Coverage of Database: "Did number of countries coverage increase? Now inconsistent with press release at 98 I believe. Just want to confirm number"ANSWER. Done. This is configurable within CMS so we control it. Reduced fields to those exposed on front end, reworked the language to indicate coverage is already universal at country level.
Carbon Budgets graphic:
Express values as a percentage, i.e., 50%, 67%, 83%.Done
Express in Celsius, i.e. 1.5C.Done
Include that these are “IEA” scenarios to the extent correct, i.e., IEA SDS. Also, use the IEA terms for the scenarios (don’t think they use ‘business as usual’ as the phrase, for example)?Done
Just a question on this screen—the links are all to dummy data, right? Will you populate these, Johnny?Yes. I have already written up Urgewald, plan on writing up methane, EITI tax data, and Norwegian field example - to have four articles sitting there
Data and Documentation: Can we alphabetize this list?See: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal-v2/issues/7 We will populate page with data from sources table (which can therefore be adjusted after at will, including showing number of projects and data rows from each source. Note also: I have uploaded all non-processed country data into GD and logged them into the sources category so that we can publicise longer list.
Methodology:
The spacing between lines is off—needs to be further apart, maybe 1.5? Adding to list for @JesperWe to help out with adjusting CMS.
This is true for other section headers on this page.Noted
Menu: • Under “other” on homepage—couldn’t get datasets/downloads to workDeliberate. I believe we should merge with data documentation (which will already contain links to all raw data sources on GD), and use extra space on menu to introduce the Excel model. Discuss?
Map: No gas data in visual for Russia, US etc…. coal has no data for Latin AmericaSee: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal/issues/175 (for issue also of emissions numbers not being correctly populated). SUGGESTION: remove the drop down filters for individual fuels and combustion / pre-combustion from the map altogether? I am not sure it adds value... saves programing time also (concentrate only on making overall emissions figure and production totals appear)??
Forecast Scenarios at country level:
1. Is there a way to address the stark jump from the historic production data to the projection? It’s a pretty substantial drop out of 2020. Is this because we’ve expressed it all in CO2e using our emissions equivalent, so we can’t put historic production in using these factors, but then back out to production forecast, which is based on volumes, from another source? (In Algeria case, see how it jumps way up or down when switching GWP factor).See: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal/issues/177 I have asked Jesper to help since these graphs work in the old dev site but not here for reasons I do not yet understand.
[Not shown]. When I look at the colors they don’t seem to correspond to coal oil and gas reserves/ production in the legend.I believe they actually might - if you remember that future production should be a lighter version of the same colour as historic production. To me there is too little differentiation between the core colours but not one for now.
Weren’t we going to have a drop down for production data source? No, remember we decided to unify on EIA scenarios as the switch between different production sources was what was causing the disconnect between historic and future productions (which are based on continuing the EIA historic production series).
Nothing populates when “stable” selected. I am adding to https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal/issues/177 to remove the Stable scenario since it predates adoption of the four IEA-based scenarios. Ongoing discussion about whether to use stable at field level also moot at the moment since our one screen is for sparse fields and does not project.
Forecast and Excess Reserves: I have transformed your points into a new issue to communicate direct with dev team and shorten comms chain: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal/issues/180 Yes, it is still dummy data.
Coverage of Database: "Did number of countries coverage increase? Now inconsistent with press release at 98 I believe. Just want to confirm number" ANSWER. Done. This is configurable within CMS so we control it. Reduced fields to those exposed on front end, reworked the language to indicate coverage is already universal at country level.
Carbon Budgets graphic:
Just a question on this screen—the links are all to dummy data, right? Will you populate these, Johnny? Yes. I have already written up Urgewald, plan on writing up methane, EITI tax data, and Norwegian field example - to have four articles sitting there
Data and Documentation: Can we alphabetize this list? See: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal-v2/issues/7 We will populate page with data from sources table (which can therefore be adjusted after at will, including showing number of projects and data rows from each source. Note also: I have uploaded all non-processed country data into GD and logged them into the sources category so that we can publicise longer list.
Methodology:
Forecast Scenarios at country level: 1. Is there a way to address the stark jump from the historic production data to the projection? It’s a pretty substantial drop out of 2020. Is this because we’ve expressed it all in CO2e using our emissions equivalent, so we can’t put historic production in using these factors, but then back out to production forecast, which is based on volumes, from another source? (In Algeria case, see how it jumps way up or down when switching GWP factor). See: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal/issues/177 I have asked Jesper to help since these graphs work in the old dev site but not here for reasons I do not yet understand.
Forecast and Excess Reserves: I have transformed your points into a new issue to communicate direct with dev team and shorten comms chain: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal/issues/180 Yes, it is still dummy data.
Largest fields: I have transformed your points into a new issue to communicate direct with dev team and shorten comms chain: https://github.com/fossilfuelregistry/portal/issues/181