4.7 Article

Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095012

关键词

climate; carbon cycle; earth system; negative emissions; carbon dioxide removal; mitigation scenarios

资金

  1. Joint UK BEIS/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme [GA01101]
  2. European Union [641816]
  3. Norwegian Research Council [209701]
  4. European Research Council [ERC-2013-SyG-610028 IMBALANCE-P]
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [1210113] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural carbon sinks currently absorb approximately half of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning, cement production and land-use change. However, this airborne fractionmay change in the future depending on the emissions scenario. An important issue in developing carbon budgets to achieve climate stabilisation targets is the behaviour of natural carbon sinks, particularly under low emissions mitigation scenarios as required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. A key requirement for low carbon pathways is to quantify the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies which will be strongly affected by carbon cycle feedbacks. Here we find that Earth system models suggest significant weakening, even potential reversal, of the ocean and land sinks under future low emission scenarios. For the RCP 2.6 concentration pathway, models project land and ocean sinks to weaken to 0.8 +/- 0.9 and 1.1 +/- 0.3 GtC yr(-1) respectively for the second half of the 21st century and to -0.4 +/- 0.4 and 0.1 +/- 0.2 GtC yr(-1) respectively for the second half of the 23rd century. Weakening of natural carbon sinks will hinder the effectiveness of negative emissions technologies and therefore increase their required deployment to achieve a given climate stabilisation target. We introduce a new metric, the perturbation airborne fraction, to measure and assess the effectiveness of negative emissions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据