“They spent a very long time talking about themselves, before they came to the decisive. They undermine both the credibility of the message and its own importance. For someone to believe what you say, they must also believe in you as a character”
2/
“They should immediately tell us what distinguishes the finding in this new report from what they already know. The significance for us. What changes we are all facing. And that we now know with much greater certainty.”
3/
With COVID “we see heads of state, ministers and key government officials lined up around rostrums in deep earnest. It is symbolically heavy. The serious content is reflected in the expression. In stark contrast to how the climate report's message was presented”
4/
IPCC @jonathanlynn argues this is standard for this style of press conference, the report is for policy makers. In any case, the report has set a viewer record & received media coverage worldwide. He argues it shows that style was not an obstacle to reaching the audience.
6/
Personally, & in the spirit of constructive criticism @IPCC_CH, I think you need to reconsider this style of press conference. Direct to the scientists. Ok to have multiple speakers (but do one at a time, not musical chairs). Try to co-locate speakers if possible.
7/
Scientific studies (eg IPCC Assessment Reports) generally consider CO₂ emissions from 'Net Conversions' as the emissions, while government reporting to the UNFCCC combines the conversions & sink (black line).
The 'sink' is not the total sink, only a part of the forest sink.
There are two facilities (capturing in 2019), but very different stories:
* Boundary Dam: Operates ~60% capacity, used for EOR
* Quest: Operates ~90% capacity, permanent storage, but the generated H₂ is used to upgrade oilsands
1/
Boundary Dam is CCS on coal power, with the goal of capturing CO₂ for Enhanced Oil Recovery.
In short, it has not lived up to expectations. How much CO₂ gets stored is unknown, & in any case, the CO₂ is used for EOR (more CO₂).
Norway is known for its Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) & is best in class.
Even the best in class does not run at capacity. Currently ~80% of capacity is used, but Sleipner has dropped to ~65%.
But, Norwegian CCS is the easy type, removing CO₂ from extracted gas.
1/
The extracted gas at Sleipner Vest contains ~9% CO₂, but has to be reduced to ~2.5% to meet sales specifications.
The extracted gas in the Snøhvit field contains ~5-7.5% CO₂, and this has to be removed to avoid it freezing out in the downstream liquefaction process.
2/
The CO₂ has to be removed for market or technical reasons. You would therefore expect the facilities to run at a high capacity, as they have to!
The CO₂ is captured & stored, presumably to avoid paying the Norwegian CO₂ tax. This is great, but a different issue.
3/
“[Y]ou're absolutely right, that nobody is suggesting that there is a planetary tipping point out there that causes runaway climate change” @jrockstrom
[I used this to make the question in the Twitter poll]
2/
That statement seems clear, but there are ambiguities:
* “a” or many?
* “planetary” or smaller scale?
* “runaway” or a new state?
These issues were common in yesterday’s discussion
"I accept that thanks to human activity... atmospheric CO₂ has increased from ~300ppm [to] ~400ppm, & without appropriate action, it will probably go up to 500ppm in 30-40 years, maybe sooner... I accept that that could have consequences that we would much prefer to avoid."
1/
"I absolutely accept that". For added emphasis.
"[I]t's very hard to disagree with facts, & in the end a fact is a fact is a fact. And we cannot ignore facts just because in the short term, they don't see their argument."
2/
It would seem that Tony Abbott (former Prime Minister of Australia) is quite keen on facts. And climate change is a fact, according to his own words, & action is therefore needed.
Oh, but it is China: "by far the largest source of additional emissions right now" (a fact)
3/
I completely agree with nearly all their points. The current system is a mess, & their roadmap would help understand & clean up a lot of that mess.
The unclear part to me is the best end point (which such a roadmap might reveal). Do we need / want daily real-time estimates?
2/
I would suspect daily emissions will go up & down, depending on weather, traffic, events, etc. Really one wants to smooth out the daily variations to get a trend. What time period for reporting is best? Daily, weekly, monthly, annual, ...?