Carbon budget for 1.5°C will run out in six years at current emissions levels – new research

Mykhailo Pavlenko/Shutterstock

Chris Smith, University of Leeds and Robin Lamboll, Imperial College London

If humanity wants to have a 50-50 chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, we can only emit 250 another gigatonnes (billion metric tonnes) of CO₂. This effectively gives the world just six years to get to net zero, according to calculations in our new paper published in Nature Climate Change.

The global level of emissions is presently 40 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year. And, as this figure was calculated from the start of 2023, the time limit may be actually closer to five years.

Our estimate is consistent with an assessment published by 50 leading climate scientists in June and updates with new climate data many of the key figures reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in August 2021.

How much CO₂ can still be emitted while remaining under a certain level of warming is referred to as the “carbon budget”. The carbon budget concept works because the increase in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has increased in a linear fashion with the total amount of CO₂ people have emitted since the industrial revolution.

The other side of this equation is that, roughly speaking, warming stops when CO₂ emissions stop: in other words, at net zero CO₂. This explains why net zero is such an important concept and why so many countries, cities, and companies have adopted net zero targets.

We revised the remaining carbon budget down from the 500 gigatonnes reported by the the IPCC from the start of 2020. Some of this revision is merely timing: three years and 120 gigatonnes of CO₂ emissions later, the world is closer to the 1.5°C threshold. Improvements we made to the method for calculating budget adjustments shrank the remaining budget further.

Clearing the air

Alongside CO₂, humanity emits other greenhouse gases and air pollutants that contribute to climate change. We adjusted the budget to account for the projected warming caused by these non-CO₂ pollutants. To do this, we used a large database of future emissions scenarios to determine how non-CO₂ warming is related to total warming.

Some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases is offset by cooling aerosols such as sulphates – air pollutants that are emitted along with CO₂ from car exhausts and furnaces. Almost all emissions scenarios project a reduction in aerosol emissions in the future, regardless of whether fossil fuels are phased out or CO₂ emissions continue unabated. Even in scenarios where CO₂ emissions increase, scientists expect stricter air quality legislation and cleaner combustion.

Cars surrounded by exhaust fumes in traffic.
Scientists predict air pollution which cools the climate will decline in future.
NadyGinzburg/Shutterstock

In its most recent report, the IPCC updated its best estimate of how much air pollution cools the climate. As a result, we expect that falling air pollution in future will contribute more to warming than previously assessed. This reduces the remaining 1.5°C budget by about another 110 gigatonnes.

Other updates we made to the carbon budget methodology tend to reduce the budget even more, such as projections of thawing permafrost that were not included in earlier estimates.

All is not lost

It is important to stress that many aspects of our carbon budget estimate are uncertain. The balance of non-CO₂ pollutants in future emissions scenarios can be as influential on the remaining carbon budget as different interpretations of how the climate is likely to respond.

We also do not know for sure whether the planet will really stop warming at net zero CO₂ emissions. On average, evidence from climate models tends to suggest it will, but some models show substantial warming continuing for decades after net zero is reached. If further warming after net zero is the case, the budget would be further reduced.

These uncertain factors are why we quote a 50/50 likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5°C at 250 gigatonnes of CO₂. A more risk-averse assessment would report a two-in-three chance of staying under 1.5°C with a remaining budget of 60 gigatonnes – or one-and-a-half years of current emissions.

Time is running out to limit global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. While we have revised the remaining carbon budget, the message from earlier assessments is unchanged: a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to halt climate change.

It looks less likely that we will limit warming to 1.5°C, but this does not mean that we should give up hope. Our update also revised the budget for 2°C downwards relative to the IPCC’s 2021 estimate, but by a smaller amount – from 1,350 to 1,220 gigatonnes, or from 34 to 30 years of current emissions. If current national climate policies are fully implemented (admittedly, an optimistic scenario), this may be enough to hold warming below 2°C.

The risks of triggering tipping points such as the dieback of the Amazon rainforest increase – sometimes sharply – with increasing warming, but 1.5°C itself is not a hard boundary beyond which climate chaos abounds.

A dry and cracked river bed with rainforest in the distance.
Tipping points in the Earth system could dramatically accelerate climate change.
Beto Santillan/Shutterstock

With effective action on emissions, we can still limit peak warming to 1.6°C or 1.7°C, with a view to bringing temperatures back below 1.5°C in the longer term.

This is a goal absolutely worth pursuing.


Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.The Conversation


Chris Smith, NERC-IIASA Collaborative Research Fellow, University of Leeds and Robin Lamboll, Research Fellow in Atmospheric Science, Imperial College London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingCarbon budget for 1.5°C will run out in six years at current emissions levels – new research

Extreme weather is outpacing even the worst-case scenarios of our forecasting models

Ravindra Jayaratne, University of East London

In the wake of the destructive Hurricane Otis, we find ourselves at a pivotal moment in the history of weather forecasting. The hurricane roared ashore with 165mph winds and torrential rainfall, slamming into the coastal city of Acapulco, Mexico and claiming the lives of at least 48 people.

The speed at which Otis intensified was unprecedented. Within 12 hours it went from a regular tropical storm to a “category 5” hurricane, the most powerful category and one which might occur only a few times worldwide each year.

This rare and alarming event, described by the US National Hurricane Center as a “nightmare scenario”, broke records for the fastest intensification rate over a 12-hour period in the eastern Pacific. Otis not only caught residents and authorities off guard but also exposed the limitations of our current predictive tools.

I specialise in the study of natural disasters with the goal of improving our ability to predict them and ultimately to save lives. It is critical that we address the pressing concerns related to the tools we use for forecasting these catastrophic events, all while recognising the significant influence of rapid climate change on our forecasting capabilities.

The predictive tools we rely on

At the core of weather forecasting are computer programs, or “models”, that blend atmospheric variables such as temperature, humidity, wind and pressure, with fundamental physics.

Since the atmospheric processes are nonlinear, a small degree of uncertainty in initial atmospheric conditions can lead to a large discrepancy in final forecasts. That’s why the general practice now is to forecast a set of possible scenarios rather than predict the single scenario most likely to occur.

Satellite map of hurricane
Hurricane Otis reaches its maximum intensity just as it hits Acapulco on October 25.
ABI / NOAA GOES-16 / wiki

But while these models are instrumental in issuing early warnings and evacuation orders, they have fundamental limitations and carry a significant degree of uncertainty, especially when dealing with rare or extreme weather. This uncertainty arises from various factors including the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system.

First, the historical data is incomplete, since a hurricane such as Otis might occur only once in several millennia. We don’t know when an east Pacific storm last turned into a category 5 hurricane overnight – if ever – but it was certainly before modern satellites and weather buoys. Our models struggle to account for these “one in 1,000-year events” because we simply haven’t observed them before.

The complex physics governing the weather also has to be simplified in these predictive models. While this approach is effective for common scenarios, it falls short when dealing with the intricacies of extreme events that involve rare combinations of variables and factors.

And then there are the unknown unknowns: factors our models cannot account for because we are unaware of them, or they have not been integrated into our predictive frameworks. Unanticipated interactions among various climatic drivers can lead to unprecedented intensification, as was the case with Hurricane Otis.

The role of climate change

To all this we can add the problem of climate change and its impact on extreme weather. Hurricanes, in particular, are influenced by rising sea surface temperatures, which provides more energy for storms to form and intensify.

The connection between climate change and the intensification of hurricanes, coupled with other factors such as high precipitation or high tides, is becoming clearer.

With established weather patterns being altered, it is becoming even more challenging to predict the behaviour of storms and their intensification. Historical data may no longer serve as a reliable guide.

The way forward

The challenges are formidable but not insurmountable. There are a few steps we can take to enhance our forecasting and better prepare for the uncertainties that lie ahead.

The first would be to develop more advanced predictive models that integrate a broader range of factors and variables, as well as consider worst-case scenarios. Artificial intelligence and machine learning tools can help us process vast and complex datasets more efficiently.

But to get this additional data we’ll have to invest in more weather monitoring stations, satellite technology, AI tools and atmospheric and oceanographic research.

Since even world experts and their models can be caught out by sudden weather extremes, we also need to educate the public about the limitations and uncertainties in weather forecasting.

We must encourage preparedness and a proactive response to warnings, even when predictions seem uncertain. And of course we still have to mitigate climate change itself: the root cause of intensifying weather events.

Hurricane Otis provided a stark and immediate reminder of the inadequacies of our current predictive tools in the face of rapid climate change and increasingly extreme weather events. The urgency to adapt and innovate in the realm of weather forecasting has never been greater.

It is incumbent upon us to rise to the occasion and usher in a new era of prediction that can keep pace with the ever-shifting dynamics of our planet’s climate. Our future depends on it.


Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.The Conversation


Ravindra Jayaratne, Reader in Coastal Engineering, University of East London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingExtreme weather is outpacing even the worst-case scenarios of our forecasting models

Israel Has Killed More Kids in 3 Weeks Than Were Killed in All Global Conflicts Annually Since 2019

A man carries an child injured by Israeli airstrikes in Rafah, Gaza on October 13, 2023. (Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

“One child’s death is one too many, but these are grave violations of epic proportions,” said the humanitarian group Save the Children. “A cease-fire is the only way to ensure their safety.”

Over just a three-week period, the Israeli military has killed at least 3,195 children in the Gaza Strip—a death toll that surpasses the annual number of children killed in all of the world’s armed conflict zones since 2019.

That’s according to a disturbing new analysis by Save the Children, which observed that kids make up more than 40% of the total death toll in the Gaza Strip since October 7, when Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel that was met with a massive bombing campaign and an intensifying ground attack.

The humanitarian group noted that, according to the United Nations, at least 1,000 Gazan children have been reported missing and may be trapped under rubble, meaning the reported death toll is almost certainly an underestimate. UNICEF has called child deaths in Gaza “a growing stain on our collective conscience” and demanded a cease-fire.

Save the Children did the same on Sunday. Jason Lee, Save the Children’s country director for the occupied Palestinian territory, said in a statement that “three weeks of violence have ripped children from families and torn through their lives at an unimaginable rate.”

“The numbers are harrowing and with violence not only continuing but expanding in Gaza right now, many more children remain at grave risk,” Lee added. “One child’s death is one too many, but these are grave violations of epic proportions. A cease-fire is the only way to ensure their safety. The international community must put people before politics—every day spent debating is leaving children killed and injured. Children must be protected at all times, especially when they are seeking safety in schools and hospitals.”

Save the Children cites the most recent three annual reports from the U.N. secretary-general, which have found that 2,985 children were killed across two dozen countries last year, 2,515 were killed in 2021, and 2,674 were killed in 2020. More than 4,000 children were killed in global conflicts in 2019.

The group’s analysis was released days after it warned that Israel’s expanded ground assault on the Gaza Strip has put children “at heightened risk of loss of life, physical harm, severe emotional distress, and protracted displacement.”

Israeli troops and tanks advanced toward Gaza City on Monday and “blocked one of the main roads connecting the northern part of the Gaza Strip to the south,” The Wall Street Journalreported, “a major advance that appeared aimed at encircling the enclave’s biggest population center.”

More than a million Gazans had already been displaced by Israeli airstrikes before the country launched its fresh ground attack late last week. Israeli bombing has also destroyed or damaged at least 45% of Gaza’s housing units.

On Friday, as Israel ruthlessly bombed northern Gaza and knocked out the territory’s internet and communications, a Save the Children team member in Gaza warned in a message that “we could all die, we could survive, we could survive, we could… pray for us.”

Save the Children said later in the day that it lost contact with its team on the ground in Gaza.

“This is pure horror for all children and their parents,” Lee said Friday. “Across the Gaza Strip, more than one million children are trapped in the middle of an active conflict zone with no safe place to go and no route to safety. With communications down, children are cut off from the world, more isolated than ever before. They are unable to speak to loved ones, or even to call an ambulance.”

“Despite Save the Children and thousands of other voices calling for an urgent cease-fire, we are seeing an increase in military operations,” he continued. “We call on all parties to the conflict to take immediate steps to protect the lives of children, and on the international community to support those efforts, as is their obligation.”

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Biden Is a Genocide Denier and the ‘Enabler in Chief’ for Israel’s Ongoing War Crimes

Continue ReadingIsrael Has Killed More Kids in 3 Weeks Than Were Killed in All Global Conflicts Annually Since 2019

Climate Groups Back Efforts to End Tens of Billions in Foreign Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Scientists protest at UK Parliament 5 September 2023.
Scientists protest at UK Parliament 5 September 2023.

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

“This is the moment where OECD countries can turn their words into action,” said an Oil Change International strategist. “All eyes are on them, the world is watching. Immediate action is necessary.”

Over 250 climate groups from 30 countries published an open letter on Monday urging governments that endorsed a global pledge at the United Nations summit in Scotland two years ago to support new efforts to cut off subsidies for foreign fossil fuel projects.

The coalition letter came a day after the Financial Timesreported that the European Union and United Kingdom—which left the E.U. in 2020—have proposals to end subsidies for foreign gas, oil, and coal projects that they plan to discuss at a closed-door Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) meeting in France next month.

“This is the moment where OECD countries can turn their words into action,” Oil Change International (OCI) strategist Nina Pusic said Monday. “Will they live up to the pledge most of them made in Glasgow in 2021 to end international public finance for fossil fuels at the OECD? All eyes are on them, the world is watching. Immediate action is necessary to align global financial flows with a habitable climate future, and this November represents a critical opportunity that we can’t afford to miss.”

According to the Financial Times:

People close to U.K. Export Finance, Britain’s credit agency, said that Canada had committed to backing the U.K.’s planned proposal to the OECD ahead of the meeting next month. Canada’s finance department said it “looked forward to working alongside like-minded partners at the OECD and in other international forums to grow and promote the clean economy around the world.”

The E.U. has submitted its own proposal, according to one person familiar with the matter, after member states agreed on a draft proposal last month, according to another person familiar. It did not provide a comment.

The coalition letter highlights that the 2021 Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP)—whose signatories agreed to align public finance institutions with the Paris agreement’s 1.5°C goal—is already shifting an estimated $5.7 billion a year to clean energy.

As part of the CETP, countries committed to driving “multilateral negotiations in international bodies, in particular in the OECD, to review, update, and strengthen their governance frameworks to align with the Paris agreement goals,” the letter explains.

“This November at the OECD Export Credits Forum, your country has a critical opportunity to fulfill this commitment. Your country can do this by joining forces with other CETP signatories to support restricting oil and gas export finance at the OECD,” wrote the coalition, which along with OCI includes Friends of the Earth (FOE) United States, Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), and Environment Governance Institute (EGI) Uganda.

“Ending OECD oil and gas support is critical to limit global heating to 1.5°C,” the coalition added, citing the International Energy Agency’s warning that new fossil fuel investments are incompatible with the goal. “And yet, the OECD export credit agencies (ECAs) currently provide five times as much financing for fossil fuels as for clean energy every year. By putting an end to their fossil fuel financing, governments have an opportunity to free up $41 billion USD per year to support the clean energy transition.”

The OECD’s existing Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits has a prohibition from January 2021 that “shifts an estimated $4 billion per year out of highly polluting coal fired-power,” the letter notes, calling for an extension of that policy “to encompass all fossil fuels, including oil and fossil gas, without any loopholes.”

https://twitter.com/PriceofOil/status/1718991576150475165?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1718991576150475165%7Ctwgr%5E087597d51595695f79494b600bb0101306a3e2ec%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Foecd-foreign-fossil-fuel-subsidies

Some leaders at groups behind the letter took aim at specific nations, such as the United States, which is among those that have come under fire this year for continuing to dump a collective $4.4 billion into fossil fuel projects abroad.

“We have waited long enough for the United States, and other wealthy historical emitters, to be a force for good at the OECD,” said Kate DeAngelis, FOE’s senior international finance program manager. “The U.S. must turn away from its multibillion-dollar fossil financing and support the U.K. and Canada proposal, leading the push to finally end export credit agency support for fossil fuels.”

JACSES program director Yuki Tanabe targeted Japan, which snubbed the Glasgow pledge but backed a similar one from the Group of Seven last year—and has since faced criticism for continued investments in fossil fuels.

“Japan should not be a blocker at the OECD negotiations and should agree to end its public finance for fossil fuel projects,” Tanabe argued. “Ammonia and hydrogen co-firing should not be exempted as ‘abatement’ technologies, since the current co-firing development roadmap is not in line with the Paris goals.”

EGI CEO Samuel Okulony stressed how decisions of nations like Japan affect communities where projects are based.

“The impacts of climate change in Africa are a matter of life and death, and Japan, Korea, and other OECD countries should listen to the lived realities of global south communities, who have been devastated by the impacts of climate change for decades,” he said. “It is imperative that these countries make resolute commitments, support a resolution to stop public financing for fossil fuels at the OECD, and demand the global community align itself with the commitments to keep the 1.5°C target alive.”

Original article by JESSICA CORBETT republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Extinction Rebellion NL image reads STOP FOSSIELE SUBSIDIES
Extinction Rebellion NL image reads STOP FOSSIELE SUBSIDIES

Related:

The TRUTH about fossil fuel subsidies.

Extinction Rebellion NL pauses daily A12 highway blockades awaiting a decision on government fossil fuel subsidies

FFS: Huge Fossil Fuel Subsidies in UK and globally

Continue ReadingClimate Groups Back Efforts to End Tens of Billions in Foreign Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Boris Johnson took no Covid updates during February 2020 half-term break

Image of Tory idiot Boris Johnson
Lazy Tory idiot and former part-time UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson

Original article by Ruby Lott-Lavigna and finlay johnston republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Boris Johnson did not receive any updates about the escalating Covid crisis during a school half-term break just weeks before he announced the first lockdown.

The Covid inquiry today heard that over ten days between 14 February and 24 February 2020, the prime minister received no information from his staff, including from the two COBRA meetings that took place.

Johnson spent the break – during which parliament was in recess – at Chevening House, a grace-and-favour Kent mansion. He was labelled a “part-time prime minister” by then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and accused of “sulking in a mansion” while coronavirus unfolded and large parts of the UK were devastated by flooding. Johnson insisted the government had been working “flat out”.

When asked today why he did not update the PM with any information on Covid, Johnson’s former parliamentary private secretary (PPS) Martin Reynolds said he “could not recall”.

Hugo Keith, chief counsel to the inquiry, told him: “There were no emails. There were no notes put in his red box. You don’t appear to have been in touch with him about coronavirus, or anybody else.”

“To what extent did you think to yourself we’ve got…emails about a viral pandemic coming our way? Why was nothing done in terms of keeping the prime minister in the loop in those ten days?” he asked.

Reynolds responded: “I cannot recall why and whether there was any urgent business to transact over that period with the PM.”

When asked whether it was because it was half-term, Reynolds said he was “happy to accept it was half-term”.

The day before the PM’s ten-day information blackout, a cabinet reshuffle had taken place that saw the resignation of chancellor Sajid Javid, who was replaced by Rishi Sunak.

By 27 February, the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies had discussed the “reasonable worst case scenario” in which 80% of the UK population became infected, with a 1% fatality rate – which would mean up to 500,000 deaths.

The PM’s top aide added he “probably should have done more” to keep the prime minister updated on the biggest crisis since the Second World War.

Reynolds agreed that “little had been done” between the middle of February and early March.

He also agreed that the ten-day gap in pandemic planning was an “untoward delay” which contributed to the virus being “out of control” by 13 March.

The inquiry continues.

Original article by Ruby Lott-Lavigna and finlay johnston republished from OpenDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Continue ReadingBoris Johnson took no Covid updates during February 2020 half-term break