The feasibility of avoiding future climate impacts: key results from the AVOID1 and 2 programmes Funded by Jason A. Lowe, Rachel Warren, Nigel Arnell, Simon Buckle, Ajay Gambhir and the AVOID network Further details E-mail [email protected]
The feasibility of avoiding future climate impacts: key results from the AVOID1 and 2 programmes Funded by Jason A. Lowe, Rachel Warren, Nigel Arnell,
Dec 13, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The feasibility of avoiding future climate impacts: key results from the AVOID1 and 2 programmes
Funded by
Jason A. Lowe, Rachel Warren, Nigel Arnell, Simon Buckle, Ajay Gambhir and the AVOID network
Further details E-mail [email protected]
Overview of AVOID1 and 2
Supported UK’s international engagement
Supported the setting of the UK’s carbon budgets
Informed UK’s position at international climate change negotiations
• Established in 2009 to provide tailored scientific information on feasibility, benefits and side effects of mitigation
• Synthesises information from a wide range of sources
• Considered climate science, impacts and socio-economic aspects
• AVOID2 began in 2014 to provide information along the pathway to Paris and CoP21
AVOID2 approach: Integrated assessment but not just another IAM
• What are the characteristics of potentially dangerous climate change?
• How much can mitigation reduce climate change and impacts?
• How feasible are different amounts of mitigation?
Key result 1: Reprocessing the IPCC WG3 database of IAM emission pathways
The database does not provide uniform sampling of pathways
2020 emissions of 50 GtCO2eqcover a wide range of median warming
Key result 1: Reprocessing the IPCC WG3 database of IAM emission pathways
We have led a post AR5 intercomparison of emission reduction feasibility:
• TIAM• WITCH• MESSAGE
+GAINS for non-CO2
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
TIAM
-Gra
ntha
m
MES
SAGE
-GLO
BIOM W
ITCH
TIAM
-Gra
ntha
m
MES
SAGE
-GLO
BIOM W
ITCH
TIAM
-Gra
ntha
m
MES
SAGE
-GLO
BIOM W
ITCH
TIAM
-Gra
ntha
m
MES
SAGE
-GLO
BIOM W
ITCH
TIAM
-Gra
ntha
m
MES
SAGE
-GLO
BIOM W
ITCH
2010 2020 2030 2050 2100
EJ/y
ear
other
offshore wind
onshore wind
solar CSP
solar PV
hydro
nuclear
biomass w/ CCS
biomass w/o CCS
Gas w/ CCS
Gas w/o CCS
coal w/ CCS
coal w/o CCS
oil w/o CCS
Key result 2: How big is the 2ºC cumulative carbon budget?
Many earth system processes are not routinely included in scenario development,
But AR5 did provide some useful information
Equilibrium climate sensitivity remains very uncertain
Key result 2: How big is the 2ºC cumulative carbon budget?
Key result 2- How big is the 2ºC cumulative carbon budget?
Key result 3: First look at new results on enhanced CO2 removal
Most scenarios that limit warming to lower levels have large BECCs contribution
Key result 3: First look at new results on enhanced CO2 removal
Estimated 2100 BECCs potential with no CCS limit in HadGEM2ES
Uses 5% of land areaExcluding GL and ANT
Uses 4% of land areaExcluding GL and ANT
Uses 18% of land areaExcluding GL and ANT
Key result 3: First look at new results on enhanced CO2 removal
Estimated 2100 BECCs potential with no CCS limit in HadGEM2ES
Uses 5% of land areaExcluding GL and ANT
Uses 4% of land areaExcluding GL and ANT
Uses 18% of land areaExcluding GL and ANT
•Achieving 166 GtC over the 21st Century appears to be highly challenging.
•The most productive areas globally are the tropics.
•Biophysical cooling associated with deforestation may have benefits to stabilising climate at low levels.
Key result 4 – How much impact can we avoid through mitigation?
Water availability Exposure to river floods Coastal flooding
J Roff
Crop yields Ocean acidificationCooling demand
Key result 4 – How much impact can we avoid through mitigation?
The AVOID 2 consortium
18/04/23
Related Documents
