Talk:2024 in climate change

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Environment: Climate change Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

Proposed guidelines

This article is envisioned as one of a series documenting year-by-year occurrences pertaining to climate change. The series of articles will provide annual "snapshots" and "status updates" for future historians to determine "what was known, when" and "what happened, when".

Post content that is specific to a particular year. The yearly status of ongoing phenomena or actions is acceptable, but general scientific principles and expansive historical reviews are inappropriate here.

Make the text concise. (Background information, general principles, technical definitions, etc., should be put within citation footnotes, in the "Notes" section, or in other Wikipedia articles.)

Though Wikipedia is not a newspaper, individual events that were important in the then-current year may be appropriate.

Keep each entry brief, ideally a sentence or two.

Keep content organized in meaningfully titled sections (listed below)—not one long list.

Within each section, strive to arrange entries chronologically.

Strive to maintain section titles consistent in articles from year to year.

Initial section structure:
Summaries — (prominent-source surveys putting the year in perspective)

Measurements and statistics — (raw numerical values)

Natural events and phenomena — (natural occurrences contributing to or resulting from climate change)

Actions and goal statements (actions by humans; subsections:)

Science and technology (e.g., measurement techniques, renewable energy technical advances, expeditions, etc.)

Political, economic, legal, and cultural actions (causing or resulting from climate change)

Mitigation goal statements — (e.g., climate emergency declarations, NDCs, net zero pledges, ...)

Adaptation goal statements — (statements re coping with expected effects of climate change)

Public opinion and scientific consensus — (scientific consensus studies, studies of public perceptions, etc.)

Projections — (predictive estimates of future causes, effects, etc.)

Significant publications — (major publications by prominent sources)

See also — (links to other Wikipedia articles)

Notes — (e.g., technical explanations not suitable for body text)

References

External links

—RCraig09 (talk), begun 06:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

—RCraig09 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First 12 months above +1.5 C

Current text needing some finetuning: "February (reported): a Copernicus Climate Change Service analysis indicated that from February 2023 through January 2024, global warming exceeded 1.5 °C for the first time.[3] This 365-day running average is distinct from the longer-duration 1.5 °C threshold agreed on in the 2015 Paris Agreement.[3]"

The first time recorded was Feb 2016, at +1.51 °C.
Feb2023-Jan2024 was a first for a 12 month average, not 365 days, see https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2024-world-experienced-warmest-january-record and the BBC source
The Paris Agreement does not specify a "longer duration". Weird, but it does not specify any duration, see article 2.1.a on page 22, quote: "Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels..."
The "longer-duration 1.5 °C threshold" does not match the correct text in the BBC source: "This first year-long breach doesn't break that landmark Paris agreement, but it does bring the world closer to doing so in the long-term."

Uwappa (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwappa: I've amended the text to avoid some issues. Of course you're free to amend that paragraph, keeping in mind that all entries in this series of articles should be extremely short and concise. Note BBC article's chart recites "Average global air temperature compared with pre-industrial levels, running average of 365 days". —RCraig09 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

Yes the BBC chart says 365 days, I am not sure it really is 365 days based and how that would work with leap years. The texts are about a 12 month average, see:

Copernicus: "... for the past twelve months (Feb 2023 – Jan 2024) ... 1.52°C ..."
Copernicus again, the highlighted Samantha Burgess quote "... just experienced a 12-month period of more than 1.5°C ..."
Copernicus again, https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-january-2024 "The global mean temperature for the past twelve months (Feb 2023 – Jan 2024) ... 1.52°C above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average. "
BBC: The period from February 2023 to January 2024 reached 1.52C of warming, ...

Uwappa (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick fixes. A smaller text issue: "This running average is distinct from the 1.5 °C threshold agreed on in the 2015 Paris Agreement."

Eh true, a running average is not the same as a 1.5 C threshold, but that is probably not what you mean. Uwappa (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and have changed the language accordingly. More importantly, I have also changed the language in accordance with BBC's description, "At the current rate of emissions, the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5C as a long-term average - rather than a single year - could be crossed within the next decade." (emphasis added). This should be the final fix. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your new text: "This single-year breach does not violate the 1.5 °C long-term average agreed on in the 2015 Paris Agreement."

Really? Which article of the Paris Agreement defines that long term average? What is that definition?

Sorry to bring old but bad news, but the Paris agreement does not define a long-term average. I wish it did. See link to article 2.1.a above.

The BBC text does not mention the Paris agreement, but "the Paris goal". Uwappa (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, the BBC reference does indeed refer to the Paris agreement: "This first year-long breach doesn't break that landmark Paris agreement". Second, the difference between a short-term breach and a long-term average is clearly described even if the details of the long-term average (Personal attack removed). With a reliable source (BBC), we don't have to do original research to critique and flyspeck ambiguities in an agreement that's almost nine years old. I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA and take back your words. Uwappa (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack. I don't see a reason to continue this discussion. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain: there is no 1.5 °C long-term average agreed on in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Your text mentions "the 1.5 °C long-term average agreed on in the 2015 Paris Agreement". The BBC text does not mention a "long term average". Your text misquotes the BBC.
Please read https://www.climate.gov/news-features/features/whats-number-meaning-15-c-climate-threshold for this quote: "It's also important to note that the Paris Agreement does not specify how many years should make up this long-term trend, which dataset should be used, and which time period makes up the pre-industrial period. That means different scientists, governments and groups might come to different conclusions about when Earth passes this critical threshold."
The Paris Agreement does not even mention the concept of a long term average. Article 4 does mention long-term goal, while referring to article 2, but does not define a long-term average.
Different scientists do reach different conclusions, see recent article in the Guardian: Ancient sea sponges at centre of controversial claim world has already warmed by 1.7C

I hope you share the conclusion that your text does need further fine-tuning. Uwappa (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously quoted 21:46, 13 February, the BBC reference states "At the current rate of emissions, the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5C as a long-term average - rather than a single year - could be crossed within the next decade". It would be more efficient if you were to fine-tune the language yourself. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Global Climate 2023

That is published in 2024, but about 2023. Move it to 2023_in_climate_change? Uwappa (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done —RCraig09 (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 record high so far

Describe in intro that jan, feb, mar, apr, may and jun all were record high? See

Uwappa (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the last ~12 months have been record highs for those particular months. We should wait until the streak is broken before adding an entry, rather than posting a new entry, repeatedly, each month. That approach "future-proofs" the article. WP:NOTNEWS is somewhat relevant also. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes, I know, 2024 ain't over yet and it is too early to call it a day an publish statistics.

So yes, yes, yes, premature, but still: two charts that won't probably won't have to be updated 1st January:

2024 first year with an average above +1.5C.
In 2000 the 20-year-average-tipping point was expected in 2045, in 2024 it was 2030.

Uwappa (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwappa: "2024 in xxx" articles focus on events occurring within that year. Possibly, it's rational to include longer-term graphics if 2024 were an exceptional year in a way that is immediately apparent in the graphic. However, the two graphics in your 08:36 post are projections, and aren't ~uniquely specific to a particular year. (Separately: I'm concerned with your introducing editorial WP:SYNTHESIS into both graphics, and I think the forecast-to-1.5C graphic doesn't intuitively convey how the deadline is approaching faster than the mere passage of years.) —RCraig09 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2025.

Yes, I do understand your reluctance. And you can add WP:NOTCRYSTAL to your list of objections.
Yes, I do understand that 2024 in climate change focusses on 2024. Don't worry, I do have a higher than room temperature IQ.

This big gap puzzles me:

The +1.4C reported by NASA as shown by
The +1.52C in HadCRUT5.csv. Now, in 2025 that is not a prediction anymore, it is a fact.

Anyway, +1.4 or +1.52, both values scare the hell out of me. Especially the +1.52 should be a huge alarm. That is across the +1.5 tipping point, oops, irreversible effects, accelerated warming and off we go, heading for +2.0C with the foot firmly on the gas pedal.

Yes, yes, yes, I know, it is not the 20 year average yet. Officially, the thin blue line in

is crystal ball stuff. Yet:

CO2 levels should go down fast, very fast for the 20 year average to stay below +1.5. I don't see that happening with the thick blue line in , the 20 year average, going straight up for decades.
It would be bad news if CO2 levels would stay at the current level. That is still a warm blanket that will make earth warmer and warmer.
Inconvenient reality: CO2 levels are still going up, . The 'blanket' gets thicker and thicker. The thick blue line in has been an almost straight line up for decades now. I don't expect that straight line to go down any time soon, and neither does Copernicus, as shown by . I expect the thick blue line will bend upwards with 2024 having crossed the +1.5C tipping point.

To me, the 2024 weather events and the HadCRUT5 data are a flashing red light. Now is not the time to sit back, relax and wait for the 20 year average to cross +1.5C. Looking at

and

that won't take another 10 years. 2030 is only 5 years away, oops...

So yes, yes, yes, WP is not a crystal ball, but WP can present a flashing red light based on hard data. Uwappa (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwappa: I think you'll save time on Wikipedia if you focus on the mechanics of building an encyclopedia (compare: WP:SOAPBOX). Here, I'm not sure how long a moving average has to be above 1.5C before it is considered to be violated, but meaningfully breaching that threshold is not accomplished in a single year, especially considering El Nino/La Nina etc. WP can present data and information and knowledge that might well be interpreted as flashing red lights, but we can't publish flashing red lights. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The average is 20 years around one point in time, so 10 years back and 10 years ahead. It used to be 30 years, but that definition was updated because of the current rapid warming, the thick blue line going up in a straight line.

Current expectation is: April 2030 and that is only 5 years from now, not 10. So that means a rapid rise expected in the next 5 years, approaching +2C fast. It scares the hell out of me, which, I agree, is pretty irrelevant.

But... I am not the only one flashing a red light on a soap box. Scientists have serious worries. Please have a look at:

And that is just a few articles from December 2024 only. Uwappa (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against the seriousness of our planet's predicament. But see WP:SOAPBOX. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes, I do know the WP rules.

How about showing , but leave out the Copernicus expectation bit, the thick light blue line? That will show 2024 above the +1.5 limit without explicitly ringing an alarm, while anybody with a higher than room temperature IQ can see where the straight dark blue thick line is going. Uwappa (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwappa: Rather than relying on a single-source temperature dataset, the multi-dataset chart

will show how six datasets show first breaching of the 1.5C threshold (it's a threshold, not a "limit"). Only five of the six datasets have been published by this second day of 2025, but the chart should be completed within a few weeks. The "Measurements and statistics" section in this article twice mentions 12-consecutive-month periods breaching 1.5C, but I agree a chart is called for. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good!

I'm still puzzled by NASA's +1.4 though.

Will have time tomorrow to update the chart, limit to threshold. Uwappa (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwappa: Actually it was NOAA's value for 2023 that was 1.40. For 2024, the five values reported are 1.52, 1.53, 1.54, 1.55, 1.60 (Japan Met not published yet as of 2 January). The revised 2023 values in the newest (2024) report are 1.44, 1.43, 1.45, 1.44, 1.48 (Japan Met excluded). I'm not sure which chart you're planning to update and where you plan to use it. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those five values are pretty close, as expected.

Now that 2024 has passed +1.5C,

you may want to include the +1.5 and +2.0C limits in .
I am not sure about the added value of multiple sources as the difference between them is very small nowadays. If one source is good enough for Ed_Hawkins_(climatologist)'s Climate_spiral, that source is good enough for me. (and yes, we should have a new climate spiral with 2024 crossing +1.5C)

And the question will pop up: Now what?

Are we in trouble now? (I think yes, we are, but that is just my adjudication, not WP worthy)
When will the 20 year average cross 1.5? That is the chart at https://apps.climate.copernicus.eu/global-temperature-trend-monitor/ My best guess, not WP worthy: Copernicus is too optimistic, once the tipping point is passed, temperature rise will go even faster, as CO2 levels are still going up. Look at and see how the history of expectations shows a history of too much optimism, the top of the blue bars going down since 2015.
How realistic is it to expect coming years will dip below 1.5? (I'd say not at all, given CO2 levels are still rising, but I know, I know, that is just my expectation, not WP worthy)

Limit versus threshold:

I've checked the wording in the Paris agreement and found on page 22, article 2.1.a:

"to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels".

To me 'limit' does sound like the better word.

A limit is something you do not want to cross.
A threshold is a minimum value for something to happen, which is an inappropriate neutral word.

So I'll stick to limit, not change it to threshold.

And yes, I do see that it is a verb in 2.1.a. Uwappa (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously six datasets are more probative than one dataset. "Now what..." and "is good enough for me" are your unnecessary WP:SOAPBOX editorializing; please stop. Your personal forecast (please stop) re whether it won't fall below 1.5C ignores El Nino/La Lina cycles' impact. A limit is something that cannot be crossed; a threshold is something that is the beginning of something new—which is the case here. I don't think you realize how much of other editors' time you take up with your digressions and ponderings and forecasts. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]