Talk:Carbon budget/Archive 1

The following paragraph has some confusing and misleading statements in it, so I'm deleting it in its entirety:

Carbon dioxide mass inputs (eg. IPCC, 2007) can be too easily misread. The 28,556 megatonnes of carbon dioxide chalked up to fossil fuel combustion by the IPCC represents only 7.8 GtC annually.From microbes to our humans, we are carbon based. By investigating how carbon cycles through ecosystems, scientists learned valuable information about productivity, food chains, and nutrient cycling.

• The first sentence Carbon dioxide mass inputs (eg. IPCC, 2007) can be too easily misread" is not NPOV.
• The second sentence The 28,556 megatonnes of carbon dioxide chalked up to fossil fuel combustion by the IPCC represents only 7.8 GtC annually makes no sense. 28,556 MtC is about 28.6 GtC, and thus the statement seems to contradict itself.
• The third and fourth sentences are irrelevant.

Twir (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your second reason for deleting this paragraph is unsound. 28,556 megatonnes of carbon dioxide is not 28,556 MtC, it's only 7,790 MtC. This is because the C in GtC denotes carbon, not carbon dioxide, and the carbon atom in a CO2 molecule is only 12/44 of the mass of the whole molecule. I tend to agree with your intuition about the rest of the paragraph however, it reads like junk science. As does the rest of the article, why didn't you delete it all? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Good number of sources and good additions to the article . Probably can add more recent sources on the topic if possible . Mardig94 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Mardig94

-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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.28.58 (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)