• Energy Research
• environmental engineering close

Abstract To determine the remaining carbon budget, a new framework was introduced in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR1.5). We refer to this as a ‘segmented’ framework because it considers the various components of the carbon budget derivation independently from one another. Whilst implementing this segmented framework, in SR1.5 the assumption was that there is a strictly linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and CO2-induced warming i.e. the TCRE is constant and can be applied to a range of emissions scenarios. Here we test whether such an approach is able to replicate results from model simulations that take the climate system’s internal feedbacks and non-linearities into account. Within our modelling framework, following the SR1.5’s choices leads to smaller carbon budgets than using simulations with interacting climate components. For 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming targets, the differences are 50 GtCO2 (or 10%) and 260 GtCO2 (or 17%), respectively. However, by relaxing the assumption of strict linearity, we find that this difference can be reduced to around 0 GtCO2 for 1.5 °C of warming and 80 GtCO2 (or 5%) for 2.0 °C of warming (for middle of the range estimates of the carbon cycle and warming response to anthropogenic emissions). We propose an updated implementation of the segmented framework that allows for the consideration of non-linearities between cumulative CO2 emissions and CO2-induced warming.

AbstractScientifically rigorous guidance to policy makers on mitigation options for meeting the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal requires an evaluation of long-term global-warming implications of greenhouse gas emissions pathways. Here we employ a uniform and transparent methodology to evaluate Paris Agreement compatibility of influential institutional emission scenarios from the grey literature, including those from Shell, BP, and the International Energy Agency. We compare a selection of these scenarios analysed with this methodology to the Integrated Assessment Model scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We harmonize emissions to a consistent base-year and account for all greenhouse gases and aerosol precursor emissions, ensuring a self-consistent comparison of climate variables. An evaluation of peak and end-of-century temperatures is made, with both being relevant to the Paris Agreement goal. Of the scenarios assessed, we find that only the IEA Net Zero 2050 scenario is aligned with the criteria for Paris Agreement consistency employed here. We investigate root causes for misalignment with these criteria based on the underlying energy system transformation.