Published on October 21, 2007
Working Group I: The Climate Challenge: Malte Meinshausen Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich Environmental Physics Department of Environmental Sciences 1st September 2004, Brussels [email protected] tel: +41 (0) 1 632 0894 Working Group I: The Climate Challenge Brussels, 22 November 2004 Draft v2 EU’s 2°C target: EU’s 2°C target “[...] the Council believes that global average temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees above pre-industrial level and that therefore concentration levels lower than 550 ppm CO2 should guide global limitation and reduction efforts. [...]” (1939th Council meeting, Luxembourg, 25 June 1996) “[...] overall global annual mean surface temperature increase should not exceed 2°C above pre-industrial levels in order to limit high risks, including irreversible impacts of climate change; RECOGNISES that 2°C would already imply significant impacts on ecosystems and water resources [...]” (2610th Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 14 October 2004 Council 2004, 25-26 March 2004) Overview: Overview Part 1: 2°C and climate impacts Part 2: What CO2 level corresponds to 2°C? Part 3: What are necessary global emission reductions? Temperature increase higher over land: Temperature increase higher over land Reasons for Concern (IPCC TAR WGII): Reasons for Concern (IPCC TAR WGII) Millions at Risk (Parry et al., 2001): Millions at Risk (Parry et al., 2001) Potential Impact of Sea Level Rise: Nile Delta: Potential Impact of Sea Level Rise: Nile Delta Sources: Otto Simonett, UNEP/GRID Geneva; Prof. G.Sestini, Florence; Remote Sensing Center, Cairo; DIERCKE Weltwirtschaftsatlas Slide8: 3-5 meter sea level rise dangerous interference Sea level up to 3-5 meters by 2300 for 3°C Source: Rahmstorf, S., C. Jaeger (2004) Part 2: Part 2 What CO2 level corresponds to 2°C? Expected warming for ~550ppm CO2eq: Expected warming for ~550ppm CO2eq Climate Sensitivity ... ... summarizes key uncertainties in climate science ... is the expected average warming of the earth’s surface for a doubling of CO2 concentrations (about 550 ppm CO2) Background: Difference between CO2 and CO2equivalence: Background: Difference between CO2 and CO2equivalence “CO2equivalence” summarizes the climate effect (‘radiative forcing’) of all human-induced greenhouse-gases and aerosols, as if we only changed the atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Like “bread exchange” units for food or “tonnes oil equivalent (toe)” for energy sources. Expected warming for ~550ppm CO2eq: Expected warming for ~550ppm CO2eq New research cannot exclude very high warming levels (e.g. > 4.5°C) for stabilization of greenhouse gases at 550ppm CO2 equivalence “The fact that we are uncertain may actually be a reason to act sooner rather than later” (Eileen Claussen) The risk to overshoot 2°C: The risk to overshoot 2°C The Risk to overshoot 2°C : The Risk to overshoot 2°C Conclusions Part1 & Part 2: Conclusions Part1 & Part 2 Part 1: 2°C and climate impacts Scientific research into climate impacts shows that 2°C is no guarantee to avoid significant adverse climate impacts overshooting 2°C is likely to multiply adverse impacts and potentially trigger large scale catastrophic events Sea level is likely to increase for very long time. A warming of 3°C could cause 3-5 meter sea level rise by 2300. By stabilizing at low concentration levels, the rate of increase can be slowed substantially. Part 2: What CO2 level corresponds to 2°C? 550 ppm CO2 equivalence is “unlikely” to meet the 2°C target For stabilization at 550 ppm CO2eq, the chance to stay below 2°C is about equal to the risk of overshooting 4.5°C (~16%) The risk to overshoot 2°C can be substantially reduced for lower stabilization levels. There is a “likely” achievement of the 2°C target for stabilization at 400ppm CO2eq (the risk to overshoot 2°C is about 25%). Part 3: Part 3 What are the necessary global emission reductions? Background: Background The presented stabilization pathways (“EQW”)... are built on 54 published IPCC baseline and mitigation scenarios reflect emissions of 14 greenhouse gases and aerosols are described in “Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets” by Meinshausen, M., W. Hare, T. Wigley, D. van Vuuren, M. den Elzen and R. Swart, submitted June 2004 The used climate model (“MAGICC 4.1”)... is the primary simple climate model used in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report for global mean temperature and sea level rise projections is built by Wigley, Raper et al. and available online at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/ Greenhouse-gas Concentrations: Greenhouse-gas Concentrations Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions: Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions Fossil carbon budget about 500 GtC for stabilization at 400 ppm CO2eq. Can be lower (<400 GtC), depending on net landuse emissions. Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions : Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions Kyoto-gas emissions relative to 1990: Kyoto-gas emissions relative to 1990 For stabilization at 400ppm CO2eq, global emissions have to be reduced by about 40% below 1990 levels at around 2050, but .... ... higher carbon releases possible from terrestrial biosphere, due to either (a) more pronounced carbon cycle feedbacks (b) continuously high landuse CO2 emissions Allowable Kyoto-gas emissions lower by -10% by 2050 Issue: Delay: Issue: Delay “Delaying action for a decade, or even just years, is not a serious option” Sir David King (Science, 9 January 2004) Conclusions Part 3: Conclusions Part 3 Part 3: What emission reductions are necessary? For stabilization at 550 ppm, Kyoto-gas emissions have to return to about 1990 levels by 2050. For stabilization at 450 ppm, Kyoto-gas emissions have to be reduced by -20% to -30% below 1990 levels by 2050. For stabilization at 400 ppm, Kyoto-gas emissions have to be reduced by -40% to -50% below 1990 levels by 2050. A delay of global action by 10 years doubles the required reduction rates in 2025. Specifically, from 14% per 5 year commitment period to -31% per commitment period. Open question about how fast the “ocean tanker” can brake. Lord Browne, CEO BP: Lord Browne, CEO BP “But if we are to avoid having to make dramatic and economically destructive decisions in the future, we must act soon.” (Foreign Affairs, July/August 2004) Appendix: Methods & Credits: Appendix: Methods & Credits STABILIZATION EMISSION PATHSWAYS: The three presented stabilization emission paths EQW-S550Ce, EQW-S450Ce, EQW-S400Ce and its variants were developed with the “Equal Quantile Walk” (EQW) method. The EQW multi-gas method handles all 14 major greenhouse gases and aerosol emissions and is implemented in the SiMCaP pathfinder module. The method builds on the multi-gas and multi-region characteristics of 54 existing SRES and Post-SRES scenarios. For details, see “Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets” by Meinshausen, M., W. Hare, T. Wigley, D. van Vuuren, M. den Elzen, R. Swart, submitted to Climatic Change. Available on request from the author. CLIMATE MODEL: The employed simple climate model is MAGICC 4.1 (by Wigley, Raper et al.). MAGICC 4.1 has been used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report for global mean temperature and sea level projections. MAGICC is an energy balance, upwelling-diffusion (simple) climate model. EMISSION INVENTORIES & TARGETS: Actual emissions and Kyoto related emission allowances for EU-25 are taken from Meinshausen, M. “Appendix on Annex I Emissions, Targets and Projections” in F. Yamin and J. Depledge “The international climate change regime: A guide to rules, guidelines and procedures”, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. DATA & GRAPHICS: If not otherwise stated, all presented calculations were performed by Malte Meinshausen. Please contact the author for data or permission to re-use the presented graphics ([email protected]). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Thanks to Tom Wigley for providing the MAGICC climate model. References: References Rahmstorf, S., C. Jaeger (2004) “Sea level rise as defining feature for dangerous interference”, available at forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/action_climat/ library?l=/sealevelrisepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d Meinshausen, M., W. Hare, T. Wigley, D. van Vuuren, M. den Elzen, R. Swart (submitted) “Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets”, submitted to Climatic Change, June 2004, available from the author. Hare, B. and M. Meinshausen (2004) “How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided?”, PIK-Report No. 93, available online at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/publications/pik_reports Climate sensitivity studies summarized in this presentation: Andronova, N.G. and Schlesinger, M.E.: 2001, 'Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity', Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 106, 22605-22611. Forest, C.E., Stone, P.H., Sokolov, A., Allen, M.R. and Webster, M.D.: 2002, 'Quantifying Uncertainties in Climate System Properties with the Use of Recent Climate Observations', Science 295, 113-117. Gregory, J.M., Stouffer, R.J., Raper, S.C.B., Stott, P.A. and Rayner, N.A.: 2002, 'An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity', Journal of Climate 15, 3117-3121. Kerr, R.A.: 2004, 'Climate change - Three degrees of consensus', Science 305, 932-934. (See for the work in preparation by Schneider von Deimling) Knutti, R., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F. and Plattner, G.-K.: 2003, 'Probabilistic climate change projections using neural networks', Climate Dynamics 21, 257-272. Murphy, J.M., Sexton, D.M.H., Barnett, D.N., Jones, G.S., Webb, M.J., Collins, M. and Stainforth, D.A.: 2004, 'Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations', Nature 430, 768-772. Wigley, T.M.L. and Raper, S.C.B.: 2001, 'Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming', Science 293, 451-454.