Chris Jones
@chrisd-jones.bsky.social
Climate and carbon cycle modeller. Hadley Centre and U. Bristol, UK.
fair comment - and of course "climate" (i.e. local conditions, extremes etc) doesn't necessarily stabilise just because global T does.
I think the bigger issue is not just the definitions, but the concept of offsetting fossil emissions by ecosystem removals. Simply not sustainable in the long run
I think the bigger issue is not just the definitions, but the concept of offsetting fossil emissions by ecosystem removals. Simply not sustainable in the long run
November 16, 2024 at 7:18 PM
fair comment - and of course "climate" (i.e. local conditions, extremes etc) doesn't necessarily stabilise just because global T does.
I think the bigger issue is not just the definitions, but the concept of offsetting fossil emissions by ecosystem removals. Simply not sustainable in the long run
I think the bigger issue is not just the definitions, but the concept of offsetting fossil emissions by ecosystem removals. Simply not sustainable in the long run
There are papers already – Giacomo Grassi and co have been highlighting this for a while. See e.g.:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
it’s not small (and ironically can come back to bite you later as the sink may saturate and reverse!)
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
it’s not small (and ironically can come back to bite you later as the sink may saturate and reverse!)
Aligning climate scenarios to emissions inventories shifts global benchmarks - Nature
Aligning the IPCC-assessed mitigation pathways with the national greenhouse gas inventories shows that key global mitigation benchmarks become harder to achieve, requiring achieving earlier net-z...
www.nature.com
November 16, 2024 at 6:55 PM
There are papers already – Giacomo Grassi and co have been highlighting this for a while. See e.g.:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
it’s not small (and ironically can come back to bite you later as the sink may saturate and reverse!)
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
it’s not small (and ironically can come back to bite you later as the sink may saturate and reverse!)
Watch out next week for a new paper calling for more clarity in what we mean and how progress is reported.
Ultimately “natural” sinks and land-based managed sinks can only offset so much from fossil fuels. Any sustainable “net zero” must mean “geological net zero”
leave it in the ground!
Ultimately “natural” sinks and land-based managed sinks can only offset so much from fossil fuels. Any sustainable “net zero” must mean “geological net zero”
leave it in the ground!
November 16, 2024 at 6:34 PM
Watch out next week for a new paper calling for more clarity in what we mean and how progress is reported.
Ultimately “natural” sinks and land-based managed sinks can only offset so much from fossil fuels. Any sustainable “net zero” must mean “geological net zero”
leave it in the ground!
Ultimately “natural” sinks and land-based managed sinks can only offset so much from fossil fuels. Any sustainable “net zero” must mean “geological net zero”
leave it in the ground!
So what does all this mean? Neither is wrong – they just differ. But it does tee up a mismatch of target setting and monitoring prorgess
Essentially scientists say “we need net zero”, countries say “we’ve got plans to meet net zero”. But different definitions mean they don’t meet in the middle.
Essentially scientists say “we need net zero”, countries say “we’ve got plans to meet net zero”. But different definitions mean they don’t meet in the middle.
November 16, 2024 at 6:34 PM
So what does all this mean? Neither is wrong – they just differ. But it does tee up a mismatch of target setting and monitoring prorgess
Essentially scientists say “we need net zero”, countries say “we’ve got plans to meet net zero”. But different definitions mean they don’t meet in the middle.
Essentially scientists say “we need net zero”, countries say “we’ve got plans to meet net zero”. But different definitions mean they don’t meet in the middle.
But the definition of emissions used by UNFCCC reporting splits “human” and “natural” by _location_. Anything which happens on managed land can be classed as a removal. This means that some of the natural carbon sink is attributed to human activity leading to an overestimate of our removals.
November 16, 2024 at 6:34 PM
But the definition of emissions used by UNFCCC reporting splits “human” and “natural” by _location_. Anything which happens on managed land can be classed as a removal. This means that some of the natural carbon sink is attributed to human activity leading to an overestimate of our removals.
The definition used by IPCC ARs splits “human” and “natural” by _process_. In this case human removals can include planting forests. But NOT the response of existing forests to elevated CO2. Such a response is classed as natural
It is by this definition that net zero leads to stopping warming…
It is by this definition that net zero leads to stopping warming…
November 16, 2024 at 6:34 PM
The definition used by IPCC ARs splits “human” and “natural” by _process_. In this case human removals can include planting forests. But NOT the response of existing forests to elevated CO2. Such a response is classed as natural
It is by this definition that net zero leads to stopping warming…
It is by this definition that net zero leads to stopping warming…
The confusion is how we treat the behaviour of the land carbon sink on land classed as “managed”.
Does stuff here count as “natural” or “anthropogenic”? Different conventions say both yes and no to this - which leads to different measures of human emissions
Does stuff here count as “natural” or “anthropogenic”? Different conventions say both yes and no to this - which leads to different measures of human emissions
November 16, 2024 at 6:34 PM
The confusion is how we treat the behaviour of the land carbon sink on land classed as “managed”.
Does stuff here count as “natural” or “anthropogenic”? Different conventions say both yes and no to this - which leads to different measures of human emissions
Does stuff here count as “natural” or “anthropogenic”? Different conventions say both yes and no to this - which leads to different measures of human emissions
my first bluesky mention :-) cool paper Ben!
November 15, 2024 at 1:47 PM
my first bluesky mention :-) cool paper Ben!