Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts

Monday, June 1, 2026

Carbon dioxide highest in millions of years - update 2

SSP5-8.5 scenario


The above image shows IPCC projections for CO₂ concentration and temperature change for the SSP5-8.5 scenario. The IPCC translates concentrations of greenhouse gases into radiative forcing (see image below), which can in turn be converted into temperature change (see image above) by using a climate sensitivity multiplier.


In the SSP5-8.5 scenario, radiative forcing is by definition projected to increase to 8.5 W/m² by 2100. When using an (older) climate sensitivity multiplier of 0.75, this could result in a temperature rise of more than 6°C by 2100. Recent research such as by James Hansen et al. suggests that a higher climate sensitivity multiplier should be used, which could result in a temperature rise of more than 10°C by 2100 in the SSP5-8.5 scenario. 

The IPCC has a history of trying to downplay the strength of global warming and refuses to accept that its projections have been too low. Lo and behold, some scientist have now come forward to accommodate the IPCC by suggesting to drop SSP5-8.5 altogether, arguing it had become "implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends".

Let's take a look into those arguments. While the cost of renewables and sales of coal have fallen, the emergence of climate policy depends on political opinion. The temperature rise is accelerating and feedbacks are threatening to kick in with greater ferocity. The rise in the Earth Energy Imbalance and in ocean heat is outpacing SPSS5-8.5, as discussed in an earlier post. Furthermore, the aerosol masking effect is decreasing. Additionally, IPCC models subtract assumed carbon dioxide removal (CDR), despite doubts regarding the way the IPCC seeks CDR to take place, as discussed in this post and in this video posted on facebook.

Therefore, it is vital to include SSP5-8.5 as a reference, in order to inform and warn about a potentially huge temperature rise, the more so since mainstream media fail to do so and policymakers typically look only a few years ahead. Indeed, not including warnings could be a recipe for bad climate policy, halting or even reversing the necessary climate action.

Feedbacks

[ click on image to enlarge ]
There are numerous feedbacks that can dramatically accelerate the temperature rise, such as albedo changes and changes to wind tracks and ocean currents causing oceans to take up less heat, resulting in more heat in the atmosphere.

The image on the right shows cold sea surface temperatures over the North Atlantic. Such low sea surface temperatures don't mean that global warming is slowing down, instead they are part of feedbacks that constitute huge dangers, as written on the image and further discussed in this post on facebook.

The danger is that a strong storm will cause a huge amount of warm, salty water to travel underneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean into the shallow parts of the Arctic Ocean, pushing up temperatures and salinity levels at the seafloor and destabilizing methane hydrates, in turn resulting in eruptions of methane from these hydrates and from free gas underneath the hydrates, as discussed at this post and at this page.

The danger increases as greenhouse gases keep rising, so let's have a look at recent concentrations.  

Carbon dioxide (CO₂)

The image below, from an earlier post, shows the CO₂ concentration over 31 days at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The hand points at a daily CO₂ concentration of 433.95 parts per million (ppm) recorded on May 1, 2026.


The image below, dated June 1, 2026, shows carbon dioxide concentration over the past few years at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Note the high surface flask measurements recorded recently.


The image below shows daily carbon dioxide at Utqiaġvik, formerly know as Barrow, Alaska, June 1, 2026.


Nitrous oxide (N₂O)

The image below shows nitrous oxide concentration at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, June 1, 2026.


The image below shows monthly nitrous oxide at Utqiaġvik, formerly know as Barrow, Alaska, June 1, 2026.


Nitrous oxide has a lifetime of 109 years and a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 273 for a horizon of 20 years and also a GWP of 273 over 100 years, according to IPCC AR6. Nitrous oxide is both a potent greenhouse gas and a compound that depletes ozone in the ozone layer

The image below shows the globally averaged marine surface mean nitrous oxide concentration through 2025 with a trend added to show the potential for a huge rise by 2047.


Methane (CH₄)

The image below shows monthly methane at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, June 1, 2026.


[ from earlier post, discussed on facebook ]
Greenhouse gas concentrations are rising and carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are rising fast, while methane is rising even faster (see image on the right) and more methane threatens to erupt from the seafloor, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one and this one.

There are many feedbacks that further contribute to the temperature rise (such as albedo loss and more heat moving remaining in the atmosphere instead of being absorbed by oceans, ice and land, as discussed below). Altogether, this could result in a temperature rise of more than 20°C within one year, as discussed in an earlier post.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)

The image below shows a worrying recent rise in concentrations of sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆), which has a global warming potential (GWP) over 100 years of 24,300 and, because it has a lifetime of 1000 years, its GWP over 500 years is even higher, i.e. 29,000 (IPCC AR6).


Regarding SF₆, one does not have to bother to check historical levels, since the vast majority of SF₆ in the atmosphere is produced by people, it's a synthetic, industrial gas that leaked from its use mainly as an insulator in high-voltage and medium-voltage power systems and lines that can carry power over long distances. Clearly, too little is done politically to reduce SF₆ emissions, even though there are safe, viable alternatives available to using SF₆ in the power industry. Furthermore, rooftop solar systems can - where needed - be part of microgrids, which can reduce the need for transmission lines, poles and towers, so microgrids can also reduce fire hazards. Fire can also destroy warehouses where SF₆ is stored in tanks.

For high concentrations of surfur hexafluoride recorded at other locations, also see this post and comments at facebook.

The image below shows global annual mean SF₆ through 2025, with a trend added to show the potential for a huge rise by 2037.


This is an update of an earlier post that also discusses the Earth Energy Imbalance and the threat of a rapid rise in methane in more detail.  

Carbon monoxide (CO)

The image below, dated June 5, 2026, shows carbon monoxide (CO) concentration over the past few years at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, with some high recent readings showing up. 


The image below shows a Copernicus forecast of carbon monoxide for June 5, 2026.

[ image from earlier post ]

CO acts as the largest single sink for hydroxyl (OH). Elevated CO concentrations can therefore cause OH depletion that results in increases in the atmospheric lifespan of methane. More methane in turn also results in more ozone and stratospheric water vapor.

The IPCC AR5 image on the right depicts the global warming potential (GWP) and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) of methane (brown bars) and carbon monoxide (grey bars). 

The image below shows the effective radiative forcing of methane, ozone and stratospheric water vapor. 


Earth energy imbalance

As temperatures rise, the outgoing longwave radiation has not risen as fast as the absorbed incoming solar radiation, due to weakening of the Planck feedback as geographical patterns of warming are shifting and due to high (and rising) concentrations of greenhouse gases and loss of albedo, resulting in an increasingly larger amount of extra energy stored on Earth. The image below, from an earlier post, depicts Earth energy imbalance (in orange), i.e. the extra energy that is left after subtracting outgoing longwave radiation (in red) from incoming solar radiation (in black).


Where does the extra energy go? According to the IPCC AR6 WG1, 91% of the extra energy is taken up by oceans, 5% by land, 3% by ice melting and 1% remains in the atmosphere. Oceans, land and melting ice thus act as a buffer that did take up the vast majority (99%) of the extra energy, based on IPCC data. The image below, by Leon Simons, shows how, over time, absorbed solar radiation (black line) has increased more rapidly than outgoing longwave radiation (red line). The orange-colored area in between the lines depicts Earth's Energy Imbalance, or the extra energy that remains on Earth. 

[ image by Leon Simons, discussed on facebook ]
Not only is the extra energy increasing, as depicted by the above images, but the proportions of where the extra energy is going is additionally changing, resulting in an increasingly higher temperature rise of the lower atmosphere, as described below.

- Oceans
The ocean's capacity to act as an energy buffer is increasingly compromised by stratification, changes to ocean currents, changes in salinity, ocean oxygen depletion, acidification and more, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one. This is a big issue, since oceans take up 91% of the extra heat caused by greenhouse gases, so if there is even a 1% reduction in the heat taken up by oceans, the heat remaining in the atmosphere may double.

- Ice
Furthermore, the capacity for ice to act as a buffer by consuming energy in the process of melting is increasingly compromised by sea ice decline, by retreat of glaciers, and by darkening of ice due to dust, algae, black carbon and more. Arctic sea ice is facing a Blue Ocean Event with sea ice decline threatening to both dramatically lower albedo and reduce the ability for ocean heat to be consumed in the process of melting. Mountain glaciers are also in decline and permafrost is approaching the point where thawing of permafrost will speed up rapidly, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one.

- Land
The capacity for land to take up heat also faces a tipping point: The Land Evaporation Tipping Point can get crossed locally when water is no longer available locally for further evapotranspiration, i.e. from all processes by which water moves from the land surface to the atmosphere via evaporation and transpiration, including transpiration from vegetation, evaporation from the soil surface, from the capillary fringe of the groundwater table, and from water bodies on land. Once this tipping point gets crossed, the land and atmosphere will heat up strongly, due to the extra heat, i.e. heat that was previously consumed by evaporation and thawing, as described at this page.

- Atmosphere
As said, while the extra energy is increasing, as depicted by the above images, the capacity of oceans, land and ice to take up more energy is decreasing. Consequently, an increasingly large amount of extra heat threatens to accumulate in the lower atmosphere, especially in the Northern Hemisphere over land and in the Arctic, where temperatures are rising faster than anywhere in the world.

- Wetlands and freshwaters 
The image below is adapted from a recent study led by Zhen Zhang and shows projections in which the tropics (30° S–30° N) contribute approximately 68% of the net increase in estimated wetlands methane emissions, while temperate regions (30° N–60° N) and the Arctic (>60° N) are expected to contribute 21% and 8%.


Approximately half of all methane (CH₄) emissions come from freshwaters, where they are regulated by the microbial ‘CH₄ filter’ whose efficiency describes the fraction of CH₄ produced that is subsequently oxidized back to CO₂ (methanotrophy) before emission. CH₄ production becomes more efficient with warming, linked to increased abundance of methanogens and underpinned by community shifts. In contrast, while CH₄ oxidation activity increases, its process-level efficiency does not, and methanotrophs shift towards less efficient taxa. Consequently, the system-level CH₄ filter efficiency remains fixed, and CH₄ emissions increase. If this fixed CH₄ filter efficiency under warming is common to freshwaters worldwide (wetlands, lakes and rivers), then an upward trajectory for CH₄ emissions through future climate change appears inevitable. From a recent study led by Sarah Harpenslager

Compounding dangers in Arctic


Peatlands store approximately 30% of the global total soil carbon, with 80% of this carbon contained in Arctic peatlands. An emerging concern caused by accelerated climate change and permafrost thaw is the rapid increase in Arctic peatland fires, which have already expanded to the Siberian Arctic Ocean coast, Greenland, and Alaskan tundra peatlands. These fires occur along with record-breaking boreal forest fires raging in Canada. Peat fires may smolder for weeks and months, releasing massive amounts of, potentially ancient, carbon, which may transform them from a major carbon sink into a net carbon source into the atmosphere.

In addition to globally significant greenhouse gas emissions, peatland fires release abundant particulate matter. Smoldering peat fires may emit six times more aerosol mass per unit carbon combusted compared to flaming (grassland and forest) fires. Wildfires are a major source of Black Carbon (BC), which is the strongest light-absorbing particulate with a large positive global radiative effect. Simultaneously, wildfires release abundant Organic Carbon (OC), which can have a cooling effect either directly by scattering solar radiation or indirectly by modulating cloud properties. However, increasing evidence of substantial light-absorbing OC, i.e., Brown Carbon (BrC), being emitted in wildfires, suggests that the atmospheric net effect of biomass burning plumes is warming, as specifically shown for boreal and Indonesian peat combustion, while the properties and atmospheric lifetime of BrC vary depending on, for instance, combustion characteristics, biomass type, and moisture content. Moreover, BC and BrC decrease surface albedo when deposited on snow and ice, further accelerating Arctic climate change. Consequently, increasing high-latitude peatland fires are of great concern in the vicinity of snow- and ice-covered surfaces.

The above text and comparison images are adapted from a 2026 analysis led by Meri Ruppel.

[ image from earlier post, click to enlarge ]

Ominously, a peak methane level of 2628 parts per million (ppb) was recorded at 695.1 mb by the NOAA 20 satellite on May 18, 2026 PM, as illustrated by the above image, while the image below shows a peak level of 2579 ppb recorded by the NOAA 21 satellite on May 13, 2026 PM, at 840 mb, which is even closer to sea level, indicating that large releases of methane may have taken place from the seafloor of the ocean.
[ image from earlier post, click to enlarge ]

For more on the danger of rising methane concentrations, see the Clouds Tipping Point post. 

Could the Northern Hemisphere land-only temperature rise exceed 3°C soon?

The upcoming El Niño could trigger a rapid and steep rise in temperature on land in the Northern Hemisphere, as illustrated by the combination image below that uses land-only data in the top panel and Northern Hemisphere data in the bottom panel.

[ image from earlier post, discussed on facebook here ]
Conclusion

The situation is dire and unacceptably dangerous, and the precautionary principle necessitates rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the outlook, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as described in posts such as in this 2022 post and this 2025 post, and as discussed in the Climate Plan group.


Links

• NOAA - Global Monitoring Laboratory - data viewer
https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/iadv

• NOAA - Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases - Mauna Loa, Hawaii
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/mlo.html

• NOAA - Office of Satellite and Products Operations - NOAA-20 and NOAA-21 satellites
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/products/atmosphere/soundings/heap/nucaps/new/nucaps_products.html

• IPCC AR6, Workgroup 1, Chapter 4, Future Global Climate: Scenario-based Projections and Near-term Information
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter04.pdf

• IPCC AR6, Workgroup 1, Chapter 7, Supplementary material - SF6 GWP and lifetime
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter07_SM.pdf

• Copernicus - carbon monoxide forecasts 
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/charts/packages/cams/products/carbon-monoxide-forecasts

• Indicators of Global Climate Change 2025: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence - by Piers Forster et al. (2026) 
https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2026-287/essd-2026-287.pdf

• A fixed methane filter maximizes freshwater emissions under warming - by Sarah Harpenslager et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-026-02649-2
as discussed on facebook at: 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/permalink/10164343110889679

• Transforming Society
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Climate Emergency Declaration
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climate-emergency-declaration.html




Sunday, April 5, 2026

We missed the target of limiting the temperature rise to 2C

In 2022, the IPCC said that limiting warming to 2°C would require global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.


Let's look into it. Did greenhouse gas emissions peak earlier than 2025? The 2025 Global Carbon Budget in a news release projected 38.1 Gt of fossil carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in 2025, a rise of 1.1%, and warned that climate change is reducing the combined land and ocean sinks. It finds that 8% of the rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration since 1960 is due to climate change weakening the land and ocean sinks.

So, by how much are CO₂ concentrations rising? The image below shows that the 2024 CO₂ concentration increased by 3.77 ppm, the highest annual growth on record.


The image below shows one year of CO₂ daily and weekly means at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, with the daily CO₂ reaching a record high of 432.69 ppm on March 31, 2026. The image also shows a CO₂ concentration of 431.73 ppm for the week beginning on March 29, 2026, an increase of 4.47 ppm compared to 1 year ago. The annual peak in CO₂ is typically reached in May, so the daily average CO₂ looks set to reach an even higher peak in May 2026. How high could the 2026 peak be? 

 
When taking into account CO₂ concentrations recorded at three further locations, the outlook for 2026 is even more dire.

The average growth for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025 was about 3 ppm. The highest daily CO₂ peak in 2025 was 431.25 ppm, so with 3 ppm growth the 2026 CO₂ concentration could reach a daily peak of 434.25 ppm in May, i.e. at the top end of the scale on the image below, or even higher than that, if growth turns out to be more than 3 ppm per year.

The 2025 annual mean at Mauna Loa was 427.35. If this growth of 3 ppm per year persists, CO₂ concentrations could reach an annual mean of 430.35 ppm in 2026. 


High time for the IPCC to warn that we missed the target of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C and that with a 3°C rise in temperature humans are likely to go extinct. 

Climate Emergency Declaration

The situation is dire and unacceptably dangerous, and the precautionary principle necessitates rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the outlook, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as described in posts such as in this 2022 post and this 2025 post, and as discussed in the Climate Plan group.



Links

• IPCC - The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030. (2022 News Release)
https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease

• Global Carbon Budget - Fossil fuel CO2 emissions hit record high in 2025 (November 2025 News Release)
• NOAA - Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases - Mauna Loa, Hawaii
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/mlo.html

• NOAA - Global Monitoring Laboratory - data viewer - Mauna Loa, Hawaii
https://gml.noaa.gov/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts

• Transforming Society 

Friday, March 6, 2026

Clouds Tipping Point

Clouds Tipping Point

The PBS Terra video below features the clouds tipping point, as also discussed in a recent post at the ArcticNews group.  


The video mentions the 2019 analysis by Tapio Schneider that stratocumulus cloud decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO₂ levels rise above 1200 ppm, resulting in an abrupt additional temperature rise of 8°C (14°F), as discussed at the Clouds Tipping Point page

The SSP5-8.5 pathway (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, used by the IPCC), corresponding with a radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m⁻² in 2100, projects CO₂ concentration rises to levels as high 2206.4 ppm in the year 2250, i.e. well above 1200 ppm, as illustrated by the image below, from a 2020 study led by Malte Meinshausen. So, how much temperature rise could this cause? 

SSP5-8.5 is often said to be a "worst-case" scenario, yet current developments may even exceed SSP5-8.5 projections, as discussed in an earlier post. The image below features in IPCC AR6 WG1 SPM. The total warming of the IPCC pathways (panel b) is dominated by CO₂ emissions that keep growing steadily in SSP5-8.5, while the maximum temperature rise stays well below 6°C. 


Is this in conflict with the additional 8°C rise when the Clouds Tipping Point gets crossed? Let's analyze this. Importantly, the Clouds Tipping Points is at 1200 CO₂e, with contributions not only from CO₂, but also from methane, water vapor, etc.  

[ from earlier post ]
Reductions in methane emissions can strongly reduce the total CO₂e, given methane's high Global Warming Potential (GWP). Could reductions in methane emissions keep the total CO₂e below 1200 ppm? In both the SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 pathways, methane emissions would fall after 2015, and methane emissions would also fall over time for SSP2-4.5, in which 2°C does get crossed, and for SSP5-8.5.

So, if the impact of methane is high and if methane emissions would strongly decline, could it be possible that 1200 CO₂e wouldn't get crossed? Conversely though, if growth in methane emissions continues, this can strongly push up the total CO₂e, as occurs in SSP3-7.0, but in that pathway there are less CO₂ emissions and less reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions.

Anyway, what happened after 2015, the year when politicians pledged at the Paris Agreement to take efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C? Lo and behold, methane emissions kept rising after 2015! There was record growth in methane concentrations in 2021, after which there was a bit of a slowdown in growth during the following years, but growth in methane concentration picked up pace again recently, as illustrated by the image below, from an earlier post.


So, it appears again that SSP5-8.5 isn't the "worst-case scenario" in more than one way. An even worse case scenario would see strong emissions of both CO₂ and methane. Once more, it appears that politicians and collaborating scientists have been downplaying the temperature rise that is about to unfold. The IPCC produced a special report, called Global Warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways and the report's pathways don't seem to make sense in many ways, as also discussed in an earlier post

The image below is also from that earlier post. The image depicts an alternative pathway in which methane concentrations grow in line with the added magenta-colored trend that points at methane more than doubling by 2043. Such developments should have been included, at least in the margin of uncertainty, i.e. as a potential development. 

The above text and images describe and depict horrendous dangers, yet the IPCC remains silent, refusing to warn people about the dangers and refusing to recommend effective policy pathways. Note that methane is only one of the contributors to a potentially horrific rise in temperature in the Arctic.

Such developments were discussed in a 2021 post that featured the image below, with the caption that a 5 Gt burst of seafloor methane would double the methane in the atmosphere and could instantly raise CO₂e level to above 1200 ppm, thus triggering the cloud feedback (panel top right). Even with far less methane, levels of further pollutants could rise and feedbacks could strengthen, while sulfate cooling could end, and a 18.44°C rise (from pre-industrial) could occur by 2026 (left panel).


How appropriate is the use of a multiplier of 200 to convert the impact of methane in parts per million (ppm) methane to ppm CO₂e? After all, carbon dioxide equivalence (CO₂e) was introduced by politicians in the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and uses a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of greenhouse gases over a 100-year horizon to calculate their carbon dioxide equivalence. Is GWP a tool behind specific politics? How much sense does it make to calculate methane's GWP over 100 years, given that methane's atmospheric perturbation lifetime is less than 12 years and methane has its highest impact immediately after it enters the atmosphere? What multiplier should be used to calculate the impact of an extra 5 Gt of methane? 

The image on the right, from an earlier post, shows trends based on IPCC AR6 GWP values pointing at a GWP for methane of 150 for a 9-year horizon and pointing at an even higher GWP for a shorter horizon. 

A short horizon makes sense when calculating the immediate impact of, say, a 5 Gt burst of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

There are other ways to calculate the impact, e.g. one can also look at radiative forcing. It makes sense to also take into account the indirect impact of methane, as done in the image below. The image conceptually dates back to 2019 when the analysis by Tapio Schneider et al. was published, hence the use of radiative forcing from the IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM report that was published in 2013.

The image below shows three blocks each of about 400 ppm CO₂e, adding up to 1200 ppm CO₂e. The bottom block (purple) represents the CO₂ present in the atmosphere, i.e. on May 9, 2013, CO₂ surpassed 400 ppm at Mauna Loa. It is noted that extra CO₂ has less impact as its abundance grows, whereas extra CH₄ has a stronger impact.

The block in the middle (dark red) shows the methane already in the atmosphere, with the note that IPCC AR5 gives CH₄ an impact of 0.97 W/m⁻² (see top of image), or 57.74% of the impact of about 400 ppm CO₂. Yet, the impact of methane could rise to 400 ppm CO₂e, for reasons described in the following paragraph. 

The spectral band where most heat is trapped by CO₂ is more saturated than the band where most heat is trapped by CH₄. The impact of additional CH₄ will increase as its abundance grows, whereas the impact of additional CO₂ will decrease as abundance grows. Abrupt eruptions of 5 Gt of seafloor CH₄ will cause hydroxyl depletion. Since there is already very little hydroxyl present over the Arctic, large eruptions of CH₄ from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean would strongly increase the lifetime of CH₄ there, trigger feedbacks and increase its global warming impact. The warming impact of an extra 5 Gt of CH₄ could therefore approach the impact of the CO₂ that was in the atmosphere on May 9, 2013, and this would not only apply to the methane that is added by such eruptions, but it would also increase the impact of CH₄ already present in the atmosphere. 

The block of 400 ppm CO₂e at the top of the bar (red) represents an extra 5 Gt of CH₄ resulting from a burst of methane erupting from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Some of the methane arising from the seafloor will be broken down in the water by microbes, but many of the seas in the Arctic Ocean are very shallow and when large amounts of methane erupt in the form of plumes and move at high speed through the water column, only a small part of the methane can be broken down on its way up through the water column. Anyway, the point is that 5 Gt of methane abruptly entering the atmosphere could have an immediate impact of 400 ppm CO₂e which would also raise the impact of the block of existing CH₄ to 400 ppm CO₂e. 


Jointly, the three blocks each of 400 ppm CO₂e add up to 1200 ppm CO₂e, i.e. the tipping point where stratocumulus decks start to disappear abruptly, resulting in an additional temperature rise of 8°C. Even when CO₂ levels are lowered again after the stratocumulus breakup, the stratocumulus decks only reform once the CO₂ levels drop below 300 ppm, as discussed at the Clouds Tipping Point page.

Historic growth in methane concentrations

Historic records could have given a stronger warning than the IPCC pathways. Methane has historically risen faster than CO₂. As illustrated by the image on the right, based on IPCC and WMO data, and from an earlier post, methane in 2024 was 266% of what it was in 1750, whereas CO₂ in 2024 was 152% of what it was in 1750. 

In fact, the rise in emission by people had already started well before 1750. Thousands of years ago emissions started to grow in agriculture, herding of animals and associated deforestation, as illustrated by the combination image below, adopted from Ruddiman et al. (2015)

Thousands of years ago, methane concentrations were as low as 550 ppb, while CO₂ concentrations were as low as 260 ppm. So, methane in 2024 was 335% of what it was thousands of years ago, whereas CO₂ in 2024 was 163% of what it was thousands of years ago. In other words, methane concentrations have risen twice as fast as CO₂ concentrations.  

[ from earlier post ]
As discussed in earlier posts such as this one and this one, the IPCC keeps downplaying the dangers that we're facing, and one way the IPCC does so is by manipulating the outlook of CO₂, methane and sulfur dioxide emissions. Another way is to downplay the historic temperature rise, which is important, since a larger historic rise would also come with more water vapor in the air, a powerful greenhouse gas that causes a self-amplifying feedback further increasing the temperature rise. 

Existential threat

So, are we facing an existential threat? The speed at which temperatures are rising is unprecedented in the historic record. Historically, people have been pushing up the temperature for thousands of years, due to deforestation and further activities by people.  

[ image from Tierney et al (2025), also discussed at ArcticNews group ]
Activities by people have been pushing up the temperature from a genuinely pre-industrial base for thousands of years, maybe by more than 2°C, as illustrated by the bottom panels on the image below.

The above image, from an earlier post, illustrates that, in the Northern Hemisphere, 2025 was the third year in a row with temperature anomalies more than 1.5°C above 1951-1980 and much more when compared to pre-industrial, as discussed in the inset. Note also that El Niño wasn't elevating temperatures in 2025.

[ from the post When will humans go extinct? ]
A 3°C rise constitutes an important threshold, since humans will likely go extinct with such a rise. The top panel in the above image shows a potential 10°C rise, while we may already be more than 2°C above pre-industrial. A further 1°C can quickly be added due to the move from a La Niña into the next El Niño, albedo loss and further feedbacks such as extra water vapor as temperatures rise, seafloor methane eruptions, fires, collapse of society causing abrupt termination of the sulfur aerosol masking effect. If society collapses, greenhouse gases with a high GWP and long lifetime could be emitted as substances leak from warehouses, waste dump fires, etc. Furthermore, aerosols from sulfur dioxide could fall out of the air in a matter of weeks, all contributing to a rapid temperature rise. 

The IPCC appears to have painted scenarios that are shrouded in dubious politics, rather than relating to best-available science and a realistic outlook on future developments. As an example, the speed in the projected decline in aerosols from sulfur dioxide in the various Shared Socioeconomic Pathways can make a huge difference. 

How  much could temperatures rise? James Hansen points out that equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. This 10°C rise is held back by oceans and ice acting as a buffer and by aerosols. How long would it take for a 10°C rise to unfold? Heat sinks could abruptly turn into sources, e.g. due to sea ice loss and changes in wind, soil and oceans such as ocean stratification. 

Keep in mind that concentrations of greenhouse gases are still rising. Also keep in mind that the land-only temperature rise is higher than the global rise and most people live on land. Many people also live in areas where the rise is stronger than average during heatwaves and due to the Urban Heat Island effect. The conclusion is that humans are functionally extinct if temperatures keep rising. Importantly, changes in biodiversity can have terrible consequences, and much of this is ignored by the IPCC. 

Biodiversity collapse

   [ from: When Will We Die? ]
A 2025 analysis by David Fastivich et al. finds that, historically, vegetation responded at timescales from hundreds to tens of thousands of years, but not at timescales shorter than about 150 years. It takes centuries for tree populations to adapt - far too slow to keep pace with today’s rapidly warming world. Vegetation depends on the presence of a lot of things including healthy soil, microbes, moisture, nutrients and habitat.

A 2025 analysis led by Thiago Gonçalves-Souza concludes that species turnover does not rescue biodiversity in fragmented landscapes.

A 2018 study by Strona & Bradshaw indicates that most life on Earth will disappear with a 5°C rise (see box on the right). Humans, who depend on a lot of other species, will likely go extinct with a 3°C, as discussed in the earlier post When Will We Die?

Terrestrial vertebrates are more in danger than many other species, as they depend on numerous other species for food. Humans are terrestrial vertebrates and humans are large warm-blooded mammals with high metabolic rates, thus requiring more food and habitat. It also takes humans many years to reach maturity. Humans have become addicted to processed food, fossil fuels, plastic, etc. Furthermore, humans require large amounts of fresh water, including for sweating when temperatures rise. A 3°C rise may therefore suffice to cause humans to go extinct, as discussed in earlier posts such as this one and this one

A 2025 analysis led by Joseph Williamson concludes that many species that live together appear to share remarkably similar thermal limits. That is to say, individuals of different species can tolerate temperatures up to similar points. This is deeply concerning as it suggests that, as ecosystems warm due to climate change, species will disappear from an ecosystem at the same time rather than gradually, resulting in sudden biodiversity loss. It also means that ecosystems may exhibit few symptoms of heat stress before a threshold of warming is passed and catastrophic losses occur. A 2024 analysis by Michael Van Nuland et al. finds that tree symbioses with ectomycorrhizal fungi mean that they need to move together for successful migration. 

In the video below, Guy McPherson explains that forests cannot keep up with the speed at which temperatures are rising. 


Guy McPherson mentions the study by William Farfan-Rios et al. that finds that Amazonian and Andean tree communities are not tracking current climate warming. Further science snippets: The Amazon is also getting drier as deforestation shuts down atmospheric rivers. Thunderstorms are a major driver of tree death in tropical forests. Hot droughts cause catastrophic tree die-offs. Aboveground biomass in Australian tropical forests now a net carbon source.

Huge temperature rise

[ from the Extinction page ]
The image on the right illustrates how such dangers could be further amplified by the threat of war and collapse of centralized society. 

As people seek to occupy the last few habitable areas left, many people may stop showing up for work, resulting in a rapid loss of the aerosol masking effect, as industries that now co-emit cooling aerosols (such as sulfates) come to a grinding halt. As it becomes harder to obtain food and fuel for cooking and heating, and as the grid shuts down due to conflicts, many people may start collecting and burning more wood, decimating the forests that are left and resulting in more emissions that further speed up the temperature rise.

As temperatures rise, huge fires could also break out not only in forests, peatlands and grassland, but also in urban areas (including backyards, landfills and buildings, in particular warehouses containing flammable materials, chemicals and fluorinated gases), further contributing to more emissions that speed up the temperature rise.

As the likeliness of further accelerating warming, the severity of its impact, and the ubiquity and the imminence with which it will strike all become more clear and manifest—the more sobering it is that, while a mere 3°C rise may suffice to cause human extinction, a much larger temperature rise may unfold abruptly, as illustrated by the bar-chart on the right. 

The image below, from an earlier post, shows monthly data from May 2022 through May 2025, with a trend added that warns about 1200 parts per million (ppm) getting crossed in 2028.


As said, crossing the clouds tipping point at 1200 ppm CO₂ could - on its own - push temperatures up by 8°C globally, on top of the temperature rise caused by the forcing that resulted in the crossing of this tipping point. Moreover, the clouds tipping point is actually at 1200 ppm CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent), so when taking into account the impact of growth of other gases, strengthening feedbacks and further mechanisms, this tipping point could be crossed much earlier than in 2028, potentially as early as in 2026.

Methane in the atmosphere could be doubled within years if a trend unfolds as depicted in the image below, from an earlier post. A rapid rise is highlighted in the inset and reflected in the trend, which is based on January 2023-October 2024 methane data, as issued in February 2025.

[ Double the methane in March 2026? Image from earlier post, click on images to enlarge ]
A rise like the one depicted in the trend could eventuate as rising ocean heat destabilizes methane hydrates contained in sediments at the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. The temperature rise in the Arctic would accelerate since the methane would initially have a huge temperature impact over the Arctic and cause depletion of hydroxyl, of which there is very little in the atmosphere over the Arctic in the first place. Such a rise in methane would also dramatically increase concentrations of ozone in the troposphere and concentrations of water vapor in the stratosphere. 

Climate Emergency Declaration

The situation is dire and unacceptably dangerous, and the precautionary principle necessitates rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the outlook, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as described in posts such as in this 2022 post and this 2025 post, and as discussed in the Climate Plan group.


Links

• Clouds feedback and tipping point  

• Advances in Paleoclimate Data Assimilation - by Jessica Tierney et al. (2025) 

• Coupled, decoupled, and abrupt responses of vegetation to climate across timescales - by David Fastivich et al. (2025) 
• Amazonian and Andean tree communities are not tracking current climate warming - by William Farfan-Rios et al. (2025) 
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2425619122

• Clustered warming tolerances and the nonlinear risks of biodiversity loss on a warming planet - by Joseph Williamson et al. (2025) 
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/380/1917/20230321/109625/Clustered-warming-tolerances-and-the-nonlinear

• Climate mismatches with ectomycorrhizal fungi contribute to migration lag in North American tree range shifts - by Michael van Nuland et al. (2024) 
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2308811121

• Species turnover does not rescue biodiversity in fragmented landscapes - by Thiago Gonçalves-Souza et al. (2025)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08688-7
discussed on facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/posts/10162452301209679

• Transforming Society
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html

• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html

• Climate Emergency Declaration
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climate-emergency-declaration.html