The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes Media Release
A climate scientist explains that while a 1.5 °C rise in global temperatures doesn’t break the Paris Agreement’s commitments, it does bring us much closer to the red line.
In 2015, world leaders of 195 nations agreed to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. While this year-long exceedance of 1.5°C doesn’t break the commitments made in the Paris Agreement, scientists warn that it does bring us closer to the red line.
For the first time, global temperatures have consistently surpassed 1.5°C of warming over the past 12 months, according to data from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.
This warming trend raises concerns about our progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
Climate scientist Dr Kim Reid from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes explained that while this year-long exceedance of 1.5°C doesn’t break the commitments made in the Paris Agreement, it does bring us closer to the red line.
“This breach of 1.5°C for the last 12 months isn’t a death knell for the Paris Agreement, but it is a fire alarm, and we need to wake up and put out this fire.”
What does the 1.5°C value mean and where does it come from?
In 2015, world leaders of 195 nations agreed to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. Pre-industrial levels refer to the period between 1850 and 1900, which scientists use as a baseline because it precedes the time when humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels.
While 1.5°C is not a binding target of the agreement, Reid explained that limiting global warming to as close to this value as possible is crucial if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
“The risks associated with extreme weather events, sea level rise, biodiversity loss, and disruptions to ecosystems and human societies are significantly larger in a 2°C warmer world compared to a 1.5°C warmer world. Humanity’s ability to adapt to climate change will become increasingly challenging above 2°C,” she said.
She explained that there are different mechanisms behind this. “In the case of extreme weather events, for example, the warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapour it can hold. This, in turn, increases the potential for heavy rainfall events, tropical cyclones and severe thunderstorms.”
The probability of passing crucial tipping points also increases with every fraction of a degree of warming. Tipping points are critical thresholds in the climate system which can lead to abrupt and potentially irreversible changes. One example of such a tipping point is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
“If the West Antarctic Ice sheet passes a tipping point, its collapse could accelerate the flow of ice into the ocean, leading to global sea level rise. Once initiated, this process could be hard to stop, and it would take thousands of years to restore an ice sheet of that size,” Reid explained.
“However, we are unlikely to exceed an Antarctic climate tipping point this century,” she added.
Why did temperatures exceed 1.5°C in the past year?
The warming trend over the past decades is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This human-caused warming is also responsible for much of the rise in temperatures observed over the past 12 months.
On top of that, El Niño – a natural climate phenomenon associated with the increase in ocean temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean – gave global surface temperatures an extra boost.
“Annual temperatures vary from year to year due to factors such as El Niño and La Niña. During typical El Niño years, we tend to get warmer than average global temperatures, while La Niña years tend to be colder than average.”
“We had an El Niño at the end of 2023 which may explain, at least in part, why we saw these record temperatures,” explained Reid.
“As we shift to neutral and potentially a La Niña, temperatures will likely decrease a little relative to the last 12 months. However, the background warming is still there. So, unless we stop emissions, temperatures will continue to rise over the next decades.”
Have we passed 1.5°C global warming already?
In the period from July 2023 to June 2024, global temperatures hit record highs, peaking at 1.64°C above the pre-industrial average. Does this mean we have failed to meet the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C?
The answer is no. To iron out the influence of year-to-year natural variations, such as those caused by El Niño or volcanic eruptions, the 1.5°C value is defined as the first 20-year period when we exceed 1.5°C of global warming. This means that the 1.5°C value is considered breached if the average temperature change over 20 years exceeds 1.5°C.
“While temperatures exceeded 1.5°C over the past year, a single year above the limit doesn’t mean we breached 1.5°C. However, we are likely at the start or the early middle of this 20-year period,” said Reid.
“If we continue burning fossil fuels, we’ll see more and more years above 1.5°C and we’ll move closer and closer to warming exceeding 1.5°C on average. This will generally elevate climate risk leading to increased costs of adapting to climate change.”
Can we remain below 1.5°C?
While the past year does not formally breach 1.5°C, scientists warn that we are getting close. As the world continues to warm, years exceeding 1.5°C will likely be more common, which could push us beyond 1.5°C sooner than we expect. At the current rate of emissions, scientists estimate we could cross it within the next decade.
“We do need to ramp up our efforts to make sure we do not cross that line. And this can only be done by drastically reducing our emissions. Forget 2050, we need net zero by 2035 if we want to stay below 1.5°C,” said Reid. “That means any further fossil fuel exploration is utterly incongruent with maintaining a safe climate.”
However, if we do overshoot the 1.5°C limit – which may be inevitable now due to failure to reduce global emissions over the last few decades – Reid urged not to give up on climate action.
“1.5°C is bad. 2°C would be significantly worse. 3°C would be catastrophic. Every extra increment matters, and every action to reduce emissions reduces the risk of dangerous climate change.”
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Everybody read this article ….. and weep!! Scientists have been reporting these phenomena for decades while being ignored by politicians, media and business leaders.
Talk about shooing yourself in both feet ….. and complaining that you cannot walk.
Covid was used to fight science e.g. Atlas – Koch Network Covid ‘freedom rallies’ and ramp up fossil fuel production, now embedded while anti-renewables and pro-nuclear PR strategies promoted by RW MSM, think tanks and LNP.
Then the ALP govt. is also kept busy avoiding Tanton Network wedges on NOM, international students, immigration etc.
So predictable, but hopefully the economics and utility of renewables will prevail.
Unmentioned in article;
Predicted & already locked-in e ffects of repercussive positive feedback loops upon currnent relative biospheric stability, such as;
Effect of observed & documented heat-triggered mass-release of methane cladates/hydrates from Arctic land-ice margins & “perma”frost areasupon atmospheric equations,
Effect of rapid ice loss in Northern hemisphere glaciers, especially those in Greenland & Alaska, and recent data regarding alarming rates of melt in Antarctic glaciers,
The progressive heating effect of albedo loss as, firstly sea ice, then land ice, strip away their reflective coating reflecting potential heat of direct solar radiation.
Effect of increasing rates of terrestrial deforestation, which continues to strip away the photosynthetic (IE “carbon sequestering”) solar umbrella of elevated canopy vegetation, both global & local.
Anyways, carry on people.
Trump says DRILL, DRILL, DRILL,
Protesters don’t want those ugly wind turbine towers spoiling the views, others complain about solar farms, if the wind doesn’t blow and if the sun doesn’t shine, what then,
Don’t mention that SA’s issues with power have been solved with the banks of batteries installed a couple of years back, and most especially don’t disrupt the gravy train that is the oil and gas industries.
Oh and of course, the cheapest energy is nuclear…. just costs a bit more to build the plants, and may take a few years (decades), but we’ve got lots of gas in the ground.
Besides, (for the Christian Fundies such as Morrison) Jesus will come back soon and all our troubles will be over!
(At this point should we remind them that Jesus has been coming for about 2000 years and the indication is that he may be a little while yet,,,,, unless he;s been and didn;t like what he saw and went back to where he came from)
You ask, “Have we passed 1.5°C global warming already?”
As of July this year, Paul Davies (Chief Meteorologist UK Met Office & a Chair of the World Meteorological Organisation) finally declared: “Thinking about the climate (in 30 year averages which has been standard practice in meteorology) falls short when the climate itself is rapidly changing.”
In other words the answer to you question is “yes” and its worse than we think: –
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/WMOs_Bureaucratic_Burkha.jpg
And to add to worries about global temperatures we have:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/07/31/antarctica-heat-wave-warming-climate/
How many years will it be before some countries push hard to open it all up for mining/oil destruction of Antarctica?
Zey are evving a bon time in Paris, mais oui, right now. Climate? Ah, ze vin est tres bon…
I heard recently that the biggest fossil fuel extraction corporations are ‘ganging up’ intending to keep extracting until all such resources are extracted to completion. Seems to me a load of hubris and bullshit typical of such corporations. Political scare tactics, as it’s already known that the allegedly ‘viable’ reserves have reached or are close to the tipping point of being financial losers. And after years of their lies and misdirections consumer demand will not be able to be met without major increase in cost to consumers. Also …..
Huge lawsuits (mainly in USA) are on the roll by states, counties and cities against the fossil fuelers for climate change and pollution affects, seeking costs and damages for breeches of consumer law, corporations law, and anti-organized crime / racketeering laws. And it’s not only the fossil fuelers under fire, but the associated financial institutions, banks, investor corporations and individual investors. And it’s also going up the line from those participating / invested, through arbitrations / litigations against beguiled states and regulators, which will of course be rolled on to the fossil fuel extractor corporations. The writing is on the walls, but the results may not be known for a decade or so..
With the share prices of the likes of ExxonMobil, Shell and ConocoPhillip significantly rising over the last 20 years, and of course them being hushed about what they knew was inevitable, it would appear the mayhem is yet to be fully realized. Scorched earth, disappearing directors and execs, and stranded assets anyone?
A nice little essay from The Guardian in 2021 detailing the first plays of the cards. And an update from the Conversation May 2023 updating the broad state of play.
They’ll be shaking and shivering in northern USA and Canada. In Oz, no doubt we’ll continue to eat grass grown on the lawns of the parliaments.
In terms of consequential effects of predicted searise upon isles & archipelagos, coasts & deltas, 2 extra bits of info are worth mentioning.
1) Most of the oceanic addition from the runaway melt of glaciers & sheets tends to end up aggregating in equatorial areas, to the extent that it has caused an micro-observable lengthening of days (IE slowing of spin) due to the weight of the extra water around the middle.
https://www.newsminimalist.com/articles/climate-change-lengthening-days-due-to-rising-sea-levels-nasa-a9fdd705 2)
2) The 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle reaches it’s cyclic peak in 2034, as Luna’s wobble brings her arc into it’s closest proximity to Terra’s equatorial belt.
This will have an effect of adding up to about an extra foot of extra surge-flow upon tidal actions already observable experiencing sharp accelerative increase due to general searise due to additional meltwater and ambient warming.
Blessed to be living in cursedly interesting times.
The eventual melting of the polar ice-caps will add around 70m of oceanic rise, flooding all planetary coastal cities. Waterworld beckons. Long before that eventuates, as corvusboreus notes, permafrost melts will release gigatonnes of methane and global warming will ramp exponentially. As I’ve previously outlined in these pages… repeating myself… we also face ruinous challenges to the planet’s three major commodity crops, critical diminution of access to potable water, desertification, loss of sustainability in food producing regions, critical loss of food pollinators, along with the increasing rate of extinction of creatures from the micro to the macro in scale as well as the ongoing razing of natural habitat across all continents.
Interesting times is certainly one way of looking at what confronts humanity, potential Armageddon may be another, for the tech bros perhaps it’s exciting and an opportunity to cash in but for the greater masses I’d suggest it’s a series of issues they neither comprehend nor have the capacity to appropriately respond to.
More pithy commentators might simply suggest, we’re fucked.
Canguro,
Existing amidst the onset of the Anthropocene Age, witnessing a global biological mass extinction event unfolding.
Mass human displacements causing increased geo-political tensions is an inevitability, and apocalyptic war a distinct possibility.
Meanwhile, a few hills over from my home, various areas of native regrowth forest are being plundered and razed by NSW ForestCorp in a final smash & grab prior to the swathes of scorched earth being handed over as part of a promised/proposed Koala Park.
Not so much ‘phuqqed’, more like ‘buggered over a barrel’,
Feelin kinda glad that I’ve always bagged my seed.
I’m struggling to understand humans, in particular the attitude of being “contrary”. In the face of the bleeding obvious, is there a point where even the RWNJs will finally admit to global warming – is it 3 or 4 or 5… 10 degrees, or when bushfires burn all year round, or sea level rise floods New York and wipes out many Pacific islands or hurricanes and cyclones need a category 6 or 7 rating? What will it take?
Mind you, that Western countries haven’t completely withdrawn support for Israel who has killed 40,000+ innocents, are increasing the volatility and likelihood of the conflict spreading to the whole Middle East, leaves me gasping.
Jem Bendell’s paper on the consequences of climate change, Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy available here for the readers of this site who might find his views of interest.