Climate models are complex physics-based simulations run on the worlds fastest supercomputers.
But there is a quick hack to get results similar to climate models that you can calculate in Excel. Its called the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions (TCRE). 1/9
TCRE is the amount of warming as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions. It turns out that warming over time is – to a first order approximation – linearly proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions, as this figure (SPM.10) from the recent IPCC AR6 demonstrates: 2/
As the AR6 notes, "Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27C to 0.63C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45C."
Essentially, if you add up CO2 over time and multiply it by 0.45C, you get warming. That simple. 3/
You can use this for lots of simple analyses without needing any fancy supercomputers. For example, here is how flat, rising, and falling emissions translates in temperatures (you can download the excel model here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…). 4/
Or this analysis showing how the pathway to net-zero influences the total warming experienced (excel model here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…). You can also use the "likely" TCRE range to estimate temperature response uncertainties. 5/
Now, as with any simple model this comes with some important caveats. The biggest one is that TCRE only works for CO2; non-CO2 forcings like other GHGs (CH4, N20), aerosols, etc cannot be as easily modeled. So a TCRE-based analysis will only reflect changes to CO2. 6/
There are some simple ways around this: you can, for example, look at the difference between cumulative CO2 through a particular date in your analysis and a SSP scenario (say, SSP2-4.5), and calculate the implied difference in warming outcomes. 7/
This effectively uses assumed temperature changes from non-CO2 components of underlying scenario (e.g. SSP2-4.5). For example, given flat emissions from 2021-2100 TCRE alone says we should have 2.6C warming in 2100. If you use the difference method from SSP2-4.5 you get 2.9C. 8/
Its limitations notwithstanding, TCRE is a great tool for doing your own climate analyses. You can get global temperature change estimates broadly consistent with the results of supercomputer models in under a second on your laptop, and use them for all kinds of analyses. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Mining is an unavoidable part of a clean energy transition, but impacts can be minimized. All energy alternatives come at a cost: biofuels displace farmland / drive deforestation.
The question should not be "is there an impact", but "is it substantially better than fossil fuels"
"Mining is not a ‘clean’ business and by its very nature, there will always be some alteration to the environment. The real question is this: what are the trade-offs between the damages associated with mining for decarbonization and the damages of not reducing emissions?"
This sort of language is deeply problematic. A flatting of emissions does not result global warming stopping.
Rather, if emissions are flat global warming continues at its current rate, resulting in a significant rise in global temperature of around 3C by 2100 vs preindustrial.
The only way to stop the world from warming is to get all emissions to (net) zero. The only way to meaningfully cool the planet back down during the next few centuries is to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than we add to it.
So while its good news that high-end scenarios where global emissions double or triple are much less likely in a world of falling clean energy prices and a global coal industry in structural decline, emissions still need to fall dramatically to avoid significant future warming.
These are subject to a number of assumptions (and uncertainties), of course. Allowing net-negative emissions expands remaining budgets, while more convex (or concave) emissions pathways would change the date at which zero emissions needs to be reached:
Assumptions around non-CO2 GHG emissions and aerosols also matter. The IPCC provides a best estimate (and uncertainties), but more pessimistic or optimistic assumptions for non-CO2 forcings would reduce or expand the remaining carbon budgets accordingly. 3/
This is thankfully not true. As we reported in the recent IPCC 6th Assessment Report, scenarios that limit us to around 1.8C (with a 66% chance of avoiding 2C) require getting to net-zero emissions by around 2070, not 2030 as this tweet and article inaccurately imply.
Climate change is a big enough problem to solve that we really don't need disempowering hyperbole like this. Yes, the window to limit warming to 1.5C is rapidly closing, but at the same time below 2C is increasingly within reach.
For reference, here is the SSP1-2.6 scenario that limits warming to ~1.8C by 2100. If you were to exclude the net-negative portion of emissions you would end up closer to 2C by 2100 (or would have to get to net-zero closer to 2060). Either way its a far cry from 2030!
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.
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.
A good summary of views of scientists coming out of COP26. Some like @ClimateOpp are ready to declare the 1.5C dead, while others hold out a bit more hope based on enhanced long-term net-zero promises that countries have made. apnews.com/article/climat…
As I told @borenbears, where we are headed coming out of COP26 based on more solid near-term commitments is probably ~2.3C (1.8C - 2.9C) – and that is assuming all 2030 NDCs are reached. We can – and hopefully will – do better as countries ratchet up commitments in coming years.
There is a lot of nuance in which outcomes (current policy, near-term commitments, or long term promises) folks decide to emphasize. Here is the full remarks I sent the AP that tries to sort it all out: