Stuart Jenkins retweeted
@stv_smth answers: Is carbon capture and storage a crucial climate technology?
#OxfordatCOP28 @CO2REhub @OxfordNetZero @NetZeroTracker
English
Stuart Jenkins
317 posts
Stuart Jenkins
@StuartAJenkins
Postdoc at Oxford Net Zero, University of Oxford. Studying climate science and policy, trends in RFs, carbon budgets, CTBO. Views my own.
Oxford, England Joined Ekim 2012
442 Following181 Followers
Who pays for net zero? Carbon Gap and Carbon Balance have written a report on the EU's Net Zero Industry Act. Plenty of "The EU should..."s in there to ensure CO2 storage is delivered on time and paid for by those who benefit from the fossil fuel industry
carbongap.org/recommendation…
English
@AndrewDessler @Revkin @CarbonBrief I agree though -- I see little reason to expect Tonga had any appreciable contribution to recent SST extremes. Much more likely an ENSO(+other IV) influenced event with long-term GHG forcing compounding to push extremes further out.
English
@AndrewDessler @Revkin @CarbonBrief The initial response may be negative as sulphate aerosol would quickly form with excess water vapour. This sulphate forcing effect is visible in satellite obs over last year, but it's largely worn off now, leaving excess water vapour and positive forcing. Effect is small though..
English
my hot take, which is actually well informed, is that the eruption of Hunga Tunga, while impressive, is not impacting the climate in any appreciable way.
my calculations suggest that the warming from water vapor is cancelled by increases in aerosols.
it's a nothing-burger.
English
Shocking that if you build the infrastructure people will use it. Lessons for high speed rail @RishiSunak?
standard.co.uk/news/transport…
English
Stuart Jenkins retweeted
Wow! the EU is proposing to make producers responsible for developing storage capacity on time!!
Sounds a lot like.....Carbon Takeback Obligation.
@janpaulvansoest @myrtleboat @HughHelferty @paul_zakkour @StuartAJenkins
Ayvard Pernot@EPernot
5) Perhaps most significantly the NZIA makes a big push on the Oil and Gas sector, directly targeting producers in 🇪🇺 to develop CO2 storage. This is done by forcing producers in 🇪🇺 to contribute on a pro rata basis to the 2030 target based on their production between 2020-2023
English
Petition to dub music behind this 🙋♂️ Stairway to heaven? Road to hell is probably more appropriate...
Dr. Robert Rohde@RARohde
If it is not literally the warmest year ever, someone will complain that global warming has stopped. Year-to-year fluctuations are a normal part of the ongoing global warming trend. Don't be distracted by the noise.
English
@AndrewIWilliams @AndrewDessler Stratospheric cooling and surface warming aren't necessarily inconsistent with one another either... public.wmo.int/en/resources/b….
English
@AndrewDessler A previous paper finds a similar magnitude of ERF when they impose HTHH water vapour anomalies in CESM, surely a GCM would capture this effect? agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20…
English
I don't believe this result at all
nature.com/articles/s4155…
English
Stuart Jenkins retweeted
NEW – Tonga volcano eruption raises ‘imminent’ risk of temporary 1.5C breach | @AyeshaTandon w/ comment from @StuartAJenkins @linosellitto
Read here: bit.ly/3kfnAvG
English
Stuart Jenkins retweeted
Climate goals can be achieved at affordable cost, if fossil fuel producers pay for carbon clear up
Read this new study led by Oxford Net Zero's Myles Allen and @StuartAJenkins, with @PACEmissions
ox.ac.uk/news/2023-01-1…
English
Stuart Jenkins retweeted
Another debunking of the climate change denial and blatant misrepresentation of a scientific study by @NetZeroWatch. aap.com.au/factcheck/auth…
English
@LeonSimons8 @Peters_Glen @aipartanen @AndrewHMacDoug1 @rustneversleepz @benmsanderson @froeltho @PFriedling @4C_H2020 Yeah of course it does, but you'll get dramatic reductions in the ~50% of those pollutants which are co-released by fossil energy use in an ambitious mitigation scenario. Hence the fact that basically every ambitious mitigation scenario ERF trend is negative after net zero in AR6
English
@StuartAJenkins @Peters_Glen @aipartanen @AndrewHMacDoug1 @rustneversleepz @benmsanderson @froeltho @PFriedling @4C_H2020 That depends mainly on methane and N2O emissions.
I could think of a scenario where fossil fuels are phased out, but agriculture for ~9 billion people still produces methane and N2O⬇️.
Aerosols could be (already are with regards to SOx) reduced, even with high CO2 emissions.
English
CO₂ emissions consistent with halting anthropogenic warming are +2.2 GtCO₂/yr (5–95th percentile range: −7.3 to +6.2 GtCO₂/yr), similar to the expected emissions from unmodelled Earth system feedbacks
Positive emissions may maintain zero warming!
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20…
1/
English
@LeonSimons8 @Peters_Glen @aipartanen @AndrewHMacDoug1 @rustneversleepz @benmsanderson @froeltho @PFriedling @4C_H2020 This forcing trajectory shape is the standard output of the AR6 chapter 7 assessment (for high ambition scenario). The non-CO2 ERF does tend to decline after 2030 in these scenarios. Would be quite unusual to achieve net zero CO2 but have very positive net non-CO2 ERF trend?
English
@Peters_Glen @aipartanen @AndrewHMacDoug1 @rustneversleepz @StuartAJenkins @benmsanderson @froeltho @PFriedling @4C_H2020 Most will have to come from a significantly reduced tropospheric ozone (in red) forcing it seems.
Not sure how that would work without significantly decreasing methane first?
English
@LeonSimons8 @Peters_Glen @aipartanen @AndrewHMacDoug1 @rustneversleepz @benmsanderson @froeltho @PFriedling @4C_H2020 For this study we simply chose a non-CO2 ERF scenario which matched the ambition in the CO2 emissions scenario, hence SSP1-19. Obviously non-CO2 trajectory impacts findings, but that wasn't the focus of the study (this time...) 👀
English
@Peters_Glen @aipartanen @AndrewHMacDoug1 @rustneversleepz @StuartAJenkins @benmsanderson @froeltho @PFriedling @4C_H2020 The paper shows a decreasing (net) non-CO2 RF from about 2030 (dotted line).
What emission assumptions does that entail? Isn't that crucial for the overall conclusions?
English
An important new paper, obscurely written, with implications that most of the warming in the 20th century could be natural
CDN@ClimateDN
It’s remarkable to read that a new study from the University of Oxford and the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research no less admits that we can't rule out that some, perhaps most, of any warming that has happened in the last 20 years was natural. bit.ly/3Wynv3L
English
@DC_Borborygmus @wxbywilliams The longer term +0.2C/decade warming rate is very likely caused by human influences, which is CO2 dominated. The additional +0.1C/decade since 2010 is ~ +0.05C\decade from aerosol emissions reductions, and ~ +0.05C\decade from ENSO-related variability signals
English
@DC_Borborygmus @wxbywilliams Yes, happy to help! The article @wxbywilliams refers to is nonsense, and misinterprets the results of our research. We find the recent *acceleration* in rate of warming, from +0.2C/decade to +0.3C/decade is likely 50:50 caused by internal variability and human influences (1/2)
English
Imagine that. 🤔 climatediscussionnexus.com/2022/12/21/by-…
English
@Josh_Gabbatiss Isn't the point that Blenheim owns vast swathes of land and doesn't need to burden one pocket of Oxfordshire with the full houseprice-rocking burden of delivering 'an Oxfordshire worth of solar power'? Blenheim own parkland isn't even included!
English
I've returned to my parents' home in West Oxfordshire this Christmas to find people angry and worried about the future of the village.
Why? Because they say "Europe's biggest solar farm" is about to be built on their doorstep.
🌞a festive thread🌞
1/
English