What do 𝑛𝑒𝑡 CO₂ emissions from land-use change do in 1.5°C scenarios?
On a net basis, CO₂ emissions reach net zero around 2030. But, this is all net, so is that reduction because of reduced deforestation or increased afforestation?
1/
Of the 53 1.5°C scenarios with no or low overshoot, 27 of them report afforestation.
It is unclear if the 'afforestation' variable is defined consistently with the LUC emissions, but if we assume it is then we can therefore define the difference as 'deforestation'.
2/
All scenarios have reduced deforestation, but do not drop to zero (median in 2100 is 0.5GtCO₂/yr). The negative values from C-ROADS are likely a reporting error.
Afforestation has a median of 4GtCO₂/yr, but clearly afforestation is defined differently in models (see 2010).
3/
Here are the 27 scenarios with afforestation separated, & deforestation back calculated. There are quite some different dynamics, depending on the model.
4/
Overall, the scenarios that have afforestation reported have lower net CO₂ emissions from LUC, suggesting that the afforestation values may not be representative of all models. However, removing REMIND & POLES brings the medians together (in different time periods).
5/
I am not sure if it is consistent to separate afforestation & deforestation this way using the SR15 database, it is quite difficult to understand if the reported variables can be treated that way, @daniel_huppmann?
6/
Afforestation has one of the biggest potentials for Carbon Dioxide Removal, but we don't have much good information on it!
7/7
• • •
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.