I was going to suggest that, rather than continue to update on the urgent actions necessary to prevent 1.5C, you could better serve public discussion by explaining why preventing 1.5C is a worthwhile goal, especially compared to the costs of achieving the goal.
Even though the Paris Accord back in 2015 declined to officially adopt 1.5C as the commitment, most public discussion since seems to assume that this is the target, that it "must" be met, and that we face inevitable catastrophe if we don't. Yet, I'm not aware of any scientific data supporting this idea, or even any plausible scientific claim.
Then, I got to the end of your column, "Every tenth of a degree matters, and the faster we can get emissions to zero the more we can reduce the long-term damages of climate change." I guess this is all one can say. But it doesn't justify any particular level of effort to achieve any particular reduction in emissions.
If we burn all the fossil fuel we know about already the sea level will rise 60 metres. Would you notice that? I doubt it, but of course you wouldn't be here.
Until someone invents ways to produce steel, cement, plastics, and ammonia without using fossil fuels at commercial scales, the world can't stop emitting CO2. As far as I'm aware, those developments aren't close.
Zeke, I'd love to hear your take on whether AI can help us figure out solutions that the mass of humanity will accept and actually enact. Do you think that's something we should pursue?
The whole message and tone of this article is that we won't limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, and each tenth of degree of warming will add a bit more annoyance but no big deal as there aren't going to be any tipping points, nonlinear effects, etc. so relax, be happy, and if you really, really want to invest in oil futures.
Zeke - thanks, good article. But I'm going to suggest you buy a copy of Grammarly to help proofread your posts
It would help eliminate things like "and an increased the estimate of the importance of aerosols" (should read "and increased the estimate of the importance of aerosols") and “The figure below provides a simple example of what these carbon budgets would require reducing global CO2 emissions to limiting warming to 1.5C (with either a 66% or 50% chance) or 2C (66% or 50%).” (should read something like “The figure below provides simple examples of how rapidly these carbon budgets would require global CO2 emissions to be decreased to limit warming to 1.5C (with either a 66% or 50% chance) or 2C (66% or 50%).”)
I am well aware of the datum provided here. Now, the $100,000 dollar question. I can show you in detail how to build and locally own a base load wind turbine system with energy storage that will exceed 1000 days without additional losses. Losses which are not relevant by the way because the energy is taken from a free wind source. Locally owned, and grid connection not recommended. 90% reduction in electric costs. I keep posting this over and over and over and never get a response.
I have a comment/question related to carbon emissions. Who is the keeper of the "gold" standard when it comes to carbon emissions, both at a global and country level, is it the IEA or the IPCC? Or in the case of individual countries, e.g., the US, is it the EIA?
This question arises from two recent experiences where different writers have analyzed the carbon emissions of the US electrical sector at the state level, Harry Stevens at WaPo and Hannah Ritchie @ sustainabilitybynumbers.com. Both of them had issues. Harry used data from the EIA for total emissions, not the electrical generation sector. Hannah used data from ember-climate.org. Because of the fact checking work I did related to Harry's article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/clean-energy-electricity-sources/?itid=sf_climate_climate-lab_article_list , I could tell the numbers presented by Hannah from EMBER, did not agree with those available at the EIA. It turns out based on some detective work I did that EMBER appears to have used a constant carbon intensity for all of the US coal generation of 818 gCO2/kWh. This is quite different from the US average of 1031 gCO2/kWh reported by the EIA. Further, the EIA numbers at the state level reflect differences in the type coal and efficiency of the generation by state.
I believe both writers are well intentioned but we should be using the right data and the "best" data.
I have contacted both of them. Harry said he would issue a correction but never has. Hannah appreciated the feedback but commented that EMBER is probably trying to keep it consistent with global datasets and admits that "it does have the downside that it doesn't have the resolution you might want for a detailed analysis like this."
My concern boils down to who is the keeper of the "gold" standard when it comes to emissions at the global and country level, the EIA, the IEA, the IPCC???
What AI will do is discover the patterns of natural climate variability. Humans are not good at finding nonlinear mechanisms but AI such as neural nets excel at that.
I was going to suggest that, rather than continue to update on the urgent actions necessary to prevent 1.5C, you could better serve public discussion by explaining why preventing 1.5C is a worthwhile goal, especially compared to the costs of achieving the goal.
Even though the Paris Accord back in 2015 declined to officially adopt 1.5C as the commitment, most public discussion since seems to assume that this is the target, that it "must" be met, and that we face inevitable catastrophe if we don't. Yet, I'm not aware of any scientific data supporting this idea, or even any plausible scientific claim.
Then, I got to the end of your column, "Every tenth of a degree matters, and the faster we can get emissions to zero the more we can reduce the long-term damages of climate change." I guess this is all one can say. But it doesn't justify any particular level of effort to achieve any particular reduction in emissions.
"I'm not aware of any scientific data..."
If we burn all the fossil fuel we know about already the sea level will rise 60 metres. Would you notice that? I doubt it, but of course you wouldn't be here.
Thanks for that note. Do you have a scientific source for that claim?
Until someone invents ways to produce steel, cement, plastics, and ammonia without using fossil fuels at commercial scales, the world can't stop emitting CO2. As far as I'm aware, those developments aren't close.
At least cement and plastic can be made from hemp. Plus the 10,000 other things you can do with it. And it sequesters CO2. A gift from God is hemp.
Zeke, I'd love to hear your take on whether AI can help us figure out solutions that the mass of humanity will accept and actually enact. Do you think that's something we should pursue?
The whole message and tone of this article is that we won't limit warming to 1.5 degrees C, and each tenth of degree of warming will add a bit more annoyance but no big deal as there aren't going to be any tipping points, nonlinear effects, etc. so relax, be happy, and if you really, really want to invest in oil futures.
Thank you for pointing to “Mechanisms and Impacts of Earth System Tipping Elements.” Much appreciated!
Zeke - thanks, good article. But I'm going to suggest you buy a copy of Grammarly to help proofread your posts
It would help eliminate things like "and an increased the estimate of the importance of aerosols" (should read "and increased the estimate of the importance of aerosols") and “The figure below provides a simple example of what these carbon budgets would require reducing global CO2 emissions to limiting warming to 1.5C (with either a 66% or 50% chance) or 2C (66% or 50%).” (should read something like “The figure below provides simple examples of how rapidly these carbon budgets would require global CO2 emissions to be decreased to limit warming to 1.5C (with either a 66% or 50% chance) or 2C (66% or 50%).”)
It would help readability of your writing.
Nice job, Zeke. One nitpick, the legend in your last graph should have 2C for labels??
Good catch! I’ll fix it when I have the chance.
I am well aware of the datum provided here. Now, the $100,000 dollar question. I can show you in detail how to build and locally own a base load wind turbine system with energy storage that will exceed 1000 days without additional losses. Losses which are not relevant by the way because the energy is taken from a free wind source. Locally owned, and grid connection not recommended. 90% reduction in electric costs. I keep posting this over and over and over and never get a response.
Hi Zeke and Andrew,
I have a comment/question related to carbon emissions. Who is the keeper of the "gold" standard when it comes to carbon emissions, both at a global and country level, is it the IEA or the IPCC? Or in the case of individual countries, e.g., the US, is it the EIA?
This question arises from two recent experiences where different writers have analyzed the carbon emissions of the US electrical sector at the state level, Harry Stevens at WaPo and Hannah Ritchie @ sustainabilitybynumbers.com. Both of them had issues. Harry used data from the EIA for total emissions, not the electrical generation sector. Hannah used data from ember-climate.org. Because of the fact checking work I did related to Harry's article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/clean-energy-electricity-sources/?itid=sf_climate_climate-lab_article_list , I could tell the numbers presented by Hannah from EMBER, did not agree with those available at the EIA. It turns out based on some detective work I did that EMBER appears to have used a constant carbon intensity for all of the US coal generation of 818 gCO2/kWh. This is quite different from the US average of 1031 gCO2/kWh reported by the EIA. Further, the EIA numbers at the state level reflect differences in the type coal and efficiency of the generation by state.
I believe both writers are well intentioned but we should be using the right data and the "best" data.
I have contacted both of them. Harry said he would issue a correction but never has. Hannah appreciated the feedback but commented that EMBER is probably trying to keep it consistent with global datasets and admits that "it does have the downside that it doesn't have the resolution you might want for a detailed analysis like this."
My concern boils down to who is the keeper of the "gold" standard when it comes to emissions at the global and country level, the EIA, the IEA, the IPCC???
Thoughts? Comments?
Thanks,
Dean
These are the people I rely on for carbon emission data: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/
I don't know if they have exactly the data you are referring to (U.S. State level) but they certainly have national and global data.
What AI will do is discover the patterns of natural climate variability. Humans are not good at finding nonlinear mechanisms but AI such as neural nets excel at that.
1. Preparing for the world you anticipate will mean finding a home for 2 billion displaced humans.
2. Battery/hydrogen vehicles are the answer to ICE cars and thus car manufacturers' profit but they are not the answer to transport.
3. Scientists can only give us the science they cannot change the result of evolution: bacteria - fishes - crocodiles - monkeys - humans.
I agree with the need for realism in climate discussions. Happily Zeke provided just that, emphasizing there is nothing magical about 1.5 or 2C.
Denialism is not going to save you either. You're singing the next verse of the song written by the FF industry.