How Do Cumulative Carbon Emissions Affect Warming?


The IPCC (and others) have observed that there has been a near linear increase in GMST with cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions. "In the literature, units of °C per 1000 PgC (petagrams of carbon) are used, and the AR6 reports the TCRE likely range as 1.0°C to 2.3°C per 1000 PgC in the underlying report, with a best estimate of 1.65°C."[1] To be clear, 1000 PgC = 1000 GtC = 1 TtC. 

I decided to see if that has been observed in the empirical data. I took values from the 2021 global carbon budget[2] and HadCRUT5 set to a 1850-1900 baseline and plotted the relationship. The R^2 was 0.88, and the slope of the best fit line was 1.847 ± 0.104°C/TtC (2σ). So the 95% likely range is between 1.74 to 1.95 C/TtC from 1850-2021. If I start after we reach 200 GtC in 1951, the best fit line is 2.153 ± 0.176°C/TtC (2σ) and the R^2 increases to 0.90, but I think it's best to be conservative here. What this suggests to me is that the IPCC may again be a bit conservative their best estimate and in their likely range. This I believe is good practice when making projections for policy makers - projected likely ranges should be wider than those describing empirical data. 
But if the best estimate from empirical data holds true, then we can expect on average 0.1 C warming for every 54 GtC emissions. Since 2000, we have emitted on average 10 GtC/yr, so if this rate continues, we would expect about 0.1 C warming every 5.4 years. We're currently at about 1.25 C as of 2021, so if emissions continue at 10 GtC/yr, 

We hit 1.5 C warming in 0.25*54 = 13.5 years or 2035 
We hit 2.0 C warming in 0.75*54 = 40.5 years or 2062 

Obviously, these projections are subject to natural variability (like ENSO) and future emission rates, as well as the uncertainty of the estimate. But in 2021, total anthropogenic emissions eclipsed 700 GtC with very little evidence that our progress in transitioning away from fossil fuels is yet significantly lowering annual emission rates. Peak emissions was in 2019 with 11.06 GtC. That was lowered to 10.38 GtC in 2020 and 10.72 GtC in 2021, but that progress is way too small to have any hope of preventing 1.5 C warming, and it makes avoiding 2 C warming increasingly unlikely. 

References:

[1] IPCC AR6, Summary for Policy Makers. p. 28. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf 

[2] Global Carbon Budget 2021
https://www.icos-cp.eu/science-and-impact/global-carbon-budget/2021

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marketing of Alt-Data at Temperature.Global

Image
Temperature.Global (12-month running average, sort of) A few years ago, I started seeing people post links to a new dataset for global temperatures at a website called temperature.global. There are at least four unique features of this dataset. First, the website claims to update global temperature in near real time. Second, every year in the dataset averages below "normal." Third, there is absolutely no transparency regarding their methodology (those who administer it are anonymous, most of the data is hidden, and much of their methodology is unclear). And fourth, what is disclosed about their methodology reveals that what they are calculating is not the Earth's surface temperature. Description of Temperature.Global If you go to the temperature.global website, it becomes almost immediately apparent that this website has little concern for transparency. The website is hosted by Parler (the alternative social network), which if nothing else is pretty odd. There are no name
Read more

Are Scientists and Journalists Conspiring to Retract Papers?

Image
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr has published two posts recently having to do with extreme weather and the IPCC. In the first post , he expresses frustration over an apparently inevitable retraction of a paper on extreme weather. The paper is Alimonti et al 2022 (A22) published in The European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP)[1]. I became aware of this paper about a year ago; it was not a good paper and was not particularly influential; it received almost no attention except for a brief period of time when the usual blogs promoted it, and then after SkyNews in Australia publicized this study as demonstrating there is no climate emergency. In the second post , Pielke summarized what he believes the IPCC's position is on extreme weather, and here he refers again to this previous paper. He declares that he believes that popular and scientific treatments of extreme weather have become far mor extreme than the position taken by the IPCC. According to him, "with the exception perhaps of only extr
Read more

Tropical Cyclone Trends

Image
In a previous post , I covered the distinction between detection and attribution. These are normally considered sequentially. First you detect a signal above natural variability, then you examine if some portion of that signal can be attributed to human activity. The previous post shows that the two are statistically independent from each other, so there is no need to limit attribution studies to signals that are detectable above natural variability. This distinction and clarification I think is important in discussions of tropical cyclone trends. While trends are clear since 1980, the longer term record (since ~1850-1900) is less clear due to selection biases arising from our increasing ability to detect tropical cyclones. This makes detection difficult long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that scientists can't also examine ways in which human activity is affecting tropical cyclone trends. Detection in the Satellite Record (Since 1980) The satellite record provides us
Read more