#ar6 — Public Fediverse posts

Source: Box10.1 du Chapitre 10 #AR6 www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w...

ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1...

#ClimateKG will be used for the #IPCC #AR6 corpus of 7 main reports of 10,000 pages. For corpus browsing, republishing, community enrichment. The constructed knowledge graph in Wikibase/MediaWiki allows browsing using the familiar #MediaWiki interface with #Wikidata enhancements like infoboxes, and #scholia like interfaces https://scholia.toolforge.org/ | Republishing is intended for sharing or reviewing search results on climate topics | Enrichment is for data scientists to make use of reports >>>

#ClimateKG - the #IPCC #AR6 reports are a pretty big beast. Authored over 7 years they are the ultimate #statusupdate of planet earth. Quant data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17521936 - Reports 7, Pages 10,047, Words 8,047,000, Citations 48,400, Data 66,834, Figures 1,672, Authors 1,106, Glossary 925, Acronyms 3,041, Lang 5+. The entity relationship model is need to map the parts of the reports, relations, then to allow markup of entities, concepts, etc

#ClimateKG project is developing an Entity Relation Model to represent the syntactic structure of a scientific document in a knowledge graph.

We are reaching out to ask for recommendations of projects, literature, methods, etc.

The ClimateKG will hold #IPCC #AR6 corpus of 7 reports for browsing, republishing, enrichment.

Knowledge graph uses #Wikibase / #MediaWiki

Write up: https://github.com/TIBHannover/climate-knowledge-graph/issues/51

IPCC AR6 corpus: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17516065

ClimateKG project: https://tibhannover.github.io/climate-knowledge-graph

@tibosl @LIBEReurope @tibhannover The project to make a #knowledgegraph of #IPCC #AR6 and so make it acessible, allow data scientist to explore the reports is finishing its scoping phase. We'll be publishing a series of reports and RfCs. To start with here is a #AR6 quantification report (aka - the how big is the beast we have to ingest) - https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17516065

Vor 4 Jahren haben @fuzzyleapfrog & @astrodicticum begonnen, im 🎙️ Podcast "Das Klima" den ganzen IPCC-Bericht #AR6 zu lesen, damit ihr das nicht selbst machen müsst - und jetzt machen sie mit dem Zweiten Österreichischen Sachstandsbericht #AAR2 zum Klimawandel weiter...

#WissenSchafftKlimaschutz

https://dasklima.podigee.io/141-dk141-der-zweite-osterreichische-sachstandsbericht-zum-klimawandel

The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing is now outpacing the pathways set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that limit global warming to 1.5C.

The third working group report of the #IPCC’s sixth assessment report (#AR6), published in 2022, presented a set of seven “illustrative pathways” that highlight how different mitigation choices across major economic sectors translate into future #GreenhouseGas #emissions and global temperatures.

In the three most-ambitious pathways, #GlobalWarming has a 50% chance of either staying below 1.5C, or overshooting it by only 0.1C (for up to several decades) before then returning to below 1.5C.

Yet, not only are atmospheric #CO2 concentrations still rising, the rate of rise is #accelerating.
The build-up of CO2 in the #atmosphere has been monitored at the #MaunaLoa observatory in #Hawaii since 1958.
As illustrated by the iconic #KeelingCurve below, the increase has been accelerating over the decades (blue line) due to ongoing emissions of CO2 from burning #FossilFuels and changing land use.
So while the curve needs to rapidly bend in the other direction to hold warming to 1.5C (light red line), the rate of rising CO2 marches onwards and upwards.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-atmospheric-co2-rise-now-exceeding-ipcc-1-5c-pathways/

#ClimateCatastrophe

The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing is now outpacing the pathways set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that limit global warming to 1.5C.

The third working group report of the #IPCC’s sixth assessment report (#AR6), published in 2022, presented a set of seven “illustrative pathways” that highlight how different mitigation choices across major economic sectors translate into future #GreenhouseGas #emissions and global temperatures.

In the three most-ambitious pathways, #GlobalWarming has a 50% chance of either staying below 1.5C, or overshooting it by only 0.1C (for up to several decades) before then returning to below 1.5C.

Yet, not only are atmospheric #CO2 concentrations still rising, the rate of rise is #accelerating.
The build-up of CO2 in the #atmosphere has been monitored at the #MaunaLoa observatory in #Hawaii since 1958.
As illustrated by the iconic #KeelingCurve below, the increase has been accelerating over the decades (blue line) due to ongoing emissions of CO2 from burning #FossilFuels and changing land use.
So while the curve needs to rapidly bend in the other direction to hold warming to 1.5C (light red line), the rate of rising CO2 marches onwards and upwards.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/met-office-atmospheric-co2-rise-now-exceeding-ipcc-1-5c-pathways/

#ClimateCatastrophe

@pahi Mit dem sechsten Sachstandsbericht des #IPCC (#AR6) 2023 hat sich für mich das Thema Klimawissen erledigt: Es liegt alles auf dem Tisch.

Eltern fliegen - auch wider besseren Wissens - lieber weiter jährlich mit ihren kleinen Kindern in den Urlaub.
Die Menschen wollen es leugnen.
Die Menschheit ignoriert hunderte Millionen bis Milliarden Klimaflüchtlinge.🤷‍♂️

At the #ScenarioServices team at the #IIASA #Energy #Climate & #Environment program, we support #energy & #climate modeling teams
👉#opensource tools for #scenario analysis, like the #pyam_iamc package
👉share scenario ensembles such as #IPCC #AR6 & #NGFS following #FAIRdata principles
👉capacity-building & tutorials for better practices in modeling & #ScientificSoftware development

Visit https://software.ece.iiasa.ac.at for more info!

IPCC report: the world must cut emissions and urgently adapt to the new climate realities—Reflections by Bronwyn Hayward, as member of the IPCC's core writing team. → https://cusp.ac.uk/themes/s1/blog_bh_ipcc_ar6syn/

#ClimateCrisis #IPCC #ClimateReport #AR6

@stefanmuelller @einfachnurRoland

2/2
https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1c/k1ce3oitwq

The last speaker, German legal representative Zimmermann was particularly evil.

In addition to stuff listed above, he also said things like:
A person outside a country's jurisdiction can not hold the country responsible for violating their human rights. Only persons can who're being harmed in the country. And only LIVING citizens can – an extension of human rights to future generations can't be derived from any legal text. Cultural identification with land and ancestors and future generations is immaterial to climate-related international law, such an identity or entity has no protection whatsoever.

The guy is head of the German research institute for Human Rights!!
Here's his CV https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ls/Zimmermann_bio.pdf

edit: Just now found the Verbatim Record from the court procedings.

The english version of the German legal representatives starts on page 141 and begins with Mrs Rückert. Mr. Zimmermann starts page 147.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20241202-ora-01-00-bi.pdf

edit2:
I think, some important sentences from the first hearing are missing in the Verbatim Record. I distinctly recall one of the Pacific / Melanesian speakers proposing something like wartime command economy for large polluters to fulfil obligations from the Human Rights charta, and to meet recommendations in #IPCC #AR6 "immediate and deep emission cuts this decade".
Sadly, at the moment, video access to all of UN WebTV is forbidden or I could verify and quote the passage.

#ICJ #InternationalCourtOfJustice #ClimateChange #ClimateJustice

#LTW2040 #LtWbb

Und? Was denkt Ihr so?
Über 6% der Grün-Wählenden haben AfD-Verhinderungsstrageie angewendet und Woidkes SPD gewählt, nehme ich an.
War aber bei der Ltw 2019 auch schon so . In Umfragen der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen standen 2 Tage vor der Wahl
Grüne bei 14.5%
und SPD bei 22%.
Gewählt haben damals
Grüne 10.8%
und SPD 26.2%. https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/brandenburg.htm

Bei der jetzigen Ltw hat die Forschungsgruppe Wahlen das Ergebnis der Grünen korrekt gepollt: 4.5%.

Ich mein, nich, dass Grüne die Biodiversitäts- und Klimaretter wären. Aber die % sind doch ein Indikator für Klimabewusstsein.
Gibts nich in Brandenburg.
Tja.
Dann versteppt es eben, wie es vor zig Jahren mal in einer PIK-Projektion für Brandenburg hieß. Damals haben sich die BB-Politiker gegen den Begriff Versteppung gewehrt, weil er zu beunruhigend klänge (steht im Buch "Deutschland 2050")
Je nun.
Im Europa-Kapitel 13 vom #AR6 WG2 steht:
"an expansion of desert biomes in East Europe."
Desert biomes versus Versteppung, was klingt beunruhigender?🤔

@muellertadzio

The Paris Limit of 1.5°C is defined as "by the end of the century".
The dream goes: we splurge now and later, Greta goes on a diet/gets a tummy tuck.
It's called "overshoot scenario" and all 1.5-scenarios and even most of the below-2C-scenarios have the magicc of carbon removal built in. (By which the excess CO2 to a to-be-determined warming level is removed.)

Joeri Rogelj explains 3 factors (there are more!) why the ease in which society looks at 1.5C_overshoot scenarios is overconfident:

* 1 out of 6 of such model runs do an overshoot by a whopping 0.5C !
* societies face more stress in overshoot from temperature the increase, and as a result, maybe stop CO2 removal altogether !
* exact warming per t CO2 is uncertain !

#Rogelj is the God Of #CarbonBudget and #IPCC lead author in #AR6-WG1.
https://granthaminstitute.com/2023/11/29/overconfidence-in-overshoot/

What's change since AR6?

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2625/2024/essd-16-2625-2024.html

#ClimateChange #AR6 #2023

How much warming in the middle #Miocene 15million years ago came from methane?
Methane is not constrained at all for the Miocene.
But I did the maths –yet I also warn you: I am maths dyslexic. 😁

tldr: with assumed 10 times more wetlands than today and all of the remaining landmass assumed to be like today's tiny "wild rest",
CH4 emissions were 2124 Mt per year.
Which amounted to 6608 ppb CH4 in the atmosphere which in itself caused +2.1°C .

CO2 in 15Ma is not well constrained either. (see below)
I calculate 560ppm to have contributed 3°C (current science working theory for ECS ±1).

So methane 2.1°C and CO2 3°C on their own, omitting all other climate factors, caused +5.1°C in the Miocene.

The breakdown of the numbers follows. With links.

# CO2:

Hoenisch et al 2023 published meticulously revised CO2 values from global #d13C proxies https://paleo-co2.org , their considered-best proxies are all oceanic in origin.

The chart #1 of 1milion years 15 million years ago, shows #Hoenisch ' s CO2 proxies as the horizontal lines. I chose to fill the gaps with repeated values between the rare data points. So each line segment really is only 1 data point at its right-most end.

560 ppm CO2 seems an okay guess, no?

#CH4 #methane

@Peters_Glen did a cool chart, more intuitive than the one in #AR6, I think. See pic 2 or his tweet where he plots the various greenhouse gases with their warming contribution 2010-2019: https://x.com/Peters_Glen/status/1431873249449680901

The average CH4 concentration in the decade 2010-2019 was 1840ppb (NOAA) and caused +0.51°C as per Glen's chart.

From Glen's chart follows my secret methane formula 😁
1 Mt methane <=> 3.111 ppb <=> 0.001 ºC

If emissions in 15Ma were 2124 Mt CH4 (see #landmass below), it resulted in 2.12°C at a concentration of 6608 ppb.

#Landmass

According to the Global Methane Budget by #GlobalCarbonProject : https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1561/2020/

emissions from the "wild rest" 2008-2017 were 222 Mt CH4 annually . See picture 3.

The wild rest today is 54mio km2, according to #OurWorldInData https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

Wild rest: 222 Mt CH4 from 54mio km2 = 4.1 t CH4 / km2.

Emissions from wetlands 2008-2017 were 180Mt CH4 (Tg=Mt) .
They cover 4.37% of the total land mass: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coverage-of-wetlands?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
4.37% of 141mio km2 total is:
Wetlands 6.2mio km2.

Wetlands: 180 Mt from 6.2 km2 = 30 t CH4 / km2.

In 15Ma Miocene, 10 times more wetlands would have been
62 mio km2.
And
wild rest 79 mio km2.

wetlands 62mio km2 times 30t CH4 = 1800 Mt CH4
wild rest 79 mio km2 times 4.1t CH4 = 324 Mt CH4.

Wetlands plus wild rest:
1800 Mt + 324 Mt = 2124 Mt CH4

secret methane formula:
1 Mt methane <=> 3.111 ppb <=> 0.001 ºC

2124 Mt <=> 6608 ppb <=> 2.12°C

Why do I assume that wetlands were 10x more than today, tho? Why not 15, 20 or 5 times more?

Dunno. Well, humans have unwetted lotsa wetlands since the invention of agriculture in the #Holocene. (Btw, the area of today's dried peatland alone emits 2Gt CO2 per year. See table on dried wetland areas and their emissions GHG:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15499-z/tables/2 #Günther et al 2020, based on IPCC guidelines for wetlands https://www.ipcc.ch/publication/2013-supplement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories-wetlands/ )

Hard to tell what area was covered by wetlands in the previous interglacial 126thsd years ago.

And in the middle Miocene, 15Ma?

My thinking goes like this:
The #Sahara was still forested 15Ma. As was the Gobi Desert probably. The prairies in the US were still forested, even #Greenland and #Antarctica. Northern #Russia had much more land mass back then, too.

Some of the different vegetation compared to pre-Holocene was due to different topography: the Rockies and Alpes were much, much lower, the high mountain ranges in East Asia didn't exist. #Australia was 15° further South. See also #Steinthordottir et al 2021 in "Miocene The Future Of The Past https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020PA004037
And the whole special Miocene issue:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1002/(ISSN)2572-4525.Miocene1

All land area had gap-less biomes growing. Mostly forests. What do forests do? Away from the coast, within the continents, forests control the hydrological cycle, how much evaporates and how much it rains. All biomes do, but forests most.
The more forests there are, the more it rains. Uninterrupted plant cover with its propagating rain cycle hinders deserts from forming in the heart of the continents, too.

Also, air holds 7% more water per 1°C warming, raising the potential rain amount.

Now, if it rains a lot, and depending on the topography, land is inundated temporary, seasonally or permanently, methane-producing microbes in the soil get to work presto, eat carbon and fart CH4.
The warmer it is, the more the microbes work.

But why 10x more wetlands?
Why not 7 or 15x?
Dunno. 10 feels right. And 6608ppb is nicely close to a guesstimate of mine that mid Miocene CH4 concentration cd have been 7000 ppb.
Maybe 400ppb came from huge animals, happily roaming among giant trees.
Brazil's Giant Sloth? The "wild rest" in the Miocene was HUGE! And cute.
#FridaysForFuture
#anloCH4

Da bald wieder Waldbrandsaison ist und Kachelmann dann jedes Jahr komische Ausraster kriegt, dass Hitze nix mit Waldbränden zu tun habe: das ist seine eigene Meinung, hat aber nix mit dem Stand der Wissenschaft zu tun. Er verteidigt die Meinung unter bewusster Auslassung von Fakten, die ihm sehr wohl bekannt sind.

Hier haben sich mal echte Wissenschaftler Reto Knutti und Sonia Seneviratne (WG1 Vice-chair. #Climate #Extremes #Land #AR6 #SR15. ) mit ihm hingesetzt und in Engelsgeduld versucht es ihm zu erklären. https://twitter.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1272913423911858182
Aber er besteht auf seiner falschen Meinung. Und benutzt diese eben auch regelmäßig um Leute zu beleidigen.

Die Screenshots sind alle aus der Konver ab da, wo Reto ihm erklärt, was die 4 Definitionen von Dürre mit Regen zu tun haben: nur die 1 sei 100% regenabhängig, die anderen seien abhängig von Verdunstung aus Boden und Pflanzen.
Kachelmanns Antwort: "Ich rede immer von 1."
Genau darum argumentiert er eben immer falsch und wissenschaftsleugnend.

Quantitative scenarios are an important component for understanding #ClimateChange, including risks, #adaptation options and #mitigation pathways...

Lessons from #IPCC #AR6 and opportunities for #AR7

👉 https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00082-1 (#openaccess)

5/

More details:
Chapter 6 of the #IPCC #AR6 report: e.g. 6.7.4

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/chapter/chapter-6/#6.7.4

"Global #FossilFuel use

will need to decline substantially by 2050 to limit #warming to 2°C (>67%), and it

must decline substantially by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot (high confidence).

Failing to reduce global fossil fuel use below today’s levels by 2030 will make it more challenging to limit warming to below 2°C (>67%)"

See Figure 6.35:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/chapter-6/figure-6-35

4/

The keynote https://www.ipcc.ch/2023/10/09/mena-climateweek-ipcc-chair-jim-skea/
reminds of course the #IPCC #AR6 summary https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/resources/spm-headline-statements/

"Reducing #GHG emissions across the full energy sector requires major transitions, including

a substantial reduction in overall #FossilFuel use,

the deployment of low-emission energy sources,

switching to alternative energy carriers, and #EnergyEfficiency and conservation.

The continued installation of unabated fossil fuel infrastructure will ‘lock-in’ GHG emissions. (high confidence)"

The IPCC has released its final report on climate change, the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment ever. The report synthesizes the findings of the three working group reports and the three special reports published since 2018. The report warns that the world is on track to exceed 1.5°C of warming by 2030 unless urgent and unprecedented action is taken to cut emissions and adapt to the impacts. #IPCC #ClimateChange #AR6 https://www.eurasiareview.com/02102023-ipcc-members-issue-guidance-for-the-battle-against-climate-change/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=HariTulsidas%2Fmagazine%2FArchetypes

You can see this quite clearly in the #AR6 #ScenarioExplorer, illustrated by the SSP2-scenarios of the
#IMAGE model.
The SSP2-Baseline (+3.8°C in 2100) and an ambitious #ClimatePolicy SSP2-26 (stabilization at 1.6°C) have identical #population trends.
https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/ar6//#/workspaces/share/14fb5b61-c5a2-4a59-8050-d2ccfea3c156

Reminder that we know how to cut emissions fast:

"Demand-side measures and new ways of end-use service provision can reduce global GHG emissions in end-use sectors by 40–70% by 2050 compared to baseline scenarios, while some regions and socioeconomic groups require additional energy and resources. Demand-side mitigation response options are consistent with improving basic well-being for all. (high confidence)"

#ThrowbackThursday #IPCC #AR6

C.10 from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

Currently reading the #IPCC #AR6 WGIII. Page 121 talking about "Behavioural interventions through nudges". I thought "nudges" is already debunked. Any #socialscience people can confirm?

This is just a reminder that the IPCC is always conservative: always underestimates the threat and overestimates technological/engineering promises for Carbon Removal.

Le fait que le développement des mouvements sociaux favorables au climat et à la biodiversité s'accompagne également d'une augmentation du populisme et du conservatisme politique ainsi que de la désinformation n'est pas une surprise: c'est parfaitement documenté dans la littérature scientifique (ici chapitre 18 du WG2 du #GIEC #AR6).

Cette réaction reflète simplement les efforts déployés par des acteurs en situation de pouvoir pour maintenir le statu-quo.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-18/

#semanticClimate are running a hackthon to help stucture IPCC climate reports for more accessibity - sign up if your interested in taking part https://semanticclimate.org/p/en/events/climate-knowledge-hunt-may/ rusn 19th May - with a prep day on the 18th - check out this video on the use of #wikibase to create a knowledgegraph of the recent AR6 report - https://semanticclimate.org/p/en/docs/3-1-0-knowledge-base/ #IPCC #AR6

RT @meinshausen: The #AR6 cycle comes to its end with the #IPCC scenarios workshop in Bangkok now ending. What a great collaboration this cycle across physical sciences, mitigation and adaptation - thanks to these Co-Chairs, @valmasdel @JimSkeaIPCC @poertner_hans

I am maths dyslexic and need #help

The update to the 2019 IPCC Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere https://iccinet.org/statecryo2022/ chapter 4 states that CO2e from permafrost at current policy scenario requires removal per century of 400Gt CO2.
(Yes, permafrost is officially thawing and it is officially now requiring CO2 removal.)

The report doesn't say but I assume they use the official GWP by UNEP, 25 over 100 years.

How do I back-calculate those 400Gt CO2e to see how much methane it is that's going to be released per decade?

My calculation ends in a crazy warming of 1.6ºC per decade from permafrost thaw. Can you point me to where my mistake is?

It goes like this:
400Gt CO2e / 25 = 16Gt? If true, then CH4 from permafrost per decade is 1.6Gt. If true, and if the OH-sink stays the same, it'd mean 1.6ºC warming each decade.

Why 1.6ºC/decade:
*because #AR6-WG1 states that 2010-2019, methane caused 0.51ºC warming.
*from the Global Methane Project's top down view, we know that ~600Mt were released/yr
* and from NOAA, we know that the concentration was Ø 1830ppb in that decade.

It follows that in the decade 2010-2019, with the particular capacity of the OH-sink in that decade, 1Mt CH4 emissions resulted in 3.111 ppb and 0.001 ºC.

If these conditions stay the same, and if my back-calculation is correct for CO2e==>CH4, then the scientists are saying we're going to make permafrost thaw release 1.6Gt CH4 per decade which results in an immediate warming of 1.6ºC / decade, and to the weather and social chaos from this warming.

But I reckon, I must have omitted a zero somewhere. 0.16ºC feels more logical to me. I just don't know where I went wrong.

#Help #MathsDyslexia
#CO2e #GWP #CH4 #Permafrost #SROC #OHSink

@anlomedad_real 2. There were no methodological restrictions for submitting results to the #IPCC #AR6 #WG3 scenario database.
The only requirements were:
- peer-reviewed* publication accepted by a certain cut-off date
- submission of key energy & emissions by timeseries data (by sector & fuels) in a format developed by the #IAMC
* (with exceptions for grey literature like #IEA)
See more at https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/ar6-scenario-submission/#/about

I am maths dyslexic and need #help

The update to the 2019 IPCC Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere https://iccinet.org/statecryo2022/ chapter 4 states that CO2e from permafrost at current policy scenario requires removal per century of 400Gt CO2.
(Yes, permafrost is officially thawing and it is officially now requiring CO2 removal.)

The report doesn't say but I assume they use the official GWP by UNEP, 25 over 100 years.

How do I back-calculate those 400Gt CO2e to see how much methane it is that's going to be released per decade?

My calculation ends in a crazy warming of 1.6ºC per decade from permafrost thaw. Can you point me to where my mistake is?

It goes like this:
400Gt CO2e / 25 = 16Gt? If true, then CH4 from permafrost per decade is 1.6Gt. If true, and if the OH-sink stays the same, it'd mean 1.6ºC warming each decade.

Why 1.6ºC/decade:
*because #AR6-WG1 states that 2010-2019, methane caused 0.51ºC warming.
*from the Global Methane Project's top down view, we know that ~600Mt were released/yr
* and from NOAA, we know that the concentration was Ø 1830ppb in that decade.

It follows that in the decade 2010-2019, with the particular capacity of the OH-sink in that decade, 1Mt CH4 emissions resulted in 3.111 ppb and 0.001 ºC.

If these conditions stay the same, and if my back-calculation is correct for CO2e==>CH4, then the scientists are saying we're going to make permafrost thaw release 1.6Gt CH4 per decade which results in an immediate warming of 1.6ºC / decade, and to the weather and social chaos from this warming.

But I reckon, I must have omitted a zero somewhere. 0.16ºC feels more logical to me. I just don't know where I went wrong.

#Help #MathsDyslexia
#CO2e #GWP #CH4 #Permafrost #SROC #OHSink

I am maths dyslexic and need #help

The update to the 2019 IPCC Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere https://iccinet.org/statecryo2022/ chapter 4 states that CO2e from permafrost at current policy scenario requires removal per century of 400Gt CO2.
(Yes, permafrost is officially thawing and it is officially now requiring CO2 removal.)

The report doesn't say but I assume they use the official GWP by UNEP, 25 over 100 years.

How do I back-calculate those 400Gt CO2e to see how much methane it is that's going to be released per decade?

My calculation ends in a crazy warming of 1.6ºC per decade from permafrost thaw. Can you point me to where my mistake is?

It goes like this:
400Gt CO2e / 25 = 16Gt? If true, then CH4 from permafrost per decade is 1.6Gt. If true, and if the OH-sink stays the same, it'd mean 1.6ºC warming each decade.

Why 1.6ºC/decade:
*because #AR6-WG1 states that 2010-2019, methane caused 0.51ºC warming.
*from the Global Methane Project's top down view, we know that ~600Mt were released/yr
* and from NOAA, we know that the concentration was Ø 1830ppb in that decade.

It follows that in the decade 2010-2019, with the particular capacity of the OH-sink in that decade, 1Mt CH4 emissions resulted in 3.111 ppb and 0.001 ºC.

If these conditions stay the same, and if my back-calculation is correct for CO2e==>CH4, then the scientists are saying we're going to make permafrost thaw release 1.6Gt CH4 per decade which results in an immediate warming of 1.6ºC / decade, and to the weather and social chaos from this warming.

But I reckon, I must have omitted a zero somewhere. 0.16ºC feels more logical to me. I just don't know where I went wrong.

#Help #MathsDyslexia
#CO2e #GWP #CH4 #Permafrost #SROC #OHSink

I am maths dyslexic and need #help

The update to the 2019 IPCC Special Report on Ocean and Cryosphere https://iccinet.org/statecryo2022/ chapter 4 states that CO2e from permafrost at current policy scenario requires removal per century of 400Gt CO2.
(Yes, permafrost is officially thawing and it is officially now requiring CO2 removal.)

The report doesn't say but I assume they use the official GWP by UNEP, 25 over 100 years.

How do I back-calculate those 400Gt CO2e to see how much methane it is that's going to be released per decade?

My calculation ends in a crazy warming of 1.6ºC per decade from permafrost thaw. Can you point me to where my mistake is?

It goes like this:
400Gt CO2e / 25 = 16Gt? If true, then CH4 from permafrost per decade is 1.6Gt. If true, and if the OH-sink stays the same, it'd mean 1.6ºC warming each decade.

Why 1.6ºC/decade:
*because #AR6-WG1 states that 2010-2019, methane caused 0.51ºC warming.
*from the Global Methane Project's top down view, we know that ~600Mt were released/yr
* and from NOAA, we know that the concentration was Ø 1830ppb in that decade.

It follows that in the decade 2010-2019, with the particular capacity of the OH-sink in that decade, 1Mt CH4 emissions resulted in 3.111 ppb and 0.001 ºC.

If these conditions stay the same, and if my back-calculation is correct for CO2e==>CH4, then the scientists are saying we're going to make permafrost thaw release 1.6Gt CH4 per decade which results in an immediate warming of 1.6ºC / decade, and to the weather and social chaos from this warming.

But I reckon, I must have omitted a zero somewhere. 0.16ºC feels more logical to me. I just don't know where I went wrong.

#Help #MathsDyslexia
#CO2e #GWP #CH4 #Permafrost #SROC #OHSink

#ServiceTweet

Wir haben alle Technologien & Handlungsoptionen, um unsere globalen #Treibhausgas-Emissionen bis 2030 zu halbieren.
Und: ein großer Teil dieser Maßnahmen sind sogar billiger als der #StatusQuo!

#IPCC #AR6 #WG3 #SPM7
#WissenSchafftKlimaschutz

@leahstokes I work on #mitigation scenarios like those used by #IPCC #WG3 to inform the #energytransition - and I coordinate the database infrastructure & #opensource packages for scenario analysis & #dataviz at the #IIASA #Energy #Climate & #Environment program. The #IPCC #AR6 #WG3 scenario ensemble is hosted by my team - dive into the emissions reduction pathways at http://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/ar6/!

As the #IPCC #ClimateChange reports continue to inform #COP27 #COP27Egypt some previous thoughts on #AR6:

1. "A New Climate Change Report Without Much New Overall"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/disaster-choice/202108/new-climate-change-report-without-much-new-overall

2. Do we need Climate Change's #IPCC https://theconversation.com/climate-change-the-ipcc-has-served-its-purpose-so-do-we-still-need-it-183550

#ClimateReport #Climate #ClimateChange #GlobalWarming #ClimateCrisis #ClimateEmergency

@GeraldKutney At what point do we rename the @MichaelEMann #HockeyStick curve into the grim reaper curve? :earth:

#IPCC #AR6 @klima @helmholtz @PIK_climate @rahmstorf @W_Lucht @wblau @ZLabe

📈 Alex Radtke / #GrimReaperCurve #ClimateCrisis

@polenz_r Bitte überfliegen sie den #IPCC #AR6 #Synthesebericht zumindest: https://www.de-ipcc.de/358.php

Denn bei allen Warnung vor den Konsequenzen, wenn wir politisch nicht schnell genug handeln (dieses Jahrzehnt ist entscheidend), wird festgestellt, dass die technischen Mittel zur Einhaltung des 1,5 Grad Ziels vorhanden sind...

Da bald wieder Waldbrandsaison ist und Kachelmann dann jedes Jahr komische Ausraster kriegt, dass Hitze nix mit Waldbränden zu tun habe: das ist seine eigene Meinung, hat aber nix mit dem Stand der Wissenschaft zu tun. Er verteidigt die Meinung unter bewusster Auslassung von Fakten, die ihm sehr wohl bekannt sind.

Hier haben sich mal echte Wissenschaftler Reto Knutti und Sonia Seneviratne (WG1 Vice-chair. #Climate #Extremes #Land #AR6 #SR15. ) mit ihm hingesetzt und in Engelsgeduld versucht es ihm zu erklären. https://twitter.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1272913423911858182
Aber er besteht auf seiner falschen Meinung. Und benutzt diese eben auch regelmäßig um Leute zu beleidigen.

Die Screenshots sind alle aus der Konver ab da, wo Reto ihm erklärt, was die 4 Definitionen von Dürre mit Regen zu tun haben: nur die 1 sei 100% regenabhängig, die anderen seien abhängig von Verdunstung aus Boden und Pflanzen.
Kachelmanns Antwort: "Ich rede immer von 1."
Genau darum argumentiert er eben immer falsch und wissenschaftsleugnend.

Da bald wieder Waldbrandsaison ist und Kachelmann dann jedes Jahr komische Ausraster kriegt, dass Hitze nix mit Waldbränden zu tun habe: das ist seine eigene Meinung, hat aber nix mit dem Stand der Wissenschaft zu tun. Er verteidigt die Meinung unter bewusster Auslassung von Fakten, die ihm sehr wohl bekannt sind.

Hier haben sich mal echte Wissenschaftler Reto Knutti und Sonia Seneviratne (WG1 Vice-chair. #Climate #Extremes #Land #AR6 #SR15. ) mit ihm hingesetzt und in Engelsgeduld versucht es ihm zu erklären. https://twitter.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1272913423911858182
Aber er besteht auf seiner falschen Meinung. Und benutzt diese eben auch regelmäßig um Leute zu beleidigen.

Die Screenshots sind alle aus der Konver ab da, wo Reto ihm erklärt, was die 4 Definitionen von Dürre mit Regen zu tun haben: nur die 1 sei 100% regenabhängig, die anderen seien abhängig von Verdunstung aus Boden und Pflanzen.
Kachelmanns Antwort: "Ich rede immer von 1."
Genau darum argumentiert er eben immer falsch und wissenschaftsleugnend.

Da bald wieder Waldbrandsaison ist und Kachelmann dann jedes Jahr komische Ausraster kriegt, dass Hitze nix mit Waldbränden zu tun habe: das ist seine eigene Meinung, hat aber nix mit dem Stand der Wissenschaft zu tun. Er verteidigt die Meinung unter bewusster Auslassung von Fakten, die ihm sehr wohl bekannt sind.

Hier haben sich mal echte Wissenschaftler Reto Knutti und Sonia Seneviratne (WG1 Vice-chair. #Climate #Extremes #Land #AR6 #SR15. ) mit ihm hingesetzt und in Engelsgeduld versucht es ihm zu erklären. https://twitter.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1272913423911858182
Aber er besteht auf seiner falschen Meinung. Und benutzt diese eben auch regelmäßig um Leute zu beleidigen.

Die Screenshots sind alle aus der Konver ab da, wo Reto ihm erklärt, was die 4 Definitionen von Dürre mit Regen zu tun haben: nur die 1 sei 100% regenabhängig, die anderen seien abhängig von Verdunstung aus Boden und Pflanzen.
Kachelmanns Antwort: "Ich rede immer von 1."
Genau darum argumentiert er eben immer falsch und wissenschaftsleugnend.

Da bald wieder Waldbrandsaison ist und Kachelmann dann jedes Jahr komische Ausraster kriegt, dass Hitze nix mit Waldbränden zu tun habe: das ist seine eigene Meinung, hat aber nix mit dem Stand der Wissenschaft zu tun. Er verteidigt die Meinung unter bewusster Auslassung von Fakten, die ihm sehr wohl bekannt sind.

Hier haben sich mal echte Wissenschaftler Reto Knutti und Sonia Seneviratne (WG1 Vice-chair. #Climate #Extremes #Land #AR6 #SR15. ) mit ihm hingesetzt und in Engelsgeduld versucht es ihm zu erklären. https://twitter.com/Knutti_ETH/status/1272913423911858182
Aber er besteht auf seiner falschen Meinung. Und benutzt diese eben auch regelmäßig um Leute zu beleidigen.

Die Screenshots sind alle aus der Konver ab da, wo Reto ihm erklärt, was die 4 Definitionen von Dürre mit Regen zu tun haben: nur die 1 sei 100% regenabhängig, die anderen seien abhängig von Verdunstung aus Boden und Pflanzen.
Kachelmanns Antwort: "Ich rede immer von 1."
Genau darum argumentiert er eben immer falsch und wissenschaftsleugnend.

Ach so. Ich meine wirklich #AR6-WG2. Der Report der WorkingGroup 2 hat 0 Aufmerksamkeit gekriegt. Ist wohl nicht sexy genug sich anzugucken, was darin zur Situation von Mensch und Biosphäre in 10 oder 20 Jahren steht.
#AR6-WG2 könnte die Menschen beunruhigen und wirklich zum globalen Systemwechsel führen. Darum steht nicht jeden Tag ein Schnipsel aus dem Report in den Zeitungen... Lest ruhig mal die Schnipsel hier im Bild durch. Das sind alles Fundstellen aus AR6-WG2 und alle betreffen unsere Situation "bis 2030".

#KlimaGerechtigkeit #Klimaschutz #NormalSimulation #KlimaMedienKrise #by2030

Nachlese zur Sendung vom 9.11.
#Lanz #LetzteGeneration #KlimaGerechtigkeit #Klimaschutz #NormalSimulation #KlimaMedienKrise

Was mir dabei wieder auffällt ist die nicht adäquate Argumentation, man wolle mit Straßenblockaden oder Kartoffelbrei in der Regierung etwas bewirken.

Ich interpretiere jede Aktion so, dass damit –  weil Medien evtl. darüber berichten und Bürger sich aufregen – im Gehirn der Bürger erst einmal eine Klima-Ecke geschaffen werden soll, die derzeit einfach nicht existiert, weil Bürger sich selbst und gegenseitig und durch die Medien und Politiker genährt, eine Normalsimulation vorgaukeln. Solange die Simulation fortgeführt wird, kann sich auch der politische Wille bei Bürgern nicht bilden, *ausreichende* Maßnahmen zu treffen.
Darum sind die Aktionen unerlässlich. Weil sie Vorarbeit dafür leisten, dass die in der Normalsimulation befindlichen Bewusstseine überhaupt erst mal einen Trigger bekommen, sich später irgendwann mal im Laufe des Prozesses der Bewusstwerdung, den Zukünften zu stellen und zu kapieren, dass sie sich selber wehren müssen, sonst wird die Normalsimulation der Politiker und Econ- und Politjournalisten nicht aufhören und wir fahren weiter "mit Vollgas in die Klimahölle" (Guterres).

Aber LastGen stellt es halt so dar, als ob sie mit der Politik verhandeln wollten und deshalb Brei auf Bilder werfen. Und das find ich falsch. Einmal, weil LastGen ja sogar in der Klimabewegung selbst nicht den Rückhalt, also nicht die Legitimation findet mit der Regierung zu verhandeln. Und am allermeisten darum, weil es viel mehr bringen würde, das individual-, sozial- und medienpsychologische Schlafwandeln als Begründung anzuführen. Damit darüber geredet wird, warum sich der polit. Wille bei Wählern einfach nicht bilden kann.

P.S. Dass LastGen in der Klimabewegung nicht den Rückhalt, die Legitimation findet, liegt nicht an LastGen und ihren Aktionen. Sondern an den Bürgern, die sich für klimaklug halten, aber glauben, PV auf dem Dach und 1, 2 e-Cars in der Garage würden reichen. Das ist völlig abstrus. Und ich bin kurz davor, #AR6-WG2 gegen ein Kunstwerk zu schleudern, damit genau diese angeblich Klimaklugen anfangen sich wirklich schlau zu machen und sich daraufhin angemessen zu wehren.

You can see this quite clearly in the #AR6 #ScenarioExplorer, illustrated by the SSP2-scenarios of the
#IMAGE model.
The SSP2-Baseline (+3.8°C in 2100) and an ambitious #ClimatePolicy SSP2-26 (stabilization at 1.6°C) have identical #population trends.
https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/ar6//#/workspaces/share/14fb5b61-c5a2-4a59-8050-d2ccfea3c156

You can see this quite clearly in the #AR6 #ScenarioExplorer, illustrated by the SSP2-scenarios of the
#IMAGE model.
The SSP2-Baseline (+3.8°C in 2100) and an ambitious #ClimatePolicy SSP2-26 (stabilization at 1.6°C) have identical #population trends.
https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/ar6//#/workspaces/share/14fb5b61-c5a2-4a59-8050-d2ccfea3c156

You can see this quite clearly in the #AR6 #ScenarioExplorer, illustrated by the SSP2-scenarios of the
#IMAGE model.
The SSP2-Baseline (+3.8°C in 2100) and an ambitious #ClimatePolicy SSP2-26 (stabilization at 1.6°C) have identical #population trends.
https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/ar6//#/workspaces/share/14fb5b61-c5a2-4a59-8050-d2ccfea3c156

You can see this quite clearly in the #AR6 #ScenarioExplorer, illustrated by the SSP2-scenarios of the
#IMAGE model.
The SSP2-Baseline (+3.8°C in 2100) and an ambitious #ClimatePolicy SSP2-26 (stabilization at 1.6°C) have identical #population trends.
https://data.ece.iiasa.ac.at/ar6//#/workspaces/share/14fb5b61-c5a2-4a59-8050-d2ccfea3c156