Can the planet eventually be cooled back down - some evidence suggest it is already toolate

By Staff

October 10th, 2024

BURLINGTON, ON

From the Washington Post.

It’s our planet – are we paying attention?

Scientists have long hoped that if temperatures go above global targets, the planet could cool back down. New research suggests this could be more dangerous than originally thought. (JSC/NASA/NASA)

For years, scientists and world leaders have pinned their hopes for the future on a hazy promise — that, even if temperatures soar far above global targets, the planet can eventually be cooled back down.

This phenomenon, known as a temperature overshoot,” has been baked into most climate models and plans for the future. In theory, even if global warming reaches the dreaded 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures, it could be brought back down by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Scientists have long hoped that if temperatures go above global targets, the planet could cool back down. New research suggests this could be more dangerous than originally thought. (JSC/NASA/NASA)

For example, for every 10 years Earth’s temperature remains 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels, the researchers calculated, sea level will rise by about 4 centimeters, or 1.6 inches. Even a small increase in sea-level rise can lead to more dangerous flooding when hurricanes and heavy rains strike. (In Florida, which is currently facing the danger of Hurricane Milton, sea levels are already 8 inches higher than they were in 1950.)

And as the planet teeters closer to that temperature limit, overshoot is looking more and more likely.

“A 1-in-10 chance of an existential threat is not small,” Joeri Rogelj, a professor of climate science at Imperial College London and one of the authors of the new paper, said on a phone call with reporters on Tuesday.

Since the Paris agreement, world leaders have promised to attempt to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C. That target has stayed in place, even as countries have failed to limit fossil fuel burning: Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are rising at a record pace, according to observations in March at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory.

But in a special United Nations report in 2018, scientists and climate modelers popularized a controversial idea: that nations could “overshoot” the target temporarily, and then bring temperatures back down in the future.

By using techniques like direct air capture or other forms of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, scientists said, countries could cool the Earth back down even if the planet has already reached 1.6 C or 1.7 C above preindustrial levels.

In recent years, as emissions have continued to climb, the idea of “overshooting” climate targets hasn’t just become popular — it’s now essential to reach the world’s most famous climate goal.

“Emissions reductions haven’t happened as planned,” said Glen Peters, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate Research in Norway who was not involved in the new study. “So if you still want to get to 1.5 degrees, you need overshoot.”

Last year, The Washington Post analyzed 1,200 pathways to 1.5 degrees C, and found that there were no pathways with “reasonable” assumptions about technological development that didn’t include some kind of overshoot.

But scientists have begun to warn that flying past our climate goals and then returning to them isn’t the same as meeting them in the first place.

In the new study, the authors warn that sea-level rise and melting permafrost may be irreversible for hundreds, if not thousands of years, even if temperatures later come back down. The extinction of species that could result from these massive planetary shifts, they added, are also not reversible.

“Excess deaths are not reversible,” said Rogelj. “If you have a couple of decades in which large proportions of vulnerable people are exposed to extreme heat in a society that is not adapted to this — that’s not reversible.”

Other recent papers have shown that catastrophic tipping points are more likely for each increment above 1.5 degrees C. In a study released in Nature Communications in August, researchers found that every tenth of a degree above that threshold increased the likelihood of triggering tipping points — like the Amazon rainforest transforming into a dry savanna or the collapse of the Atlantic Ocean circulation system — by 1 to 1.5 percent.

At the same time, scientists warn that cooling the planet might not even be technically feasible. The tools to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and reverse warming have not been deployed at a large scale. At the moment, companies pull about 2 million tons of CO2 out of the air every year — but that number would need to be increased by a factor of 1,000 in just the next few decades.

And future generations may not even be motivated to do so. Oliver Geden, a senior fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, says that once the world warms more than 1.5 degrees C, countries may not want to spend the money and energy to bring temperatures back down. “We’re in a world that does not even manage to bring emissions down now,” he said.

One thing, scientists say, is clear: Humanity is headed for a world with more than 1.5 degrees C of warming. The planet has already experienced a 12-month period during which temperatures exceeded that limit, and by the early 2030s, it will be above that mark for multiple years at a time — which is what matters under the text of the Paris agreement.

Overshoot is a way of softening that blow, of making it seem like the world’s climate target is still within reach. But sooner or later, world leaders will have to wrestle with the fact that the most famous climate goal is impossible to meet.

Geden says that many scientists accept that the world will go beyond 1.5 degrees C. “But,” he added, “nobody can decide what the next target will be.”

Return to the Front page

3 comments to Can the planet eventually be cooled back down – some evidence suggest it is already toolate

  • Tom Muir

    Nobody can decide the next target because we have already gone too far, with disastrous consequences already occurring, and more dire events predicted by the embedded forces already in place. . So what credibility will a higher target have, and who with any competency and acceptable voice, wants to sign on?

    These folks already know that many effects they speak to here, are catastrophic, non-linear, and irreversible. These global level outcomes eventually hit everyone, big time, more or less, sooner or later, and costlier than the net Carbon Tax paid once the Fed rebate is accounted for individuals, and this doesn’t account for the damages paid by municipal, provincial, and Federal taxpayers.

    Oh, I forgot that the Fed Conservatives, led by PP, don’t buy that and want to go backwards – in fact the election promise to try to do just that. Good luck with that part of the real fabricated story-line designed to get the money.

    The carbon tax is an economic price incentive to consumers to buy less carbon, and less climate impact, and the rebate is spent by consumers on other things, and this largely offsets the net carbon economic impact of the tax on consumers and the overall economy.

    Axe The Tax is a Con. Get PP to explain the economics of carbon pricing with a rebate, and the many mechanisms already in place to manage carbon and the consumer and other economic offsets.

    He won’t do it I bet. Can’t do it.

  • David

    One rainy day I decided to see how large of a carbon footprint our household had on this planet, surprisingly, to me anyway, as I’m not known for being concerned about being energy-efficient, I had a small surplus of room in the climate win Colomn, all because I have an overabundance of trees on what used to be considered an average size lot. P.s. I’m planting Cedar trees down the length of my driveway this fall, so you can all breathe a lot easier in Burlington.

  • daintryklein

    Trees offer carbon capture, cooling and stormwater mitigation which is why the City of Burlington should encourage residents to maintain greenspace on their properties to allow space. The City doesn’t own enough land to achieve the stated tree canopy goals without residents contributing. Unfortunately, the planning department is focussed on smaller lots, reduced setbacks and higher lot coverage leaving no space for trees to grow, nor do they preserve existing trees. Hopefully the developers will start designing lots and houses to help us survive.
    The shade from trees can provide about a 10 degree relief from heat.