Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Impact of delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 23–26 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Recent downward revisions in the climate response to rising CO2 levels, and opportunities for reducing non-CO2 climate warming, have both been cited as evidence that the case for reducing CO2 emissions is less urgent than previously thought. Evaluating the impact of delay is complicated by the fact that CO2 emissions accumulate over time, so what happens after they peak is as relevant for long-term warming as the size and timing of the peak itself. Previous discussions have focused on how the rate of reduction required to meet any given temperature target rises asymptotically the later the emissions peak. Here we focus on a complementary question: how fast is peak CO2-induced warming increasing while mitigation is delayed, assuming no increase in rates of reduction after the emissions peak? We show that this peak-committed warming is increasing at the same rate as cumulative CO2 emissions, about 2% per year, much faster than observed warming, independent of the climate response.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Schematic emission scenarios illustrating the impact of different estimates of the climate system response to CO2 emissions.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aldrin, M. et al. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics 23, 253–271 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis, N. An objective bayesian improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 26, 7414–7429 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gillett, N. P. et al. Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J. Clim. 26, 6844–6858 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Otto, A. et al. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci. 6, 415–416 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ridley, M. Earth to Met Office: check your climate facts. The Times (20 May 2013, updated 24 May 2013); available via http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-implications-of-lower-climate-sensitivity.aspx

  6. Shindell, D. et al. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335, 183–189 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bond, T. C et al. Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 5380–5552 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Global warming: The new black. The Economist (19 January 2013).

  9. Stocker, T. The closing door of climate targets. Science 339, 280–282 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Huntingford, C. et al. The link between a global 2 °C warming threshold and emissions in years 2020, 2050 and beyond. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 14039 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rogelj, J. et al. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79–83 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Luderer, G. et al. Economic mitigation challenges: How further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034033 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Held, I. M. et al. Probing the fast and slow components of global warming by returning abruptly to preindustrial forcing. J. Clim. 23, 2418–2427 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gregory, J. M. & Forster, P. M. Transient climate response estimated from radiative forcing and observed temperature change. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D23105 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zickfeld, K. et al. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16129–16134 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Matthews, H. D. et al. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 458, 829–832 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith, S. M. et al. Equivalence of greenhouse-gas emissions for peak warming. Nature Clim. Change 2, 535–538 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163–1166 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Stocker, T. F. et al. (eds) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stott, P. A., Good, P., Jones, G., Gillett, N. P & Hawkins, E. The upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014024 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Andres, R. J. et al. A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Biogeosciences 9, 1845 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Victor, D. G., Kennel, C. F. & Ramanathan, V. The climate threat we can beat. Foreign Aff. 91, 112–114 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bowerman, N. H. A. et al. The role of short-lived climate pollutants in meeting temperature goals. Nature Clim. Change 3, 1021–1024 10.1038/nclimate2034 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Steinacher, M., Joos, F. & Stocker, T. F. Allowable carbon emissions lowered by multiple climate targets. Nature 499, 197–201 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.R.A. acknowledges support from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change under contract TRN 317/11/2011 and from the Oxford Martin School.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ECI, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK

    Myles R. Allen

  2. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PU, UK

    Myles R. Allen

  3. Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

    Thomas F. Stocker

  4. Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, Zähringerstrasse 25, Bern, CH-3012, Switzerland

    Thomas F. Stocker

Authors
  1. Myles R. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas F. Stocker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Myles R. Allen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, M., Stocker, T. Impact of delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature Clim Change 4, 23–26 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2077

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2077

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene