permafrost, and with other greenhouse gases and atmospheric humidity, are accelerating the speed of climate changes.
You also seem to be ignoring that both forests and now oceans seem to have become net sources of carbon rather than carbon sinks, which must fundamentally affect the models you are referring to.
I also note that oil and gas exploration budgets have increased in many countries, China is actually increasing its coal production, and Britain has opened up new coal mines and North Sea oil and gas production.
If Trump takes the US presidency in the next few days, then the situation will suddenly become much worse. "Drill baby drill!"
There is also the likelihood of a Middle East war, in addition to the Ukraine war, both in oil and gas producer countries and, as always, wars contribute massively to CO2 emissions.
None of which suggests future CO2 emissions are under control.
And you don't mention the potential (and perhaps already underway) AMOC turnoff that'll also make your model's outcomes fundamentally irrelevant, at least in the Atlantic, Europe and the Artic.
As all the above seem outside your modelling, it seems hard to accept your analysis and proposed outcomes.
CO2 emissions in the US decreased when Trump was president, not to his credit. The US has a long way to go in per capita numbers, but our emissions are not going back up. Methane is certainly an issue but it's not the main driver of warming.
I'd be very surprised if they did go back up. It's possible, of course, and I should probably assume the worst. Do you have a good study to point to about how much methane drives warming? From what I've seen it's about 10%? Ofc, with fracking expansion it could certainly continue to increase.
Yes, I am aware that it's much worse in the short term. One interesting thing I've seen repeatedly is that we undercount human methane emissions, but I assume it'd still be seen in the atmospheric concentration increase.
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.
You seem to be ignoring that methane emissions are rising fast, particularly due to melting permafrost, and with other greenhouse gases and atmospheric humidity, are accelerating the speed of climate changes.
You also seem to be ignoring that both forests and now oceans seem to have become net sources of carbon rather than carbon sinks, which must fundamentally affect the models you are referring to.
I also note that oil and gas exploration budgets have increased in many countries, China is actually increasing its coal production, and Britain has opened up new coal mines and North Sea oil and gas production.
If Trump takes the US presidency in the next few days, then the situation will suddenly become much worse. "Drill baby drill!"
There is also the likelihood of a Middle East war, in addition to the Ukraine war, both in oil and gas producer countries and, as always, wars contribute massively to CO2 emissions.
None of which suggests future CO2 emissions are under control.
And you don't mention the potential (and perhaps already underway) AMOC turnoff that'll also make your model's outcomes fundamentally irrelevant, at least in the Atlantic, Europe and the Artic.
As all the above seem outside your modelling, it seems hard to accept your analysis and proposed outcomes.
CO2 emissions in the US decreased when Trump was president, not to his credit. The US has a long way to go in per capita numbers, but our emissions are not going back up. Methane is certainly an issue but it's not the main driver of warming.
I'd be very surprised if they did go back up. It's possible, of course, and I should probably assume the worst. Do you have a good study to point to about how much methane drives warming? From what I've seen it's about 10%? Ofc, with fracking expansion it could certainly continue to increase.
Yes, I am aware that it's much worse in the short term. One interesting thing I've seen repeatedly is that we undercount human methane emissions, but I assume it'd still be seen in the atmospheric concentration increase.
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.
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?