In my latest piece at @CarbonBrief, I take a deep dive into what the IPCC AR6 says about when the world will likely pass 1.5C and 2C, and how the new estimates of the remaining carbon budgets compare to those in the 2018 IPCC SR15 special report: carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-… 1/14
When we talk about passing a particular warming level like 1.5C or 2C we are not referring to an individual year (or month). Any given year may be ~0.2C warmer or cooler than average due to natural variability from El Nino and La Nina events. 2/
The AR6 reports on the 20-year period in which temps exceed 1.5C (e.g. 2021-2040), and suggests using the midpoint of that range (e.g. 2030) as the year when long-term average temps passes that level. We used a similar approach in an earlier analysis: carbonbrief.org/analysis-when-… 3/
The AR6 suggests we will most likely pass 1.5C between 2027 and 2035 depending on emissions scenarios, quite similar t values found in our 2020 @CarbonBrief analysis. Each scenario has a range of possible exceedance dates reflecting the uncertainty in climate model estimates 4/
These values are on the early end of the range of possible exceedance dates given in Chapter 1 of the 2018 IPCC SR15 report, but are quite consistent with estimates provided in Chapter 2. realclimate.org/index.php/arch… 5/
Some scenarios (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6) have a chance of never reaching 1.5C warming in the 21st century, even though the odds of doing so are less than 50% (and very small for the relatively higher emissions SSP1-2.6 scenario). 6/
There are, however, other scenarios in the literature that were featured in the SR15 report that avoided overshoot, though they required even more stringent near-term emissions reductions than those in the already quite ambitious SSP1-1.9 scenario. 7/
This figure shows the range of possible exceedance years for 2C in the new IPCC report, alongside our earlier Carbon Brief estimates: 8/
The AR6 also provides an updated carbon budget. They make a number of changes: higher estimates of historical warming, lower estimates of differences between surface air temp and sea surface temp warming rates, inclusion of earth system feedbacks, and an updated TCRE range. 9/
The net effect of all of these changes is a carbon budget largely in-line with the carbon budget found in the IPCC SR15 report for a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5C. Note that these remaining carbon budgets are updated through the start of 2021: 10/
There are more notable differences in carbon budgets remaining for a 66% chance of limiting warming to below 1.5C. In this case the AR6 actually increased the carbon budget modestly, a result of a narrowed range of climate sensitivity (and associated TCRE) in the new report. 11/
The remaining carbon budget for 2C is similarly mostly unchanged for a 50% avoidance chance relative to the SR15 report, but a bit larger for the 66% avoidance chance: 12/
While these carbon budgets are broadly similar to the ones in the 2018 SR15 report, they are much larger than similar carbon budgets in the 2013 IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5). For a deep dive into why see our article here: carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-t… 13/
For more technical details on these changes, read our detailed analysis over at @CarbonBrief: carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-…

And check out this excellent deep-dive by IPCC lead author @JoeriRogelj: 14/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Zeke Hausfather

Zeke Hausfather Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hausfath

11 Aug
The recent IPCC report had a big focus on methane (CH4) – and rightly so. We should work to cut methane emissions quickly, but not at the expense of cutting CO2.

Methane is temporary, while CO2 is forever.

A quick thread: 1/13
Methane is a strong greenhouse gas – over 100x more effective at trapping heat than CO2 while its in the atmosphere. Its responsible for around 28% of positive radiative forcing (and historical warming). 2/
However, methane has a short atmospheric lifetime. Most of the methane we emit this year will be gone from the atmosphere in around a decade. Methane interacts with hydroxyl radicals (OH) in the atmosphere, and ultimately breaks down into (mostly) CO2 and H2O. 3/
Read 14 tweets
11 Aug
There's grim news in the IPCC report, but also reasons for hope. We're flattening the curve of future emissions, and the darkest climate futures a decade ago are much less likely now. We can both celebrate progress and acknowledge how far we have to go: thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/… 1/ Image
A decade ago the world seemed on track for a particularly grim climate future. China was building a new coal plant every three days; global emissions were increasing at a rate of 3% per year and increased by 31% between 2001 and 2010. 2/
Scenarios where global carbon emissions tripled by the end of the 21st century with coal use increasing sixfold seemed plausible to many. Researchers argued that “business as usual” would likely lead to a world 4ºC or 5ºC above pre-industrial levels by 2100. 3/
Read 18 tweets
10 Aug
The IPCC 6th Assessment Report features a new emissions scenario – SSP1-1.9 – limiting warming to 1.5C in 2100 with limited overshoot. It requires the world reach net-zero by 2055.

However, under the hood it assumes a huge amount of negative emissions over the 21st century. 1/5
The assessed "carbon budget" to limit warming to 1.5C in the IPCC report is around 500 GtCO2.

However, the SSP1-1.9 scenario emits 700 GtCO2 during the 21st century, blowing way past the remaining carbon budget. At the same time, it deploys 430 GtCO2 of negative emissions. 2/5
Relying on negative emissions allows the scenario to have a more plausible emissions reductions pathway; a similar scenario not using any net-negative emissions would likely require getting to global net-zero emissions in the 2040s. 3/5
Read 7 tweets
9 Aug
The new IPCC 6th Assessment Report (AR6) provides an unprecedented degree of clarity about the future of our planet, and the need to reduce – and ultimately eliminate – our emissions of greenhouse gases.

In this thread I take a look at some key findings from the report: 1/27
Perhaps most importantly, this report gives us a much clearer view of our climate future.

It does this by narrowing the range of climate sensitivity – which had remained largely unchanged since 1979 at "likely" between 1.5C and 4.5C warming if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. 2/
The new AR6 report gives a "likely" (e.g. 67% chance) climate sensitivity range of 2.5C to 4C, a full 50% reduction in uncertainty relative to the likely range given in the AR5. The AR6 "very likely" (~90% chance) range is 2C to 5C, compared to 1C to 6C in the AR5. 3/
Read 28 tweets
5 Aug
This really is a key and under-appreciated challenge of climate mitigation in the US. We have become functionally unable to build big projects on time and on budget, and our litigation-driven approach to regulatory enforcement regularly holds up projects for decades.
I don't think people quite realize the scale of stuff that needs to be built to fully decarbonizing our economy by 2050. We will double or triple electricity generation, replace almost all our energy production, and build massive amounts of new transmission.
It will be hard to accomplish this without substantial regulatory reform. While we should not run roughshod over communities – particularly historically disadvantaged ones – we also need mechanisms to keep reflexive NIMBYism from delaying decarbonization.
Read 4 tweets
30 Jul
I really wish people would take time to understand the actual issue in question before tweeting hot takes. The @ScienceMagazine article is discussing high climate sensitivity of some models; it rather by definition has nothing to do with plausibility of future emissions scenarios
We covered the implausible sensitivity values in some CMIP6 models - and their disagreement with observations - last year. The solution, as the Science piece discusses, is to give more weight to models that better match observations. thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/…
As we discussed in a review last year, there is actually strong evidence to narrow the range of climate sensitivity, both on the high end but especially on the low end: sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/a…
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(