We may be heading for a second year above 1.5°C climate goa

[GordMay]

April 2025 was the second warmest April on record, beaten only by April 2024, according to data from both the European Union’s climate change service Copernicus [1], and Berkeley Earth [2].


Global average temperatures, for the month, remained at 1.51°C above pre-industrial levels, the 21st month in the last 22 to have been above that crucial threshold, according to Copernicus. [1]


Berkeley Earth’s dataset [2] puts April 2025’s average temperature at 1.49°C above pre-industrial levels, cooler than April 2024 by just 0.07°C.

Scientists had expected the arrival of a cooling La Niña weather pattern, in January to provide a reprieve, with temperatures expected to fall back a little this year.
Instead, global temperatures have remained stubbornly high, increasing fears that 2025 could be the second year in a row, above the critical 1.5°C watermark.

Last year, scientists warned that three individual years, where average temperatures remained above 1.5°C would mean the Paris Agreement target is lost.
Similarly, a 2025 paper suggested that a run of 12 consecutive months above 1.5°C, indicates an 80 per cent likelihood, that long-term warming of 1.5°C has already been reached.
However, the dominance of year-to-year variability, over short timescales, is why many climate scientists, in general, assess human-made long-term temperature change, by averaging global mean temperature, over periods of at least 20 years – avoiding the influence of year-to-year natural variations.

“The recently ended La Niña event [now ENSO-neutral] has not provided as much cooling as would typically have been expected,” said Robert Rohde at Berkeley Earth, during a briefing on 13 May.
This year now has an 18% chance of being the warmest on record, and a 53% chance of being the second warmest on record, Rohde said. There is a 52% chance of 2025 having average temperatures above 1.5°C.

How the rest of the year unfolds; and what could be in store for global temperatures, now rests largely on whether a new El Niño or La Niña pattern develops in the Pacific

[1] “Second-warmest April globally – Global temperature still more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial” ~ Copernicus
➥ https://climate.copernicus.eu/copern...pre-industrial

[2]“April 2025 Temperature Update” ~ Berkeley Earth
➥ https://berkeleyearth.org/april-2025...rature-update/

Originally Posted by Berkeley

“The following is a summary of global temperature conditions in Berkeley Earth’s analysis of April 2025.

April 2025 was the second warmest April on record, with a global average temperature of 1.49 ± 0.12 °C (2.67 ± 0.22 °F) above the 1850-1900 average, behind April 2024 by 0.07 °C.
Land temperatures averaged 2.35 ± 0.19 °C (4.23 ± 0.33 °F), effectively tying the record set in April 2024 and marking the warmest start to a year (January – April).
Oceans experienced the third warmest April, with an average of 1.01 ± 0.10 °C (1.81 ± 0.18 °F)
The ENSO neutral state continues and will likely persist throughout June-August.
4% of Earth’s surface experienced a record high April monthly average.
2025 now has an 18% chance to be the warmest year on record, 53% chance to be the second warmest, and a 52% chance to have an annual average above 1.5 °C.

Global Summary

The April 2025 anomaly average measured 1.49 ± 0.12 °C (2.67 ± 0.22 °F) above the 1850-1900 average, making it the second warmest April on record, just 0.07 °C cooler than April 2024. This data comes from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature – High Resolution (BEST-HR) dataset and aligns with the findings from Copernicus (which reported an April temperature anomaly of 1.51 °C, again 0.07 °C cooler than April 2024), NOAA, and NASA which all reported April as nominally the second warmest April on record.
...”

All of Berkeley Earth's data products can be accessed here:
➥ https://berkeleyearth.org/data/


How global temperatures have risen, over the past 170 years:

The blue line shows the estimated contribution to Earth’s temperature change from natural causes, such as changes in solar activity and volcanic eruptions. These account for some of the variation in global temperatures, but they can’t explain the overall warming.

The orange line shows the estimated contribution from human-induced global warming, caused by the burning of fossil fuels or other forms of pollution. Since this line closely follows the temperatures observed in the real world, it shows that the overall warming can largely be attributed to human activity. However, it is still not an exact match.

The red line shows the combined impacts of human-induced and natural changes. This line most closely matches the observed temperatures, and shows that human-induced changes, plus some natural forcing, has caused the global warming we see today

[Island Time O25]

If you take the data at it's face value (and I have an issue with that being taken out of context of 100s of millions of years of climate fluctuations) it is clear that the sharp rise shown coincides with the push for development among then "developing" countries. If you combine their economies, then and now largely based on coal (China, India, Brazil, etc) one can argue that this was a possible cause. Combined with the steady push on the West to get away from coal as the main source of energy leads me to see the rapid development in the previously undeveloped economies as the chief culprit. Especially if you take into account the huge numbers population wise of these economies. We are talking 80-90% or thereabouts of the total world population. I.e. the world would've been a better place if its development was magically frozen at a 1960 snapshot. But go and try to argue that before the UN crowd these days.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

If you take the data at it's face value (and I have an issue with that being taken out of context of 100s of millions of years of climate fluctuations) it is clear that the sharp rise shown coincides with the push for development among then "developing" countries. If you combine their economies, then and now largely based on coal (China, India, Brazil, etc) one can argue that this was a possible cause. Combined with the steady push on the West to get away from coal as the main source of energy leads me to see the rapid development in the previously undeveloped economies as the chief culprit. Especially if you take into account the huge numbers population wise of these economies. We are talking 80-90% or thereabouts of the total world population. I.e. the world would've been a better place if its development was magically frozen at a 1960 snapshot. But go and try to argue that before the UN crowd these days.

While developing countries have begun to contribute more, fully developed countries had a 100 year head start. Most of the heating is coming from that 100 years.

Pollution was worse in the 1960's than it is now. The huge population in underdeveloped counties is largely due to them now having clean water and thus living longer than 30 years old and not having astronomical numbers of death of small children. So I object to the idea the world was a better place in the 1960's.

The ethical thing would be for developed countries to invest in underdeveloped countries so those countries wouldn't pollute as much. Whether that is helping them build infrastructure for dealing with trash, or helping them with cleaner vehicles and public transportation. Because even as we address our own misdeeds, we(the more developed countries) ultimately caused the problem, and we suffer the consequences regardless of where current pollution is originating from.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by wholybee

While developing countries have begun to contribute more, fully developed countries had a 100 year head start. Most of the heating is coming from that 100 years...

... The ethical thing would be for developed countries to invest in underdeveloped countries so those countries wouldn't pollute as much. Whether that is helping them build infrastructure for dealing with trash, or helping them with cleaner vehicles and public transportation. Because even as we address our own misdeeds, we(the more developed countries) ultimately caused the problem, and we suffer the consequences regardless of where current pollution is originating from.

Indeed.

The idea that a country [or group] should act, only if others do, is a flawed approach to international relations. While cooperation is valuable, it's not a prerequisite for action.
Individual nations should still take action, for several reasons including: the potential for significant climate benefits, the ethical responsibility to address historical emissions, and the practical advantages of acting first, or at least before the worst effects are felt.

Acting on climate can lead to innovation and economic benefits, making a country more competitive in a low-carbon economy.
To decarbonise, we need low-carbon technologies to be cheap. That’s how we make sure that every country can reduce its emissions, without it coming at the cost of development. If we want poorer countries to follow a cleaner development pathway, low-carbon technology needs to be cheaper than fossil fuels.
When developed countries invest early [especially when these technologies are expensive] they bring prices down, for the rest of the world. They are helping to shape the emissions trajectory, of every other country in the world.
How does that happen? Through innovation and the learning that comes from scaling these technologies.

Climate change is already impacting many regions, and taking action now allows for better adaptation, and resilience planning, to cope with the effects of climate change.

The costs of inaction, and the long-term effects of climate change will be significantly higher, than the costs of taking action now. In essence, the “cost of doing nothing”* is often higher than the cost of taking action, even if that action involves making mistakes.*

A country's actions can inspire others to follow suit, and contribute to a more global effort, to address climate change.
Climate leaders, regardless of their size, can set expectations, for the rest of the world.

Taking action helps to build trust, and credibility on the international stage, which is essential for effective international cooperation on climate issues.

As wholybee noted, developed nations, have released more heat-trapping gases than other countries, and bear more responsibility for the current warming. These wealthier nations have a moral responsibility to reduce emissions, given their historical contributions to climate change, and their capacity to take action. We have the resources to take significant actions.

And low-income countries [that have contributed very little to the problem, and have tiny carbon footprints] need to prioritise development. These countries will, probably, increase their emissions [even if temporarily], and richer countries need to ‘make space’ for them, in the carbon budget, by reducing theirs rapidly.

See also:

“Why the planet needs legally binding obligations to limit climate-mitigation 'free-riders'” ~ by The World Economic Forum
➥ https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022...ge-mitigation/

“... The voluntary nature of international climate agreements means that some countries have become 'free-riders': where one nation receives the benefits of reduced GHG emissions without contributing to the costs.
This is why we need globally recognized, legally binding obligations to prevent exploitation of the environment ...”

“With only 2% of global emissions, why does Canada’s climate action matter?” ~ The David Suzuki Foundation
➥ https://davidsuzuki.org/expert-artic...action-matter/

“Does it matter how much the United States reduces its carbon dioxide emissions if China doesn’t do the same?” ! Climate.gov [USA]
➥ https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...xide-emissions

* “What are the costs of doing nothing?” ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3995779