This week some deep analytical thinking and research have started to happen around the island and seagull story in relation to the NASA sea level rise data.
- We may need to consider having more than 4 movable pieces since there are more than 4 contributors to green house gas emissions – briefly these are: electricity and heat (31%), agriculture (11%), transportation (15%), forestry (6%) and manufacturing (12%). This only accounts for 75% of the total – there are quite a few other smaller contributors that we should account for too. Energy production accounts for 72% of all emissions More details are here: https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/#:~:text=Globally%2C%20the%20primary%20sources%20of,72%20percent%20of%20all%20emissions.
- At the moment, we are assuming the NASA sea level data represents the worst case scenario based on the data from NASA. However, this assumes that our green house gas production stays constant and don’t increase which is not true, we are progressively increasing this number. So what needs to happen (we think) is use the NASA data as a basis to predict the likely natural increase over the period we want to show on the device (100/1000 years?) So using data on yearly increases in emissions https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2020-trends-in-global-co2-and-total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2019-report_4068.pdf we can model the baseline based on NASAs data but also accounting for a natural increase in emissions, this will then form our ‘worst case’ i.e. if we don’t change our behavior then this scenario will come true. We’ll use that projection to do all of other modelling for other scenarios. This could be done in a fairly straightforward way, i.e. if we remove transport emissions then we reduce the amount of green house gases by 15% which in turn reduces sea level rise over the period by 15%. We need to be consider this further and carefully. But hey great thoughts and discussion around these are starting to emerge. Fun times ahead.