New IPCC report emphasizes the urgency to act

Largest clarion bell from the science community

The sum­mary is still very much under­stat­ing and under­es­ti­mat­ing the threats we might face if global warm­ing does exceed 1.5°C and what we face already.
Pro­fes­sor Michael Mann, direc­tor of the Earth Sys­tem Sci­ence Cen­ter at Penn State Uni­ver­sity and a for­mer IPCC lead author, crit­i­cized peo­ple claim­ing the lat­est IPCC report would be too alarmist: “If any­thing, it is the oppo­site. Once again, with their lat­est report, they have been overly con­ser­v­a­tive (i.e. erring on the side of understating/​underestimating the prob­lem).”
He also warns that "We are closer to the 1.5°C & 2°C thresh­olds than they indi­cate & our avail­able car­bon bud­get for avoid­ing those crit­i­cal thresh­olds is con­sid­er­ably smaller than they imply."

A num­ber of sci­en­tists point out that the report fails to fully acknowl­edge the role of ampli­fy­ing self-​reinforcing feed­backs and tip­ping points, thresh­olds that, if passed, could cause the cli­mate to desta­bi­lize even fur­ther and push the world on to an irre­versible path of extreme warm­ing.
One such paper, which was not con­sid­ered in the IPCC report, describ­ing how self-​reinforcing feed­backs might cross tip­ping points lead­ing to run­away effects, was pub­lished in August by the Pro­ceed­ings of the National Acad­emy of Sci­ence con­clud­ing that “even if the Paris Accord tar­get of a 1.5°C to 2.0°C rise in tem­per­a­ture is met, we can­not exclude the risk that a cas­cade of feed­backs could push the Earth Sys­tem irre­versibly onto a ‘Hot­house Earth’ path­way.”

“Cli­mate change is occur­ring ear­lier and more rapidly than expected. Even at the cur­rent level of 1C warm­ing, it is painful,” Johan Rock­ström, a co-​author of the recent Hot­house Earth.

“Even with its descrip­tion of the increas­ing impacts that lie ahead, the IPCC under­states a key risk: that self-​reinforcing feed­back loops could push the cli­mate sys­tem into chaos before we have time to tame our energy sys­tem, and the other sources of cli­mate pol­lu­tion,” Mario Molina, who shared the Nobel prize in chem­istry in 1995 for his work on deple­tion of the ozone layer said.
Cli­mate change is not wors­en­ing in a sim­ple, lin­ear fash­ion, but rather by com­pound­ing and accel­er­at­ing; “feed­backs could fall like dan­ger­ous domi­nos, fun­da­men­tally desta­bi­liz­ing the planet.”

The IPCC “fails to ade­quately warn lead­ers” about six cli­mate tip­ping points that work in this way. One of the more well-​known such tip­ping points is Arc­tic sea ice. The ice acts as a reflec­tor of heat back into the atmos­phere, so the more it melts, the more the Arc­tic waters absorb heat. This self-​reinforcing feed­back loop could lead to an ‘Arc­tic death spi­ral,’ where the loss of the sea ice accel­er­ates the melt­ing of per­mafrost, which some sci­en­tists believe could release large quan­ti­ties of methane — a green­house gas 30 times more potent in dri­ving warm­ing than CO2 — into the atmos­phere, which could again lead to much higher lev­els of global sea level rise.

Paris cli­mate agree­ment pledges not enough

Due to the new report, global warm­ing is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it con­tin­ues to increase at the cur­rent rate of 0.2°C (±0.1°C) per decade.
To limit global warm­ing to 1.5°C, global car­bon diox­ide emis­sions would have to fall by more than 50% by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.
But coun­tries’ pledges due to the Paris Agree­ment to reduce their emis­sions are cur­rently not even in line with lim­it­ing global warm­ing to 1.5°C. They would lead to a tem­per­a­ture rise of 3-​4 degrees by 2100.

As the report says, warm­ing will not be lim­ited to 1.5°C or even 2°C unless fun­da­men­tal trans­for­ma­tions in all areas of soci­ety are under­taken. Emis­sions would need to decline rapidly across all of society’s main sec­tors, includ­ing build­ings, indus­try, trans­port, energy, and agri­cul­ture, forestry and other land use. Actions to reduce emis­sions would have to include phas­ing out coal in the energy sec­tor, increas­ing the amount of energy pro­duced from renew­able sources, elec­tri­fy­ing trans­port, and reduc­ing the ‘car­bon foot­print’ of the food we con­sume.

Share if you like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *