Here I place comments on analyses and graphic presentations from https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/about/ An excellent contribution to the knowledge of global warming by Chris Priest!
Last edit 241120
The most recent graphic presentation is super https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/spiral-of-global-heat/ The global average temperature raise for a months average is shown in a pattern give the time of the year in a succession of years like a spiral where the attention gets to hot years. That Earth gets hotter at an increasing speed seems very convincing. It is updated to the last day and does not use any extrapolation or assumption about future development. By far the most exciting I have seen. It is extremely disappointing that such a fantastic product get so little attention and is not spread more!
A question is what the single green spiral is and why the intensity is varying. Perhaps it would be clearer what the color code temperature of temp was for early years if the circles were not all yellow but color relevant to temp, circles could be thicker to indicate way are something else. The year in the middle at start could be “year zero” instead of empty. When coming to 2024 it is very bleak, can it not be brighter? It is the highlight! Perhaps also a short stop before tilting? It runs to fast like the previous presentation, reduce the speed to half!
Below I make some analyses constructing tables 1-3 based on data, terminology and considerations from https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/ Paris Agreement Temperature Index – Just how hot is it ? An excellent contribution to the knowledge of global warming by Chris Priest! I also added a Table 4 based on my own suggestion for a measure of global warming: When a temperature has been passed 100 days!
I have also below commented on presentations 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 https://parisagreementtemperatureindex.com/1000-day-climate-graphic-design/ 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 Milestone | Years from First Day above previous First Day above Milestone | Heating speed, degrees/year |
0.75 C | Feb 1941 | ||
1.00 C | Jan 1958 | 19 | 0.25/19 = |
1.25 C | Feb 1995 | 37 | 0.25/37= |
1.50 C | Dec 2015 | 20 | 0.25/20= |
1.75 C | Feb 2016 | 1 | 0.25/1=0.25 |
2.00 C | Nov 2023 | 7 | 0.25/7= |
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 (kundo.se) . 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 sticking to informing.
Table 2
Milestone, anomaly C | Year first month >Milestone | Interval, years to previous Milestone |
0.75 | 1979 | |
1.00 | 1997 | 17 |
1.25 | 2014 | 17 |
1.50 | 2015 | 1 |
1.75 | 2023 | 8 |
2.00 | ? |
Data from, 1000 Days above 1.5C before Trend passes 1.5C? (parisagreementtemperatureindex.com)
Table 3
Milestone anomaly C | Approximate year 100 days above milestone accumulated | Years since previous milestone passed |
0.50 | 1944 | |
0.75 | 1980 | 36 |
1.00 | 1998 | 18 |
1.25 | 2010 | 12 |
1.50 | 2017 | 7 |
1.75 | 2024 | 7 |
2.00 | 20?? |
Looking at Table 1 (first day) and 2 (first month) the intervals between passing different intervals are very “jumpy” while Table 3 (when 100 days warmer than Milestone) the intervals change in a smoothe way. It is also logic that the “first” time is more affected by other factors than the contineous heating and thus more uncertain. An advantage with 100 days instead of a higher number of days is that it gives more and more recent milestones. Demanding a high number of days may mean that the Milestone is passed after the full year value has passed the Milestone.
Table 4. Speed of Temperature raise when 100 days above a milestone accumulated
Between years | Average year | Milestones C | temp raise, degree per year |
1944-1980 | 1962 | 0.50-0.75 | 0.25/36= .007 |
1980-1998 | 1989 | 0.75-1.00 | 0.25/18= ,013 |
1998-2010 | 2004 | 1.00-1.25 | 0.25/12=. 021 |
2010-2017 | 2014 | 1.25-1.50 | 0.25/7 = .036 |
2017-2024 | 2021 | 1.50-1.75 | 0.25/7 = .036 |
2024 trend | 2024 | 0.25/7 = .036 |
Beräkning av hur snabbt den globala temperaturökningen sker
Tröskel-temperatur ”anomali” grader C | När hade 100 dagar varit varmare än tröskeln? | Hur många år tog det att öka 0.25 C | Genomsnittsår för ökningen | Ökning per år | Ökning per decennium |
0.50 | 1944 | ||||
36 | 1962 | 0,0069 | 0,07 | ||
0.75 | 1980 | ||||
18 | 1989 | 0,0139 | 0,10 | ||
1.00 | 1998 | ||||
12 | 2004 | 0,0208 | 0,21 | ||
1.25 | 2010 | ||||
7 | 2013,5 | 0,0357 | 0,36 | ||
1.50 | 2017 | ||||
7 | 2020,5 | 0,0357 | 0,36 | ||
1.75 | 2024 | 2024 | 0,0357 | 0,36 | |
2.00 | 20?? | ? |
The results are visualised as a figure
I published two articles in a Swedish environment magazine Ökad variation i temperatur har betydelse (tidningenglobal.se) https://tidningenglobal.se/2024/21-juni-2024/okad-variation-i-temperatur-har-betydelse/ and https://tidningenglobal.se/2024/5-augusti-2024/den-globala-uppvarmningstakten-underskattas/
Now I think the fast changes are mainly caused by variations in temperature which I highlight in the earlier article, even in the title, but downgrade in the second. In a yearly average temperature changes e,g, caused by seasonal changes are leveled out. Now I think changes of seasonal patterns with global warming are the main cause of the faster and more irregular pattern in when first day, first month and first 100 days are analysed. If summers are hotter and longer given the year average the same and if year average is increasing when 100 days above a threshold Changing Lengths of the Four Seasons by Global Warming – Wang – 2021 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091753#:~:text=Climate%20change%20has%20driven%20longer%20and%20hotter%20summers%2C,the%20onsets%20of%20autumn%20and%20winter%20are%20delayed There is much to add and discuss and I can defend my article but I wait.
- 1985 – The “GMST Trend Temperature” passes 0.50C
- 2000 – The “GMST Trend Temperature” passes 0.75C
- 2012 – The “GMST Trend Temperature” passes 1.00C
- 2021 – The “GMST Trend Temperature” passes 1.25C
- 2024 – The “GMST Trend Temperature” can reasonably be claimed to be:
- January 2024: Using Monthly average values of all the GMST Data Sets (NOAA, HadCRUT, Copernicus ERA-5, GISSTemp, Berkeley Earth)
- … applying a 10-year linear smoother: 1.30C
- … applying a 10-year quadratic smoother: 1.35C
- April 2024 – Using only the Copernicus ERA-5 data (see Climate Milestones Copernicus – ERA5)
- … applying a 10-year linear smoother: 1.30C
- January 2024: Using Monthly average values of all the GMST Data Sets (NOAA, HadCRUT, Copernicus ERA-5, GISSTemp, Berkeley Earth)
Beween years | Average year | Milestones C | temp raise, degree per year |
1985-2000 | 1997 | 0.50-0.75 | 0.25/15= .017 |
2000-2012 | 2006 | 0.75-1.00 | 0.25/12= ,020 |
2012-2021 | 2017 | 1.00-1.25 | 0.25/9=. 027 |
2021-2024 | 2022 | 1.25-1.30(1.35) | 0.05/3= .016(0.32) |
The milestones do not pass att even years and wherefore temp raise is not accurate by besides the last value the differences will be rather small. The temp raise is smaller than if differnce
A recent report about global warming (which also condense much of the available information around the warming) is ESSD – Indicators of Global Climate Change 2023: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence (copernicus.org) “Human-induced warming has been increasing at a rate that is unprecedented in the instrumental record, reaching 0.26 [0.2–0.4] °C per decade over 2014–2023.” Table 4 estimate is higher, but not “significantly higher”. Recent IPCC assessments concluded that the rate of increase in anthropogenic warming in 2021 was 0.2 °C per decade with a likely range of 0.1 to 0.3 °C per decade. My estimate (Table 4) is higher than that.
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 (parisagreementtemperatureindex.com) 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 acceleration. Thus it seems likely the shortening time intervals between milestones at least partly is caused by rapid acceleration of global warming.
As I see it a reason or contributing 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?
Below are comments to the author of the main material, who I try to help.
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!
I do not think it is so important how 1.5 is exactly defined as it is only “if possible” and it is sure it will be passed, the exact date is most for newspapers headlines. But 2 is more important how it is defined as the goal is to keep well below. But on the other hand UN could define some measures of temperature raise which are yearly reported, would cause less confusion but also less development.
I make an article about speed of passing milestones. Very interested if something similar done by someone else! https://tidningenglobal.se/2024/5-augusti-2024/den-globala-uppvarmningstakten-underskattas/
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 unusually warm! The is a partly regular pattern how the oceans absorb heat (la Nina) and also other phenomenons. Look on the past! It would be very surprising if the “acceleration” 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 accustomed.
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 should consider that? Is that pattern changing over time?
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.
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.