The heatwave scorching western Europe is the most severe and widespread ever and is only possible due to the climate crisis driven by fossil fuel burning, scientists have said.
Almost half of Europe’s 850 largest cities are also enduring their worst ever heat stress, a combination of temperature and humidity, they found. Muggier conditions mean sweating is less effective at cooling the body, making heatwaves even more dangerous.
The analysis comes as the UK recorded its hottest ever June temperature on Thursday, 36.7C (98.06F) in Somerset, and much of western Europe recorded a sharp rise in medical emergencies, including some deaths.
In summer 2022, more than 60,000 people died due to heat in Europe. The statistical analysis needed to assess the impact of the current heatwave will take time to complete. Nonetheless, the heatwave is certain to exact a heavy toll and is also disrupting lives and livelihoods, with schools closed, hospitals struggling and rail and air journeys cancelled across the continent.
The new analysis by scientists from the World Weather Attribution (WWA) consortium shows how rapidly extreme heat is worsening as carbon pollution continues to pile up in the atmosphere. As recently as 2003, a heatwave like the current one in Europe would have been 2C cooler due to the lower level of global heating at the time. In 1976, another famous heatwave year, it would have been 3.5C cooler.
The sweltering night-time temperatures currently harming people’s sleep are about 100 times more likely today than in 2003. The scientists warned that without urgent climate action, future heat conditions would get even more extreme and the current summer could seem relatively cool in retrospect.
“This is the most severe and widespread heatwave to have ever affected this large a region of Europe,” said Dr Theodore Keeping, an extreme weather research associate at Imperial College London and part of the WWA team. “We found that in the last 50 years, during which time the planet has warmed by 1.1C, the chance of a heatwave like this has changed immensely. This event would not have been possible in June without climate change. But do we expect this to be a cool summer going forward? That’s absolutely the case.”
He said many capital cities were experiencing not only their hottest recorded three-day period in June but the hottest three-day period at any time of year. At least 100 million people in Europe were expected to face temperatures above 35C on Thursday.
The scientists used wet bulb globe temperatures to assess the additional impact of high humidity. “It accounts for the ability of the human body to cool itself down. With the worst conditions ever experienced in 45% of cities over 50,000 people, the health impacts of this heatwave are likely to be extremely high,” Keeping said. “The speed of change is startling.”
Commenting on the WWA analysis, Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, said: “Climate change is running rampant, caused by the world’s addiction to burning coal, oil and gas. But the solutions are equally clear: a faster shift to clean energy – which is now much cheaper than fossil fuels – as well as protecting forests and building climate resilience.”
The WWA team used both observed and reliable forecast temperature data to analyse the hottest three-day period across a large area of western Europe, which is sitting under a “heat dome”. Using peer-reviewed methods, they found unequivocally that climate change was the driving force behind the severity of the heat.
They ruled out natural variability of the weather, in particular any influence from the El Niño event that has begun in the Pacific Ocean. The current weather pattern, a blocked high-pressure system trapping hot air over Europe and drawing warm air up from the Sahara, is not unusual in summer, the scientists said. Instead, the level of heat has been supercharged by global heating.
Carolina Pereira Marghidan, of the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, said: “After the devastating 2003 heatwave in Europe, many countries invested in early warning systems and action plans. Research shows that those have saved many lives, but it’s not enough.”
Heatwave Britain must do more to prepare for this scorching new normal (The Independent)
Editorial: As the UK swelters and June temperature records tumble, the government must redouble its investment in resilience policies that meet the future rather than ignore it
The “red alerts” issued by the Meteorological Office are rare, serious, and speak just as much to the climate crisis facing planet Earth as they do to the immediate risks to human health in Britain.
Perhaps it is the heat making the more vocal climate-change deniers dismiss the sweltering evidence before them, but against the backdrop of these record-breaking temperatures, their claims that “it’s just weather” appear in the worst of taste, and dangerous with it.
Temperatures approaching 40C in June are not normal. But they are increasingly frequent. So are extraordinarily wet winters. The reality of climate change from global warming, and the danger that it will accelerate into an unpredictable and catastrophic cycle by the middle of the century, should be treated with the urgency the moment demands.
In countries such as Britain, built on the perfectly natural presumption of a permanently temperate climate, there is an all too obvious need to increase resilience, from railway tracks to the foundations of buildings and flood defences.
A few years ago, this position was common ground. During his recent, almost valedictory appearance at Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir Starmer bemoaned the loss of national purpose in restraining greenhouse gas emissions and pursuing the target of a net zero UK economy by 2050. After all, for all his fatal flaws, Boris Johnson accepted the science and the need for action at successive Cop summits, and it was Theresa May who put the net zero target into law.
Now Kemi Badenoch calls herself a “net zero sceptic” – rather too close to flat-Earthism for a serious politician. Still worse is the fracturing of the international consensus by an anti-science elite: Donald Trump’s inexplicable insistence that climate change is a “hoax” will be his true legacy to future generations.
Under the pressure of the cost of living crisis, strained public finances, and the frankly malign influence of the fossil-fuel lobby on British politics, the public and politicians alike have found more immediate, quotidian matters to fret about. This approach is perfectly understandable, but deeply flawed. Climate change, with its costly consequences for every nation and every human being, is an inconvenient truth, and an issue that should transcend all others.
In fact, humanity cannot afford to ignore the fact that renewable sources – alongside a role for nuclear power – can produce cheap, plentiful and clean energy. They will have to be adopted in any case, because fossil fuels are a finite resource, carry unacceptable geopolitical risks, and will so alter life on Earth as to render it almost unrecognisable, just as the weather is now. The drive to net zero is not a burden or an obstacle to higher standards of living, but the way to achieve hitherto unknown prosperity – especially if the voracious appetite for energy of the AI data centres can be satisfied without engendering irreversible climate change.
Paying for the massive investment in green power has always been the issue, but rarely is it set against the cost of doing nothing – crop failure, buildings collapsing from subsidence, increased incidence of earthquakes, hurricanes and floods, widespread disruption to transport and industry, and the flows of humans that will inevitably follow from the desertification of sub-Saharan Africa and water shortages across the equatorial regions.
What would the loss of pollinating insects and the rainforests do to our way of life? We know that it would not be cheap, or even possible, to fix.
Even if it is practically impossible to reverse climate change, we can still limit it. Some imaginative solutions will need to be found. How, for example, to discourage people from installing central heating systems – the wrong kind of resilience when powered in part by burning natural gas, thus creating a vicious cycle.
Could we reform school term times, which still revolve around the long-gone need to get the harvest in? Are there novel ways to bolster flood defences, both at the riverside and at the coast? Can we mandate the installation of new railway tracks that are less susceptible to buckling? What can the insurance sector do to help people affected by subsidence – especially as the UK has such an old housing stock? Must we shut motorways for hours after an accident, when people then have little access to water and shade?
The prime minister is right to have set up Cobra meetings to monitor the situation, but he, or more likely his successor, should also work on the ways in which we can protect lives – and the economy – from a hotter, damper future. And of course, the drive for net zero has to go on, because doing nothing cannot be an option.
A chegada do El Niño já faz as seguradoras calcularem os impactos do fenômeno e se prepararem para um pico de indenizações. O setor residencial espera aumento de prejuízos ligados a chuvas, enquanto a seca deve elevar os acionamentos de apólices rurais.
O El Niño é o aquecimento das águas do oceano Pacífico, que altera o clima do planeta. A Administração Nacional Oceânica e Atmosférica dos Estados Unidos confirmou o início do fenômeno no dia 11, com previsão de 63% de alcançar um nível muito forte de novembro a janeiro. A alta nas temperaturas globais tende a ampliar seus efeitos.
“Tudo indica que os maiores impactos nas carteiras de seguro residencial e patrimonial, como empresas e condomínios, serão na primavera, principalmente a partir de setembro e outubro”, diz Jarbas Medeiros, presidente da comissão de riscos patrimoniais massificados da FenSeg (Federação Nacional de Seguros Gerais).
Carros no pátio do Detran de Porto Alegre cobertos pelas águas da inundação do lago Guaíba – Bruno Santos – 19.mai.24/Folhapress
O cálculo do prejuízo depende das características de cada seguradora e da preparação das cidades atingidas, mas há clareza no setor residencial de que os maiores danos serão no Sul, onde chuvas fortes podem se tornar mais frequentes. No Norte e Centro-Oeste, o El Niño deve trazer mais seca e aumentar o risco de quebras de safra no agronegócio.
“Sabemos que podem acontecer eventos mais catastróficos em algumas regiões, e as seguradoras já começam a acompanhar isso muito de perto e a preparar suas estruturas, porque montamos uma força-tarefa para atendimento aos clientes em eventos extremos”, afirma Medeiros.
A última estimativa da FenSeg, de 2021, indicou que menos de 1% das residências do país tinha cobertura contra danos causados por alagamentos. Dados mais recentes das seguradoras apontam que a procura pela proteção aumentou, principalmente após o desastre no Rio Grande do Sul em 2024, mas os números ainda são baixos.
Sain’t Clair Lima, diretor de produtos da Bradesco Seguros, diz que de 4% a 6% das apólices residenciais da empresa cobrem inundações. A situação varia conforme a região: no Sul, a cobertura é de 6% a 7%.
“Se as previsões se confirmarem, deve ter aumento de pelo menos dois dígitos em relação à frequência de sinistros”, afirma Lima. Os sinistros são as ocasiões em que clientes sofrem danos e precisam acionar a seguradora para receber indenização.
Medeiros, que também atua como diretor de ramos elementares e vida na Porto Seguro, afirma que somente 3% das apólices residenciais da empresa incluem inundações. A cobertura alcança 50% para vendavais e 80% para danos elétricos devido a cortes de energia.
Segundo ele, dez seguradoras oferecem a proteção para alagamentos atualmente no Brasil, contra apenas três na época do desastre gaúcho.
“Embora essa seja uma cobertura bastante desafiadora do ponto de vista de subscrição e precificação, o mercado trabalha para ampliar a oferta, para que o cliente encontre nas seguradoras uma possibilidade de se proteger contra os eventos extremos”, diz.
Sinistros em condomínios e empresas também devem aumentar, e Medeiros afirma que a proteção contra alagamento nessas categorias não passa de 5% das carteiras.
De acordo com o diretor, 29% da receita com seguros residenciais da Porto Seguro vêm de coberturas de eventos climáticos, incluindo alagamento, vendaval e dano elétrico. Porém, 48% do valor pago em indenizações se deve a essas ocorrências, taxa superior ao montante indenizado por furtos ou roubos.
“Claramente são coberturas que trazem risco para a companhia, porque a proporção entre indenização e pagamento é maior”, afirma. “As pessoas têm medo de ser roubadas, de sair de férias e, quando voltar, ver que a casa foi arrombada. Mas, muitas vezes, não passa na cabeça que o que mais causa prejuízo é o evento climático”.
Adilson Lavrador, diretor-executivo de operações, sinistros e tecnologia da Tokio Marine, diz que a companhia acompanha as informações sobre o El Niño e que fenômenos climáticos podem impactar praticamente todo o ecossistema de seguros.
“Em cenários de enchentes severas, chuvas intensas e vendavais, os ramos de seguros patrimoniais, de automóvel e agrícola tendem a registrar elevação nas ocorrências”, afirma. “Em situações extremas, também impactam o seguro de vida”.
No agronegócio, os números mostram uma queda no valor pago pelos clientes às seguradoras. Daniel Nascimento, presidente da comissão de seguro rural da FenSeg, afirma que houve uma retração de 7% no valor do prêmio no primeiro trimestre de 2026, em relação ao mesmo período de 2025.
O setor também registra redução na área de lavouras protegidas: 3,2 milhões de hectares estavam segurados em 2025, menos da metade dos 7,1 milhões de hectares do ano anterior.
“As seguradoras vêm acompanhando de perto o El Niño e fazem um planejamento de vendas para não expor muito seu capital”, diz. “Nosso maior desafio é que o produtor não espere o próximo evento impactar a sua região [para contratar a proteção]”.
Lima, da Bradesco Seguros, afirma que os prejuízos do agro com eventuais perdas de safra não poderão ser totalmente compensados: “Por mais que o seguro consiga recompor de alguma forma a perda financeira, há uma preocupação com todo o ecossistema, principalmente o financeiro, porque vai faltar alimento no mercado e gerar inflação”.
I hear it’s close: two years, five years—maybe next year! And I hear it’s going to change everything: it will cure disease, save the planet, and usher in an age of abundance. It will solve our biggest problems in ways we cannot yet imagine. It will redefine what it means to be human.
Wait—what if that’s all too good to be true? Because I also hear it will bring on the apocalypse and kill us all …
Either way, and whatever your timeline, something big is about to happen.
We could be talking about the Second Coming. Or the day when Heaven’s Gaters imagined they’d be picked up by a UFO and transformed into enlightened aliens. Or the moment when Donald Trump finally decides to deliver the storm that Q promised. But no. We’re of course talking about artificial general intelligence, or AGI—that hypothetical near-future technology that (I hear) will be able to do pretty much whatever a human brain can do.
This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s series “The New Conspiracy Age,” on how the present boom in conspiracy theories is reshaping science and technology.
For many, AGI is more than just a technology. In tech hubs like Silicon Valley, it’s talked about in mystical terms. Ilya Sutskever, cofounder and former chief scientist at OpenAI, is said to have led chants of “Feel the AGI!” at team meetings. And he feels it more than most: In 2024, he left OpenAI, whose stated mission is to ensure that AGI benefits all of humanity, to cofound Safe Superintelligence, a startup dedicated to figuring out how to avoid a so-called rogue AGI (or control it when it comes). Superintelligence is the hot new flavor—AGI but better!—introduced as talk of AGI becomes commonplace.
Sutskever also exemplifies the mixed-up motivations at play among many self-anointed AGI evangelists. He has spent his career building the foundations for a future technology that he now finds terrifying. “It’s going to be monumental, earth-shattering—there will be a before and an after,” he told me a few months before he quit OpenAI. When I asked him why he had redirected his efforts into reining that technology in, he said: “I’m doing it for my own self-interest. It’s obviously important that any superintelligence anyone builds does not go rogue. Obviously.”
He’s far from alone in his grandiose, even apocalyptic, thinking.
Every age has its believers, people with an unshakeable faith that something huge is about to happen—a before and an after that they are privileged (or doomed) to live through.
For us, that’s the promised advent of AGI. People are used to hearing that this or that is the next big thing, says Shannon Vallor, who studies the ethics of technology at the University of Edinburgh. “It used to be the computer age and then it was the internet age and now it’s the AI age,” she says. “It’s normal to have something presented to you and be told that this thing is the future. What’s different, of course, is that in contrast to computers and the internet, AGI doesn’t exist.”
And that’s why feeling the AGI is not the same as boosting the next big thing. There’s something weirder going on. Here’s what I think: AGI is a lot like a conspiracy theory, and it may be the most consequential one of our time.
I have been reporting on artificial intelligence for more than a decade, and I’ve watched the idea of AGI bubble up from the backwaters to become the dominant narrative shaping an entire industry. A onetime pipe dream now props up the profit lines of some of the world’s most valuable companies and thus, you could argue, the US stock market. It justifies dizzying down payments on the new power plants and data centers that we’re told are needed to make the dream come true. Fixated on this hypothetical technology, AI firms are selling us hard.
Just listen to what the heads of some of those companies are telling us. AGI will be as smart as an entire “country of geniuses” (Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic); it will kick-start “an era of maximum human flourishing, where we travel to the stars and colonize the galaxy” (Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind); it will “massively increase abundance and prosperity,” even encourage people to enjoy life more and have more children (Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI). That’s some product.
Or not. Don’t forget the flip side, of course. When those people are not shilling for utopia, they’re saving us from hell. In 2023, Amodei, Hassabis, and Altman all put their names to a 22-word statement that read: “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” Elon Musk says AI has a 20% chance of annihilating humans.
“I’ve noticed recently that superintelligence, which I thought was a concept you definitely shouldn’t mention if you want to be taken seriously in public, is being thrown around by tech CEOs who are apparently planning to build it,” says Katja Grace, lead researcher at AI Impacts, an organization that surveys AI researchers about their field. “I think it’s easy to feel like this is fine. They also say it’s going to kill us, but they’re laughing while they say it.”
You have to admit it all sounds a bit tinfoil hat. If you’re building a conspiracy theory, you need a few things in the mix: a scheme that’s flexible enough to sustain belief even when things don’t work out as planned; the promise of a better future that can be realized only if believers uncover hidden truths; and a hope for salvation from the horrors of this world.
AGI just about checks all those boxes. The more you poke at the idea, the more it starts to look like a conspiracy. It’s not, of course—not exactly. And I’m not drawing this parallel to dismiss the very real, often jaw-dropping results achieved by many people in this field, including (or especially) the AGI believers.
But by zooming in on things that AGI has in common with genuine conspiracies, I think we can bring the whole concept into better focus and reveal it for what it is: a techno-utopian (or techno-dystopian—pick your pill) fever dream that got its hooks into some pretty deep-seated beliefs that have made it hard to shake.
This isn’t just a provocative thought experiment. It’s important to question what we’re told about AGI because buying into the idea isn’t harmless. Right now, AGI is the most important narrative in tech—and, to some extent, in the global economy. We can’t make sense of what’s going on in AI without understanding where the idea of AGI came from, why it is so compelling, and how it shapes the way we think about technology overall.
I get it, I get it—calling AGI a conspiracy isn’t a perfect analogy. It will also piss a lot of people off. But come with me down this rabbit hole and let me show you the light.
How Silicon Valley got AGI-pilled
It had a ring to it
A typical conspiracy theory usually starts out on the fringes. Maybe it’s just a couple of people posting on a message board, gathering “evidence.” Maybe it’s a few people out in the desert with binoculars waiting to spot some bright lights in the sky. But some conspiracy theories get lucky, if you will: They start to percolate more widely; they start to become a bit more acceptable; they start to influence people in power. Maybe it’s the UFOs (ahem, sorry, “unidentified aerial phenomena”) that are now formally and openly discussed in government hearings. Maybe it’s vaccine skepticism (yes, a much more dangerous example) that becomes official policy. And it’s impossible to ignore that artificial general intelligence has followed a pretty similar trajectory to its more overtly conspiratorial brethren.
Let’s go back to 2007, when AI wasn’t sexy and it wasn’t cool. Companies like Amazon and Netflix (which was still sending out DVDs in the mail) were using machine-learning models, proto-organisms to today’s LLM behemoths, to recommend movies and books to customers. But that was more or less it.
Ben Goertzel had far bigger plans. About a decade earlier, the AI researcher had set up a dot-com startup called Webmind to train what he thought of as a kind of digital baby brain on the early internet. Childless, Webmind soon went bust.
But Goertzel was an influential figure in a fringe community of researchers who had dreamed for years of building humanlike artificial intelligence, an all-purpose computer program that could do many of the things people can do (and do them better). It was a vision that went far beyond the kind of tech that Netflix was experimenting with.
Goertzel wanted to put out a book promoting that vision, and he needed a name that would set it apart from the humdrum AI of the time. A former Webmind employee named Shane Legg suggested Artificial General Intelligence. It had a ring to it.
A few years later, Legg cofounded DeepMind with Demis Hassabis and Mustafa Suleyman. But to most serious researchers at the time, the claim that AI would one day mimic human abilities was a bit of a joke. AGI used to be a dirty word, Sutskever told me. Andrew Ng, founder of Google Brain and former chief scientist at the Chinese tech giant Baidu, told me he thought it was loony.
So what happened? I caught up with Goertzel last month to ask how a fringe idea went from crackpot to commonplace. “I’m sort of a complex chaotic systems guy, so I have a low estimate that I actually know what the nonlinear dynamic in the memosphere really was,” he said. (Translation: It’s complicated.)
Goertzel reckons a few things took the idea mainstream. The first is the Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, an annual meeting of researchers that he helped set up in 2008, the year after his book was published. The conference was often coordinated with top mainstream academic meetups, such as the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence conference and the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. “If I just published a book with that name AGI, it possibly would have just come and gone,” says Goertzel. “But the conference was circling through every year, with more and more students coming.”
Next is Legg, who took the term with him to DeepMind. “I think they were the first mainstream corporate entity to talk about AGI,” says Goertzel. “It wasn’t the main thing they were harping on, but Shane and Demis would talk about it now and then. That was certainly a source of legitimation.”
When I first talked to Legg about AGI five years ago, he said: “Talking about AGI in the early 2000s put you on the lunatic fringe … Even when we started DeepMind in 2010, we got an astonishing amount of eye-rolling at conferences.” But by 2020 the wind had changed. “Some people are uncomfortable with it, but it’s coming in from the cold,” he told me.
The third thing Goertzel points to is the overlap between early AGI evangelists and Big Tech power brokers. In the years between shutting down Webmind and publishing that AGI book, Goertzel did some work with Peter Thiel at Thiel’s hedge fund Clarium Capital. “We talked a bunch,” says Goertzel. He recalls spending a day with Thiel at the Four Seasons in San Francisco. “I was trying to drum AGI into his head,” says Goertzel. “But then he was also hearing from Eliezer how AGI is going to kill everybody.”
Enter the doomers
That’s Eliezer Yudkowsky, another influential figure who has done at least as much as Goertzel, if not more, to push the idea of AGI. But unlike Goertzel, Yudkowsky thinks there’s a very high chance—99.5% is one number he throws out—that the development of AGI will be a catastrophe.
In 2000, Yudkowsky cofounded a nonprofit research outfit called the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (later renamed the Machine Intelligence Research Institute), which pretty quickly dedicated itself to preventing doomer scenarios. Thiel was an early benefactor.
At first, Yudkowsky’s ideas didn’t get much pickup. Recall that back then the idea of an all-powerful AI—let alone a dangerous one—was pure sci-fi. But in 2014, Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, published a book called Superintelligence.
“It put the AGI thing out there,” says Goertzel. “I mean, Bill Gates, Elon Musk—lots of tech-industry AI people—read that book, and whether or not they agreed with his doomer perspective, Nick took Eliezer’s concepts and wrapped them up in a very acceptable way.”
“All of these things gave AGI a stamp of acceptability,” Goertzel adds. “Rather than it being pure crackpot stuff from mavericks howling out in the wilderness.”
Yudkowsky has been banging the same drum for 25 years; many engineers at today’s top AI companies grew up reading and discussing his views online, especially on LessWrong, a popular hub for the tech industry’s fervent community of rationalists and effective altruists.
Today, those views are more popular than ever, capturing the imagination of a younger generation of doomers like David Krueger, a researcher at the University of Montreal who previously served as research director at the UK’s AI Security Institute. “I think we are definitely on track to build superhuman AI systems that will kill everybody,” Krueger tells me. “And I think that’s horrible and we should stop immediately.”
Yudkowsky gets profiled by the likes of the New York Times, which bills him as “Silicon Valley’s version of a doomsday preacher.” His new book, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, written with Nate Soares, president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, lays out wild claims, with little evidence, that unless we pull the plug on development, near-future AGI will lead to global Armageddon. The pair’s position is extreme: They argue that an international ban should be enforced at all costs, up to and including the point of nuclear retaliation. After all, “datacenters can kill more people than nuclear weapons,” Yudkowsky and Soares write.
This stuff is no longer niche. The book is an NYT bestseller and comes with endorsements from national security experts such as Suzanne Spaulding, a former US Department of Homeland Security official, and Fiona Hill, former senior director of the White House National Security Council, who now advises the UK government; celebrity scientists such as Max Tegmark and George Church; and other household names, including Stephen Fry, Mark Ruffalo, and Grimes. Yudkowsky now has a megaphone.
Still, it is those early quiet words in certain ears that may prove most consequential. Yudkowsky is credited with introducing Thiel to DeepMind’s founders, after which Thiel became one of the first big investors in the company. Having merged with Google, it is now the in-house AI lab for the tech colossus Alphabet.
Alongside Musk, Thiel was also instrumental in setting up OpenAI in 2015, sinking millions into a startup founded on the singular ambition to build AGI—and make it safe. In 2023, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman posted on X: “eliezer has IMO done more to accelerate AGI than anyone else. certainly he got many of us interested in AGI.” Yudkowsky might one day deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for that, Altman added. But by this point, Thiel had apparently grown wary of the “AI safety people” and the power they were gaining. “You don’t understand how Eliezer has programmed half the people in your company to believe in that stuff,” he is reported to have told Altman at a dinner party in late 2023. “You need to take this more seriously.” Altman “tried not to roll his eyes,” according to Wall Street Journal reporter Keach Hagey.
OpenAI is now the most valuable private company in the world, worth half a trillion dollars.
And the transformation is complete: Like all the most powerful conspiracies, AGI has slipped into the mainstream and taken hold.
The great AGI conspiracy
The term “AGI” may have been popularized less than 20 years ago, but the mythmaking behind it has been there since the start of the computer age—a cosmic microwave background of chutzpah and marketing.
Alan Turing asked if machines could think only five years after the first electronic computer, ENIAC, was built in 1945. And here’s Turing a little later, in a 1951 radio broadcast: “It seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers. There would be no question of the machines dying, and they would be able to converse with each other to sharpen their wits. At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control.”
Then, in 1955, the computer scientist John McCarthy and his colleagues applied for US government funding to create what they fatefully chose to call “artificial intelligence”—a canny spin, given that computers at the time were the size of a room and as dumb as a thermostat. Even so, as McCarthy wrote in that funding application: “An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves.”
It’s this myth that’s the root of the AGI conspiracy. A smarter-than-human machine that can do it all is not a technology. It’s a dream, unmoored from reality. Once you see that, other parallels with conspiracy thinking start to leap out.
It’s impossible to debunk a shape-shifting idea like AGI.
Talking about AGI can sometimes feel like arguing with an enthusiastic Redditor about what drugs (or particles in the sky) are controlling your mind. Each point has a counterpoint that tries to chip away at your own sense of what’s true. Ultimately, it’s a clash of worldviews, not an exchange of evidence-based reason. AGI is like that, too—it’s slippery.
Part of the issue is that despite all the money, all the talk, nobody knows how to build it. More than that: Most people don’t even agree on what AGI really is—which helps explain how people can get away with telling us it can both save the world and end it. At the core of most definitions you’ll find the idea of a machine that can match humans on a wide range of cognitive tasks. (And remember, superintelligence is AGI’s shiny new upgrade: a machine that can outmatch us.) But even that’s easy to pull apart: What humans are we talking about? What kind of cognitive task? And how wide a range?
“There’s no real definition of it,” says Christopher Symons, chief artificial intelligence scientist at the AI health-care startup Lirio and former head of the computer science and math division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “If you say ‘human-level intelligence,’ that could be an infinite number of things—everybody’s level of intelligence is slightly different.”
And so, says Symons, we’re in this weird race to build … what, exactly? “What are you trying to get it to do?”
In 2023, a team of researchers at Google DeepMind, including Legg, had a go at categorizing various definitions that people had proposed for AGI. Some said that a machine had to be able to learn; some said that it had to be able to make money; some said that it had to have a body and move about in the world (and maybe make coffee).
Legg told me that when he’d suggested the term to Goertzel for the title of his book, the hand-waviness had been kind of the point. “I didn’t have an especially clear definition. I didn’t really feel it was necessary,” he said at the time. “I was actually thinking of it more as a field of study, rather than an artifact.”
So, I guess we’ll know it when we see it? The problem is that some people think they’ve seen it already.
In 2023, a team of Microsoft researchers put out a paper in which they described their experiences playing around with a prerelease version of OpenAI’s large language model GPT-4. They called it “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence”—and it polarized the industry.
It was a moment when a lot of researchers were blown away and trying to come to terms with what they were seeing. “Shit was working better than they had expected it to,” says Goertzel. “The concept of AGI genuinely started to seem more plausible.”
And yet for all of LLMs’ remarkable wordplay, Goertzel doesn’t think that they do in fact contain sparks of AGI. “It’s a little surprising to me that some people with a deep technical understanding of how these tools work under the hood still think that they could become human-level AGI,” he says. “On the other hand, you can’t prove it’s not true.”
And there it is: You can’t prove it’s not true. “The idea that AGI is coming and that it’s right around the corner and that it’s inevitable has licensed a great many departures from reality,” says the University of Edinburgh’s Vallor. “But we really don’t have any evidence for it.”
Conspiracy thinking looms again. Predictions about when AGI will arrive are made with the precision of numerologists counting down to the end of days. With no real stakes in the game, deadlines come and go with a shrug. Excuses are made and timelines are adjusted yet again.
We saw this when OpenAI released the much-hyped GPT-5 this summer. AI stans were disappointed that the new version of the company’s flagship technology wasn’t the step change they expected. But instead of seeing that as evidence that AGI wasn’t attainable—or attainable with an LLM, at least—believers pushed out their predictions for how soon AGI would come. It was coming—just, you know, next time.
Maybe they’re right. Or maybe people will pick whatever evidence they can to defend an idea and overlook evidence that counts against it. Jeremy Cohen, who studies conspiracy thinking in technology circles at McMaster University in Canada, calls this imperfect evidence gathering—a hallmark of conspiracy thinking.
Cohen started his research career in the Arizona desert, studying a community called People Unlimited that believed its members were immortal. The conviction was impervious to contrary evidence. When its members died of natural causes (including two of its founders), the thinking was that they must have deserved it. “The general consensus was that every death was a suicide,” says Cohen. “If you are immortal and you get cancer and you die—well, you must have done something wrong.”
Cohen has since been focused on transhumanism (the idea that technology can help humans push past their natural limitations) and AGI. “I am seeing a lot of parallels. There are forms of magical thinking that I think are a part of the popular imagination around AGI,” he says. “It connects really well to the kinds of religious imaginaries that you see in conspiracy thinking today.”
The believers are in on the AGI secret.
Maybe some of you think I’m an idiot: You don’t get it at all lol. But that’s kind of my point. There are insiders and outsiders. When I talk to researchers or engineers who are happy to drop AGI into the conversation as a given, it’s like they know something I don’t. But nobody’s ever been able to tell me what that something is.
The truth is out there, if you know where to look. Conspiracy theories are primarily concerned about revealing a hidden truth, Cohen tells me: “It’s a really fundamental part of conspiracy thinking, and that’s absolutely something that you see in the way people talk about AGI,” he says.
Last year, a 23-year-old former OpenAI staffer turned investor, Leopold Aschenbrenner, published a much-dissected 165-page manifesto titled “Situational Awareness.” You don’t need to read it to get the idea: You either see the truth of what’s coming or you don’t. And you don’t need cold, hard facts, either—it’s enough to feel it. Those who don’t just haven’t seen the light.
This idea stalked the periphery of my conversation with Goertzel, too. When I pushed him on why people are skeptical of AGI, for instance, he said: “Before every major technical achievement, from human flight to electrical power, loads of wise pundits would tell you why it was never going to happen. The fact is, most people only believe what they see in front of their faces.”
That makes AGI sound like an article of faith. I put that to Krueger, who believes AGI’s arrival is maybe five years out. He scoffed: “I think that’s completely backwards.” For him, the article of faith is the idea that it won’t happen—it’s the skeptics who continue to deny the obvious. (Even so, he hedges: No one knows for sure, he says, but there’s no obvious reason that AGI won’t come.)
Hidden truths bring truth seekers, bent on revealing what they’ve been able to see all along. With AGI, though, it’s not enough to uncover something hidden. Here, revelation requires an unprecedented act of creation. If you believe AGI is achievable, then you believe that those making it are midwives to machines that will match or surpass human intelligence. “The idea of giving birth to machine gods is obviously very flattering to the ego,” says Vallor. “It’s an incredibly seductive thing to think that you yourself are laying the early foundations for that transcendence.”
It’s yet another overlap with conspiracy thinking. Part of the draw is the desire for a sense of purpose in an otherwise messy world that can feel meaningless—the longing to be a person of consequence.
Krueger, who is based in Berkeley, says he knows people working on AI who see the technology as our natural successor. “They view it as akin to having children or something,” he says. “Side note: they usually don’t have children.”
AGI will be our one true savior (or it’ll bring the apocalypse).
Cohen sees parallels between many modern conspiracy theories and the New Age movement, which reached its peak of influence in the 1970s and ’80s. Adherents believed humanity was on the cusp of unlocking an era of spiritual well-being and expanded consciousness that would usher in a more peaceful and prosperous world. In a nutshell, the idea was that by engaging in a set of pseudo-religious practices, including astrology and the careful curation of crystals, humans would transcend their limitations and enter a kind of hippie utopia.
Today’s tech industry is built on compute, not crystals, but its sense of what’s at stake is no less transcendent: “You know, this idea that there is going to be this fundamental shift, there’s going to be this millenarian turn where we end up in a techno-utopian future,” says Cohen. “And the idea that AGI is going to ultimately allow humanity to overcome the problems that face us.”
In many people’s telling, AGI will arrive all at once. Incremental advances in AI will stack up until, one day, AI will be good enough to start making better AI by itself. At which point—FOOM—it will advance so rapidly that AGI will arrive in what’s often called an intelligence explosion, leading to a point of no return known as the Singularity, a goofy term that’s been popular in AGI circles for years. Co-opting a concept from physics, the science fiction author Vernor Vinge first introduced the idea of a technological singularity in the 1980s. Vinge imagined an event horizon on the path of technological progress beyond which humans would be fast outstripped by the exponential self-improvement of the machines they had created.
Call it the AI Big Bang—which, again, gives us a before and an after, a transcendent moment when humanity as we know it changes forever (for good or bad). “People imagine it as an event,” says Grace from AI Impacts.
For Vallor, this belief system is notable for the way that a faith in technology has replaced a faith in humans. Despite the woo-woo, New Age thinking was at least motivated by the idea that people had what it took to change the world by themselves, if they could only tap into it. With the pursuit of AGI, we’ve left that self-belief behind and bought into the idea that only technology can save us, she says.
That’s a compelling—even comforting—thought for many people. “We’re in an era where other paths to material improvement of human lives and our societies seem to have been exhausted,” Vallor says.
Technology once promised a route to a better future: Progress was a ladder that we would climb toward human and social flourishing. “We’ve passed the peak of that,” says Vallor. “I think the one thing that gives many people hope and a return to that kind of optimism about the future is AGI.”
Push this idea to its conclusion and, again, AGI becomes a kind of god—one that can offer relief from earthly suffering, says Vallor.
Kelly Joyce, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina who studies how cultural, political, and economic beliefs shape the way we think about and use technology, sees all these wild predictions about AGI as something more banal: part of a long-term pattern of overpromising from the tech industry. “What’s interesting to me is that we get sucked in every time,” she says. “There is a deep belief that technology is better than human beings.”
Joyce thinks that’s why, when the hype kicks in, people are predisposed to believe it. “It’s a religion,” she says. “We believe in technology. Technology is God. It’s really hard to push back against it. People don’t want to hear it.”
How AGI hijacked an industry
The fantasy of computers that can do almost anything a person can is seductive. But like many pervasive conspiracy theories, it has very real consequences. It has distorted the way we think about the stakes behind the current technology boom (and potential bust). It may have even derailed the industry, sucking resources away from more immediate, more practical application of the technology. More than anything else, it gives us a free pass to be lazy. It fools us into thinking we might be able to avoid the actual hard work needed to solve intractable, world-spanning problems—problems that will require international cooperation and compromise and expensive aid. Why bother with that when we’ll soon have machines to figure it all out for us?
Consider the resources being sunk into this grand project. Just last month, OpenAI and Nvidia announced an up-to-$100 billion partnership that would see the chip giant supply at least 10 gigawatts of ChatGPT’s insatiable demand. That’s higher than nuclear power plant numbers. A bolt of lightning might release that much energy. The flux capacitor inside Dr. Emmett Brown’s DeLorean time machine only required 1.2 gigawatts to send Marty back to the future. And then, only two weeks later, OpenAI announced a second partnership with chipmaker AMD for another six gigawatts of power.
Promoting the Nvidia deal on CNBC, Altman, straight-faced, claimed that without this kind of data center buildout, people would have to choose between a cure for cancer and free education. “No one wants to make that choice,” he said. (Just a few weeks later, he announced that erotic chats would be coming to ChatGPT.)
Add to those costs the loss of investment in more immediate technology that could change lives today and tomorrow and the next day. “To me it’s a huge missed opportunity to put all these resources into solving something nebulous when we already know there’s real problems that we could solve,” says Lirio’s Symons.
But that’s not how the likes of OpenAI needs to operate. “With people throwing so much money at these companies, they don’t have to do that,” Symons says. “If you’ve got hundreds of billions of dollars, you don’t have to focus on a practical, solvable project.”
Despite his steadfast belief that AGI is coming, Krueger also thinks the industry’s single-minded pursuit of it means that potential solutions to real problems, such as better health care, are being ignored. “People have a long list of complaints about both the concept of AGI and the idea that it should be a goal,” he says. “I think it’s pretty unpopular in the field.”
And there are consequences for the way governments support and regulate technology (or don’t). Tina Law, who studies technology policy at the University of California–Davis, worries that policymakers are getting lobbied about the ways AI will one day kill us all, instead of addressing real concerns about the ways AI could impact people’s lives in immediate and material ways today. Inequality has been sidetracked by existential risk.
“Hype is a lucrative strategy for tech firms,” says Law. A big part of that hype is the idea that what’s happening is inevitable: If we don’t build it, someone else will. “When something is framed as inevitable,” Law says, “people doubt not only whether they should resist but also whether they have the capacity to do so.” Everyone gets locked in.
The AGI distortion field isn’t limited to tech policy, says Milton Mueller at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who works on technology policy and regulation. The race to AGI gets compared to the race to the atomic bomb, he says. “So whoever gets it first is going to have ultimate power over everybody else. That’s a crazy and dangerous idea that really will distort our approach to foreign policy.”
There’s a business incentive for companies (and governments) to push the myth of AGI, says Mueller, because they can then claim that they will be the first to get there. But because they’re running a race in which nobody has agreed on the finish line, the myth can be spun as long as it’s useful. Or as long as investors are willing to buy into it.
It’s not hard to see how this plays out. It’s not utopia or hell—it’s OpenAI and its peers making a whole lot more money.
The great AGI conspiracy, concluded
And maybe that brings us back to the whole conspiracy thing—and a late-game twist in this tale. So far we’ve ignored one popular feature of conspiracy thinking: that there’s a group of powerful figures pulling the levers behind the scenes and that, by seeking the truth, believers can expose this elite cabal.
Sure, the people feeling the AGI aren’t publicly accusing any Illuminati or WEF-like force of preventing the AGI future or withholding its secrets.
But what if there are, in fact, shadowy puppet masters here—and they’re the very people who have pushed the AGI conspiracy hardest all along? The kings of Silicon Valley are throwing everything they can get at building AGI for profit. The myth of AGI serves their interests more than anybody else’s.
As one senior executive at an AI company said to us recently, AGI always needs to be six months to a year away, because if it’s any further than that, you won’t be able to recruit people from Jane Street, and if it’s closer to already here, then what’s the point?
Or as Vallor puts it: “If OpenAI says they’re building a machine that’s going to make corporations even more powerful than they are today, that isn’t going to get the kind of public buy-in that they need.”
Remember: You create a god and you become like one yourself. Krueger says there’s a line of thinking running through Silicon Valley in which building AI is a way to seize huge amounts of power. (It’s one of the premises of Aschenbrenner’s “Situational Awareness,” for example.) “You know, we’re going to have this godlike power and we’re going to have to figure out what to do with it,” says Krueger. “A lot of people think if they get there first, they can basically take over the world.”
“They’re putting so much effort into selling their vision of a future with AGI in it, and they’re having a pretty good amount of success because they have so much power,” he adds.
Goertzel, for one, is almost lamenting how successful the maybe-cabal has been. He’s actually starting to miss life on the fringes. “In my generation, you had to have a lot of vision to want to work on AGI, and you had to be very stubborn,” he says. “Now it’s almost, like, what your grandma tells you to do to get a job instead of being a business major.”
“It’s disorienting that this stuff is so broadly accepted,” he says. “It almost gives me the desire to go work on something else that not so many people are doing.” He’s half joking (I think): “Obviously, putting the finishing touches to AGI is more important than gratifying my preference to be out on the frontier.”
But I’m no clearer on what exactly they’re putting the finishing touches on. What does it mean for technology in general if we fall so hard for the fairy tales? In a lot of ways, I think the whole idea of AGI is built on a warped view of what we should expect technology to do, and even what intelligence is in the first place. Stripped back to its essentials, the argument for AGI rests on the premise that one technology, AI, has gotten very good, very fast, and will continue to get better. But set aside the technical objections—what if it doesn’t continue to get better?—and you’re left with the claim that intelligence is a commodity you can get more of if you have the right data or compute or neural network. And it’s not.
Intelligence doesn’t come as a quantity you can just ratchet up and up. Smart people may be brilliant in one area and not in others. Some Nobel Prize winners are really bad at playing the piano or caring for their kids. Some very smart people insist that AGI is coming next year.
It’s hard not to wonder what will get its hooks into us next.
Before we ended our call, Goertzel told me about an event he’d just been to in San Francisco on AI consciousness and parapsychology: “ESP, precognition, and whatnot.”
“That’s where AGI was 20 years ago,” he said. “Everyone thinks it’s batshit crazy.”
Correction: This story has been updated to better reflect David Krueger’s views.
In an effort to address this, Google DeepMind—which made agent-based tools a centerpiece of Google I/O last month—has teamed up with several other organizations to announce a $10 million funding pot for researchers to study the behavior of multi-agent systems and come up with ways to prevent unsafe scenarios. Joining Google DeepMind are Schmidt Sciences, a philanthropic foundation set up by Eric and Wendy Schmidt; ARIA, the UK government’s moonshot agency; the Cooperative AI foundation, a UK-based nonprofit research outfit; and Google’s charitable arm, Google.org.
I asked Shah and James Fox, who leads the Science of Trustworthy AI program at Schmidt Sciences, what they hope to achieve with that $10 million. It’s no small sum, but it’s dwarfed by the budgets commanded by Google DeepMind’s own research teams.
The aim is to kick-start research outside tech companies, says Shah: “The strength of academia is that it can look really quite far into the future and do the kind of work that isn’t top of mind at industry labs.”
“The main issue is that there just isn’t really a field of research for multi-agent safety yet,” he adds. “And we would like there to be.”
The concern is that as more and more AI agents get deployed and begin working together, we could hit a tipping point where imagined scenarios become real. “We see this with humanity, too,” says Shah. “Our institutions can accomplish things that no individual human can.”
Shah thinks we have a few more months to go before agents are deployed throughout the economy in numbers that make potential risks a real concern. He wants to get ahead of that moment.
Risky business
What risks are we talking about, exactly? The possibilities that Shah and Fox have in mind mostly boil down to supercharged versions of bad things that happen on the internet already: scams, prompt injections (where an AI agent is fed malicious instructions, turning it into a self-guiding piece of malware), other forms of cyberattack. We look at what humans do now and ask what the agent version of that would be, says Shah.
“We’ve got this digital commons that is integral to how society works, and you really want to ensure that this doesn’t descend into just absolute anarchy,” says Fox.
(I asked Shah if they were considering any worst-case scenarios more on the doomer end of the spectrum, such as widespread economic collapse. “Certainly not if we’re talking by the end of the year,” he said. That’s only six months away! He laughed. “Okay, a while after that.”)
Shah and Fox both think that the only way to understand what might happen when large numbers of multi-agent systems interact with each other is to run realistic simulations. They want researchers to drop AI agents into sandboxes and study what they do.
You can’t predict what’s going to happen by studying single agents, or even small groups of agents, in isolation. You can’t assume that AI agents underpinned by LLMs will always act rationally, says Fox. And the complexity comes from having huge numbers of interactions at once.
Google DeepMind is not the only top AI firm warning about the risks of the technology it is building. A couple of weeks ago, Anthropic published guidelines for deploying AI agents based on an approach to cybersecurity known as zero trust, which starts with the assumption that a computer system is vulnerable, an agent is an attacker, and a breach will happen.
Refael Angel, cofounder and CTO of Akeyless, a cybersecurity firm based in Tel Aviv, agrees that understanding the new risks introduced by agent-based systems is crucial.
Every approach to security in the past has assumed that the machine in question was software written by a human, doing fixed things on fixed paths, says Angel: “An agent breaks all of those assumptions. It reasons, it improvises, and it can be hijacked by a single sentence buried in a document it was asked to read.”
Angel welcomes this new funding. “No single lab should author the safety standards everyone else has to trust,” he says. But he cautions that safety researchers can overlook boring problems that are already here in favor of more exotic hypothetical ones.
And yet, Fox notes, risks that were hypothetical a few years ago are now very real: “The future’s come more quickly than perhaps expected.”
Segundo informações obtidas pela Folha, o tema foi debatido em uma reunião da sala de situação contra incêndios (que reúne diversos ministérios) na segunda quinzena de maio, e voltará à pauta no próximo encontro do grupo, previsto para junho.
Brigadistas do Prevfogo combatem o incêndio em uma fazenda na região de Miranda, Mato Grosso do Sul, durante crise de queimadas no pantanal em 2024 – Lalo de Almeida – 4.ago.24/Folhapress
O ano eleitoral de 2026 preocupa. Foi elaborado um mapa identificando regiões onde há maior risco de que um clima político inflamado motive queimadas intencionais para alimentar ataques de opositores ao governo Lula.
Em geral, o plano prevê a participação das forças de segurança para apoio em operações de fiscalização e investigação, da Defesa na logística e dos Transportes no controle de rodovias, dentro outras atribuições.
O Ibama (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente) e ICMBio (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade) devem precisar de cerca de R$ 200 milhões em crédito extraordinário, parte para recompor perdas orçamentárias.
A AGU (Advocacia-Geral da União) prepara uma resposta formal a questionamento feito pelo ministro Flávio Dino, do Supremo Tribunal Federal, sobre as ações que o Executivo realiza para conter os efeitos do El Niño.
Durante a reunião ministerial desta quarta-feira (3), a ministra da Casa Civil, Miriam Belchior, ressaltou que o governo entregou R$ 150 milhões do Fundo Amazônia em equipamentos de combate a incêndios para seis estados do pantanal e do cerrado.
“Muito importante, a gente sabe que o El Niño está chegando ameaçadoramente, mas nós estamos nos preparando para enfrentar da melhor maneira os seus efeitos”, afirmou.
As mudanças climáticas agravaram as secas, os incêndios e as tempestades nos últimos anos em todo o planeta.
O mesmo acontece com o El Niño, fenômeno meteorológico que se configura quando as águas superficiais do oceano Pacífico aquecem acima de forma atípica e que se tornou mais constante e intenso nos últimos anos.
Sobre o Brasil, ele traz uma onda de calor que favorece incêndios florestais e causa secas no Norte e no Nordeste, enquanto traz chuvas torrenciais para o Sul —como as registradas na região de Porto Alegre (RS), em 2024.
O cenário impacta diretamente as plantações do agronegócio e impulsiona o desmatamento. O El Niño é um dos motivos pelos quais o país viveu grandes crises de queimadas em 2020 e em 2024.
O Ministério do Meio Ambiente conduz reuniões periódicas com meteorologistas de diversos órgãos —como Agência Nacional de Águas, Cemaden, UFRJ, Ibama, dentre outros— para monitorar a situação.
O panorama até aqui é descrito como um sinal amarelo: a chance de acontecer um El Niño forte ou pior é de cerca de 70%, mas as previsões atuais apresentam uma taxa de incerteza de 50% e um cenário mais preciso só será previsível em julho, quando o sinal vermelho pode ser ligado definitivamente.
Por enquanto, o governo federal adota ações preventivas, como queimas prescritas, um fogo controlado para eliminar matéria orgânica que poderia virar combustível para um incêndio maior.
Esse tipo de estratégia começou a ser aplicada em 2025 e, conforme o Ministério do Meio Ambiente, resultou em uma “queda de 39% na área queimada no território nacional” naquele ano “na comparação à média dos oito anos anteriores”.
Parte importante da estratégia é a integração com estados —os bombeiros são os responsáveis pela resposta ao fogo em propriedades privadas, que é onde começam a maioria dos incêndios. Desde 2024, o governo federal cria acordos de cooperação com entes federativos, e um plano conjunto para pantanal, cerrado e amazônia é esperado ainda para este ano.
O Executivo também elabora uma nova parceria com as Polícias Militares ambientais, contingente de cerca de 8.000 agentes para atuar com policiamento ostensivo em áreas de maior risco de incêndio —o que não aconteceu em anos anteriores.
Neste ano Ibama já aplicou 574 notificações prévias. Esse instrumento permite que, caso a propriedade registre um incêndio no futuro, o seu dono seja responsabilizado, caso não tenha adotado as medidas preventivas, como formação de brigadas de incêndio.
Na última reunião da sala de situação, em maio, foram apresentadas as ações que o governo federal precisa adotar caso as previsões mais pessimistas acerca do El Niño se confirmem, e agora cada pasta irá avaliar o que já é capaz de concretizar e o que demandará novos esforços —e recursos.
A disputa eleitoral é um fator de atenção. Dentre as regiões de mais risco de incêndios por motivação política, o Pará é o principal.
Em agosto 2019, por exemplo, fazendeiros do estado realizaram o que ficou conhecido como o “dia do fogo”, ação coordenada de queimadas com intuito de demonstrar apoio às políticas antiambientais do então governo de Jair Bolsonaro (PL).
Pelo mapeamento do governo, o Pará registra os três municípios avaliados como de maior risco para este ano: Altamira, Novo Progresso e São Félix do Xingu, cidades com forte incidência de desmatamento ilegal associado a grilagem e à criação de gado, e também com tendência bolsonarista.
Outras 18 cidades foram avaliadas como um risco intermediário: quatro no Pará, seis no Amazonas, cinco no Mato Grosso e três no Tocantins. Mais cerca de cem municípios pelo país são preocupantes em um menor nível, o que inclui regiões no Norte, Nordeste, Centro-Oeste e Sudeste.
O objetivo do governo federal é que a Polícia Federal atue com foco nestes locais, registre flagrantes, investigue e responsabilize possíveis culpados.
Até aqui, o governo já mobilizou 4.410 brigadistas no país, divididos em mais de 200 equipes do Ibama e do ICMBio, um recorde.
Pelo plano, a Força Nacional precisará destacar mais de 200 agentes para compor brigadas e atuar na segurança em operações de fiscalização, junto com outros órgãos.
O governo avalia disponibilizar aeronaves do Ministério da Defesa para auxiliar nas ações, o que deve demandar contratação de horas-voo extras, e uma cooperação com a Bolívia para ações na fronteira, por meio da pasta de Relações Exteriores.
O Executivo também planeja campanhas de conscientização de produtores rurais e da população, de preparação de brigadistas e limpeza de estradas.
A Noaa (Administração Nacional Oceânica e Atmosférica) dos Estados Unidos confirmou, nesta quinta-feira (11), o início do El Niño.
O fenômeno climático deve se desenvolver para um nível moderado ou forte durante o outono no hemisfério norte (que vai de setembro a dezembro; primavera no sul), segundo a agência americana. Foi estimada em 63% a chance de um El Niño muito forte de novembro a janeiro —a possibilidade apresentada no mês passado era de 37%—, de acordo com a Noaa, com possibilidade de figurar entre os recordes do fenômeno desde o início dos registros, em 1950.
Apesar de o El Niño ter o poder de influenciar eventos climáticos extremos, cada ano do fenômeno é diferente. Por isso, segundo a Noaa, um El Niño considerado muito forte não necessariamente resultará em eventos climáticos maiores e mais impactos. Mas essa classificação aumenta as chances desses tipos de acontecimento.
Pés enlameados de pessoa após caminhada pelo leito seco de um lago na comunidade quilombola Saracura, na área de várzea do rio Amazonas, próxima a Santarém, no Pará – Lalo de Almeida – 22.nov.24/Folhapress
O ano de 2024 foi também o mais quente registrado no mundo desde o século 19. Dado que o fenômeno meteorológico impacta nas temperaturas, já se especula a possibilidade de um novo recorde de calor se avizinhando.
Um El Niño muito forte significa um aquecimento igual ou maior a 2°C, comparado à média histórica, das águas superficiais do oceano Pacífico em uma região próxima à linha do Equador (veja mais abaixo).
As demais classificações de intensidade do fenômeno seguem a mesma lógica da temperatura da água, variando, em linhas gerais, a cada 0,5°C.
Dessa forma, um El Niño forte representa um aquecimento de 1,5°C a 2°C acima do nível normal; um moderado, de 1°C a 1,5°C; um fraco de 0,5°C a 1°C; e um neutro de -0,5°C a 0,5°C.
Para o meteorologista Márcio Cataldi, professor do departamento de Engenharia Agrícola e Meio Ambiente da Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), “as previsões indicam que esse pode ser um El Niño muito forte, mais forte do que o que a gente tem registrado até hoje”. Ele lembra, porém, que só há registros confiáveis de El Niño a partir da década de 1980, quando satélites passaram a contribuir com a coleta de dados.
O climatologista Francisco Eliseu Aquino, professor do Departamento de Geografia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), disse que o apelido super El Niño, que passou a ser usado para se referir ao evento agora em curso, destaca a intensidade do fenômeno em comparação aos demais, mas não é um termo técnico.
O que é o El Niño
O El Niño é um acontecimento natural e é caracterizado pelo aquecimento, acima da média, da superfície do oceano Pacífico, perto da linha do Equador. Vale lembrar que, apesar da sua ocorrência histórica, esse fenômeno agora ocorre em um mundo alterado pela crise climática, o que muda jogo, podendo amplificar impactos —e levando, inclusive, a uma alteração na medição do El Niño.
O fenômeno tem relação com os ventos alísios, que usualmente empurram águas quentes em direção à Ásia. Em alguns anos anos, porém, que tais ventos se enfraquecem, segundo a Noaa. Esses são os anos de El Niño.
Há ainda um outro fenômeno associado, a La Niña. Ainda segundo a agência americana, esse segundo acontecimento se dá quando os alísios se tornam mais intensos do que o normal. O fenômeno se caracteriza, com isso, pela superfície da água mais fria do que a média histórica.
O El Niño costuma durar entre 9 e 12 meses, segundo a Organização Meteorológica Mundial (OMM). Em geral, começa no final do inverno do hemisfério Sul e atinge o pico entre novembro e janeiro. O fenômeno começa a desaparecer a partir do primeiro mês do ano.
Como afeta o Brasil
Segundo nota técnica do Inpe (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais), o El Niño deste ano pode reduzir o volume de chuvas na amazônia. Isso levaria a um aumento no risco de fogo no bioma.
Por esse motivo, o ministro Flávio Dino, do STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal), chegou a determinar que a União e os estados parte da amazônia e do pantanal apresentassem planejamento e os preparativos frente ao aumento do risco de incêndios florestais.
Enquanto o Norte e Nordeste usualmente ficam com menos chuvas, anos de El Niño costumam ter maior volume de precipitação no Sul do Brasil.
A região Centro-Oeste costuma ter temperaturas mais elevadas, aumentando também o risco de fogo.
Já no Sudeste, anos de El Niño costumam registrar aumento da temperatura média, especialmente na primavera e verão, mais chuvas no sudeste de São Paulo, centro-sul do Rio de Janeiro e de Minas Gerais e redução de precipitação em áreas mais ao norte. Também podem ocorrer secas na região, o que varia de acordo com a intensidade do fenômeno.
Como afeta outras partes do mundo
O El Niño provavelmente terá um impacto negativo na produção agrícola no Sudeste Asiático e na Índia, onde o fenômeno é tipicamente associado a chuvas abaixo da média, segundo Kyle Tapley, executivo de vendas empresariais do WeatherDesk da Vaisala Xweather.
As monções fornecem quase 70% das chuvas na Índia e são vitais para o setor agrícola, que representa cerca de 18% da economia de quase US$ 4 trilhões. Chuvas abaixo da média podem significar colheitas menores de culturas como arroz, algodão e soja, além de afetar as safras de inverno.
Enquanto isso, os produtores de arroz da Indonésia estão correndo para antecipar o calendário habitual de plantio enquanto enfrentam a ameaça de um longo período de seca neste ano. O ministro da Economia da Malásia alertou que o El Niño pode causar uma queda média de 8% a 10% na produção agrícola.
“O El Niño normalmente leva a uma temporada de furacões menos ativa nos EUA, e esperamos uma temporada de furacões no Atlântico abaixo da média neste ano. No entanto, é importante lembrar que um furacão forte ainda é possível mesmo em uma temporada menos ativa”, disse Tapley.
A temporada de furacões nos EUA começou em 1º de junho e vai até 30 de novembro.
Com a chegada do El Niño, anunciada nesta quinta-feira (11) pela Noaa (Administração Oceânica e Atmosférica Nacional), as cidades precisarão ter mais bem definidos os planos de preparação para enfrentar o fenômeno climático.
Bairro da cidade de Cruzeiro do Sul foi devastado pelas enchentes que atingiram o Rio Grande do Sul em 2024; El Niño deve aumentar recorrência de temporais na região sul – Folhapress/Anselmo Cunha – 4.jun.2024
Mas, e as autoridades que não obedeceram Dino, que medidas podem tomar agora que o fenômeno começou?
Mesmo diante de um planeta cada vez mais instável, eventos passados e modelos climáticos são os melhores mapas para definir as estratégias para enfrentar este El Niño. O fenômeno, provocado pelo aquecimento do Pacífico Equatorial, tende a gerar chuvas acima da média na região Sul, enquanto Norte e Nordeste normalmente sofrem com secas mais intensas.
“O Pacífico corresponde a metade da Terra em longitude. É muita água. Quando essa água se move e muda de lugar, ela cutuca a atmosfera e gera ondas atmosféricas”, diz a oceanóloga Regina Rodrigues, pesquisadora da UFSC (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina).
“No Brasil, o que geralmente acontece é que essas ondas criam o que chamamos de bloqueio atmosférico —uma alta pressão que fica sobre o Sudeste. As frentes frias chegam e não conseguem passar. Então, fica chovendo no mesmo lugar”, explica.
Planos de contingenciamento
Rodrigues acrescenta que saber onde, exatamente, essas chuvas vão acontecer, se no Rio Grande do Sul ou em Santa Catarina, por exemplo, é mais difícil de prever no longo prazo. Mas as simulações climáticas usadas atualmente já conseguem fazer a previsão no médio prazo, com 10 a 15 dias de antecedência.
“Se os estados e cidades estivessem preparados, bastaria acionar os planos de contingência para atuar. Evitar tudo não é possível, mas há uma série de medidas que podem aliviar os impactos”, diz a cientista, acrescentando que essas ações de adaptação precisam ser locais.
Planos de contingência incluem, por exemplo, saber quais lugares correm risco de deslizamento de terra e comunicar a população sobre o que fazer quando começar a chover.
O meteorologista Marcelo Seluchi, coordenador-geral de Operações e Modelagem do Cemaden (Centro Nacional de Monitoramento e Alertas de Desastres Naturais), afirma que as cidades precisam detalhar elementos como a rota de fuga e a definição prévia de espaços que servirão como abrigos na hora da emergência.
“E o ideal é que tudo isso seja treinado, simulado. É difícil fazer um plano de contingência para uma cidade como Porto Alegre? É muito difícil, mas tem que ser feito”, adverte o pesquisador.
Ele conta que cidades como Valparaíso, que precisa se preparar para a ocorrência de tsunamis, faz simulados regularmente com toda a população, de mais de 300 mil habitantes.
Seluchi ressalta, ainda, a importância da conscientização da população em seguir as orientações das autoridades.
“Quando a Defesa Civil chega, a pessoa fala: ‘Ah, moro aqui há 40 anos e aqui não acontece nada. O rio nunca chegou até aqui’. Até que o rio chega e as pessoas morrem afogadas. Isso é terrível. É preciso conscientizar as pessoas com certo cuidado, sem gerar pânico, mas indicando o que deve ser feito”, diz.
O mesmo vale para alertas de condições extremas que são enviadas por mensagem de texto, como é o caso da prefeitura de São Paulo. “Não adianta você ter um celular tocando se você não sabe o que tem que fazer”, afirma o meteorologista.
Estrutura física e burocrática
Além das tempestades, o El Niño também tende a aumentar a ocorrência de ondas de calor e secas, o que pode levar a problemas de saúde e incêndios florestais.
“É possível que nos meses de agosto a outubro tenhamos muitas ondas de calor, com temperaturas muito elevadas e umidade muito baixa. É necessário ter um protocolo, incluindo suspender algumas atividades, como aquelas ao ar livre”, opina Seluchi.
Entre as estratégias para evitar que as pessoas se exponham às altas temperaturas estão a definição de locais públicos para resfriamento: estabelecimentos com ar-condicionado e água à disposição da população.
No caso dos incêndios florestais, o governo federal vem fazendo há meses uma mobilização com os entes subnacionais para estruturação de brigadas e outras providências, como fazer aceiros para evitar que as chamas se espalhem.
Além disso, é possível reforçar campanhas de comunicação para que não sejam feitas fogueiras ou queimadas durante a seca e endurecer a fiscalização de crimes ambientais.
Rodrigues afirma, ainda, que algumas medidas burocráticas podem ser uma boa carta na manga para as prefeituras e governos estaduais. “A Defesa Civil de Santa Catarina, por exemplo, já tem contratos pré-licitados com empresas para casos de emergência, estrutura de liderança comunitária e contingenciamento pronto para ser acionado.”
Em caso de previsão de chuvas fortes, uma atitude simples é limpar os sistemas de drenagem das cidades, ajudando a prevenir inundações.
“Não é muito dinheiro se você pensar nos impactos”, diz a pesquisadora da UFSC. “Estudos mostram que cinco anos depois de um evento climático extremo o impacto econômico ainda é sentido. Vamos sentir até 2029 os impactos do El Niño de 2023/24 —mas já temos outro. A prevenção é muito mais barata.”
During Tuesday’s Google I/O keynote, Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google DeepMind, proclaimed that we are currently “standing in the foothills of the singularity.” It was a striking statement—the singularity is the theoretical future moment when AI rapidly exceeds human intelligence and dramatically transforms the world. But what struck me as I listened in the audience was the context in which he said those words.
He was on stage to close out the session with a segment on scientific AI, the centerpiece of which was a video detailing how the company’s weather prediction software provided an advance alert about Hurricane Melissa’s catastrophic landfall in Jamaica last year—and potentially saved lives. If that software, called WeatherNext, helped anyone escape the storm or better fortify their home, that’s an enormous and meaningful achievement. But it’s hardly evidence of an impending singularity.
The juxtaposition of Hassabis’ lofty rhetoric with the real-world results of WeatherNext highlighted the tension between two very different approaches to AI for science. The first focuses on AI tools, like WeatherNext, that are designed and trained to solve specific scientific problems. The second is agentic, LLM-based systems that could one day execute cutting-edge research projects without human involvement.
This second vision powers a great deal of AI enthusiasm right now, including recent excitement around recursive self-improvement, or the idea that AI systems could eventually become the primary drivers of AI advancement—a process that would get faster and faster as the AI systems grow smarter. And agentic systems are now making realresearch contributions, sometimes with limited human guidance.
Just this week, Pushmeet Kohli, Google Cloud’s chief scientist, published a piece in a special AI and science issue of the journal Daedalus, writing: “We are moving toward AI that doesn’t just facilitate science but begins to do science.” With autonomous AI scientists on the horizon, it’s harder to justify massive efforts to develop super-specialized tools—even one like AlphaFold, for which DeepMind scientists won a Nobel Prize, or a potentially life-saving system like WeatherNext. It also heralds a far stranger future for science, in which humans and AI systems collaborate as peers—or AI even makes scientific progress on its own.
To be clear, Google does not appear to be abandoning its work on specialized AI for science tools. AlphaGenome and AlphaEarth Foundations, which are trained for genetics and Earth science applications respectively, were released last summer, and the newest version of WeatherNext came out in November.
What’s more, such tools remain extremely popular among scientists. Last year, for instance, Google reported that protein structure predictions from AlphaFold have been used by over three million researchers worldwide. And Isomorphic Labs, a Google subsidiary that aims to use AlphaFold and related technologies to develop new drugs, just raised a $2 billion Series B funding round.
But there are concrete signs of realignment, in both enthusiasm and resources. Last month, the Los Angeles Timesreported that Google fellow John Jumper, who won the Nobel for AlphaFold, is now working on AI coding, not on science-specific AI tools. It’s not surprising that Google is assigning its best minds to the coding problem, as the company has recently taken a reputational hit because its coding tools don’t currently stand up to those offered by Anthropic and OpenAI. But it may also signal a prioritization of agentic science on Google’s part, as coding abilities are key to the success of some of those systems.
Across the industry, agentic researcher systems are showing real potential. This week, OpenAI announced that one of their models had disproved an important mathematics conjecture—perhaps the most meaningful contribution that generative AI has made to mathematics so far, according to some mathematicians.
Importantly, the model used by OpenAI is not specialized for solving mathematical problems, or even for research; according to the company, it’s a general-purpose reasoning model in the vein of GPT-5.5. If general agents can make independent contributions to mathematical research, they might soon be able to do the same in science (though the fact that ideas in science must be verified experimentally makes it a tougher domain for AI).
Google is certainly devoting a lot of attention toward an agent-driven scientific future. The big scientific announcement at I/O was the new Gemini for Science package, which unites several of the company’s LLM-based scientific systems under one brand.
This includes the hypothesis-generating AI Co-Scientist and algorithm-optimizing AlphaEvolve, which are still not publicly available—but as Google is now allowing any researcher to apply for access to Gemini for Science, they may soon see wider adoption in the scientific community. Scientists who were involved in early testing are enthusiastic about their potential: Gary Peltz, a Stanford geneticist, compared using the AI Co-Scientist to “consulting the oracle of Delphi” in a Nature Medicine article.
Gemini for Science isn’t incompatible with specialized tools; to the contrary, agentic systems can be designed to call on such tools when they might be useful. And no agentic system can predict the structure that a protein will fold into without AlphaFold’s help (at least not yet). But the company seems to be shifting its public image—and at least some resources and personnel, such as Jumper—away from specifically developing those kinds of tools. Though it has only been five years since AlphaFold solved the protein-folding problem, both the technology and the discourse have quickly moved beyond that once-revolutionary achievement.
Google has been careful to position this new set of scientific agents as an accelerant for human scientists, rather than a replacement for them—the choice of the name AI Co-Scientist as opposed to AI Scientist, for instance, appears quite deliberate. Hassabis uses that same human-centric framing when he talks about changes in the landscape of scientific AI. “For the next decade or so, we should think about AI as this amazing tool to help scientists,” Hassabis said in an interview published in the Daedalus issue. “Beyond that timeframe, it is hard to say with any certainty, but perhaps these systems will become more like collaborators.”
But no one can be an effective scientific collaborator without also being a skilled scientist in their own right. And if Hassabis is anywhere near the mark when he talks about the “foothills of the singularity,” then AI scientists could eventually exceed the capabilities of their human counterparts.
In a discussion with the journalist Mike Allen at I/O, Hassabis spoke of how he was initially inspired to pursue AI when he observed how progress in physics had stagnated since the 1970s; he wondered whether the human mind had reached its limits in that domain, and if AI could help to overcome that barrier. Superhuman agentic scientists would certainly fit that bill. We might not ever get anywhere near there, but Google seems to be aiming itself toward that summit.hide
Among a flurry of posts on social media last weekend, US president Donald Trump declared “good riddance” to a specific emissions scenario used in global climate projections.
The “RCP8.5” scenario, which envisages a future of very high carbon emissions, was “wrong, wrong, wrong”, the president wrote in block capitals.
The post was quickly picked up by right-leaning media, amplifying Trump’s misrepresentation of emissions scenarios and the role of the IPCC.
His claim follows the publication of a new set of emissions scenarios that will feed into the next IPCC reports.
While the new scenarios no longer include such high emissions as in RCP8.5, they also show it is “not possible” to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels without significant “overshoot”, one of the authors tells Carbon Brief.
Moreover, projections suggest that the world is still on course for between 2.5C and 3C of warming, another author says.
This level of warming was previously described as “catastrophic” by the UN.
In this factcheck, Carbon Brief looks at Trump’s comments, the debate around RCP8.5 and the “good” and “bad” news within the latest scenarios.
In the late evening of Saturday 16 May, Trump posted the following message on his Truth Social social-media platform:
“Dumocrats” is a derogatory nickname for Democrat politicians, debuted by the president in a televised Fox News interview on Thursday 14 May, according to the Independent.
By “top climate committee”, the president was presumably referring to the IPCC, the UN body responsible for assessing science about human-caused climate change.
However, the IPCC does not develop, control or own climate scenarios. Moreover, it has not published anything stating that any climate scenario is “wrong”. (For more, see: How is the IPCC involved?)
Nevertheless, right-leaning media outlets have reported on Trump’s comments, in many instances repeating his false assertion that the RCP8.5 climate scenario had been developed by the IPCC.
The New York Post misleadingly claimed that the IPCC “had quietly adjusted” its framework of emission scenarios. The Daily Caller, a pro-Trump conspiratorial US outlet, adds its own falsehoods stating that “IPCC researchers revised their modelling approach last month, swapping the extreme pathway for seven alternative scenarios”. The climate-sceptic Australian claimed that scientists had “quietly scrapped the apocalyptic forecasts that have terrified policymakers and the public”.
With Fox News also covering Trump’s comments, along with an earlier article by the Times, much of the reporting around RCP8.5 in recent days has been driven by media controlled by the climate-sceptic mogul Rupert Murdoch.
It is not the first time the Trump administration has attacked RCP8.5. In an executive order issued in May 2025 – entitled, “Restoring gold-standard science” – the White House included the climate scenario in a list of examples of how the previous government had “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner”.
Excerpt from White House executive order, issued in May 2025.
Federal agencies, it claimed, had been using RCP8.5 to “assess the potential effects of climate change in a higher warming scenario”, despite scientists warning that “presenting RCP8.5 as a likely outcome is misleading”.
The executive order came after Project 2025 – a policy wishlist for Trump’s second term published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation, an influential rightwing, climate-sceptic thinktank in the US – criticised the climate scenario.
The manifesto said a “day-one” priority for the new government should be to “eliminate” the US Environmental Protection Agency’s “use of unauthorised regulatory inputs”, such as “unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on RCP8.5”.
What is RCP8.5?
Scientists use emissions scenarios to explore potential future climates, based on how global energy and land use could change in the decades to come.
These scenarios are not predictions or forecasts of what will happen in the future. Therefore, Trump’s declaration that projections under RCP8.5 were “wrong, wrong, wrong” misrepresents the purpose of emissions scenarios.
Different modelling groups have produced thousands of different scenarios over the years. RCP8.5 was developed by scientists back in the early 2010s as one of a set of four consistent “representative concentration pathways”, or RCPs, for climate modellers to use.
As their name suggests, the RCPs were representative of the vast array of scenarios in the scientific literature.
Their corresponding numbers – 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 – do not describe temperature rise (as some mistakenly assume), but the level of “radiative forcing” that each pathway reaches by 2100. This forcing level is a measure of the change in the Earth’s “energy balance” (in watts per square metre) caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
As the highest forcing of the set, RCP8.5 was a scenario of very high emissions and extensive global warming.
When it was originally published in 2011, RCP8.5 was intended to reflect the high end – roughly the 90th percentile – of the baseline scenarios available in the scientific literature at the time.
“RCP8.5 was developed as a no-climate-policy scenario, often called ‘reference’ or ‘baseline’ scenarios. These are used to benchmark the actions of climate policy.”
Under RCP8.5, the IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) in 2013 projected a best estimate of 4.3C of temperature rise by 2081-2100, compared to the pre-industrial period, with a “likely” range of 3.2C to 5.4C.
The RCPs were succeeded in 2017 by the “shared socioeconomic pathways”, or SSPs. The SSPs included a set of five socioeconomic “narratives”, which described factors such as population change, economic growth and the rate of technological development.
The SSPs were then used in the IPCC’s sixth assessment (AR6) cycle, which ran over 2015-23. The upper end of the AR6 temperature projections was provided by the successor to RCP8.5, known as SSP5-8.5, which indicated warming of 4.4C by 2081-2100, with a “very likely” range of 3.3C to 5.7C.
Why is RCP8.5 so hotly debated?
Prof Detlef van Vuuren from Utrecht University, a leading figure in the development of emissions scenarios for many years, tells Carbon Brief that RCP8.5 is a “low-probability, high-risk scenario and it was always meant like that”.
The scenario assumed a world without climate policy and was designed to explore the consequences of high levels of greenhouse gases and global warming. It was not, van Vueren says, a “best-guess scenario” of what the future held in store.
However, in some research papers, RCP8.5 was characterised as “business as usual”, suggesting that it was the likely outcome if society did not pursue climate action.
This was “incorrect”, says van Vuuren, noting that RCP8.5 “is not a likely outcome”. He adds: “It’s never been a likely outcome.”
Over time, RCP8.5 became hotly debated in academic circles, with some scientists arguing that such high emissions were becoming increasingly unlikely and others claiming that RCP8.5 was still consistent with historical cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Carbon Brief unpacked the arguments in this debate in a detailed explainer in 2019.
The charts below, originally included in a 2012 Nature commentary and then updated each year by the authors, shows how projected CO2 emissions under RCP8.5 (red line) compares with the other RCPs (bold coloured lines) and observations (black line).
The left-hand chart shows total CO2 emissions, including land-use change, while the right-hand chart shows CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and producing cement – the dominant drivers of 21st century emissions.
Global total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and land use (left) and global fossil CO2 emissions (left) for historical observations (black lines) and the four RCP (coloured bold lines) for 1980-2050. Originally produced as part of Peters et al. (2012) and since updated by Glen Peters and Robbie Andrew.
While emission trends up to the early 2010s approximately tracked RCP8.5, a flattening of emissions growth in the years since has meant they have not kept pace with the sustained rises that were assumed in the scenario.
Over the past decade, global emissions have more closely tracked RCP4.5, one of the two “medium stabilisation scenarios” of the original four RCPs.
The debate around RCP8.5 has not just focused on current emissions, but also on the scenario’s underlying assumptions for the future.
When it was published in 2011, the world had just seen unprecedented growth in global CO2 emissions, which had increased by 30% over the previous decade. Global coal use had increased by nearly 50% over the same period. Cleaner alternatives remained expensive in most countries and the idea of continued rapid growth in coal use seemed realistic.
Critics of RCP8.5 point to its assumptions for a dramatic expansion of coal use in the future, as well as high growth in global population.
For example, in a 2017 paper, two scientists argued that the “return to coal” envisaged in RCP8.5 would require an unprecedented five-fold increase in global coal use by the end of the century. Such an outcome was “exceptionally unlikely”, the authors wrote.
However, others have argued that while high-emissions scenarios are becoming increasingly unlikely, they still have an important role to play. For example, they highlight risks that only emerge under higher levels of warming.
In addition, research has shown that feedbacks in the climate system – where warming triggers the release of more CO2 and methane, which warms the planet further – could mean that human-caused emissions lead to a higher radiative forcing and have a greater climate impact than initially assumed.
How has RCP8.5 been replaced?
As the IPCC heads into its seventh assessment cycle (AR7), scientists have been developing the emissions scenarios and climate model projections that will – eventually – feed into its reports.
For the emissions scenarios, that process – known as ScenarioMIP – started back in 2023 at a meeting in Reading, UK. This involved scientists representing “different climate research communities”, explains van Vuuren.
This “brainstorming” session devised the outlines for the new scenarios, he says. After more meetings, these were subsequently developed into a proposal that was – after review – translated into a journal paper. After review from scientists and the public, the final paper was published in April.
The paper sets out seven all-new emissions scenarios, replacing the SSPs (and its predecessors, the RCPs). For simplicity, the new scenarios are named according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
The figures below show the emissions (left) and the estimated global temperature changes (right) under the proposed scenarios, from the “low-to-negative” emissions scenario (turquoise) up to a “high-emissions” scenario (brown).
The greenhouse gas emissions for each of the CMIP7 climate scenarios (left) and the associated estimated average temperature change over 2000-2150 from a 1850-1900 baseline (right) using the FaIR emulator. Source: Adapted from Van Vuuren et al. (2026)
(It should be noted that, while the ScenarioMIP paper has been published, there remains an embargo on using the scenario data produced by integrated assessment models – often referred to as IAMs – to publish academic papers, analysis or even social media posts until 1 September this year. Carbon Brief will publish a detailed explainer on the new scenarios once the embargo lifts.)
When compared to the SSPs that came before, the range in future emissions in the new scenarios “will be smaller”, the authors say in the paper:
“On the high-end of the range, the…high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends…At the low end, many…emission trajectories have become inconsistent with observed trends during the 2020-30 period.”
In other words, the combination of technological progress and action on climate change that, to date, remains insufficient, means that scenarios of very high or very low emissions are now not considered plausible.
Another way of looking at it is that the “range of potential futures has narrowed”, explains Smith, one of the authors on the paper.
If you “draw a fan or plume of potential future emissions that start in 2025”, it lies entirely within the spread of scenarios from a decade ago, he says:
“So you’ve ruled out futures at the high end. You’ve also ruled out futures at the low end – so it’s now not possible to limit warming to 1.5C, at least in the short term or the medium term.”
This is a mix of “good” and “bad” news, Smith adds.
“In the latest set of scenarios, the lowest [scenario sees] peaking at about 1.7C, so we’ve also lost that low end, but the good news is we’ve lost the high end…Back in 2010, RCP8.5 wasn’t an implausible future, we’ve now made it an implausible future, because we’ve actually bent the curve [on emissions] enough to eliminate that possibility.”
The new “high” scenario projects warming in 2100 of closer to 3.2C (with a range of 2.5C to 4.3C).
To be clear, this “high” scenario would still come with catastrophic climate impacts, even if the level of warming would remain slightly below what was set out in RCP8.5.
Van Vuuren adds that the world is “now on a trajectory to 2.5-3C of warming”. As a result, “we don’t have any scenario anymore that can reach 1.5C with limited overshoot – we will have a significant overshoot”.
How is the IPCC involved?
Contrary to Trump’s claims, the common set of future emissions scenarios used by climate scientists are not developed by the IPCC, the UN climate-science body that produces landmark reports about climate change.
Instead, the development process described above is driven by a group of Earth system modelling experts convened by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
CMIP – an initiative of another UN body, the World Climate Research Programme – coordinates the work of dozens of climate modelling centres around the world.
Working in six-to-eight year cycles, CMIP asks modelling centres around the world to run a common set of climate-model experiments – simulations that use the same inputs and conditions – that allows for results to be collected together and more easily compared.
For experiments that explore how the climate might change in the future, modelling centres are instructed to run simulations against a fixed set of future climate scenarios, each with different levels of concentrations of greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change.
These future emissions scenarios are revisited each time CMIP embarks on a new “phase” of climate-modelling coordination, to reflect advances in scientific understanding and the pace of real-world climate action.
The group tasked with producing the design of future scenarios, as well as the “input files” for climate models, is the “scenario model intercomparison project”, or ScenarioMIP.
CMIP aligns its work with the schedule of the IPCC, coordinating a new set of model runs for each IPCC assessment cycle.
For example, the IPCC’s AR5 in 2013 featured climate models from the fifth phase of CMIP (CMIP5), whereas AR6 in 2021 used climate models from CMIP’s sixth phase (CMIP6).
AR7 will feature models from CMIP’s ongoing seventh phase (CMIP7). The first results from CMIP7 model runs are expected later this year.
The IPCC is consulted during the CMIP process, van Vuuren tells Carbon Brief, but its input is “no different from any other review comment” that the ScenarioMIP team received.
Thus, while the IPCC relies on model runs coordinated by CMIP in its landmark reports, it does not play a role in designing future emissions scenarios, nor in deciding when they should be retired.
Dr Robert Vautard, co-chair of IPCC AR7 Working Group I, tells Carbon Brief that the IPCC does not “do or coordinate research”. Its role, he says, is to “synthesise existing knowledge” and produce “regular” reviews of climate-science literature.
He adds that ScenarioMIP is just one set of scenarios the climate-science body assesses in its reports:
“IPCC assesses all scenarios, or sets of scenarios, that the scientific community produces. IPCC does not produce scenarios. CMIP7 will be [one] set of scenarios assessed by IPCC [for AR7] – but there will be many others.”
Chennai was not on the list this time, but is no stranger to high temperatures. In the south-eastern coastal capital of Tamil Nadu, extreme humidity and heat are inescapable facts of life.
“The heat is by no means manageable, but we have no choice but to deal with it,” said Mohammed S, a 29-year-old grocery platform delivery worker, speaking to Carbon Brief.
Last year, Chennai became India’s first ever city to roll out air-conditioned lounges for millions of gig workers, like Mohammed, navigating India’s increasingly hotter cities.
Gig workers leave their slippers outside the lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched
Through the building’s tinted windows, workers wearing synthetic jerseys emblazoned with food delivery app logos are stretched out on wooden benches meant to seat 25 people.
The lounge has charging points for phones, a water cooler and a unisex toilet. It might not seem like much, but workers tell Carbon Brief that it has made a “huge difference” to their lives – even on a day when the air conditioner stopped working.
“Before this, life was very difficult,” said Mohammed. He continued:
“We would park our [electric] bikes and try to find a tree to sleep under, stop for tea and tea shop owners would tell us we couldn’t sit there for more than 10 minutes, try to rest in a building’s stairwell and be chased away, then try to find shade under a flyover. Now we can sit in the AC and avoid the worst of the heat.”
Dinesh, 27, said his day starts at dawn before the sun is up, picking up packages from companies in north Chennai – another critical heat hotspot.
For the next seven hours, there is no “off point” or breaks for Dinesh as apps rush deliveries.
Some of Chennai’s gig workers told Carbon Brief they try to avoid the worst of afternoon temperatures from noon to 3pm, but for many – especially migrant workers – sitting back in the lounge is not a choice they can afford. One of them explained:
“If you don’t have cash to cover your bills or have to send money back home, you head out into the heat for a 12-hour shift and hope for the best.”
Dinesh checks his orders in the gig worker’s lounge. Credit: Ishan Tankha / Scorched
Feeling ‘gear’
In Chennai, heat might be normalised, but it has its own vocabulary. Speaking to Carbon Brief, the city’s gig workers, auto rickshaw drivers and fish sellers used an all-encompassing term – “gear” – to describe their symptoms, including dizziness, exhaustion and nausea.
Last summer, researchers offered Delhi’s gig workers a Rs 200 (roughly £2) cash transfer on the first day of a heatwave, to provide them with a means to achieve “real-time” adaptation to heat risk. Workers who received a cash transfer reported fewer heat-related symptoms, according to the study.
Asked if they would accept similar incentives to stay home on 40C days, workers in the T Nagar lounge expressed disbelief. Dinesh – who also trains technicians on how to repair air conditioners to support his income – told Carbon Brief:
“They [the apps] offer us incentives to go out in the heat when there are fewer riders.”
Barring a few, none of the dozens of outdoor workers Carbon Brief spoke to had an air conditioner at home or in their hostels, making the lounge the only place they could cool down.
Anna Bawden Health and social affairs correspondent
Sat 16 May 2026 05.00 BST
The climate crisis should be declared a global public health emergency by the World Health Organization, or millions more people will die unnecessarily, leading international experts have said.
The international spread of vector-borne disease, such as dengue and chikungunya, as well as the health impacts of extreme weather events, global heating, food insecurity and air pollution make a Pheic necessary, said the commission’s report, which will be presented to European ministers on Sunday before the WHO’s world health assembly starts on Monday.
Pheics are the highest level of health alert. Previous declarations include infectious diseases such as Covid and Mpox. While declaring one would not on its own reverse climate change, it would trigger the kind of coordinated international response that the scale of the health crisis demands but has not yet materialised.
The 11-strong independent commission, which includes former health and climate ministers, said: “Far from being a fading priority or fake news, climate change poses an immediate and long-term threat to health, economic, food, water, environmental, personal, community and national security.”
Andrew Haines and Katrin Jakobsdóttir, the commission’s chief scientific adviser and chair respectively. Photograph: WHO/Hedinn Halldorsson
In an interview with the Guardian, Katrín Jakobsdóttir, a former prime minister of Iceland who chaired the commission, said: “The climate crisis may not be a pandemic, but it’s still a public health emergency that threatens humanity’s very health and survival. And if we don’t act more quickly and comprehensively, many millions more people could die or face life-changing illness.”
Sir Andrew Haines, a professor of environmental change and public health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and the commission’s chief scientific adviser, said: “WHO has already recognised that climate change is a major threat to global health. What we’re asking for is a step further.”
He added: “If we carry on emitting at current rates, that will accelerate the risks to health for both current and future generations including: more people suffering and dying from excess heat, floods and infectious diseases, air pollution from wildfires, more preterm births and more food insecurity.”
The commission also urged governments to stop subsidising fossil fuels, which are directly responsible for 600,000 premature deaths a year in Europe alone. The region spends about €444bn (£387bn) a year on subsidies for oil and gas production, the report said. In 12 European countries, fossil fuel subsidies exceeded 10% of national health expenditure in 2023 and in four exceeded the entire health budget, the report observed.
“This is not a sustainable energy policy. It’s really more of a public health failure,” Jakobsdóttir said. “And it’s one that could get a lot worse. New subsidies for fossil fuels as well as countries considering redrilling in the wake of the Iran crisis would be catastrophic for health.
“European governments are subsidising the very industries responsible for their own citizens’ premature deaths. We need health leaders to really step into the climate debate and not just be on the receiving end of it.”
The commission urged governments to stop subsidising fossil fuels, which are responsible for 600,000 premature deaths a year in Europe. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
The report also called for measures to tackle disinformation, greater use of national climate health impact assessments, as well as recognition that climate change was also a mental health crisis.
Jakobsdóttir said: “The way to challenge climate scepticism and misinformation is simple: make it personal. Climate change is not happening somewhere else, to someone else, in the future. It is shortening lives in European cities right now. It is filling hospitals. It is driving anxiety and stress and other mental health issues. And the policies that would fix it – clean air, active travel, insulated homes, sustainable food – are exactly the policies that make people healthier and happier today.
“When the health argument and the climate argument are the same argument, it becomes very hard to oppose.”
The report also recommended that countries’ healthcare systems needed to become more resilient to the rapidly changing environment in order to try to adapt as much as possible.
“Every country needs to be aware of where its health facilities are situated, how likely it is to be flooded and how they would deal with an extreme and prolonged heatwave,” Haines said, pointing out that hospitals were often built on floodplains and frequently were not energy efficient.
“Even in the UK, which is a temperate country, we know that many hospitals struggle when it comes to extreme heat,” he added. “Many of the buildings were designed before climate change.”
The healthcare sector accounts for 5% of global emissions worldwide, so needs to prioritise adaptation to become more resilient, the report concluded.
Members of the emergency military unit try to extinguish a wildfire in Ourense province, Spain, in August 2025. Photograph: Pablo Blázquez Domínguez/Getty Images
Responding to the recommendations, Dr Hans Kluge, the WHO’s regional director for Europe, said: “The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have clearly shown what fossil fuel dependency really means – not just higher bills, but strained or broken health systems, disrupted food and fuel supplies and societies under pressure.
“The case for acting on climate now is not just environmental. It is a security argument, a health argument and an economic argument, all at once. And it is a moral imperative.”
Kluge added: “The decisions taken by governments today will determine the disease burden carried by people who are currently in primary school. It now falls to the rest of us to act on their recommendations and protect future generations. I commit to ensuring that climate change is treated as the health emergency it is across the 53 member states of the WHO European region.”
Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, welcomed the report. He said: “The current state of the planet, where we are breaching multiple planetary boundaries, and which manifests itself as public health threats impacting millions of people across the world, provides ample scientific evidence that climate change should be declared a public health emergency of international concern.”
AI forecast models offer some clear benefits over traditional physical models, but they are ill-equipped to handle the increasing volatility of a warming climate.
On November 12, 1970, the Bhola cyclone slammed into the coast of what was then East Pakistan. The storm brought maximum sustained wind speeds of 130 miles per hour (205 kilometers per hour) and a 35-foot (10.5-meter) storm surge, killing an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people.
Today, the Bhola cyclone remains the deadliest tropical storm on record. But if it had struck a decade later, it might not have been so devastating. Weather forecasting changed dramatically in the 1970s as meteorologists adopted physics-based computer models that improved storm prediction. With the rise of AI, forecasting is evolving again—but this time, experts worry the new models may be less reliable when it comes to predicting unprecedented weather events.
Researchers are calling this the “gray swan” problem. Gray swan weather extremes are physically plausible but so rare that they are poorly represented in training datasets. The trouble is, climate change is leading to more first-of-their-kind weather extremes. Think: the 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave. This event was so severe that it would have been virtually impossible without climate change.
Physical forecast models can simulate gray swan events like the Pacific Northwest heatwave, though they are labeled extremely rare. They can do that because they are built on the laws of physics. AI models are trained on past weather data, wherein gray swans are practically nonexistent.
“They fail on gray swans,” Pedram Hassanzadeh, an associate professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, told Gizmodo. He and his colleagues published a study last April that removed all Category 3 through 5 hurricanes from an AI model’s training dataset, then tested it on Category 5 storms. The results showed that AI models cannot accurately forecast previously unseen events, as this would require extrapolation.
“The concern isn’t occasional misses. It’s that AI models can miss silently, producing confident forecasts of unremarkable weather while a record-breaking event is unfolding,” Rose Yu, an associate professor of computer science and engineering at the University of California San Diego, told Gizmodo in an email.
“Other risks matter too,” she said. “AI models can violate conservation laws in subtle ways that don’t show up in standard metrics. When they bust a forecast, diagnosing why is harder. They depend on stable observing systems, which is a real concern given current pressure on satellite programs. And institutionally, if we consolidate around AI too quickly and let physics-based infrastructure atrophy, we lose the redundancy that currently catches AI’s failures.”
The case for AI forecasting
Despite these pitfalls, meteorologists are rapidly adopting AI forecast models, and it’s actually easy to understand why. They’re faster, cheaper, and require far less computational infrastructure than physical models. When it comes to predicting typical weather patterns and events (not gray swans), their accuracy is comparable and improving rapidly.
“The typical rate of progress for most state-of-the-art physical models has been something like a day more accurate per decade, which doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s consequential,” Andrew Charlton-Perez, a professor of meteorology and head of the School of Mathematical, Physical, and Computational Sciences at the University of Reading, told Gizmodo.
“The rate of accuracy growth for machine learning models has vastly exceeded that,” he said. “They are now competitive, and two-three years ago, they were not even in the same ballpark.”
During the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, for example, Google DeepMind’s model outperformed nearly every physical model on storm track and intensity. In fact, since 2023, leading AI models such as GraphCast, Pangu-Weather, and the ECMWF’s AIFS have matched or outperformed the best physical models on medium-range forecasting metrics, according to Yu.
AI models are proving especially valuable in parts of the world that lack traditional forecasting resources—regions that are often on the frontlines of climate change. Hassanzadeh co-directed an initiative that provided 38 million farmers across India with AI-based monsoon forecasts, giving them up to four weeks’ advance notice of the rainy season’s onset.
“A lot of countries were left behind in that first revolution of weather forecasting, because [traditional] weather forecasting requires a supercomputer, hundreds of millions of dollars, various fields, workforce, and experts,” Hassanzadeh explained. AI models, by comparison, are far more accessible to lower-income countries.
Filling the knowledge gaps
Still, rapidly adopting these models without addressing the risks would be dangerous, especially in parts of the world highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Shruti Nath, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Oxford, recently co-authored an editorial calling for more rigorous testing of AI forecast models before public agencies widely adopt them.
“There is still a lot of work to be done in understanding the limits of these models, alongside where they could supplement physical models and why,” she told Gizmodo in an email.
Nath’s editorial outlines a framework for testing AI forecast models that would deliberately withhold a designated set of “iconic” extreme events (like the Pacific Northwest heat wave, for example) from the training dataset. These events would be reserved solely for testing in order to assess the models’ ability to extrapolate unprecedented weather extremes, or gray swans.
Actually implementing this AI Retraining Without Iconic Events (AIRWIE) protocol “would require the meteorological community to agree on which high-impact events constitute a rigorous benchmark,” the editorial states. This would be a great undertaking, but Nath believes most researchers agree that there is an urgent need for this kind of testing.
“We need to be a bit more organized, however, in ensuring that proper protocols can be followed and that robust safeguards are put in place and maintained by the community,” Nath said. “This is difficult when things are in such a hype phase and no one wants to miss out on the bandwagon.”
Other researchers, like Hassanzadeh, are developing ways to teach AI forecast models to predict gray swans. He and his colleagues are investigating whether combining AI systems with “relevant sampling” methods—which allow them to generate samples of gray swan events—can improve the models’ ability to extrapolate unprecedented extremes.
Efforts to understand and address the limitations of AI forecasting will be critical, because there’s no turning back now. AI is already reshaping the way we predict the weather, and as the climate becomes increasingly volatile, meteorologists will need every tool in their arsenal to be sharp and reliable. Despite their current limitations, there is much to gain from continuing to push these systems forward and figuring out how to best integrate them with physical forecasting.
“The research agenda is about making AI models physically consistent, well-calibrated, and robust to distribution shift,” Yu said. “Abandoning this approach because of the gray swan problem means giving up the biggest improvement in forecasting in a generation.”
Brent Dmitruk se autodenomina um “previsor” de terremotos.
Em meados de outubro, ele disse às suas dezenas de milhares de seguidores nas redes sociais que um terremoto atingiria em breve o ponto mais ocidental da Califórnia, ao sul da pequena cidade costeira de Eureka, nos EUA.
Dois meses depois, um tremor de magnitude 7,3 atingiu o local ao norte da Califórnia–colocando milhões de pessoas sob alerta de tsunami, e aumentando o número de seguidores de Dmitruk, que confiaram nele para prever o próximo abalo sísmico.
“Então, para as pessoas que menosprezam o que eu faço: como vocês podem argumentar que é apenas uma coincidência? É preciso ter muita habilidade para descobrir para onde os terremotos vão”, afirmou ele na véspera do Ano Novo.
Por que previsões de terremotos falham tanto – Getty Images via BBC
Mas há um problema: os terremotos não podem ser previstos, dizem os cientistas que estudam o fenômeno.
É exatamente essa imprevisibilidade que os torna tão perturbadores. Milhões de pessoas que vivem na costa oeste da América do Norte temem que o “Big One” (que significa “O Grande”) possa acontecer a qualquer momento, alterando paisagens e inúmeras vidas.
O terremoto de Northridge, em Los Angeles, que matou 57 pessoas e feriu milhares de outras, em 1994, foi o abalo sísmico mais mortal nos EUA na memória recente – Getty Images via BBC
Lucy Jones, sismóloga que trabalhou para o Serviço Geológico dos EUA (USGS, na sigla em inglês) por mais de três décadas, e é autora de um livro chamado The Big Ones, concentrou grande parte de sua pesquisa nas probabilidades de terremotos e na melhoria da resiliência para resistir a esses eventos cataclísmicos.
Desde que começou a estudar terremotos, Jones conta que sempre houve pessoas querendo uma resposta para quando o “Big One”–que significa coisas diferentes, em regiões diferentes–vai acontecer, e alegando ter desvendado a questão.
“A necessidade humana de criar um padrão diante do perigo é extremamente forte, é uma resposta humana bastante normal ao medo”, diz ela à BBC. “No entanto, isso não tem nenhum poder de previsão.”
Com cerca de 100 mil terremotos registrados no mundo todo a cada ano, de acordo com o USGS, é compreensível que as pessoas queiram ser avisadas.
A região de Eureka, uma cidade costeira a 434 quilômetros ao norte de San Francisco, onde ocorreu o terremoto de dezembro, registrou mais de 700 terremotos somente no último ano–incluindo mais de 10 apenas na última semana, segundo os dados.
A região, onde Dmitruk adivinhou corretamente que haveria um terremoto, é uma das “áreas sismicamente mais ativas” dos EUA, de acordo com o USGS. Sua volatilidade se deve ao encontro de três placas tectônicas, uma área conhecida como Junção Tripla de Mendocino.
É o movimento das placas em relação umas às outras – seja acima, abaixo ou ao lado – que causa o acúmulo de estresse. Quando a tensão é liberada, pode ocorrer um terremoto.
Adivinhar que um tremor aconteceria aqui é uma aposta fácil, diz Jones, embora um terremoto forte, de magnitude sete, seja bastante raro.
O USGS destaca que houve apenas 11 terremotos deste tipo ou mais fortes desde 1900. Cinco deles, incluindo o que Dmitruk promoveu nas redes sociais, ocorreram na mesma região.
Embora o palpite estivesse correto, Jones afirma à BBC que é improvável que qualquer terremoto– inclusive os maiores, que devastam a sociedade–possa ser previsto com precisão.
Segundo ela, há um conjunto complexo e “dinâmico” de fatores geológicos que levam a um terremoto.
A magnitude de um terremoto é provavelmente formada à medida que o evento está ocorrendo, Jones explica, usando o ato de rasgar um pedaço de papel como analogia: o rasgo vai continuar a menos que haja algo que o interrompa ou retarde–como marcas de água que deixam o papel molhado.
Os cientistas sabem por que ocorre um terremoto – movimentos repentinos ao longo de falhas geológicas–, mas prever este evento é algo que, segundo o USGS, não pode ser feito, e algo que “não esperamos descobrir em um futuro próximo”.
San Francisco ficou em ruínas após o terremoto de 1906 – Getty Images via BBC
A agência observa que pode calcular a probabilidade de terremotos em uma região específica dentro de um determinado número de anos – mas isso é o mais próximo que eles conseguem chegar.
Os registros geológicos mostram que alguns dos terremotos de maiores proporções, conhecidos como “Big Ones” pelos moradores locais, acontecem com certa regularidade. Sabe-se que a zona de subducção de Cascadia desliza a cada 300 a 500 anos, devastando regularmente a costa noroeste do Pacífico com megatsunamis de 30,5 metros de altura.
A falha de San Andreas, no sul da Califórnia, também é fonte de outro potencial “Big One”, com terremotos devastadores ocorrendo a cada 200 a 300 anos. Especialistas afirmam que o “Big One” pode acontecer a qualquer momento em qualquer uma das regiões.
Jones conta que, ao longo de sua carreira, milhares de pessoas a alertaram com previsões de um grande terremoto–inclusive indivíduos na década de 1990, que enviavam faxes para seu escritório na esperança de fazer um alerta.
“Quando você recebe uma previsão toda semana, alguém vai ter sorte, certo?”, diz ela rindo. “Mas isso geralmente subia à cabeça deles, e eles faziam mais 10 previsões que não estavam certas.”
Esta situação parece ter acontecido com Dmitruk, que não tem formação científica. Há muito tempo ele prevê que um terremoto incrivelmente grande atingiria o sudoeste do Alasca, o Japão ou as ilhas da costa da Nova Zelândia, com uma magnitude tão forte que, segundo ele, poderia interromper o comércio global.
O USGS afirma que uma previsão de terremoto precisa ter três elementos definidos – uma data e hora, o local e a magnitude do tremor – para ser útil.
Mas o cronograma de Dmitruk continua mudando.
Em um determinado momento, ele disse que o terremoto ocorreria imediatamente antes ou depois da posse do presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump.
Depois, ele anunciou que aconteceria, sem dúvida, antes de 2030.
Embora esse terremoto de grandes proporções ainda não tenha ocorrido, Dmitruk afirma que ainda acredita que vai acontecer.
“Não acredito que seja apenas por acaso”, diz Dmitruk à BBC. “Não é aleatório ou sorte.”
Este tipo de pensamento é comum quando se trata de terremotos, de acordo com Jones.
“Distribuições aleatórias podem parecer ter padrões, vemos constelações nas estrelas”, ela observa.
“Muita gente tem muito medo de terremoto, e a maneira de lidar com isso é prever [quando] eles vão acontecer.”
Como você pode se preparar diante da incerteza de um terremoto
No entanto, o fato de não ser possível prever quando vai acontecer um terremoto, não significa que você deva estar despreparado, segundo especialistas.
Todos os anos, na terceira quinta-feira de outubro, milhões de americanos participam da maior simulação de terremoto do planeta: The Great Shake Out, que pode ser traduzida como “a grande sacudida”.
O exercício foi criado por um grupo do Centro de Terremotos do Sul da Califórnia, que incluía Jones.
Durante a simulação, as pessoas praticam a orientação de “se abaixar, se cobrir e aguardar”: elas se ajoelham, se protegem sob um objeto resistente, como uma mesa, e se mantêm assim por um minuto.
O exercício se tornou tão popular desde sua criação que se espalhou pela costa propensa a terremotos para outros Estados e países.
Se estiverem ao ar livre, as pessoas são aconselhadas a ir para um espaço aberto longe de árvores, edifícios ou linhas de transmissão de energia. Perto do oceano, os moradores praticam fugir para terrenos mais altos depois que o tremor cessa, para se preparar para a possibilidade de um tsunami.
“Agora, enquanto o solo não está tremendo, enquanto não é uma situação muito estressante, é realmente o melhor momento para praticar”, afirma Brian Terbush, gerente do Programa de Terremotos e Vulcões da Divisão de Gerenciamento de Emergências do Estado de Washington, nos EUA.
Além das simulações, os moradores dos Estados da Costa Oeste americana usam um sistema de alerta telefônico mantido pelo USGS, chamado ShakeAlert.
O sistema funciona por meio da detecção de ondas de pressão emitidas por um terremoto. Embora não possa prever quando um terremoto vai ocorrer em um futuro distante, ele fornece um alerta com segundos de antecedência que podem salvar vidas. É a coisa mais próxima de um “previsor” de terremotos que foi inventada até agora.
For the past few years, scientists have watched, aghast, as global temperatures have surged — with both 2023 and 2024 reachingaround 1.5 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average. In some ways, that record heat was expected: Scientists predicted that El Niño, combined with decreasing air pollution that cools the earth, would cause temperatures to skyrocket.
But even those factors, scientists say, are not sufficient to explain the world’s recent record heat.
Earth’s overall energy imbalance — the amount of heat the planet is taking in minus the amount of heat it is releasing — also continues to rise, worrying scientists. The energy imbalance drives global warming. If it rises, scientists expect global temperatures to follow.
Two new studies offer a potential explanation: fewer clouds. And the decline in cloud cover, researchers say, could signal the start of a feedback loop that leads to more warming.
“We have added a new piece to the puzzle of where we are headed,” Helge Goessling, a climate physicist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and the author of one of the studies,saidin a video interview.
For years, scientists have struggled to incorporate clouds’ influence into the large-scale climate models that help them predict the planet’s future. Clouds can affect the climate system in two ways: First, their white surfaces reflect the sun’s light, cooling the planet. But clouds also act as a kind of blanket, reflecting infrared radiation back to the surface of the planet, just like greenhouse gases.
Which factor wins out depends on the type of cloud and its altitude. High, thin cirrus clouds tend to have more of a warming effect on the planet. Low, fluffy cumulus clouds have more of a cooling effect.
“Clouds are a huge lever on the climate system,” said Andrew Gettelman, an affiliate scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “A small change in clouds could be a large change in how we warm the planet.”
Researchers are beginning to pinpoint how clouds are changing as the world warms. In Goessling’s study, published in December in the journal Science, researchers analyzed how clouds have changed over the past decade. They found that low-altitude cloud cover has fallen dramatically — which has also reduced the reflectivity of the planet. The year 2023 — which was 1.48 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average — had the lowest albedo since 1940.
In short, the Earth is getting darker.
That low albedo, Goessling and his co-authors calculated, contributed 0.2 degrees Celsius of warming to 2023’s record-high temperatures — an amount roughly equivalent to the warming that has so far been unexplained. “This number of about 0.2 degrees fairly well fits this ‘missing warming,’” Goessling said.
Researchers are still unsure exactly what accounts for this decrease. Some believe that it could be due to less air pollution: When particulates are in the air, it can make it easier for water droplets to stick to them and form clouds.
Another possibility, Goessling said, is a feedback loop from warming temperatures. Clouds require moisture to form, and moist stratocumulus clouds sit just underneath a dry layer of air about one mile high. If temperatures warm, hot air from below can disturb that dry layer, mixing with it and making it harder for wet clouds to form.
But those changes are difficult to predict — and not all climate models show the same changes. “It’s really tricky,” Goessling said.
Other scientists have also found decliningcloud cover. In a preprint study presented at a science conference in December, a group of researchers at NASA found that some of the Earth’s cloudiest zones have been shrinking over the past two decades. Three areas of clouds — one that stretches around the Earth’s equator, and two around the stormy midlatitude zones in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres — have narrowed since 2000, decreasing the reflectivity of the Earth and warming the planet.
George Tselioudis, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the lead author of the preprint, said this decrease in cloud cover can help explain why the Earth’s energy imbalance has been growing over the past two decades. Overall, the cloud cover in these regions is shrinking by about 1.5 percent per decade, he said, warming the Earth.
Tselioudis said that warming could be constraining these cloud-heavy regions — thus heatingthe planet.“We’ve always understood that the cloud feedback is positive — and it very well could be strong,” he said. “This seems to explain a big part of why clouds are changing the way they are.”
If the cloud changes are part of a feedback loop, scientists warn, that could indicate more warming coming, with extreme heat for billions of people around the globe. Every hot year buttresses the idea that some researchers have now embraced, that global temperature rise will reach the high end of what models had predicted. If so, the planet could pass 1.5 degrees Celsius later this decade.
Researchers now say that they are rushing to understand these effects as the planet continues to warm. “We are kind of in crunch time,” Goessling said. “We have a really strong climate signal — and from year to year it’s getting stronger.”
Cooling the earth by blocking out the sun, although potentially disastrous, is now a real answer to climate change. As a Harvard research paper published late last year proved, solar geo-engineering is both technically feasible and relatively cheap. With governments and international bodies considering the technology, a South African university has just announced a study. But how convenient is this answer for our politicians and heavy emitters?
I.Global Hollywood
In his book The Planet Remade: How Geo-engineering Could Change the World, Oliver Morton laid down a potential scenario from the not-too-distant future. As briefings editor at The Economist and former chief news and features editor at the scientific journal Nature, it was a given that this scenario—a thought experiment on the deployment into the stratosphere of “climate engineering” aerosols—would be based more in science fact than science fiction. Which is exactly what made it, like the best work of Robert Heinlein or Charlie Brooker, truly terrifying.
According to a Harvard study published in November 2018, three years after the release of Morton’s book, it would work in practice like this: a fleet of purpose-built aircraft, with disproportionately large wings relative to their fuselages, so as to allow “level flight at an altitude of 20 kilometres while carrying a 25-ton payload,” would inject 0.2 million tons of sulphur dioxide into the lower stratosphere per year—thereby reflecting enough solar radiation back out into space to cut the rate of global warming progressively in half. Pre-launch costs in 2018 values would come in at $3.5 billion, with yearly operating costs at $2.25 billion. Given that in 2017 around 50 nations had military budgets of $3 billion or more, noted the Harvard scientists, the barriers to entry would be remarkably low.
“It is not a large nation that does it—indeed, it is not a single nation’s action at all,” speculated Morton back in 2015. “Sometime in the 2020s, there is a small group of them, two of which are in a position to host the runways. They call themselves the Concert; once they go public, others call them the Affront. None of them is a rich nation, but nor are they among the least developed. All of them already have low carbon-dioxide emissions, and all of them are on pathways to no emissions at all. In climate terms, they look like the good guys. But their low emissions and the esteem of the environmentally conscious part of the international community are doing nothing to reduce the climate-related risks their citizens face.”
So why “truly terrifying”?
Because, as Morton went on to explain, solar geo-engineering—otherwise known as solar radiation management, or SRM—was not (or at least was no longer) a conceptual absurdity. When he wrote his book, its probability of deployment was already based on two of the most urgent existential questions in the history of humanity: 1) Are the risks of climate change great enough to warrant serious action aimed at mitigating them? 2) Will the world’s largest industrial economies be able to lower their carbon emissions to net zero by the middle of the century?
But terrifying more specifically because, by 2018, the answer to the first question was a scientifically unqualified “yes” and to the second a statistically implausible “no”—and yet the effect of SRM on the biosphere was still unknown. With the results from the Harvard study leading to the scheduling of tests as early as the first half of 2019, the Berlin-based climate science and policy institute Climate Analytics wasted no time in recommending a global ban on the technology.
“Solar radiation management aims at limiting temperature increase by deflecting sunlight, mostly through injection of particles into the atmosphere,” the institute noted. “At best, SRM would mask warming temporarily, but more fundamentally is itself a potentially dangerous interference with the climate system.”
SRM, argued the scientists at Climate Analytics, would “alter the global hydrological cycle as well as fundamentally affect global circulation patterns such as monsoons.” It would not “halt, reverse or address in any other way the profound and dangerous problem of ocean acidification which threatens coral reefs and marine life as it does not reduce CO2 emissions and hence influence atmospheric C02 concentration.” Also, the scientists pointed out, the approach was “unlikely to attenuate the effects of global warming on global agricultural production” as its “potentially positive effect due to cooling” was projected to be counterbalanced by “negative effects on crop production of reducing solar radiation at the earth’s surface.”
In other words, according to Climate Analytics, while cooler temperatures would be helpful to the world’s farmers, the crops would still need sunlight to grow. And none of the above even counted as the number one reason that the institute was raising the alarm—SRM’s gravest danger, these scientists and policy experts insisted, was that it would divert attention from the core problem, which remained the unprecedented amount of carbon being spewed daily into the atmosphere by the extraction of coal, crude oil and natural gas.
For Morton, this was the predicament known as the “superfreak pivot”—the turning of large masses of humanity from the position that “global warming requires no emissions reduction because it isn’t a real problem” to the position that “the Concert has it all covered”. It was a predicament highlighted too by Harvard scientist David Keith, who told the Guardian in 2017:
“One of the main concerns I and everyone involved in this have is that Trump might tweet ‘geoengineering solves everything—we don’t have to bother about emissions.’ That would break the slow-moving agreement among many environmental groups that sound research in this field makes sense.”
As for South Africa, less than two months after publication of the seminal Harvard paper of late 2018, a press release was issued by the African Climate and Development Initiative of the University of Cape Town.
“UCT researchers to embark on pioneering study on potential impacts of solar geoengineering in southern Africa,” it stated.
II. Local Hollywood
As the recipient of a grant from the international DECIMALS Fund (Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for SRM), the UCT team cited two reasons for going ahead with the study—and both of them had to do with the social and economic havoc that anthropogenic climate change had so far wrought in our corner of the world. First, the 2015/16 summer rainfall failure over southern Africa, which led to 30 million people becoming food insecure in South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Second, Cape Town almost running out of water in 2018. If SRM could be done in a safe and reliable manner, so the rationale went, it was “the only known way” to quickly offset the temperature increases that were behind the droughts.
“We want to understand the impact of solar radiation management on drought conditions,” Dr Romaric Odoulami, the project’s leader, told Daily Maverick, “that’s our motivation. What will the implications be for regional agriculture? But I want to make one thing clear: SRM has never been implemented in the real world… and we are not going to do it either.”
What the African Climate and Development Initiative was going to do, said Odoulami, was climate modelling. The project, he added, would run for the next “one or two years”—as soon as he got “something interesting,” he promised, he would let Daily Maverick know. For the moment, he wanted to leave us with this:
“Solar radiation management doesn’t stop climate change. It doesn’t stop global emissions of greenhouse gases. The only thing it does is help to reduce the global temperature by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface.”
This caution in the face of the sheer unprecedented scale of the thing was also detectable in the words of Andy Parker, project director of the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, the UK-based organisation—founded in 2010 by, among others, The World Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society—that set up the DECIMALS Fund in 2018. Speaking to Daily Maverick from a conference in Bangladesh, Parker was vague yet morbidly fascinating on the legislative context that could eventually give the green light to SRM.
“That’s really tricky to predict,” he said. “We can imagine various different deployment scenarios. There’s the desperation scenario, where a country or perhaps a coalition of countries that are really suffering from climate change decide that they are going to use solar geo-engineering to stop the temperature from rising. That could be seen as unilateral and illegitimate deployment. At the other end of things, it’s possible that through the United Nations—the UN General Assembly or one of the UN conventions—there’s a much broader coalition that comes together with much more legitimacy to develop a decision-making infrastructure for if we were to ever use this, or indeed, for how we would reject it.
“Really, at this stage, we don’t know what’s going to happen. We don’t know what’s going to happen with the research, we don’t know how governments are going to deal with this, and we don’t know how quickly and how deeply the impacts of climate change are going to bite.”
In South Africa, unfortunately, all indications are that the bite is going to be serious. As Daily Maverick learned from the country’s leading land-based climate scientist in October last year, we are warming at twice the global average. At 3°C of global warming, which is 6°C regionally—and which at current emission rates we are steaming towards, as per the most conservative estimates, before the end of the century—there will be a total collapse of the maize crop and livestock industry. This is something that the Department of Environmental Affairs seems to understand well, as evidenced by their “Third National Communication” under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, submitted in March 2018.
But the other unknown factor in this general SRM universe of “unknown unknowns” is the person that currently sits atop the DEA. Has Nomvula Mokonyane, who was named at the State Capture inquiry on Monday for allegedly accepting bribes in the form of monthly cash payments, even read the Third National Communication? Does President Cyril Ramaphosa plan on replacing her with someone who will? Aside from Tito Mboweni at treasury, does anyone in the upper echelons of the ANC get the urgency of the situation?
These are the questions that highlight the possibility of South Africa one day performing the superfreak pivot. Because it might not only suit the government to defer to technology when the food and water shortages get real, it might also suit Sasol, the coal mining companies and the country’s heavy emitters at large. DM
Polêmica, a liberação de aerossóis diminuiria a quantidade de luz solar que chega à Terra, mas seus efeitos colaterais negativos poderiam ser maiores que os positivos
Aumentar a quantidade de aerossóis na atmosfera poderia barrar a chegada à Terra de uma pequena fração da luz solar e resfriar provisoriamente o planeta. Cadan Cummings / Jacobs / JETS / NASA-JSC
Depois de ter permanecido em silêncio por 600 anos, o monte Pinatubo, nas Filipinas, acordou em 1991. Uma série de pequenas explosões ao longo de dois meses culminou em uma grande erupção em meados de junho daquele ano, considerada a segunda maior do século passado. Cerca de 200 mil pessoas tiveram de deixar suas casas e mais de 700 morreram no arquipélago filipino como consequência da eclosão. A explosão produziu uma coluna de fumaça e cinzas vulcânicas que se elevou até 40 quilômetros (km) acima da superfície e invadiu a estratosfera, a segunda das cinco camadas da atmosfera que envolve a Terra. Esse manto de partículas em suspensão, geralmente com tamanhos micrométricos, atrapalhou o tráfego aéreo, queimou plantas e cultivos e produziu outros danos locais.
Apesar de ter causado grandes prejuízos materiais e a perda de vidas humanas nas Filipinas, a erupção do Pinatubo é lembrada hoje no meio científico por ter tido uma consequência surpreendente no clima global: a temperatura média da Terra reduziu-se cerca de 0,5 grau Celsius (°C) nos dois anos seguintes à sua atividade vulcânica. A enorme quantidade de partículas em suspensão, os chamados aerossóis, lançada pelo vulcão entrou no sistema de circulação de ar da estratosfera, espalhou-se pelo planeta e atuou por meses como uma espécie de filtro solar: parte dos raios do Sol que chegariam normalmente à superfície terrestre foi refletida ao incidir sobre essa quantidade extra de partículas de aerossóis injetados no sistema. Essa ação produziu um resfriamento temporário do planeta.
Os aerossóis também resfriam a Terra quando estão na troposfera, a camada mais baixa da atmosfera, mas sua ação é mais intensa na estratosfera. O efeito Pinatubo serve de inspiração para uma linha de pesquisa polêmica, cercada de incertezas científicas e riscos ambientais e geopolíticos: a geoengenharia solar ou modificação da radiação solar (SRM, na sigla derivada do inglês). Ela começou a tomar corpo lentamente nos últimos 20 anos em algumas universidades dos Estados Unidos e da Europa à medida que o aquecimento global se tornou mais pronunciado. A ideia central dessa abordagem é aumentar deliberadamente o albedo da Terra, sobretudo na estratosfera, para que ela passe a refletir mais radiação de volta ao espaço e, assim, torne-se um pouco menos quente.
Glauco Lara
O albedo é a fração da luz refletida em relação à absorvida por um corpo ou superfície. Quanto maior o albedo, como em superfícies claras ou brancas, menor a quantidade de calor absorvida. Injetar aerossóis na atmosfera é uma das formas de tentar aumentar o albedo terrestre. Alguns cálculos indicam que uma redução de 1% a 2% da quantidade de radiação solar que normalmente chega à Terra seria suficiente para diminuir sua temperatura média em um 1 °C.
A possibilidade de reduzir a quantidade de radiação solar sobre a Terra começou a ser aventada ainda na década de 1960. Mas sempre foi vista como uma excentricidade perigosa, quase um devaneio. A ideia só ganhou alguma relevância científica depois da erupção do Pinatubo e, mais recentemente, com a emergência da crise climática, causada pelo aumento significativo da temperatua global decorrente da emissão de gases de efeito estufa. Ainda assim, a pesquisa experimental – que envolveria a soltura de alguns quilos de aerossóis na estratosfera para observar seus eventuais efeitos em âmbito local (não global, como ocorreu na gigantesca erupção do vulcão nas Filipinas) – pouco progrediu até hoje em razão da oposição de parte da comunidade científica e de grupos ambientalistas.
“Até agora, existem poucos trabalhos de modelagem climática envolvendo as técnicas de geoengenharia solar”, comenta o físico Paulo Artaxo, do Instituto de Física da Universidade de São Paulo (IF-USP), especialista no estudo de aerossóis atmosféricos. “Nenhum experimento mais significativo foi feito em campo.” Duas abordagens que visam à modificação da radiação solar dominam as discussões. A principal delas é a injeção de aerossóis na estratosfera, a 15 ou 20 km de altitude, conhecida pela sigla SAI, que tenta reproduzir de forma artificial o que as grandes erupções fazem de maneira natural.
Glauco Lara
A outra, vista como de impacto mais localizado, é o clareamento de nuvens marítimas (marine cloud brightening ou MCB). Ela também envolve a liberação de aerossóis (nesse caso, partículas de sal marinho), que funcionam como núcleos de condensação das nuvens. Mas a soltura dessas partículas ocorre em altitudes bem mais baixas, de no máximo 2 km, ainda na troposfera. Com mais aerossóis, as gotas de nuvens ficam menores, refletem mais radiação solar de volta ao espaço e resfriam a superfície. Há outras técnicas cogitadas, como aumentar o albedo em grandes superfícies brancas do planeta, como o Ártico, mas as duas primeiras propostas dominam o debate.
Artaxo colabora com um grupo da Universidade Harvard, dos Estados Unidos, em estudos de modelagem computacional para tentar entender se o comportamento dos aerossóis na estratosfera é realmente similar à sua ação na troposfera. “Precisamos de mais pesquisas sobre esse tema antes de sequer pensarmos em implementar alguma intervenção desse tipo”, comenta o físico da USP, um dos coordenadores do Programa FAPESP de Pesquisa sobre Mudanças Climáticas Globais. “Não temos condições de garantir que a injeção de mais aerossóis não vá, por exemplo, diminuir as chuvas de monções no Sudeste Asiático e colocar em risco uma população de bilhões de pessoas. Se isso ocorrer, quem decide se essa injeção de aerossóis para ou continua? Esse tipo de decisão não pode ficar na mão de um pequeno grupo de países ou de um bilionário que financie um experimento desse tipo.”
Também há indícios de que uma dose extra de aerossóis na estratosfera poderia afetar a camada de ozônio, que protege a vida terrestre da ação nociva da radiação ultravioleta vinda do Sol. Isso sem falar que essas partículas em suspensão são uma forma de poluição do ar. Elas naturalmente se depositam, descem da estratosfera para a troposfera, onde podem causar ou agravar problemas de saúde, sobretudo os respiratórios. Por ora, essas e outras questões não têm respostas satisfatórias.
A posição do físico da USP é partilhada por muitos colegas. “A modificação da radiação solar é um tema sensível e o IPCC [Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas, da ONU]reconhece que ainda há muitas incertezas sobre seus potenciais efeitos”, comenta a matemática Thelma Krug, que foi vice-presidente do painel entre 2015 e 2023 e representou o Brasil em negociações internacionais sobre o clima por uma década. “Pessoalmente, sou a favor da pesquisa na área. Mas é preciso ir passo a passo com os experimentos, ter transparência e estabelecer uma governança para esse processo.”
Erupção do vulcão Pinatubo, em 1991, é considerada a segunda maior do século passadoArlan Naeg / AFP via Getty Images
O tema é tão controverso que alguns pesquisadores são contra até que se faça pesquisa sobre as técnicas de geoengenharia solar. Isso porque elas não têm impacto na redução das emissões de gases de efeito estufa, que causam o aumento da temperatura da Terra. Ainda que se mostrem relativamente seguras e eficientes em esfriar temporariamente a Terra, objetivo que hoje é apenas uma hipótese, técnicas como a SAI seriam, no máximo, paliativas. No fundo, dizem os críticos dessa abordagem, os trabalhos nessa área desviariam recursos e tomariam um tempo que poderia ser mais bem empregado na busca por ações que reduzissem a emissão de gases como dióxido de carbono (CO2) e metano (CH4). “Os estudos sobre geoengenharia solar também poderiam ser usados como a desculpa perfeita para que os grandes produtores de gases de efeito estufa não reduzissem suas emissões”, pondera o climatologista Carlos Nobre, do Instituto de Estudos Avançados (IEA) da USP.
Além de ser encarada como um diversionismo em relação à meta central de zerar as emissões de gases de efeito estufa nas próximas décadas, a adoção das técnicas de SRM poderia tornar o planeta refém desse tipo de intervenção climática por um prazo muito longo e indefinido, de décadas ou séculos. Isso criaria um problema extra: o risco de promover o chamado termination shock. Quando o planeta abandonasse o emprego das técnicas de SRM, a temperatura subiria novamente – só que dessa vez de forma muito mais rápida do que no cenário atual de aquecimento global. Isso tornaria quase impossível a adaptação a essa brusca elevação de temperatura. Qualquer oscilação significativa da temperatura, para cima ou para baixo, em um curto período, representa um desafio adaptativo.
Alguns estudos de modelagem climática têm sugerido cenários preocupantes em simulações de possíveis impactos do emprego de técnicas de geoengenharia solar. Esses trabalhos costumam averiguar que outros efeitos (colaterais) essas técnicas de intervenção no clima poderiam induzir, além da redução temporária da temperatura terrestre. Um dos problemas é que a maioria desses estudos se concentra em possíveis consequências no hemisfério Norte, onde ficam os países mais ricos e vive e trabalha a maior parte dos pesquisadores do clima.
Começam, no entanto, a surgir pesquisas com foco em outras partes do planeta. Trabalho publicado em junho deste ano na revista Environmental Research Climate sugere que a adoção da SAI ao longo deste século alteraria os prováveis impactos do aquecimento global sobre a formação de ciclones extratropicais no hemisfério Sul, como aqueles que se formam com certa regularidade na região Sul do Brasil. A previsão é de que, até o fim deste século, o aumento da temperatura global reduza o número de ciclones gerados nessa parte do globo terrestre, mas aumente a intensidade dos fenômenos produzidos. Ou seja, menos ciclones, mas mais fortes.
Glauco Lara
Quando diferentes regimes de injeção de aerossóis na estratosfera são simulados em três modelos climáticos internacionais até 2100, os resultados sinalizam um aumento na frequência de ciclones, mas uma redução em sua força em relação aos prognósticos obtidos em cenários de aquecimento global sem a adoção de qualquer protocolo da SAI. “Não somos contra nem a favor da geoengenharia solar”, diz a pesquisadora Michelle Reboita, da Universidade Federal de Itajubá (Unifei), de Minas Gerais, coordenadora do estudo. “Precisamos é estudá-la. Ela pode produzir resultados positivos em uma parte do mundo e negativos em outra.”
Há também estudos de simulação que tentam prever os possíveis impactos da SAI sobre a biodiversidade. “Nosso objetivo é entender como a SAI pode afetar as espécies de vertebrados terrestres no cenário das mudanças climáticas”, conta o biólogo brasileiro Andreas Schwarz Meyer, que faz estágio de pós-doutorado na Universidade da Cidade do Cabo, na África do Sul, e coordena um projeto de pesquisa sobre o tema. “Em outras palavras, queremos saber quais seriam as espécies ‘vencedoras’ e ‘perdedoras’ no globo caso o emprego dessas técnicas para diminuir a temperatura do planeta venha a se tornar uma realidade.”
No projeto, que ainda está em andamento, Meyer adota uma abordagem chamada perfis horizontais de biodiversidade, que usa dados climáticos históricos para estimar o intervalo térmico (a temperatura máxima e a mínima) e o grau de umidade em que as espécies ocorrem. A técnica é normalmente usada para estimar o impacto sobre as espécies de diferentes cenários de aquecimento global previstos pelo IPCC ao longo deste século.
“Assim, temos uma ideia de quantas espécies serão expostas a essas mudanças, quando e o quão rapidamente isso poderá ocorrer”, comenta o biólogo. Em 2022, o brasileiro publicou um artigo no periódico científico Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B em que simulou os efeitos sobre mais de 30 mil espécies de vertebrados marinhos e terrestres de um cenário particular ao longo deste século: primeiro haveria um aquecimento global superior a 2 °C e, em seguida, ocorreria uma redução de temperatura da Terra de forma artificial, por meio da remoção direta de dióxido de carbono da atmosfera. A retirada do principal gás de efeito estufa é hoje ensaiada por um conjunto de técnicas que, por ora, são muito caras e ineficientes em perseguir esse objetivo.
Trilhas de nuvens criadas no mar pela emissão de partículas de poeira por navios
A conclusão geral do estudo é que a subida e a posterior queda artificial da temperatura terrestre poderiam inviabilizar a sobrevivência de muitas espécies e produziriam danos a essas comunidades décadas após se ter atingido uma hipotética estabilização da temperatura do planeta. Meyer está fazendo um estudo semelhante agora, mas com o emprego da SAI no lugar da remoção direta de carbono.
Os trabalhos de Reboita e Meyer se dão no âmbito de uma iniciativa internacional, a Developing country governance research and evaluation for SRM, ou simplesmente Degrees. Seu objetivo é estimular estudos e formar recursos humanos especializados nas técnicas de modificação da radiação solar em países da África, América Latina e sul da Ásia. A Degrees nasceu na década passada dentro da Academia Mundial de Ciências (TWAS) e posteriormente foi assumida por uma organização não governamental britânica, a homônima Degrees. Ela financia quase 40 projetos. No Brasil, além das pesquisas da meteorologista da Unifei, duas linhas de estudo de professores da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) passaram a ser apoiadas em julho passado.
Com parceiros no exterior, a equipe do engenheiro Mauricio Uriona, do Departamento de Engenharia de Produção e Sistemas da UFSC, pretende estudar como é a percepção do setor produtivo, do governo e da comunidade científica de três países (Brasil, Índia e África do Sul) sobre os potenciais riscos das técnicas de SRM. “Trabalhamos no passado com o tema da transição energética com uma abordagem de cunho socioeconômico e vimos agora uma boa oportunidade de fazer um estudo semelhante sobre geoengenharia solar”, afirma Uriona.
A socióloga ambiental Julia S. Guivant, do Instituto de Pesquisa em Riscos e Sustentabilidade (Iris), da UFSC, vai estudar como diversos atores-chave do país, como a comunidade científica, reguladores políticos, agricultores e representantes de organizações não governamentais, posicionam-se diante dos desafios de governança da geoengenharia solar. “Não temos uma posição sobre se a SRM deve ser usada ou como seu eventual emprego deve ser governado. Somos a favor das pesquisas e do debate democrático sobre o tema, diante dos problemas para atingir as metas de mitigação e adaptação às mudanças climáticas”, diz a socióloga. Colegas da USP e da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp) vão colaborar na pesquisa coordenada por Guivant.
Há preocupação de que a geoengenharia solar possa afetar o regime das chuvas de monções na ÍndiaAmarjeet Kumar Singh / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
As técnicas de SRM são tão polêmicas e sem qualquer tipo de regulação em acordos internacionais que mesmo grupos de pesquisas de instituições renomadas enfrentam dificuldades extremas de realizar pequenos experimentos de campo. Esses trabalhos não têm o potencial de influenciar o clima global, no máximo produzir ciência para se entender os processos envolvidos, com alguma alteração localmente. Ainda assim, os obstáculos práticos à sua realização são quase intransponíveis.
Em março deste ano, foi abandonado o Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), experimento concebido na década passada pelo grupo do físico-químico Frank Keutsch, da Universidade Harvard. A ideia da iniciativa era usar um balão de alta altitude para injetar 2 quilos de aerossóis (no caso, carbonato de cálcio) cerca de 20 km acima da superfície. “Essa quantidade de partículas é ínfima. Equivale à poluição expelida por um jato comercial durante apenas 1 minuto de voo”, disse Keutsch em entrevista dada em 2021 (ver Pesquisa FAPESP nº 303). O balão do SCoPEx era para ter ganho inicialmente os ares dos Estados Unidos em 2018. Mas isso não ocorreu. Em seguida, sua soltura foi prevista para a Suécia, também sem sucesso. Devido a protestos de ambientalistas e de grupos indígenas, o projeto nunca decolou de fato.
Alguns testes de campo com a técnica de clareamento de nuvens marinhas, uma abordagem menos ambiciosa do que a SAI, têm sido feitos, quase sempre a duras penas e diante de críticas de vários setores da sociedade. Em abril deste ano, um grupo da Universidade de Washington, dos Estados Unidos, usou um tipo de ventilador para espalhar partículas de sal marinho na pista de um navio porta-aviões aposentado que estava estacionado no litoral da cidade de Alameda, na Califórnia. A ideia da iniciativa era apenas ver se as partículas poderiam causar algum mal à saúde. Dois meses mais tarde, o município californiano proibiu esse tipo de experimento em seu território.
Na Austrália, pesquisadores da Southern Cross University e organizações locais tocam desde 2020 um projeto-piloto em que tentam aferir se a técnica de MCB pode ser útil para diminuir o branqueamento de corais na região de Townsville. O objetivo do experimento é averiguar se o método diminuiria localmente a temperatura do oceano no centro da Grande Barreira de Corais. O aquecimento das águas marinhas é a principal causa do branqueamento.
Alterar a capacidade de o Ártico refletir a luz do Sol poderia, em tese, minorar o aquecimento globalsodar99 via Getty Images
A desconfiança dos experimentos de campo deriva, em parte, do surgimento periódico de iniciativas pouco transparentes, geridas às vezes por empresas privadas obscuras. Em 2022, a Make Sunsets, uma startup norte-americana, soltou sem autorização no norte do México dois balões com aerossóis destinados à estratosfera. Pouco depois, o governo mexicano proibiu esse tipo de iniciativa em seu território. Agora, a empresa anunciou que está fazendo esse tipo de experimento nos Estados Unidos, mas os resultados dessas iniciativas são desconhecidos.
Para o físico norte-americano David Keith, da Universidade de Chicago, nos Estados Unidos, o interesse em estimular as pesquisas sobre geoengenharia solar tem aumentado, a despeito das incertezas científicas que cercam o emprego dessas técnicas. “Isso é visível nos principais relatórios internacionais, como os do Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente, do Programa Mundial de Pesquisa do Clima, também da ONU, e de grandes grupos ambientalistas, como Environmental Defense”, comenta Keith, em entrevista por e-mail a Pesquisa FAPESP. “Não há dúvida de que a oposição à investigação enfraqueceu, mas é difícil dizer por quê. Talvez seja por causa do aumento das temperaturas ou porque [acredito que] o mundo esteja fazendo agora esforços substanciais para reduzir as emissões de gases de efeito estufa.”
Keith foi membro do programa de geoengenharia solar de Harvard por 12 anos. Hoje ele é a favor da adoção de uma moratória internacional em experimentos de campo até que a ciência sobre o tema esteja mais bem estabelecida e haja alguma forma de governança internacional. Se esse cenário se materializar algum dia, ele diz que a humanidade deveria considerar a realização de um teste no qual se injetaria por uma década na estratosfera cerca de 10% da quantidade necessária de aerossóis para baixar em 1 °C a temperatura global. Dessa forma, seria possível conferir claramente os efeitos dessa abordagem sem correr muitos riscos.
A operação envolveria transportar cerca de 100 mil toneladas de enxofre por ano para a estratosfera – equivalente a 0,3% da quantidade de poluição por enxofre que chega anualmente à atmosfera – por uma frota de 15 jatinhos capazes de voar em altas altitudes. A operação custaria aproximadamente US$ 500 milhões ao ano. É mais uma ideia polêmica. Para alguns, é possível que a única parte boa da sugestão seja a adoção de uma moratória para esse tipo de experimento.
A reportagem acima foi publicada com o título “Controlando o sol” na edição impressa nº 343, de setembro de 2024.
The climate emulator invites you to explore the controversial climate intervention. I gave it a whirl.
August 23, 2024
James Temple
AI pioneer Andrew Ng has released a simple online tool that allows anyone to tinker with the dials of a solar geoengineering model, exploring what might happen if nations attempt to counteract climate change by spraying reflective particles into the atmosphere.
The concept of solar geoengineering was born from the realization that the planet has cooled in the months following massive volcanic eruptions, including one that occurred in 1991, when Mt. Pinatubo blasted some 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. But critics fear that deliberately releasing such materials could harm certain regions of the world, discourage efforts to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, or spark conflicts between nations, among other counterproductive consequences.
The goal of Ng’s emulator, called Planet Parasol, is to invite more people to think about solar geoengineering, explore the potential trade-offs involved in such interventions, and use the results to discuss and debate our options for climate action. The tool, developed in partnership with researchers at Cornell, the University of California, San Diego, and other institutions, also highlights how AI could help advance our understanding of solar geoengineering.
The current version is bare-bones. It allows users to select different emissions scenarios and various quantities of particles that would be released each year, from 25% of a Pinatubo eruption to 125%.
Planet Parasol then displays a pair of diverging lines that represent warming levels globally through 2100. One shows the steady rise in temperatures that would occur without solar geoengineering, and the other indicates how much warming could be reduced under your selected scenario. The model can also highlight regional temperature differences on heat maps.
You can also scribble your own rising, falling, or squiggling line representing different levels of intervention across the decades to see what might happen as reflective aerosols are released.
I tried to simulate what’s known as the “termination shock” scenario, exploring how much temperatures would rise if, for some reason, the world had to suddenly halt or cut back on solar geoengineering after using it at high levels. The sudden surge of warming that could occur afterward is often cited as a risk of geoengineering. The model projects that global temperatures would quickly rise over the following years, though they might take several decades to fully rebound to the curve they would have been on if the nations in this simulation hadn’t conducted such an intervention in the first place.
To be clear, this is an exaggerated scenario, in which I maxed out the warming and the geoengineering. No one is proposing anything like this. I was playing around to see what would happen because, well, that’s what an emulator lets you do.
Emulators are effectively stripped-down climate models. They’re not as precise, since they don’t simulate as many of the planet’s complex, interconnected processes. But they don’t require nearly as much time and computing power to run.
International negotiators and policymakers often use climate emulators, like En-ROADS, to get a quick, rough sense of the impact that potential rules or commitments on greenhouse-gas emissions could have.
The Parasol team wanted to develop a similar tool specifically to allow people to evaluate the potential effects of various solar geoengineering scenarios, says Daniele Visioni, a climate scientist focused on solar geoengineering at Cornell, who contributed to Planet Parasol (as well as an earlier emulator).
Climate models are steadily becoming more powerful, simulating more Earth system processes at higher resolutions, and spitting out more and more information as they do. AI is well suited to help draw meaning and understanding from that data. It’s getting ever better at spotting patterns within huge data sets and predicting outcomes based on them.
But he says he’s been spending more and more of his time exploring the potential of solar geoengineering (sometimes referred to as solar radiation management, or SRM), given the threat of climate change and the role that AI can play in advancing the research field.
There are “many things one can do—and that society broadly should work on—to help address climate change, first and foremost decarbonization,” he wrote in an email. “And SRM is where I’m focusing most of my climate-related efforts right now, given that this is one of the places where engineers and researchers can make a big difference (in addition to decarbonization).”
In a 2022 piece, Ng noted that AI could play several important roles in geoengineering research, including “autonomously piloting high-altitude drones” that would disperse reflective particles, modeling effects of geoengineering across specific regions, and optimizing techniques.
Planet Parasol itself is built on top of another climate emulator, developed by researchers at the University of Leeds and the University of Oxford, that relies on the rules of physics to project global average temperatures under various scenarios. Ng’s team then harnessed machine learning to estimate the local cooling effects that could result from varying levels of solar geoengineering, says Jeremy Irvin, a grad student in his research group at Stanford.
One of the clearest limits of the current version of the tool, however, is that the results look dazzling. In the scenarios I tested, solar geoengineering cleanly cuts off the predicted rise in temperatures over the coming decades, which it may well do.
That might lead the casual user of such a tool to conclude: Cool, let’s do it!
But even if solar geoengineering does help the world on average, it could still have negative effects, such as harming the protective ozone layer, disturbing regional rainfall patterns, undermining agriculture productivity, and changing the distribution of infectious diseases.
None of that is incorporated in the results as yet. Plus, a climate emulator isn’t equipped to address deeply complex societal concerns. For instance, does researching such possibilities ease pressure to address the root causes of climate change? Can a tool that works at the scale of the planet ever be managed in a globally equitable way? Planet Parasol won’t be able to answer either of those questions.
Holly Buck, an environmental social scientist at the University at Buffalo and author of After Geoengineering, questioned the broader value of such a tool along similar lines.
In focus groups that she has conducted on the topic of solar geoengineering, she’s found that people easily grok the concept that it can curb warming, even without seeing the results plotted out in a model.
“They want to hear about what can go wrong, the impact on precipitation and extreme weather, who will control it, what it means existentially to fail to deal with the root of the problem, and so on,” she said in an email. “So it is hard to imagine who would actually use this and how.”
Visioni explained that the group did make a point of highlighting major challenges and concerns at the top of the page. He added that they intend to improve the tool over time in ways that will provide a fuller sense of the uncertainties, trade-offs, and regional impacts.
“This is hard, and I struggled a lot with your same observation,” Visioni wrote in an email. “But at the same time … I came to the conclusion it’s worth putting something down and work[ing] to improve it with user feedback, rather than wait until we have the perfect, nuanced version.”
As to the value of the tool, Irvin added that seeing the temperature reduction laid out clearly can make a “stronger, lasting impression.”
“We are calling for more research to push the science forward about other areas of concern prior to potential implementation, and we hope the tool helps people understand the capabilities of SAI and support future research on it,” he said.
Right now, every moment of every day, we humans are reconfiguring Earth’s climate bit by bit. Hotter summers and wetter storms. Higher seas and fiercer wildfires. The steady, upward turn of the dial on a host of threats to our homes, our societies and the environment around us.
We might also be changing the climate in an even bigger way.
For the past two decades, scientists have been raising alarms about great systems in the natural world that warming, caused by carbon emissions, might be pushing toward collapse. These systems are so vast that they can stay somewhat in balance even as temperatures rise. But only to a point.
Once we warm the planet beyond certain levels, this balance might be lost, scientists say. The effects would be sweeping and hard to reverse. Not like the turning of a dial, but the flipping of a switch. One that wouldn’t be easily flipped back.
Mass Death of Coral Reefs
When corals go ghostly white, they aren’t necessarily dead, and their reefs aren’t necessarily gone forever. Too much heat in the water causes the corals to expel the symbiotic algae living inside their tissues. If conditions improve, they can survive this bleaching. In time, the reefs can bounce back. As the world gets warmer, though, occasional bleaching is becoming regular bleaching. Mild bleaching is becoming severe bleaching.
Scientists’ latest predictions are grim. Even if humanity moves swiftly to rein in global warming, 70 percent to 90 percent of today’s reef-building corals could die in the coming decades. If we don’t, the toll could be 99 percent or more. A reef can look healthy right up until its corals start bleaching and dying. Eventually, it is a graveyard.
This doesn’t necessarily mean reef-building corals will go extinct. Hardier ones might endure in pockets. But the vibrant ecosystems these creatures support will be unrecognizable. There is no bouncing back anytime soon, not in the places corals live today, not at any scale.
When it might happen: It could already be underway.
Abrupt Thawing of Permafrost
In the ground beneath the world’s cold places, the accumulated remains of long-dead plants and animals contain a lot of carbon, roughly twice the amount that’s currently in the atmosphere. As heat, wildfires and rains thaw and destabilize the frozen ground, microbes get to work, converting this carbon into carbon dioxide and methane. These greenhouse gasses worsen the heat and the fire and the rain, which intensifies the thawing.
Like many of these vast, self-propelling shifts in our climate, permafrost thaw is complicated to predict. Large areas have already come unfrozen, in Western Canada, in Alaska, in Siberia. But how quickly the rest of it might defrost, how much that would add to global warming, how much of the carbon might stay trapped down there because the thawing causes new vegetation to sprout up on top of it — all of that is tricky to pin down.
“Because these things are very uncertain, there’s a bias toward not talking about it or dismissing the possibility, even,” said Tapio Schneider, a climate scientist at the California Institute of Technology. “That, I think, is a mistake,” he said. “It’s still important to explore the risks, even if the probability of occurrence in the near future is relatively small.”
When it might happen: The timing will vary place to place. The effects on global warming could accumulate over a century or more.
Collapse of Greenland Ice
The colossal ice sheets that blanket Earth’s poles aren’t melting the way an ice cube melts. Because of their sheer bigness and geometric complexity, a host of factors shapes how quickly the ice sheds its bulk and adds to the rising oceans. Among these factors, scientists are particularly concerned about ones that could start feeding on themselves, causing the melting to accelerate in a way that would be very hard to stop.
In Greenland, the issue is elevation. As the surface of the ice loses height, more of it sits at a balmier altitude, exposed to warmer air. That makes it melt even faster.
Scientists know, from geological evidence, that large parts of Greenland have been ice-free before. They also know that the consequences of another great melt could reverberate worldwide, affecting ocean currents and rainfall down into the tropics and beyond.
When it might happen: Irreversible melting could begin this century and unfold over hundreds, even thousands, of years.
Breakup of West Antarctic Ice
At the other end of the world from Greenland, the ice of western Antarctica is threatened less by warm air than by warm water.
Many West Antarctic glaciers flow out to sea, which means their undersides are exposed to constant bathing by ocean currents. As the water warms, these floating ice shelves melt and weaken from below, particularly where they sit on the seafloor. Like a dancer holding a difficult pose, the shelf starts to lose its footing. With less floating ice to hold it back, more ice from the continent’s interior would slide into the ocean. Eventually, the ice at the water’s edge might fail to support its own weight and crack into pieces.
The West Antarctic ice sheet has probably collapsed before, in Earth’s deep past. How close today’s ice is to suffering the same fate is something scientists are still trying to figure out.
“If you think about the future of the world’s coastlines, 50 percent of the story is going to be the melt of Antarctica,” said David Holland, a New York University scientist who studies polar regions. And yet, he said, when it comes to understanding how the continent’s ice might break apart, “we are at Day Zero.”
When it might happen: As in Greenland, the ice sheet could begin to recede irreversibly in this century.
Sudden Shift in the West African Monsoon
Around 15,000 years ago, the Sahara started turning green. It began when small shifts in Earth’s orbit caused North Africa to be sunnier each summer. This warmed the land, causing the winds to shift and draw in more moist air from over the Atlantic. The moisture fell as monsoon rain, which fed grasses and filled lakes, some as large as the Caspian Sea. Animals flourished: elephants, giraffes, ancestral cattle. So did humans, as engravings and rock paintings from the era attest. Only about 5,000 years ago did the region transform back into the harsh desert we know today.
Scientists now understand that the Sahara has flipped several times over the ages between arid and humid, between barren and temperate. They are less sure about how, and whether, the West African monsoon might shift or intensify in response to today’s warming. (Despite its name, the region’s monsoon unleashes rain over parts of East Africa as well.)
Whatever happens will matter hugely to an area of the world where many people’s nutrition and livelihoods depend on the skies.
When it might happen: Hard to predict.
Loss of Amazon Rainforest
Besides being home to hundreds of Indigenous communities, millions of animal and plant species and 400 billion trees; besides containing untold numbers of other living things that have yet to be discovered, named and described; and besides storing an abundance of carbon that might otherwise be warming the planet, the Amazon rainforest plays another big role. It is a living, churning, breathing engine of weather.
The combined exhalations of all those trees give rise to clouds fat with moisture. When this moisture falls, it helps keep the region lush and forested.
Now, though, ranchers and farmers are clearing the trees, and global warming is worsening wildfires and droughts. Scientists worry that once too much more of the forest is gone, this rain machine could break down, causing the rest of the forest to wither and degrade into grassy savanna.
By 2050, as much of half of today’s Amazon forest could be at risk of undergoing this kind of degradation, researchers recently estimated.
When it might happen: Will depend on how rapidly people clear, or protect, the remaining forest.
Shutdown of Atlantic Currents
Sweeping across the Atlantic Ocean, from the western coasts of Africa, round through the Caribbean and up toward Europe before heading down again, a colossal loop of seawater sets temperatures and rainfall for a big part of the globe. Saltier, denser water sinks to the ocean depths while fresher, lighter water rises, keeping this conveyor belt turning.
Now, though, Greenland’s melting ice is upsetting this balance by infusing the North Atlantic with immense new flows of freshwater. Scientists fear that if the motor slows too much, it could stall, upending weather patterns for billions of people in Europe and the tropics.
Scientists have already seen signs of a slowdown in these currents, which go by an unwieldy name: the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC. The hard part is predicting when a slowdown might become a shutdown. At the moment, our data and records are just too limited, said Niklas Boers, a climate scientist at the Technical University of Munich and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Already, though, we know enough to be sure about one thing, Dr. Boers said. “With every gram of additional CO2 in the atmosphere, we are increasing the likelihood of tipping events,” he said. “The longer we wait” to slash emissions, he said, “the farther we go into dangerous territory.”
The shaded areas on the maps [see here] show the present-day extent of relevant areas for each natural system. They don’t necessarily indicate precisely where large-scale changes could occur if a tipping point is reached.
Internautas culpam o prefeito da cidade-luz por não ter encontrado um ‘caciqueux cobraint coral’
26 de julho de 2024
Chove chuva, chove sem parar em Paris. A cerimônia de abertura das Olimpíadas de Paris-2024 está debaixo de chuva desde seu início, às 14h30, horário de Brasília. Isso não impediu, porém, as apresentações, e muito menos os memes. Quem curte de casa esperava imagens avassaladoras do pôr do sol parisiense, enquanto os que estão presencialmente esperavam assistir à cerimônia, secos.
No X (ex-Twitter), entrou para os assuntos mais comentados “cacique cobra coral”, meme de uma fundação que tem como propósito minimizar ou impedir eventos climáticos, como catástrofes ou, no caso de Paris, a chuva. Internautas reclamam que a prefeita esqueceu de contratar a Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral (FCCC).
Galvão Bueno protagonizou um momento “Parasita” ao elogiar a chuva.
Delegações desfilaram debaixo d’água na abertura das Olimpíadas de Paris
Anahi Martinho
26.jul.2024 às 17h37
Espectadores tomam chuva na cerimônia de abertura das Olimpíadas, em Paris – AFP
São Paulo
Osmar Santos, um dos diretores da Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral, lamentou a chuva intensa que atingiu a cerimônia de abertura das Olimpíadas nesta sexta-feira (26), em Paris.
A fundação, que afirma intervir misticamente no clima, não foi contratada para os Jogos de 2024. Em Tóquio, porém, eles estiveram presentes e asseguraram o tempo firme. Nos Jogos de Londres, em 2012, desviaram uma chuva torrencial que estava prevista para cair bem na hora da cerimônia de abertura.
Segundo Osmar, o evento em si é apenas um detalhe. A entidade só desvia a chuva quando há motivo sério para isso. A equipe conta com cientistas e meterologistas que estudam para onde as chuvas podem ir.
Na ocasião de Londres, a água foi desviada para regiões de Portugal e Espanha que sofriam com queimadas.
“Paris poderia ter sido diferente, mas não fomos chamados e não temos tempo de ficar atrás de quem precisa”, disse Osmar ao F5. Segundo ele, a fundação está com muita demanda e não houve procura do COI neste ano, diferente do que já ocorreu em outras edições das Olimpíadas.
O diretor ainda lamentou o descaso com as mudanças climáticas a nível mundial. “Não é só em Paris, o clima está muito estável em todo o planeta”, afirmou.
O dado pertence a uma nova pesquisa Datafolha, divulgada nesta segunda-feira (1º), que aponta que apenas 2% dos entrevistados negam a existência das alterações no clima, enquanto 1% não soube responder.
O levantamento foi realizado presencialmente, com 2.457 pessoas de 16 anos ou mais em 130 municípios pelo Brasil, entre os dias 17 e 22 de junho. A margem de erro é de dois pontos percentuais, com taxa de confiança de 95%.
Os resultados mostram que essa percepção quase unânime se repete mesmo considerando diferentes recortes, como gênero, nível de escolaridade e faixa etária —chegando, por exemplo, a 100% de concordância sobre a ocorrência das mudanças climáticas entre os mais jovens, de 16 a 24 anos.
Os índices caem, porém, quando questionados sobre os agentes que provocam essa transformação. São 77% quem acha que as mudanças climáticas são causadas principalmente pelas ações humanas, enquanto 20% defendem que a causa delas é a oscilação natural da temperatura.
Conforme aponta o consenso científico, a crise do clima atual é provocada pelos gases de efeito estufa emitidos pelas atividades humanas, principalmente a queima de combustíveis fósseis e o desmatamento, que aquecem o planeta. Em 2021, uma análise de quase 90 mil artigos científicos mostrou que mais de 99,9% dos pesquisadores do mundo concordam sobre essas causas e efeitos.
Os altos índices gerais de reconhecimento da mudança do clima podem estar relacionados ao aumento da intensidade, frequência e exposição a eventos climáticos extremos. A pesquisa perguntou se nas últimas semanas o lugar onde o entrevistado mora passou por diferentes tipos de fenômenos desta natureza, e 77% disseram que sim.
Entre esses, o número mais expressivo foi o de pessoas que passaram por calor extremo (65%), seguido de chuva intensa ou tempestade (33%), e seca extrema (29%). Enchentes atingiram 20% dos entrevistados e deslizamentos de terra, 7%.
Um quarto dos respondentes (23%) afirmou não ter vivenciado nenhum destes eventos recentemente.
Para Paulo Artaxo, professor de física da USP (Universidade de São Paulo) e membro do IPCC (Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas), vinculado à ONU, no mundo inteiro a população está percebendo que o clima mudou para pior, o que é reforçado pela ocorrência de fenômenos extremos.
“As mudanças climáticas se dão em dois níveis. Primeiro, um lento e gradual: degradação ambiental com o aumento lento da temperatura, redução ou aumento lento da precipitação, o aumento do nível do mar que afeta as áreas costeiras e assim por diante”, explica.
“Um segundo componente é a intensificação dos eventos climáticos extremos, que cada vez mais se tornam muito perceptíveis para a população em geral, causando enormes danos na saúde, na economia e na sociedade em geral”.
Marcio Astrini, secretário-executivo do Observatório do Clima, que reúne mais de uma centena de organizações ambientais, concorda.
“As pessoas não precisam mais procurar um relatório científico para se informar. Elas abrem a janela de casa, ligam a televisão e as mudanças climáticas estão acontecendo —não são mais uma previsão, são o presente”, diz. “Isso, obviamente, faz com que as pessoas tenham mais capacidade de compreender o que está acontecendo”.
O Datafolha mostra que a escolaridade é um fator que impacta a percepção dos brasileiros sobre o clima. Entre pessoas com educação de nível fundamental, 67% acreditam que as mudanças climáticas são causadas pela humanidade, 26% dizem que elas fazem parte da natureza e 4%, que não existem, Entre aquelas com ensino superior, os números são, respectivamente, 87%, 13% e 1%.
Astrini afirma que os resultados estão relacionados à falta de acesso à informação qualificada e à abundância de fake news disseminadas sobre o tema.
“Nós vivemos em um mundo em que existe desinformação em larga escala e alguns setores são alvos preferenciais de quem provoca a desinformação. O meio ambiente é um deles”, diz. “Em meio ambiente há muito, muito tempo, a gente enfrenta um verdadeiro batalhão —que vem enfraquecendo, mas ainda existe— de negacionismo, de desinformação”.
Também é entre os que passaram menos tempo na educação formal que está a taxa mais alta de descrença nas previsões da ciência sobre as consequências do aquecimento global. Daqueles que estudaram até o ensino fundamental, 43% dizem acreditar que cientistas e ambientalistas exageram sobre os impactos das mudanças climáticas, enquanto na população geral o índice é de 31%.
O nível mais alto de confiança nos especialistas está entre os mais jovens, com 77% dos que têm entre 16 e 24 anos afirmando que não há exagero a respeito do tema; 21% dizem o contrário.
Já entre aqueles com 60 anos ou mais o patamar de descrença está acima da média nacional, com mais de um terço (36%) concordando com a afirmação de que cientistas e ambientalistas exageram ao tratar dos impactos da crise do clima.
“É esperado que os mais jovens e os com mais acesso à informação mostrem maior concordância com as avaliações científicas. Os mais velhos têm a memória de condições mais estáveis e se formaram em um ambiente onde o tema não estava tão difundido, estudado ou documentado”, avalia Mercedes Bustamante, professora do departamento de ecologia da UnB (Universidade de Brasília).
Cruzando os dados da pesquisa, é possível notar, ainda, que aqueles que relatam não terem vivenciado um evento climático extremo no local onde moram são mais propensos a duvidar do parecer científico sobre os impactos do aquecimento global. Neste grupo, 36% das pessoas acham que os especialistas exageram, 61% acham que não e 3% não souberam responder.
A taxa de descrédito cai para 29% entre aqueles que passaram por alguma situação climática extrema recentemente, enquanto 69% deste estrato acha que não há exagero e 2% não soube responder.
Mais da metade (52%) dos brasileiros acha que as mudanças climáticas são um risco imediato para a população do planeta, enquanto 43% opinam que elas só representarão perigo para quem viverá daqui a muitos anos. Apenas 5% dizem que a crise do clima não representa risco algum.
Os números são da pesquisa Datafolha divulgada nesta segunda-feira (1º), que trata das percepções e opiniões sobre as alterações no clima. O levantamento ouviu 2.457 pessoas de 16 anos ou mais em 130 municípios pelo Brasil, entre os dias 17 e 22 de junho. A margem de erro é de dois pontos percentuais, com taxa de confiança de 95%.
“O percentual de brasileiros que compreende a mudança climática é elevado em comparação a outros países (por exemplo, os Estados Unidos)”, analisa Mercedes Bustamante, professora do departamento de Ecologia da Universidade de Brasília. Ela se refere a outros dados da pesquisa, que mostram que 77% das pessoas dizem acreditar que as mudanças climáticas são provocadas principalmente pelas atividades humanas.
A pesquisadora pondera, porém, que é interessante comparar esses índices com a divisão que aparece quando os entrevistados são questionados sobre os efeitos do aquecimento global. “Isso talvez seja uma indicação [de que há uma] percepção da existência do problema, mas ainda não [percebe-se] como seus mais variados efeitos já estão no dia a dia.”
Estudos mostram que o planeta já aqueceu mais de 1,2°C desde o período pré-industrial (1850-1900), que marca o grande aumento na emissão de carbono pela humanidade, e que fenômenos climáticos extremos, como tempestades e ondas de calor, já estão mais intensos e frequentes.
O Datafolha aponta ainda que, para 58% dos entrevistados, a humanidade não conseguirá agir para reverter os impactos das mudanças climáticas. Menos de um terço da população (31%) acha que será possível retornar a um clima mais ameno, enquanto 7% dizem que isso não faz diferença para a humanidade e o planeta.
O patamar de descrença na capacidade da humanidade de reverter as mudanças climáticas varia de acordo com a escolaridade, sendo mais alto entre aqueles que têm ensino de nível médio (60%). No estrato da população com ensino superior, 36% acreditam na possibilidade dos humanos conseguirem frear a crise climática.
Quase a totalidade diz que concordaria em adotar atitudes simples, como trocar as lâmpadas de casa por modelos mais econômicos (99%) e reduzir o uso de plástico (94%), e os índices de aceitação são altos mesmo diante de uma atitude custosa, como colocar paineis solares em casa (89%) e pagar mais caro por produtos com baixa emissão de carbono (74%) ou para ter um carro elétrico (63%).
Para especialistas, o que pode parecer uma contradição pode ser, na verdade, apenas desesperança com a inação de governantes e grandes corporações –que são os maiores culpados pelas emissões de gases de efeito estufa e, portanto, os principais responsáveis por reduzi-las.
“A ciência mostra caminhos para a resolução da mudança do clima. No entanto, creio que a percepção de que não haverá reversão indica a avaliação da morosidade ou mesmo falta de ações políticas concretas e robustas para abordar as soluções”, afirma Bustamante.
“A falta de ação das indústrias do petróleo e dos governos que são associados a elas, que financiam uma enorme quantidade de governos no mundo todo, está fazendo com que o planeta esteja indo por uma trajetória de aumento de temperatura médio da ordem de 3°C”, afirma o físico Paulo Artaxo, pesquisador da USP.
“Isto pode comprometer muito a qualidade de vida das próximas gerações, e isso não é para o final do século, já é para as próximas décadas”, acrescenta ele.
Para Marcio Astrini, secretário-executivo do Observatório do Clima, rede que reúne mais de uma centena de organizações ambientais, o impacto dessa desesperança da população em reverter as mudanças climáticas pode ter um efeito nocivo, de diminuir esforços nesse sentido.
“Quando o ser humano pensa, ‘olha, já que não tem jeito, então para que que eu vou me esforçar? Para resolver algo que não tem solução?’. Isso, inclusive, se reflete no voto, na escolha dos governantes que vão gerenciar a máquina estatal, que é quem vai resolver o problema”, explica.
“Isso desencadeia um problema em cima do outro, porque é uma imobilização. E quanto mais passa o tempo, mais estreita vai ficar a janela para termos alguma esperança de solução”, diz Astrini.
Talvez o fator mais determinante para essa opinião unânime decorra da repetição de eventos extremos, como secas incendiárias, ondas de calor mortíferas e tempestades avassaladoras. Em 2020 o fogo já devastara o pantanal, e o Sul fora açoitado por sucessivas chuvas torrenciais no segundo semestre de 2023.
Com a reincidência e o porte desses desastres, muita gente passou a ter experiência direta com flagelos. Ao Datafolha, 65% relataram ter enfrentado calor extremo, assim como 33% apontaram chuva intensa ou tempestade e 29%, seca extrema. Só um quarto (23%) afirmou não ter vivido nenhum desses eventos.
Eram favas contadas que a maioria dos 2.457 brasileiros entrevistados pelo Datafolha, de 17 a 22 de junho, acusaria os golpes seguidos do aquecimento global, diante da avalanche de imagens dantescas a cada noite na TV. Poucos ainda negam a mudança climática, mas isso não significa que o negacionismo morreu.
Só 77% dos ouvidos atribuem as alterações aos gases do efeito estufa produzidos pela atividade humana, como a queima de combustíveis fósseis (derivados de petróleo, carvão e gás natural), o desmatamento e a agropecuária. Um contingente expressivo de 20% prefere enxergar causas naturais para a crise.
Menos gente ainda, 53%, diz acreditar que o fim da normalidade seja um risco imediato para a população da Terra. Outros 43% afirmam que o impacto afetará apenas as gerações futuras.
Quase um terço dos entrevistados (31%) avalia haver exagero de pesquisadores e ambientalistas quanto a impactos da mudança climática. Esse grupo de céticos alcança 43% entre pessoas que têm nível fundamental de escolaridade.
O dado da pesquisa que causa mais alarme aponta um excesso de fatalismo: 58% dos brasileiros opinam que a humanidade será incapaz de reverter a crise do clima. Meros 31% consideram possível manter o clima sob relativo controle, e 7% dizem que não faz diferença para a humanidade ou a natureza.
Esses bolsões remanescentes de ceticismo climático refletem o sucesso parcial da propaganda negacionista em sua tática de semear dúvidas múltiplas e variadas. Quando se torna impossível contradizer a existência do aquecimento global, dado o acúmulo de evidências e medições, lança-se suspeita sobre a contribuição humana para o fenômeno.
No mesmo diapasão, argumenta-se que a sociedade humana não tem meios para contra-arrestar fenômenos em escala planetária. Em paralelo, assegura-se que os impactos não serão tão graves assim, quem sabe até benéficos.
E pensar que há supostos cientistas dispostos a propagar tais fake news, em realidade pesquisadores argentários, aposentados ou desacreditados. Essa traição à ciência tem consequências, porém.
Embora tenha muito a perder com o desvario climático, a banda atrasada do agronegócio aplaude os mercadores de dúvidas e ajuda a eleger parlamentares, sobretudo no centrão, que tanto retrocesso impuseram à pauta ambiental no governo Bolsonaro (PL) e ainda dão suas mordidas sob a ambivalência de Lula (PT).
Daniel Swain studies extreme floods. And droughts. And wildfires. Then he explains them to the rest of us.
February 6, 2024
By Tracie White
Illustrations by Tim O’Brien
7:00 a.m., 45 degrees F
The moment Daniel Swain wakes up, he gets whipped about by hurricane-force winds. “A Category 5, literally overnight, hits Acapulco,” says the 34-year-old climate scientist and self-described weather geek, who gets battered daily by the onslaught of catastrophic weather headlines: wildfires, megafloods, haboobs (an intense dust storm), atmospheric rivers, bomb cyclones. Everyone’s asking: Did climate change cause these disasters? And, more and more, they want Swain to answer.
Swain, PhD ’16, rolls over in bed in Boulder, Colo., and checks his cell phone for emails. Then, retainer still in his mouth, he calls back the first reporter of the day. It’s October 25, and Isabella Kwai at the New York Times wants to know whether climate change is responsible for the record-breaking speed and ferocity of Hurricane Otis, which rapidly intensified and made landfall in Acapulco as the eastern Pacific’s strongest hurricane on record. It caught everyone off guard. Swain posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) just hours before the storm hit: “A tropical cyclone undergoing explosive intensification unexpectedly on final approach to a major urban area . . . is up there on list of nightmare weather scenarios becoming more likely in a warming #climate.”
Swain is simultaneously 1,600 miles away from the tempest and at the eye of the storm. His ability to explain science to the masses—think the Carl Sagan of weather—has made him one of the media’s go-to climate experts. He’s a staff research scientist at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability who spends more than 1,100 hours each year on public-facing climate and weather communication, explaining whether (often, yes) and how climate change is raising the number and exacerbating the viciousness of weather disasters. “I’m a physical scientist, but I not only study how the physics and thermodynamics of weather evolve but how they affect people,” says Swain. “I lead investigations into how extreme events like floods and droughts and wildfires are changing in a warming climate, and what we might do about it.”
He translates that science to everyday people, even as the number of weather-disaster headlines grows each year. “To be quite honest, it’s nerve-racking,” says Swain. “There’s such a demand. But there’s a climate emergency, and we need climate scientists to talk to the world about it.”
No bells, no whistles. No fancy clothes, makeup, or vitriolic speech. Sometimes he doesn’t even shave for the camera. Just a calm, matter-of-fact voice talking about science on the radio, online, on TV. In 2023, he gave nearly 300 media interviews—sometimes at midnight or in his car. The New York Times, CNN, and BBC keep him on speed dial. Social media is Swain’s home base. His Weather West blog reaches millions. His weekly Weather West “office hours” on YouTube are public and interactive, doubling as de facto press conferences. His tweets reach 40 million people per year. “I don’t think that he appreciates fully how influential he is of the public understanding of weather events, certainly in California but increasingly around the world,” says Stanford professor of earth system science Noah Diffenbaugh, ’96, MS ’97, Swain’s doctoral adviser and mentor. “He’s such a recognizable presence in newspapers and radio and television. Daniel’s the only climate scientist I know who’s been able to do that.”
There’s no established job description for climate communicator—what Swain calls himself—and no traditional source of funding. He’s not particularly a high-energy person, nor is he naturally gregarious; in fact, he has a chronic medical condition that often saps his energy. But his work is needed, he says. “Climate change is an increasingly big part of what’s driving weather extremes today,” Swain says. “I connect the dots between the two. There’s a lot of misunderstanding about how a warming climate affects day-to-day variations in weather, but my goal is to push public perception toward what the science actually says.” So when reporters call him, he does his best to call them back.
7:30 a.m., winds at 5 mph from the east northeast
Swain finishes the phone call with the Times reporter and schedules a Zoom interview with Reuters for noon. Then he brushes his teeth. He’s used to a barrage of requests when there’s a catastrophic weather event. Take August 2020, when, over three days, California experienced 14,000 lightning strikes from “dry” thunderstorms. More than 650 reported wildfires followed, eventually turning the skies over San Francisco a dystopian orange. “In a matter of weeks, I did more than 100 interviews with television, radio, and newspaper outlets, and walked a social media audience of millions through the disaster unfolding in their own backyards,” he wrote in a recent essay for Nature.
Swain’s desire to understand the physics of weather stretches back to his preschool years. In 1993, his family moved from San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge to San Rafael, and the 4-year-old found himself wondering where all that Bay City fog had gone. Two years later, Swain spent the first big storm of his life under his parents’ bed. He lay listening to screeching 100 mile-per-hour winds around his family’s home, perched on a ridge east of Mount Tamalpais. But he was more excited than scared. The huge winter storm of 1995 that blew northward from San Francisco and destroyed the historic Conservatory of Flowers just got 6-year-old Swain wired.
‘Climate change is an increasingly big part of what’s driving weather extremes today. I connect the dots between the two.’
“To this day, it’s the strongest winds I’ve ever experienced,” he says. “It sent a wind tunnel through our house.” It broke windows. Shards of glass embedded in one of his little brother’s stuffies, which was sitting in an empty bedroom. “I remember being fascinated,” he says. So naturally, when he got a little older, he put a weather station on top of that house. And then, in high school, he launched his Weather West blog. “It was read by about 10 people,” Swain says, laughing. “I was a weather geek. It didn’t exactly make me popular.” Two decades, 550 posts, and 2 million readers later, well, who’s popular now?
Swain graduated from UC Davis with a bachelor’s degree in atmospheric science. He knew then that something big was happening on the weather front, and he wanted to understand how climate change was influencing the daily forecast. So at Stanford, he studied earth system science and set about using physics to understand the causes of changing North Pacific climate extremes. “From the beginning, Daniel had a clear sense of wanting to show how climate change was affecting the weather conditions that matter for people,” says Diffenbaugh. “A lot of that is extreme weather.” Swain focused on the causes of persistent patterns in the atmosphere—long periods of drought or exceptionally rainy winters—and how climate change might be exacerbating them.
The first extreme weather event he studied was the record-setting California drought that began in 2012. He caught the attention of both the media and the scientific community after he coined the term Ridiculously Resilient Ridge, referring to a persistent ridge of high pressure caused by unusual oceanic warmth in the western tropical Pacific Ocean. That ridge was blocking weather fronts from bringing rain into California. The term was initially tongue-in-cheek. Today the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge (aka RRR or Triple R) has a Wikipedia page.
“One day, I was sitting in my car, waiting to pick up one of my kids, reading the news on my phone,” says Diffenbaugh. “And I saw this article in the Economist about the drought. It mentioned this Ridiculously Resilient Ridge. I thought, ‘Oh, wow, that’s interesting. That’s quite a branding success.’ I click on the page and there’s a picture of Daniel Swain.”
Diffenbaugh recommended that Swain write a scientific paper about the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge, and Swain did, in 2014. By then, the phrase was all over the internet. “Journalists started calling while I was still at Stanford,” says Swain. “I gave into it initially, and the demand just kept growing from there.”
11:45 a.m., precipitation 0 inches
Swain’s long, lanky frame is seated ramrod straight in front of his computer screen, scrolling for the latest updates about Hurricane Otis. At noon, he signs in to Zoom and starts answering questions again.
Reuters: “Hurricane Otis wasn’t in the forecast until about six to 10 hours before it occurred. What would you say were the factors that played into its fierce intensification?”
Swain: “Tropical cyclones, or hurricanes, require a few different ingredients. I think the most unusual one was the warmth of water temperature in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of Mexico. It’s much higher than usual. This provided a lot of extra potential intensity to this storm. We expect to see increases in intensification of storms like this in a warming climate.”
Swain’s dog, Luna, bored by the topic, snores softly. She’s asleep just behind him, next to a bookshelf filled with weather disaster titles: The Terror by Dan Simmons; The Water Will Come by Jeff Goodell; Fire Weather by John Vaillant. And the deceptively hopeful-sounding Paradise by Lizzie Johnson, which tells the story of the 2018 Camp Fire that burned the town of Paradise, Calif., to the ground. Swain was interviewed by Johnson for the book. The day of the fire, he found himself glued to the comment section of his blog, warning anyone who asked about evacuation to get out.
“During the Camp Fire, people were commenting, ‘I’m afraid. What should we do? Do we stay or do we go?’ Literally life or death,” he says. He wrote them back: “There is a huge fire coming toward you very fast. Leave now.” As they fled, they sent him progressively more horrifying images of burning homes and trees like huge, flaming matchsticks. “This makes me extremely uncomfortable—that I was their best bet for help,” says Swain.
Swain doesn’t socialize much. He doesn’t have time. His world revolves around his home life, his work, and taking care of his health. He has posted online about his chronic health condition, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a heritable connective tissue disease that, for him, results in fatigue, gastrointestinal problems, and injuries—he can partially dislocate a wrist mopping the kitchen floor. He works to keep his health condition under control when he has down time, traveling to specialists in Utah, taking medications and supplements, and being cautious about any physical activity. When he hikes in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, he’s careful and tries to keep his wobbly ankles from giving out. Doctors don’t have a full understanding of EDS. So, Swain researches his illness himself, much like he does climate science, constantly looking for and sifting through new data, analyzing it, and sometimes sharing what he discovers online with the public. “If it’s this difficult to parse even as a professional scientist and science communicator, I can only imagine how challenging this task is for most other folks struggling with complex/chronic illnesses,” he wrote on Twitter.
‘“There is a huge fire coming toward you very fast. Leave now.” This makes me extremely uncomfortable—that I was their best bet for help. ’
It helps if he can exert some control over his own schedule to minimize fatigue. The virtual world has helped him do that. He mostly works from a small, extra bedroom in an aging rental home perched at an elevation of 5,400 feet in Boulder, where he lives with his partner, Jilmarie Stephens, a research scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder.
When Swain was hired at UCLA in 2018, Peter Kareiva, the then director of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, supported a nontraditional career path that would allow Swain to split his time between research and climate communication, with the proviso that he find grants to fund much of his work. That same year, Swain was invited to join a group at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) located in Boulder, which has two labs located at the base of the Rocky Mountains.
“Daniel had a very clear vision about how he wanted to contribute to science and the world, using social media and his website,” says Kareiva, a research professor at UCLA. “We will not solve climate change without a movement, and communication and social media are key to that. Most science papers are never even read. What we do as scientists only matters if it has an impact on the world. We need at least 100 more Daniels.”
And yet financial support for this type of work is never assured. In a recent essay in Nature, Swain writes about what he says is a desperate need for more institutions to fund climate communication by scientists. “Having a foot firmly planted in both research and public-engagement worlds has been crucial,” he writes. “Even as I write this, it’s unclear whether there will be funding to extend my present role beyond the next six months.”
4:00 p.m., 67 degrees F
“Ready?” says the NBC reporter on the computer screen. “Can we just have you count to 10, please?”
“Walk me through in a really concise way why we saw this tropical storm, literally overnight, turn into a Category 5 hurricane, when it comes to climate change,” the reporter says.
“So, as the Earth warms, not only does the atmosphere warm or air temperatures increase, but the oceans are warming as well. And because warm tropical oceans are hurricane fuel, the maximum potential intensity of hurricanes is set by how warm the oceans are,” Swain says.
An hour later, Swain lets Luna out and prepares for the second half of his day: He’ll spend the next five hours on a paper for a science journal. It’s a review of research on weather whiplash in California—the phenomenon of rapid swings between extremes, such as the 2023 floods that came on the heels of a severe drought. Using atmospheric modeling, Swain predicted in a 2018 Nature Climate Change study that there would be a 25 percent to 100 percent increase in extreme dry-to-wet precipitation events in the years ahead. Recent weather events support that hypothesis, and Swain’s follow-up research analyzes the ways those events are seriously stressing California’s water storage and flood control infrastructure.
“What’s remarkable about this summer is that the record-shattering heat has occurred not only over land but also in the oceans,” Swain explained in an interview with Katie Couric on YouTube in August, “like the hot tub [temperature] water in certain parts of the shallow coastal regions off the Gulf of Mexico.” In a warming climate, the atmosphere acts as a kitchen sponge, he explains later. It soaks up water but also wrings it out. The more rapid the evaporation, the more intense the precipitation. When it rains, there are heavier downpours and more extreme flood events.
‘What we do as scientists only matters if it has an impact on the world. We need at least 100 more Daniels.’
“It really comes down to thermodynamics,” he says. The increasing temperatures caused by greenhouse gases lead to more droughts, but they also cause more intense precipitation. The atmosphere is thirstier, so it takes more water from the land and from plants. The sponge holds more water vapor. That’s why California is experiencing these wild alternations, he says, from extremely dry to extremely wet. “It explains the role climate change plays in turning a tropical storm overnight into hurricane forces,” he says.
October 26, expected high of 45 degrees F
In 2023, things got “ludicrously crazy” for both Swain and the world. It was the hottest year in recorded history. Summer temperatures broke records worldwide. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported 28 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion—among them a drought, four flooding events, 19 severe storm events, two tropical cyclones, and a killer wildfire. Overall, catastrophic weather events resulted in the deaths of 492 people in the United States. “Next year may well be worse than that,” Swain says. “It’s mind-blowing when you think about that.”
“There have always been floods and wildfires, hurricanes and storms,” Swain continues. “It’s just that now, climate change plays a role in most weather disasters”—pumped-up storms, more intense and longer droughts and wildfire seasons, and heavier rains and flooding. It also plays a role in our ability to manage those disasters, Swain says. In a 2023 paper he published in Communications Earth & Environment, for example, he provides evidence that climate change is shifting the ideal timing of prescribed burns (which help mitigate wildfire risk) from spring and autumn to winter.
The day after Hurricane Otis strikes, Swain’s schedule has calmed down, so he takes time to make the short drive from his home up to the NCAR Mesa Lab, situated in a majestic spot where the Rocky Mountains meet the plains. Sometimes he’ll sit in his Hyundai in the parking lot, looking out his windshield at the movements of the clouds while doing media interviews on his cell phone. Today he scrolls through weather news updates on the aftermath of Hurricane Otis, keeping informed for the next interview that pops up, or his next blog post. In total, 52 people will be reported dead due to the disaster. The hurricane destroyed homes and hotels, high-rises and hospitals. Swain’s name will appear in at least a dozen stories on Hurricane Otis, including one by David Wallace-Wells, an opinion writer for the New York Times,columnist for the New York Times Magazine,and bestselling author of The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. “It’s easy to get pulled into overly dramatic ways of looking at where the world is going,” says Wallace-Wells, who routinely listens to Swain’s office hours and considers him a key source when he needs information on weather events. “Daniel helps people know how we can better calibrate those fears with the use of scientific rigor. He’s incredibly valuable.”
From the parking lot in the mountains, Swain often watches the weather that blows across the wide-open plains that stretch for hundreds of miles, all the way to the Mississippi River. He never tires of examining weather in real time, learning from it. He studies the interplay between the weather and the clouds at this spot where storms continually roll in and roll out.
“After all these years,” he says, “I’m still a weather geek.”
Stephanie Arnett/MIT Technology Review | Getty Images, Alphafold
Uma (in)certa antropologia 
Você precisa fazer login para comentar.