Login | Register

1.5 °C carbon budget dependent on carbon cycle uncertainty and future non-CO2 forcing


1.5 °C carbon budget dependent on carbon cycle uncertainty and future non-CO2 forcing

Mengis, Nadine, Partanen, Antti-Ilari, Jalbert, Jonathan and Matthews, H. Damon (2018) 1.5 °C carbon budget dependent on carbon cycle uncertainty and future non-CO2 forcing. Scientific Reports, 8 (5831). pp. 1-7. ISSN 2045-2322

[thumbnail of matthews-scientific-reports-2018.pdf]
Text (application/pdf)
matthews-scientific-reports-2018.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24241-1


Estimates of the 1.5 °C carbon budget vary widely among recent studies, emphasizing the need to better understand and quantify key sources of uncertainty. Here we quantify the impact of carbon cycle uncertainty and non-CO2 forcing on the 1.5 °C carbon budget in the context of a prescribed 1.5 °C temperature stabilization scenario. We use Bayes theorem to weight members of a perturbed parameter ensemble with varying land and ocean carbon uptake, to derive an estimate for the fossil fuel (FF) carbon budget of 469 PgC since 1850, with a 95% likelihood range of (411,528) PgC. CO2 emissions from land-use change (LUC) add about 230 PgC. Our best estimate of the total (FF + LUC) carbon budget for 1.5 °C is therefore 699 PgC, which corresponds to about 11 years of current emissions. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions represent equivalent cumulative CO2 emissions of about 510 PgC and −180 PgC for 1.5 °C, respectively. The increased LUC, high non-CO2 emissions and decreased aerosols in our scenario, cause the long-term FF carbon budget to decrease following temperature stabilization. In this scenario, negative emissions would be required to compensate not only for the increasing non-CO2 climate forcing, but also for the declining natural carbon sinks.

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Geography, Planning and Environment
Item Type:Article
Authors:Mengis, Nadine and Partanen, Antti-Ilari and Jalbert, Jonathan and Matthews, H. Damon
Journal or Publication:Scientific Reports
  • Concordia Open Access Author Fund
  • Fonds de recherche du Quebec - Nature et technologies (grant number: 200414)
  • Concordia Institute for Water, Energy and Sustainable Systems (CIWESS)
  • Academy of Finland (grant number: 308365)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.1038/s41598-018-24241-1
Keywords:Carbon cycle; Climate and Earth system modelling; Climate change
ID Code:983863
Deposited By: Danielle Dennie
Deposited On:11 May 2018 14:07
Last Modified:11 May 2018 14:07


UNFCCC Conference of the Parties: Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, retrieved 12 December (2015).

Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A. & Zickfeld, K. The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature 459, 829–32, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08047 (2009).

Zickfeld, K., Eby, M., Matthews, H. D. & Weaver, A. J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 16129–16134, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805800106 (2009).

Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Matthews, D. & Allen, M. R. Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. Journal of Climate 26, 6844–6858, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1 (2013).

Füssel, H. M. How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change: A comprehensive indicator-based assessment. Global Environmental Change 20, 597–611, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.009 (2010).

Gignac, R. & Matthews, H. D. Allocating a 2 C cumulative carbon budget to countries. Environmental Research Letters 10, 075004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/075004 (2015).

Rogelj, J. et al. Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nature Clim. Change 6, 245–252, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2868 (2016).

Matthews, H. D. et al. Estimating carbon budgets for ambitious climate targets. Current Climate Change Reports 3, 69–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0055-0 (2017).

Alexander, L. et al. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers. IPCC WGI AR5 1–36 (2013).

Millar, R. et al. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Nature Geoscience, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3031 (2017).

Stocker, T. et al. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5). Cambridge, UK and New York, New York, USA (2013).

Le Quéré, C. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2016. Earth System Science Data 8, 605, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016 (2016).

Vuuren, D. P. et al. RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2 C. Climatic Change 109, 95–116, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3 (2011).

Likhvar, V. N. et al. A multi-scale health impact assessment of air pollution over the 21st century. Science of the Total Environment 514, 439–449, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.002 (2015).

Pacanowski, R. C. MOM 2 Documentation, users guide and reference manual, GFDL Ocean Group Technical Report 3, Geophys. Fluid Dyn. Lab., Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (1995).

Keller, D. P., Oschlies, A. & Eby, M. A new marine ecosystem model for the University of Victoria Earth system climate model. Geoscientific Model Development Discussions 5, 1135–1201, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-5-1135-2012 (2012).

Meissner, K. J., Weaver, A. J., Matthews, H. D. & Cox, P. M. The role of land surface dynamics in glacial inception: A study with the UVic Earth System Model. Climate Dynamics 21, 515–537, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0352-2 (2003).

Bitz, C. M., Holland, M. M., Weaver, A. J. & Eby, M. Simulating the ice-thickness distribution in a coupled. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 2441–2463, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC000113 (2001).

Fanning, A. F. & Weaver, A. J. An atmospheric energy-moisture balance model: Climatology, interpentadal climate change, and coupling to an ocean general circulation model. Journal of Geophysical Research 101, 111–115, https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD01017 (1996).

Eby, M. et al. Historical and idealized climate model experiments: An intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity. Climate of the Past 9, 1111–1140, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-1111-2013 (2013).

Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophysical research letters 35, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032388 (2008).

Shindell, D. T. et al. Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13, 2939–2974, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013 (2013).

Apte, J. S., Marshall, J. D., Cohen, A. J. & Brauer, M. Addressing Global Mortality from Ambient PM2.5. Environmental science & technology 49, 8057–8066, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01236 (2015).

Simmons, C. & Matthews, H. Assessing the implications of human land-use change for the transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions. Environmental Research Letters 11, 035001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035001 (2016).
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
- Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
Back to top Back to top