CDR is a much better term, but afforestation is still a NET... (IMHO)
4/
This discussion started because the title of the paper on the Low Energy Demand (LED) scenario. I have read this paper many times, but never noticed the title. I fell off my chair.
To me, this is wrong. LED does not use CCS, hence no BECCS. It has loads of afforestation.
5/
Deep in the methods, one finds this. Huh? Just define it out? The only mention of afforestation in the article. Forest expansion is mentioned in the main text.
Now I know why so many misunderstand LED & think it has no CDR, despite the fact it has loads!
6/
LED uses quite a bit of land for afforestation, something like 2 India's in terms of area. It is not small.
It also uses quite some bioenergy (just not with CCS), another point of confusion.
S1, another favourite, uses more land than all the others!
7/
I get the impression many downplay the importance of afforestation in scenarios. If you want 1.5C, then you need to engage with CDR, like it or not.
Afforestation is the easiest way to get some CDR, if done correctly, it has multiple co-benefits!
8/
Or is there some political agenda, that CDR is just bad, no matter how it comes about? Or do people want to split nice CDR from bad CDR, like CDR versus SRM (good and bad geoengineering)?
End rant!
9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Record high emissions means record high radiative forcing.
We have you covered, we also include aerosols (SO2, etc) & have done so for decades. Also shipping!
Short-lived aerosols are important, but should not distract from the drivers of change: greenhouse gas emissions!
2/
Most of the energy put into the system ends in the ocean (90%), so the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) has been increasing along with emissions and radiative forcing.
This also means the Earth Energy Imbalance is also increasing.
This question is ambiguous: "How high above pre-industrial levels do you think average global temperature will rise between now and 2100?"
* ...pre-industrial... between "now and 2100"?
* Where we are currently heading or where we could head? This is largely a policy question?
3/
One of the key arguments that Norway uses to continue oil & gas developments, is that under BAU it is expected that oil & gas production will decline in line with <2°C scenarios, even with continued investment.
Let's look closer at these projections & reality...
1/
Here is the projections from the 2003 report from the petroleum agency.
In reality (tweet 1) there was a dip around 2010, but production is now up around 250 million cubic again.
The forecast was totally & utterly WRONG!
2/
In 2011 there was a forecast for an increase in production to 2020, but then a decline. This is probably since they started to put the Johan Sverdrup field on the books.
The increase in production was way too low, again, they got it wrong.