What will the iconic @Keeling_curve graph of atmospheric CO2 concentrations need to look like in future if we're to limit global warming to 1.5°C?
The build-up of CO2 in the air has been accelerating
This build-up needs to slow within a few years, then stop & reverse
Thread⤵️
Our extended version of the Keeling Curve is based on the SSP1-1.9 scenario
With this scenario (light blue) the IPCC central estimate has warming reaching 1.5°C on average over 2021-2040, overshooting but returning below 1.5°C by the end of the century
The size of year-by-year increases in CO2 concentration (annual increments) varies due to changes in natural carbon sinks impacted by climate variability
CO2 rise:
faster in El Niño years (hotter, drier - less carbon uptake)
slower with La Niña (cooler, wetter -> more uptake)
We're currently in a La Niña, so expect a smaller CO2 rise compared to most recent years (2.1 ppm vs average of 2.45 ppm / year over the last ten years)
Nevertheless, we expect the rise from 2021 to be faster than previous La Niña years because human emissions have increased
The CO2 rise of 2.1 ppm expected this year is close to the rate which the 1.5°C scenario (SSP1-1.9) shows to for the next 5 years
SSP1-1.9 then has the CO2 rise slowing to 1 ppm / year around 2030, reaching zero in the early 2040s
After that, the scenario has a fall in CO2
But crucially, the expected slower rise this year is only happening because of the free bonus of stronger carbon sinks
Without La Niña the CO2 rise would be at higher levels
For CO2 concentrations to track the 1.5°C scenario, global emissions would need to start to falling now
Another important point about this year's CO2 forecast:
In April / May, monthly average CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa will exceed 420 ppm for the first time
This will be the highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere for over 2 million years
Incidentally, that splendid brainbox @chrisd_jones wrote this excellent paper on our CO2 forecasting for the scientific journal for young people Frontiers for Young Minds @FrontYoungMinds - worth a read!
@flimsin@Peters_Glen@ClimateAdam@MichaelEMann@FrediOtto Yes, I was going to mention that more generally there is a misunderstanding that the political goals for limiting warming to round(fish) numbers (1.5C, 2C) represent some sort of physical threshold, beyond which feedbacks suddenly kick in or all is lost in some other way >
@flimsin@Peters_Glen@ClimateAdam@MichaelEMann@FrediOtto And as a variant on that, some folk seem to think that there is some sort of physical significance to warming of 1.5C, 2C at smaller scales, eg. individual countries. These numbers were established as targets to keep *global* warming below (+2C) or to try to limit to (+1.5C)
It doesn't even need one of the highest emissions scenarios. RCP6.0 (considered likely with current policies) gives that much warming fairly near the middle of the range in our latest projections
They label it 3C but that's the central estimate, & I don't think it accounts for uncertainties in carbon cycle feedbacks like the UKCP18 probabilistic projections do
Yes global warming of 4˚C this century is quite possible, & would bring massive risks to life & society (heatwaves, coastal & river flooding, drought etc)
Ilan does not seem to dispute that - he just says (correctly) that societal outcomes can't be predicted >
@PlanB_earth@IlanKelman@thetimes@bwebster135 Ilan's right that the DARA claim of 400,000 deaths per year due to climate change can't be verified - they don't give the source. It's possible that they have mis-typed a reference as there's a similar one in their bibliography, but even that doesn't seem to support the number >
@PlanB_earth@IlanKelman@thetimes@bwebster135 This is not to say that the number is less. It might be more. We just don't know, and IMO quoting numbers that can't be substantiated is just not useful because it undermines the concept of rigorous analysis (and this number is being quoted as if it's somehow authoritative) >
The latest forecast from the World Meteorological Organization @WMO, led by @metoffice, suggests that over the next five years there is a 24% chance of the global average temperature exceeding 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year
This is a reminder of rising temperatures, but it would not mean that the long-term Paris goal to limit warming to 1.5C will have been breached
The 1.5C limit refers specifically to long-term human-caused warming and not the added effect of natural fluctuations in the climate
The blue band shows the WMO forecast for the next five years, with the darker blue shading indicating higher probabilities.
Annual global temperatures are likely to be > 1C warmer than pre-industrial in each of the coming five years – and very likely within the range 0.91-1.59C
I see that this scientist (Cath Senior, our Head of Understanding Climate Change) is not quoted until paragraph 16 of the article, whereas Johan Rockström (not a climate modeller, and not involved in developing, evaluating or using this model in any way) is quoted in paragraph 5