8 Comments

1. The report says the drop was “due to favorable weather conditions; higher energy prices; a decline in the carbon intensity of electric power generation that resulted from increased use of natural gas, the least carbon intensive fossil fuel; and greater reliance on non-fossil fuels.”

   Natural gas was part of this, but my reading of the report was that other factors were more important. In particular, it was a really, really hot winter and a slightly cool summer.

2. Report says that CO2 emissions fell in the following 3 areas:

   Residential -48.7 MMT
   Commercial -20.2 MMT
   Industrial -26.3 MMT

   and increased in Transportation by 3.9 MMT

   It says “heating and cooling accounted for approximately 40
   percent of energy demand in the residential sector
   in 2005 but only about 22 percent in the commercial
   sector.”

   So .4*48.7 + .22*20.2 = ~24

   24 / 91.3 (total of the 4 categories) = ~23%

   Of course 23% is the total demand related to weather and what matters for understanding the change year over year is the marginal decrease in demand due to 2006 weather, which will be far smaller than the total. Weather perhaps had other unquantified effects as well.

   So weather was clearly an important factor but probably not the most important.

3. I’ll have to go read the report, but Roger should check his math too. The fact that heating and cooling account for 40% of use in residences does not preclude that it could account for a lot more that 40% of the change. To come to that conclusion, you have to know what the total demand is.

4. Kaching!

   I made a little bet with myself this afternoon when I saw Roger’s comment arrive that Eli would follow shortly, and that he would have something critical to say as regards Roger’s comment.

   I won the bet.

   🙂

5. Proof that you have two regular readers? Something else that makes you happy, apparently. 🙂

   Looking at the report, I don’t see an explicit breakdown, perhaps because it’s not possible to tease out exact numbers as between, e.g., weather and higher energy prices. The effect of weather in the residential sector was described as “dominant,” though. I would take that as meaning that it was the majority factor in that sector and, since it was listed first, as the largest single factor but perhaps short of being the majority one overall. I couldn’t find anything to support an argument that one of the other factors might have been as or important than weather.

   In any case Roger’s calculation seems not to be supported by the report.

   In the distance, the faint sound of flapping wings, the clinking of chains, then a trailing shriek…

   (OT: There’s a fascinating discussion going on over at CA in the new post on Scafetta + West 2007, and particularly the remarks from leading solar physicist Leif Svalgaard starting around comment 65. The science aside, the conniptions in response to the apparent overturning of the entire solar activity-climate edifice are something to behold. We saw a little bit of this material over on Tamino’s blog some weeks back, but Svalgaard got bored with the discussion since nobody was really questioning his views on the solar stuff. Of course he got much more of an argument from the CA crowd, and as a consequence has posted much more detail than he did at Tamino’s. This — not the CA discussion as such, but the apparent sea-change in the science — could perhaps be a small scoop for an enterprising journalist.)

6. Steve –

   Indeed, down to two or fewer readers, as even Mom can’t stomach this stuff any more. And I have to keep getting the word “Pielke” in at least once a week, or I’ll lose even Eli. 🙂

   On Scafetta and West, thanks for the tip, but I think I’ll pass. I’m shifting most of my journalistic energy toward the various energy, greenhouse gas and adaptation questions. It’s hard for me to see how the outcome of debates like that have any relevance. I still follow the literature regarding ENSO and other things with the potential to shed light on regional scale climate effects. But I’ve largely stopped reading Climate Audit, the hurricane wars and the like. They just don’t seem terribly relevant.

7. Yeah, John, at this point the practical implications of the solar business are more socio-political than scientific, although I will be curious to see if there are any serious consequences arising from eliminating solar forcing for the early 20th century. At this point the drought stuff e.g. is way more newsworthy.

8. It wasn’t critical of Roger personally, just that his conclusions cannot be reached from the quoted material. Would have done the same for Steve Bloom or you. Sorry you took it that way tho.

   You can tease out a bit more information by RTFR. The first thing to realize is that decline (I’m only going to look at the CO2, not the total GHG, was about 110mmt from 6045 mmt (2005). Of that 110 ~49 came from housing, 20 from commercial, industrial was 16 mmt lower (a long term trend driven by deindustrialization of the US) and electric power generation 53 mmt less. Transport went up ~4 mmt.

   The electric power generation decrease was from increased efficiency and a shift to other fuels then coal (electricity used for heating/cooling is not included). Because the amount of CO2 generated by housing is ~1204 mmt (2006) there is plenty of room for the observed decrease of 49 mmt to come all (or more likely seriously substantially) from the large (I remember ~8%) decrease in degree days btw 2005 and 2006, which was my point.

Comments are closed.