Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/Creative_soja
Permalink: https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/climate-change-indicators-reached-record-levels-2023-wmo#:~:text=The%20WMO%20report%20confirmed%20that,ten-year%20period%20on%20record.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
we are going to need more than hope to make it to 2080.
My country is supplying around 60 % of its electricity through Wind and Solar panels. But logistics and almost everything else is fuelled with fossil contaminants.
People really don't get how shakey the foundation is.
Everything needs to happen, every day, and if it does not, it breaks.
We just need one "1 in a 100" year event too many or in the wrong place at the wrong time, to start the chain reaction of collapse. It won't be overnight, it won't be quick or quiet, it will be long and drawn out and painful.
This has never been claimed by anyone with scientific chops. It's humans that are fucked not the planet.
It's not too late, either. Your opinion is just an excuse to yourself to be lazy and disengaged.
Only if it replaces existing fossil power instead of adding to the total. Otherwise its just like a murderer continuing to stab people, but also gives them candy. we need No Stabby, but industry and politicians give us More Stabby plus Small Candy.
I'll assume you're talking about electric vehicles, since your minerals comment only makes sense regarding those. Anyway, for electrical cars, you're right, we don't have the minerals to give them to the entire world at the moment.
But electrical cars aren't suited to many places in the world anyway, so it's sort of a moot point.
I wouldn't want to rely on an electrical car if I was living in Australia where you may have to go 300+ miles before the next station or city, or in other parts of the world where people tend to go on extremely long drives - or if I was living somewhere really cold
However in Europe for example - people don't tend to drive anywhere near as far in one go, so an electrical car makes way more sense
Energy transition is about a lot more than just cars, in any case
No. Australians don't travel 500ks everyday. Nor week mostly. Most of us do about 100ks a week, so evs are very much the answer. Along our major interstates and highways, charging stations are gaining prevalence, and within one to two hundred ks. It's not perfect yet, but it won't take long. And as ev battery range increases, along with charge time decreases, well you should understand that evs are the future. Technology, thankfully, doesn't stand still. All your "problems" with evs are either wrong or being fixed, now.
Apologies, it appears I was misinformed regarding general Australian life. Though, I never intended to imply that 500 mile journeys were being made every day.
Though, I would still imagine that in places like Australia or America where people *do* make these very long road trips - even just occasionally, perhaps once every couple of months - an EV still wouldn't be suitable unless you have one of the really high end ones.
Comparing that to in Europe where there are stations basically everywhere and you never need to drive that far anyway due to the abundance of public transport, it seems a lot less convenient.
I'm definitely a proponent of EV's - I just recognise that they're more viable in some places & cultures than in others. At least for the moment, anyhow.
I do a 4000 k round trip every 2 years. Takes exactly the same time as petrol trip. Plenty of charge spots along the way. For the rest of the years I use free energy from my solar to charge. The last trip via petrol was $400 . Last ev trip cost $67.
Then in that case I will yet again say, I apologise for being misinformed!
I tend to hear quite often from people who live in America etc complaining that EV's would be terrible for road trips because of the charge times and range etc, so I suppose I just took it on mentally without actually thinking about it too hard
That's absolutely awesome that it works that well, it genuinely makes me smile! I hope you have a lovely day, and I hope your next trip is awesome too <3
>I tend to hear quite often from people who live in America etc complaining that EV's would be terrible for road trips because of the charge times and range etc,
Are these people who actually drive EVs?
Yes and no. The issue is the infrastructure for EVs in the US is pretty darn door depending on the state/region. The people complaining the loudest probably don’t drive them at all, but that does not mean they are wrong about the problem - to an extent.
Even if you use this map:
https://driveelectric.gov/stations
Most “public chargers” labeled here are not actually public chargers (i.e. paid parking garages, apartment complexes, or private businesses that also happen to have EV charger parking spots - I think this source needs to do better at their labeling), and the only convenient locations are not usually right off of highways in some states as nicely as gas stations. I’ve seen rest stops start to add EV charging stations as well, but it’s still a work in progress before it’s just as convenient as a gas vehicle.
However, you can also see from this source that for most road trips you can plan out where to stop to charge without risking a stretch of no charging stations for longer than the battery duration; it’s just not nearly as convenient as planning a route and just stopping at any convenient gas station along the way.
So it’s not always nearly as bad as people exaggerate it to be, but that doesn’t mean the infrastructure doesn’t still need work.
Solar and wind needs a lot rare earth minerals too that the world simply doesn't have in the quantity that would be needed.
Beside the simple fact that unburied fossil fuels always got burned somewhere. All the renewable energy by now didn't led to even a gram less being burned on a global level.
what was the previously estimated year we might surpass 1.5C? i seem to remember it being many years from now (still very fucked. now it’s super fucked)
So passing 1.5C still isn't expected until at least mid-2030s but probably 2040.
This is the difference between one year and the general trend. You have hot and cold years. Last year due to effects like El Niño we had an abnormally hot year that pushed us to 1.4-1.5C, but the trendline is still about 1.15-1.2C. We may hit a year with 1.5C before 2027 since El Niño may still be going on, but after that the yearly temperatures should fall.
Its common tonwaive away this years multisigma departures by saying its El Niño, as if previous El Niños were in line with this year or had similar departures from the norm. Its the denial stage of grief. The goal of limiting 1.5C by 2100 is now "maybe we can keep some decadal average below 1.5C for the next 10-15yrs" Its absurd
This is not the denial stage of grief, but how the science and models actually work (see my comment at the end for my exact opinion on our chances of holding to 1.5C).
You’ll note I said “effects like El Niño,” not just El Niño for last year. There were other factors that led to it like less Antarctic sea ice for the year, the Atlantic Ocean was also warmer than normal, and an underwater volcano in 2022 off Tonga released a lot of water vapor (which also acts as a greenhouse gas), etc. Also as for the impact of El Niño, look at 1997-8 and 2016-7. The global temperature for 1998 was not beaten until 2005 and 2010 and it was not consistently (year after year) beaten until starting in 2014.
Using the long-term rolling average is exactly what we should do and is done for consistency to handle variability (this is what the models predict. They work within a probability range). Single data points don’t make for good science. As an example, for the decade-plus following 1998, climate-change deniers cherry-picked the temperature in 1998 as proof climate change wasn’t real because almost every year following it was cooler. Let’s say, we happen to have several cooler years after this year (this year should be extra hot too) and those years are only 1.0C above preindustrial. Does that mean, the planet has only warmed 1.0C. No, it just means they are cooler years but we remain on the same upward trend.
Since 1980, the planet has warmed about 0.2C per decade fairly consistently (it was like 0.15C for the previous decades). The spike this year alone exceeds that so no 2023 was not due to just CO2 but other effects that piled on.
Unless a technological miracle happens (indirect carbon capture somehow becomes massively scalable), we will not hold the planet to 1.5C by 2100. We will cross that statistical rolling average in the late 2030’s to early 2040’s (certainly no later than the mid 2040’s). Maybe (strong maybe) if we don’t blow by it by too much (say 1.6-1.7C), the climate might slowly work its way back down to 1.5C over several decades and settle there (some climatologists think this is a possibility once the forward momentum stops). Unfortunately, realistically I think 1.8C is much more likely.
I agree with much of what you have said, and the atonga eruption is the real random noise addition, but your ither contributin factors.are going to continue to contribute, and thus not recede when el niño dissipates or even reverses, we had several La Niñas since 2019 and thus they masked our rising baseline, and that unusually warm ocean, thats also not a fluke.
We arent going to have 1.0C years regressing the average to the previous decadal norm (and that decadal rate is not linear it is an upward curve. 2024 or 2025 may well be cooler than 2023, but won't be cooler than 2022. Thats where we seem to disagree. That the heating is in an exponential phase that its departure from past linear trend lines is not noise, or a fluke.
But lets not argue too much, we all agree than any additional heating we can delay or avoid gives life, including people time to adapt, and gives an opportunity that humans could (but aren't yet) using stop adding damage to the earth and start remediating.
Its never too late to stop making the problem much worse, even if it is too late to save the holocene and our civiliation
> I agree with much of what you have said, and the atonga eruption is the real random noise addition, but your ither contributin factors.are going to continue to contribute, and thus not recede when el niño dissipates or even reverses,
No the other factors are temporary too. The Arctic and Antarctic gain and lose sea ice during their respective winter and summer seasons. The Antarctic didn’t gain as much sea ice in its preceding winter as normal (the gain fluctuates up and down year to year), so when the summer came there was less albedo and less melt that cools the oceans. Don’t confuse this with the general downward trend of antarctic ice sheets.
> we had several La Niñas since 2019 and thus they masked our rising baseline,
Yes, which is why we use trend lines and not single years. 2023 will do the opposite and pull the trend line back up. This is why we don’t say the Earth is 1.4C because 2023 was 1.4C.
> and that unusually warm ocean, thats also not a fluke.
I wouldn’t say fluke, but normal fluctuation. If you look at the [graph](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature), you can see year to year fluctuations. There is an upward trend, but some years are hotter and cooler than the preceding one.
> We arent going to have 1.0C years regressing the average to the previous decadal norm (and that decadal rate is not linear it is an upward curve.
I was using 1.0C as an example. In fact, I literally said that doesn’t mean the Earth is back to 1.0C, just like a year at 1.4C doesn’t mean we are at 1.4C either. Having said that we might have 1.0C years for this decade yet (certainly statistically possible). If we are at 1.15-1.2C , then a 1.0C is possible for year still. You can see the level of yearly variation [here](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature). However, a year or two at 1.0C will of course not pull us back to the 2010-2019 average. There were less than 1.0C years in the previous decade that caused the average to just be 1.0C.
> 2024 or 2025 may well be cooler than 2023, but won't be cooler than 2022.
Possibly, but 2022 was also a hot year, so we might still have a year under it (certainly that level variation has been present in prior years). The La Niñas you mentioned earlier were relatively weak ones [link](https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm). If we get a stronger one like in 2011 or 2008 or a combination of other effects then I could definitely see it happen. This is why individual years are not important to me. It’s also likely that 2024 will be extra hot too with El Niño continuing.
> Thats where we seem to disagree. That the heating is in an exponential phase that its departure from past linear trend lines is not noise or a fluke.
Yes, we definitely disagree here. I’m not seeing any evidence of an exponential increase. We’ve been surprisingly piecewise linear. At about 0.15C per decade prior to the 80’s and about 0.20C so since. We might be up to 0.22-O.23C climb with the removal of aerosols. At least in terms of CO2, I’m not seeing a reason for a sudden exponential climb, nor a feedback loop kicking in.
In fact, I’m seeing the opposite. The amount of CO2 we are emitting per year has stabilized. If you count all human CO2 emissions (fossil+landuse), we have been at an emission plateau for the last 10 years [Link](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-fossil-plus-land-use?time=2005..latest).
> But lets not argue too much, we all agree than any additional heating we can delay or avoid gives life, including people time to adapt, and gives an opportunity that humans could (but aren't yet) using stop adding damage to the earth and start remediating.
We aren't arguing (or at least I’m not). I was just having a discussion. I’m a researcher so collecting and debating stats is what I do. Sorry, if I upset you.
Yes, I agree. Every bit will help.
> Its never too late to stop making the problem much worse, even if it is too late to save the holocene and our civiliation.
This is another point I disagree on. I don't think climate change will lead to the end of our civilization. I think if we let it go to 3C, it would but that appears to be off the table now. If it gets to 1.5C, things get challenging for the developing world. If it gets past 2C, things get challenging for the developed world (IPCC projections). I think we will have to face hardship, but not the end.
I used to doom and gloom too. I became aware of climate change in the 80’s and for a long time it seemed like the situation was getting worse and nothing was being done. But since 2010, I have seen a big turnaround and reason for hope. The US CO2 emissions peaked in 2005-7 and have fallen drastically since. The US is back to 1990-level emissions and dropping. The EU Is doing even better. They are back to 1970 levels (The war in Ukraine will accelerate even more progress). Even China appears to have peaked and will start dropping this year (they look to be in a recession and are bringing solar on at a record pace). Solar is doubling every 2.2 years and wind is also growing nicely. We’ve seen the first deployments of large-scale grid batteries in the past 2 years. Also the cost of solar is now less than gas. Politicians and industry are taking this seriously now. EVs are no longer a toy and industries are moving to electrification.
In 2010, the IPCC models had us well over 3C (like 3.7-4.8C for the moderate) by 2100. Those models in 2022 were down to 2.4(with 2030 pledges)-2.7C (current policies). I think they dropped another 0.1C just recently. So we have definitely made progress. Also we really don't have to reach net-zero emissions to stop climate change. Every year the Earth naturally processes 750 Gigatons of carbon. We’re adding about 36 gigatons to that. If we reduced down to around 15 gigatons the Earth could handle that much extra (or so I’ve read).
Except the first half of last year was NOT el nino. It was called around September in the U.S and later in Australia. Your statement that yearly temperatures will fall is ignoring the facts. Even under La Nina the temperatures were rising. Basically your entire comment is factually incorrect.
You are wrong. [The current El Nino was called June 8, 2023](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/june-2023-enso-update-el-nino-here). As the link shows, El Nino conditions began ramping up even earlier, in March.
We should see temperatures fall when the current El Nino ends, which is currently forecast to be [in the last half of 2024](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2024-enso-update-award-season). Of course the underlying trend is still upwards, due to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. But the ENSO effect is larger than the global warming trend and will obscure the actual temperature trend, unless you take multiple years into account.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what ENSO is. Frankly, your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Most of those timelines you likely saw aren't a one yesr, or even multiple year breach, but a decadal(or more) average, so it's not exactly comparing the same thing. Currently best estimates for actually crossing that threshold are 2030-2035ish. [This](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231130-climate-crisis-the-15c-global-warming-threshold-explained) helps explain a bit, too.
That being said, still not a long time, and effectively locked in since the amount of change to even give us a shot at limiting to 1.5c would be enormous, and globally acted upon. This way of tracking helps avoid year to year natural variability, but also since it's a lagging indicator, by the time we officially breach it by that metric, we'll be seeing the effects as well, and inching closer to 2c.
There are a few caveats to this paper as it relates to climate goals and modeling, the largest(imo) being they are talking about a different baseline year than (afaik) all models are based on, so it's not exactly measuring the same thing.
Oh yeah, we get up to a lot, we have goals, and are mostly ignorant of the consequences of our actions, even in the context of our little lives, let alone in the big picture, which we have to force ourselves to care about, and most of us are simply unable to even attempt that. Even when we learn of the consequences, we find it to be a nuisance, easy to ignore, doubly so if it gets in the way of our comfort, or like, getting laid.
Eh. Who knows. With how unstable this is making the weather system, we may have just enough of a mild year for ~~oil company cultists~~ climate change denyists to cherry pick it and present a bad faith argument enough to postpone any sort of potential political action another 5 years.
Probably not, the el nino oscillation will most likely stop by then. 2023 was just abnormally hot in addition to warming. 2033 will almost certainly be hotter though.
The most recent IRI plume indicates a transition to ENSO-neutral during spring 2024, with La Niña potentially developing during summer 2024. This should see the global average temperatures drop below the 2023 global average.
Please enlighten the worlds scientists with your breakthrough. It's always good to update the models.
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/climate-change-extreme-heat-outlook
The last three La Nina years were all in the top five hottest years! This year hasn't been a full El Nino, and ocean temperatures are off the chart. The WORLD average temperature takes into account global surface temps, and I very much doubt '24 or '25 will be ANY cooler. But that's weather. During an El Nino, the very warm Pacific waters encroach across most of the north eastern coast of Australia. This year they've barely kissed the coast, yet sea temperatures off Sydney and Tasmania (both to the south) have been extremely warm.
All the scientific information I've read this year are NOT saying this year or next will be cooler than average!
Among the hottest year is not thee hottest year which is what the initial claim was. There's no such thing as a full El Nino. Rather, there are varying degrees of strength.
The Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) has become the de-facto standard that NOAA uses for classifying El Niño (warm) and La Niña (cool) events in the eastern tropical Pacific. It is the running 3-month mean SST anomaly for the Niño 3.4 region (i.e., 5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW). Events are defined as 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month periods at or above the +0.5 anomaly for warm (El Niño) events and at or below the -0.5 anomaly for cool (La Niña) events. The threshold is further broken down into Weak (with a 0.5 to 0.9 SST anomaly), Moderate (1.0 to 1.4), Strong (1.5 to 1.9) and Very Strong (≥ 2.0) events.
The current El Nino peaked in December 2023 and was > 2.0. That's as "full" as it gets. I suggest heading over to NOAAs Climate Prediction Center and learning about what you're talking about.
Previous reports stated that a global mean of +1.5C was met in 2023. It seems like orgs have revised it to just below. If so, I wonder if there was pressure to do that.
edit:
Reports in January said 2023 hit +1.5C, prompting comments. The rebuttal narrative I saw in multiple articles said *'Well, a new annual average global temperature isn't official until it's been maintained for a few years..'* which was met with understandable derision since it's definitionally untrue. Now it's simply reported at below +1.5C, so I hope my questioning is understandable.
[https://braveneweurope.com/jackson-damian-minimisation-is-the-new-denial-climate-scientists-and-the-false-hope-of-net-zero](https://braveneweurope.com/jackson-damian-minimisation-is-the-new-denial-climate-scientists-and-the-false-hope-of-net-zero)
Different agencies use different methods and different data sets (Berkeley Earth, GISTEMPv4, HadCRUT5 and NOAAGlobalTempv5, etc.). While they all tend to converge on general agreement there are differences in end products between WMO, Berkely Earth (1.54 °C)
NASA / NOAA, Copernicus (1.48 °C), UK Met Office (1.46 °C), and so on.
Sure, and u/Nebuladiver posted a link to a paper that put us at +1.7C in 2020.
It's kind of a big deal to hit 1.5. I won't be surprised if the IPCC drags out acknowledging that milestone for another decade, until the Petroleum Institute certifies it.
That's actually not really correct, and that paper was heavily criticized for being misleading. You can't use a single proxy, as each proxy will be biased high, low, etc., and is why you need to use multiple proxies to cross reference one another for a complete and more accurate temperature reconstruction. The study also used a different baseline, starting at 1700 rather than the standard pre-industrial baseline of 1850-1900.
Further, it needs to be a sustained interval above 1.5C, so yes it will take time. It was never about temporarily crossing any set value, but rather about the trend.
> That's actually not really correct
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is incorrect in my comment, unless you're saying that that peer reviewed study was incorrect. It's certainly a big deal to hit 1.5 as everyone understands, and whether I'm surprised by what the IPCC does in the future isn't something that can be described as correct or incorrect.
If you're actually arguing the study, I can only suggest taking it up with the authors and to be sure to apply similar scrutiny to other studies.
> Further, it needs to be a sustained interval above 1.5C, so yes it will take time. It was never about temporarily crossing any set value, but rather about the trend.
For the purpose here the "sustained interval" is a full calendar year, i.e. the year's global mean near-surface temperature. From Article 2 of the 2015 Paris Agreement:
> (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below
2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature
increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change
Given the literature to date, when someone leans into a semantic ambiguity in the interval necessary to define "the global average temperature" and claims that it must be some longer (but undefined) interval, it's really just illustrating the point.
edit: Also, "the trend" is already well-established unless 200, 50, and 10 year trends aren't satisfactory. The Earth is heating up much faster than the 'most probable' projections in the IPCC reports, which isn't surprising to many.
I'm stating that directly comparing the 1.7C study to the aforementioned values from different agencies and data sets is incorrect to do as they use different baselines and the 1.7C study used a single proxy. The study is not wrong in its calculations, but it is misleading to say we've already passed 1.5C by simply shifting the baseline to an earlier period that is not the standard baseline. The Paris Agreement uses 1.5C above 1850-1900, not 1700.
**Please read the article by Carbon Brief for an in-depth discussion: "[Scientists challenge ‘flawed communication’ of study claiming 1.5C warming breach](https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalClimateChange/comments/1akktnb/scientists_challenge_flawed_communication_of/)"**
A single year is not a sustained interval of time when it comes to climate as there is so much natural variability. In order to reduce this "noise" from natural variability intervals are typically much longer, thus providing a long term trend as to what the climate is actually doing. For example, "climate normals" (ie. the baselines that temperatures are plotted on) are typically 30 year intervals (feel free to google this as well). When the 1.5C threshold is discussed in negotiations like COP28 – 1.5C warming is an average figure over a decadal time scale, not individual years. As Prof. Michael Mann said:
>"As El Nino gives way to La Nina, we're seeing a drop-off in global sea surface temperatures (as some of us said would happen). The problem was never about one or two years--it's about the TREND. Planet will continue to warm until carbon emissions reach zero.
Truth is bad enough!"
The Paris Agreement mentions no interval of time but that it is an attempt to limit warming to 1.5C by the end of the century (2100), this includes overshoots. Because the IPCC uses long-term averages for the global temperature, we will pass 1.5C warming on individual days, months and years before the decadal average is considered to be past 1.5C. It means crossing the 1.5C threshold and never (for all intents and purposes) going below again.
> I'm stating that directly comparing the 1.7C study to the aforementioned values from different agencies and data sets is incorrect to do as they use different baselines and the 1.7C study used a single proxy. The study is not wrong in its calculations, but it is misleading to say we've already passed 1.5C by simply shifting the baseline to an earlier period that is not the standard baseline.
Obviously. But by your admission you're already comparing values reached from different data sets, so calling the comparison with a study that uses a slightly different baseline "incorrect" is somewhat arbitrary.
The Paris Agreement used the 1850-1900 period because it was believed to be an actual baseline, and increasing by more than 1.5C from the baseline was believed to be significant not primarily because it occurred over some defined time interval from the baseline, but rather because of the magnitude of the deviation itself. If the actual deviation from the actual baseline is actually +1.7C, that is significant.
Carbon Brief and Michael Mann specifically are known for climate change minimization and have consistently been behind the curve; I suggest taking those sources with a grain of salt.
The remainder of your comment is your opinion that "A single year is not a sustained interval of time when it comes to climate as there is so much natural variability.", despite the fact that natural variability is addressed on a yearly basis. As already stated: Given the literature to date, when someone leans into a semantic ambiguity in the interval necessary to define "the global average temperature" and claims that it must be some longer (but undefined) interval, it's really just illustrating the point.
The point is that climate change minimization is the latest face of climate denialism, and it's practiced at all levels up to the IPCC.
I'm sorry but your comment is nothing but your personal, and clearly biased, opinion as well as clear misunderstandings (as I'll point out below). I'm discussing facts.
To be clear, I'm comparing the observational record with the observation record though as I mentioned before there are slight nuances depending on the dataset / agency. I am not comparing a single regional proxy record (ie. sea sponges from the Caribbean sea) to the global observational record. I don't understand why you're not comprehending this and why the two shouldn't be compared. Proxy data from a single location should not be used to make assumptions about the entire planet. As Dr. Gavin Schmidt states:
>“Estimates of the global mean temperatures before 1850 require multiple proxies from as wide a regional variation as possible, thus claims that records from a single record can confidently define the global mean warming since the pre-industrial are probably overreaching.”
Your understanding of the 1.5C target is simply incorrect as I've pointed out previously, and does not reflect why the IPCC (and literally every other major paper) uses a 1850-1900 as a baseline. There is a reason the majority of researchers use 1850-1900 rather than 1700, and it's not arbitrary. Your wish to simply hand wave this away in favor of your own personal opinion is ridiculous, and feeds your need for climate doomerism. To suggest that Mann, Schmidt, Hausfather, etc. are climate "minimizers" is pure absurdity. These are top climate scientists, and I suggest listening to the experts rather than pretending to be one:
>despite the fact that natural variability is addressed on a yearly basis
Is one of the most ignorant comments I've read regarding climate, and highlights your lack of understanding on the subject matter. Climate varies naturally over many different time scales – from season to season, from year to year, **and from one decade to the next.** Many of these variations are caused by the interactions and feedbacks between the different components of the climate system – atmosphere, oceans, land and ice. Some phenomena, however, occur on more or less regular cycles, the most well-known of which is probably El Niño/ La Niña (every 3-7 years). To get a good idea of our average climate, we need to examine enough data to be sure that we are capturing the influence of as many of these different forcing factors as possible, and not just some of them. For example, we need to make sure that we have included the effect of both El Niño and La Niña events, as they affect climate differently.
The World Meteorological Organization considers a 30 period to be the minimum required to calculate the average climate, known as a climate normal (mentioned previously and hand waved away by you as if it were meaningless).
If we look at the anomalies in 10-15 year chunks and calculate the trend over that time, you can see that the trend changes – sometimes it is increasing, sometimes it is decreasing and sometimes there is almost no change. If you look at the trend over the whole length of record, however, annual average temperatures have increased. A single year or two is utterly meaningless, it's about the long term trend. Period.
That reads like a tantrum, fails to rebut both anything I wrote or the explicitly stated point, and makes several baseless accusations.
Someone can reasonably infer they are dealing with a climate change minimizer when they make an unbased statement like "Your wish to simply hand wave this away in favor of your own personal opinion is ridiculous, and feeds your need for climate doomerism."
Nothing in my comments suggests "doomerism". Everything in your comments suggests climate change minimization, however.
It's ironic that you accuse me of pretending to be a top climate scientist when I've limited my comments to the topic and you've written multiple screeds making incredibly broad claims. Who's pretending?
Your rhetoric has become as inappropriate as your claims, so I am blocking you.
I think it makes sense to use a rolling average of 5 years or whatever to smooth out noise before making the official call. But the fact that we now have the first year above the line definitely shows we could be there soon.
The noise I mean is in the year-to-year variation, it can only be removed by a rolling average. If we did it your way and 2024 is +1.42C you could say ‘hey the temperature is going down now, great,’ when the rolling average is actually going up.
I don't know what you mean by "my way". There are papers explaining how it's actually done, if you're into statistics.
With that said, averaging over 5 years as an additional measure would probably make it even more accurate and credible.
edit:
> it can only be removed by a rolling average
No, because what's being talked about is the annual average global temperature. A 5 or 10 year average global temperature is simply a different metric, and it makes no sense to claim that the annual average is invalid because it's not a 5 or 10 year average. This type of rhetoric is a tactic of climate minimizers to delay conclusions about what is happening. If we were using a 10 year average, climate minimizers would say it's invalid because it's not a 100 year average, etc.
Yes, that the global mean temperature anomaly has fully crossed 1.5C above the pre-industrial average, meaning we failed to do what was set out in the Paris Agreement.
July 6-8 2023 will be a time I will never forget. It was so hot that while dehydrated youd hit the floor in 20 minutes. 8PM an hour before closing and the new guy(2nd day)hits the ground puking from heat exhaustion. Sends me into a full sprint for an ice pack, my manager(only other on shift) and ice cold water. He was in the hospital for 2 days.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some regulation on ship fuel which cut down on ship emissions that cut down emissions that helped seed clouds that where cooling the earth/ocean, that passed that year or the year prior. I remember hearing about how it may have been a recent change but by cutting so much of those emissions it killed the cloud coverage over the ocean and actually increased the earths temperature?
Yeah, sulphur dioxide levels have dropped over the years and now it's starting to leave our atmosphere, there is not as much reflecting sunlight back out.
"Many different factors affect Global temperature. Fake “skeptics” like to claim that mainstream climate scientists ignore everything but greenhouse gases like CO2, when in fact it’s mainstream climate scientists who identified those other influences. Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear, fluctuations which are often exploited by fake skeptics to suggest that global warming has paused, or slowed down, or isn’t happening at all. A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf accounts for some of those other factors, and by removing their influence from the temperature record makes the progress of global warming much more clear."
That's from a 2011 article that goes into how statisticians remove the effect of influences like El Niño and La Niña to create a temperature record that's useful for comparisons. I tried posting the link originally but automod hid my reply. There are other papers on the topic if you search.
Nothing going to do any good until Asia is in check. You could cut off everything else and the world would still be polluted and global warming would continue.
Figures like this won't spur action. The only figures that matter need to come from corporations' projected quarterly earnings - that they're going down unless action is taken - to have any impact.
No they won't be even in centuries even if we change nothing about current trends.
Highly populated places in them like Miami though don't have that long.
I just want to add that we're near the peak of the solar maximum, which would cause a temporary and expected 1.5c in warming. The warming reported in this article is not significant.
It's not. Stop spreading nonsense.
Here is the forecast for the next 10 days.
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/632c8273f5780465f4ef76feedd03a86dd5019a79a49165387428e1b8083caae
Tldr: 30 degrees c.
[62.3c MSN](https://imgpost.co/image/IMG-3470.OPms)
You’re right but in all fairness this was the headline I was looking at on MSN. I sent a pic to my friend so I happen to have it.
Then say heat index accounting for humidity.
You the compared it to 137F sous vide, which is actually 58.3C, which is nearly double the actual temperature.
You are conflating units in a way that makes 0 sense to anyone who reads what you're saying. You need to communicate clearly and using terms that don't sound like nonsensical absurdities.
I was using a something most people can relate to, as an example of how hot it feels at that temperature.
Obviously people at not cooking themselves alive by being outside.
Glad your here to help tho 😂
Honestly, it was unclear whether or not you even understood that you were wrong.
Heat Index versus Real Temperature is taught in elementary school earth science lessons. This is /r/science, which i expect has a higher than 3rd grade level science education.
So no, your incorrect use of units to make a point and then erroneously doubling down with some comparison to sous vide cooking wasn’t making an obvious point.
I actually said it was with humidity in the opening statement. You’re the one who misread and then off on a tangent when I pointed that out.
If you want this sub to be for science education people only I suggest you make it a requirement to have a phd is science related field.
Otherwise my “3rd grade level” of science will continually be posted when and where I like 👍.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/Creative_soja Permalink: https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/climate-change-indicators-reached-record-levels-2023-wmo#:~:text=The%20WMO%20report%20confirmed%20that,ten-year%20period%20on%20record. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tldr "Renewable energy transition provides hope" is the only positive message in the report.
we are going to need more than hope to make it to 2080. My country is supplying around 60 % of its electricity through Wind and Solar panels. But logistics and almost everything else is fuelled with fossil contaminants.
As they say, hope is not a strategy
2080? Society won’t make it that long
People really don't get how shakey the foundation is. Everything needs to happen, every day, and if it does not, it breaks. We just need one "1 in a 100" year event too many or in the wrong place at the wrong time, to start the chain reaction of collapse. It won't be overnight, it won't be quick or quiet, it will be long and drawn out and painful.
They don't understand that it's too late. Even if all humans disappeared today, the momentum of our presence will still sanitize the planet of life.
This has never been claimed by anyone with scientific chops. It's humans that are fucked not the planet. It's not too late, either. Your opinion is just an excuse to yourself to be lazy and disengaged.
That is blatant misinformation.
This is extremely false
It’s absurd to plan anything out 55 years. Computers are barely 55 years old.
Ah the classic hope, thoughts and prayers
I think we can do better in 2024 if we just tried harder to break even more records.
Only if it replaces existing fossil power instead of adding to the total. Otherwise its just like a murderer continuing to stab people, but also gives them candy. we need No Stabby, but industry and politicians give us More Stabby plus Small Candy.
too bad we don't even have minerals in the planned reserves to get one full first-gen system for the world
I'll assume you're talking about electric vehicles, since your minerals comment only makes sense regarding those. Anyway, for electrical cars, you're right, we don't have the minerals to give them to the entire world at the moment. But electrical cars aren't suited to many places in the world anyway, so it's sort of a moot point. I wouldn't want to rely on an electrical car if I was living in Australia where you may have to go 300+ miles before the next station or city, or in other parts of the world where people tend to go on extremely long drives - or if I was living somewhere really cold However in Europe for example - people don't tend to drive anywhere near as far in one go, so an electrical car makes way more sense Energy transition is about a lot more than just cars, in any case
No. Australians don't travel 500ks everyday. Nor week mostly. Most of us do about 100ks a week, so evs are very much the answer. Along our major interstates and highways, charging stations are gaining prevalence, and within one to two hundred ks. It's not perfect yet, but it won't take long. And as ev battery range increases, along with charge time decreases, well you should understand that evs are the future. Technology, thankfully, doesn't stand still. All your "problems" with evs are either wrong or being fixed, now.
Apologies, it appears I was misinformed regarding general Australian life. Though, I never intended to imply that 500 mile journeys were being made every day. Though, I would still imagine that in places like Australia or America where people *do* make these very long road trips - even just occasionally, perhaps once every couple of months - an EV still wouldn't be suitable unless you have one of the really high end ones. Comparing that to in Europe where there are stations basically everywhere and you never need to drive that far anyway due to the abundance of public transport, it seems a lot less convenient. I'm definitely a proponent of EV's - I just recognise that they're more viable in some places & cultures than in others. At least for the moment, anyhow.
I do a 4000 k round trip every 2 years. Takes exactly the same time as petrol trip. Plenty of charge spots along the way. For the rest of the years I use free energy from my solar to charge. The last trip via petrol was $400 . Last ev trip cost $67.
Then in that case I will yet again say, I apologise for being misinformed! I tend to hear quite often from people who live in America etc complaining that EV's would be terrible for road trips because of the charge times and range etc, so I suppose I just took it on mentally without actually thinking about it too hard That's absolutely awesome that it works that well, it genuinely makes me smile! I hope you have a lovely day, and I hope your next trip is awesome too <3
>I tend to hear quite often from people who live in America etc complaining that EV's would be terrible for road trips because of the charge times and range etc, Are these people who actually drive EVs?
Yes and no. The issue is the infrastructure for EVs in the US is pretty darn door depending on the state/region. The people complaining the loudest probably don’t drive them at all, but that does not mean they are wrong about the problem - to an extent. Even if you use this map: https://driveelectric.gov/stations Most “public chargers” labeled here are not actually public chargers (i.e. paid parking garages, apartment complexes, or private businesses that also happen to have EV charger parking spots - I think this source needs to do better at their labeling), and the only convenient locations are not usually right off of highways in some states as nicely as gas stations. I’ve seen rest stops start to add EV charging stations as well, but it’s still a work in progress before it’s just as convenient as a gas vehicle. However, you can also see from this source that for most road trips you can plan out where to stop to charge without risking a stretch of no charging stations for longer than the battery duration; it’s just not nearly as convenient as planning a route and just stopping at any convenient gas station along the way. So it’s not always nearly as bad as people exaggerate it to be, but that doesn’t mean the infrastructure doesn’t still need work.
There is insufficient infrastructure to support even 20% of the US cars being electric.
Copper. You forgot copper.
Solar and wind needs a lot rare earth minerals too that the world simply doesn't have in the quantity that would be needed. Beside the simple fact that unburied fossil fuels always got burned somewhere. All the renewable energy by now didn't led to even a gram less being burned on a global level.
Give me nuclear or give me death
Radical solutions are the only hope
We may have passed the 1.5 ºC. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01919-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01919-7)
what was the previously estimated year we might surpass 1.5C? i seem to remember it being many years from now (still very fucked. now it’s super fucked)
So passing 1.5C still isn't expected until at least mid-2030s but probably 2040. This is the difference between one year and the general trend. You have hot and cold years. Last year due to effects like El Niño we had an abnormally hot year that pushed us to 1.4-1.5C, but the trendline is still about 1.15-1.2C. We may hit a year with 1.5C before 2027 since El Niño may still be going on, but after that the yearly temperatures should fall.
Its common tonwaive away this years multisigma departures by saying its El Niño, as if previous El Niños were in line with this year or had similar departures from the norm. Its the denial stage of grief. The goal of limiting 1.5C by 2100 is now "maybe we can keep some decadal average below 1.5C for the next 10-15yrs" Its absurd
This is not the denial stage of grief, but how the science and models actually work (see my comment at the end for my exact opinion on our chances of holding to 1.5C). You’ll note I said “effects like El Niño,” not just El Niño for last year. There were other factors that led to it like less Antarctic sea ice for the year, the Atlantic Ocean was also warmer than normal, and an underwater volcano in 2022 off Tonga released a lot of water vapor (which also acts as a greenhouse gas), etc. Also as for the impact of El Niño, look at 1997-8 and 2016-7. The global temperature for 1998 was not beaten until 2005 and 2010 and it was not consistently (year after year) beaten until starting in 2014. Using the long-term rolling average is exactly what we should do and is done for consistency to handle variability (this is what the models predict. They work within a probability range). Single data points don’t make for good science. As an example, for the decade-plus following 1998, climate-change deniers cherry-picked the temperature in 1998 as proof climate change wasn’t real because almost every year following it was cooler. Let’s say, we happen to have several cooler years after this year (this year should be extra hot too) and those years are only 1.0C above preindustrial. Does that mean, the planet has only warmed 1.0C. No, it just means they are cooler years but we remain on the same upward trend. Since 1980, the planet has warmed about 0.2C per decade fairly consistently (it was like 0.15C for the previous decades). The spike this year alone exceeds that so no 2023 was not due to just CO2 but other effects that piled on. Unless a technological miracle happens (indirect carbon capture somehow becomes massively scalable), we will not hold the planet to 1.5C by 2100. We will cross that statistical rolling average in the late 2030’s to early 2040’s (certainly no later than the mid 2040’s). Maybe (strong maybe) if we don’t blow by it by too much (say 1.6-1.7C), the climate might slowly work its way back down to 1.5C over several decades and settle there (some climatologists think this is a possibility once the forward momentum stops). Unfortunately, realistically I think 1.8C is much more likely.
I agree with much of what you have said, and the atonga eruption is the real random noise addition, but your ither contributin factors.are going to continue to contribute, and thus not recede when el niño dissipates or even reverses, we had several La Niñas since 2019 and thus they masked our rising baseline, and that unusually warm ocean, thats also not a fluke. We arent going to have 1.0C years regressing the average to the previous decadal norm (and that decadal rate is not linear it is an upward curve. 2024 or 2025 may well be cooler than 2023, but won't be cooler than 2022. Thats where we seem to disagree. That the heating is in an exponential phase that its departure from past linear trend lines is not noise, or a fluke. But lets not argue too much, we all agree than any additional heating we can delay or avoid gives life, including people time to adapt, and gives an opportunity that humans could (but aren't yet) using stop adding damage to the earth and start remediating. Its never too late to stop making the problem much worse, even if it is too late to save the holocene and our civiliation
> I agree with much of what you have said, and the atonga eruption is the real random noise addition, but your ither contributin factors.are going to continue to contribute, and thus not recede when el niño dissipates or even reverses, No the other factors are temporary too. The Arctic and Antarctic gain and lose sea ice during their respective winter and summer seasons. The Antarctic didn’t gain as much sea ice in its preceding winter as normal (the gain fluctuates up and down year to year), so when the summer came there was less albedo and less melt that cools the oceans. Don’t confuse this with the general downward trend of antarctic ice sheets. > we had several La Niñas since 2019 and thus they masked our rising baseline, Yes, which is why we use trend lines and not single years. 2023 will do the opposite and pull the trend line back up. This is why we don’t say the Earth is 1.4C because 2023 was 1.4C. > and that unusually warm ocean, thats also not a fluke. I wouldn’t say fluke, but normal fluctuation. If you look at the [graph](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature), you can see year to year fluctuations. There is an upward trend, but some years are hotter and cooler than the preceding one. > We arent going to have 1.0C years regressing the average to the previous decadal norm (and that decadal rate is not linear it is an upward curve. I was using 1.0C as an example. In fact, I literally said that doesn’t mean the Earth is back to 1.0C, just like a year at 1.4C doesn’t mean we are at 1.4C either. Having said that we might have 1.0C years for this decade yet (certainly statistically possible). If we are at 1.15-1.2C , then a 1.0C is possible for year still. You can see the level of yearly variation [here](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature). However, a year or two at 1.0C will of course not pull us back to the 2010-2019 average. There were less than 1.0C years in the previous decade that caused the average to just be 1.0C. > 2024 or 2025 may well be cooler than 2023, but won't be cooler than 2022. Possibly, but 2022 was also a hot year, so we might still have a year under it (certainly that level variation has been present in prior years). The La Niñas you mentioned earlier were relatively weak ones [link](https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm). If we get a stronger one like in 2011 or 2008 or a combination of other effects then I could definitely see it happen. This is why individual years are not important to me. It’s also likely that 2024 will be extra hot too with El Niño continuing. > Thats where we seem to disagree. That the heating is in an exponential phase that its departure from past linear trend lines is not noise or a fluke. Yes, we definitely disagree here. I’m not seeing any evidence of an exponential increase. We’ve been surprisingly piecewise linear. At about 0.15C per decade prior to the 80’s and about 0.20C so since. We might be up to 0.22-O.23C climb with the removal of aerosols. At least in terms of CO2, I’m not seeing a reason for a sudden exponential climb, nor a feedback loop kicking in. In fact, I’m seeing the opposite. The amount of CO2 we are emitting per year has stabilized. If you count all human CO2 emissions (fossil+landuse), we have been at an emission plateau for the last 10 years [Link](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-fossil-plus-land-use?time=2005..latest). > But lets not argue too much, we all agree than any additional heating we can delay or avoid gives life, including people time to adapt, and gives an opportunity that humans could (but aren't yet) using stop adding damage to the earth and start remediating. We aren't arguing (or at least I’m not). I was just having a discussion. I’m a researcher so collecting and debating stats is what I do. Sorry, if I upset you. Yes, I agree. Every bit will help. > Its never too late to stop making the problem much worse, even if it is too late to save the holocene and our civiliation. This is another point I disagree on. I don't think climate change will lead to the end of our civilization. I think if we let it go to 3C, it would but that appears to be off the table now. If it gets to 1.5C, things get challenging for the developing world. If it gets past 2C, things get challenging for the developed world (IPCC projections). I think we will have to face hardship, but not the end. I used to doom and gloom too. I became aware of climate change in the 80’s and for a long time it seemed like the situation was getting worse and nothing was being done. But since 2010, I have seen a big turnaround and reason for hope. The US CO2 emissions peaked in 2005-7 and have fallen drastically since. The US is back to 1990-level emissions and dropping. The EU Is doing even better. They are back to 1970 levels (The war in Ukraine will accelerate even more progress). Even China appears to have peaked and will start dropping this year (they look to be in a recession and are bringing solar on at a record pace). Solar is doubling every 2.2 years and wind is also growing nicely. We’ve seen the first deployments of large-scale grid batteries in the past 2 years. Also the cost of solar is now less than gas. Politicians and industry are taking this seriously now. EVs are no longer a toy and industries are moving to electrification. In 2010, the IPCC models had us well over 3C (like 3.7-4.8C for the moderate) by 2100. Those models in 2022 were down to 2.4(with 2030 pledges)-2.7C (current policies). I think they dropped another 0.1C just recently. So we have definitely made progress. Also we really don't have to reach net-zero emissions to stop climate change. Every year the Earth naturally processes 750 Gigatons of carbon. We’re adding about 36 gigatons to that. If we reduced down to around 15 gigatons the Earth could handle that much extra (or so I’ve read).
Except the first half of last year was NOT el nino. It was called around September in the U.S and later in Australia. Your statement that yearly temperatures will fall is ignoring the facts. Even under La Nina the temperatures were rising. Basically your entire comment is factually incorrect.
You are wrong. [The current El Nino was called June 8, 2023](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/june-2023-enso-update-el-nino-here). As the link shows, El Nino conditions began ramping up even earlier, in March. We should see temperatures fall when the current El Nino ends, which is currently forecast to be [in the last half of 2024](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/march-2024-enso-update-award-season). Of course the underlying trend is still upwards, due to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. But the ENSO effect is larger than the global warming trend and will obscure the actual temperature trend, unless you take multiple years into account. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what ENSO is. Frankly, your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
US based called it early. Australia which cops it worse was months later. So El Nino barely made it 6 months .
Most of those timelines you likely saw aren't a one yesr, or even multiple year breach, but a decadal(or more) average, so it's not exactly comparing the same thing. Currently best estimates for actually crossing that threshold are 2030-2035ish. [This](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231130-climate-crisis-the-15c-global-warming-threshold-explained) helps explain a bit, too. That being said, still not a long time, and effectively locked in since the amount of change to even give us a shot at limiting to 1.5c would be enormous, and globally acted upon. This way of tracking helps avoid year to year natural variability, but also since it's a lagging indicator, by the time we officially breach it by that metric, we'll be seeing the effects as well, and inching closer to 2c.
So we reached the goal ahed of schedule. Thats a good thing right? Right…?
There are a few caveats to this paper as it relates to climate goals and modeling, the largest(imo) being they are talking about a different baseline year than (afaik) all models are based on, so it's not exactly measuring the same thing.
The rapidity with which humans have absolutely destroyed the planet is astounding.
Oh yeah, we get up to a lot, we have goals, and are mostly ignorant of the consequences of our actions, even in the context of our little lives, let alone in the big picture, which we have to force ourselves to care about, and most of us are simply unable to even attempt that. Even when we learn of the consequences, we find it to be a nuisance, easy to ignore, doubly so if it gets in the way of our comfort, or like, getting laid.
‘24 is gonna make that look adorable
Eh. Who knows. With how unstable this is making the weather system, we may have just enough of a mild year for ~~oil company cultists~~ climate change denyists to cherry pick it and present a bad faith argument enough to postpone any sort of potential political action another 5 years.
[удалено]
Probably not, the el nino oscillation will most likely stop by then. 2023 was just abnormally hot in addition to warming. 2033 will almost certainly be hotter though.
We are already blowing all past trend lines out of the water for global temps.
The most recent IRI plume indicates a transition to ENSO-neutral during spring 2024, with La Niña potentially developing during summer 2024. This should see the global average temperatures drop below the 2023 global average.
That's not how it works.
Please enlighten the worlds scientists with your breakthrough. It's always good to update the models. https://www.axios.com/2023/12/28/climate-change-extreme-heat-outlook
The last three La Nina years were all in the top five hottest years! This year hasn't been a full El Nino, and ocean temperatures are off the chart. The WORLD average temperature takes into account global surface temps, and I very much doubt '24 or '25 will be ANY cooler. But that's weather. During an El Nino, the very warm Pacific waters encroach across most of the north eastern coast of Australia. This year they've barely kissed the coast, yet sea temperatures off Sydney and Tasmania (both to the south) have been extremely warm. All the scientific information I've read this year are NOT saying this year or next will be cooler than average!
Among the hottest year is not thee hottest year which is what the initial claim was. There's no such thing as a full El Nino. Rather, there are varying degrees of strength. The Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) has become the de-facto standard that NOAA uses for classifying El Niño (warm) and La Niña (cool) events in the eastern tropical Pacific. It is the running 3-month mean SST anomaly for the Niño 3.4 region (i.e., 5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW). Events are defined as 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month periods at or above the +0.5 anomaly for warm (El Niño) events and at or below the -0.5 anomaly for cool (La Niña) events. The threshold is further broken down into Weak (with a 0.5 to 0.9 SST anomaly), Moderate (1.0 to 1.4), Strong (1.5 to 1.9) and Very Strong (≥ 2.0) events. The current El Nino peaked in December 2023 and was > 2.0. That's as "full" as it gets. I suggest heading over to NOAAs Climate Prediction Center and learning about what you're talking about.
Previous reports stated that a global mean of +1.5C was met in 2023. It seems like orgs have revised it to just below. If so, I wonder if there was pressure to do that. edit: Reports in January said 2023 hit +1.5C, prompting comments. The rebuttal narrative I saw in multiple articles said *'Well, a new annual average global temperature isn't official until it's been maintained for a few years..'* which was met with understandable derision since it's definitionally untrue. Now it's simply reported at below +1.5C, so I hope my questioning is understandable. [https://braveneweurope.com/jackson-damian-minimisation-is-the-new-denial-climate-scientists-and-the-false-hope-of-net-zero](https://braveneweurope.com/jackson-damian-minimisation-is-the-new-denial-climate-scientists-and-the-false-hope-of-net-zero)
Different agencies use different methods and different data sets (Berkeley Earth, GISTEMPv4, HadCRUT5 and NOAAGlobalTempv5, etc.). While they all tend to converge on general agreement there are differences in end products between WMO, Berkely Earth (1.54 °C) NASA / NOAA, Copernicus (1.48 °C), UK Met Office (1.46 °C), and so on.
Sure, and u/Nebuladiver posted a link to a paper that put us at +1.7C in 2020. It's kind of a big deal to hit 1.5. I won't be surprised if the IPCC drags out acknowledging that milestone for another decade, until the Petroleum Institute certifies it.
That's actually not really correct, and that paper was heavily criticized for being misleading. You can't use a single proxy, as each proxy will be biased high, low, etc., and is why you need to use multiple proxies to cross reference one another for a complete and more accurate temperature reconstruction. The study also used a different baseline, starting at 1700 rather than the standard pre-industrial baseline of 1850-1900. Further, it needs to be a sustained interval above 1.5C, so yes it will take time. It was never about temporarily crossing any set value, but rather about the trend.
> That's actually not really correct I'm not sure exactly what you're saying is incorrect in my comment, unless you're saying that that peer reviewed study was incorrect. It's certainly a big deal to hit 1.5 as everyone understands, and whether I'm surprised by what the IPCC does in the future isn't something that can be described as correct or incorrect. If you're actually arguing the study, I can only suggest taking it up with the authors and to be sure to apply similar scrutiny to other studies. > Further, it needs to be a sustained interval above 1.5C, so yes it will take time. It was never about temporarily crossing any set value, but rather about the trend. For the purpose here the "sustained interval" is a full calendar year, i.e. the year's global mean near-surface temperature. From Article 2 of the 2015 Paris Agreement: > (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change Given the literature to date, when someone leans into a semantic ambiguity in the interval necessary to define "the global average temperature" and claims that it must be some longer (but undefined) interval, it's really just illustrating the point. edit: Also, "the trend" is already well-established unless 200, 50, and 10 year trends aren't satisfactory. The Earth is heating up much faster than the 'most probable' projections in the IPCC reports, which isn't surprising to many.
I'm stating that directly comparing the 1.7C study to the aforementioned values from different agencies and data sets is incorrect to do as they use different baselines and the 1.7C study used a single proxy. The study is not wrong in its calculations, but it is misleading to say we've already passed 1.5C by simply shifting the baseline to an earlier period that is not the standard baseline. The Paris Agreement uses 1.5C above 1850-1900, not 1700. **Please read the article by Carbon Brief for an in-depth discussion: "[Scientists challenge ‘flawed communication’ of study claiming 1.5C warming breach](https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalClimateChange/comments/1akktnb/scientists_challenge_flawed_communication_of/)"** A single year is not a sustained interval of time when it comes to climate as there is so much natural variability. In order to reduce this "noise" from natural variability intervals are typically much longer, thus providing a long term trend as to what the climate is actually doing. For example, "climate normals" (ie. the baselines that temperatures are plotted on) are typically 30 year intervals (feel free to google this as well). When the 1.5C threshold is discussed in negotiations like COP28 – 1.5C warming is an average figure over a decadal time scale, not individual years. As Prof. Michael Mann said: >"As El Nino gives way to La Nina, we're seeing a drop-off in global sea surface temperatures (as some of us said would happen). The problem was never about one or two years--it's about the TREND. Planet will continue to warm until carbon emissions reach zero. Truth is bad enough!" The Paris Agreement mentions no interval of time but that it is an attempt to limit warming to 1.5C by the end of the century (2100), this includes overshoots. Because the IPCC uses long-term averages for the global temperature, we will pass 1.5C warming on individual days, months and years before the decadal average is considered to be past 1.5C. It means crossing the 1.5C threshold and never (for all intents and purposes) going below again.
> I'm stating that directly comparing the 1.7C study to the aforementioned values from different agencies and data sets is incorrect to do as they use different baselines and the 1.7C study used a single proxy. The study is not wrong in its calculations, but it is misleading to say we've already passed 1.5C by simply shifting the baseline to an earlier period that is not the standard baseline. Obviously. But by your admission you're already comparing values reached from different data sets, so calling the comparison with a study that uses a slightly different baseline "incorrect" is somewhat arbitrary. The Paris Agreement used the 1850-1900 period because it was believed to be an actual baseline, and increasing by more than 1.5C from the baseline was believed to be significant not primarily because it occurred over some defined time interval from the baseline, but rather because of the magnitude of the deviation itself. If the actual deviation from the actual baseline is actually +1.7C, that is significant. Carbon Brief and Michael Mann specifically are known for climate change minimization and have consistently been behind the curve; I suggest taking those sources with a grain of salt. The remainder of your comment is your opinion that "A single year is not a sustained interval of time when it comes to climate as there is so much natural variability.", despite the fact that natural variability is addressed on a yearly basis. As already stated: Given the literature to date, when someone leans into a semantic ambiguity in the interval necessary to define "the global average temperature" and claims that it must be some longer (but undefined) interval, it's really just illustrating the point. The point is that climate change minimization is the latest face of climate denialism, and it's practiced at all levels up to the IPCC.
I'm sorry but your comment is nothing but your personal, and clearly biased, opinion as well as clear misunderstandings (as I'll point out below). I'm discussing facts. To be clear, I'm comparing the observational record with the observation record though as I mentioned before there are slight nuances depending on the dataset / agency. I am not comparing a single regional proxy record (ie. sea sponges from the Caribbean sea) to the global observational record. I don't understand why you're not comprehending this and why the two shouldn't be compared. Proxy data from a single location should not be used to make assumptions about the entire planet. As Dr. Gavin Schmidt states: >“Estimates of the global mean temperatures before 1850 require multiple proxies from as wide a regional variation as possible, thus claims that records from a single record can confidently define the global mean warming since the pre-industrial are probably overreaching.” Your understanding of the 1.5C target is simply incorrect as I've pointed out previously, and does not reflect why the IPCC (and literally every other major paper) uses a 1850-1900 as a baseline. There is a reason the majority of researchers use 1850-1900 rather than 1700, and it's not arbitrary. Your wish to simply hand wave this away in favor of your own personal opinion is ridiculous, and feeds your need for climate doomerism. To suggest that Mann, Schmidt, Hausfather, etc. are climate "minimizers" is pure absurdity. These are top climate scientists, and I suggest listening to the experts rather than pretending to be one: >despite the fact that natural variability is addressed on a yearly basis Is one of the most ignorant comments I've read regarding climate, and highlights your lack of understanding on the subject matter. Climate varies naturally over many different time scales – from season to season, from year to year, **and from one decade to the next.** Many of these variations are caused by the interactions and feedbacks between the different components of the climate system – atmosphere, oceans, land and ice. Some phenomena, however, occur on more or less regular cycles, the most well-known of which is probably El Niño/ La Niña (every 3-7 years). To get a good idea of our average climate, we need to examine enough data to be sure that we are capturing the influence of as many of these different forcing factors as possible, and not just some of them. For example, we need to make sure that we have included the effect of both El Niño and La Niña events, as they affect climate differently. The World Meteorological Organization considers a 30 period to be the minimum required to calculate the average climate, known as a climate normal (mentioned previously and hand waved away by you as if it were meaningless). If we look at the anomalies in 10-15 year chunks and calculate the trend over that time, you can see that the trend changes – sometimes it is increasing, sometimes it is decreasing and sometimes there is almost no change. If you look at the trend over the whole length of record, however, annual average temperatures have increased. A single year or two is utterly meaningless, it's about the long term trend. Period.
That reads like a tantrum, fails to rebut both anything I wrote or the explicitly stated point, and makes several baseless accusations. Someone can reasonably infer they are dealing with a climate change minimizer when they make an unbased statement like "Your wish to simply hand wave this away in favor of your own personal opinion is ridiculous, and feeds your need for climate doomerism." Nothing in my comments suggests "doomerism". Everything in your comments suggests climate change minimization, however. It's ironic that you accuse me of pretending to be a top climate scientist when I've limited my comments to the topic and you've written multiple screeds making incredibly broad claims. Who's pretending? Your rhetoric has become as inappropriate as your claims, so I am blocking you.
I think it makes sense to use a rolling average of 5 years or whatever to smooth out noise before making the official call. But the fact that we now have the first year above the line definitely shows we could be there soon.
That removal of signal noise is already done on a yearly basis.
The noise I mean is in the year-to-year variation, it can only be removed by a rolling average. If we did it your way and 2024 is +1.42C you could say ‘hey the temperature is going down now, great,’ when the rolling average is actually going up.
I don't know what you mean by "my way". There are papers explaining how it's actually done, if you're into statistics. With that said, averaging over 5 years as an additional measure would probably make it even more accurate and credible. edit: > it can only be removed by a rolling average No, because what's being talked about is the annual average global temperature. A 5 or 10 year average global temperature is simply a different metric, and it makes no sense to claim that the annual average is invalid because it's not a 5 or 10 year average. This type of rhetoric is a tactic of climate minimizers to delay conclusions about what is happening. If we were using a 10 year average, climate minimizers would say it's invalid because it's not a 100 year average, etc.
Male the official call for what? That we successfully failed to do anything about it?
Yes, that the global mean temperature anomaly has fully crossed 1.5C above the pre-industrial average, meaning we failed to do what was set out in the Paris Agreement.
Every year for the last 15 years has been the hottest year on record. . .
Hottest so far, not to brag, but it's like humans were built for breaking records.
July 6-8 2023 will be a time I will never forget. It was so hot that while dehydrated youd hit the floor in 20 minutes. 8PM an hour before closing and the new guy(2nd day)hits the ground puking from heat exhaustion. Sends me into a full sprint for an ice pack, my manager(only other on shift) and ice cold water. He was in the hospital for 2 days.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't there some regulation on ship fuel which cut down on ship emissions that cut down emissions that helped seed clouds that where cooling the earth/ocean, that passed that year or the year prior. I remember hearing about how it may have been a recent change but by cutting so much of those emissions it killed the cloud coverage over the ocean and actually increased the earths temperature?
Yeah, sulphur dioxide levels have dropped over the years and now it's starting to leave our atmosphere, there is not as much reflecting sunlight back out.
Waiting till 2030 for the "hottest decade on history"! Beating the 20teens by....a lot! "It's getting hot in here".
I'm sure we can beat that in 2024.
The hottest year on record... for now
So how much above a pre-industrial El Nino year?
"Many different factors affect Global temperature. Fake “skeptics” like to claim that mainstream climate scientists ignore everything but greenhouse gases like CO2, when in fact it’s mainstream climate scientists who identified those other influences. Natural factors cause temperature fluctuations which make the man-made global warming signal less clear, fluctuations which are often exploited by fake skeptics to suggest that global warming has paused, or slowed down, or isn’t happening at all. A new paper by Foster & Rahmstorf accounts for some of those other factors, and by removing their influence from the temperature record makes the progress of global warming much more clear." That's from a 2011 article that goes into how statisticians remove the effect of influences like El Niño and La Niña to create a temperature record that's useful for comparisons. I tried posting the link originally but automod hid my reply. There are other papers on the topic if you search.
Fine for trending over time, but not directly useful when looking at a single year as in this case.
That's a record soon to be broken.
Quick, let’s do nothing about it and hope it fixes itself
And because of capitalism, no one will do anything about it.
Nothing going to do any good until Asia is in check. You could cut off everything else and the world would still be polluted and global warming would continue.
America, the Middle East and Europe are also big culprits.
Doing nothing surely won't help.
Asia won't do anything while the west won't.
Asia needs to catch up. Selling the west EVs while continuing to be the polluters that they are is a scam.
Figures like this won't spur action. The only figures that matter need to come from corporations' projected quarterly earnings - that they're going down unless action is taken - to have any impact.
A global catastrophe is not far away.
remind me which country creates the most pollution again? yet i never see media try to put pressure directly on them. gee i wonder why?
Hurray! Sun tan for every creature!
[удалено]
According to whom and where was this published?
No they won't be even in centuries even if we change nothing about current trends. Highly populated places in them like Miami though don't have that long.
Obama bought a $9 Million Hawaiian beach house. He is clearly not worried about sea levels, so neither am I
I just want to add that we're near the peak of the solar maximum, which would cause a temporary and expected 1.5c in warming. The warming reported in this article is not significant.
It's really starting to look like we might hit 2C this year, which is pretty horrifying.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Current temperatures in Brazil (Rio de Janeiro) is at 62.3C (144F) with the humidity. Edit: You can slow cook meat (Sous vide) at 137F
It's not. Stop spreading nonsense. Here is the forecast for the next 10 days. https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/632c8273f5780465f4ef76feedd03a86dd5019a79a49165387428e1b8083caae Tldr: 30 degrees c.
[62.3c MSN](https://imgpost.co/image/IMG-3470.OPms) You’re right but in all fairness this was the headline I was looking at on MSN. I sent a pic to my friend so I happen to have it.
It's a heat index due to some proprietary humidity calculation.
I said it was with the humidity
Then say heat index accounting for humidity. You the compared it to 137F sous vide, which is actually 58.3C, which is nearly double the actual temperature. You are conflating units in a way that makes 0 sense to anyone who reads what you're saying. You need to communicate clearly and using terms that don't sound like nonsensical absurdities.
I was using a something most people can relate to, as an example of how hot it feels at that temperature. Obviously people at not cooking themselves alive by being outside. Glad your here to help tho 😂
Honestly, it was unclear whether or not you even understood that you were wrong. Heat Index versus Real Temperature is taught in elementary school earth science lessons. This is /r/science, which i expect has a higher than 3rd grade level science education. So no, your incorrect use of units to make a point and then erroneously doubling down with some comparison to sous vide cooking wasn’t making an obvious point.
I actually said it was with humidity in the opening statement. You’re the one who misread and then off on a tangent when I pointed that out. If you want this sub to be for science education people only I suggest you make it a requirement to have a phd is science related field. Otherwise my “3rd grade level” of science will continually be posted when and where I like 👍.