COP28 and climate science

LONDON, U.K.—At the opening of the United Nations’ COP28 global climate summit, here are some thoughts about the state of climate science. I have interviewed at least 60 leading climate scientists in a dozen countries over the past three years. They are unanimously terrified by the speed at which things are moving, but also relieved that the crisis is finally getting some serious attention from both the public and the governments. What might be useful at this point is a review of how the science has developed, because it can be seen as a play in three acts. In the first act, beginning in the 1980s, global warming was identified as a potentially serious problem, but not one that required an emergency response. Yes, greenhouse gases of human origin were warming the atmosphere, but it could be dealt with by modest reductions in emissions (five per cent) by the biggest-emitting countries. Developing countries could emit as much as they liked: it wouldn’t be enough to do any harm. That was the 1990s. Twenty years on, in 2015, things had changed a lot. The early support for the notion that “something must be done” had been undermined by a powerful campaign of climate change denial largely funded by the oil, gas, and coal industries. At the same time, the emissions of the “developing countries” had soared as their economies shifted into high-speed growth. The biggest emitter is now China, not the United States, and India holds third place. Scientific understanding of how the atmosphere will react to a huge input of carbon dioxide and other warming gases has expanded enormously. It has also become clear that the climate can change abruptly as well as gradually. As the climate warmed up when we emerged from the last Ice Age, it made sudden leaps when various “tipping points” were crossed. Our warming is starting from an already much warmer climate, but we will almost certainly cross some tipping points, too. We have to stay below those points at all costs, because we would have no way of turning them off once they got going. Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that did most of the work on tipping points, sees our experience as a kind of journey. “Thirty years of climate science has given us so much understanding, and what I now see very clearly as a red thread during that entire journey is that the more we learn about the Earth System, the more reason for concern we have ... . “In 2001, you see the best assessment of the risk of crossing catastrophic tipping points, of destabilizing the biosphere, is estimated to lie somewhere between +5°C and +6°C of warming. “Then for every new assessment the level of average global temperature at which the risk of crossing tipping points gets serious just goes down, down, down—until 2018, when the assessment is somewhere between +2°C and +3°C. “People think we raise the alarm because human pressures are increasing, but that’s not the case at all. It’s just that we are learning how the planet works, and the more we learn the more vulnerable she is.” So here we are in 2023, and James Hansen, the climate scientist who delivered the original wake-up message to the U.S. congress in 1988, returns to tell us that he has used new data to work out the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). The news is bad. King Charles III, centre, attends the opening day of COP28 in Dubai on Nov. 30. Photograph courtesy of Paul Kagame/Flickr The ECS—how much warming we will get in the long run from doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—is much higher than we thought. We were expecting an extra three degrees; we will get five. In the short run, we also have an urgent problem from the opposite direction. Hansen reckons that all the visible pollution we put into the sky was cooling the planet by reflecting incoming sunlight back into space. About three degrees worth of cooling, so we would be in the deepest trouble imaginable without it. But we are rapidly cleaning it up, because it’s bad for people’s lungs. In the past 10 years, China got rid of 87 per cent of the sulphur dioxide in the “brown cloud” that used to hang over Chinese cities, a brilliant success—but events like that mean we are rapidly losing our protective global sunscreen. In 2020, the International Maritime Organization ordered all 60,000 giant container ships that carry 90 per cent of the world’s trade to clean up their fuel. The permissible level of sulphur dioxide was cut from 3.5 per cent to 0.5 per cent, and the “ship tracks”—cloud cover that followed the ships like marine contrails—virtually disappeared. Hansen suspects these changes have lost us one degree’s worth of cooling. And in terms of average global temperature, a degree of lost cooling is just as bad as a degree of extra warming. It may be time to start taking this climate stuff seriously. Gwynne Dyer’s new book is The Shortest History of War. The Hill Times

COP28 and climate science

Climate scientists are unanimously terrified by the speed at which things are moving, but also relieved that the crisis is finally getting some serious attention from both the public and the governments.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance

The wisdom of Homer Simpson and Aaron Sorkin

Climate finance should target resilient food systems

Trump’s ‘America First’ plans may undermine global trade

2024: the year it got really hot

Misconceptions of what ‘net-zero emissions’ actually means will have dire health impacts

There’s a fever raging in the ocean

UN climate report and clutching at straws

‘Geoengineering’ scam

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

COP28 and climate science

Climate scientists are unanimously terrified by the speed at which things are moving, but also relieved that the crisis is finally getting some serious attention from both the public and the governments.

Get The Policy Briefings Newsletter