tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post115897763713420325..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1159234000131867672006-09-25T21:26:00.000-04:002006-09-25T21:26:00.000-04:00What Prof. Pielke is doing is comparing US emissio...What Prof. Pielke is doing is comparing US emissions in one sector with total worldwide emissions. He is trying to force the card that the US making changes in one sector/one fuel is futile as if that was what was being asked. He shows us US emissions from petroleum and worldwide total emissions. This is more convincing if the reader is not show the other two numbers, total US emissions from all sources and worldwide emissions from petroleum (see below). It also does not allow the reader to see the relative percentages of the petroleum based emissions. The assumption being forced is that only the US will be required to change. <BR/><BR/>In addition to sending us out on a Peiser, Pielke uses a unit, tons of C that the relevent tables at the site he points us to, do not use. Readers who are not aware that conversion between tons of CO2 and tons of C emitted requires mutiplying by 12/44 will be lost. (this is the ratio between the molecular masses of carbon atoms and carbon dioxide) <BR/><BR/>The eia site has a <A HREF="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_10.pdf" REL="nofollow"> table </A> which shows the estimates from 2005 up to 2030 for CO2 total emissions in 5 year intervals. If you interpolate you get about 860 gT CO2 and 235 gT C. There is also a <A HREF="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoreftab_11.pdf" REL="nofollow"> table </A> for CO2 emissions from petroleum. If you interpolate that you get 520 gT CO2 and 141 gT carbon between 2005 and 2030 (about 60% from burning oil).<BR/><BR/>Finally there is the <A HREF="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotab_18.pdf" REL="nofollow"> table of </A>US emission estimates, which gives you about 20.5 gT C for petroleum use in the US (2005-2030) and an emission total of about 48.0 gT C (about 40% due to oil).EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1159125358065152782006-09-24T15:15:00.000-04:002006-09-24T15:15:00.000-04:00IF you look again at the document I referenced in ...IF you look again at the document I referenced in my first post above <BR/>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_6.pdf<BR/>you can see from fig 107 that in the US, oil accounts for about 1/4 the yearly contribution to CO2 emissions.<BR/><BR/>Assuming the 240gt number I gave above (obtained from fig 108 in the same document) actually refers to Carbon dioxide, not carbon, the total accumulated emissions from 1990-2030 in ton carbon would be about 240 x .27 = 65 gtC.<BR/><BR/>If oil accounts for about 1/4 of this, that would be about 16GtC for the period 1990-2030.<BR/><BR/>That is very close to the number given for oil by RP (15 GtC).<BR/><BR/>So assuming DOE gives their numbers in ton Carbon dioxide rather than ton carbon, I get numbers for the period 1990-2030 that are consistent with RP's.<BR/><BR/>But, I still can not be sure that this is what RP referred to, which gets us back to your main point, Eli: the reference should be explicit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1159123349476728292006-09-24T14:42:00.000-04:002006-09-24T14:42:00.000-04:00What I posted above is for US emissions, not total...What I posted above is for US emissions, not total world emissions.<BR/><BR/>Here's a document with the international emissions:<BR/><BR/>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html<BR/><BR/>From fig 66, it looks like the total accumulated for the period 1990-2030 is closer to about 1000 gt.<BR/><BR/>If this is in ton CO2 instead of ton of carbon, that would make the equivalent number for GtC about 270, not too far off from RP's number of 235 (given that my "integration" is by eye and very crude, I would guess that this might be the case).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1159121119736672692006-09-24T14:05:00.000-04:002006-09-24T14:05:00.000-04:00I won't speculate on the why, but I will second th...I won't speculate on the why, but I will second the notion that RP has a habit of doing this.<BR/><BR/>I went to the EIA and found a couple papers that showed projections for yearly CO2 emissions out to 2030 (see figure 108 in this reference<BR/><BR/>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_6.pdf<BR/><BR/>If you integrate the emissions under the curve labeled "reference" for the period from 1990-2030, the total is about 240 billion metric ton (ie Gt). I am assuming this is in tons of carbon, but that is not made explicit.<BR/><BR/>This value is pretty close to RP's value of 235gtC, but I can only assume (!) this is what he is referring to.<BR/><BR/>Actually, becasue he provided no explicit reference to a document and figure or table within that document, what he refers to in this case is about as clear as mud.<BR/><BR/>I'm with you on this Eli. I don't know how someone can even discuss things when it is not even clear precisely what they are discussing, but people seem to do it all the time on blogs. It's a waste of time as far as I can see and contributes nothing.<BR/><BR/>But hey, when has that ever discouraged anyone before?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1159033766509250862006-09-23T13:49:00.000-04:002006-09-23T13:49:00.000-04:00I think he posted that as a teaser, an invitation ...I think he posted that as a teaser, an invitation to a friendly game of "Peiser" --- you know how that's played, right? <BR/>---------------------------------------<BR/>Playing Peiser:<BR/><BR/>Player who challenges: Post a summary assertion, and challenge others to come up with an online search [engine+site+string] that includes the challenge among its results.<BR/><BR/>Players: a single hit is a win, with a score of 1, but "close" counts as a fraction of a point, 1 divided by the number of hits.<BR/><BR/>Players pledge to be honest in presenting their first result, and not improve their search strings by successive approximation before recording their result.<BR/>-------------------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Nowadays mostly used grade school kids who have papers to write, who can't figure out how to get facts, so they make them up and challenge others to prove or disprove them.<BR/><BR/>It's an adaptation of the early Usenet advice that the best way to get good information is to post what you know and await correction.<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'll play --- My first play:<BR/>http://firstgovsearch.gov/search?input-form=simple-firstgov&v%3Aproject=firstgov&query=235+projection+2030+%22carbon+dioxide%22&affiliate=eia.doe.gov<BR/><BR/>My first score is 1/9th of a point.<BR/>9 results for: 235 projection 2030 "carbon dioxide"Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.com