@theresphysics @NikoEcon @jgkoomey @cketchamwild I mentioned above Nordhaus may not do himself any (public) favours with his preferred response [although he *has* written *books* about what he was attempting and been *very* open with everything he's done - points I may return to.]

But it's worth noting how *intensely* personal @theresphysics @NikoEcon @jgkoomey @cketchamwild ... many of the critics and critiques are, irrespective of whether they have merit or not.

And, of course, a large *reason* it is made intensely personal is because it *works!* - to inflame and enrage people (who may not actually understand the arguments themselves), for clicks

🧵
Today! The UK has begun work on its 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙨𝙩-𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 solar plant⬋!🤩🥳

Let's evaluate the potential usefulness of its deployment by applying the popular new 'carbon time machine analogy' criteria!⬊

Tl;dr: 'Carbon time machine analogy' verdict?: "Useless."

🤔😲
(twittertorial note: This🧵(and its author!) is *very, very* 𝙋𝙍𝙊 solar power deployment. *More* please and asap!

That's not what the🧵is about. It's about how *𝙉𝙊𝙏* to evaluate *𝙖𝙣𝙮* project or technology that promises to reduce CO₂ emissions in the atmosphere!)

🧵
This letter👇argues waiting to do CO₂ Removals (CDR) until emissions have already been sharply curtailed could increase the "effectiveness" of CO₂ removals by a factor of about ten.🤔

Consensus climate/carbon cycle science says that's *way* wrong.🤷
nature.com/articles/d4158… There are many issues regarding Carbon Dioxide Removal's proper role - or not! - in a rapid global transition to ≤ net-zero CO₂ emissions, some tangentially mentioned in the letter!, that *do* merit careful public examination.

But the *only* reason the letter gives...

@GlobalEcoGuy @_david_ho_ I *hate* this👆"stat".

Here's why👇:
============
So here’s a thought.

*All* the solar power generated *since 1983*, if we assume it all displaced CO₂ emissions from coal power, has so far avoided about 4.2 billion tonnes of CO₂.

That’s just 38 days of *current* CO₂… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… @GlobalEcoGuy @_david_ho_ 40 *𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙨* of solar deployment and we're now just 38 *𝙙𝙖𝙮𝙨!!!* ahead on CO₂ emissions had we just used coal for power instead.

(I'm "using the brilliant framing @_david_ho_ often uses".)
============
Does that seem a rather bullshit/deceptive way to frame the actual… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

"It Turns Out Money Does Buy Happiness"¹

Research sure to elicit very different reactions, but notably here the Nobel-winning psychologist (Kahneman) who originally found the *opposite* is a co-author.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/… A smallish fraction of the population seems not to become happier with income, but tend to be relatively sadder than their cohort to begin with.🤷

Fun, informative insight based on two screenshots⬋⬊from the animation included with the Met Office prediction for the 2023 increase in atm. CO₂ ppmv concentration:

*If* we were to cut *emissions* compatible with peaking *temps* to ≤1.5°C, atm. CO₂ 𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙨 ~early 2030's.

https://twitter.com/metoffice/status/1619017515417440289

It's not made explicit in the press release exactly which mitigation scenario they refer to, but it would be roughly in line with class of "~50% cuts by 2030".

But I think many people don't realize that a peaking in atmospheric CO₂ by the early 2030's is both a *possibility*...

@Gapminder @PFriedling @OlaRosling @giac_grassi @airscottdenning I like the quiz! - because of the way it simply elicits some basic knowledge - or not! - of the public regarding key carbon/climate dynamics that influence the way the perceive the climate dilemma, and the urgency or scale (or not!) with which they perceive we need to address it. @Gapminder @PFriedling @OlaRosling @giac_grassi @airscottdenning That said, I'm going to take issue with the answer to this question (#5, I believe).

First, I think the question itself should be distinguishing that you are asking about the *extra* CO₂ - which I think is made apparent in the answer⬊.

But I think the "90%" answer is...

*Much*-abbreviated sister🧵to 100-tweet monster, so the highlights aren't lost!

•*Noted* climate physicist personally dives into cost-benefit Integrated Assessment Models (IAM's) - DICE and others.

•Writes own simplified version! Derives *intriguing* - provocative? - results! The physicist is Myles Allen, and the investigation is detailed in a short 4-page 2016 paper, and a 2015 lecture (⬋, ⬊) about the same, pre-publication.

Links to the lecture and paper are in this tweet.

In the monster🧵, I...
podcasts.ox.ac.uk/how-hot-will-i…
nature.com/articles/nclim…

(long) 🧵:

• Noted climate physicist personally dives into cost-benefit Integrated Assessment Models (IAM's) - DICE and others.

•Writes own simplified version! Derives *intriguing* results!

A 🧵tour exploring his investigation and - slightly provocative? - conclusions! The physicist is Myles Allen - of 2009's "Trillionth Tonne"⬋(and *much* other!) note.

Links to his 2015 lecture on IAM's and a 4-page 2016 paper are in this tweet.

Several elements of his investigation make it worthy of a thread:
podcasts.ox.ac.uk/how-hot-will-i…
nature.com/articles/nclim…

Global ytd January-thru-July CO₂ emissions running well above comparative levels for 2019 and 2021, according to Carbon Monitor. 😢🤷

https://twitter.com/LiuzhuLiu/status/1561944800038998016

Carbon Monitor interactive data and charting url is carbonmonitor.org.

Here's another plot of the estimated daily CO₂ emissions differentials, 2022 vs 2019.

So, I'm going to start right off with what I think is one of several rather interesting plots I've done👇.

They're based on the data underlying IPCC AR6 WGI Figure 7.8, which is the attribution of cumulative warming to direct contributions by various GHG's and other forcings.
/1 I've selected just the three main GHG's - CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O - and I'm using just the "best" (central) estimates for the warming (source data available here: ).

What I find interesting, looking at modern warming,...

/2

https://x.com/chrisroadmap/status/1445077540352270336?t=uWXyS9NB5K2ulEEn1Az45g&s=19

Can I ask a question/Check my understanding?

Whenever an article like👇is published about increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane, the doom-O-sphere goes positively bananas about "exponential" and "explosive" growth of CH₄ concentrations.

🤔
/1 nature.com/articles/d4158… And, yes, I *do* "get" the imperative to stop increasing/start reducing CH₄ concentrations, and the real concern about whether recent warming itself might be amplifying positive CH₄ emissions feedbacks.

/2

Oddly, something refreshingly candid and pragmatic about just putting this out there.

As opposed to advocating courts micro-decree how much of product X company Y can sell by date Z, just say you want to seize, dictate and control these company assets.

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1401876824414687235

Candid, b/c putting oil&gas companies out of business/removing their ability to profit *is* the stated goal of many activists.

And pragmatic - because we're not ultimately going to be able to (soon) get society to agree courts should intervene in commerce at this granularity.

Uncomfortable observation:

The Shell ruling - ~45% reduction in Shell's (oil and gas) emissions by 2030 - is *VASTLY* more restrictive than the IEA Net Zero 2050 pathway.

Which had oil and gas reduced in 2030 by about 23% and 8%, respectively.👇

It *could* just be musical... ... chairs.

The IEA Net Zero 2050 pathway - like most aggressive 1.5°C pathways - sees most of the 2021-2030 emissions reductions coming from (an almost complete displacement) of coal.

Because that's where we keep the near-term emissions peanut butter (is that Canadian-speak?)