EXPLAINER: new projections for the next 5 years by @metoffice and @WMO indicate that there's a high chance that one of these years is 1.5°C warmer than average preindustrial levels.
The 1.5C level in the @metoffice announcement should not be confused with the 1.5C limit in the Paris Agreement.
The Paris targets refer to global warming - that is, the temperature increase of our planet once we smooth out important year-to-year variations (see👇)
(2/n)
Even in a stable climate, global temperatures differ from year to year because of noise in the climate system.
(3/n)
E.g., an el Niño year will be slightly warmer than other years, or after a large volcanic eruption global temperatures will be temporarily much cooler.
In both cases the global temperature in these years does not represent the long-term warming. (see @NCAR_Science fig👇)
(4/n)
In a world that has warmed by 1.5°C we expect half of the years to be warmer than 1.5°C, and the other half cooler.
(5/n)
If you want to understand this better, check out a @CarbonBrief explainer I wrote shortly after the Paris Agreement with @CarlSchleussner:
A detailed look at the report shows that @IEA has done a thorough job.
Modelling choices underpinning the pathway are well argued, reliance on speculative technologies is limited, and the carbon budget is in line with the most ambitious pathways available in the literature (2/n)
In addition, the report also presents a unique collaboration between two of the core flagship teams of @IEA: The World Energy Outlook and the Energy Technology Perspectives.
The @Science_Academy's analysis starts from carbon budgets reported in @IPCC_CH's 1.5°C Special Report's Table 2.2 (orig. below).
Then makes adjustments & updates.
Having had the pleasure to compile Table 2.2 for #SR15, let's compare and try to make sense of the numbers
(2/n)
The @Science_Academy's table starts from IPCC's 1.5C carbon budget for a 50% chance.
(Note1: the table quotes either a wrong likelihood or a wrong number, but that's a detail)
(Note2: IPCC Table 2.2 is in GtCO2, the table below in GtC. Multiply by 3.6 to convert to GtCO2)
#NetZero targets are key benchmarks towards a world where we avoid the worst of climate change. But if defined vaguely, they leave a lot of wiggle room and can compromise achievement of the #ParisAgreement
Global warming is proportional to the total cumulative amount of CO2 we emit. Halting global warming thus means we have to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Rigorous net-zero CO2 targets achieve at least that, but also more...
"Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix"
In a new @Nature piece we explain how countries & companies can set rigorous, fair and transparent net-zero targets.
Countries and companies around the world are declaring net-zero targets - all in their own way, often in vague terms, and mostly without considering what it means for others or where it leads to. (2/n)
The inadequacy of these individual targets lulls the world into missing the global climate goals of the @UNFCCC Paris Agreement. (3/n)
#COVID19 recovery stimulus dwarfs green energy investment needs for a 1.5°C-compatible world
A thread on our new scientific analysis published in @ScienceMagazine
In the wake of the economic crisis caused by the #COVID19 pandemic, governments have pledged unprecedented amounts of economic recovery and stimulus.
We tally up all pledges and compare them to what we would need to transform the global energy system to #netzero by 2050 (2/n)
We show that the 12.2 trillion USD in pledged #COVID19 recovery is roughly double the amount of all low-carbon energy investments required globally over the next five years to put the world on track for a 1.5°C pathway. (3/n)