When it comes to zero emissions, both journey and destination matter.
Warming depends on cumulative emissions, and delaying emissions reductions could result in ~0.15C more warming compared to a linear decline to zero by 2050.
Warming depends on cumulative emissions, and delaying emissions reductions could result in ~0.15C more warming compared to a linear decline to zero by 2050.
If we look at what might be a more plausible pathway given commitments by governments today – zero emissions by 2070 – a slower reduction pathway would result in ~0.25C more warming.
These are based on the latest median TCRE value (1.65C per 1000 GtC) from the IPCC AR6. They assume that other forcings (e.g. non-CO2 GHGs and aerosols) remain constant. In more detailed scenarios we generally end up with ~0.05C-0.1C warming in all cases due to non-CO2 forcings.
I'd be remiss if I didn't note that I'm somewhat stealing this example from @KetanJ0, who calculated cumulate emissions (but not temperature response) in similar scenarios:
https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1406894089698750468
(and yes, the language of journey and destination in the first tweet is riffing off @BrandSanderson's Stormlight Archive books)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
