Article Contents
Scientists have challenged the conclusions of a new study suggesting that the planet has already exceeded the 1.5C warming threshold set under the Paris Agreement.
Climate change is typically measured as the average global temperature increase relative to a “pre-industrial baseline”. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, uses the average temperature over 1850-1900 as their historical baseline. The planet has already warmed by around 1.2C compared to this period.
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, uses proxy data from sea sponges in the Caribbean Sea to create a record of ocean temperatures from 1700 to the present day. This data suggests that warming started 40 years before the IPCC’s pre-industrial baseline period began.
Based on this new record, the authors say “warming is 0.5C higher than IPCC estimates”.
This means that “the global warming clock for emission reductions to minimise the risk of dangerous climate change has been brought forward by at least a decade”, the lead author told a press briefing.
However, many experts have warned that the framing of the study is misleading, arguing that the finding has no bearing on the Paris Agreement 1.5C limit, because it specifically “describes temperature rise relative to the late 19th century”.
Prof Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that, crucially, the study “does not mean that impacts of climate change will occur earlier than expected”.
Other experts raised doubts that the 0.5C warming in the 1800s is human-caused, while many cautioned that proxy data from a single location should not be used to make assumptions about the entire planet.
The University of Oxford’s Prof Yadvinder Malhi, who was also not involved in the study, cautions that “the way these findings have been communicated is flawed, and has the potential to add unnecessary confusion to public debate on climate change”.
Shifting baselines
Humans have been releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centuries, causing global temperatures to rise.
In IPCC reports – considered the most authoritative summaries on climate science – scientists use a combination of land surface air temperatures and sea surface temperatures to assess changes in global mean surface temperatures (GMST).
The UN body reports global warming against a “pre-industrial baseline” of 1850-1900. It describes this baseline as “a pragmatic choice based upon data availability considerations” – in part because much of the observed climate data they use is only available from 1850.
For example, the Met Office’s HadSST4 dataset – one of the three datasets used in IPCC estimates of sea surface temperatures – goes back as far as 1850.
The IPCC also recognises that “both anthropogenic and natural changes to the climate occurred” before the 1850-1900 baseline. For example, in its 2021 report on climate science, the IPCC estimates that between 1750 and 1850-1900, GMST increased by around 0.1C. Of this, human activity was responsible for 0.0-0.2C, it says.
Nonetheless, researchers have typically followed suit in using the 1850-1900 average as their “pre-industrial baseline” to measure global warming.
In 2015, countries agreed under the Paris Agreement to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5C. “Pre-industrial” was not clearly defined in the agreement, but it has generally been taken to mean the average temperature over 1850-1900.
However, some scientists argue that the “pre-industrial baseline” period should begin before 1850.
The new study uses proxy data taken from sea sponges from the Caribbean sea, to present a timeseries of regional ocean temperatures from 1700 to the present day. Scientists collected sclerosponges from the ocean mixed layer – a region of ocean where heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean interior.
Between 1700-90 and 1840-60, the proxy data shows ocean warming of around 0.9C, according to the study. In the intervening time, there was some cooling, largely caused by volcanic eruptions, the authors say.
The plot below shows the proxy data (blue) from the year 1770, alongside the HadSST4 observed temperature record (purple), which begins in 1850, relative to a 1961-90 reference period. The authors have applied a 0.9C “offset” to their proxy data to account for pre-industrial temperature increase.
By comparing their proxy data against existing records of global temperature changes, the authors find “strong empirical evidence that the Caribbean ocean mixed layer has warmed proportionately to the average global increase in sea surface temperature, over the last ~50 years”.
The authors assume that the 0.9C offset “can be applied to land-air as well as the ocean mixed layer anomalies”, therefore concluding that GMST increased by 0.9C between 1700-1860 and 1961-90.
Meanwhile, global ocean temperatures measured using HadSST4 show only 0.4C of warming relative to the IPCC’s 1850-1900 pre-industrial period.
As such, the authors suggest that human-caused warming to date is actually 0.5C higher than IPCC estimates.
Dr Malcolm McCulloch – an emeritus professor at the University of Western Australia and lead author on the study – told a press briefing that, according to his study, the 1.5C Paris temperature threshold has already been crossed in around 2010-12.
He continued:
“It means that now, temperatures are at least 1.7C above the pre-industrial level. It also means that the 2C target will be passed in late 2020 unless there are major reductions in emissions…
“The big picture is that the global warming clock for emission reductions to minimise the risk of dangerous climate change has been brought forward by at least a decade”.
However, many scientists are concerned about this framing of the study.
Warming limits
Dr Friederike Otto, who was not involved in the study, is a senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London’s Grantham Institute. She says the paper “does not tell us anything about whether we have exceeded the 1.5C temperature limit set in the Paris Agreement”.
She continues:
“That limit was established as the threshold of unacceptably dangerous warming and describes temperature rise relative to the late 19th century. If this study has indeed identified warming from before the mid-1800s, that doesn’t mean the planet is any closer to breaking the 1.5C limit as it is widely understood.”
(The IPCC best estimate – in all but the highest emission scenario – is that global warming will pass 1.5C in the first half of the 2030s.)
Mahli adds:
“Our models of climate warming impacts are based on warming relative to 1850-1900 and moving the baseline definition of pre-industrial does not make these expected impacts worse…
“It is the date of the reference period that matters rather than whether it is labelled pre-industrial or not. The period 1850-1900 is a period of relatively reliable global data when industrial era human-caused climate change was likely negligible.”
Dr Andrew King is a senior lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne and was not involved in the study. He tells Carbon Brief that the findings of the study do not have any implications for the Paris Agreement warming limits, because these were “written in 2015 with a view to limiting further global warming from that point onwards”.
He adds:
“While the lack of clarity on what pre-industrial means was problematic, it doesn’t really affect that goal or any of the analyses on climate impacts at global warming levels that have been performed.”
King also tells Carbon Brief that the authors have not demonstrated that pre-1850s warming is due to human activity.
Malhi agrees that “this early industrial-era warming, if real, is almost certainly not human-caused”. He notes that human-caused emissions over 1750-1900 account for only 2.5% of total emissions to date, and says they are “unlikely to have caused substantial warming compared to the 1.4C of warming caused by the remaining 97.5% of cumulative emissions”.
Dr Duo Chan, a lecturer in climate sciences at the University of Southampton, also advises “caution” when interpreting the results, noting that “this new warming estimate does not align” with historical estimates of the different factors that affect the climate.
He notes that, according to Berkeley Earth temperature estimates, the land warmed by around 0.05C per decade over 1850-1900. The new proxy data from the sponges suggests that the ocean warmed almost twice as quickly as the land over this time – a “puzzling observation given the ocean warms more slowly than land”, he says.
Dr Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief’s contributing science writer, adds that the study authors are “conflating ocean mixed layer temperature with sea surface temperature in a way that is confusing”. He adds that “their reconstruction also seems a bit at odds with other palaeoclimate reconstructions – such as PAGES2k – that do not see large differences in pre-1900 temperatures”.
The sclerosponge record
Coralline sclerosponges are an ancient type of calcifying sea sponge which can live for hundreds of years. As they grow, chemicals called strontium and calcium build up in their skeletons. The ratio of strontium to calcium in their skeletons is higher during warm periods and lower during cool periods.
Scientists collected live specimens of sclerosponge from the Caribbean sea and analysed the ratios of strontium to calcium in their skeletons to reproduce a timeseries of ocean temperatures in the region from the year 1700 to the present day.
Dr Amos Winter is a professor of Earth and environmental systems at Indiana State University and author on the study. He told the press briefing that there is no such thing as a “perfect proxy”, but said the sclerosponge record is “as good as possible – the holy grail of reconstruction”.
He explained that the Caribbean is “the ideal location to measure global trends”. According to the paper, the region is “ideally positioned” to have a “minimal” impact from the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, while “still registering the broader effects” of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate phenomenon.
He adds that the sclerosponge temperature reconstruction is “very robust” when compared to other assessments of temperature trends.
Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says that the new data is a “useful addition to the database” of palaeoclimate proxies. However, he adds:
“Estimates of the global mean temperatures before 1850 require multiple proxies from as wide a regional variation as possible, thus claims that records from a single record can confidently define the global mean warming since the pre-industrial are probably overreaching.”
Prof Gabi Hegerl, a professor of climate system science at the University of Edinburgh, says that the paper presents a “nice new record” of ocean temperatures, but says that “the interpretation in terms of global warming goals overstretches it”.
She warns that “a single location cannot substitute global data, as climate varies across the globe, which is why the only way to measure global temperature is to get data from across the globe”.
Similarly, Hausfather calls the finding “interesting”, but says it “should be combined with other proxy records in a larger synthesis before it will change our prevailing views here”.
The post Scientists challenge ‘flawed communication’ of study claiming 1.5C warming breach appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Scientists challenge ‘flawed communication’ of study claiming 1.5C warming breach
Continue Reading
An older teaching about land acknowledgement
As I have come to understand the spirit and intention of land acknowledgement, I often return to fond memories of my grandmother and her words of wisdom. She taught that the health of the places we call home comes first, because the wellbeing of the people depends on it.
In her teaching, land acknowledgement began with the land. Long before it became a paragraph read at the start of a meeting, it was a way of recognizing a homeland: its waters, its species, its seasons, and the spirit that revealed whether the place was well.
Her teaching echoes a practice found across many Indigenous Nations. Haudenosaunee gatherings, for example, have long opened with the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen, the Thanksgiving Address, often translated as “the words that come before all else.” The speaker greets and gives thanks to the people, the earth, the waters, the plants, the animals, the winds, the sun, the moon and the stars. Only after everything that sustains life has been acknowledged does the gathering turn to its own business.
That order changes what an acknowledgement is for. Its purpose was to share the story of a place with neighbours and to draw them into the work of tending it. People entered the story second, as the ones responsible for what had just been named.
Understood this way, an acknowledgement does more than open a meeting. It asks us to reconsider where we stand, and what we owe the ground beneath us.
Nations among nations
In her teaching, people are one nation among many. The salmon are a nation. So are the cedars, the bison, the medicine plants, and the pollinators. Each belongs to a place, carries its own responsibilities, and offers gifts no other nation can give.
This idea of kinship runs through many Indigenous philosophies. The phrase “all my relations,” heard in ceremonies and gatherings across Turtle Island, is a reminder that family extends beyond people to the animals, plants, waters and lands that make life possible. Some Indigenous languages carry the same understanding in their grammar, speaking of many plants, animals and natural forces as living beings rather than objects.
Sovereignty, understood through this relationship, is a kind of standing more than a form of control. Each nation belongs fully to its place and carries its share of that place’s life. No nation thrives alone, and none thrives by taking over the whole.
The land is also the source of instruction. Over generations, people watched how a river valley or a stretch of prairie kept itself well: who arrived when, who fed whom, and how much could be taken before the giving stopped. In my grandmother’s telling, those observations became instructions, and those instructions helped shape law and protocol. They guided when to harvest, where to camp, how to enter a neighbour’s territory, and what was owed in return.
Indigenous legal scholars today often describe this as law that comes from the land itself, learned by watching how living systems sustain one another. A plainer name for it is knowing how to live somewhere.
The host and the guest
One of the clearest teachings in this understanding of the world is the relationship between host and guest. My grandmother invited us to recognize that relationship in the lives of plants and animals.
A host prepares the place before anyone arrives. A beaver family dams a stream, and the pond becomes a home for fish, frogs, birds and plants. A fallen tree becomes a nurse log, feeding the next generation of seedlings as it returns to the soil.
A host offers first. A flowering plant sets out nectar. A berry bush ripens fruit. These provisions come in their own season, not whenever a visitor happens to want them.
A host also makes its presence known. Birdsong, scent and the marks left along a trail tell newcomers that a place is already inhabited. The visitor does not arrive in an empty world.
The guest has responsibilities too. A guest attends to the season and to what the place can offer. A guest does not assume that everything within reach is theirs to take. A guest leaves something that helps sustain the relationship.
A bee takes nectar and carries pollen. Read through this teaching, that exchange offers an image of visiting well: receiving a gift while helping the host continue its life.
Many Indigenous harvesting protocols carry the same ethic into daily practice: ask before taking, take only what is needed, offer thanks, and leave enough for others and for the plant or animal to recover.
None of this suggests that every relationship in nature is peaceful or generous. These are ways of seeing responsibilities that people can learn to carry.
Everyone is both
No being is only a host or only a guest.
A tree makes room for other life while depending on soil, water, sunlight, fungi, and relationships beyond itself. People, too, may welcome others into their homes while remaining dependent on the larger homeland that sustains them.
The distinction between host and guest is therefore about roles, not ranks. Everyone receives. Everyone has something to give.
The question is whether the exchange sustains the place.
A visitor who takes without restraint leaves less for those who come next. A host who neglects the place has less to offer. Both have responsibilities, and neither can fulfil them alone.
This is the heart of reciprocity, a principle found across Indigenous philosophies: relationships stay healthy when gifts move in both directions. The Haudenosaunee teaching of the seventh generation extends that exchange across time, asking that decisions made today leave the place well for those not yet born.
Mutual benefit begins here, with the recognition that different beings carry different gifts and obligations.
What people carry forward
My grandmother’s teaching connects these relationships to the ways people meet their neighbours.
The host prepares a place, offers food and rest, and explains where the visitor has arrived. The guest makes themselves known, explains why they have come, listens to the terms of the visit, and brings something in return. The gift may be material. It may also be labour, knowledge, news, or a commitment to help.
Nations around the Great Lakes carried this ethic into treaty. The Dish with One Spoon, an agreement among the Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe and allied Nations, describes shared hunting grounds as a single dish. Everyone eats from it with one spoon, takes only what they need, leaves enough for others, and keeps the dish clean. The Two Row Wampum, between the Haudenosaunee and European newcomers, shows two vessels travelling side by side on the same river, each keeping its own ways and neither steering the other.
In this understanding, acknowledgement is more than naming the people associated with a territory. It is learning enough about a homeland to behave responsibly within it.
Whose home is this? What sustains it? What laws and agreements guide our presence? What can we receive, and what must we return?
These questions make acknowledgement a relationship rather than a recital.
They also make it diplomatic. A guest who recognizes the host’s homeland recognizes that they have entered a place with its own relationships and responsibilities. A host who welcomes the guest makes room for an encounter governed by those relationships.
Neither arrives without standing. Neither arrives without obligations.
Beginning with place
I write from the shores of the Bay of Quinte. Here, the teaching asks me to begin with the water, the shoreline, and the life they sustain. Before I describe myself, I must attend to where I am.
That does not make people or history less important. It places them within the homeland that gives them meaning. The people, their laws, their agreements, and their responsibilities all belong to the place.
In a time of longer fire seasons, troubled waters, and uncertainty about what the next season will bring, this teaching asks something difficult and useful of us: pay attention before you speak.
An acknowledgement cannot tell the story of a place if the speaker has stopped noticing it.
The land came first. Beginning there again means learning to name what sustains us, and accepting that what sustains us also asks something of us.
By Rye Karonhiowanen Barberstock
Photo by Andrik Langfield on Unsplash
The post The Land Came First appeared first on Indigenous Climate Hub.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels and cement are projected to fall by around 0.4% in 2026 to 38.2bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2), according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project.
This guest post is by:
- Dr Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief’s climate science contributor
- Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, chair of mathematical modelling of climate systems at the Universit