No sirens are blaring, nobody even looks frightened, but one should be. Last week, the world moved into uncharted territory. The ‘aspirational’ goal of never allowing the average global temperature to rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial norm (+1.5°C) has been breached for a whole year — and probably forever.

‘Never’ is a long time, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, when it set that target in 2018, actually said that it should remain achievable until at least 2050. You may have noticed that the year is only 2024, and we are already there. Something has gone wrong, and there is a scramble to cover it up.

This takes two forms. One was that it’s just a temporary effect related to the recent El Niño, a cyclical oceanic event that occasionally raises the average global temperature a bit for nine to twelve months, then subsides again.

The trouble with that explanation is that the ‘anomaly’, as climate scientists are calling the unexpected warming, was is as big as any El Niño event has ever been. It also began months before this El Niño got going — and it did not go away when the El Niño died out, in April. The ‘anomaly’ is still there.

So much for explaining the ‘anomaly’ away, but there’s another. What if a whole year above +1.5°C doesn’t count as ‘breaching the limit’? It doesn’t, according to the IPCC rules. Those rules say it won’t be reached until the average global temperature has been +1.5°C for 20 years — so about 10 years from now, in practice.

Calculating long-term averages for global temperature made sense when the climate was stable and just jiggled around a bit from year to year, but those days are long gone.

The trend in average global temperature has been relentlessly upward for decades now. To insist on mixing in cooler temperatures from 20 years ago to come up with a number that understates the reality of the present would be self-deception at best.

What would it be at worst? I wouldn’t use the phrase, ‘deliberate misrepresentation’, but something complicated and largely invisible happens at the conclusion of each Assessment Report, the scientific document on which the IPCC’s annual conferences are based. The data and conclusions in the hundreds of pages of the reports are valid and unbiased, but the ‘executive summary’ (the only part most journalists will ever read) is a political document negotiated between the scientists and the governments that are paying for the whole IPCC enterprise.

The scientists are hampered by their own professional reluctance to discuss their private and tentative conclusions in public. Alas, that handicaps them in their protracted arm-wrestle over the executive summary with governments, which are deeply concerned about climate change but always want to avoid large spending commitments.

I’m relying on private information from some scientists who have been involved in the process, but the governments usually win. (“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”) This may explain the widening gap between what the IPCC says and what we can see with our own eyes: monster wildfires, unprecedented heatwaves, killer landslides and all the rest.

What can we do about all this? The stock answer is ‘cut your greenhouse gas emissions’, but it is delusional to go on pretending that this is all we can and must do. After 30 years of trying, our emissions are still growing almost every year (although we may start to make a little progress soon).

We need to hold the heat down while the emissions work proceeds, or the growing chaos, damage and violence will make further progress on any front impossible. The various ways to do that are called ‘geoengineering’ or climate engineering, and for a long time, it was taboo. That never made sense, and now the prejudice is fading fast.