Skip to main content

Risks

Climate change risks are central to the discussion of the need for emergency climate change intervention. The challenge with risks is that there are very few risk/risk evaluation findings; of risks of Direct climate cooling (DCC) action versus risks following consensus climate science pathways upon which our climate policies have previously been based. Further complicating this evaluation of risks, there are very few determinations in consensus climate science that evaluate risks of tipping elements that have activated already, or will be activated in the coming decades. These risks need to be assimilated from individual findings that are either not a part of consensus reviews, or that are interpreted from consensus reviews through the lens of the scenario bias in our global consensus climate industry.

The scenario bias is a characteristic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is the predominant source of consensus climate science information that our climate culture bases its climate policies upon.  Out of 3,131 scenarios from the seven years previous to IPCCs Sixth Assessment Report Series, only 1,212 were selected to be evaluated by IPCC because the rest of the scenarios did not meet criteria in IPCCs five scenario storylines, principally a warming target of no less than 1.5 degrees C above normal. This lack of scenarios with a restoration warming target to less than 1 degree C warming means that futures with a restored climate are not represented.

The lack of restoration scenarios in global climate policy reflects issues with risks that are associated with climate tipping that has been activated a half century ahead of projections. These risks are such that, if conditions are not restored before the point of no return of irreversible collapse, they will continue their collapse, regardless of whether our climate is restored or not.

These tipping systems, or Earth systems collapses, are activated when climate conditions change from the evolutionary boundaries of the systems, also known as our old climate’s natural variability. They cause degradation that continues unless what caused the degradation is removed. The collapse allows a new system to evolve with species and mechanisms tolerant of the new conditions. The collapse time frames of most of the identified tipping elements that are now active (the Amazon, ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, the Gulf Stream, etc.) is about mid-century, or significant time above 1.5 degrees C warming. The carbon emissions from most of these tipping elements is enough to dwarf humankind’s emissions.

Our global climate culture then, misses risks that are occurring now because the scenario bias only identifies further warming to 1.5 C pathways, where climate restoration to less than 1 C is needed to avert activated tipping. There are pathways with DCC and carbon dioxide removal needed to restore our climate, in addition to decarbonization, but their need is only to address hard to decarbonize sectors, and to reduce overshooting temperatures back to 1.5 C.

The risks of direct climate cooling with possible environmental, social and political challenges, are very likely to be lower than the risks of natural feedback emissions that dwarf humankind’s greenhouse gas emissions, if we allow Earth’s temperature to stay at 1.5 degrees C of warming or reduce it to below 1 degree C. Direct cooling would be a temporary measure to buy time so that an atmospheric carbon removal infrastructure can be implemented, and we have time to create a sustainable carbon emissions future for humankind.

Rationale – Risk Versus Risk Analysis

Engineered climate cooling solutions and greenhouse gas removal have risks, but the risks of passing the point of no return of tipping responses are far more extreme. These responses are activated now with many Earth systems degraded and their carbon sequestration capacity reduced, eliminated or reversed. An example is the Amazon emitting, not absorbing, a gigaton of greenhouse gases annually before the last of five droughts of greater than 100-year extremeness since 2005. Another is emissions from thawing permafrost are now estimated to be above two gigatons per year. Many more examples can be found similar earth systems very likely behaving similarly to the Amazon and the Great North’s response to warming beyond evolutionary boundaries. These emissions will only grow, even with no additional warming as they create systems feedbacks that enhance and accelerate these feedback emissions. In addition, more than half of tipping elements have connections where when one systems is degraded, this degradation cascades into the other systems with the obvious effects again being the enhancement and acceleration of emissions where ultimately, these emissions will dwarf humankind’s. This future is now forgone unless we cool Earth back to within the natural variation of our old climate to stabilise tipping responses.

What we have to be concerned about with engineered cooling solutions is changes to regional weather patterns and termination shock. These effects are by no means minor and could be mortal to many and have outsized economic impacts, but the prospect of natural feedback emissions dwarfing humankind’s cannot be ignored as this is a risk many times that of those of regional weather modification. And termination shock? This is a misplaced concept. When there is a world war in processes, if one side stopped warring, that side would lose.  This cannot be an issues that influences whether or not we deploy cooling solutions or not.

Risks

Climate change risks are central to the discussion of the need for emergency climate change intervention. The challenge with risks is that there are very few risk/risk evaluation findings; of risks of Direct climate cooling (DCC) action versus risks following consensus climate science pathways upon which our climate policies have previously been based. Further complicating this evaluation of risks, there are very few determinations in consensus climate science that evaluate risks of tipping elements that have activated already, or will be activated in the coming decades. These risks need to be assimilated from individual findings that are either not a part of consensus reviews, or that are interpreted from consensus reviews through the lens of the scenario bias in our global consensus climate industry.

The scenario bias is a characteristic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is the predominant source of consensus climate science information that our climate culture bases its climate policies upon.  Out of 3,131 scenarios from the seven years previous to IPCCs Sixth Assessment Report Series, only 1,212 were selected to be evaluated by IPCC because the rest of the scenarios did not meet criteria in IPCCs five scenario storylines, principally a warming target of no less than 1.5 degrees C above normal. This lack of scenarios with a restoration warming target to less than 1 degree C warming means that futures with a restored climate are not represented.

The lack of restoration scenarios in global climate policy reflects issues with risks that are associated with climate tipping that has been activated a half century ahead of projections. These risks are such that, if conditions are not restored before the point of no return of irreversible collapse, they will continue their collapse, regardless of whether our climate is restored or not.

These tipping systems, or Earth systems collapses, are activated when climate conditions change from the evolutionary boundaries of the systems, also known as our old climate’s natural variability. They cause degradation that continues unless what caused the degradation is removed. The collapse allows a new system to evolve with species and mechanisms tolerant of the new conditions. The collapse time frames of most of the identified tipping elements that are now active (the Amazon, ice sheets, sea ice, permafrost, the Gulf Stream, etc.) is about mid-century, or significant time above 1.5 degrees C warming. The carbon emissions from most of these tipping elements is enough to dwarf humankind’s emissions.

Our global climate culture then, misses risks that are occurring now because the scenario bias only identifies further warming to 1.5 C pathways, where climate restoration to less than 1 C is needed to avert activated tipping. There are pathways with DCC and carbon dioxide removal needed to restore our climate, in addition to decarbonization, but their need is only to address hard to decarbonize sectors, and to reduce overshooting temperatures back to 1.5 C.

The risks of direct climate cooling with possible environmental, social and political challenges, are very likely to be lower than the risks of natural feedback emissions that dwarf humankind’s greenhouse gas emissions, if we allow Earth’s temperature to stay at 1.5 degrees C of warming or reduce it to below 1 degree C. Direct cooling would be a temporary measure to buy time so that an atmospheric carbon removal infrastructure can be implemented, and we have time to create a sustainable carbon emissions future for humankind.

Rationale – Risk Versus Risk Analysis

Engineered climate cooling solutions and greenhouse gas removal have risks, but the risks of passing the point of no return of tipping responses are far more extreme. These responses are activated now with many Earth systems degraded and their carbon sequestration capacity reduced, eliminated or reversed. An example is the Amazon emitting, not absorbing, a gigaton of greenhouse gases annually before the last of five droughts of greater than 100-year extremeness since 2005. Another is emissions from thawing permafrost are now estimated to be above two gigatons per year. Many more examples can be found similar earth systems very likely behaving similarly to the Amazon and the Great North’s response to warming beyond evolutionary boundaries. These emissions will only grow, even with no additional warming as they create systems feedbacks that enhance and accelerate these feedback emissions. In addition, more than half of tipping elements have connections where when one systems is degraded, this degradation cascades into the other systems with the obvious effects again being the enhancement and acceleration of emissions where ultimately, these emissions will dwarf humankind’s. This future is now forgone unless we cool Earth back to within the natural variation of our old climate to stabilise tipping responses.

What we have to be concerned about with engineered cooling solutions is changes to regional weather patterns and termination shock. These effects are by no means minor and could be mortal to many and have outsized economic impacts, but the prospect of natural feedback emissions dwarfing humankind’s cannot be ignored as this is a risk many times that of those of regional weather modification. And termination shock? This is a misplaced concept. When there is a world war in processes, if one side stopped warring, that side would lose.  This cannot be an issues that influences whether or not we deploy cooling solutions or not.

Trust Our Engineers To Keep Us Safe

Healthy Planet Action Coalition

An international group of climate scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and policy and advocacy experts

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy |  Contact
We are an international organization located on Planet Earth, third planet from our sun in the Milky Way Galaxy.
Website design and all images and video by Bruce Melton unless otherwise attributed – free use with permission.
V2 Beta Site – See the old site here.