Carbon emission reduction: News and technology

[L'Emmerdeur]

I found at least six different theories on the etymology/origin of 'taking the piss' but nothing I consider authoritative. I don't have access to the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, but it seems clear to me that nobody is certain.

[Brian Peacock]

lol

[pErvinalia]

Piss off!

[Brian Peacock]

It's old, dated and it's irrelevant.

Why do you think three years old is too old to be relevant? Do you believe the figures or the trend are significantly different to three years ago - particularly given projected sector growth (link & link)? If so please provide a cogent argument (and some reputable sources if you don't think the IPCC is reputable enough).

...

[macdoc]

The IPCC is not a scientific body - it does no science or research and is rather a political organization.

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is not a science institute that conducts its own research. It is an intergovernmental body that assesses the scientific information relevant to understanding human-induced climate change. The IPCC synthesizes and summarizes existing, peer-reviewed scientific literature to provide comprehensive reports for policymakers

It is inherently laggy and conservative because of its very nature and subject to political winds.

The IPCC also has some notable weaknesses — its reliance on out-of-date scenarios most obviously. The Synthesis Report was written by a small group of people. For better or worse, the work of this small group of people reflects upon the entire IPCC and the years of effort leading to this week's report

Even this is a year old

The UN’s climate science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is currently meeting in Bulgaria to decide on a timeline for its next “cycle” of reports over the rest of this decade. That decision should have been taken in January, but government divisions arose over aligning IPCC outputs with UN climate negotiations, at a meeting that the IPCC chair described as “one of the most intense” he had experienced.

Political struggle over the final wording of IPCC reports is well known, but this division at the start of the process reflects the organisation’s achievements. The more successful it becomes in disseminating climate knowledge, the more deeply imbued in climate politics it becomes.

I have studied the IPCC for 15 years and think these political factors are often overlooked. For instance, though the reports are written by scientists, governments play an integral role throughout the process. The IPCC is after all an intergovernmental body – it’s governments that decide to produce the reports and give the final approval, not scientists.

Most notably, this involves the final line-by-line approval of a report’s key findings in the “summary for policymakers” (the only bit most people read). Media reporting and accounts by IPCC authors frequently reveal the extent of negotiation over how the latest knowledge of climate change is presented to the public. This has lead to whole sections being deleted and open conflict between scientists and government delegates.

more
https://theconversation.com/inside-the- ... nce-235608
by contrast ...climate scientists discussing the science
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... over-time/

[Brian Peacock]

OK mac. So you believe the IPCC's synthesis of the science on the extent of and trends in aviation C/GHG emissions are too laggy and conservative, and that the conclusions of the IPCC on the subject suffer from too much political wrangling. Good. That's something we can agree on. The IPCC is laggy and conservative and the conclusions of its reports are prone to the kind of political dilution that results from electoral short-termism, ministerial incompetence, and of course the undue influence of special-interest lobbying.

Though the various IPCC committees and sub-committees examining the scientific literature are populated by some of the top people in their fields, you are clearly better informed than the IPCC on this matter and presumably abreast of the most up-to-date data. For this reason I'm very interested in tapping into your expertise here as I am part of a team producing teaching programmes and materials that promote group- and active-learning projects for Scottish secondary school students focused around climate change and sustainability, implemented across the curriculum. It's important that the team ground our resources in the best possible science available, so I'm particularly eager to find out from you the most reputable and relevant scientific sources showing the current state of aviation's global emissions profile, how this really sits within the broader historical context, and, taking into account the sector's projected growth, what the actual emissions trends are.

[macdoc]

I gave you the links and have many times over the years ....I never claimed I was better informed than the IPCC members - I claimed that the the IPCC was laggy and conservative which you agree with....
So go directly to the key scientists for your project.
Either post up on Real Climate bog, use their resources which exist there all ready in Getting Started or email Gavin.
gavin.a.schmidt@nasa.gov

[Brian Peacock]

I gave you the links and have many times over the years ....I never claimed I was better informed than the IPCC members - I claimed that the the IPCC was laggy and conservative which you agree with....

Well, you were apparently informed enough to feel confident in dismissing the aviation emissions data and to dispute the trend. It really isn't my job to research your assertion for you. So are you going to provide a cogent argument and some reputable sources to support your assertion or are you going to just rely on "because, that's why"?

[Brian Peacock]

Best-case aviation sector fuel use, NO, particulate and CO2 emissions projected to double by 2050.
.

.
International Civil Aviation Organisation, working paper 93 (2022) (PDF).

The ICAO actually frame these increases as net reductions when measured against the 'technological freeze with no operational improvements' line. Interesting how a doubling can be spun as a c.25% reduction eh?