I'm a retired physician/psychiatrist/stress researcher/author of "Stress R Us". I got interested in the dire state of our rapidly deteriorating climate when I stumbled over C3S and their report of 1.2 trillion tons of global ice melting annually, 3.3 billion tons daily. I have been following their "Climate Pulse" page and was shocked by their article "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", June 5, 2024, in which they, using their far more instructive 1991-2020 baseline, they reported a 0.75 degC global ave. temp for the period June '23-May '24 year, which is 0.214 degC annually over the 1991-2020 baseline. So, at this rate carried forward, as the trendline has continued (0.82 degC today), then we could see a 1 degC global temp increase EVERY FIVE YEARS.
The melting global ice is absorbing a massive amount of heat energy, primarily generated by our incessant mindless burning of fossil fuels (8B tons of coal annually and 100 million barrels of oil daily) and solar radiation imbalance, both of which are generating the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. C3S predicts that 2/3rds of the 220,000 glaciers on the planet will have melted by 2,100, where one pound of melting ice absorbs 144 BTUs. Do the math, I dare you!
At this rate, which includes the production of 1 trillion tons of water vapor per day, the heating of 321 million cubic miles of oceans to record levels, and driving unheard of global rain events and flooding, we appear to be approaching multiple climate collapse tipping points threatening massive dieoffs of the full spectrum of life on this planet. Now, I'm just a 79 yo retired physician with a curious mind, but why are so few "experts" as concerned as this old man?
Going to be completely honest and say this is very scary and has significantly reduced my desire to start a family and plan a future more broadly. This seems indicative of accelerated warming, as James Hansen warned, right? Between this, the Trump election kneecapping climate action, and the growing consensus that wetlands are accelerating methane release into the atmosphere (likely making net zero impossible, as we relay on reducing methane to offset reduced aerosols), it feels like humanity is doomed to some flavor of societal collapse this century. I hope I'm wrong but this feels correct.
I had read that and that is good to hear. Thank you for your helpful response. With the growing prominence of carbon cycle feedbacks, even without an additional acceleration, we are in a challenging place. Thank you for all that you do.
I am interested in getting to the truth on the weather trends as it relates to climate change and my understanding is you must use 30 years of weather before it can be a climate trend.
Based on this the work done by Christy and Spencer is worthwhile, and they are part of the “Realist” end of climate science, but I suggest we should review that outlook.
Here is a good summary..
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
This kind of work has developed a growing consensus at both government and voter level in many western nations that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And especially as the “rest” of the global economies continue to do nothing anyway. It fits with the notion of focused adaption for “high risk areas” and will allow us to get on with prosperity using the power of Fossil fuels.
Its very clear there are now two opposing scientific factions suggesting vastly different climate policy action.
I am rooting for CMIP5 to carry the day! The last two years have barely crept above the average for CMIP6. It may be lover's eyes but CMIP5 still looks like a better fit to past trends and '23 and '24 are still inside the error bars.
I'm unable to find a definition of the Paris Accord 1.5C limit anywhere. The closest I can get to a definition is articles discussing the limit where the authors suggest it may be the 10 year average, or perhaps the 20 year average. Even the UN special report on 1.5C has hidden it, if it has a definition. The question is really, what were the scientists who predicted the impacts of a 1.5C rise using? The relevant time would have been while the scientists were researching the impacts in the reports that would be used by the delegates at that Paris COP.
There's no official definition (AFAIK) because it doesn't matter w.r.t. the Paris Agreement. Breaking the target doesn't trigger any action/penalty/etc. There are similar issues elsewhere, for example, the main target is "well below 2C", and there's also no definition of "well below". That said, using 1 year's temperature is clearly wrong; 10 or 20 years is much better.
Paris itself is ambiguous, but the IPCC has adopted a 20-year mean period to determine exceedence of temperature targets. This has the unfortunate side-effect that we won't actually know when we passed a particular target until ten years after the fact, so some of us are working on a paper summarizing alternative approaches.
Disappointing that you persist with sensationalist headlines. While you invariably give correct info in the "fine print" probably most people don't get past headlines. In this case, as you note in the discussion, it does not mean it exceeds 1.5 degrees as per the Paris agreement, which is what everyone considers the 1.5 degrees to refer to. We are seeing warming that typically follows an El Nino year (that began last June). On top of which, it was always known that we would pass 1.5 degrees (although it looks like it will be earlier than originally predicted) - then drop back.
Also "the hottest year on record" is such a meaningless claim - it occurs every few years, there is nothing special about this year in that respect (it is called ANthropgenic global warming and will obviously occur regularly with persistent warming).
I have been sending my students to your site (and sceptics) because it has not been sensationalistic, but I guess I will have to re-consider that. A pity - so few sites discuss climate change in a non-sensationalistic and scientific manner.
I think our readers are aware of the difference between a single year passing 1.5C (symbolic, but not that meaningful) and the long-term average (which, ultimately, is also largely symbolic though aligns with policy targets).
Paris policy target (20yr average I think) is akin to formalising someone is dead a year after they stop breathing. Not sure those folk had any idea about the nature of risk with deteriorating situations.
While a single year passing 1.5°C (and not by a miniscule amount) may not be especially meaningful from a policy perspective, it does have other meaningful ramifications -- for example, in ecological and biological contexts. The consequences of such elevated temperatures occurring even for one year may be irreversibly detrimental for particular ecosystems and species, especially ones that are already stressed to the breaking point by other harmful anthropogenic impacts.
It is sensationalistic to focus on the short-term limit of a variable, as you do with other things. The hottest day ever in Woop Woop north approach. I guess this site no longer serves my purpose (it used to be much better).
Am I missing something here Martin? Is there some history here in the comments sections between yourself and the author which you haven't referenced? If you apply the "Alien Test" - imagine you are an alien and read this headline out of any context - how is "2024 will be the first year above 1.5C" sensationalist? Admittedly the author has form with tabloid style headlines ("absolutely gobsmackingly bananas") but that was excusable I thought, being scientifically very interesting and alarming. This one though? At worst, you could say the author is trying to grab a scoop since it's not quite a hard fact yet. As a student I'm certain I would benefit from being directed to this substack. Your complaint just seems completely unwarranted.
"It is sensationalistic to focus on the short-term limit of a variable, as you do with other things. "
Huh. The simplest definition of "climate" is "statistical weather". When weather statistics change over time, we say climate is changing. That includes new high GMSTs, as well as successive local record-breaking extremes. Since an annual average GMST above 1.5°C has global significance by virtue of international agreements, it's hardly sensationalistic to note the first year it's exceeded.
"I guess this site no longer serves my purpose (it used to be much better)."
Huh. I've been coming here for a year now, and it's as good now as it was when I started. Why bother reading it then, much less commenting, if it no longer serves your purpose? Do you think we'll miss you? Or are you hoping the blog's authors will change their style to suit you? How's that working out for you?
There is nothing sensationalist about this site or its current headline which is simply a statement of fact. I'm sure the author expects that anyone interested in the site will read through the analysis that is presented.
As of Tuesday, this all stands to get much, much worse.
I'm a retired physician/psychiatrist/stress researcher/author of "Stress R Us". I got interested in the dire state of our rapidly deteriorating climate when I stumbled over C3S and their report of 1.2 trillion tons of global ice melting annually, 3.3 billion tons daily. I have been following their "Climate Pulse" page and was shocked by their article "Hottest May on record spurs call for climate action", June 5, 2024, in which they, using their far more instructive 1991-2020 baseline, they reported a 0.75 degC global ave. temp for the period June '23-May '24 year, which is 0.214 degC annually over the 1991-2020 baseline. So, at this rate carried forward, as the trendline has continued (0.82 degC today), then we could see a 1 degC global temp increase EVERY FIVE YEARS.
The melting global ice is absorbing a massive amount of heat energy, primarily generated by our incessant mindless burning of fossil fuels (8B tons of coal annually and 100 million barrels of oil daily) and solar radiation imbalance, both of which are generating the heat energy equivalent of 20+ Hiroshima nuclear bomb blasts PER SECOND, where each one releases 63 trillion BTUs. C3S predicts that 2/3rds of the 220,000 glaciers on the planet will have melted by 2,100, where one pound of melting ice absorbs 144 BTUs. Do the math, I dare you!
At this rate, which includes the production of 1 trillion tons of water vapor per day, the heating of 321 million cubic miles of oceans to record levels, and driving unheard of global rain events and flooding, we appear to be approaching multiple climate collapse tipping points threatening massive dieoffs of the full spectrum of life on this planet. Now, I'm just a 79 yo retired physician with a curious mind, but why are so few "experts" as concerned as this old man?
Going to be completely honest and say this is very scary and has significantly reduced my desire to start a family and plan a future more broadly. This seems indicative of accelerated warming, as James Hansen warned, right? Between this, the Trump election kneecapping climate action, and the growing consensus that wetlands are accelerating methane release into the atmosphere (likely making net zero impossible, as we relay on reducing methane to offset reduced aerosols), it feels like humanity is doomed to some flavor of societal collapse this century. I hope I'm wrong but this feels correct.
I think there is growing evidence of an acceleration in the rate of warming, but its reasonably in-line with the acceleration that our models expect in current policy type scenarios. I wrote about it in some detail here if its useful: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/
I had read that and that is good to hear. Thank you for your helpful response. With the growing prominence of carbon cycle feedbacks, even without an additional acceleration, we are in a challenging place. Thank you for all that you do.
I am interested in getting to the truth on the weather trends as it relates to climate change and my understanding is you must use 30 years of weather before it can be a climate trend.
Based on this the work done by Christy and Spencer is worthwhile, and they are part of the “Realist” end of climate science, but I suggest we should review that outlook.
Here is a good summary..
John Christy: Climate Change is Not a Crisis | Tom Nelson Pod #260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYVyU_q9Uo&t=403s
This kind of work has developed a growing consensus at both government and voter level in many western nations that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish. And especially as the “rest” of the global economies continue to do nothing anyway. It fits with the notion of focused adaption for “high risk areas” and will allow us to get on with prosperity using the power of Fossil fuels.
Its very clear there are now two opposing scientific factions suggesting vastly different climate policy action.
More at …. https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
And i vow to make sure it will be the last year above 1.5°. N°2, 4, and 15. (I added ban bottom trawling twice by mistake. Sorry in advance)
I am rooting for CMIP5 to carry the day! The last two years have barely crept above the average for CMIP6. It may be lover's eyes but CMIP5 still looks like a better fit to past trends and '23 and '24 are still inside the error bars.
You can also use the filtered CMIP6 ensemble that excludes the too-hot members. It generally fits observations quite well, as I show here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-will-be-first-year-above-1-5c-of-global-warming/
Got it. What confused me is that the figure caption below the figure still refers to CMIP5 models.
I'm unable to find a definition of the Paris Accord 1.5C limit anywhere. The closest I can get to a definition is articles discussing the limit where the authors suggest it may be the 10 year average, or perhaps the 20 year average. Even the UN special report on 1.5C has hidden it, if it has a definition. The question is really, what were the scientists who predicted the impacts of a 1.5C rise using? The relevant time would have been while the scientists were researching the impacts in the reports that would be used by the delegates at that Paris COP.
There's no official definition (AFAIK) because it doesn't matter w.r.t. the Paris Agreement. Breaking the target doesn't trigger any action/penalty/etc. There are similar issues elsewhere, for example, the main target is "well below 2C", and there's also no definition of "well below". That said, using 1 year's temperature is clearly wrong; 10 or 20 years is much better.
Paris itself is ambiguous, but the IPCC has adopted a 20-year mean period to determine exceedence of temperature targets. This has the unfortunate side-effect that we won't actually know when we passed a particular target until ten years after the fact, so some of us are working on a paper summarizing alternative approaches.
Disappointing that you persist with sensationalist headlines. While you invariably give correct info in the "fine print" probably most people don't get past headlines. In this case, as you note in the discussion, it does not mean it exceeds 1.5 degrees as per the Paris agreement, which is what everyone considers the 1.5 degrees to refer to. We are seeing warming that typically follows an El Nino year (that began last June). On top of which, it was always known that we would pass 1.5 degrees (although it looks like it will be earlier than originally predicted) - then drop back.
Also "the hottest year on record" is such a meaningless claim - it occurs every few years, there is nothing special about this year in that respect (it is called ANthropgenic global warming and will obviously occur regularly with persistent warming).
I have been sending my students to your site (and sceptics) because it has not been sensationalistic, but I guess I will have to re-consider that. A pity - so few sites discuss climate change in a non-sensationalistic and scientific manner.
You are free to quibble with the headline, but if we want to define the first year above 1.5C it will pretty clearly be 2024.
I've already written at length about when the world will likely pass 1.5C more formally (consistent with the Paris Agreement definition), e.g.: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-record-global-heat-means-for-breaching-the-1-5c-warming-limit/
I think our readers are aware of the difference between a single year passing 1.5C (symbolic, but not that meaningful) and the long-term average (which, ultimately, is also largely symbolic though aligns with policy targets).
Paris policy target (20yr average I think) is akin to formalising someone is dead a year after they stop breathing. Not sure those folk had any idea about the nature of risk with deteriorating situations.
While a single year passing 1.5°C (and not by a miniscule amount) may not be especially meaningful from a policy perspective, it does have other meaningful ramifications -- for example, in ecological and biological contexts. The consequences of such elevated temperatures occurring even for one year may be irreversibly detrimental for particular ecosystems and species, especially ones that are already stressed to the breaking point by other harmful anthropogenic impacts.
I have just read that the World Wildlife Fund has reported that there has been a 73% decline in wildlife since 1970. Yikes!
Where I live, trees that were killed by the PNW heat dome of 2021 are now standing skeletons, while sunlight reaches the ground they formerly shaded.
It is sensationalistic to focus on the short-term limit of a variable, as you do with other things. The hottest day ever in Woop Woop north approach. I guess this site no longer serves my purpose (it used to be much better).
Am I missing something here Martin? Is there some history here in the comments sections between yourself and the author which you haven't referenced? If you apply the "Alien Test" - imagine you are an alien and read this headline out of any context - how is "2024 will be the first year above 1.5C" sensationalist? Admittedly the author has form with tabloid style headlines ("absolutely gobsmackingly bananas") but that was excusable I thought, being scientifically very interesting and alarming. This one though? At worst, you could say the author is trying to grab a scoop since it's not quite a hard fact yet. As a student I'm certain I would benefit from being directed to this substack. Your complaint just seems completely unwarranted.
"It is sensationalistic to focus on the short-term limit of a variable, as you do with other things. "
Huh. The simplest definition of "climate" is "statistical weather". When weather statistics change over time, we say climate is changing. That includes new high GMSTs, as well as successive local record-breaking extremes. Since an annual average GMST above 1.5°C has global significance by virtue of international agreements, it's hardly sensationalistic to note the first year it's exceeded.
"I guess this site no longer serves my purpose (it used to be much better)."
Huh. I've been coming here for a year now, and it's as good now as it was when I started. Why bother reading it then, much less commenting, if it no longer serves your purpose? Do you think we'll miss you? Or are you hoping the blog's authors will change their style to suit you? How's that working out for you?
There is nothing sensationalist about this site or its current headline which is simply a statement of fact. I'm sure the author expects that anyone interested in the site will read through the analysis that is presented.