🚨NEW STUDY🚨
"Six models are used in a recent study to analyze the climatic, environmental & socio-economic consequences of #overshooting a C budget consistent with the 1.5°C temp target along the cause-effect chain from emissions & #CarbonRemovals to climate risks & impact."
🧵
"Global climatic indicators such as CO2-concentration and mean temperature closely follow the #CarbonBudget#overshoot with mid-century peaks of 50 ppmv and 0.35°C, respectively."
2/10
Findings of this study highlight that "investigating #overshoot scenarios requires temporally and spatially differentiated analysis of climate, environmental and socioeconomic systems."
3/10
Researchers find "persistent and spatially heterogeneous differences in the distribution of #carbon across various pools, ocean heat content, sea-level rise as well as #economic damages."
4/10
"Moreover, it was find in the study that key impacts, including degradation of marine ecosystem, heat wave exposure & economic damages, are more severe in equatorial areas than in higher latitudes, although absolute #temperature changes are stronger in higher latitudes."
5/10
"The detrimental effects of a 1.5 °C warming and the additional effects due to #overshoots are strongest in non-OECD countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)."
6/10
"Constraining the overshoot inflates CO2 prices, thus shifting #CarbonRemoval towards early #afforestation while reducing the total cumulative deployment only slightly, while mitigation costs increase sharply in #DevelopingCountries."
7/10
"Thus, scenarios with C budget overshoots can reverse global mean temp increase but imply more persistent & geographically heterogeneous impacts. Overall, the decision about #overshooting implies more severe trade-offs btw #mitigation & impacts in #DevelopingCountries."
8/10
Read the study led by @NB_pik entitled: "Exploring risks and benefits of overshooting a 1.5 °C carbon budget over space and time" here ⬇️ iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…
🚨 The Royal Society has published a new briefing today finding that techniques to reflect a small portion of sunlight back into space (#SRM) could help lower global temperatures if deployed worldwide, but cannot replace emissions cuts or fully address climate impacts.
🧵1/7
2/ ➝ The report reviews solar radiation modification (#SRM) approaches, including stratospheric aerosol injection (#SAI) and marine cloud brightening (#MCB), outlining their potential to temporarily reduce warming and associated risks.
3/ ➝ It notes that SRM would only mask the effects of GHG emissions and would not address issues such as ocean acidification.
🚨🌲 New research reveals that even intact boreal forests, some of the planet’s strongest natural carbon sinks, lose their ability to absorb CO₂ as they age.
Here’s what the scientists found & why it matters for our climate models🧵1/9 #CarbonSink #CarbonRemoval
2/ Boreal forests cover vast regions across Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia and store enormous amounts of carbon in trees and soil.
They’re often seen as stable, long-term carbon sinks, but this study challenges that assumption with new global-scale data.
3/ Using seven global Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP) datasets and a high-resolution forest age map, researchers tracked how C uptake changes as forests grow older.
They used a space-for-time substitution method, comparing forests of different ages to infer long-term trends.
🚨A major 6-country survey (N=5,310) finds Europeans support -ve emissions to meet climate goals, but strongly prefer nature-based solutions like afforestation over engineered options like Direct Air Capture. Trust hinges on benefits for nature & future generations.
🧵1/10 #CDR
2/ When allocating how to tackle emissions, respondents clearly prioritized immediate mitigation:
🚨A new study warns that efforts to cool the planet through stratospheric aerosol injection (#SAI) could face far greater challenges than models predict, from unpredictable monsoon shifts to material shortages & engineering limits, every step adds new risks.
🧵1/8 #SRM
2/ The authors explore both micro-level (engineering) and macro-level (governance & supply) factors that could restrict feasible deployment.
Key finding: these constraints could drastically raise costs, risks, and uncertainty, especially for “solid” (non-sulfate) aerosols.
3/ Traditional SAI uses sulfate aerosols (like volcanoes).
But alternatives, CaCO₃, TiO₂, Al₂O₃, ZrO₂, even diamond, promise less ozone damage.
Yet producing, aerosolizing, and dispersing these solids in submicron form is technically daunting.