"We estimate that 30 years of natural forest regrowth across 349 Mha & 678 Mha could [lead to uptake of 5.9 to 8.9 GtCO₂/yr]". This includes some below ground carbon.
Plenty to unpack, but how does it compare to emission scenarios?
1.5°C scenarios with no or low overshoot from #SR15 have afforestation in 2050 (30 years from now) consistent with those numbers (some even higher).
Worth noting, the CO₂ uptake will not continue at that high rate...
2/
IAMs that provide data on land use for afforestation use similar areas, of ~350-650Mha in 2050.
The carbon uptake rates seem broadly in the same ranges (though harder to check given the data reported in IAMs).
At least, no glaring inconsistencies...
3/
Though, in IAMs there is competing uses for land, such as between afforestation, bioenergy, & found. It is not just the case that all land where forests could grow, forests are grown.
4/
A quick back of the enveloped comparison suggests that IAMs already have (potential) afforestation to similar levels as in bottom up forest potential studies.
This will vary across IAM, but it is not as if IAMs have missed the potential of afforestation...
5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Record high emissions means record high radiative forcing.
We have you covered, we also include aerosols (SO2, etc) & have done so for decades. Also shipping!
Short-lived aerosols are important, but should not distract from the drivers of change: greenhouse gas emissions!
2/
Most of the energy put into the system ends in the ocean (90%), so the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) has been increasing along with emissions and radiative forcing.
This also means the Earth Energy Imbalance is also increasing.
This question is ambiguous: "How high above pre-industrial levels do you think average global temperature will rise between now and 2100?"
* ...pre-industrial... between "now and 2100"?
* Where we are currently heading or where we could head? This is largely a policy question?
3/
One of the key arguments that Norway uses to continue oil & gas developments, is that under BAU it is expected that oil & gas production will decline in line with <2°C scenarios, even with continued investment.
Let's look closer at these projections & reality...
1/
Here is the projections from the 2003 report from the petroleum agency.
In reality (tweet 1) there was a dip around 2010, but production is now up around 250 million cubic again.
The forecast was totally & utterly WRONG!
2/
In 2011 there was a forecast for an increase in production to 2020, but then a decline. This is probably since they started to put the Johan Sverdrup field on the books.
The increase in production was way too low, again, they got it wrong.