Holding concentrations or temperature (more remotely) to a particular target therefore means
limiting cumulative emissions of, say, carbon over time... a limited amount of time if we are talking about an iterative approach, and over a long period of time if we are talking about reducing the likelihood of some very nasty consequences well after we (but not our grandchildren — if we are lucky enough to have some) are gone.
His work has shown that
limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide may be a more robust approach to climate change mitigation policy than attempting to define a «safe» stabilization level for atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Not exact matches
Even the 350 - ppm
limit for carbon dioxide is «questionable,» says physicist Myles Allen of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, and focusing instead on keeping
cumulative emissions below one trillion metric tons might make more sense, which would mean humanity has already used up more than half of its overall
emissions budget.
It has been estimated that to have at least a 50 per cent chance of keeping warming below 2 °C throughout the twenty - first century, the
cumulative carbon
emissions between 2011 and 2050 need to be
limited to around 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (Gt CO2).
If the carbon fee had begun in 1995, we calculate that global
emissions would have needed to decline 2.1 % / year to
limit cumulative fossil fuel
emissions to 500 GtC.
A
cumulative industrial - era
limit of ∼ 500 GtC fossil fuel
emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted.
A
limit of approximately 500 GtC on
cumulative fossil fuel
emissions, accompanied by a net storage of 100 GtC in the biosphere and soil, could keep global temperature close to the Holocene range, assuming that the net future forcing change from other factors is small.
This approach is complementary to the approach of estimating
cumulative emissions allowed to achieve a given
limit on global warming [12].
The
emission limit depends on climate sensitivity, but central estimates [12]--[13], including those in the upcoming Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [14], are that a 2 °C global warming
limit implies a
cumulative carbon
emissions limit of the order of 1000 GtC.
Doesn't this contradict the analysis you point to by Allen et al and Meinshausen et al, both of which calculate a
cumulative emissions budget that include substantial future
emissions, to keep us within the 2 °C
limit?
What if
cumulative emissions of carbon were not
limited?
IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that
cumulative carbon dioxide
emissions related to human activities need to be
limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of
limiting warming to 2 °C.
The aim in
limiting greenhouse gas
emissions should be to keep Earth's climate as close as possible to what it has been during the Holocene, say the study authors, adding that doing so depends on the
cumulative amount of
emissions released into the atmosphere throughout the industrial period, not just those emitted today.
Following these informal discussions, delegates agreed on text stating that
limiting the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2
emissions alone with a probability range of greater than 33 %, 50 %, and 66 %, to less than 2ºC since the period 1861 - 1880, will require
cumulative CO2
emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1560 GtC, 0 and about 1210 GtC, and 0 and about 1000 GtC.
Limiting the warming to less than 2 °C can be achieved, with a probability level of 66 %, if maximum
cumulative CO2
emissions do not exceed 1000 GtC.
They argue that keeping the most likely warming due to CO2 alone to 2 °C will require us to
limit cumulative CO2
emissions over the period 1750 — 2500 to 1 trillion tonnes of carbon.
Regarding text stating that
limiting warming from anthropogenic CO2
emissions alone to likely less than 2 °C since 1861 - 1880 requires
cumulative emissions to stay below 1000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), Saudi Arabia urged using 1850 for consistency, to which the CLAs responded that some model simulations only begin in 1860, which delegates agreed to reflect in a footnote.
Armed with our model ensemble projection, a temperature
limit (2 °C), exceedance likelihood (33 %) and our «one model, one vote» ensemble interpretation, we find the
cumulative carbon
emission where approximately 33 % of our modeled realizations have warmed more than 2 °C.
Studies surveyed Millar, R. et al. (2017) Emission budgets and pathways consistent with
limiting warming to 1.5 C, Nature Geophysics, doi: 10.1038 / ngeo3031 Matthews, H.D., et al. (2017) Estimating Carbon Budgets for Ambitious Climate Targets, Current Climate Change Reports, doi: 10.1007 / s40641 -017-0055-0 Goodwin, P., et al. (2018) Pathways to 1.5 C and 2C warming based on observational and geological constraints, Nature Geophysics, doi: 10.1038 / s41561 -017-0054-8 Schurer, A.P., et al. (2018) Interpretations of the Paris climate target, Nature Geophysics, doi: 10.1038 / s41561 -018-0086-8 Tokarska, K., and Gillett, N. (2018)
Cumulative carbon emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 C global warming, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0118-9 Millar, R., and Friedlingstein, P. (2018) The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0449 Lowe, J.A., and Bernie, D. (2018) The impact of Earth system feedbacks on carbon budgets and climate response, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2017.0263 Rogelj, J., et al. (2018) Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 C, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0091-3 Kriegler, E., et al. (2018) Pathways limiting warming to 1.5 °C: A tale of turning around in no time, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta
Cumulative carbon
emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 C global warming, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0118-9 Millar, R., and Friedlingstein, P. (2018) The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to
cumulative emissions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0449 Lowe, J.A., and Bernie, D. (2018) The impact of Earth system feedbacks on carbon budgets and climate response, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2017.0263 Rogelj, J., et al. (2018) Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 C, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0091-3 Kriegler, E., et al. (2018) Pathways limiting warming to 1.5 °C: A tale of turning around in no time, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta
cumulative emissions, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0449 Lowe, J.A., and Bernie, D. (2018) The impact of Earth system feedbacks on carbon budgets and climate response, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2017.0263 Rogelj, J., et al. (2018) Scenarios towards
limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 C, Nature Climate Change, doi: 10.1038 / s41558 -018-0091-3 Kriegler, E., et al. (2018) Pathways
limiting warming to 1.5 °C: A tale of turning around in no time, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, doi: 10.1098 / rsta.2016.0457
The German Advisory Council on Global Change [15] argued for a
cumulative limit between 2010 and 2050, while Matthews et al. [12] argued that warming by a given date is proportional to
cumulative emissions to that date.
The relationship between
cumulative emissions and peak warming allows us to show how delaying mitigation in the short term creates the need for more rapid
emission reductions later, in order to stay below a given
cumulative emissions limit.
This focus on a
cumulative emissions limit for the period from 2000 to 2049 (which is arguably a period of interest for negotiators) has been picked up by the most recent Letter and it is the starting point for the analysis they present, although slightly refined to 2011 to 2050.
This
limited range of pathways all have a rate of warming less than 0.2 °C per decade, which initially suggests that a
cumulative emissions target could be used to constrain rates of warming, assuming that rates of decline are kept at less than 4 per cent per year.
The near - linear rate of anthropogenic warming (predominantly from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is shown in sources such as: «Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis» «The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation» «The Origin and
Limits of the Near Proportionality between Climate Warming and
Cumulative CO2 Emissions» «Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mix
Cumulative CO2
Emissions» «Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixi
Emissions» «Sensitivity of climate to
cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mix
cumulative carbon
emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixi
emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake» «Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause» «Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records» «The proportionality of global warming to
cumulative carbon emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mix
cumulative carbon
emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixi
emissions» «The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and
cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mix
cumulative CO2
emissions to ocean mixi
emissions to ocean mixing»
Wasdell said that the draft submitted by scientists contained a metric projecting
cumulative total anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions, on the basis of which a «carbon budget» was estimated — the quantity of carbon that could be safely emitted without breaching the 2 degrees Celsius
limit to avoid dangerous global warming.
It states that to stand a good chance (a probability of 66 percent or more) of
limiting warming to less than 2 °C since the mid-19th century will require
cumulative CO2
emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay under 800 gigatons of carbon.
What this figure shows are the global
emission trajectories (in Gigatonnes, Gt, of carbon) that are required to
limit humanity's total
cumulative emissions (that is, the sum total of all carbon that we will ever emit) to a certain level.
A
cumulative industrial - era
limit of ∼ 500 GtC fossil fuel
emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted.
The
emission limit depends on climate sensitivity, but central estimates [12]--[13], including those in the upcoming Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [14], are that a 2 °C global warming
limit implies a
cumulative carbon
emissions limit of the order of 1000 GtC.
These
cumulative additional
emissions savings would not only be a meaningful contribution toward a global effort to help
limit some of the worst consequences of climate change; it can be done cost - effectively.
Limiting the warming caused by anthropogenic CO2
emissions alone with a probability of > 33 %, > 50 %, and > 66 % to less than 2 °C since the period 1861 — 1880, will require
cumulative CO2
emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1570 GtC (5760 GtCO2), 0 and about 1210 GtC (4440 GtCO2), and 0 and about 1000 GtC (3670 GtCO2) since that period, respectively.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html Setting a long - term
cumulative carbon
limit is more robust and has a more predictable effect than trying to control
emission rates.
The only thing that matters in
limiting temperature rise is
cumulative emissions, the total amount we dump into the atmosphere this century.