Long-term climate implications of twenty-first century options for carbon dioxide emission mitigation

Journal name:
Nature Climate Change
Volume:
1,
Pages:
457–461
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nclimate1302
Received
Accepted
Published online

Long-term future warming is primarily constrained by cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide1, 2, 3, 4. Previous studies have estimated that humankind has already emitted about 50% of the total amount allowed if warming, relative to pre-industrial, is to stay below 2°C (refs 1, 2). Carbon dioxide emissions will thus need to decrease substantially in the future if this target is to be met. Here we show how links between near-term decisions, long-term behaviour and climate sensitivity uncertainties constrain options for emissions mitigation. Using a model of intermediate complexity5, 6, we explore the implications of non-zero long-term global emissions, combined with various near-term mitigation rates or delays in action. For a median climate sensitivity, a long-term 90% emission reduction relative to the present-day level is incompatible with a 2°C target within the coming millennium. Zero or negative emissions can be compatible with the target if medium to high emission-reduction rates begin within the next two decades. For a high climate sensitivity, however, even negative emissions would require a global mitigation rate at least as great as the highest rate considered feasible by economic models7, 8 to be implemented within the coming decade. Only a low climate sensitivity would allow for a longer delay in mitigation action and a more conservative mitigation rate, and would still require at least 90% phase-out of emissions thereafter.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Long-term effect of zero emissions.
    Figure 1: Long-term effect of zero emissions.

    Illustrative scenarios where emissions are instantaneously cut by 100% (a and b), compared with scenarios where emissions decrease today following a mitigation rate of 5%, 3% and 1% (c and d, blue, green and red lines respectively) and where emissions start decreasing globally in 10, 20 or 30 years at a 3%yr−1 mitigation rate (e and f, blue, green and red lines respectively). The left panels show atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppmv) and the right panels show global surface temperature change relative to the pre-industrial (°C). The instantaneous mitigation case of a,b is reproduced on c,d (black lines) as the ‘baseline’ case (infinite mitigation rate). Similarly, the 3% mitigation rate with no delay case (c,d, green lines) is reproduced on e,f (black lines) as the ‘baseline’ case (no delay in mitigation). Also shown on each temperature panel is the 2°C isoline (thin black line).

  2. Long-term effect of non-zero positive and negative long-term emissions.
    Figure 2: Long-term effect of non-zero positive and negative long-term emissions.

    Illustrative scenarios where emissions eventually decrease by 90% relative to the present-day level (top four panels) or by 105% relative to the present-day level (negative emissions, through carbon capture and storage) (bottom four panels). As in Fig. 1, three mitigation rates are investigated as well as three delays in emission mitigation. The instantaneous mitigation cases are also shown on a,b and e,f (black lines) as the ‘baseline’ case (infinite mitigation rate). Similarly, the 3% mitigation rate with no delay cases (a,b and e,f, green lines) are shown on c,d and g,h respectively (black line) as the ‘baseline’ cases (no delay in mitigation). Also shown on each temperature panel is the 2°C isoline (thin black line).

  3. Global peak temperature accounting for uncertainty in climate sensitivity.
    Figure 3: Global peak temperature accounting for uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

    Global peak temperature change reached within the next 1,000 years for the three levels of long-term mitigation: 100% reduction (left panel, square symbols), 90% reduction (middle panel, circle symbols) and 105% reduction (right panel, diamond symbols). Symbols are for the median climate sensitivity (3°C), while error bars shows the ‘likely’ range (more than 66% probability) for low (2°C) and high (4.5°C) climate sensitivities. Within each panel, black symbols represent immediate and instantaneous emissions reduction; dark blue, green, light blue and red symbols represent global emissions mitigation starting today or delayed by 10, 20 and 30 years respectively; mitigation rates are indicated as 1% (open symbols), 3% (filled symbols) and 5% (symbols bordered in black).

References

  1. Allen, M. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 11631166 (2009).
  2. Zickfeld, K., Eby, M., Matthews, H. D. & Weaver, A. J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1612916134 (2010).
  3. Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829832 (2009).
  4. Raupach, M. R. et al. The relationship between peak warming and cumulative CO2 emissions, and its use to quantify vulnerabilities in the carbon-climate-human system. Tellus B 63, 145164 (2011).
  5. Stocker, T. F., Wright, D. G. & Mysak, L. A. A zonally averaged, coupled ocean-atmosphere model for paleoclimate studies. J. Clim. 5, 773797 (1992).
  6. Joos, F., Plattner, G-K., Stocker, T. F., Marchal, O. & Schmittner, A. Global warming and marine carbon cycle feedbacks on future atmospheric CO2. Science 284, 464467 (1999).
  7. UNEP The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2°C or 1.5°C? (UNEP, 2010); available at http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/.
  8. den Elzen, M. G. J., van Vuuren, D. P. & van Vliet, J. Postponing emission reductions from 2020 to 2030 increases climate risks and long-term costs. Climatic Change 99, 313320 (2010).
  9. UNFCCC, Communications Received from Parties in Relation to the Listing in the Chapeau of the Copenhagen Accord (UNFCCC, 2010); available at http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/items/5276.php.
  10. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Update on CO2 emissions. Nature Geosci. 3, 811812 (2010).
  11. Hegerl, G. C. et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 663745 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
  12. Hourcade, J-C. & Crassous, R. Low-carbon societies: A challenging transition for an attractive future. Clim. Policy 8, 607612 (2008).
  13. Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: An assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Climatic Change 81, 119159 (2007).
  14. Van Vuuren, D. P., Bellevrat, E., Kitous, A. & Isaac, M. Bio-energy use and low stabilization scenarios. Energy J. 31, 193222 (2010).
  15. Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. RCP2.6: Exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature change below 2°C. Climatic Change 109, 95116 (2011).
  16. Edenhofer, O. et al. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J. 31, 1148 (2010).
  17. Clarke, L. et al. International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ. 31, S64S81 (2009).
  18. Edmonds, J., Clarke, L., Lurz, J. & Wise, M. Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation. Clim. Policy 8, 355376 (2008).
  19. Richels, R., Blanford, G. J. & Rutherford, T. F. International climate policy: A ‘second best’ solution for a ‘second best’ world? Climatic Change 97, 289296 (2009).
  20. Davis, S. J., Caldeira, K. & Matthews, H. D. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 329, 13301333 (2010).
  21. Bosetti, V., Carraro, C. & Tavoni, M. Climate change mitigation strategies in fast-growing countries: The benefits of early action. Energy Econ. 31, S144S151 (2009).
  22. Weaver, A. J., Zickfeld, K., Montenegro, A. & Eby, M. Long term climate implications of 2050 emission reduction targets. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L19703 (2007).
  23. Meehl, G. A. et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 747845 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
  24. Solomon, S., Plattner, G-K., Knutti, R. & Friedlingstein, P. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 10741079 (2009).
  25. Solomon, et al. Persistence of climate changes due to a range of greenhouse gases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1835418359 (2010).
  26. Knutti, R. & Hegerl, G. C. The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nature Geosci. 1, 735743 (2008).
  27. Lunt, D. J. et al. Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modeling and data. Nature Geosci. 3, 6064 (2010).
  28. Marchal, O., Stocker, T. F. & Joos, F. A latitude-depth circulation-biogeochemical ocean model for paleoclimate studies. Model development and sensitivity. Tellus B 50, 290316 (1998).
  29. Siegenthaler, U. & Oeschger, H. Biospheric CO2 emissions during the past 200 years reconstructed by convolution of ice core data. Tellus B 39, 140154 (1987).
  30. Archer, D. Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time. J. Geophys. Res. 110, C09S05 (2005).
  31. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: Results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 33373353 (2006).
  32. Gregory, J. M., Jones, C. D., Cadule, P. & Friedlingstein, P. Quantifying carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 22, 52325250 (2009).
  33. Knutti, R., Stocker, T. F., Joos, F. & Plattner, G-K. Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks. Clim. Dyn. 21, 257272 (2003).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QF, UK

    • P. Friedlingstein
  2. Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

    • S. Solomon
  3. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

    • G-K. Plattner
  4. Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Universitätstrasse 16, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland

    • R. Knutti
  5. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment, UMR CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Bat. 709, CE, L’Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France

    • P. Ciais
  6. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Clunies Ross Street, Black Mountain, Acton, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia

    • M. R. Raupach

Contributions

P.F. and S.S. designed the work and the experiments, P.F. performed the model simulations, G-K.P. provided the model code, G-K.P. and R.K. gave guidance on the use of the model, P.F. led the writing of the paper with contributions from all other authors.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

Additional data