Insane temperature increase next year

 From Zeke Hausfather

I'm not sure folks have realized just how crazy the second half of 2026 and 2027 will be for global temperatures – on the back of a record-smashing El Niño event. Here is my latest estimate of where both years will end up compared to global temperatures since 1850.

We're racing towards 2 degrees increase in temperatures since the 19th century.  And look how bad things already are.  The rate of increase is accelerating. 

Yet our politicians and CEOs lie to us, pretend to care, but take no action to slash emissions.  

European heatwave

 From The BBC

This El Niño will take temperatures to new highs. The acceleration in recent years is obvious, and I've talked about it before.  The trend will continue.

Will this latest heatwave encourage politicians to do more?  Don't count on it.

We've missed 1.5 degrees. Should we give up?

 No, of course not.  But maybe we should target growth in renewables infrastructure, setting targets for wind and solar and EVs and heat pumps.  These are direct targets, in order to achieve the indirect target of peaking and then reducing emissions, which will in turn lead to temperatures stopping rising.

From Just Have a Think.

A humungous El Niño is on the way

From Zack Labe

Sea surface temperatures are already surging to record high levels for this time of year in key El Niño monitoring areas.

This will prolly push global temperatures towards 1.7 degrees above pre-industrial (1850-1900) levels. This is releasing heat into the atmosphere already accumulated in the sea, so it doesn't change the underlying trajectory — though it may move some world climate systems past tipping points — but it will still deliver terrible heatwaves, droughts, bushfires and floods. And meanwhile the underlying temperature is continuing to rise, and its increase appears to have been accelerating.

Significant acceleration of global heating since 2015

 From the Potsdam Climate Institute

Global warming has accelerated since 2015, according to a new study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). After accounting for known natural influences on global temperature, the research team detected a statistically significant acceleration of the warming trend for the first time. Over the past ten years, the estimated warming rate has been around 0.35°C per decade, depending on the dataset, compared with just under 0.2°C per decade on average from 1970 to 2015. This recent rate is higher than in any previous decade since the beginning of instrumental records in 1880.

Global warming rate (in °C per decade) from the Berkeley Earth global temperature data: The blue line shows the linear trends for the time before and after 2015 (light blue the uncertainty range). The red line shows the linear trend for 10‐year windows of the data, at 1-year intervals. Figure: PIK

“We can now demonstrate a strong and statistically significant acceleration of global warming since around 2015,” says Grant Foster, a US statistics expert and co-author of the study, which was published today in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters. 
 
“We filter out known natural influences in the observational data, so that the ‘noise’ is reduced, making the underlying long-term warming signal more clearly visible,” Foster added.
 
Short-term natural fluctuations in global temperature caused by El Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar cycles can mask changes in the long-term rate of warming. In their data analysis, which is based on measurement data, the two researchers work with five large, established global temperature data sets (NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, ERA5).
 
“The adjusted data show an acceleration of global warming since 2015 with a statistical certainty of over 98 percent, consistent across all data sets examined and independent of the analysis method chosen,” explains Stefan Rahmstorf, PIK researcher and lead author of the study. 

After correcting for the effects of El Niño and the solar maximum, 2023 and 2024, which were exceptionally warm years, become somewhat cooler, but remain the two warmest years since the beginning of instrumental records. In all datasets, the acceleration begins to become apparent in 2013 or 2014. To test whether the warming rate has changed since the 1970s, the research team applied two statistical approaches: a quadratic trend analysis and a piecewise linear model that objectively determines the timing of any change in the warming rate.

The study does not investigate the specific causes of the observed acceleration. However, climate models show that an increasing rate of warming is fundamentally within the scope of current climate modelling, according to the authors.
 
“If the warming rate of the past 10 years continues, it would lead to a long-term exceedance of the 1.5° limit of the Paris Agreement before 2030,” says Stefan Rahmstorf. “How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels to zero."

We face catastrophe unless we cut emissions.  We should replace coal and gas with wind, solar and batteries as fast as we can.  We should stop the sale of petrol (gasoline)/diesel cars, lorries and buses now, because it will take 15 years for the existing vehicle fleet to be replaced.  And before you fall to the floor and start chewing the carpet, there are electric alternatives to every petrol or diesel car from small city cars, through utes (pick-up trucks), light vans through semi-trailers and buses.  We need to replace all oil/gas heating with heat pumps.  Is mankind too frigging feckless to act?

Global warming *has* accelerated

 From Open Mind (Tamino)

I won't repeat the whole article.  Read it in full here.

My paper with Stefan Rahmstorf showing that global warming has accelerated was published in Geophysical Research Letters today. The main result is that global warming is NOT proceeding at the same old rate it has been since 1975. It’s going faster.

In this data set [from Berkeley Earth], 2025 turned out to be the 3rd-warmest year on record (as in the other data sets except NASA, where it came in 2nd). When I adjust the data to remove the estimated impact of el Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar variation, I get this:

The trend is unaffected, but the noise level is much reduced, which enables us to estimate warming rates with less uncertainty. I’ve added a red line to this graph which is a modified LOWESS smooth of the adjusted data.

To test for acceleration we isolated the data since 1975, and the simplest way to test for it is to fit a parabola to the data; if the quadratic term is statistically significant, we can reject the null hypothesis, that the signal is just a straight line. Of course we must correct for autocorrelation of the noise, but still the quadratic term turns out to be strongly significant. We can safely reject the null hypothesis: there has been acceleration.

According to this model, the warming rate right now is the slope at the endpoint of the parabola, which is 0.28 ± 0.05 °C per decade (i.e. between 0.23 and 0.33 °C per decade, 95% CI). I will emphasize that this is the “best estimate” and those are the correct uncertainty levels IF (and this is a BIG IF) the data actually follow a parabola plus stationary noise. If not (which is the overwhelmingly likely case), we can consider the estimate good but not best, and the uncertainty levels are a lower bound on the actual uncertainty.

Another test for acceleration is to find the best fit of a continuous piecewise-linear function which is allowed to change slope at a time chosen by changepoint analysis. This is a challenge to evaluate statistically because we have to allow for autocorrelation and account for the extra degree of freedom to choose the changepoint time. But it can be done, and the best-fit model again turns out to be strongly statistically significant.

Both those models serve excellently to demonstrate the presence of acceleration. But I doubt they are best to estimate what the warming rate is right now, and what it will be in the near future. For that, I offer yet another model, which I will apply to the data since 1880, a continuous piece-wise linear fit (PLF) which is allowed to change its slope every 15 years from 1905 through 2010. I call this model “PLF15”

The PLF15 model not only estimates the signal value, it conveniently gives us an estimate of the average warming rate over each segment between the knots. I can plot the warming rate itself (which for this model is constant during each segment) along with light blue shading to show the uncertainty range.

All these graphs plot the warming rate in °C per year, but when quoting numbers I have followed the custom these days to talk about the rate in °C per decade. According to this analysis, the current estimated rate is 0.31 ± 0.07 °C/decade.

Which estimate is best? I don’t know, but I do know that even 0.24 °C per decade will take us past 2 °C right around the year 2050. The whole point of the Paris agreement is: DON’T GO THERE. My advice: fasten your seat belt, things are going to get ugly.

We need to redouble efforts to cut emissions, or things will get very ugly.  What can we do?

• Set a renewable energy target in every country.  The percentage of renewables+nuclear needs to rise by 6-8% a year, at least.  This will cut emissions by 27% (emissions from electricity generation are +-30% of total global emissions) within a decade.  We may not yet be able to go above 90 or 95% renewables in the grid, because we don't have long-term storage to offset periods of dunkelflaute, but we will have cut most emissions from electricity generation.  
• We must tax imports from countries which do not have an R.E.T. or a price on carbon.  (See my posts on a carbon border tax)
• We need to accelerate the replacement of petrol/diesel vehicles (ICEVs) with EVs.  This is a problem, because even when we reach 100% of sales being EVs, it will take 10-20 years for all ICEVs on the roads to be replaced.  This is too long.  Most countries are nowhere near 100% EV sales.   We could, for example, ban the import of new or second-hand ICEVs, or slap 100% taxes on them.   Ethiopia has already done this.  This policy should apply to two and three-wheeled vehicles, too.  Countries which do this deserve reduced carbon border taxes.
• In rich countries, we need to replace oil- or gas-based household and industrial heating with heat pumps.  Because they have high up-front costs, they will require government subsidy to start the revolution rolling.

All of these combined will cut emissions by 50 to 60%.  If we also switch to low-emission steel and cement, the emissions cuts could reach 70%.

That will leave (mostly) agriculture.  Put that in the too-hard basket for now--people love their meat too much to give it up.  But it won't go away.  When we've cut emissions by 70%, agriculture will dominate what's left over.  And action will no longer be postponable.

Our planet is warming twice as fast as we thought

 A video from Just Have a Think.  He discusses a paper by Grant Foster and Stefan Ramsdorf, which confirms that the rate of global warming has accelerated from 0.2 degrees C per decade to 0.4 degrees C.   One of the authors of this paper is Grant Foster, who is "Tamino'", and I've commented on his pieces published on his blog "Open Mind" several times over the last few years.  See this, and this, and this.

Just Have A Think  explains quite well the techniques used to prove their point.  He cautions that just because temperatures have been rising twice as fast as they were between 1970 and 2010 over the last decade, it doesn't mean that they will necessarily continue to do that.  

On the other hand they might, and they might even accelerate.  Just being prudent and cautious would suggest that we should accelerate our attempts to slash emissions, especially since wind and solar power and batteries and EVs have fallen so much in cost. 

A chart from the paper referred to in the video, showing the unadjusted and the adjusted (for volcanic eruptions, El Niño, and the sunspot cycle) time series from 5 different estimates of the average global temeperature anomaly.

This is what accelerated warming looks like

 From Leon Simons

Sea Surface Temperatures in this region increased more during the previous 15 years than in the preceding 150 years. This is what accelerated warming looks like [temperature]:

 

Somewhat worse [water vapour]:

Catastrophe awaits us. We stumble towards the precipice like zombies, too stupid and too greedy to take action.

January was 1.75 C above pre-industrial temperatures!!!

 From Leon Simons

First 28 days of 2025 were 1.75°C above pre-industrial!  Even with La Niña cooling the planet down somewhat, this will be the hottest January in history.   The Global warming rate might have more than doubled!

Accelerated warming

 From Prof Eliot Jacobson

Below is the latest monthly global surface temperature anomaly graphic, with a quadratic trendline (in other words, assuming accelerating warming). What's new? This updated trendline shows us passing 1.5°C later this year and 2.0°C in 2036.

Hottest January since 1940

 From Prof Eliot Jacobson

And still we do nothing to slash emissions.  And we've elected a climate-denying cretin to the White House.

Sulphur dioxide decline adds to global heating

 From Leon Simons

As more and more clean air regulations came into effect from the 1960s onward, CO₂ and sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions gradually decoupled. SO₂ emissions reached a global peak around 1980: academic.oup.com/bioscience/a...

There was an almost perfect correlation between CO₂ and SO₂ emissions. But this has turned into a strong anti-correlation:

 

This was made possible by strict clean air regulations, enforcement and compliance. Notably at coal plants, where enormous 'flue-gas desulphurisation systems were installed. The increase in sulphur emissions temporarily stopped global warming for about 40 years:

But it's crucial to take into account where the sulphur is emitted. While the oceans "only" cover about 71% of Earth's surface, about 90% of global warming is ocean warming, while only 1-2% heats the atmosphere:

 

Removing the reflective particles and clouds above the oceans (Earth's main heat sink!) has much stronger climate impacts than most realise. Which is why the very recent desulphurisation of global shipping is crucial to take into account. The IMO [International Maritime Organisation]sulphur regulations made this possible. And there are more regulations in the pipeline! 

Leon Simons notes that the rise in SO2 emissions before 1900 seems suss, and discusses
it in his Bluesky thread (linked above)

Back in 1990, Hansen & Lacis described an "extreme" scenario of half the GHG [Greenhouse gas] forcing being compensated by a negative aerosol forcing. Looking at the same agents, IPCC AR6 WG1 showed it as 66% for the 1850-1989 period. It was likely even more!

The moral of all this is obvious:

1.  With industrialisation taking off post-war, rising SO2 emissions helped offset rising CO2 emissions, and global temperatures actually fell.
2. After 1980, SO2 emissions started to fall, and temperatures started to rise.
3. Since 2020, de-sulphurisation of global shipping has increased, reducing reflective particles and clouds above the oceans, leading to accelerated global temperature rise.

I draw two other conclusions:

1. It is not essential to emit SO2 at great altitudes, as with, say, volcanic emissions or (shudder) geo-engineering for it to cool the planet.  A couple of hundred metres above sea level is enough.
2. The science behind global heating is confirmed.  From Hansen onwards, climate models postulated that SO2 emissions would reduce temperatures, while CO2 emissions would increase them.  This has now been clearly demonstrated by the surge in temperatures as SO2 emissions have been reduced.  The phenomenon of reduced cloud cover (leading to faster heating) is also explained.  The model is consistent.

What is less obvious is what we do about it.  Should we allow global shipping to go back to emitting sulphur dioxide?  Should we deliberately try some sort of geo-engineering fix?  Do we want to go back to acid rain?

No doubt big oil will argue for increased emissions of SO2 with the same vigour it tried to shut down the argument for reducing emissions of CO2, even though the effects on temperatures are derived from the same physics.  Look out for articles funded by stink tanks arguing for SO2 emissions paid for by the taxpayer.

Record global sea temperatures

 From Prof Eliot Jacobson

Since March 13, 2023, global sea surface temperatures have been setting daily records compared to the pre-2023 record high for each day, with the exception of 5 days in late December, 2024. Thanks to @leonsimons.bsky.social for the idea to graph this.

Global sea temperatures accelerating

 From Prof Eliot Jacobson

In case you had any doubt, the near perfect fit of the quadratic trendline makes it clear: global sea surface temperatures are accelerating.

The current rate of warming is about 0.32°C/decade, which comes out to somewhere around 275 million Hiroshima bombs worth of ocean heating in 2025.

 

 What can governments do to reverse this trend?

1.  Ban the sale of new pure petrol/diesel/gasoline cars immediately.   There are plenty of hybrids and EVs in production right now.  For example, in Oz, Toyota has already stopped selling the petrol-only Corolla.
2. Give electricity utilities 5 years to get to a minimum of 60% renewables and 10 to get to 90%.  
3. Remove all oil subsidies
4. Tax carbon emissions, and return the tax via a monthly cheque to all residents.

What can you do?

1. Give up meat.  This will cut your personal emissions by 1/3.
2. Buy your electricity from a 100% green supplier (In Australia) or Green Power Options (in the US)
3. If you can afford it, put solar panels on your roof.  
4. If you can, replace gas or oil heating with heat pumps.  The newest heat pumps work even in sub-zero temperatures.
5. Replace your car with an EV when your current car gives up the ghost.  Failing that, a plug-in hybrid (PHEV).  Use public transport as much as you can; fly as little as you can.

This will cut your personal emissions by 60 to 80%.

We face catastrophe.  We must act now, individually and collectively.  Before it is too late.

Rise in world's temperatures accelerates

 Open Mind (Tamino) produced a previous piece about the acceleration in the rise in global temperatures, which I reported on here.  He has returned to the analysis, and confirms his position in his latest post. 

I now have global temperature data through October of this year from NASA, NOAA, and ERA5, as well as data through September from HadCRU and Berkeley. I’ve translated them to “since pre-industrial” values using one of the methods in the IPCC special report on 1.5°C. Then I computed yearly averages (this year is incomplete so values for 2024 are year-so-far averages)

There are two clear episodes in this plot: before and after 1975. Before, GMST was fluctuating but not trending either way; since, it has been trending consistenly up and fluctuating. As for its rate of increase, for four and a half decades (from 1975 until 2020) temperature seemed to rise at a pace (about 0.02°C per year) that was unchanging, and statistics couldn’t deny it.

But the last two years (2023 and 2024) have been “off the charts,” so to speak. For the data from ERA5, the value for 2024 year-so-far is already above 1.5°C, which is exactly what the Paris agreement seeks to avoid.

I investigated the rate of warming, and how it may have changed over time, in two ways. First, I fit a modified lowess smooth which I’ve programmed to estimate the rate as well as the value. Second, I computed a piecewise linear fit (PLF) with knots at 1975 and 2010. Both models (lowess and PLF) were fit to the monthly-average data, but in the graphs that follow I’ll plot yearly averages so the graphs will be less cluttered. Here’s how the PLF model fits the data from NASA:

PLF = piecewise linear fit 

 

[....]

For the 45-year period from 1975 through 2009, the average warming rate according to NASA data is just about 0.018°C/yr. For the 15-year period since 2010, it has been a lot faster at 0.031°C/yr. Statistically, the difference is significant at over 99% confidence.

I have also adjusted all the data sets, to compensate for the influence of el Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar variations, with a method not unlike that of Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). Here are the adjusted temperatures, together with their PLF fit, for the data from NASA:

This chart shows the temperature anomaly adjusted for El Niño/La Niña and for vulcanism. 
PLF = piecewise least fit.

The rate from 1975 to 2010 now seems to be only 0.017°C/yr, and after 2010, the best estimate is 0.033°C/yr. These aren’t much different from the estimates using the raw data, although the uncertainties are now smaller so the confidence intervals are narrower.

Falling emissions (which of course we don't have--emissions continue to rise) do NOT mean that temperatures will start falling.  The RISE in the temperature anomaly is proportional to the LEVEL of emissions.  In other words, for temperatures to stop rising, we need to reduce emissions to zero.  If we halve emissions, the increase in temperature anomaly will halve, but that only reduces it to what it was before this recent acceleration, 0.17 degrees per decade.  

There are positive signs that emissions will peak soon.  Wind and solar continue to expand exponentially.  The costs of battery storage are plunging, and the recent first commercial solid-state battery points to continued and sustained cost declines and efficiency improvements.  Yet, even if we completely switch ALL electricity generation and ALL land transport to carbon-free methods, that will still only halve emissions.  If we were to start cutting emissions by 5% a year, compound, it would take us 40 years to reduce emissions to 10% of current levels.  Assuming we did this (but we are not) temperatures would rise for the next decade by 0.33 degrees, for the decade after by 0.17, by the decade after that by 0.l2 degrees and for the final decade by 0.06.  Roughly.  In other words, temperatures would rise by another 0.33+0.17+0.12+0.06, or ~0.7 degrees, making the rise since 1850-1900, the traditional "pre-industrial" starting point 2.2 degrees.

We face catastrophe, and still we dither and phaff.  The Right is dead against doing anything at all to slash emissions, and the Left argues with itself about what to do.  Meanwhile, we are lied to by corporations and governments, and protesters go to jail while oil execs are fêted.

Warming rate probably accelerating

 Another in depth statistical analysis from Open Mind (Tamino).  I won't repeat the whole article (best to read it for yourself).   In essence, what he does is look at the change in the temperature anomaly over 30 years, the conventional measure of climate change (because shorter periods are too susceptible to fluctuations from natural climate cycles such as, for example, El Niño/La Niña).    This chart shows what that looks like:

Note that the change over the 30-year span has been centred at 15 years,
which is why it apparently ends at 2009.

He then adjusts the data for volcanic eruptions, El Niño, and the sunspot cycle to test whether the change in trend since 2000 is statistically significant, and concludes that it is.

But wait, there’s more. We know the cause of some of the fluctuation, and we can adjust the data by removing our best estimate of those known factors. In particular, we can remove an estimate of the influence of volanic eruptions, solar variations, and the el Niño southern oscillation, and I’ve done so by a modified version of the method of Foster & Rahmstorf.

Comparing this graph of adjusted data since 1946, to the graph of raw data over the same time (the third graph in this post), two things are obvious. First, the level of scatter (of random fluctuation) is quite a bit less for the adjusted data than for the raw. Second, the “obvious” simple model for the raw data (a linear spline with two straight-line setments) isn’t so obvious for the adjusted data.

The same analysis used on the raw data, returns different results on the adjusted. This is mainly because the uncertainty levels are so much reduced. The warming rate for NASA data, for example, now looks like this:

Again, the change has been centred midway on the 30-year span

The final 30-year estimate suggests the rate was definitely bigger then 0.02°C/year, while the earlier rate is definitely less. Also, the statistical tests (fitting a parabola and a linear spline) now are definitely significant at 95% confidence.

Using adjusted rather than raw data, the same is true for all five data sources. While the significance is weakest for HadCRU and strongest for NOAA, it’s over 95% confidence for all of them. My conclusion is that recent acceleration of global warming isn’t just likely, it’s confirmed.

There is still room for doubt, if you doubt that the adjusted data represent things correctly then the recent apparent acceleration may be just random accident. All told, I find that too unlikely.

See also this piece I did, based on Open Mind's analysis: 

Terrifying acceleration in global heating

We are heading towards climate catastrophe, and still we do not act, stumbling blindly to the precipice.

100s of climate scientists expect 2.5 degrees

 From The Guardian

Hundreds of the world’s leading climate scientists expect global temperatures to rise to at least 2.5C (4.5F) above preindustrial levels this century, blasting past internationally agreed targets and causing catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet, an exclusive Guardian survey has revealed.

Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met.

Many of the scientists envisage a “semi-dystopian” future, with famines, conflicts and mass migration, driven by heatwaves, wildfires, floods and storms of an intensity and frequency far beyond those that have already struck.

Numerous experts said they had been left feeling hopeless, infuriated and scared by the failure of governments to act despite the clear scientific evidence provided.

“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”

But many said the climate fight must continue, however high global temperature rose, because every fraction of a degree avoided would reduce human suffering.

Peter Cox, at the University of Exeter, UK, said: “Climate change will not suddenly become dangerous at 1.5C – it already is. And it will not be ‘game over’ if we pass 2C, which we might well do.”

The Guardian approached every contactable lead author or review editor of IPCC reports since 2018. Almost half replied, 380 of 843. The IPCC’s reports are the gold standard assessments of climate change, approved by all governments and produced by experts in physical and social sciences. The results show that many of the most knowledgeable people on the planet expect climate havoc to unfold in the coming decades.

Younger scientists were more pessimistic, with 52% of respondents under 50 expecting a rise of at least 3C, compared with 38% of those over 50. Female scientists were also more downbeat than male scientists, with 49% thinking global temperature would rise at least 3C, compared with 38%. There was little difference between scientists from different continents.

Dipak Dasgupta, at the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, said: “If the world, unbelievably wealthy as it is, stands by and does little to address the plight of the poor, we will all lose eventually.”

The experts were clear on why the world is failing to tackle the climate crisis. A lack of political will was cited by almost three-quarters of the respondents, while 60% also blamed vested corporate interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.

Many also mentioned inequality and a failure of the rich world to help the poor, who suffer most from climate impacts. “I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

About a quarter of the IPCC experts who responded thought global temperature rise would be kept to 2C or below but even they tempered their hopes.

“I am convinced that we have all the solutions needed for a 1.5C path and that we will implement them in the coming 20 years,” said Henry Neufeldt, at the UN’s Copenhagen Climate Centre. “But I fear that our actions might come too late and we cross one or several tipping points.”

 Are they right?  

Temperatures are rising by 0.2 degrees C per decade, or possibly more.  If we halved emissions, that increase would fall to 0.1 degree per decade.   (Assuming the rate of increase per decade hasn't accelerated to 0.3 degrees) If we halved them again, the decadal increase would decline to 0.05 degrees.  However, even as (if) we cut emissions, temperatures will go on rising, only stabilising when emissions approach zero.   So the longer we take, the longer and higher temperatures will rise.

To halve emissions over 10 years would require emissions to fall by 6.7% per annum compound.   To halve them over 20 years would require emissions to fall by 3.4% per annum. 

The introduction of CATL's super cheap batteries, at US$56/kWh, and their sodium-ion batteries at around $40/kWh will do two things.  First of all, it will make the EV revolution inevitable.  The standard (60 kWh) EV battery pack cost ~US$10,000 in 2020 and will cost ~$2,500 by the end of this year.  Even with swingeing taxes in the US and Europe, EVs will head inexorably towards 100% of sales, globally.  

The second result will be to make grid storage dirt cheap.  Lazard's latest estimate of the cost of 4 hours of storage for a solar farm is $14/MWh of production.  The halving in battery costs will allow 8 hours of storage, and of course, neither solar panels nor batteries have stopped falling in price.  This will mean that grid operators and utilities will choose batteries plus storage in preference to all other sources of electricity generation, but also to replace gas peaking with batteries.  

Electricity generation contributes ~30% of emissions, and road transport ~15%. Even after EVs reach 100% of car and truck sales, it will take 10-15 years for the whole vehicle fleet to become electric.  What about the additional electric demand from EVs?, I hear you cry.  With solar+8 hours of storage becoming so cheap, no new fossil fuel power stations will be built.  As electricity demand rises, it will be met by solar plus storage.  Though switching electricity generation to solar will also take time because of sunk costs, lethargy, vested interests, etc.  

So, let's assume it will take 20 years for emissions in electricity generation and land transport to halve.  (Governments could make that happen much faster if they chose, and as temperatures rise, I have no doubt they will so choose.)    

Three-quarters of all emissions come from energy.  With the new low battery costs, all of that can potentially be stopped, as fossil fuels are replaced by solar plus storage.   I say potentially, because vested interests.  However, replacing fossil fuels no longer requires altruism.  You no longer have to care about the climate.   You just have to want to save money.  But, if you care about the climate too, you will want a faster shift.  And as temperatures rise, the political push to do something, instead of just pretending and greenwashing, will be unstoppable.  So, there is a chance that we could cut emissions by 75% over the next 20 years, reducing the decade by decade rise in temperatures to 0.05 degrees.  That would still leave hard sectors like agriculture, waste and cement, but it would give us 20 years to find solutions for them.

If all this optimistic stuff happens, temperatures will rise by another 0.8 degrees by 2100.  Assuming 1.5 degrees already since 1850-1900, that means global temperatures will rise by 2.3 degrees.

So, yes, they're prolly right. 

Terrifying acceleration in global heating

Open Mind (Tamino) has again posted an analysis of global temperature data, confirming that global temperatures are accelerating.  I analysed his previous post here.

Way back in 2011 I co-authored a paper with Stefan Rahmstorf (Foster & Rahmstorf 2011, hereafter FR11) in which we adjusted global temperature in order to remove (as best we could) the influence of factors we knew were only temporary, and not man-made. Specifically, these are volcanic eruptions (whose aerosols cool the planet), the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO, which warms the world in its positive el Niño phase and cools in its negative la Niña phase), and solar variations (when the sun gets hotter or colder, so does the Earth). These exogenous factors make global temperature fluctuate, but don’t really get anywhere; removing their influence makes the global warming part clearer.

I’ve updated my method for doing so, and extended the time span it covers, so I’d like to share some of the changes to methodology. But before I do I’ll cut right to the chase: doing so removes a lot of the fluctuation in global temperature, so that yearly averages since 1950, which look like this for five prominent global-temperature data sets:

end up looking like this:

He then discusses his analytical technique in depth (read it here).  His conclusions are:

Perhaps the main result of FR11 was that the adjusted data showed no sign of acceleration or deceleration, contradicting ideas that global warming had stopped or even slowed; the evidence didn’t support that. But the new adjusted data do not contradict the recent acceleration which the raw data suggest, in fact they confirm it, mainly because the uncertainty in trend estimates is so greatly reduced that the rate change (acceleration) is easier to demonstrate statistically.

Yes, it appears that the rate of global warming has increased.

We face catastrophe.  You can clearly see how the slope of the (adjusted) temperature curve is steepening.   It looks more like an exponential than a linear slope.  In other words, it could easily go on steepening, with the decadal rise in temperature accelerating even further, from 0.3 to 0.4 or 0.5 degrees C over the next two decades.  Why aren't we panicking?

Massive methane leaks from rubbish dumps

From The Guardian

There have been more than 1,000 huge leaks of the potent greenhouse gas methane from landfill waste dumps since 2019, the Guardian can reveal.

Analysis of global satellite data from around the world shows the populous nations of south Asia are a hotspot for these super-emitter events, as well as Argentina and Spain, developed countries where proper waste management should prevent leaks.

Landfills emit methane when organic waste such as food scraps, wood, card, paper and garden waste decompose in the absence of oxygen. Methane, also called natural gas, traps 86 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 20 years, making it a critical target for climate action. Scientists have said emissions from unmanaged landfills could double by 2050 as urban populations grow, blowing the chance of avoiding climate catastrophe.

A total of 1,256 methane super-emitter events occurred between January 2019 and June 2023, according to the new data. Pakistan, India and Bangladesh lead the list of nations with the most large leaks, followed by Argentina, Uzbekistan and Spain.

Landfill emissions can be reduced by creating less organic waste in the first place, diverting it away from landfill, or at least capturing some of the methane that is being released from the landfills. Action to stem methane leaks slows global heating faster than almost any other measure and is often low-cost, with some measures even paying for themselves when the captured gas is sold as fuel.

Methane emissions have accelerated since 2007 and cause a third of the global heating driving the climate crisis today. The acceleration has alarmed scientists, who fear it is the biggest threat to keeping below 1.5C of global heating and could trigger catastrophic climate tipping points. The rapid rise appears to be due to global heating driving more methane production in wetlands – a potential vicious circle that makes cuts of human-caused methane emissions even more urgent.

Decomposing waste is responsible for about 20% of human-caused methane emissions. Fossil fuel operations cause 40% of emissions, and the Guardian revealed there were more than 1,000 super-emitter events from oil, gas and coal sites in 2022 alone, many of which could be easily fixed. Cattle and paddy fields cause the other 40% of emissions.

Prof Euan Nisbet, a methane expert at Royal Holloway University of London, said: “Big landfills make a great deal of methane but it doesn’t cost much to bulldoze soil over a stinking, burning landfill. It’s not rocket science.”

Microbes in the soil convert methane into CO2. “Then it’s lost 97% of its greenhouse impact,” Nisbet said.

Carlos Silva Filho, president of the International Solid Waste Association, said the global methane pledge made by 150 countries to cut 30% of methane emissions by 2030 could not be achieved without tackling emissions from the waste industry. “Cutting methane is the only solution to meet the global 1.5C temperature target,” he said. “If we really focus on reducing methane emissions from the waste sector, it is a gamechanger.” About 40% of the world’s waste still goes to unmanaged dumps.

Antoine Halff, a co-founder of the company Kayrros, which provided the satellite image analysis to the Guardian, said: “Waste is a big source [of methane] and in countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh it’s not only a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions but it’s also a lost opportunity to tap a fuel resource that could help meet the country’s energy needs.”

The satellite that Kayrros uses orbits the planet 14 times a day and provides global coverage, giving the location of a leak to within about six miles. Higher-resolution satellites that orbit less frequently can pinpoint the waste facilities responsible.

[Read more here]

 

It's so infuriating.  The techniques we have to reduce emissions are cheap and effective.  They just require competence and determination to make them happen.  Wind & solar are now the cheapest source of bulk electricity almost everywhere.   I know that the transition will take time --- after all, we are making the greatest energy transition in the fastest time, ever.  Yet it still seems too slow to me.   If we subsidised EVs more heavily, they would quickly reach 100% of new cars sales, and a few years after that, close to 100% of the total car fleet.   We can massively reduce methane emissions, relatively cheaply.  Yet we don't. 

It seems simple: the costs of the climate catastrophe are already exceeding the costs of going green. Yet still we dither and phaff.  It's all doable, it's all technically feasible, and it's all relatively cheap.  The obstacles are not technological or economic.  They're administrative and political.  And that is shocking and disgraceful.

Global warming accelerates to 0.3 degrees per decade

 From Open Mind (Tamino)

July 2023 was the hottest month in history, maybe even the hottest in the last 120,000 years. The months that followed broke monthly records by surprisingly large margins. It’s no wonder that 2023 has turned out to be the hottest year we’ve seen, and not just by a little.

Here are yearly average temperature anomalies for the whole planet, from 1950 through 2023, according to HadCRU, the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K. (they haven’t yet reported their value for December 2023, so that year’s value is the January-through-November year-to-date average):

Each dot shows a year’s average, with the solid red line a smoothed version. The smooth shows is a good estimate of the background value, and reveals how climate has changed (temperature-wise), while the actual yearly values (black dots) fluctuate about that background value.

We know some of the things that contribute to those fluctuations. Volcanic eruptions, for instance, can fill the atmosphere with reflective aerosols which take years to settle out of the air, all the while cooling the planet. The el Niño southern oscillation (ENSO) tracks changes in how the ocean and atmosphere exchange heat; in its el Niño phase the surface gets noticeably warmer, but in its opposite la Niña phase the world tends to be cooler. The sun, of course, is the ultimate source of heat for our climate, and when it shines hotter, Earth heats up, but when the sun cools (relative to itself, of course) the Earth follows. These factors can be accounted for, at least approximately, and removed from the temperature data to define adjusted data, which will (we hope) give us a clearer picture of the changes which are due to other things — like greenhouse gas emissions.

Such has been done in peer-reviewed scientific research, and I’ve updated the procedure to include more recent data as well as alternative methods. In my latest version, the estimated contribution of each factor to the HadCRU temperature series looks like this:

The influence of volcanic eruptions, in brown, shows the cooling from the three large volcanic eruptions during this time, especially the massive explosion of Mt. Pinatubo in the 1990s. Solar variations, in red, have had only a small influence on Earth’s temperature because the solar variations themselves are small. The ENSO, in blue, has sometimes warmed (the el Niño phase) and sometimes cooled (the la Niña phase).

Add them all together, we have an estimate of the total influence of these factors on global temperature:

 

We can use this to estimate what global temperature would have been without these factors; just subtract this estimate from the observed data to yield adjusted data. When I do so, then compute yearly averages to yeild adjusted yearly average temperature anomalies for the whole planet from 1950 through 2023 according to HadCRU, I get this:

 

Each dot shows a year’s average, with the solid red line showing a smoothed version.

I’m mainly interested in the rate at which temperature is rising, so I took the original (un-adjusted) data and analyzed it with my modified lowess smooth, which is what I used to generate the solid red lines (smoothed values) in the above graphs. I’ve custom-designed it for this kind of analysis, so it reports, for each moment of time, not only the estimated value and its uncertainty, but the estimated rate of change (just what I’m looking for) and its uncertainty.

When I apply it to the HadCRU data, and choose the “time scale” (a free parameter in the analysis) so it will mimic rates of change on a 20-year time scale, it yields this:

The solid blue line shows the estimated rate of warming, the light blue shading shows its uncertainty range (±2σ). There is an obvious change in the rate around the year 1970; before that the rate was near zero (within the uncertainty range), but afterward is assuredly positive. This agrees with what we see in the first graph, that the smoothed value changes very little (zero rate from 1950 to 1970), then rises steadily until the present (rate about +0.02 °C/yr until now).

There is also a rise in the main estimate (solid blue line) starting around 2010, which suggests that the rate of warming may have increased lately (i.e. recent acceleration), but the uncertainty range is wide enough that it still includes the value +0.02°C/yr which had been observed already for decades.

Conclusion: since 1950, the data show at least two different warming rates: near zero from 1950 until about 1970, then about +0.02 °C/yr until now. There is evidence of a recent increase, but the evidence is inconclusive.

What about the trend in the adjusted data, i.e. apart from the factors that make those incessant fluctuations? I can apply the same analysis and get this:

 

Much is essentially the same as with the original, raw data: there is undoubtedly a change in rate around 1970, and there is evidence of another change around 2010. But this time the uncertainty range is narrower, the uncertainties are a lot smaller, and the evidence for recent change is now conclusive.

Conclusion: since 1950 the adjusted data show at least three different warming rates: near zero from 1950 until about 1970, then about +0.02 °C/yr until around 2010, and about +0.027 °C/yr since. Not just the above analysis, but other statistical tests confirm that although the uncertainty in the current rate is considerable, we conclude with confidence that it’s faster than it was during the preceding decades. Global warming picks up speed.

That’s using the data from HadCRU, and the story is the same when using data from NASA (the GISTemp data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), from NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), from the Berkeley Earth surface temperature project, or the ERA5 data from Europe’s Copernicus Climate Service.

James Hansen and others published a new paper recently, claiming that not only will global warming, in the very near future, proceed faster than expected, it is already doing so — that the pace of global warming had accelerated. Temperature increase after 2010, it suggests, will be at 0.027°C/yr, 50% faster than the lazy 0.018°C/yr it had been rising for decades before that. As a result, we have less than a decade until we cross the much-discussed threshold of 1.5°C above pre-industrial, so any idea of keeping global warming below that limit is “deader than a doornail.”

 

[Read more here; Tamino lists some of the caveats of his analysis.]

We are still not doing enough to slash emissions.  Remember, even if emissions peak this year, the rise in temperatures is proportional to the level of emissions.  For temperatures to stop rising, we need to cut emissions to zero.   On top of which, even if CO2 emissions have peaked,  methane emissions have accelerated.  Methane is 82 times as potent a greenhouse gas (over 10 years) as CO2.