benjhm

To follow up my previous comment - recently I did try compiling my interactive climate scenario model (written in scala) as wasm, and hey presto it just works, didn't have to change one line of code (except in build.mill). You can have a look:
My interactive climate model (SWIM) run with wasm

But first enable 'experimental webassembly' in your browser e.g. in Chrome chrome://flags/#enable-experimental-webassembly-features, in Vivaldi vivaldi://flags and enable "experimental webassembly", in Firefox (recent) - it just works, only Safari doesn't seem to be ready yet.

You can check with devtools, it's mostly wasm, with a little js (beware devtools really slow it down).
To compare same scala code running as normal js, just remove the ?wasm in the url.
Initial setup won't be faster with wasm as it's mainly data loading, but model re-run should be a little faster, although I suspect writing to console and rotating cogs etc. slow it down. Ideally I'd keep gui stuff as js, and model calculation as wasm, but we can't currently influence this division. What's remarkable it’s that it's so easy and reliable 'out-of-the-box', for such complex calculations (in this case including all future projections and generation of many svg plots).

Agree with key messages, like the novel rate-per-decade plot. Most people seem unaware of the huge influence of declining sulphate emissions - good news is that's short-term-ish. We could also make a quick difference by reducing methane, even quicker aviation cirrus.
You can explore similar plots with contributions to radiative forcing in my SWIM model (note - gases /forcings not so up to date as above, but wider range of topics).

China is also a bigger emitter per capita than most european countries - for a decade now.
Why do so many people only compare to US - a small fraction of the world - maybe as fits simplistic narratives ?

Makes sense, rail is ideal for such a long thin country.
Probably a nine-hour overnight trip is preferable to a five-hour day trip, but of course there are shorter distances too.
I recall the last time they were thinking about this ±15 yrs ago, a delegate to a COP told me they were already concerned about adaptation to sea-level rise affecting part of the route along the coast. Seems better future-planning than some more 'developed' countries.

Useful analysis, plots do suggest that there's an anomaly beyond the usual pattern, but maybe the underlying trend fit is too simple, missing factors such as the post-covid spike due to shipping sulphate, also the 11yr solar cycle (we're near a peak). Also worth checking whether the anomaly is concentrated in one region - as 24 months is a short timescale for global averaging.

That's a pity, I had been expecting level or a slight decrease in fossil CO2 (due to economy in China which has 1/3 of emissions), so maybe I was wrong, or maybe it's just too soon to say (they give error range -0.3% to +1.9%). There's still 1/6th of 2024 to go, including part of the NH winter whose heating demand varies with weather, most of the raw data that goes into these calculations is likely not so fresh, and chinese economic projections tend to be 'optimistic'. The rise in LUC CO2 is mainly hangover from tail of El Niño early this year, leading to fires in southern hemisphere. So it's still possible, if we think monthly, that the global peak was early this year, i.e. in the past.
Of course, they release GCB before the end of the year to try to influence the COP, which makes more sense when the COP is in mid-December (as typical, but not necessary - iirc COP1 was April and COP2 July). But does projected bad news really help motivate the world? I'd emphasise mixed news - some trends up, others down, which shows what difference we can make.

Och some things never change ... at least Ed Uni had the same reputation when I was a student there from 1990, but in reality this mainly applied to humanities departments - in chemistry, geology, agric, etc. down at the 'King's buildings', it was mostly Scottish students. Overall a fine diversity.

Indeed there is huge momentum in renewable costs. I recall 20 years ago climate economists starting to model endogenous technological change, but they just had to invent ' learning curves' with magic numbers. Now it has happened.
On the other hand, I still wish heat pumps were cheaper. Where I live, the cost is inflated by the requirement for installation by people qualified with refrigerant gases.

Some sense to this - global emissions probably just peaked because China's housing bubble burst - responsible for much more CO2 than AI/crypto, and even a communist government can't effectively control such crashes. So no, we are not f****d, but not always saved for noble reasons.
Also regarding crypto - how much of that was sustained by russians evading sanctions - which new team in US is likely to remove ?

Makes sense. China holds a good hand now, as they have probably peaked emissions five years ahead of their promise, and are not yet obliged with financial contributions. Also they need to sell renewables, electric cars etc. - especially to southern countries while US and EU put big tariffs. And if you look at the numbers, US is no longer so important in the world.

Your first sentence is correct. But if you look at the historical data, the sharpest drop in chinese fertility rate was several years before they introduced the one-child policy, which also ended several years ago without apparently making any difference. Also, fertility rates in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan are even lower. As these rates are also lower than europe, that maybe related more to housing affordability and density, possibly combined with some common evolution of 'eastern' values.

In high latitude winters, snow provides light and contrast - without it the world is just shades of black brown grey. Some people there may think a little extra warmth could be welcome, but -2ºC with snow is much better than +2ºC with cold grey drizzle.