Paleoclimatological Context and Reference Level of the 2°C and 1.5°C Paris Agreement Long-Term Temperature Limits

Lüning, Sebastian; Vahrenholt, Fritz

doi:10.3389/feart.2017.00104

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The historical demographic inferences from SMC modeling suggest that populations sizes across our study region have likewise been minimally affected by the change in environmental conditions from the LIG to the LGM (Fig 3). During the LIG, conditions were warmer than present by ~1.2 °C relative to the 1998-2016 average (Lüning & Vahrenholt, 2017) whereas LGM conditions were colder by ~6 °C (Von Deimling, Ganopolski, Held, & Rahmstorf, 2006). The species' success under warmer conditions is particularly encouraging since it may indicate stability in future climates (IPCC 2021).…”

Section: Broader Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole genome analyses reveal weak signatures of population structure and environmentally associated local adaptation in an important North American pollinator, the bumble beeBombus vosnesenskii

Heraghty

Lozier

Jackson

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of species that experience environmental heterogeneity across their distributions have become an important tool for understanding mechanisms of adaptation and predicting responses to climate change. We examine population structure, demographic history, and environmentally associated genomic variation in Bombus vosnesenskii, a common bumble bee in the western U.S.A., using whole genome resequencing of populations distributed across a broad range of latitudes and elevations. We find that B. vosnesenskii exhibits minimal population structure and weak isolation by distance, confirming results from previous studies using other molecular marker types. Similarly, demographic analyses with Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (SMC) models suggest that minimal population structure may have persisted since the last interglacial period, with genomes from different parts of the species range showing similar historical effective population size (Ne) trajectories and relatively small fluctuations through time. Redundancy analysis revealed a small amount of genomic variation explained by bioclimatic variables, and environmental association analysis with latent factor mixed modeling (LFMM2) identified few outlier loci that were sparsely distributed throughout the genome. Some outlier loci were in genes with known regulatory relationships, suggesting the possibility of weak selection, although compared to other species examined with similar approaches, evidence for extensive local adaptation signatures in the genome was relatively weak. Overall, results indicate Bombus vosnesenskii is an example of a generalist with a high degree of flexibility in its environmental requirements that may ultimately benefit the species under periods of climate change.

show abstract

Section: Broader Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole genome analyses reveal weak signatures of population structure and environmentally associated local adaptation in an important North American pollinator, the bumble beeBombus vosnesenskii

Heraghty

Lozier

Jackson

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This would imply that using an 18th or 19th century baseline for "pre-industrial" would be too cold. By comparing the instrumental time series to various paleoclimate reconstructions, Lüning and Vahrenholt (2017) [163] argue that the 1940-1970 period was closer to the long-term global temperature average of the last few millennia. However, clearly, 1940-1970 is long after the start of the actual Industrial Revolution.…”

Section: When Exactly Was "Pre-industrial"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pielke Jr. (2005) [161] has noted that the UNFCCC explicitly defines "climate change" as being entirely human-caused, and so it is therefore not surprising that their agreement does not consider the possibility that much (or even all) of this warming is natural. However, even if we ignore the ongoing debate over how much of the warming since the late-19th century is human-caused vs. natural, and assume for the sake of argument that the "mostly human-caused" argument is correct, what exactly is meant by "pre-industrial levels" [22,162,163]? As noted by Hawkins et al (2017) [162], "in the absence of a formal definition for preindustrial, the IPCC AR5 made a pragmatic choice to reference global temperatures to the mean of 1850-1900 when assessing the time at which particular temperature levels would be crossed".…”

Section: When Exactly Was "Pre-industrial"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, although the IPCC AR5 reports seem to have been considered during the drafting of the Paris Agreement, it is unclear which baseline was meant. Hawkins et al (2017) argue that 1720-1800 would make a more suitable baseline for "pre-industrial" global average temperatures than 1850-1900, while Lüning and Vahrenholt (2017) [163] argue that 1940-1970 is the most suitable baseline. The choice of baseline is quite significant since paleoclimate reconstructions suggest that global average temperatures have varied substantially over the last millennium and earlier, e.g., refs.…”

Section: When Exactly Was "Pre-industrial"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment

Connolly¹,

Connolly²,

Carter

et al. 2020

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to assess the merits of national climate change mitigation policies, it is important to have a reasonable benchmark for how much human-caused global warming would occur over the coming century with “Business-As-Usual” (BAU) conditions. However, currently, policymakers are limited to making assessments by comparing the Global Climate Model (GCM) projections of future climate change under various different “scenarios”, none of which are explicitly defined as BAU. Moreover, all of these estimates are ab initio computer model projections, and policymakers do not currently have equivalent empirically derived estimates for comparison. Therefore, estimates of the total future human-caused global warming from the three main greenhouse gases of concern (CO2, CH4, and N2O) up to 2100 are here derived for BAU conditions. A semi-empirical approach is used that allows direct comparisons between GCM-based estimates and empirically derived estimates. If the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases implies a Transient Climate Response (TCR) of ≥ 2.5 °C or an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of ≥ 5.0 °C then the 2015 Paris Agreement’s target of keeping human-caused global warming below 2.0 °C will have been broken by the middle of the century under BAU. However, for a TCR < 1.5 °C or ECS < 2.0 °C, the target would not be broken under BAU until the 22nd century or later. Therefore, the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “likely” range estimates for TCR of 1.0 to 2.5 °C and ECS of 1.5 to 4.5 °C have not yet established if human-caused global warming is a 21st century problem.

show abstract

“…He also notes that climate mitigation policies explicitly assume that climate change is primarily driven by greenhouse gas emissions, whereas climate adaptation policies often make sense regardless of the causes of climate change. With that in mind, it is worth noting that several recent studies have argued that the IPCC reports have underestimated the role of natural factors in recent climate change (and hence overestimated the role of human-caused factors) [68][69][70][71].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018

ÓhAiseadha

Quinn

Connolly³

et al. 2020

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern for climate change is one of the drivers of new, transitional energy policies oriented towards economic growth and energy security, along with reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and preservation of biodiversity. Since 2010, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has been publishing annual Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports. According to these reports, US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011–2018. Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period. Meanwhile, coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption, with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder. With this in mind, we consider the potential engineering challenges and environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the main energy sources (old and new). We find that the literature raises many concerns about the engineering feasibility as well as environmental impacts of wind and solar. However, none of the current or proposed energy sources is a “panacea”. Rather, each technology has pros and cons, and policy-makers should be aware of the cons as well as the pros when making energy policy decisions. We urge policy-makers to identify which priorities are most important to them, and which priorities they are prepared to compromise on.

show abstract

Paleoclimatological Context and Reference Level of the 2°C and 1.5°C Paris Agreement Long-Term Temperature Limits

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

Whole genome analyses reveal weak signatures of population structure and environmentally associated local adaptation in an important North American pollinator, the bumble beeBombus vosnesenskii

Whole genome analyses reveal weak signatures of population structure and environmentally associated local adaptation in an important North American pollinator, the bumble beeBombus vosnesenskii

How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment

Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About