October 30, 2021 – 21:51
Experts warn that the global temperature limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is a vital physical threshold for the planet, not an arbitrary political construct that can be compromised.
When the Scottish Event (SEC) campus doors open in Glasgow on Sunday and the UN climate conference COP26 begins, he will begin to show how far he will go to the 120 world leaders from 196 countries who will attend, side by side. With 30,000 delegates, the dramatic message from leading climate scientists.
Experts warn that the global temperature limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is a vital physical threshold for the planet, not an arbitrary political construct that can be compromised.
This meeting, which world leaders will discuss in critical meetings, between this weekend and November 12, is the lower bound of the two thresholds set in the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
The same topic was the focus of the conference scheduled for April last year, when the UNFCCC Bureau, along with the governments of the UK and Italy, had to reschedule it due to the effects of the UNFCCC. The Covid-19 epidemic around the world.
However, not even the environmental disasters that nature warns of the excesses of global warming have convinced some countries of the need to tie their emissions plans to the stricter target, that is, that more urgent efforts are needed.
The UK, as host of Cop26, has set a goal of “keeping 1.5°C alive”, but other countries, including China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, have been reluctant to agree to focus on this limit, preferring to interpret the Paris Agreement. It states that the world must keep temperatures “well below” 2°C while “striving” to stay within 1.5°C.
However, scientific research since the signing of the Paris Agreement has added to a compelling body of global science showing that if temperatures were allowed to rise more than 1.5°C, the consequences would be very devastating and likely beyond repair for many.
One of the world’s leading climate experts, Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has warned strongly that the 1.5°C target is not like other political negotiations, which can be compromised or compromised.
“A 1.5 degree increase is not an arbitrary number, it’s not a political number. It’s a planetary limit,” he told the Guardian in an interview.
He warned that allowing temperatures to rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius would greatly increase the risk of irreversible changes in the climate.
He cited examples that, with serious impacts on the rest of the climate, the risk of Arctic summer melting would increase, with loss of reflective ice increasing the amount of heat absorbed by water, in a feedback loop that could raise temperatures even faster.
The Greenland ice sheet, the melting of which causes sea level to rise, could fall into a state of irreversible decline beyond 1.5°C.
An increase above this limit will also threaten changes in the Gulf Ocean Current, which may also become irreversible.
It could lead to disaster for biodiversity hotspots that harm agriculture in parts of the world and could inundate small islands and low-lying coastal areas.
Other prominent climatologists have echoed Rockstrom’s warnings.
Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth Systems Science at University College London, said: “The IPCC report, released in 2018, science made clear that there are significant climate impacts on everything. Limit warming to 1.5°C. .
These findings are fully supported by the latest IPCC Science Report 2021 (published in August). He concluded that “the agreed climate goals set by the Paris Agreement have already been agreed upon by 197 countries at the United Nations.”
Joeri Rogelj, Director of Research at Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, said: “Science tells us that the risks of climate change are increasing rapidly between 1.5°C and 2°C of warming. If we look at the past few years, during that we are experiencing some of the impacts of a warmer world. By 1.2 degrees Celsius (such as heat waves, floods, and severe weather), it would be difficult to call this safe.”
