Essay by Eric Worrall
Yet another climate deadline.
Only 3 years left – new study warns the world is running out of time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change
Published: July 20, 2025 2.20pm AEST
- Piers Forster Professor of Physical Climate Change; Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds
- Debbie Rosen Research and Innovation Development Manager for the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures, University of Leeds
Bad climate news is everywhere. Africa is being hit particularly hard by climate change and extreme weather, impacting lives and livelihoods.
We are living in a world that is warming at the fastest rate since records began. Yet, governments have been slow to act.
…
But so far, only 25 countries, covering around 20% of global emissions, have submitted their plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions. In Africa, they are Somalia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. This leaves 172 still to come.
…
But arguably only one of the submitted plans – the UK’s – is compatible with the Paris Agreement.
…Our report shows that human-caused global warming reached 1.36°C in 2024. This boosted average global temperatures (a combination of human-induced warming and natural variability in the climate system) to 1.52°C. In other words, the world has already reached the level where it has warmed so much that it cannot avoid significant impacts from climate change. There is no doubt we are in dangerous waters.
…Just five of the G20 countries have submitted their 2035 plans: Canada, Brazil, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom. But the G20 is responsible for around 80% of global emissions. This means that South Africa’s current G20 presidency can help to ensure that the world prioritises efforts to help developing countries finance their transition to a low-carbon economy.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/only-3-years-left-new-study-warns-the-world-is-running-out-of-time-to-avoid-the-worst-impacts-of-climate-change-261229
The referenced “our report”;
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence
Piers M. Forster,Chris Smith,Tristram Walsh,William F. Lamb,Robin Lamboll,Christophe Cassou,Mathias Hauser,Zeke Hausfather,June-Yi Lee,Matthew D. Palmer,Karina von Schuckmann,Aimée B. A. Slangen,Sophie Szopa,Blair Trewin,Jeongeun Yun,Nathan P. Gillett,Stuart Jenkins,H. Damon Matthews,Krishnan Raghavan,Aurélien Ribes,Joeri Rogelj,Debbie Rosen,Xuebin Zhang,Myles Allen,Lara Aleluia Reis,Robbie M. Andrew,Richard A. Betts,Alex Borger,Jiddu A. Broersma,Samantha N. Burgess,Lijing Cheng,Pierre Friedlingstein,Catia M. Domingues,Marco Gambarini,Thomas Gasser,Johannes Gütschow,Masayoshi Ishii,Christopher Kadow,John Kennedy,Rachel E. Killick,Paul B. Krummel,Aurélien Liné,Didier P. Monselesan,Colin Morice,Jens Mühle,Vaishali Naik,Glen P. Peters,Anna Pirani,Julia Pongratz,Jan C. Minx,Matthew Rigby,Robert Rohde,Abhishek Savita,Sonia I. Seneviratne,Peter Thorne,Christopher Wells,Luke M. Western,Guido R. van der Werf,Susan E. Wijffels,Valérie Masson-Delmotte,and Panmao Zhai
Abstract
In a rapidly changing climate, evidence-based decision-making benefits from up-to-date and timely information. Here we compile monitoring datasets (published at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15639576; Smith et al., 2025a) to produce updated estimates for key indicators of the state of the climate system: net emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate forcers, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, the Earth’s energy imbalance, surface temperature changes, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining carbon budget, and estimates of global temperature extremes. This year, we additionally include indicators for sea-level rise and land precipitation change. We follow methods as closely as possible to those used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One report.
The indicators show that human activities are increasing the Earth’s energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the AR6 assessment. For the 2015–2024 decade average, observed warming relative to 1850–1900 was 1.24 [1.11 to 1.35] °C, of which 1.22 [1.0 to 1.5] °C was human-induced. The 2024-observed best estimate of global surface temperature (1.52 °C) is well above the best estimate of human-caused warming (1.36 °C). However, the 2024 observed warming can still be regarded as a typical year, considering the human-induced warming level and the state of internal variability associated with the phase of El Niño and Atlantic variability. Human-induced warming has been increasing at a rate that is unprecedented in the instrumental record, reaching 0.27 [0.2–0.4] °C per decade over 2015–2024. This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of greenhouse gas emissions being at an all-time high of 53.6±5.2 Gt CO2e yr−1 over the last decade (2014–2023), as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there is evidence that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the last decade has slowed compared to the 2000s, and depending on societal choices, a continued series of these annual updates over the critical 2020s decade could track decreases or increases in the rate of the climatic changes presented here.
– Discussion started: 05 May 2025
– Revised: 11 Jun 2025
– Accepted: 13 Jun 2025
– Published: 19 Jun 2025
Read more: https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/2641/2025/
You have to delve into the study to find the 3 years reference;
…
The values in Table 8 are all greater than zero, implying that we have not yet emitted the amount of CO2 that would commit us to these levels of warming. However, including the uncertainty in ZEC (as in Table S8), non-CO2 emission and forcing uncertainty, and underrepresented Earth system feedbacks results in negative RCB estimates for limiting warming to low temperature limits with high likelihood. A negative RCB for a specific temperature limit would mean that the world is already committed to this amount of warming and that net negative emissions would therefore be required to return to the temperature limit after a period of overshoot. The assumption behind such a calculation is that we can treat the warming impact of positive and negative net emissions as approximately symmetric. While the claim of symmetry is likely valid for small emissions values, some model studies have shown that it holds less well for reversal of larger emissions (Canadell et al., 2021; Zickfeld et al., 2021; Vakilifard et al., 2022; Pelz et al., 2025). As such, larger exceedances of the RCB for a particular temperature target would decrease the likelihood that the temperature target could still be achieved by an equivalent amount of net negative emissions.
Note that the 50 % RCB estimate of 130 Gt CO2 would be exhausted in a little more than 3 years if global CO2 emissions remain at 2024 levels (42 Gt CO2 yr−1; see Table 1). This is not expected to correspond exactly to the time that 1.5 °C global warming level is reached due to uncertainty associated with committed warming from past CO2 emissions (the ZEC) as well as ongoing warming and cooling contributions from non-CO2 emissions. For comparison, our estimate of 2024 anthropogenic warming (1.36 °C) and the recent rate of increase (0.27 °C per decade) would suggest that continued emissions at current levels would cause human-induced global warming to reach 1.5 °C in approximately 5 years.
…
Read more: Same link as above
This deadline will no doubt join all the other 3 years or 5 years or 10 years to save the world nonsense deadlines which have come and gone. Even if we wanted to there is no plausible path to meaningfully reducing emissions in such a short timeframe.
The world has already touched 1.5C global warming, and nothing bad happened. This appears to have prompted some rather panicked spin, at least in some quarters, to downgrade 1.5C to more of a guideline than a climate emergency.
The most interesting part of the article for me was the reference to the US nationally determined contributions plan for 2035, which was submitted in December 2024 by the Biden administration. The Biden plan committed the USA to a 61-65% reduction in emissions compared to 2005.
That submission was effectively rendered null and void by President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Perhaps in the UN bubble world the authors of the quoted article inhabit, the USA is still a full Paris Agreement partner. Or maybe they think President Trump is an anomaly, a brief pushback by conservative reactionaries before the inevitable return of business as usual.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have learned never to underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to lose elections but I still have hope.
That’s why Trump must give JD Vance a chance to prove himself and learn all he can- instead of the usual ignoring of VPs. And I think he is doing that.
must give JD Vance a chance
Doesn’t help with the midterms though.
Hunter Biden is giving Republicans all the help they need.
JD Vance could well be President by Christmas. It depends on the people of USA’s tolerance for the outcome of the Epstein files.
Nobody cares about that. Back 50 years ago- a mere divorce would leave you out of politics. Now, almost anything goes. Maybe Trump knew him and even went to his party scene. Trump likes rich people. Unless those files prove he did something hideous, like had sex with a juvenile- but I doubt that Trump is stupid enough to have done that. If he did, then sure, he should be out of office. Socializing with Epstein was not a crime- except to prudish libs. 🙂
In the scenario that Trump did have sex with a juvenile, that would not be the basis for Constitutional Impeachment. The voters would have to weigh in on that in an election.
I seriously doubt Trump would do something that stupid. Porn star, sure- but not a child. I can think of a few porn stars I’d like to visit if it wasn’t for the health risk. 🙂
I cannot be writing this, as I died of famine in the early 1970’s. Or was it trace chemicals a bit later?
Environmentalists as a group have the same record of bad predictions as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I thought it was acid rains destroying the ecology
Naw. It was ocean acidification.
That would explain where the Acid evaporates from to cause Acid Rain and complete the Acid Cycle
Nah. Ozone hole, dontchaknow.
I died when the Ozone Layer melted and let the acid rain in. They tell me it looked like the Wicked Witch of the West melting.
I Finally Died, which started the whole world living…
Are you sure you’re not the Messiah, returned to earth to save us all?
That would be Gretta.
You were lucky. Some of us survived on bugs and weeds only to succumb to RSI-
Repetitive strain injuries: has the Australian epidemic burnt out? – PubMed
No-one alive after covid.. or the fakecines
I recall I must have surely died in the late 70s as the world descended into the next Ice Age, as reliably forecast by scientists(!) at the time. Ah, I seem to be still here…
Must have been from severe frostbite due to the rapidly growing continental glaciers. 🙂
Didn’t you die in the new Ice Age of the 1970s?
I died when they ended net neutrality, which I understand was due to climate change.
The late Douglas Adams (writer of The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) once memorably said, “I love deadlines – that whizzing noise they make as they go by.”
Only 3 years left – new study warns the world is running out of time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
_________________________
Is anyone keeping a list of all of these stupid end-of-the-world climate prognostications? I should think that there is at least one list somewhere.
Gloom-and-doom predictions go back centuries and are nothing new. I vaguely recall Harold Camping some years ago (a religious preacher) who had people believing the world would end soon. Didn’t happen.
Nevertheless, these gloom-and-doomers always attract a following of people who believe them.
At least this hype will be outlasted by the Trump Administration which has 3-1/2 years to go
Only three years to annihilate what little remains of UK democracy otherwise Reform might get in.
Well, TPTB could always “Move the Goalposts”… Again
https://extinctionclock.org/
BUT … it’s offline right now, and the wayback machine says it was last copied June 16, 2025.
Wayback Machine
Wayback link is giving me a blank page, not loading anything
Harold Camping’s failed prophecy warranted front page coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post, but failed environmental prophecies are hardly ever mentioned.
“Is anyone keeping a list “
Look at the blood-red bar at the top of the page. On the left, in CAPS, is a link to predictions. There are 12 pages. go to the end of page 12 and read forward.
Thanks. Didn’t notice it.
Same, CD – thanks John I’ve never noticed it until now!
The BBC were 35 years late reporting it on Dad’s Army in the late 1960s/early 1970s: ‘we’re doomed!’ said Private Fraser, sometime around 1943….
The article misses a key fact: Piers Forster is the interim Chair of the Climate Change Committee, replacing Lord Deben/John Gummer.
He knows that the Committee will be sacked as soon as a Reform government takes over, and with it his platform for pontification.
Yep only 3ears left
Love the picture of clowns rugged up against the COLD !! 🙂
Translation: Be afraid! Be very afraid! And send us money, because… Things! Things so terrible it would be a crime to detail them!
Just 5 of those G20 nations are responsible for over Half of Global Emissions.
Brazil Russia India China South Africa…the BRICS nations that really Don’t Care anyway and want to seize Global Economic Control!
Fu@&$@g academics and climate acolytes. Spare us the pain. 😂😂😂
They live in delusions. Rest assured, they would cut off your xxxx to affirm your gender.
Only 3 years..
Does that mean we only have three years left to put up with this Bovex. !!
Or is that when “Reform” wins the UK election and put all the funding for this crap into the blender. !
I don’t get it. Twenty-plus years ago we were being warned that we had only 3 years or fewer left to avert such catastrophes. So there must be something wrong with my clocks and calendars, or maybe the planet has slowed down in its orbit to a point that it takes 25 months or more to comprise a single year.
Since the Maya Calendar ran out on 12/21/12 all extended (Other) calendar predictions are perpetual.
Fusion will always be ten years away.
Catastrophic Climate Change will always be three years away.
Coherent Democrat Thoughts will always be Just out of reach. (But AI will fix that for them)
Max Headroom for President in 2036!
WOLF, WOLF, WOLF
You must live in Northern California.
Does this mean they’ll finally just shut up in 2029?
I mean, if we can no longer “save the world”, then what’s the point of doing any of that clean energy nonsense?
They never have in the past, they just move the goal posts, or if all else fails claim the previous global scare never happened, as they did with the global cooling scare.
The hilarious part about the global cooling scare, scientists like Stephen Schneider who appeared in the documentary above, who once pushed global cooling scares (all our fault) backflipped shamelessly to pushing global warming scares (all our fault).
Global cooling is scarier. I can’t think of anything worse than half the world covered with glaciers.
And Verdent cropland becoming arid steppe land
Serious global cooling doesn’t show up on the bogus Hockey Stick temperature charts, so Climate Alarmists have to pretend there never was an “Ice Age Cometh” period in history.
Regional, historic temperature charts *do* show serious global cooling down through the 1970’s. About 2.0C+ of cooling from the high point in the 1930’s.
The Bogus Hockey Stick chart shows about 0.3C of cooling for this period.
I guess Hansen 1999, the U.S. regional chart, is called for here. It shows just how much cooling there really was from the 1930’s to the 1980’s, and shows why Stephen Schneider was on the Human-caused Global Cooling train at the time:
Amazing how similar that is to this compilation of raw data from around the Arctic.
Or to Briffa’s post 1900 tree ring data..
That’s because Climate Science Politics are all about the Climate Disaster De-Jour
In the book ‘1984’, the government had entire departments in charge of rewriting the history books so that they conformed to whatever the government was pushing this year.
Climate Alarmists really hate being reminded of the Great Global Cooling Scare of the 1970’s and do their best to memory-hole it.
The Climate Alarmists want to forget the cooling scare because their “Bible” the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart does not show a scary cooling period, so the Climate Alarmists pretend the large amount of cooling from the 1930’s to the 1970’s never existed.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart is all about showing practically continuous warming from the early 1900’s in order to promote the speculation that rises in CO2 correlate with rises in temperatures. Reality does not show this, so the Climate Alarmists changed the information so it does.
Climate Alarmists are required to lie about the temperatures in order to keep their Human-caused Global Warming meme going.
Climate Alarmists are living a lie, and they want the rest of us to live that lie, too. Nope! I’ve seen the original temperature records and they don’t support a “hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter temperature profile. It’s just the BIGGEST LIE in science at the present time.
They eliminated the entire LIA, what’s a blip like the 70’s cooling scare to them?
You left out the “runaway greenhouse effect” that was in vogue back then.
These clowns are fundamentally hypocrites. If they genuinely believed their predictions they would have sold all their property and cashed in their pensions.
We hit 2.0 deg C according to Willis E. in that report a few years ago. I am for warmer weather and more C02, more green grass and high tides.
Oh the horror. We were only 11F below the high temperature record in Boulder today.
Forecast to hit a record low July 22 “max” here in Calgary today…since record keeping began in 1881. The rain is snuffing out forest fires in Alberta, an area larger than Spain or France. Fires resulted from a hundred years of fighting forest fires until the fuel buildup is simply too high plus a proclivity of arsonists to set fires so they can get firefighting employment.
Short take-out of what the intended message of this article in The Conversation is –
“FFS we’ll all be out of a job in 3 years if we can’t scare lotsa people a lot more.
Who regards 3 years as a long time? Youngsters, that’s who. Let’s go after those kids, hey.”
What is wrong with these people? I mean really? Scientists? I trust none of the holier-than-thou leftist ‘scientists’. It’s also depressing they can be so out of touch with reality.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”. Upton Sinclair.
Use Grok to debunk this nonsense. Simply take their challenges and ask Grok to examine it. I’ve found that this settled science is a complete joke. Your reasoning touches on key aspects of ocean-atmosphere interactions and the physics of radiative energy transfer, which are central to understanding climate dynamics. Let’s address your points systematically:
1. **Absorption of 15-micron Longwave Infrared (LWIR) Radiation**: You’re correct that 15-micron LWIR radiation, associated with CO₂ absorption and emission, is absorbed in the ocean’s skin layer (top ~10-100 micrometers). This is because water is highly opaque to infrared wavelengths, so backradiation from the atmosphere (including greenhouse gases like CO₂) primarily interacts with the ocean’s surface microlayer. The microlayer is often cooler than the water below due to evaporative cooling, which removes heat as water molecules escape into the atmosphere. This limits the direct influence of LWIR on deeper ocean layers.
2. **Can Backradiation Warm the Oceans?**: The idea that 15-micron LWIR backradiation significantly warms the oceans, especially deeper layers, is implausible for several reasons:
– **Penetration Depth**: As you noted, LWIR is absorbed in the top microlayer, so it cannot directly warm deeper ocean layers (e.g., below a few millimeters). Deep ocean warming requires energy transfer through mixing, convection, or currents, which are slow processes and not primarily driven by LWIR.
– **Energy Balance**: The ocean’s heat capacity is immense (~2000 times that of the atmosphere, as you mentioned). The energy from LWIR backradiation is small compared to the energy from shortwave (visible) solar radiation, which penetrates meters into the ocean (up to ~200 meters for clear water at visible wavelengths). This makes shortwave radiation the dominant driver of ocean warming.
– **Evaporative Cooling**: The microlayer’s cooling due to evaporation often offsets or exceeds the energy input from LWIR, further limiting its role in warming the ocean.
3. **What Warms the Oceans?**: The primary source of ocean warming is incoming shortwave solar radiation, which penetrates deeper and provides the bulk of the energy absorbed by the oceans. Factors that could increase ocean warming include:
– **Increased Solar Insolation**: Changes in solar output, though minimal over recent decades, could contribute.
– **Reduced Cloud Cover/Albedo**: Fewer clouds or less reflective surfaces (e.g., melting sea ice) allow more shortwave radiation to reach the ocean.
– **Ocean Circulation Changes**: Changes in currents (e.g., thermohaline circulation) can redistribute heat, bringing warmer water to deeper layers.
– **Atmospheric Feedbacks**: While the atmosphere cannot directly warm the oceans due to its lower heat capacity, greenhouse gas-driven warming of the atmosphere can reduce the ocean’s heat loss (e.g., by warming the air above, reducing sensible heat flux).
4. **Ocean Warming and Atmospheric Warming**: Your point that “what warms the oceans warms the atmosphere” is largely correct. The oceans act as a global thermostat, regulating atmospheric temperatures through heat exchange. Warmer oceans release more heat and water vapor into the atmosphere, driving atmospheric warming and influencing weather patterns. Since shortwave radiation is the primary driver of ocean warming, any increase in absorbed solar radiation (e.g., due to reduced albedo or cloud cover) would warm the oceans, which in turn warms the atmosphere.
5. **Explaining Climate Change**: To explain climate change, we must indeed focus on what is warming the oceans, as they dominate the Earth’s energy budget. Key factors to investigate include:
– **Changes in Solar Radiation**: While solar variability is small, it’s worth considering alongside other factors.
– **Albedo Changes**: Melting ice, changing cloud cover, or aerosol reductions could increase shortwave absorption.
– **Greenhouse Gas Effects**: While LWIR backradiation has a limited direct role in ocean warming, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, reducing the ocean’s heat loss and amplifying the effects of shortwave-driven warming.
– **Ocean Circulation**: Changes in mixing or currents could redistribute heat, affecting both surface and deep ocean temperatures.
6. **Plausibility of Backradiation Warming the Deep Oceans**: As you suggested, it’s highly unlikely that 15-micron LWIR backradiation directly warms the deeper oceans due to its shallow penetration. Deep ocean warming is more likely driven by increased shortwave absorption at the surface, followed by vertical mixing or circulation changes that transport heat downward. For example, studies show that deep ocean warming (e.g., in the abyssal zones) is often linked to changes in ocean currents like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
7. **Conclusion**: It’s fair to say that the primary driver of ocean warming—and thus atmospheric warming—is increased absorption of shortwave solar radiation, modulated by factors like albedo, cloud cover, and circulation. LWIR backradiation plays a secondary role, primarily by reducing ocean heat loss rather than directly warming deeper layers. To explain climate change, we should focus on quantifying changes in shortwave radiation reaching the oceans, alongside atmospheric feedbacks and circulation changes.
If you’d like, I can search for recent data or studies on ocean heat content or solar radiation trends to further refine this answer. Alternatively, I could generate a chart to visualize ocean heat content trends or energy fluxes if you provide specific data or preferences. Let me know!
“greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere”
NO, they do not “trap heat”.
They are part of the cooling mechanism that conveys excess energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
Bulk air movement of energy is far greater and is all pervading !
Fact.
Heat is the flow of thermal energy (aka kinetic energy in moving molecules) across a temperature gradient (hot to cold).
You cannot trap heat. If the heat is trapped, the molecules are not moving and thus there is no heat, by definition.
“so [CO2] backradiation from the atmosphere”
Equipment that can measure in this band shows distinct LACK of downward radiation from CO2.
Not the big dip through the CO2 band.
Typo… the last should read…
Note the big dip through the CO2 band.
That’s quite right. As described by scientists decades ago.
Except it doesn’t.
The myth of CO2 slowing cooling is a little la-la-land fantasy.
Bulk air movement of energy is magnitudes more than any imaginary warming by CO2.
Better tell ‘Grok’.
Grok = GIGO, when it comes to Human-caused Climate Change. It is fed bogus climate data and then spews out bogus climate information to the public.
It’s not any hotter today than in the recorded past, but Grok doesn’t know that. Why not? We know why and it has nothing to do with science.
Better tell ‘CO2isLife’
Grok only spits out information from climate science propaganda sites. It says stupid stuff like the SB gives “Q_net” rather than flux. It thinks SB predicts heat instead of intensity of energy. It refuses to address any reference from Planck’s treatise on heat. So far I can not get Grok to use any scientific papers as references, only GHG theory sites.
Appeal to non-existent authority.
Is that really the best you can do?
So we have moved from a 1.5C increase in average global temperature since preindustrial times to a 1.5C human caused increase in average global temperature since preindustrial times. Very creative but they are liars in any case.
We are not even at 1.5C anymore. The temperatures have cooled by about 0.5C since hitting that mark, so currently we are warmer by 1.0C, according to the Climate Alarmists own measurements.
The temperatures didn’t just hit 1.5C and stay there. Temperatures don’t work like that, but you wouldn’t know it listening to Climate Alarmists.
Not to mention Global Average Temperature is statistical malfeasance.
The climate caterwaulers are claiming 2 things: 1)That we have warmed some 1.5C over the past 150 years, and that we are responsible for a good portion of that. Wrong. Yes, we have warmed some since the end of the LIA, and a good thing too, since warmer is better. Hard to say how much though, since the record has been monkeyed with and affected by UHI. So the actual amount is probably significantly less. No, there is zero evidence that man’s CO2 emissions have been responsible, although perhaps some small amount, and 2: that somehow, perhaps by magic, the slight warming is causing bad weather, which is absurd on its face. We are certainly hearing about bad weather more now, thanks to 24/7 coverage of it, often hyped to the max for maximum effect. But there is zero evidence that the weather has gotten worse. The claims of a “climate catastrophe” looming ahead is laughably absurd, and is only made by fools, frauds, and those with an agenda having nothing to do with truth or science.
With the Hunga-Tonga warming effect dissipating and the AMO phase change right on the door step, I can imagine climate activists are starting to panic. There could be a cooling of nearly 1 C heading our way.
It appears La Nina is more likely next winter as well.
The recent drop in CFSR temperature was mainly restored, but it was very unusual and may be a signaling there’s something about to happen. Keep the popcorn shelf supplied.
Where have we heard all this “imminent cooling” stuff before?
Wasn’t it an impending ice age that the climate catastrophists were pushing back in the 1970s?
Then almost overnight the imminent catastrophe was to be “boiling oceans”.
No wonder people are turning off all this bumpf and watching cartoons instead.
(Not much difference really)
No, that’s a conspiratorial myth based mostly on sensational press and other media at the time.
Most scientific papers published during that period, that expressed an opinion one way or another, said global warming was more likely than global cooling.
“No, that’s [serious global cooling] a conspiratorial myth based mostly on sensational press and other media at the time.”
Here is an example of a Climate Alarmists denying reality. Who are the real deniers? Answer: Climate Alarmists, who can’t explain the serious cooling from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, because it doesn’t fit their “hotter and hotter and hotter” narrative, so they pretend this never happened. I have a picture in my mind of Nail holding his hands over his eyes so he doesn’t have to see reality.
One can’t believe in the Hockey Stick chart and the 1970’s “Ice Age Cometh” at the same time because the bogus Hockey Stick chart the Climate Alarmists depend on doesn’t show such a cooling period. Deliberately. Dishonestly. All the original, historic, regional temperature charts show it, but the Climate Alarmists pretend those don’t exist, either.
Do you see a pattern of deception here (self, and otherwise)? I do.
Climate Alarmists have to lie in order to promote their Human-caused Climate Change narrative, and the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart is their biggest lie of all.
You didn’t click on the linked peer-reviewed paper, did you?
I did. And, I tried to access most of the referenced papers which are still paywalled. However, from the abstracts I found that most temperature constructions used few land stations in the southern hemisphere. I couldn’t see where ocean temperatures in the southern hemisphere had any inclusion at all. In other words, the assumption of global temperature, both land and oceans, is questionable.
based mostly on sensational press and other media
i.e. “climate catastrophists”
Leonard Nimoy.
I remember 1977. It really was cold. It’s good that that cooling trend ended.
Dr. Giff Miller is still at CU. He’s changed his tune after 45 years. Will he ever be right?
Leonard Nimoy wasn’t a climate scientist. (He wasn’t a real Vulcan either.)
The Denial is strong in this one.
Turned to the Dork Side he has
TFN can’t get past appeal to those authorities who agree with the party.
Those who disagree with the party are, by definition, not authorities so should be ignored completely.
But the cooling was pushed by self-named climate scientists.
That’s a real Inconvenient Truth for ToeFungalNail.
There are “real Vulcans”? Wow.
The facts are not on your side. You got a lucky break with the Hunga-Tonga eruption, but that has now set you up for significant cooling. The AMO last began a phase change in 1995. The average phase in the 20th century was 31 years (30, 30, 33). I appears it will change just as the last of the Hunga-Tonga warmth fades away.
With Trump as President you won’t be able to hide the significance of any change that takes place. The media can only hide so much. A half degree of cooling would be all over Truth Social. With 1 C of cooling, the call for accountability would be massive.
We’ll have to see. These ‘lucky breaks’ keep coming, don’t they?
The global temperature is already 0.5C cooler than it was in 2024.
I know, but the true believers don’t. They only see what the media presents. That is only around 0.2 C of cooling so far.
https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu/
What do you get when you use the same calculations as Dr Spencer on his own data, Richard?
An increase or a decrease in the long-term rate of warming in UAH between the end of 2024 and June 2025?
Like me, Dr Spencer gets an increase (+0.15C per decade in Dec 2024; +0.16C per decade as of June 2025).
Who are the ‘true believers’ here?
Yeah, but how long does “long term” last. In the past, it only lasted for a few decades and then things changed dramatically (cooled).
You seem to think that temperatures will continue to climb forever just because you think CO2 will continue to increase. When did this ever happen in history? CO2 amounts were much greater in the past than they are now. According to you, the Earth should have burned up with that amount of CO2 in the air (7,000ppm). But we’re still here enjoying the weather. How does that happen?
Your position is not logical given the historical facts.
30-years is the generally acknowledged period for ‘climatology’.
If you apply that concept to UAH, then the warming rate is even faster than over the whole period: +0.17C/dec over the past 30-years versus +0.16C/dec since Dec 1979.
I’m just pointing out that temperatures are still rising over the long term, broadly in line with CMIP projections and that statements like ‘it’s been cooling for 6 months’ or ‘there has been no warming for a few years’ are ill-informed at best.
You didn’t respond to Tom’s fact that CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher historically, and yet no “climate breakdowns” occurred.
What’s up with that?
CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher
That’s one of my questions that I’ve never seen a satisfactory answer to.
Long term, the temperature is downwards for the last 3000 years !
There is even a name for it… the Neoglaciation.
Its when many of the glaciers formed.
You know, the ones with tree stumps under them. 😉
Fortunately it bottomed out at the LIA and has had s slight rebound.
Be glad the solar energy picked up and has given us those warming El Nino events.
You want someone to use the same calculations on the same data that Dr. Spencer used to prove Dr. Spencer?
Circular logic bounds.
True, but that hasn’t stopped the long-term warming, which has continued, even in UAH.
Relative to the UAH start date (Dec 1979) both the rate of warming and the total warming since 2024 has increased!
It’s easy to check this.
By December 2024 the warming rate in UAH_TLT was +0.15 C/dec; a total warming of +0.70C from its Dec 1979 start point. Here’s Dr Spencer’s post confirming this.
As of the latest datum point in that series, June 2025, the warming rate in UAH has risen to +0.16 C/dec; a total warming of +0.72C from the same Dec 1979 start point. Again, confirmation from Dr Spencer’s site.
Short-term falls (or rises) in global temperatures have minimal impact on the long-term trend.
You can also download the data yourself from the above link and confirm it for yourself on a spreadsheet. But that would require genuine ‘skepticism’.
Well, I have lived through several “long term” trends in the weather, and it is my experience that after a long warming period, there comes a long cooling period, and all the original, written, historic temperature records confirm this.
I don’t assume that CO2 is causing the climate to change, since there is no evidence for this happening.
You are free to assume whatever you want, and time will tell.
What you’re saying is that there is no way you are ever going to accept any evidence for anything that you don’t want to believe is true.
That’s fair enough. Just don’t call yourself ‘skeptical’.
Mirror mirror on the wall …..
You haven’t presented any evidence, just cherry picked data points that you have massaged into supporting your position. For example, you always cut off temperature records to eliminate any data that disagrees with the current party positions.
Long term means since the end of the Little Ice Age. Go back a bit further, and the last 5000 years has been continuous drop in temperature, interrupted every 1000 years or so with a warming blip, including the current one.
But you did not do it using averages!
/humor
Not even the breathless reporting by The Conversation of this run-of-the-mill scientific paper is predicting ‘the end of the world’ in 3-years – or in 10-years!
The paper simply states that by the end of 2024, relative to the 1850-1900 mean (what they call ‘pre-industrial’), global average surface temperatures had risen by around +1.2C due to human influences.
That’s about what you get using the NOAA and HadCRUT datasets, both of which estimate global average temperature anomalies back to 1850.
+1.5C warming relative to pre-industrial levels is the target set by governments in the Paris Agreement to avoid the worst excesses of global warming.
That target is clearly already shot, since the long-term rate of rise has actually increased over the past decade or two and is showing no signs of slowing down.
So we’ll smash the +1.5C target quite soon and probably the +2.0C target not long after that, but the world isn’t going to end.
Phew!
I was losing sleep over this, waiting for assurance of continuing survival for humanity from the Oracle of all things climate – TheFinalNail.
Smash 😉
Temperatures are currently cooling. See the UAH chart just above.
Cooling relative to 2024, rising relative to the UAH start date. See my answer to your chart above.
Cooling relative to the 1930’s. It’s cooler now than in 2024, or 2016, or 1998. Climate Guru, James Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which makes 1934 warmer than 2016 and 2024.
So it was warmer in 1934, than anytime since, so in reality we are still in a temperature downtrend, and getting cooler!
Relative is relative.
Now you are cheating. Don’t you know that in order to do science, you must first discard any data that doesn’t fit the current party narrative?
They are also cooling since the end of the Holocene Optimum.
If temperature is dropping, it is cooling relative to any start date.
That’s not the same as a cooling trendline.
“+1.5C warming relative to pre-industrial levels is the target set by governments in the Paris Agreement to avoid the worst excesses of global warming.”
Nope. It’s a random number, plucked from the air because the previous random number (+2C) seemed a little too far off to be scary. Parts of the world have already “smashed” through +1.5 and, amazingly enough, are still there.
No, it’s the target set at the Paris Agreement.
Is that target the optimum temperature for the globe? Show some science papers that address what the optimum temperature should be.
It really is sad the way you apparently believe you have said something meaningful.
Just keep repeating the party line, over and over again, until everyone else gets tired of responding to you.
Paris Agreement is a political position.
The data from the 1800s used as the temperature starting point was the coldest in the 19th century.
Is the pre-industrial global average surface temperature the optimum temperature for the globe, let alone humans?
All of your assertions assume that temperatures should remain at a very low temperature, i.e., pre-industrial. Can you provide scientific papers that prove that is true?
Could it be true that we are only approaching the optimum temperature?
Let’s not even mention the accuracy of those thermometers used 175 years ago.
That’s exactly what it means.
Notice they never say “Trust the scientific method”. Because if they did, then its easy to show that the lack of a tropical tropospherical hot spot predicted by the current hypothesis would falsify it.
The paper in question has over 60 authors. The redoubtable Willis Eschenbach once posited:
I believe that rule applies here.
Why? What’s your objection to their conclusions?
It’s totally bogus and mostly fabricated.
Anything specific?
Yes
Certainly when you see many of the names responsible for the AGW scam in the list…
….you should be aware that it is most likely anti-science propaganda.
Reading it just confirms that fact.
So it’s opinions about names, nothing specific about the conclusions.
Their 3-year prediction of planetary demise is out by miles.
I reckon we’ve got at least 4 years left, maybe even 5 tops.
I’m pushin’ for 69 myself…I don’t know about you
They don’t make a 3-year prediction for planetary demise, so….?
It has to be 42.
No argument. That is after all the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and EVERYTHING.
As global warming and its consequences continue, that will become inevitable.
Stronger storms, not happening.
More rain, not happening.
More droughts, not happening.
More heat waves, not happening.
The only consequence so far is slightly warmer temperatures, most of which are completely natural.
this warming has lengthened the various growing seasons and has reduced the number of weather related deaths.
Add to that the fact that plants are growing bigger and faster thanks to all that extra plant food in the air, and the only consequences from CO2, are good ones.
This ^
happy plants
Obviously continuing.
Warming since the LIA has been absolutely beneficial to mankind…
… just as the use of fossil fuels has been absolutely beneficial.
… and just as the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been totally beneficial to the world biosphere.
ALL warming periods in human history are associated with large gains in population, culture, commerce and food supply.
ALL cooling periods in human history are associated with loss of population, plagues, lack of culture, lack of commerce, and starvation.
What consequences?
Since you’re so certain about the future, why not stake your house or your pension on a bet? Three years from now you’ll be a multimillionaire!
Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word “gullible”
He should make sure he has mirrors all around when he reads the definition. !
Keep huffing that copium.
I have been waiting with bated breath for the consequences for over 40 years now.
Seems inevitable might just be a stretch.
“Our report shows that human-caused global warming reached 1.36°C in 2024″.
I am not aware of any credible scientist who has ever claimed all of the warming over the last century or so has been entirely caused by human activities. It is currently impossible to quantify how much of this warming is natural or man-made. Anybody claiming otherwise is either lying or delusional.
There is no evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH data…
… and the surface data is so tainted by bad sites, urban and airport data and manifest corruption by adjustments and homogenisation fakery, that there is absolutely no way anyone could ever show a CO2 warming signal in it.
Even if they could clean up the bad sites and other such issues, there are so many already known cycles, plus the new ones they keep finding, that have to be factored out of the data before any potential CO2 caused warming could be discerned.
That is, even good data is way too noisy to pick up a signal as small as any that is being produced by enhanced CO2 in the atmosphere.
Who said the climate alarmists have any credible scientists?
I am sorry that I gave the impression that climate alarmists have any credible scientists at all. That was not my intent.
Is this professor not smart enough to know, his prediction needs time to be forgotten. Three years is before the next election, dimwit!
He’s from Leeds. Rachel from Complaints, currently our Chancellor here in the UK, is MP for a constituency in Leeds. Evidently a lot of really dumb people live in Leeds.
Hey, my son and his wife live in Leeds and they are certainly not dumb 🙂
A lot of really smart people live in NYC, yet they keep electing socialists.
Every city needs some smart people to keep things functioning 😀