Many thanks to the @IPCC_CH WG3 authors for this essential report. Some key take-home messages: 1) despite the known urgency, greenhouse gas emissions have still increased in last decade. They are at their highest level ever. The main culprit: fossil fuels (petrol, gas, coal).
2) For a breakdown of CO2 emissions, which need to be brought to zero for climate stabilisation, see also the @IPCC_CH WG1 report, ch5 (Fig. 5.5), explicitly showing the causes: petrol (oil), gas, coal; and land use change. ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
3) The @IPCC_CH WG3 report shows that we are absolutely not on track to limit global warming to 1.5°C. In fact, current policies would bring us to 3.2°C of global warming (report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPC…):
4) For the implications of not achieving a climate stabilisation close to 1.5°C, the @IPCC_CH WG1 & WG2 & #SR15 reports have shown clearly that every 10th of a degree matters, and that any additional global warming leads to more impacts, e.g. associated with climate extremes.
5) For a full risk assessment associated with given global warming levels, see also the @IPCC_CH WG2 report (ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2…). There are already irreversible impacts and there will be more above 1.5°C of global warming.
6) Coming back to the @IPCC_CH WG3 report, there are nonetheless some positive elements showing the way forward. Most encouraging IMO is the fact that energy transition is cheap in many areas (blue part of the bars below): e.g. Wind, solar, changes in demand.
7) Further very interesting conclusion from @IPCC_CH WG3 report: Electric vehicles offer the largest decarbonisation potential for land-based transport. This is a key message from IPCC given level of disinformation spread on this topic. Co-benefits for health are also mentioned.
8) The WG3 report also has a careful assessment on solutions offered by AFOLU (agriculture, forestry and other land use), which have both potential and risks:
9) Finally, the new material on demand-based mitigation is essential. It shows that major emissions reductions can be achieved through changes in demand thanks to the combination of socio-cultural factors, new infrastructure & end-use technology adoption (i.e. all are important).
10) To conclude, this report was worth the wait: The urgency is absolutely clear, the way to go as well. Many many thanks to all our @IPCC_CH#WG3 colleagues, who have provided such an informative report for society. 🙏 report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPC…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Switzerland: Economic aspects of a transition to a 1.5°C world": You can find the excellent presentation from @PhThalmannEPFL at the @ETH_en Atmospheric and Climate Colloquium under the following link: infoscience.epfl.ch/record/271140?…
Thanks, Philippe for this stimulating seminar!
@PhThalmannEPFL@ETH_en Some key messages: 1) No exact numbers for a 1.5°C pathway, but economic pathways for Switzerland that would be consistent with limitation of global warming at 2°C would "only" cost 1% of overall consumption per household. Does not seem a lot in view of benefits!
@PhThalmannEPFL@ETH_en 2) 1.5°C pathways require more ambition and in particular immediate reductions of CO2 emissions. But they are not a priori impossible.
Interesting paper from @CrowtherLab, but I share concerns on communication expressed by @pepcanadell. It should be recognised that getting to a net-zero CO2 budget requires us foremost to reduce CO2 emissions close to 0. This can unfortunately not be achieved with planting trees.
A few additional points not addressed in @pepcanadell's thread, which are important to consider when planning reforestation:
First, reforestation may lead to a net warming in some regions, due to albedo effects (e.g. snow shading), as shown in e.g. papers of @richardabetts.
Also evapotranspiration plays a role. Hence, one should be careful not to equate 1m2 of forest in Siberia with 1m2 of Amazon rainforest. See eg work of @mikewin_climsci (also with @TWCrowther), recently recognized by @theAGU [paper in preparation...]:
Message to fellow climate scientists & #ClimateTwitter: After seeing many variations on theme "Are we going to reach a catastrophe in 12 years?”, I think it could be more helpful if we were focusing instead on: "How much climate change can still be considered safe?” (Thread; 1/n)
This thread builds upon my recent @theAGU webinar (see below) and the @IPCC_CH#SR15 report… (2/n)
Many scientists point - rightfully - to the fact that we cannot state with certainty that climate would suddenly go berserk in 12 years if we weren’t doing any climate mitigation. But who can state with certainty that we would be safe beyond that stage or even before that? (3/n)
@PierreGentine@KaighinMcColl@AGUecohydro@reedh2o@UGent_LHWM Some questions in our group: 1. How large are the interactions between the terrestrial water and carbon cycles (both CO2 effects on hydrology, and soil moisture/hydrology effects on plant CO2 uptake)?, e.g. following on this study:
@PierreGentine@KaighinMcColl@AGUecohydro@reedh2o@UGent_LHWM 2. How can we further constrain drought projections and related feedbacks to temperature and precipitation, for instance using observationally-based emergent constraints?, i.e. following up on this study:
Following #cop24, check the storylines we derived in the @IPCC_CH#SR15 report for possible futures at a) +1.5°C without overshoot, b) +2°C, and c) +3°C. They start in 2020, when the #ParisAgreement comes into force. We have 2 critical years ahead. iacweb.ethz.ch/staff//sonia/d…