Why downplay the need for action?

Differences between datasets are mainly due to the ways temperatures are measured, e.g. ERA5 measures the temperature of the air above oceans, whereas NASA and NOAA measure the surface temperature of the water, which is lower. There can also be differences in how temperatures are measured in areas with sea ice – the sea ice can be measured, or the water underneath the sea ice, or the air above the sea ice. Also, in some areas there once was sea ice that has meanwhile disappeared. Different ways of measuring things can raise the temperature record by as much as 0.2°C and even more in case of earlier years, where the margin of error is also larger. 

Importantly, the temperature rise in the above image is compared to the period 1850-1900, which is not pre-industrial. When using a genuinely pre-industrial base, the temperature anomaly may already have been above the 2°C threshold in 2015, when politicians at the Paris Agreement pledged that this threshold wouldn’t be crossed.

However, for this argument to hold, the average anomaly would need to fall to under 1.5°C from now. Should we really have to wait for another decade or two, before a confirmation is allowed to be issued that 1.5°C has been crossed. Isn’t such a mandate part of downplaying how dire the situation is, an effort to delay the necessary action? Moreover, does such a mandate make sense? 

[ click on images to enlarge ]

To illustrate this point, the above image uses NASA anomalies (blue dots) that are conservatively compared to NASA’s default 1951-1980 base, with data going back to 2010. The image thus shows a 30-year review period centered around January 1, 2025. Eight imaginary years of data have been added beyond existing data, extending the trend into the future (yellow dots). The wide pink trend is based on both NASA existing data and these imaginary data, jointly covering data from 2010-2032. The narrow black trend is not based on imaginary data, it is purely based on existing data, from 2010-2024, showing the potential for such a trend to eventuate when using existing (i.e. past) data only. 

In case such a trend would indeed eventuate, confirmation of the crossing of the 1.5°C threshold should NOT be delayed until all the years of a 30-year period have been entirely completed. In fact, 2°C would already be crossed early 2026. In the course of 2032, a 16°C rise would be reached, while the average anomaly for the period 2010-2032 would be higher than 3°C with still 7 years to go before the 30-year period would be completed. 

If the temperature does indeed keep rising rapidly, the anomaly compared to pre-industrial may soon or already be higher than 3°C, implying that humans are already functionally extinct, especially if no decisive, comprehensive and effective action is taken.

[ Arctic sea ice volume, click to enlarge ]

One of the many mechanisms that could rapidly accelerate the temperature rise is an Arctic Blue Ocean Event. The image on the right shows that Arctic sea ice reached a record low for the time of year on January 17, 2025.