Here I comment on Paris Agreement Temperature Index – Just how hot is it ?
Last edit 240422
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 (kundo.se) . My opinion based on the response is that they are not very aware. I sent a reply and will look for it and reply early May and send a reminder if it has not appeared when.
Whats really speaks for accelerating warming: See https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/1000-day-climate-graphic-design/
year when first day above anomaly occured
| GMST Milestone | First Day over Milestone | Year Climate Crossed Milestone | Days of Milestone, before Climate Reaches Milestone | Years from first day above previous first day above Milestone | |
| 0.50 C | Apr 1940 | 1984 | Around 2,000 | ||
| 0.75 C | Feb 1941 | 2000 | Around 1,500 | ||
| 1.00 C | Jan 1958 | 2012 | Around 1,100 | ||
| 1.25 C | Feb 1995 | 2020 | Around 1,000 | 37 | |
| 1.50 C | Dec 2015 | Guess: 2028-33? | – | 10 | |
| 1.75 C | Feb 2016 | Guess: 2035-40? | – | 1 | |
| 2.00 C | Nov 2023 | Guess: 2045-50? | – | 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). Does that mean we could expect a Day >2.5 C before 2034? Probably not, but worth consideration!
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!
Seems contraintuitive! Other explanations could be that temperature variations has been larger or the seasonal pattern has changed.
The weather has become more variable besides climate being hotter, that is likely to contribute. But that would increase the time between the first Day above and last Day below or average temperature and that does not seem to be whats observed.
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.
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 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 suprising 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 a hot period as we are in now, and 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, consisting mainly of dark matter and dark energy. We do not know how universe look outside what we can see. 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 therorems. Thus it is a risk to rely too much on a mathematician with perspectives.