James Hansen Warns of a Brief-Term Climate Shock Bringing two Degrees of Warming by 2050

A group of scientists led by former NASA climate researcher James Hansen, who formally raised the alarm about climate adjust to U.S. government leaders in his 1988 testimony to Congress, is operating on a new study that warns of a achievable brief-term spike of planetary heating two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050.

In an irony of climate adjust, the scientists stated the sudden surge of warming—especially given that 2010—is driven mostly by steep reduction of climate-cooling sulfate aerosol particles in the previous ten to 20 years, as new regulations restricted emissions from the most significant sources, like the burning of coal and heavy ship fuels.

The draft paper has not been peer-reviewed, but Hansen, director of the Climate Science Awareness And Options center at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, posted it publicly on May possibly 19 on a scientific discussion web-site, once more drawing public interest to the possible for a shock of brief-term warming that could devastate worldwide meals production and ecosystems.

Hansen’s preceding warning about the possible for brief-term heating due to emissions reductions was in 2021, when he stated the drop in sulfate aerosol pollution could double the price of worldwide warming in the course of the subsequent 25 years. In his month-to-month climate bulletin he explained that sulfate aerosols, trigger microscopic water droplets in the atmosphere to multiply, which brightens clouds to reflect heat away from the Earth. The lowered quantity of sulfates in the atmosphere permits far more heat from the sun to warm ocean and land surfaces. 

In the discussion draft of the new paper, the authors predict the price of warming will double from the observed .18 degrees Celsius per decade from 1970 to 2010, to at least .27 degrees Celsius per decade given that 2010.

“Under the present geopolitical method to GHG emissions, worldwide warming will most likely pierce the 1.5°C ceiling in the 2020s and 2°C just before 2050,” the authors wrote. “Impacts on people today and nature will accelerate as worldwide warming pumps up hydrologic extremes.” The “enormity of the consequences,” they added, calls for attempting to reverse worldwide warming and cool the Earth down to the reasonably steady variety of the previous 12,000 years, just before carbon dioxide pollution disrupted the climate.  

The concentrations of climate-cooling sulfate aerosols have decreased most sharply more than oceans in the previous 20 years for the reason that of pollution-cutting guidelines imposed on shipping. And the new warning in Hansen’s paper comes at a time when the typical ocean surface temperature has soared and stayed effectively above preceding record levels.

That truth is not lost on Leon Simons, a co-author of the draft paper, who not too long ago wrote on Twitter: “North Atlantic is on fire,” and went on to clarify the ocean warming with a graph displaying how the overheated area overlaps with key shipping lanes exactly where aerosol emissions have declined. 

The fast drop of aerosols is rising Earth’s power imbalance so speedily that an acceleration of warming is inevitable, stated Simons, a climate researcher and board member of the Club of Rome, a Switzerland-primarily based nonprofit sustainability feel tank identified for publishing the The Limits to Development report in 1972, as effectively as a 50-year followup report final year.

In impact, sulfate aerosol particles shielded the planet’s surface from some of the sun’s heat for decades, and cutting them is removing the shield, major to a fast warmup. Other analysis displaying that sulfate aerosols have also masked worldwide precipitation increases driven by  greenhouse gases warming the atmosphere.

Like Hansen, Simons stated he’s agreed to not straight talk about the paper’s findings. But he stated the publicly posted draft “includes observational proof for the elevated price of warming,” adding that it “seems rather obvious” that the net heating impact of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere “can outcome in two degrees Celsius of warming.

No Consensus on Climate Sensitivity

Not absolutely everyone agrees. Warming of two degrees Celsius (three.six Fahrenheit) by 2050 is unlikely, stated climate scientist Michael Mann, director of the Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. 

Mann stated he does not feel the findings in the draft paper will withstand peer evaluation for the reason that the analysis does not adequately account for the cooling effects of cutting other brief-lived climate-warming pollutants, which can offset the heating resulting from the reduction of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere. Black soot, which absorbs heat from the sun, can warm the atmosphere in the brief term, and other incredibly potent industrial pollutants emitted in tiny quantities have an outsized climate heating impact.

Calculations of these distinct effects are integrated in the most current worldwide climate assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Transform that serve as the basis for worldwide climate policy talks, he stated. 

The IPCC reports show that the competing effects practically cancel each and every other out, which would make two degrees Celsius warming by 2050 significantly less most likely. But these similar IPCC projections consist of major cuts of methane emissions as a further crucial to offsetting the spike in warming from the reduction of atmospheric sulfates. But methane emissions are not declining they’ve accelerated sharply the previous 5 years, information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show.

Claiming that present scientific literature supports the concept that warming can be restricted to “well below” two degrees Celsius is “egregious,” Hansen stated, and shows “uncritical acceptance of models and the assumptions that went into them.”

Publicizing a paper at the pre-evaluation stage is uncommon, and for superior causes, like issues about unwarranted claims grabbing headlines and public interest, whilst subsequent corrections or modifications frequently do not get the similar level of interest.

Hansen stated the analysis group will not answer queries straight about the study till it has been peer reviewed. “If I do an interview just before it is accepted (and published), it appears to give the self-appointed ‘experts’ an excuse to blackball our paper,” he stated. 

But in a May possibly 25 update on his Columbia University web-site, he responded to some of the initial reactions to the draft study by writing,“There’s no time to get involved in Twitter wars.” 

He emphasized that he thinks the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Transform is downplaying some of worldwide warming’s most imminent dangers and he elaborated on the “blackball” comment by referring to a peer-reviewed and published 2016 paper that he stated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Transform ignored. 

Hold Environmental Journalism Alive

ICN delivers award-winning climate coverage free of charge of charge and marketing. We rely on donations from readers like you to hold going.

Donate Now

That paper located that the present price of greenhouse gas emissions would lead vital climate-regulating Atlantic Ocean currents to shut down, and sea level to rise numerous meters inside 50 to 150 years.

“As but, tiny has changed to get us off that path,” he wrote. “You would not know that from the communications of the United Nations COPs (Conferences of the Parties) and their scientific advisory physique, the IPCC.” The IPCC’s modeling method is valuable, he stated, but he warned that some of its projections appear to assume that “a miracle will happen,” so these models have to have to be checked against the actual planet.

“Our analysis is focused on actual planet information and comparison with models, with the hope of gaining insights about how the climate technique functions and exactly where the actual planet is headed,” he wrote. The “miracle” that limits warming to significantly less than two degrees Celsius in the most hopeful IPCC scenarios is primarily based on an “assumption of damaging emissions by means of energy plants that burn biofuels, capturing and sequestering the CO2.” 

Focusing interest on the paper just before it is reviewed is “mainly to commence the scientific discussion and get input from the broader scientific neighborhood,” Simons added. “Such a broad paper added benefits from this, as the reviewers could possibly be far more specialized. With Jim [Hansen], there will of course automatically be media interest, but that is not the objective. People today have to have to know about the acceleration of warming.”

If the typical worldwide temperature warms two degrees above pre-industrial occasions by 2050, it signifies that temperatures more than land will most likely raise double that quantity, by four degrees Celsius, for the reason that land surfaces have significantly less heat capacity than the oceans, exactly where some of the heat goes deep down and is not instantly expressed as a rise of surface temperature.

This year’s IPCC 6th Assessment Report  shows that level of warming quickly increases the odds of huge, widespread droughts that could wipe out meals production in crucial worldwide crop locations at the similar time, as effectively as extreme water shortages and fierce heat waves that would displace millions of people today. The combined physical and social impacts would destabilize some regions and possibly stir up conflicts more than meals and water supplies.

Early Scientific Warnings Can Assistance and Hurt

The draft discussion paper posted by Hansen also explores how considerably warming is locked into the technique for thousands of years to come by present atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. These lengthy-term consequences are overlooked in climate policy discussions that do not appear beyond 2100, climate scientists Zeke Hausfather and Andrew Dessler wrote on May possibly 22, in a discussion of the new paper.

“Considering that Jim Hansen’s predictions have frequently verified appropriate, it is critical that we spend close interest to what he’s saying,” Hausfather and Dessler wrote. 

From 1981 to 2013, Hansen was director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Research in New York City, a aspect of the Goddard Space Flight Center. He led efforts to methodically analyze temperature information from thousands of worldwide observations, which showed the clearly emerging worldwide warming fingerprint.

Even just before retiring from NASA, Hansen began participating in climate demonstrations. He was arrested at an oil pipeline protest in 2011, and in front of the White Property in 2013. In 2017 he referred to as for a wave of climate lawsuits against governments and polluting corporations. Hansen’s granddaughter, Sophie Kivlehan, is a single of 21 youth plaintiffs who has sued the U.S. government in Juliana v. the United States, alleging the government is infringing on their constitutional rights by not acting to quit worldwide warming.

In the discussion draft of the present study, Hansen’s group suggests that most of the lengthy-term “global warming for today’s atmosphere is nevertheless in the pipeline,” adding that present projections for ice sheet melting beneath today’s atmospheric circumstances are “unrealistically lethargic.” 

But Mann, also a major professional in this field, stated the draft paper does not account for how considerably carbon dioxide the oceans will absorb in the decades ahead. Commenting on the similar subject final year on Twitter, Mann stated that Hansen has “ignored a decade of new science,” and that the incorrect claims about climate sensitivity “won’t survive peer evaluation.” That is why it is a terrible concept to publicize new analysis just before it is been submitted for professional verification, he added.

The draft paper’s new warnings are aligned with other current research about how the dangers of some climate extremes are underestimated. The climate science canon these days frequently incorporates phrases like “faster than anticipated,” “sooner than expected” and “hotter than expected” when it comes to the decline of worldwide ice, rising temperatures, sea level rise and other impacts.

Even if the dire conclusion of two degrees Celsius of warming is affirmed by peer evaluation, it is not clear if a single new analysis paper would have considerably influence on worldwide climate policy, stated Glen Peters, a senior climate researcher with the Center for International Climate Research (CICERO) in Oslo. 

“Policy makers and choice makers do not typically respond to each and every new paper that is published, no matter how reliable the author,” he stated. “They wait for the consensus view from the IPCC published every single five-ten years. Even so, the policy outcome would be considerably the similar. A sharp raise in climate action is necessary, beyond the level that politicians currently come across unpalatable.”

With current scientific reports currently highlighting the grave dangers of continued warming, it is not most likely that a new paper detailing an added increment of warming would be game-altering, stated Dana Fisher, a sociologist and climate activism researcher at the University of Maryland.

“Sadly, I feel that no level of information or scary predictions about warming or climate disruption are going to motivate a shift on climate action,” she stated. “It will absolutely raise the quantity of people today in the streets throwing meals and gluing themselves to factors, even though. And there is the caveat that, as we all encounter far more frequent and extreme climate shocks, far more people today will mobilize and stress their governments to act.”

So far, there’s been extremely tiny policy at the scale needed to deal with the challenge, Simons added.

“The raise in disasters will most likely have far more influence on urgency than pretty much any paper will,” he stated. “ Honestly, I’m each shocked and humbled by how peaceful protesters remain, even when faced with violence themselves.”

And regardless of irrespective of whether any new paper moves the policy needle, it is critical to clear up the uncertainties about irrespective of whether there could be a unsafe upward temperature spike in the subsequent two decades, he stated. 

“Humanity is the initially species capable to … measure and analyze the incoming and outgoing power how the balance is altering and what occurs with the accumulating power,” he stated. “Understanding this is a vital initially step in order to act efficiently. I think that with a far more thorough understanding of our planet, humanity could turn into a advantageous force to life on Earth,  if we obtain the collective will to do so.”

Bob Berwyn

Reporter, Austria

Bob Berwyn an Austria-primarily based reporter who has covered climate science and international climate policy for far more than a decade. Previously, he reported on the atmosphere, endangered species and public lands for numerous Colorado newspapers, and also worked as editor and assistant editor at neighborhood newspapers in the Colorado Rockies.