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.
3/
It is more complex, but @giac_grassi & colleagues are developing methods to 'bridge' between the different estimates. Why?
The rich set of scientific models generally do not report emissions in a way that is comparable to what countries report! Grrr!
Here is a rough comparison of the scientific models (IPCC WG1 Figure 5.5b) & the FAO data consistent with UNFCCC reporting.
The FAO 'conversion' are not as comprehensive, & only agree with one dataset (Houghton).
The 'totals' are completely different (apples vs oranges).
5/
This is all at the global level. Uncertainties are high. Country-level estimates are more uncertain...
Many ask for country-level LULUCF estimates, but it is incredibly difficult to do this. Just taking any dataset with data available could send a very misleading picture.
6/6
• • •
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.