Professor Myles Allen CBE FRS

Abstract:

The Paris Agreement1 aims to ‘pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.’ However, it has been suggested that temperature targets alone are unable to limit the risks associated with anthropogenic emissions2, 3. Here, using an ensemble of model simulations, we show that atmospheric CO2 increase - a more predictable consequence of emissions compared to global temperature increase - has a significant impact on Northern Hemisphere summer temperature, heat stress, and tropical precipitation extremes. Hence in an iterative climate mitigation regime aiming solely for a specific temperature goal, an unexpectedly low climate response may have corresponding ‘dangerous’ changes in extreme events. The direct impact of higher CO2 concentrations on climate extremes therefore substantially reduces the upper bound of the carbon budget, and highlights the need to explicitly limit atmospheric CO2 concentration when formulating allowable emissions. Thus, complementing global mean temperature goals with explicit limits on atmospheric CO2 concentrations in future climate policy would reduce the adverse effects of high-impact weather extremes.

Abstract:

The United Nations' Paris Agreement includes the aim of pursuing efforts to limit global warming to only 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, it is not clear what the resulting climate would look like across the globe and over time. Here we show that trajectories towards a '1.5 °C warmer world' may result in vastly different outcomes at regional scales, owing to variations in the pace and location of climate change and their interactions with society's mitigation, adaptation and vulnerabilities to climate change. Pursuing policies that are considered to be consistent with the 1.5 °C aim will not completely remove the risk of global temperatures being much higher or of some regional extremes reaching dangerous levels for ecosystems and societies over the coming decades.

Abstract:

The main goal of the Paris Agreement as stated in Article 2 is 'holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C'. Article 4 points to this long-term goal and the need to achieve 'balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases'. This statement on 'greenhouse gas balance' is subject to interpretation, and clarifications are needed to make it operational for national and international climate policies. We study possible interpretations from a scientific perspective and analyse their climatic implications. We clarify how the implications for individual gases depend on the metrics used to relate them. We show that the way in which balance is interpreted, achieved and maintained influences temperature outcomes. Achieving and maintaining net-zero CO₂-equivalent emissions conventionally calculated using GWP₁₀₀ (100-year global warming potential) and including substantial positive contributions from short-lived climate-forcing agents such as methane would result in a sustained decline in global temperature. A modified approach to the use of GWP₁₀₀ (that equates constant emissions of short-lived climate forcers with zero sustained emission of CO₂) results in global temperatures remaining approximately constant once net-zero CO₂-equivalent emissions are achieved and maintained. Our paper provides policymakers with an overview of issues and choices that are important to determine which approach is most appropriate in the context of the Paris Agreement.This article is part of the theme issue 'The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.

Abstract:

The much awaited and intensely negotiated Paris Agreement was adopted on 12 December 2015 by the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The agreement set out a more ambitious long-term temperature goal than many had anticipated, implying more stringent emissions reductions that have been under-explored by the research community. By its very nature a multidisciplinary challenge, filling the knowledge gap requires not only climate scientists, but the whole Earth system science community, as well as economists, engineers, lawyers, philosophers, politicians, emergency planners and others to step up. To kick start cross-disciplinary discussions, the University of Oxford's Environmental Change Institute focused its 25th anniversary conference upon meeting the challenges of the Paris Agreement for science and society. This theme issue consists of review papers, opinion pieces and original research from some of the presentations within that meeting, covering a wide range of issues underpinning the Paris Agreement.This article is part of the theme issue 'The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.