Post by Andrei Tchentchik on Mar 2, 2020 18:09:04 GMT 2
(.#A.047).- Global warming, the urgency to act by Jean Jouzel.
Global warming, the urgency to act by Jean Jouzel.
Climatologist Jean Jouzel in 2015. © AFP / Jean Pierre Muller
By Arnaud Jouve. Posted on 07-10-2018
Faced with the urgency of action to fight against global warming, the signatories of the Climate Convention will meet in two and a half months in Katowice in Poland from December 3 to 14, 2018 for COP24. In this perspective and at the request of the Convention, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (GIEC) in charge of establishing a synthesis of international scientific knowledge on the subject has been meeting since early October in South Korea. and must produce a new reference report: the "1.5 degree Celsius ratio." Jean Jouzel, who was several years vice-president of the GIEC delivers us here in essence its message.
Jean Jouzel, born March 5, 1947, is a French climatologist and glaciologist known worldwide for his analyzes of the ice of Antarctica and Greenland which allowed to know the past terrestrial climate. Vice-president of the GIEC from 2002 to 2015 (the GIEC in 2007 is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore as a whistleblower on the climate emergency), director of research at the CEA and director of the Pierre-Simon-Laplace Institute until 2008, he is a member of the Academy of Sciences.
RFI: Jean Jouzel, in what climate state is the planet today?
Jean Jouzel: I would say that it is unfortunately the one that was considered thirty years ago, that is to say a global warming on which is superimposed an intensification of extreme events in a way, c that is to say a global warming to which is added a climate change.
What are we observing?
We have really increased the average temperature of the planet by one degree since the beginning of the twentieth century. Even if we look at the 1960s, it is largely 0.7-0.8 degrees. So it's something noticeable. In addition, the last five years have been some of the hottest ever. In any case, the three hottest are 2015-2016-2017 and 2018 will most likely come third. So this warming, compared to the previous report of the GIEC (of 2013), is quite confirmed.
We must see that this warming is not a surprise since it is really linked to the increase in the greenhouse effect of which we are responsible by our activities, in particular on the carbon dioxide that is emitted each time we burn oil, gas, coal, but also burn wood. But in this case, the carbon dioxide can be reabsorbed when the vegetation is reformed. And then there are other greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide. But all this is well documented, and this translates into an increase in heating, which warms the ocean, the atmosphere and the ice. This warming is not a surprise since we increased the heating by about 1%.
This extra heat goes into the atmosphere?
Only 1% or more of this additional heat is used by the atmosphere. The essential goes in the ocean. So we have to look in the ocean if we really want to have a diagnosis of the reality of global warming. And this is the case since the rise in sea level, which is 3 millimeters each year, combines a part related to the expansion of the ocean, which results from the warming of ocean waters, then a large part - more of the half - which is due to the melting of temperate glaciers, but also for twenty years, from Greenland and West Antarctic.
This is also the conclusion of the last report of the GIEC which will certainly not be questioned: global warming is unequivocal, and it is also unprecedented when we look at least at the scale of the last millennium. And very clearly, this warming is related to human activities and this almost certain.
This paints a picture of a warming climate, of a climate that I would say almost regrettably evolves the way we anticipated it about thirty years ago, since on this average warming, is clearly superimposed an intensification extreme events, be it cyclones that become more frequent in some areas and can become more intense. We had very significant heat waves, including in France: the summer of 2018 was the hottest we had after 2003.
On a global scale, climate extremes have been beaten. This has been the case this summer with temperatures both in Sweden and around the Mediterranean, and periods of drought that become quite long. This is the picture of the current state. Clearly, warming is unequivocal and is largely related to human activities. If we continue to emit greenhouse gases, this warming will continue more and more important if we do not know how to reduce our emissions.
What new elements do you have since the submission of the last report of 2013?
Since 2013, the additional data is very clear. The last years have been the hottest years we have ever known. I would say that if we had, for example, as some climate-skeptics anticipated, a cooling off from 2015, the discourse would be different. But it is clear, the first things we look at, unfortunately, are the data and they are talking about the average temperatures, the rise in sea level, the modification of some extreme events.
It is really the accumulation of data and their comparison to the models since indeed, basically it is still what was envisaged, which is envisaged by climate models. So it's this confrontation of the data. These data can be on the ground, they can also be satellite years as for the rise of the level of the sea; there is a lot of reliance in this area on satellite data. But it is really this accumulation of data that shows very clearly a continuation of the warming which are new elements. There has been a lot of work on the models, but this work will mostly be integrated in the sixth report of the GIEC, that is, there is work being done at the modeling level for the sixth cycle GIEC. Our modeling colleagues are working very intensively, but these new results will only come out in about a year.
It heats up for the planet! © AFP PHOTO / LIONEL BONAVENTURE
Does the goal of limiting warming to two or even 1.5 degrees seem to you still attainable?
The goal of two degrees, well below 2 degrees, or even 1.5 degrees, is the goal of the Paris Agreement. Firstly, the Paris Agreement itself was built around the commitments of all countries. Virtually every country came to Paris with commitments. But the problem with these commitments is that even if they were respected, which is not certain, and even in this optimistic case, are far from sufficient to respect the 2 degrees objective.
If you want to meet the 2-degree target, the commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be three times greater than what was proposed in the commitments made in the Paris Agreement. So we must absolutely go back to the ambition of the Paris Agreement, otherwise we are now more on long-term trajectories that could take us to average temperatures above 3 degrees at the end of the century. the goal of 2 degrees is still possible? Not if there is not a start. There is urgency as Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the UN recalled. We have only two years left to act. The peak of greenhouse gas emissions would have to be reached by 2020 at the latest, emissions would be divided by three say between 2020 and 2050, and then reach carbon neutrality in the second half of this year. century.
We can see the difficulty. This is a complete change in the mode of development of which we see some shudders, but what is happening now is absolutely not up to the problem. And in fact, obviously one of the bad news lately, is that carbon dioxide emissions, the first contributor to the increase in the greenhouse effect, have increased between 2016 and 2017, whether at planetary scale, on a European scale, or in France where they have increased by just over 3%. So we can see that there was hope that the peak greenhouse gas emissions could be reached in 2020, because the stabilization seemed to be in place between 2014-2015-2016, the most recent years have a little effect of a cold shower and we can see the difficulty in meeting the target of 2 degrees, and of course even more to meet the 1.5 degree goal.
It is a complete change in the mode of development on a planetary scale that must be implemented. It is also with Pierre Larrouturou [agronomist and economist] the call we make, a call for a "climate-environment pact" on a European scale. It would really change gear if we wanted to be able to respect the 2 degrees and I'm not sure we take the lead. The International Energy Agency, for example, is predicting an increase in fossil fuel carbon emissions by 2040.
In the context of US withdrawal from the fight against global warming led by President Trump, is the IPCC's work under hostile pressure from climate skeptics?
Not really. We will see exactly what will happen in this week of approval of the report called "report 1.5", because the Climate Convention invited the IPCC to report on a world at 1 degree 5. There will probably be questions from the US delegations, but I hope they will not block this report, which is still very clear. It may be necessary to wait until the end of this session to know if this is the case or not. But I do not think it would be on the arguments of climate-skeptics, but more on economic arguments. Climate-skepticism is a veil that Donald Trump sets out to impose his ideas of ultra-liberalism and not to make commitments vis-à-vis other countries. I do not think the arguments will not be built from climate-skepticism, but rather from economic arguments, "America first" or something else. Yes. I believe less and less in the arguments of climate skeptics.
This implies a change in planetary paradigms. We must rethink our energy models, our relationship to nature, to the world ... Has science already made such a force for change through its recommendations?
I think that the message of the scientists in a certain way must be listened to because when we look at the Paris Agreement, it relies completely on the conclusions of the fifth report of the GIEC. So the GIEC does not make a recommendation, but our wish is that the political decision makers, that is to say those who meet at the Climate Convention, can meet during the Paris Agreement, make decisions that are 'support the diagnosis of the scientific community. It has been the case. When we look at the Paris Agreement, the Agreement was very clearly built around the 5th report of the GIEC. This step seems to be taken in a positive way. The problem is that behind these commitments are not kept.
And this is true at the global level: they are not held or are insufficient in relation to the objective set out in the Paris Agreement. It's very clear. But we can see in France, for example, that emissions have increased sharply. And here too, there is a widening gap between the goals of the Energy Transition Law on Green Growth and the reality of everyday life. For emissions, we are far from the count by 2020. The contribution of renewable energies to 23% will not be respected. It will be hard to reduce by 40% greenhouse gas emissions in France compared to 1990 by 2030. This is enshrined in the law. The law is fine. Basically, it is also based on scientific considerations, but the difficulty is not in the texts, the texts are quite in tune with the message of scientists. The difficulty is in the match between the reality and the objectives defined at different stages, at national level, at European level, at world level.
We keep reminding ourselves of the urgency of the action. And it is good that the media do it on their side because it is no longer about future generations when we talk about the second half of this century and the impacts that could then be very important, but many young people from 'today.
F I N .
Global warming, the urgency to act by Jean Jouzel.
Climatologist Jean Jouzel in 2015. © AFP / Jean Pierre Muller
By Arnaud Jouve. Posted on 07-10-2018
Faced with the urgency of action to fight against global warming, the signatories of the Climate Convention will meet in two and a half months in Katowice in Poland from December 3 to 14, 2018 for COP24. In this perspective and at the request of the Convention, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (GIEC) in charge of establishing a synthesis of international scientific knowledge on the subject has been meeting since early October in South Korea. and must produce a new reference report: the "1.5 degree Celsius ratio." Jean Jouzel, who was several years vice-president of the GIEC delivers us here in essence its message.
Jean Jouzel, born March 5, 1947, is a French climatologist and glaciologist known worldwide for his analyzes of the ice of Antarctica and Greenland which allowed to know the past terrestrial climate. Vice-president of the GIEC from 2002 to 2015 (the GIEC in 2007 is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore as a whistleblower on the climate emergency), director of research at the CEA and director of the Pierre-Simon-Laplace Institute until 2008, he is a member of the Academy of Sciences.
RFI: Jean Jouzel, in what climate state is the planet today?
Jean Jouzel: I would say that it is unfortunately the one that was considered thirty years ago, that is to say a global warming on which is superimposed an intensification of extreme events in a way, c that is to say a global warming to which is added a climate change.
What are we observing?
We have really increased the average temperature of the planet by one degree since the beginning of the twentieth century. Even if we look at the 1960s, it is largely 0.7-0.8 degrees. So it's something noticeable. In addition, the last five years have been some of the hottest ever. In any case, the three hottest are 2015-2016-2017 and 2018 will most likely come third. So this warming, compared to the previous report of the GIEC (of 2013), is quite confirmed.
We must see that this warming is not a surprise since it is really linked to the increase in the greenhouse effect of which we are responsible by our activities, in particular on the carbon dioxide that is emitted each time we burn oil, gas, coal, but also burn wood. But in this case, the carbon dioxide can be reabsorbed when the vegetation is reformed. And then there are other greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide. But all this is well documented, and this translates into an increase in heating, which warms the ocean, the atmosphere and the ice. This warming is not a surprise since we increased the heating by about 1%.
This extra heat goes into the atmosphere?
Only 1% or more of this additional heat is used by the atmosphere. The essential goes in the ocean. So we have to look in the ocean if we really want to have a diagnosis of the reality of global warming. And this is the case since the rise in sea level, which is 3 millimeters each year, combines a part related to the expansion of the ocean, which results from the warming of ocean waters, then a large part - more of the half - which is due to the melting of temperate glaciers, but also for twenty years, from Greenland and West Antarctic.
This is also the conclusion of the last report of the GIEC which will certainly not be questioned: global warming is unequivocal, and it is also unprecedented when we look at least at the scale of the last millennium. And very clearly, this warming is related to human activities and this almost certain.
This paints a picture of a warming climate, of a climate that I would say almost regrettably evolves the way we anticipated it about thirty years ago, since on this average warming, is clearly superimposed an intensification extreme events, be it cyclones that become more frequent in some areas and can become more intense. We had very significant heat waves, including in France: the summer of 2018 was the hottest we had after 2003.
On a global scale, climate extremes have been beaten. This has been the case this summer with temperatures both in Sweden and around the Mediterranean, and periods of drought that become quite long. This is the picture of the current state. Clearly, warming is unequivocal and is largely related to human activities. If we continue to emit greenhouse gases, this warming will continue more and more important if we do not know how to reduce our emissions.
What new elements do you have since the submission of the last report of 2013?
Since 2013, the additional data is very clear. The last years have been the hottest years we have ever known. I would say that if we had, for example, as some climate-skeptics anticipated, a cooling off from 2015, the discourse would be different. But it is clear, the first things we look at, unfortunately, are the data and they are talking about the average temperatures, the rise in sea level, the modification of some extreme events.
It is really the accumulation of data and their comparison to the models since indeed, basically it is still what was envisaged, which is envisaged by climate models. So it's this confrontation of the data. These data can be on the ground, they can also be satellite years as for the rise of the level of the sea; there is a lot of reliance in this area on satellite data. But it is really this accumulation of data that shows very clearly a continuation of the warming which are new elements. There has been a lot of work on the models, but this work will mostly be integrated in the sixth report of the GIEC, that is, there is work being done at the modeling level for the sixth cycle GIEC. Our modeling colleagues are working very intensively, but these new results will only come out in about a year.
It heats up for the planet! © AFP PHOTO / LIONEL BONAVENTURE
Does the goal of limiting warming to two or even 1.5 degrees seem to you still attainable?
The goal of two degrees, well below 2 degrees, or even 1.5 degrees, is the goal of the Paris Agreement. Firstly, the Paris Agreement itself was built around the commitments of all countries. Virtually every country came to Paris with commitments. But the problem with these commitments is that even if they were respected, which is not certain, and even in this optimistic case, are far from sufficient to respect the 2 degrees objective.
If you want to meet the 2-degree target, the commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be three times greater than what was proposed in the commitments made in the Paris Agreement. So we must absolutely go back to the ambition of the Paris Agreement, otherwise we are now more on long-term trajectories that could take us to average temperatures above 3 degrees at the end of the century. the goal of 2 degrees is still possible? Not if there is not a start. There is urgency as Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the UN recalled. We have only two years left to act. The peak of greenhouse gas emissions would have to be reached by 2020 at the latest, emissions would be divided by three say between 2020 and 2050, and then reach carbon neutrality in the second half of this year. century.
We can see the difficulty. This is a complete change in the mode of development of which we see some shudders, but what is happening now is absolutely not up to the problem. And in fact, obviously one of the bad news lately, is that carbon dioxide emissions, the first contributor to the increase in the greenhouse effect, have increased between 2016 and 2017, whether at planetary scale, on a European scale, or in France where they have increased by just over 3%. So we can see that there was hope that the peak greenhouse gas emissions could be reached in 2020, because the stabilization seemed to be in place between 2014-2015-2016, the most recent years have a little effect of a cold shower and we can see the difficulty in meeting the target of 2 degrees, and of course even more to meet the 1.5 degree goal.
It is a complete change in the mode of development on a planetary scale that must be implemented. It is also with Pierre Larrouturou [agronomist and economist] the call we make, a call for a "climate-environment pact" on a European scale. It would really change gear if we wanted to be able to respect the 2 degrees and I'm not sure we take the lead. The International Energy Agency, for example, is predicting an increase in fossil fuel carbon emissions by 2040.
In the context of US withdrawal from the fight against global warming led by President Trump, is the IPCC's work under hostile pressure from climate skeptics?
Not really. We will see exactly what will happen in this week of approval of the report called "report 1.5", because the Climate Convention invited the IPCC to report on a world at 1 degree 5. There will probably be questions from the US delegations, but I hope they will not block this report, which is still very clear. It may be necessary to wait until the end of this session to know if this is the case or not. But I do not think it would be on the arguments of climate-skeptics, but more on economic arguments. Climate-skepticism is a veil that Donald Trump sets out to impose his ideas of ultra-liberalism and not to make commitments vis-à-vis other countries. I do not think the arguments will not be built from climate-skepticism, but rather from economic arguments, "America first" or something else. Yes. I believe less and less in the arguments of climate skeptics.
This implies a change in planetary paradigms. We must rethink our energy models, our relationship to nature, to the world ... Has science already made such a force for change through its recommendations?
I think that the message of the scientists in a certain way must be listened to because when we look at the Paris Agreement, it relies completely on the conclusions of the fifth report of the GIEC. So the GIEC does not make a recommendation, but our wish is that the political decision makers, that is to say those who meet at the Climate Convention, can meet during the Paris Agreement, make decisions that are 'support the diagnosis of the scientific community. It has been the case. When we look at the Paris Agreement, the Agreement was very clearly built around the 5th report of the GIEC. This step seems to be taken in a positive way. The problem is that behind these commitments are not kept.
And this is true at the global level: they are not held or are insufficient in relation to the objective set out in the Paris Agreement. It's very clear. But we can see in France, for example, that emissions have increased sharply. And here too, there is a widening gap between the goals of the Energy Transition Law on Green Growth and the reality of everyday life. For emissions, we are far from the count by 2020. The contribution of renewable energies to 23% will not be respected. It will be hard to reduce by 40% greenhouse gas emissions in France compared to 1990 by 2030. This is enshrined in the law. The law is fine. Basically, it is also based on scientific considerations, but the difficulty is not in the texts, the texts are quite in tune with the message of scientists. The difficulty is in the match between the reality and the objectives defined at different stages, at national level, at European level, at world level.
We keep reminding ourselves of the urgency of the action. And it is good that the media do it on their side because it is no longer about future generations when we talk about the second half of this century and the impacts that could then be very important, but many young people from 'today.
F I N .
