21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk-sensitive planning for conserving coral reefs under rapid climate change

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Global Carbon Budget 2016

          Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics, and model estimates and their interpretation by a broad scientific community. We discuss changes compared to previous estimates and consistency within and among components, alongside methodology and data limitations. CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry ( E FF ) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change ( E LUC ), mainly deforestation, are based on combined evidence from land-cover change data, fire activity associated with deforestation, and models. The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth ( G ATM ) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The mean ocean CO 2 sink ( S OCEAN ) is based on observations from the 1990s, while the annual anomalies and trends are estimated with ocean models. The variability in S OCEAN is evaluated with data products based on surveys of ocean CO 2 measurements. The global residual terrestrial CO 2 sink ( S LAND ) is estimated by the difference of the other terms of the global carbon budget and compared to results of independent dynamic global vegetation models. We compare the mean land and ocean fluxes and their variability to estimates from three atmospheric inverse methods for three broad latitude bands. All uncertainties are reported as ±1 σ , reflecting the current capacity to characterise the annual estimates of each component of the global carbon budget. For the last decade available (2006–2015), E FF was 9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , E LUC 1.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , G ATM 4.5 ± 0.1 GtC yr −1 , S OCEAN 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND 3.1 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 . For year 2015 alone, the growth in E FF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , showing a slowdown in growth of these emissions compared to the average growth of 1.8 % yr −1 that took place during 2006–2015. Also, for 2015, E LUC was 1.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , G ATM was 6.3 ± 0.2 GtC yr −1 , S OCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.5 GtC yr −1 , and S LAND was 1.9 ± 0.9 GtC yr −1 . G ATM was higher in 2015 compared to the past decade (2006–2015), reflecting a smaller S LAND for that year. The global atmospheric CO 2 concentration reached 399.4 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2015. For 2016, preliminary data indicate the continuation of low growth in E FF with +0.2 % (range of −1.0 to +1.8 %) based on national emissions projections for China and USA, and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. In spite of the low growth of E FF in 2016, the growth rate in atmospheric CO 2 concentration is expected to be relatively high because of the persistence of the smaller residual terrestrial sink ( S LAND ) in response to El Niño conditions of 2015–2016. From this projection of E FF and assumed constant E LUC for 2016, cumulative emissions of CO 2 will reach 565 ± 55 GtC (2075 ± 205 GtCO 2 ) for 1870–2016, about 75 % from E FF and 25 % from E LUC . This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All observations presented here can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center ( doi:10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_2016 ).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Limiting global warming to 2 °C is unlikely to save most coral reefs

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Shifting paradigms in restoration of the world's coral reefs

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Conservation Letters
                CONSERVATION LETTERS
                Wiley
                1755263X
                June 27 2018
                : e12587
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Global Change Institute; University of Queensland; St. Lucia Queensland Australia
                [2 ]Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions; University of Queensland; St. Lucia Queensland Australia
                [3 ]School of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences; University of Leeds; Leeds UK
                [4 ]Biodiversity Research Center; Academia Sinica; Taipei Taiwan
                [5 ]Institute of Oceanography; National Taiwan University; Taipei Taiwan
                [6 ]Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies; James Cook University; Townsville Australia
                [7 ]Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; University of Toronto; Toronto Ontario Canada
                [8 ]Marine Program; Wildlife Conservation Society; Bronx New York
                [9 ]Coral Reef Watch; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; College Park Maryland
                [10 ]Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology; University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa; Kāne‘ohe Hawaii
                [11 ]Marine Geophysical Laboratory, Physics Department, College of Science and Engineering; James Cook University; Townsville Queensland Australia
                [12 ]Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History; Smithsonian Institution; Washington District of Columbia
                [13 ]CORDIO East Africa; Mombasa Kenya
                [14 ]Department of Biology, Hopkins Marine Station; Stanford University; Pacific Grove California
                [15 ]School of Biological Sciences; University of Queensland; St. Lucia Queensland Australia
                [16 ]The Nature Conservancy; South Brisbane Queensland Australia
                [17 ]Australian Institute of Marine Science, Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre; University of Western Australia; Crawley Western Australia Australia
                [18 ]Global Ocean Team, The Nature Conservancy and Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. c/-Department of Physical, Earth and Environmental Sciences; University of Siena; Siena Italy
                [19 ]School of Geographical Sciences; University of Bristol; Bristol UK
                [20 ]Coral Reef Research; Townsville Queensland Australia
                [21 ]Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies; University of Queensland; St Lucia Queensland Australia
                Article
                10.1111/conl.12587
                bbc765d9-f1b4-42d9-b360-d598b69e04e8
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article