Twitter | Search | |
Zeke Hausfather
Climate Scientist working on temperature records, climate, and energy system models. Director of Climate and Energy . Also: ,
13,265
Tweets
467
Following
22,648
Followers
Tweets
Zeke Hausfather 3h
Eyeballing it, it's hard to tell. Would have to download the various layers and calculate trends.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather retweeted
Daniel M Kammen 14h
Take a look at all your options at the carbon footprint calculator we built that is used by thousands of US and European cities, schools, and (millions of) households:
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather 9h
ERA5 is a lot better for long term trends than previous generations of reanalysis products.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather 23h
Replying to @strmsn @Farmer_Dave999
29% is it's share of the total positive radiative forcing increase since 1750 based on the IPCC AR5:
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather retweeted
Michael N. Dyonisius Feb 22
But if you guys are interested in CH4 rise of the last decade, then here is 1 picture summary of where the science is at, from top-down atm monitoring perspective (not bottom up inventory, reconciling the 2 is another whole discussion).
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
C14 is only really useful pre-nuclear testing. But more broadly the global methane budget had been assuming constant natural fossil seepage of ~30 MtCH4 per year. This paper suggests it should be much smaller (say, 5 MtCH4 and the rest should be reapportioned to anthro fossil.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
That would require a more thorough analysis than the simple model in my paper! has done some related research I think.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather retweeted
Robert Rohde Feb 22
Or put another way, the Earth's carbon cycle has a lot of moving parts. The fast bits can mix carbon dioxide over decade and centuries, but actually getting rid of it by forming new rocks takes a really long time.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
Since atmospheric CH4 is largely a function of the emissions flux rather than cumulative emissions.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
Even if you repartitioned a constant set of emissions through present it doesn't tell us anything about drivers of changes to atmospheric CH4 since the constant annual addition was already baked into atmospheric concentrations well before the past decade.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
More or less, though there are some time lags (~20 years) between when CH4 emissions stabilize and atmospheric concentrations stop growing.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
I had a similar paper a few years back, which looked at how long a gas bridge could delay renewables (in a simple example) before benefits of coal replacement disappears:
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
As one of the papers authors suggests the drivers of recent methane increases are still highly uncertain and this paper can't resolve that:
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
Well, we knew the fossil fraction in the atmosphere, just not it's partitioning between geologic seeps and anthropogenic emissions. This paper is arguing that the fixed emissions we thought were actually seeps are mostly anthropogenic.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 22
Their work involved a repartitioning of an assumed constant natural fossil source to anthropogenic. This is in line with Alvarez type estimate of larger overall fossil leakage but doesn't necessarily provide much info on decadal-scale changes.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 21
Could also lead to building more coal plants (as well as ramping up existing ones), which would still be cheaper than renewables in some parts of the country. Higher gas prices would also increase grid integration costs for VRE, at least pre-cheap grid scale storage.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 21
Replying to @LabradorIce @jjrennie
KNMI climate explorer has ERA5 daily and monthly fields now. Can do all the preprocessing there which makes it much easier (at least if they have all the fields you need).
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 21
Replying to @MichaelEMann
Yep, and whether 50% or 80% of the rise over the past decade in atmospheric CH4 is from fossil fuel extraction (vs agriculture) doesn't change the need to tackle emissions from both!
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 21
Replying to @MichaelEMann
Neither, it's the attribution of most of the recent rise to a fossil vs biogenic (agriculture and waste) source that's still unclear. This study doesn't tell us anything about that.
Reply Retweet Like
Zeke Hausfather Feb 21
Replying to @MichaelEMann
That said, it's very likely that about half the increase is from fossil fuel use (as the new Global Methane Budget argues). There are just will large remaining uncertainties.
Reply Retweet Like