Ok, if I add the fossil CO₂ emissions to the LUC CO₂ emissions, from Houghton and Nassikas, there are changes in ranking (Brazil and Indonesia mainly).
Just to note the obvious, this change is much less with the FAO data, so the ranking is not robust.
5/
Let's get to something easier...
The top 10 for CH₄ emissions. Many developing countries move up onto the top 10 list, indicating a much larger share of agriculture in their economies.
6/
Finally, N₂O emissions. Again, developing countries move up the list in comparison to CO₂ emissions.
7/
GHG emissions? You know that is misleading as the GWP is not such a good indicator of climate impacts?
But, here it is, without LUC, as that makes it more uncertain. Only the Top 6, and this is from the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2020.
8/
By popular demand, here is GHG emissions per person, for the top 6 absolute emitters.
9/
The main point of this thread was to point out the differences with CH₄ & N₂O emissions, which gives more emphasis to developing countries.
Addressing CO₂ emissions from LUC is really hard. It is easy to download a dataset & plot, but this masks the huge uncertainties.
/10
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
CO2 emissions by fossil fuel:
* We thought coal peaked in 2014. No, & up another 1.1% in 2023
* Oil up 1.5%, on the back of a 28% increase in international aviation & China, but oil remains below 2019 level. 🤞
* Has the golden age of gas come to an end thanks to Russia?
2/
By top emitters:
* China up 4.0% & a peak this year would be a surprise
*US down 3.0%, with coal at 1903 levels
* India up 8.2%, with fossil CO2 clearly above the EU27
* EU27, down 7.4% with drops in all fuels
* Bunkers, up 11.9% due to exploding international aviation
Is the new @DrJamesEHansen et al article an outlier, or rather mainstream?
At least in terms of the key headline numbers, it seems rather mainstream, particularly if you remember most headline key numbers have quite some uncertainty!