Comments on climate

Last edit 240511

Here I make some analyses constructing tables 1-3 based on data, terminology and considerations from Paris Agreement Temperature Index – Just how hot is it ? An excellant contribution to the knowledge of global warming! I have also below commented on that presentation but nothing essential.

The global warming may be associated with another dramatically increasing change by time, which I have not seen well quantitavely documented somewhere else. The interval when the first days and periods with an increased temperature becomes much shorter.

See for temperature on earths surface data Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST). The Milestones of temperature raise are 0.50, 1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.00 raise above preindustrial era.
The table 1 extracted shows year when First Day anomaly above GMST Milestone occured. There is a “random” variation among Days and Months confusing the picture. Thus even if no warming there is a variation in observed deviations, and a “first day or month” 0.25C warmer than average is expected to occur. When the rate of warming is smaller that has a bigger influence of year of first occurance. Thus the “true” intervals are less reliable earlier years when warming was smaller

Table 1

GMST “Milestone”First Day over MilestoneYears from First Day above previous First Day above Milestone 
0.75 CFeb 1941 
1.00 CJan 1958 19
1.25 CFeb 1995 37
1.50 CDec 2015 20
1.75 CFeb 2016 1
2.00 CNov 2023 7

I formulated it on twitter as : It took only 8 years between the first Day with a temperature anomaly > 1.5 C and a Day with >2 C (end of 2023), while it took 57 years to raise from 1.0 to 1.5. It seems evident from Table 1 that it is a trend since 1958 to 2023 that it takes shorter time to pass from a Milestone to next.

Now consider the first Month above a Milestone from the figure at °C Milestones – From First Appearance to Permanence – Paris Agreement Temperature Index

To understand how well some of this information is known and discussed among professional climatologists I made comments on the blogg of the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute global uppvärmning pradoxala resultat – SMHI ( . My opinion based on the response is that they are not very aware. I sent a reply but it seems neglected, the authority seems avoiding deeper discussions, but sticks to informing.

Between first month >0.75C and first month >1.25C it took 34 years
Between first month >1.25C and first month >1.75C it took 9 years

Table 2

Milestone, anomaly CYear first month >MilestoneInterval, years to previous Milestone

Data from, 1000 Days above 1.5C before Trend passes 1.5C? (

Table 3

Milestone anomaly C Approximate year 100 days above milestone accumulatedYears since previous milestone passed

Could the increasing trends by time shown in the three tables above reflect an accelerated increase in temperature?

I cut out a picture from Wikipedia.

And from NASA

Temperature raise accelerated clearly to around 1980 but after that an acceleration is not evident from figures. The trend seems to have almost the same slope for maximum or mininmum temperatures. Plots at GMST Milestones – Mixed Data Set ( however trace acceleration. At first sight it seems small if the effect of hot last year period is not included. But at second sight I saw room for rather large accerelation. Thus it can not be excluded that the shortening time intervals between milestones is caused by rapid acceraltion of global warming. If so most graphic and people underestimate the global warming and that is when a very severe problem.

As I see it a reason or contrbuting reason could be an increased temperature variation around the mean. But if so it is hard to explain why the difference between high and low values around the mean does not seem to increase, they actually seems larger 1900-1970. Perhaps changes in geograhic, seasonal and variation during day pattern could hide such variation.

Results seem contraintuitive at first sight! Much more thinking is needed on what is a reasonable explanation. Could it really just be rapid accelaration of global warming?

Note that exact year is read by my eye and linjal from X-axis, which has no indications for each year. My mistakes may influence.

Below are comments to the author of the main material, who I try to help. Above I started to make own analyses waiting for him to hang on.

If separate analyses for sea and land are made instead of all surface, what happens when?

IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023 — IPCC . 10 pages of formalities and starting on p 11 with average of the period 2011-2020. This can be considered a bit misleading in a report from 2023, especially¨as making anomaly 2015 the first bold point. Their alternative future projections have numbers rather than a “business as usual” scenario (to continue as 2020). First it is many unimportant pages and the most important essentials are sort of hidden. My main critic against UN bodies is that it is tabu to claim that we are too many. The word “Overpopulation” is tabu for UN. If the world population dropped to 2 billions, “net-zero” would be an easy target. With a growing population: no chance!

A problem is the colours in some graphs. The hotter it gets the more similar are the coulors. The important is the shifts 1.25 – 1.5 – 1.75 – 2 it is a bit hard for me to see the coulor difference. But the separability of coulors is inverse to the importance, increases as 1.25 – 1 – 0.75 -0.5 – 0.25.

Milestones is pedagogic terminology but “Paris milestones are only 1.5 and 2″. In many situations 0.25 and 0.5 can be considered history when heating was slower and need not be shown in all cases. Furtheron months and days vary even if no systematic change and that effect get considerable if anamoly <0.5.

You write “Sometimes people use the last 30 years to be “the climate”, and then give values relative to that.” It has been metheorological standard to use 30 years period to describe climate, now the “normal” period is 1991-2020. Comparing the climate at different places a meteorologist would use the average for that period. But of cause other methods should be used to describe the fast global warming.

But a more polite formulation could still be used.

Keep to surface temperature and evaluations based on daily observations. Do not disturbe by other things! Leave that to others! It takes attention from the most important to go to deep into other things and as you do not work full-time on it better if focused! Just to keep focus and point at new considerations about the most essential observations!
Climate is more than temperature. Perhaps some other word?
You have a rubric and “definition” that 1.5 C is reached when 1000 days pass that. I do not like that, even if “climate” become 1.4 C permanent you would reach more than 1000 days after some time.
You make non linear fits which indicate that climate heating accelerates. But that is partly misleading, the past year has been unusally warm! The is a partly regular pattern how the oceans absorbe heat (la nina) and also other phenomenons. Look on the past! It would be very surprising if the “accerelation” did not look less dramatic if looking backwards 2026. Maybe a note on that.

It is temperature anomalies and maybe explain that better to those who are not so accustemed.

I like the graph “months per year above milestones”. It is pedagogic dealing with months and years. I suggest to have small year signs on the X-axis to facilitate own considerations (as it seems to be in the lower figure). It is not logic using different coulers in the lower figure than the higher and the Y-axis for months should stop at 12.

Is there an annual pattern in anomalies? Maybe your averages is to consider that? Is that pattern changing over time?

So e.g, June 2015 is the average of the June values 2013-2017, is that understood from the text? No need to mention GMST three times in the graph.

Probably the heating over time accelerates, but the speed of acceleration is easily over-estimated at the end of a hot period there we are now.

That may be negative as it creates less attention of the public for the alarmistic messages. The public is already too immune against warnings!

Actually, we do not have the answers to the big questions. The majority of the universe is unknown, it consists mainly of dark matter and dark energy known only by their effect on gravity. We do not know how universe looks outside what we can see because the limits set by speed of light. We do not know if others are aware of their existence, we do not know if our spirit will survive death or not, nor do we know if there are higher levels of consciousness than our own. We do not understand how the universe began, and we are uncertain of how it will end. Einstein once said that God does not play dices, but it seems he do. Even mathematics has unprovable theorems. Thus it is a risk to rely too much on a mathematicical-physical models.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.