Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
6. You're right.
Sun May 27, 2012, 01:14 AM
May 2012

You've largely addressed my criticisms from the earlier discussion and you do, in fact, appear to be in line with median values in the studies the IPCC reviewed. You are to be commended for the work and the good faith you brought to the effort tonight.

Two thoughts for your consideration. Like most studies of this kind the raw data tends to be a bit stale. The latest numbers they post in their description of our current status are for 2008 and I'm inclined to think none of the underlying studies are more recent than 2009 meaning they are not capturing the full impact of China's policies.

I also think the distribution of the projections on pg 136 is interesting, don't you think? The median is extremely close to the low end of the range with distribution above median accounting for a significant portion of the entire range of estimates.
Simply put the more conservative projections are clustered together while the optimistic projections tend to be more spread out.

What do you believe accounts for the difference in distribution? What assumptions are at play here?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

How many data points between 2003-2012 did you use? kristopher May 2012 #1
Annual points from 1980 to 2010, so 30 points in all (edited) GliderGuider May 2012 #2
There are literally hundreds of "authoritative estimates" out there GG. kristopher May 2012 #3
"Outlier"? Not hardly. GliderGuider May 2012 #4
You're right. kristopher May 2012 #6
When I look at the distribution I'm reminded of a PERT analysis. GliderGuider May 2012 #10
I'd like to respond more fully a bit later today hopefully, but in the meantime kristopher May 2012 #12
How is IRENA not the same kind of industry group XemaSab May 2012 #5
Decry? kristopher May 2012 #7
Beautifully argued but you have left some things out intaglio May 2012 #8
Did you really think I was trying to justify the building of nukes??? GliderGuider May 2012 #9
At first, yes, I did think you were being supportive intaglio May 2012 #11
One thing I'd like to see is the big 3 'C's: Concrete, Clinker, and Coke. joshcryer May 2012 #13
Thanks. That's a very useful memory graphic! GliderGuider May 2012 #14
I'm trying to find a breakdown for "industry," but generally it's "those three." joshcryer May 2012 #15
EPA kristopher May 2012 #16
US only doesn't tell you the full picture. joshcryer May 2012 #17
The report that is part of has 60 pages of references. kristopher May 2012 #18
Found the kind of breakdown I want, page 85: joshcryer May 2012 #19
"Industrial" is one sector of power kristopher May 2012 #20
I looked at the EPA table, it's good, but because it's US-only... joshcryer May 2012 #21
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»CO2 Emissions from Electr...»Reply #6