Talk:Carbon budget

Clear, neutral, interesting and concise. You really got the Wiki style! :)

Few recommandations: -Define GtCO2 (gigatons I imagine)

-In the National emissions budgets section, you should make sure to link as much terms as possible (ex.polluter-pays principle, Kyoto principles)

If you wish too, I can look at your article when that last section is completed. Let me know my email.

J rchand (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

-I noticed that the vertical axis of the graph has the wrong unit. It should be Gt/y. As of 12/2020, it is Gt, which has potential for confusion.

We talked about this before, but I'm going to link my TCRE page to your Carbon Budgets page once we move them out of the sandbox. My TCRE carbon budgets section will handle the connection between TCRE and carbon budgets but I'll save the details of carbon budgets for your page! Looks great so far! -Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMacIsaac (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The table said Millar said 750GtCO2. I couldn't find that number in Millar, so I checked all the numbers and put what I could find. To make it easier for future editors, I put the page numbers where I found numbers, and if the original study used PgC, I put that number too, along with the conversion to GtCO2. As shown in the headnote, there are several other estimates which could be added. I added IPCC, since it's fairly atuthoritative, and lower than most. A graph comparing these budgets would be a helpful addition. I also added Fahrenheit, since a significant fraction of readers of Wikipedia in English are in the US and more familiar with Fahrenheit. The citation to Rogelj 2015 went to the corrigendum, but that corrigendum only had graphs, not the numbers being quoted, so I linked to the original paper, which does now include the corrigendum. I also added links to public copies of the papers where I could. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, What do you think of putting a carbon budget clock on the page? An institute in Berlin makes one available to the public as:

<iframe src="https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm?i=3267263" style="width:600px; height:340px;"></iframe>

I lighted upon their website when I couldn't find carbon emissions numbers as once I had at CDIAC pre-2017. Couple weeks ago, I used their historical numbers to estimate the spreadsheet that produced that I projected in MS Excel to arrive at the estimates that match those that now appear in their carbon budget clock.

Paulsuckow (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think this is the more common name. Two of the criteria on Wikipedia:article titles is to have a recognizable and natural name, and I think carbon budget is superior in both regards. Using a Google search indicates that carbon budget has 816,000 hits, while emissions budget has 47,500. In terms of English, the current title is a tat bit awkward, in the sense that the first word is a plural and plurals don't work well as an adjective. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. (a) I agree carbon budget is more common, (b) there are other types of emissions unrelated to global warming, and (c) many greenhouse gases are carbon-based (CO2, CH4, HFC, PFC; biggest exception is N2O). However the term Global carbon budget now redirects to Carbon cycle, so it would be best to ask people on that page what they think. Maybe carbon budget and global carbon budget need to go to a disambiguation page and keep emissions budget here? Otherwise emissions budget and carbon cycle need headnotes pointing to each other. Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've asked on that page. I think a disambiguation page isn't necessary, as I've not seen carbon budget used to describe the concept of global carbon budget. The terms seem quite well seperated on Google at least. A headnote might be an idea though. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@PJ_Geest @Andol The graph seems to have lines labeled 600 Gt and 800 Gt, but it also says

• 1,5-2 Grad erlaubt ein CO2-Budget von 150-1050 Milliarden Tonnen (Gt)
• 1.5-2 degrees allows a carbon budget of 150-1050 billion tonnes (Gt)

What is the relationship of 150, 600, 800, 1050? Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have created an English translation of the German graph by Stefan Rahmstorf and added it to the discussion page of the media file. I do not know how to create an English language version of the media file and would like to ask for your help with this, please. Ileo (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply