Rust Never Sleeps / George Morrison🇨🇦

@rustneversleeps.bsky.social

389 Followers 725 Following

Investment pro here for • climate science, economics, solutions, policy, investment, impacts • energy transition • economics Big on domain experts/expertise, abundance, potential. *V* anti- fake experts, poseurs, snark, *esp.* climate-related.

yep 4
yep 3
yep
yep
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/2020/
IPCC AR6 WGI SPM Fig. SPM.10
these aren't the droids you are looking for
figure SPM.5 from the IPCC TAR (2001) Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storage/
Wagner answer
Gernot bluesky tweet
Kindle search on "zero" in Climate Shock"
screencap of OP in the threar
Global Carbon Budget 2025, slide 52 in pdf
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/2020/
IPCC SR1.5 (2018) SPM Figure SPM.3a.
IPCC AR5 (2014) SYR SPM Figure SPM.5(a)
IPCC AR4 (2007) SYR SPM Figure SPM.5
IPCC TAR (2001) SYR SPM figure SPM.3
ProPublica piece, annotated screenshot of original Pacala and Socolow paper.
Article 2 of UNFCCC
excerpt from https://www.propublica.org/article/wedges-climate-research-bp-fossil-fuel-princeton
Pacala and Socolow, "Stabilization Wedges", Science, 2005.
IPCC AR4 SYR, Fig. 6.1 (2007)
IPCC AR4 SYR Fig. 6-1, 2007
IPCC AR6 WGI Figure SPM.10
The extent to which current and future generations will experience a hotter and different world depends on choices now and in the near term 1900 1940 born born 2020 Future emissions very high high intermediate very low 70 years old in 2050 Fiqure SPM.1: (a) Climate change has already caused widespread altered terrestrial freshwater and ocean ecosystems worldwic dwide. Physical water availability inclu water availa sources including ground water, water quality and demand for water. Global mental health and displacement ect only assessed regions. Confidence levels reflect the assessment of attribution of the observed impact to climate change. (b) Observed impacts are connected to physical climate changes including many that have been attributed to human influence such as the selected climatic impact-drivers shown. Confidence and likelihood levels reflect the assessment of attribution of the observed climatic impact-driver to h uence. (c) Observed (1900-2020) and proiected (2021-2100) changes in alobal surface temperature (relative to 1850-1900). ed to changes in climate nd impacts, illustrate how the
Frequently estion FAQ 4.1 | How Will the Climate Change Over the Next Twenty Years? tem that ha ncreasing or decreasing trends in continue these trends for at least the next twenty years. Examples include changes in global surface temperature, global avera However, over a period years, these trends are substar enced by natura iability, whic r amplify or att expected from the further increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Twenty years are a long time by human standards but a short time fro Emissions of greenhouse gases ext twenty years, as assumed in all the scer onsidered in this I fur ontin climate system, including Arct d global average sea level (see FAQ 9.2). FAQ 4.1, Figure 1 shows that both glob hrinking of sea ice in the Arctic will con ttle difference betwee (that However, thes erlain by natural climate a major volcanic eruption It. Pinatubo on the Philippines; su tion might cause a global surface cooling of a few tenths of a degree Celsius lasting several years. Second, both atmosphere and ocean show variations influence. from Over a period of twenty years, natural climate variability strongly antities, pared to the respon reenho ifferent 4.1, Fiqure I variability would amplify or a generally be predicted out to twenty he future. Natural climate variability over the next twenty years thus constitut certainty be quantified accurately but that cannot be reduceo Locally, the effect of natural variability Simulations (not shown here) indicate that, locally, a cooling trend over ut, even under the high-emissions scenario - a small number of locations on Ear might lie anywhere. Globally, though, temperatures would all scenarios In summary, while the direction of future change is clear for the two important climate quantities shown here - e global surface temperature and ce area in September - the magnitude of the change is much atural variability
slide 22
Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.social Like if you "spend" $1tn on building wind farms it doesn't mean you lit $1tn on fire, it means many local people just got a well-paid job and spent those incomes in their communities. They also didn't note the time period under discussion meant even the high estimate was like ~3% of the UK economy. 02 1 Glen Peters @glenpeters.bsky.s... 54m And they never run the headline "oh, if we didn't build those windfarms, it would cost >4 tn building new coal plants". I am getting increasingly infuriated at this general notion that everything is free, except evil climate policy, that is costly and the cause of the world's ills. 1 22 06
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/abb413
IPCC AR6 WGI FAQ 4.1
Stabilization Wedges
IPCC TAR SYR Fig SPM-6
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS Inherent uncertainty disguises attribution of reduced atmospheric CO2 growth to CO2 emission reductions for up to a decade Aaron Spring, Tatiana Ilyina and Jochem Marotzke Published 24 November 2020
Raupach curve formula in this Environmental Research Letters paper.
various modeling assumptions for emissions mitigation that end up with the same cumulative emissions
Ember Energy / Rystad Energy projection for global final energy demand through 2100.
one last time, the GDP and energy plot
forward cumulative CO₂ emissions
model estimates for annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel and industry
same plot in top-of-thread post, showing 2025-66 GDP, Final Energy/Supply, Composition by Clean and Fossil energy.
... we can use a very simple model, requiring only a four-line spreadsheet, and explor what happens as clean energy continues to outgrow overall energy demand for a few more decades. Let's start with the global economy, which has been growing at 3.3% per year since the year 2000. Let's assume this continues into the future. Next, we assume that the historic 1.3% average annual improvement in demand-side energy efficiency continues too, leaving 2% annual growtl in demand for energy. We'll be using real energy demand, not primary energy, which is really a measure of supply. Now let's assume clean energy, so renewables, nuclear, and the ambient heat used by heat pumps, start at today's 30% and averages a conservative growth rate of 5% per year over the coming decades, considerably lower than the historic growth rate in renewables over many decades.
Cumulative Forward CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industry, 2025-2066
https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean -energy/liebreich-the-pragmatic -climate-reset-part-i/ "Liebreich: The Pragmatic Climate Reset - Part I", BNEF Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Volts podcast of "Michael Liebreich on a 'pragmatic climate reset'" by David Roberts - Substack link https://substack.com/@drvolts/note/p-174079134?r=26ndw
Box SPM.1 (continued) a) Future annual emissions of CO, (left)
IPCC AR6 WGI SPM FIG. 10 Every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming Global surface temperature increase since 1850-1900 (°C) as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions (GtCO2) °C 3 SSP5-8.5 2.5 The near-linear relationship between the cumulative CO2 emissions and global warming for five illustrative scenarios until year 2050 SSP3-7.0 SSP2-4.5 SSP1-2.6 SSP1-1.9 1.5 1 0.5 Historical global warming 2 Cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 1000 2000 3000 4000 4500 GtCO2 0 -0.5 1900 1850 time 1950 2000 2020 2019 2030 2040 SSP1-1.9 SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP3-7.0 SSP5-8.5 Future cumulative CO2 emissions differ across scenarios and determine how much warming we will experience. 2050 HISTORICAL Cumulative CO2 emissions between 1850 and 2019 PROJECTIONS Cumulative CO2 emissions between 2020 and 2050
Every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming Global surface temperature increase since 1850-1900 (°C) as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions (GtCO2) °C 3 SSP5-8.5 2.5 The near-linear relationship between the cumulative CO2 emissions and global warming for five illustrative scenarios until year 2050 SSP3-7.0 SSP2-4.5 SSP1-2.6 SSP1-1.9 1.5 1 0.5 Historical global warming 2 Cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 1000 2000 3000 4000 4500 GtCO2 0 -0.5 1900 1850 time 1950 2000 2020 2019 2030 2040 SSP1-1.9 SSP1-2.6 SSP2-4.5 SSP3-7.0 SSP5-8.5 Future cumulative CO2 emissions differ across scenarios and determine how much warming we will experience. 2050 HISTORICAL Cumulative CO2 emissions between 1850 and 2019 PROJECTIONS Cumulative CO2 emissions between 2020 and 2050
Highbrow climate misinformation.
US Spending on Climate Damage Nears $1 Trillion Per Year The bill for impacts from rising temperatures exceeded 3% of US GDP, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg Intelligence.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020
concentrations will still rise as long as there are any emissions anywhere, which is why we need to get GHGs to zero.
In reality, residual emissions will probably be 18% of our current total (H. J. Buck et al. Nature Clim. Change https://doi.org/j4jg; 2023), so we will have to scale up CDR substantially to reach net zero. Still, it might be feasible to build 7,290 DAC hubs or deploy other CDR technology
that +1.5 °C is too high and that even current climate forcing (+1.2 °C), if sustained, is likely to generate several metres of sea-level rise over the coming centuries, causing extensive loss and damage to coastal populations and challenging the implementation of adaptation measures. To avoid this requires a global mean temperature that is cooler than present and which we hypothesise to be closer to +1 °C above pre-industrial, possibly even lower, but
Earth may already be too hot for the survival of polar ice sheets, study says
TABLE 4.2 Hyperbole, Sarcasm, and Ridicule by Online Climate Experts, David Spence, "Climate of Contempt", 2024.
"TABLE 4.2 Hyperbole, Sarcasm, and Ridicule by Online Climate Experts", David Spence, "Climate of Contempt"
@andymasley.bsky.social: "Most of my argument can be made by just including the emissions of 100 ChatGPT prompts on the emissions graph (assuming 3 Wh per prompt and the American average of 386 g of CO2 per kWh). "Does the average person prompting ChatGPT even use it 100 times per day? Here we actually have clear numbers. ChatGPT gets 400 million weekly users and 1 billion daily prompts, so the average person who uses ChatGPT is sending 2.5 prompts per day."
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA VISIT PARLIAMENT FRANÇAIS HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES CANADA MENU Members of Parliament Members of Parliament Key Roles Constituencies Election Candidates Members of Parliament > Pierre Poilievre THE HONOURABLE PIERRE POILIEVRE Historical Information The Honourable Pierre Poilievre is no longer a Member of Parliament. OVERVIEW Political Affiliation: Conservative Constituency: Carleton Province / Territory: Ontario