Problem Solution Essay IELTS Writing Task 2 Lesson

IELTS Writing Task 2 Problem and Solution Essay Lesson

In this lesson, you will learn how to write a problem solving essay:

I will explain common mistakes;
I will explain how to analyze the problem;
I will introduce how to think about ideas;
Learn the configuration that can be used as many times as you want in all IELTS problem solving essays;
Explain the introduction, text, and conclusions.
Band 9 model answer

The problem solving problem is one of the most common questions in the IELTS Writing Task 2 of the academic paper. Despite the very common questions, many examinees cannot produce good results on these problems. In this article, we will look at some of the most common mistakes and explain how to answer these questions in order.

Common Mistakes

The most common mistake in the problem solving essay is that it does not expand your ideas and simply list many problems and solutions. The examiner is not looking for a list of problems or solutions you can come up with. Instead, if you look at how to score the exam, the examiner is asking you to choose one or two solutions, and to explain and explain it. The method will be described later.
Another common mistake is to write about problems and solutions that are not directly related to the question. When you answer a question, you should be like a sniper, not a general idea of overall problems, but only a very specific idea. This is very related to how to identify the keywords and microkie words of the questions described later.
Many people think of a good idea for the problem, but cannot connect the solution to the problem. Each problem should have a solution directly linked to it, in other words, it must solve the actual problem.
Finally, some examinees who think about really good problems and solutions to answer the questions, and expand their answers with explanations and examples, but we talk too much. Instead, you should consider specific examples and explanations. Let's take a look at how to avoid this.

Analysing the Question

This is one of the most important parts in answering IELTS writing issues. If you don't take the time on what the examiner is looking for, it will be very difficult to answer the problem correctly.

We analyze the problem while thinking about three:

keyword
Microkie word
Action word

A keyword is a word that indicates a rough topic.

Micro Key words indicate which part of the general topic you want the examiner to talk about. In many cases, they express their opinions, modify their remarks, and talk about larger general topics.

The action word tells us what we want the examiner to do.

Problem Solution Sample Essay

Global warming is one of the biggest threats faced by mankind in the 21st century, and the sea surface continues to rise at an amazing speed.

What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered?

If you look at this question, you can see that the keyword is "global warming". This is our general topic. I will write about this, but I can't write any problems related to global warming. If you do so, you will not answer the questions properly. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on microkie words.

Micro words are "human" and "sea level rise". In other words, it is not only about the large topics of global warming and related issues (storm increase, extinction of specific animals, soil erosion, etc.), but how the sea level rises especially affect humans. I have to talk about. If you talk about the problem that affects the Earth, animals, and "air", you will not answer the question.

Action word is a problem and solution. Therefore, our work is to write about it and it only. There is no opinion about the disadvantages, advantages, and causes of problems and solutions alone. If you discuss the cause of the sea level rise, you will not answer the question.

How to Think of Ideas

Now that we know what the question is looking for, we need to consider specific and appropriate ideas. There are many strategies to consider the ideas of IELTS Lighting Task 2, but I like to use something called "coffee shop method" in proble m-solving problems.

Instead of brainstorming and mind maps-in my opinion, it takes too much time, leading to unrelated ideas-I am in a coffee shop with my friends and pretend to be a simple question. In this case, that is, "What are the problems and solutions that sea level rising will spread to humans?"

If you were talking to a friend about this, there would be no problem to think about at least two or three problems and solutions. This method will release you from the test situation and lead to a more relaxed environment. Please try it. If you don't like it, try my other way.

There are some problems and solutions:

Problem: Inundation in people's houses and offices

Solutions: The construction of a flood prevention barrier and relocation to a hill

Question: Loss of farmland and hunger

Solutions: Transfer to more suitable crops

Question: Millions of immigration

Solution: Move people in a planned and orderly way before the flood.

Question: I can't drink groundwater

Solutions: Build a desalification plant

As you can see, I didn't think about a lot of problems and many solutions. We must consider a solution to each problem directly solving the problem.

You have a lot of ideas, but this time you have to decide which one to use. I always say to the students to choose what I know the best, that is, what I can explain and give a related example.

Structure

I have advice on students to use the basic four paragraph compositions in all problem solving IELTS essays. The four paragraphs are as follows:

Paragraph 1- First

Paragraph 2-problem

Paragraph 3-solution

Paragraph 4-Conclusion

At the sentence level, the following configuration:

At the beginning

1- Ideal question

2-Overview

Problem

3- Explanation of problems

4-Explain the first problem

5- Explain the second problem

6-2 Examples of the problem

Answer

7- Express the solution

8-Explain the solution to the first problem

9- Explain the solution to the second problem

10-Example of solution to the second problem

Conclusion

Summary of the main points of sentence 11-paragraph 2 and 3

For other syntax, see the syntax guide for IELTS Task 2.

Let's take a closer look at each paragraph.

Introduction

The introduction part has two sentences: paraphrasing and overview.

Paraphraging (paraphrase) is to say a sentence of the same meaning in another word. It is possible by using synonyms or changing the order of words.

Question-Global warming is one of the biggest threats faced by humanity in the 21st century, and the sea surface continues to rise at an amazing speed.

Rependation-Climate change is one of the biggest crisis faced by the century this century, and the sea level is dramatically increasing.

As described above, the words of the question are changed using synonyms, but the meaning is the same. The examiner looks at your abilities, so it's a good idea to practice this skill.

Next is the outline sentence, which tells the examiner what to read in the rest of the essay. This makes it very clear for the examiner and easier to understand the rest of the essays. Therefore, points can be obtained by consistency and unity.

The outline text is as follows:

In this essay, the biggest problem caused by this phenomenon suggests that land losses and houses are flooded, and then claiming that reduction of contamination and flood defense are the most executive solutions. do.

Therefore, the preface is as follows:

Climate change is one of the major crisis faced by humanity in the century, and the sea level is dramatically increasing. In this essay, first point out that the biggest problem caused by this phenomenon is the loss of land and the flooding of the house, and then the reduction of contamination and the construction of flood defense are the most executive solutions. I claim.

In addition, this introduction does not include a dissertation. This is because this problem does not require our opinion. However, in the problem of solving IELTS, you may be asked your opinion, so you need to put a thesis in that case.

Problems Paragraph

Our problem paragraphs will be like this:

Sentence 1-Express the problem

Sentence 2-Explain the first problem

Explain the question 3- Second problem

Sent 4- Second problem example

Describe problems: The biggest problem caused by the rise in the sea level is that land is lost and people often flood.

I have to explain it next because I have stated the problem. The audience should always think that they are people who have no expertise in this field, so they need to explain what everything means. Don't assume that an IELTS examiner knows what you are talking about and what you are talking about. If you have such a belief, you will not be able to write what you need.

As the water level rises, the lowlands are submerged and many countries become smaller.

Explain the second problem: In addition, millions of people around the world live in the coastal area, and if the sea rises even in a few feet, they will be immersed in water and lose their property.

Here, we must give an example of what we are talking about. When giving an example, it must be as concrete as possible.

In a very common example, it will be as follows:

Many people around the world have recently been flooded.

This is too general to be considered a good example.

Example: The devastation caused by the 2011 Japanese tsunami was obvious to everyone, as millions of people were forced to evacuate.

This example is more specific. You can make your example more specific by mentioning a location and date.

Your paragraphs should look like this:

The biggest problem caused by rising sea levels is the loss of land and people's homes are often flooded. As the water level rises, low-lying areas are submerged and many countries become smaller. In addition, millions of people around the world live in coastal areas, and if sea levels rise even a few feet, they will be flooded and lose their property. The devastation caused by this was obvious to everyone, as millions of people were forced to evacuate.

Now, we need to move on to solutions.

Solutions Paragraph

Your solution paragraph should be structured as follows:

Sentence 1- State the solution

Sentence 2- Explain the solution to the first problem

Sentence 3- Explain the solution to the second problem

Sentence 4- Example of a solution to the second problem

State the solution: Possible solutions to these problems are to reduce the amount of pollution produced and to build flood protection walls.

You should then explain how our solution would help solve the problem. Again, do not assume that the examiner has specialist knowledge of this topic.

Explain the first solution: If each person reduced their carbon dioxide emissions, the negative impact on the environment would be reduced and water levels would not rise.

Explain the second solution: Additionally, flood protection structures such as dikes, dams and floodgates could be built along coasts and waterways to stop water from reaching populated areas.

Example: The Netherlands is one of the most populous regions in the world and one of the most vulnerable to flooding. The Netherlands has adopted a variety of flood protection systems with success.

Your entire solution paragraph should look like this:

The solution to such a problem is to reduce the amount of pollutants generated and to build a flood prevention embankment. If each person reduces carbon dioxide emissions, the adverse effect on the environment will be reduced and the water level will stop. In addition, by constructing flood defensive facilities such as embankments, dams, and floods along the coast and waterways, water can be stopped from reaching densely populated areas. The Netherlands is one of the most popular areas in the world, and is one of the most vulnerable areas for floods, and has been successful with various flood defense systems.

Now you'll answer the question, so you need to summarize what you have stated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we list the new ideas of the previous two paragraphs, rather than expressing new ideas. In this paragraph, you can also use a synonym to avoid repetition.

Conclusion: In terms of the tide of the tide caused by the rise of the earth, it is one of the most important issues we face, and ultimately in the country that loses the land and the world in the water. It will lead to many cities.

This is the conclusion of this problem solving essay as a whole:

Problem and Solution Sample Essay

The following is the full text of the essay:

Global warming is one of the biggest threats faced by mankind in the 21st century, and the sea surface continues to rise at an amazing speed.

What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered?

Climate change is one of the biggest crisis faced by mankind in the century, and the sea level has risen dramatically. In this essay, the biggest problem caused by this phenomenon is to point out that land is losing land and flooding of houses, and then claiming that reducing contamination and building flood defense are the most executive solutions. 。 A solution to such a problem is to reduce the amount of pollutants generated and to build a flood prevention embankment. If each person reduces carbon dioxide emissions, the adverse effect on the environment will be reduced and the water level will stop. In addition, by constructing flood defensive facilities such as embankments, dams, and floods along the coast and waterways, water can be stopped from reaching densely populated areas. The Netherlands is one of the most popular areas in the world, and is one of the most vulnerable areas for floods, and has been successful with various flood defense systems.
Now you'll answer the question, so you need to summarize what you have stated.
In conclusion, we list the new ideas of the previous two paragraphs, rather than expressing new ideas. In this paragraph, you can also use a synonym to avoid repetition.
Conclusion: In terms of the tide of the tide caused by the rise of the earth, it is one of the most important issues we face, and ultimately in the country that loses the land and the world in the water. It will lead to many cities.

This is the conclusion of this problem solving essay as a whole:

The following is the full text of the essay:

Global warming is one of the biggest threats faced by mankind in the 21st century, and the sea level is rising at an amazing speed.

What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered?

About Christopher Pell

Climate change is one of the biggest crisis faced by mankind in the century, and the sea level has risen dramatically. In this essay, the biggest problem caused by this phenomenon is to point out that land is losing land and flooding of houses, and then claiming that reducing contamination and building flood defense are the most executive solutions. 。 The solution to such a problem is to reduce the amount of pollutants generated and to build a flood prevention embankment. If each person reduces carbon dioxide emissions, the adverse effect on the environment will be reduced and the water level will stop. In addition, by constructing flood defensive facilities such as embankments, dams, and floods along the coast and waterways, water can be stopped from reaching densely populated areas. The Netherlands is one of the most popular areas in the world, and is one of the most vulnerable areas for floods, and has been successful with various flood defense systems.

Now you'll answer the question, so you need to summarize what you have stated.

In conclusion, we list the new ideas of the previous two paragraphs, rather than expressing new ideas. In this paragraph, you can also use a synonym to avoid repetition.

Indicators of Global Climate Change 2023: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence

Piers M. Forster

This is the conclusion of this problem solving essay as a whole: In conclusion, stopping the tide of the tide caused by the rise in global temperature is one of the most important issues we face, and ultimately in many countries in the country where the land loses its land and in the world where it is submerged. The possible solution is to protect our environment and utilize flood prevention technologies already used by countries like the Netherlands.

Chris Smith

In conclusion, stopping the tide of the tide caused by the rise in global temperature is one of the most important issues we face, and ultimately in many countries in the country where the land loses its land and in the world where it is submerged. The possible solution is to protect our environment and utilize flood prevention technologies already used by countries like the Netherlands. Global warming is one of the biggest threats faced by mankind in the 21st century, and the sea level is rising at an amazing speed. What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered?

Tristram Walsh

William F. Lamb

The biggest problem caused by the rise in the sea level is that land is lost and people often flood. As the water level rises, the lowlands are submerged and many countries become smaller. In addition, millions of people around the world live in coastal areas, and if the sea surface rises a few feet, they will be immersed in water and lose their property. In the 2011 large tsunami, when millions of people were evacuated, this misery was clear in everyone. In conclusion, stopping the tide of the tide caused by the rise in global temperature is one of the most important issues we face, and ultimately in many countries in the country where the land loses its land and in the world where it is submerged. The possible solution is to protect our environment and utilize flood prevention technologies already used by countries like the Netherlands.

Robin Lamboll

In conclusion, stopping the tide of the tide caused by the rise in global temperature is one of the most important issues we face, and ultimately the country of the country that is losing its land and the world in water. It leads to many.

Bradley Hall

I hope this post will be useful for IELTS problem solving essays.

Mathias Hauser

Next step

Aurélien Ribes

If this lesson is useful and helpful to write a proble m-solving essay, check out the lessons of Task 2's opinion, debate essay, advantages and drawback essays.

Debbie Rosen

Nathan P. Gillett

The best way to get the latest information on such posts is to press "Like" on Facebook. There are many practice activities on the Facebook page.

Matthew D. Palmer

What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered? The IELTS advantage has begun as a simple blog to help 16 students in my class. A few years later, I am very honored that my VIP course has helped me get a score of 7 or higher bands in the IELTS test of thousands of people around the world. The biggest problem caused by the sea level rise is that land is lost and people often flood. As the water level rises, the lowlands are submerged and many countries become smaller. In addition, millions of people around the world live in coastal areas, and if the sea surface rises a few feet, they will be immersed in water and lose their property. In the 2011 large tsunami, when millions of people were evacuated, this misery was clear in everyone.

Joeri Rogelj

Karina von Schuckmann

Blair Trewin

I hope this post will be useful for IELTS problem solving essays.

Myles Allen

Robbie Andrew

If this lesson is useful and helpful to write a proble m-solving essay, check out the lessons of Task 2's opinion, debate essay, advantages and drawback essays.

Richard A. Betts

What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered? The best way to get the latest information on such posts is to press "Like" on Facebook. There are many practice activities on the Facebook page.

Alex Borger

IELTS Advantage Managing Director, Christopher Pers.

Tim Boyer

The IELTS advantage has begun as a simple blog to help 16 students in my class. A few years later, I am very honored that my VIP course has helped me get a score of 7 or higher bands in the IELTS test of thousands of people around the world. The biggest problem caused by the rise in the sea level is that land is lost and people often flood. As the water level rises, the lowlands are submerged and many countries become smaller. In addition, millions of people around the world live in coastal areas, and if the sea surface rises a few feet, they will be immersed in water and lose their property. In the 2011 large tsunami, when millions of people were evacuated, this misery was clear in everyone.

Jiddu A. Broersma

IELTS Advantage Managing Director, Christopher Pers.

Carlo Buontempo

Samantha Burgess

Chiara Cagnazzo

Lijing Cheng

If this lesson is useful and helpful to write a proble m-solving essay, check out the lessons of Task 2's opinion, debate essay, advantages and drawback essays.

Pierre Friedlingstein

The best way to get the latest information on such posts is to press "Like" on Facebook. There are many practice activities on the Facebook page.

Andrew Gettelman

IELTS Advantage Managing Director, Christopher Pers.

Johannes Gütschow

Masayoshi Ishii

If I need my help in IELTS measures, please send an email from the inquiry page.

Stuart Jenkins

Xin Lan

Responsible author Leeds University Pr i-Street Center, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

Colin Morice

What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered?

Jens Mühle

International Applied System Analysis Research (IIASA), Austria, Vienna

Christopher Kadow

I hope this post will be useful for IELTS problem solving essays.

John Kennedy

Oxford University Environmental Democratic Institute (UK, Oxford

Rachel E. Killick

What are the problems with this and what solutions can be considered?

Paul B. Krummel

Leeds University Pr i-Street Center (UK, Leeds, LS2 9JT

Jan C. Minx

Gunnar Myhre

If this lesson is useful and helpful to write a proble m-solving essay, check out the lessons of Task 2's opinion, debate essay, advantages and drawback essays.

Vaishali Naik

France Meteor, Toulouses University, CNRS, Toulouse, France

Glen P. Peters

If this lesson is useful and helpful to write a proble m-solving essay, check out the lessons of Task 2's opinion, debate essay, advantages and drawback essays.

Anna Pirani

Environment / Climate Change Canada (Canada, Victoria British Exchange, Japan Meteorological Agency Hadley Center

Julia Pongratz

Bristol University Faculty of Global Science (Bristol, UK Imperial College London Environmental Policy Center (London, UK

Carl-Friedrich Schleussner

Mercatol Ocean International (Toulose, France The Australian Meteorological Bureau (Melbourne)

Sonia I. Seneviratne

Next step

Sophie Szopa

CICERO International Climate Research Center (Norway, Oslo

Peter Thorne

British Exchange, Japan Meteorological Agency Hadley Center

Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam

IELTS Advantage Managing Director, Christopher Pers.

Elisa Majamäki

Climate change tracker, data for action foundation (Netherlands, Amsterdam)

Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen

Climate change tracker, data for action foundation (Netherlands, Amsterdam)

Margreet van Marle

Climate change tracker, data for action foundation (Netherlands, Amsterdam)

Rachel M. Hoesly

ECWMF (Bonn, Germany

Robert Rohde

ECWMF (German Bonn)

Dominik Schumacher

Next step

Guido van der Werf

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Physical Physical Research (China, Beijing

Russell Vose

Exchange University Environment / Science / Economic Department (UK / Exchange)

Kirsten Zickfeld

Pierre Simon Laplace Dynamics Institute, CNRS, Paris High School/PSL University, France

Xuebin Zhang

The best way to get the latest information on such posts is to press "Like" on Facebook. There are many practice activities on the Facebook page.

Valérie Masson-Delmotte

CICERO International Climate Research Center (Norway, Oslo

Panmao Zhai

Meteorological Research Institute (Tsukuba, Japan)

Oxford University Environmental Fluctuation Institute (Oxford, UK

NOAA Global Monitoring Research Institute (Boulder, Colorado, USA)

Colorado University Cires (Boulder, Colorado, USA)

British Exchange, Japan Meteorological Agency Hadley Center

Skrips Marine Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, Lahoya, California, the United States₂German climate calculation center, Hamburg, Germany (DKRZ)₂Independent Researcher France, Berdan

British Exchange, Japan Meteorological Agency Hadley Center

Exchange University Global Systems Research Institute (UK Exceter)

Mercattle Earth Commons Climate Change Research Institute (MCC), Germany Berlin
Leeds University Pr i-Street Center (UK, Lize, LS2 9JT

British Exchange, Japan Meteorological Agency Hadley Center

NOAA Global Fluid Dynamics Institute (Princeton, New Jersey, USA

Cicero International Climate Research Center (Norwegian Oslo) European Mediterranean Center (CMCC), Benis, Italy about climate change

Italy, Benis, Ka Foskari University Faculty of Environmental Sciences

Ludwig Maximilian University Geographical Department (Munich, Germany)

Max Plank Meteorological Research Institute (Hamburg, Germany)

Climate Analytics (Berlin, Germany)

Berlin Humboldt University Faculty of Geography and IRI THESYS (Germany Berlin)

Swiss Federal University of Engineering University of Technical University, Faculty of Environmental System System System, Research Institute for Section and Climate Science

Pierre Simon Laplace Research Institute, Climate and Environmental Science Institute, UMR8212 CNRS-CEA-UVSQ, Paris Sacle University, 91191, Jif Sur Evet, France

ICARUS Climate Research Center, Meinus University, Meinus, Ireland

US Hampton, NASA, LARC₂Finnish Meteorological Research Institute (Finnish Helsinki)₄Finland Meteorological Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland

2.1 Methods of estimating greenhouse gas emissions changes

Del Terrace (Dutch, Delft₂Pacific Northwest National Research Institute (Richland, Washington, USA₂Berkeley Earth (Berkeley, California, USA₂Zurich Institute of Technology, Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland, Faculty of Environmental System Sciences₂Warheningen University / Research (Netherlands, Warheningen)₄NOAA National Environmental Information Center (NCEI), Ashville, North Carolina, USA₂Vancouver, Canada, Faculty of Geography, Simon Fraser University₂Canadian environment and climate change (Canada Victoria)₂Pierre Simon Laplace Research Institute, Climate and Environmental Science Research Institute, UMR8212 CNRS-CEA-UVSQ, UNIVERSITE PARIS-SACLAY, 91191, GIF-SUR-YVETTE, France₂China Meteorological Academy (China, Beijing)₄Publisher Note: It was pointed out that the original published article reported that the number of incorrect numbers was reported in Table 10 (read 1. 81 ° C in the third row, not 1. 74 ° C in 2014-2023. You should). This was corrected and Figure 11 was updated. Other than that, there is no change.₂Summary

The interconnection panel (IPCC) evaluation of climate change is trusted as a scientific evidence in climate change negotiations under the United Nations Conditions (UNFCCC). Evidenc e-based decisio n-making requires the latest and timely information about the state of the climate system and the main indicators on human impact on global climate systems. However, since the IPCC report is issued at intervals of 5 to 10 years, there is a possibility that an information gap will occur during the report cycle.₆We follow the methods used in the IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) 1st Working Group (WGI) report. That is, the amount of greenhouse gas and shor t-lifetime climat e-forced factors, greenhouse gas concentration, radiation force, global energy imbalance, changes in ground surface temperature, the remaining carbon balance due to human activity, the remaining carbon balance. The estimated temperature of the extreme temperature. The purpose of this initiative based on the open data and open science approach is to use the reliable global climate indicators that are updated every year in public domains (https://doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 11388387, Smith et al., 2024A). Because the method of the IPCC report is tracing, it is trusted by all stakeholders involved in UNFCCC negotiations, which helps understand the latest knowledge of climate systems and their travel directions. Publisher Note: It was pointed out that in the initially published article, the incorrect value was reported in Table 10 (2014-2023 is not 1. 74 ° C, but the third row 1. 81. You should read it as ℃). This was corrected and Figure 11 was updated. Other than that, there is no change.₃Summary

The interconnection panel (IPCC) evaluation of climate change is trusted as a scientific evidence in climate change negotiations under the United Nations Conditions (UNFCCC). Evidenc e-based decisio n-making requires the latest and timely information about the state of the climate system and the main indicators on human impact on global climate systems. However, since the IPCC report is issued at intervals of 5 to 10 years, there is a possibility that an information gap will occur during the report cycle.₂We follow the methods used in the IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) 1st Working Group (WGI) report. That is, the amount of greenhouse gas and shor t-lifetime climat e-forced factors, greenhouse gas concentration, radiation force, global energy imbalance, changes in ground surface temperature, the remaining carbon balance due to human activity, the remaining carbon balance. The estimated temperature of the extreme temperature. The purpose of this initiative based on the open data and open science approach is to use the reliable global climate indicators that are updated every year in public domains (https://doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 11388387, Smith et al., 2024A). Because the method of the IPCC report is tracing, it is trusted by all stakeholders involved in UNFCCC negotiations, which helps understand the latest knowledge of climate systems and their travel directions. Publisher Note: It was pointed out that the original published article reported that the number of incorrect numbers was reported in Table 10 (read 1. 81 ° C in the third row, not 1. 74 ° C in 2014-2023. You should). This was corrected and Figure 11 was updated. Other than that, there is no change.

Summary₂The interconnection panel (IPCC) evaluation of climate change is trusted as a scientific evidence in climate change negotiations under the United Nations Conditions (UNFCCC). Evidenc e-based decisio n-making requires the latest and timely information about the state of the climate system and the main indicators on human impact on global climate systems. However, since the IPCC report is issued at intervals of 5 to 10 years, there is a possibility that an information gap will occur during the report cycle.₂We follow the methods used in the IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) 1st Working Group (WGI) report. That is, the amount of greenhouse gas and shor t-lifetime climat e-forced factors, greenhouse gas concentration, radiation force, global energy imbalance, changes in ground surface temperature, the remaining carbon balance due to human activity, the remaining carbon balance. The estimated temperature of the extreme temperature. The purpose of this initiative based on the open data and open science approach is to use the reliable global climate indicators that are updated every year in public domains (https://doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 11388387, Smith et al., 2024A). Because the method of the IPCC report is tracing, it is trusted by all stakeholders involved in UNFCCC negotiations, which helps understand the latest knowledge of climate systems and their travel directions.₂According to this index, on average 10 years from 2014 to 2023, the observed warming was 1. 19 [1. 06 to 1. 30] ° C, of which 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4] ° C was artificial. In a singl e-year average, the global warming, which is the origin of humanity, reached 1. 31 [1. 1 to 1. 7] in 2023 compared to 1850 to 1900. This best estimation shows that it is less than 1. 43 [1. 32 to 1. 53] ° C, which is the observed value of 2023, and indicates that internal fluctuations have been considerably contributed to the 2023 observations. Artificial warming has reached 0. 26 [0. 2 to 0. 4] per 10 years from 2014 to 2023, and has increased at an unprecedented speed in observation history. This high warming is 53 ± 5. 4Gt Co's pure emission of greenhouse gases.₄Publisher Note: It was pointed out that the original published article reported that the number of incorrect numbers was reported in Table 10 (read 1. 81 ° C in the third row, not 1. 74 ° C in 2014-2023. You should). This was corrected and Figure 11 was updated. Other than that, there is no change.₂Depending on the selection of society, continuing such an annual update for an important 1 0-year of the 2020s can track some directions of the indicators shown here.₂According to this index, on average 10 years from 2014 to 2023, the observed warming was 1. 19 [1. 06 to 1. 30] ° C, of which 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4] ° C was artificial. In a singl e-year average, the global warming, which is the origin of humanity, reached 1. 31 [1. 1 to 1. 7] in 2023 compared to 1850 to 1900. This best estimation shows that it is less than 1. 43 [1. 32 to 1. 53] ° C, which is the observed value of 2023, and indicates that internal fluctuations have been considerably contributed to the 2023 observations. Artificial warming has reached 0. 26 [0. 2 to 0. 4] per 10 years from 2014 to 2023, and has increased at an unprecedented speed in observation history. This high warming is 53 ± 5. 4Gt Co's pure emission of greenhouse gases.₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂Before accessing the article, first read the editing note.₂article₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂Before accessing the article, read the editorial notebook first.

share₂According to this index, on average 10 years from 2014 to 2023, the observed warming was 1. 19 [1. 06 to 1. 30] ° C, of which 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4] ° C was artificial. In a singl e-year average, the global warming, which is the origin of humanity, reached 1. 31 [1. 1 to 1. 7] in 2023 compared to 1850 to 1900. This best estimation shows that it is less than 1. 43 [1. 32 to 1. 53] ° C, which is the observed value of 2023, and indicates that internal fluctuations have been considerably contributed to the 2023 observations. Artificial warming has reached 0. 26 [0. 2 to 0. 4] per 10 years from 2014 to 2023, and has increased at an unprecedented speed in observation history. This high warming is 53 ± 5. 4Gt Co's pure emission of greenhouse gases.₄Publisher Note: It was pointed out that the original published article reported that the number of incorrect numbers was reported in Table 10 (read 1. 81 ° C in the third row, not 1. 74 ° C in 2014-2023. You should). This was corrected and Figure 11 was updated. Other than that, there is no change.₂1 At the beginning₂The IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) provided an artificial effect on the main indicators of climate condition based on the data until 2019 (IPCC, 2021A, separate volume S1). The next IPCC evaluation report AR7 is scheduled for the end of the last decade. Later to the latest scientific understanding on the speed of recent changes and the needs of the latest climate knowledge to provide information on evidenc e-based decisio n-making, and the status of important indicators on the impact of the human being Global climate change indicators (IGCC) have been launched to provide annual updates to policy implementers.₂The second annual update follows the format of last year (FORSTER ET AL., 2023), from greenhouse gas emissions to artificial warming and the remaining carbon balance. It focuses on indicators related to climate system heating. FIG. 1 shows an overview of the evaluated aspect and the interconnection links that affect the climate through the result (emission) from the cause (emission) to the climate. In order to guide readers, we provide visual roadmaps for the remaining sections of this paper.₂Fig. 1 A flowchart for data creation from emissions to artificial warming, and remaining carbon balance.₂This update is the IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) (1st Working Group (WGI) Report on Climate Change: IPCC, 2021A), and Chapter 2 of the WGIII Report (Dhakal et al , Dhakal et al., 2022), and initiatives for implementing the principle of Fair (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) for reproducibility and reuse (Pirani et al.) IPCC IPCC. The report has given a widespread evaluation of science and methodology, but does not recreate the comprehensive properties of IPCC's evaluation. Therefore, we do not consider using a fundamentally different approach to AR6. Rather, our purpose is to strictly track both the changes in climate systems between the IPCC report cycles and the improvement of the methodology that evolve, which enforce the transparency and consistency between continuous reports. It is. IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) provided an artificial evaluation of the main indicators of climate status based on the data until 2019 (IPCC, 2021A, separate volume S1). The next IPCC evaluation report AR7 is scheduled for the end of the last decade. Later to the latest scientific understanding on the speed of recent changes and the needs of the latest climate knowledge to provide information on evidenc e-based decisio n-making, and the status of important indicators on the impact of the human being Global climate change indicators (IGCC) have been launched to provide annual updates to policy implementers.₂The second annual update follows the format of last year (FORSTER ET AL., 2023), from greenhouse gas emissions to artificial warming and the remaining carbon balance. It focuses on indicators related to climate system heating. FIG. 1 shows an overview of the evaluated aspect and the interconnection links that affect the climate through the result (emission) from the cause (emission) to the climate. In order to guide readers, we provide visual roadmaps for the remaining sections of this paper.₂Fig. 1 A flowchart for data creation from emissions to artificial warming, and remaining carbon balance.₄This update is the IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) (1st Working Group (WGI) Report on Climate Change: IPCC, 2021A), and Chapter 2 of the WGIII Report (Dhakal et al , Dhakal et al., 2022), and initiatives for implementing the principle of Fair (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) for reproducibility and reuse (Pirani et al.) IPCC IPCC. The report has given a widespread evaluation of science and methodology, but does not recreate the comprehensive properties of IPCC's evaluation. Therefore, we do not consider using a fundamentally different approach to AR6. Rather, our purpose is to strictly track both the changes in climate systems between the IPCC report cycles and the improvement of the methodology that evolve, which enforce the transparency and consistency between continuous reports. It is. The IPCC's 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) provided an artificial effect on the main climate status based on the data until 2019 (IPCC, 2021A, separate volume S1). The next IPCC evaluation report AR7 is scheduled for the end of the last decade. Later to the latest scientific understanding on the speed of recent changes and the needs of the latest climate knowledge to provide information on evidenc e-based decisio n-making, and the status of important indicators on the impact of the human being Global climate change indicators (IGCC) have been launched to provide annual updates to policy implementers.₂The second annual update follows the format of last year (FORSTER ET AL., 2023), from greenhouse gas emissions to artificial warming and the remaining carbon balance. It focuses on indicators related to climate system heating. FIG. 1 shows an overview of the evaluated aspect and the interconnection links that affect the climate through the result (emission) from the cause (emission) to the climate. In order to guide readers, we provide visual roadmaps for the remaining sections of this paper.₂Fig. 1 A flowchart for data creation from emissions to artificial warming, and remaining carbon balance.₂This update is the IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) (1st Working Group (WGI) Report on Climate Change: IPCC, 2021A), and Chapter 2 of the WGIII Report (Dhakal et al , Dhakal et al., 2022), and initiatives for implementing the principle of Fair (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) for reproducibility and reuse (Pirani et al.) IPCC IPCC. The report has given a widespread evaluation of science and methodology, but does not recreate the comprehensive properties of IPCC's evaluation. Therefore, we do not consider using a fundamentally different approach to AR6. Rather, our purpose is to strictly track both the changes in climate systems between the IPCC report cycles and the improvement of the methodology that evolve, which enforce the transparency and consistency between continuous reports. It is.₂The emission (chapter 2) and greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration (Chapter 3) are used to create the latest estimated values of effective radiation force (Chapter 4). Observing the energy imbalance of the earth (Section 5) and the global surface temperature change (Section 6) is an important global indicator of the world that is warmed. Section 7 officially explains the contribution to the changes in the ground surface temperature due to human effects and natural effects, and tracks the level and speed of artificial warming. In Section 8, the remaining carbon balance is updated to a temperature threshold associated with policy. Section 9 shows examples of global indicators associated with the extreme climate of the land surface. The important purpose of this exercise is to enable and understand these indicators. For the use of code and data, the conclusion is shown in Section 10, and the conclusion is shown in Section 11. Data is available at https://doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 11388387 (Smith et al., 2024A).

2 Exhaust amount₂Past emissions from human activities were evaluated in both AR6 WGI and WGIII. CO in Chapter 5 of WGI₂And CH₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂Similar to the AR6 WGIII, the net emission of greenhouse gases in this chapter is the amount of net exhausting of the greenhouse that was reported based on the UnFCCC common report format, and the amount of removal of the human source was subtracted by the absorption of human origin from the amount of human source emissions. It is a thing. For this, CO from fossil fuels₂Exhaust, net Co₂-FFI), CO discharged from land use, land use₂CO from discharge, land use, land use change, forestry₄-Lulucf), ch

; N₄O, emission of fluorine gas (F gas). Co₄-FFI is mainly excreted by combustion of fossil fuels and emissions from industrial processes such as cement production. The use of biomass and biofuels is not included. Co₄-LULUCF is mainly due to deforestation, but also includes emissions from anthropogenic land removal due to afforestation and reforestation, emissions from logging and forest degradation, emissions and removals during shifting cultivation cycles, and emissions and removals from other land-use change and land management activities, including peat burning and drainage. Non-CO

Non-CO

, N₂O and F gas emissions are associated with fossil fuel extraction, agriculture, industry and waste sectors.₂Global regulatory treaties categorize emissions of F-gases (also called halogenated gases) into two categories. The UNFCCC accounts for emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF) and nitrogen trifluoride.₂), nitrogen trifluoride (NF₂Hereinafter referred to as "UNFCCC F-gases". However, halons, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) tend to be excluded in national inventories because they are regulated by the Montreal Protocol and its amendments. Following the WGIII assessment, ODS F-gases and other substances are not included in GHG emission reports, but following the WGI assessment, they are included in the assessment of subsequent concentration changes (including compounds formed in the atmosphere as ozone), effective radiative forcing, anthropogenic warming, carbon balance and climate impacts.₂There are also different conventions for quantifying CO₂-LULUCF fluxes, including bookkeeping models, dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) and aggregated national inventory reports (Pongratz et al.). Direct comparisons are not possible due to the different boundaries and definitions of the systems applied. However, efforts to "translate" bookkeeping estimates and DGVM national inventories have shown some consistency between the various approaches (Friedlingstein et al. et al., 2022; Grassi et al., 2023).

2.2 Updated greenhouse gas emissions

Each of the greenhouse gas emission categories covered here is covered by a variety of primary sources and datasets. Many datasets cover individual categories, but few span multiple categories, and only a minority have frequent and timely update schedules. Global Carbon Balance (GCB; Friedlingstein et al.₂-FFI and CO₂-LULUCF. The Potsdam Real-time Integrated Model for Probabilistic Assessment of Emission Pathways (PRIMAP-hist; Gütschow et al., 2016) covers CO₂-FFI, CH₂, N₂article₄-FFI, CH₂, and N₂O. The Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED; van der Werf et al., 2017) version 4. 1s covers CO₂-FFI, CH₂, and N₂O. Not all of these datasets were adopted in this update for various reasons, as detailed below. In AR6 WGIII, total GHG emissions were calculated as the sum of CO₂-FFI, CH₂, N

O, UNFCCC F-gases from EDGAR, and CO₂-LULUCF emissions. Net CO₂-LULUCF emissions were calculated using three bookkeeping models (Hansis et al., 2015; Houghton and Nassikas, 2017; Gasser et al., 2020). EDGAR version 6 has been updated to include the GCB 2020 version (Friedlingstein et al. CO₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂e) emissions were calculated using the 100-year time horizon Global Warming Potential (hereafter GWP100) from AR6 WGI Chapter 7 (Forster et al., 2021). Uncertainty ranges are based on a comparative assessment of available data and expert judgement, with 90% confidence intervals (Minx et al.₂-FFI ±8%, CO₂-LULUCF ±70%, CH

and F-gas ±30%, N₂O (GCB ±5%, CO₂FFI ±2. 6Gt CO₂Friedlingstein et al. et al., 2022). The total uncertainties were summed using arithmetic operations, assuming independence of estimates by species/source. Reflecting these uncertainties, AR6 WGIII reported emissions to only two significant figures. The uncertainty of GWP100 (approximately ±10%) was not applied (Minx et al.₂This analysis tracks the same GHGs as AR6 WGIII. We measured uncertainties and CO₂emissions. As suggested in the discussion of knowledge gaps in the WGIII report (Dhakal et al., 2022), we use the same types of data sources, but with important changes in the specific choice of data sources, to further improve data quality. Instead of EDGAR data (now available as version 8), we use CO₂As in AR6 WGIII, for net CO₂-LULUCF emissions, we used the average of three bookkeeping models (BLUE, Hansis et al., 2015; Houghton and Castanho, H& amp; C, 2023; OSCAR, Gasser et al., 2020). The GCB method includes deforestation and CO₄emissions from forests but excludes forest fires, which are assumed to be natural even though climate change influences their intensity and frequency. Emissions from bunkers are included but military emissions are excluded (e. g., Bun et al., 2024). For completeness, this year we also included N₂O and CH₄We also added estimates of emissions from the GHG emissions database.₂There are three reasons for this particular data selection. First, national GHG emission inventories tend to use improved and higher-level methods to estimate emission fluxes than global inventories such as EDGAR (Dhakal et al.). As GCB and PRIMAP-hist CR consolidate the most recent national inventories submitted to the UNFCCC, the selection of these databases allows us to take full advantage of the improvements in the national-level data collection infrastructure. However, it is important to recognize that national inventories vary widely in terms of reporting intervals, applied methodologies, and emission factors (Minx et al., 2021). Of note, total CH emissions in the PRIMAP-hist CR dataset are significantly less compared to both the other datasets reported in this paper and the global atmospheric inversion estimates evaluated in this paper. A large body of literature has found that when compared to national-level CH₂inventories, the former tend to outperform the latter (Deng et al., 2022; Tibrewal et al., 2023). et al., 2024; Janardanan et al., 2024; Scarpelli et al., 2022). Compared to the median inversion models reported by Deng et al. (2022), PRIMAP-Hist CR predicts lower CH emissions from India, EU27+UK, Brazil, Russia, and Indonesia, but not from China and the US (see Figure S1).₂Second, comprehensive reporting of F-gas emissions remains challenging in national inventories, potentially excluding some military uses (see Minx et al., 2021; Dhakal et al., 2022). However, F-gases are entirely anthropogenic and their concentrations can be effectively and reliably measured in the atmosphere. We therefore follow the AR6 WGI approach and make use of direct atmospheric observations.₂Third, the CO₂-FFI can integrate projections of CO

emissions for the year. No other datasets provide projections of CO₂emissions for this time of year, other than the GCB. At this point in the publication cycle (mid-year), other sources provide data points with a lag of 2 years (i. e., for 2022). The selection of these data contributes to an overall assessment of GHG emissions, but it is important to compare data sets for each emission category and to compare them with other data sets in databases such as AR6 WGIII (EDGAR for CO

-FFI and non-CO₄GHG emissions, and CO₂-LULUCF).

Updated GHG emission estimates are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1.₂Total global GHG emissions will be 55±5. 3 Gt CO₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂-FFI contributed 36. 4±2. 9 Gt CO

.₂-LULUCF is 4. 3±3 Gt CO₂CH₂The second annual update follows the format of last year (FORSTER ET AL., 2023), from greenhouse gas emissions to artificial warming and the remaining carbon balance. It focuses on indicators related to climate system heating. FIG. 1 shows an overview of the evaluated aspect and the interconnection links that affect the climate through the result (emission) from the cause (emission) to the climate. In order to guide readers, we provide visual roadmaps for the remaining sections of this paper.₂Fig. 1 A flowchart for data creation from emissions to artificial warming, and remaining carbon balance.₄This update is the IPCC 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) (1st Working Group (WGI) Report on Climate Change: IPCC, 2021A), and Chapter 2 of the WGIII Report (Dhakal et al , Dhakal et al., 2022), and initiatives for implementing the principle of Fair (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) for reproducibility and reuse (Pirani et al.) IPCC IPCC. The report has given a widespread evaluation of science and methodology, but does not recreate the comprehensive properties of IPCC's evaluation. Therefore, we do not consider using a fundamentally different approach to AR6. Rather, our purpose is to strictly track both the changes in climate systems between the IPCC report cycles and the improvement of the methodology that evolve, which enforce the transparency and consistency between continuous reports. It is. The IPCC's 6th Evaluation Report (AR6) provided an artificial effect on the main climate status based on the data until 2019 (IPCC, 2021A, separate volume S1). The next IPCC evaluation report AR7 is scheduled for the end of the last decade. Later to the latest scientific understanding on the speed of recent changes and the needs of the latest climate knowledge to provide information on evidenc e-based decisio n-making, and the status of important indicators on the impact of the human being Global climate change indicators (IGCC) have been launched to provide annual updates to policy implementers.₂e, and N₂O is 3. 1±1. 9 Gt CO

2.3 Non-methane short-lived climate forcers

e. Initial projections suggest that CO₂emissions in 2023 will be dominated by fossil fuel and industrial emissions of 36. 8±3 Gt CO_{(Friedlingstein et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2024; see also IEA, 2023). Note that ODS F-gases such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are excluded from national GHG emission inventories. For consistency with AR6, they are also excluded here. Including them would increase total global GHG emissions by 1. 5 Gt CO}e in 2022. The annual average GHG emissions for the 10-year period 2013-2022 is 53±5. 4 Gt CO₃e, the same as last year's estimate for 2012-2021. The 10-year average GHG emissions have been driven mainly by increases in CO

emissions from fossil fuels and industry since the 1970s, but also by increases in CH

and N₂emissions.₂O. The F-gas that destroys the ozone layer in the stratastic area has been regulated by the Montreal Protocol and its amendment, and its emissions have declined significantly since the 1990s. On the other hand, the amount of other F-gas emissions regulated by UNFCCC has increased rapidly than other greenhouse gas emissions, but has begun at a low level. CO due to land use changes₂The size and tendency of emissions are still high, but the latest data has an average of 4 to 5 GT CO in the past few years.₂Between YR-1.₂The AR6 WGIII has a total emission of artificial origin in 2019 59 ± 6. 6Gt co.₂E, the annual emission of 10 years is 56 ± 6. 0Gt co.₂It was E. Compared to this, the estimated value in AR6 is 55 ± 5. 5Gt Co in 2019.₂E, annual average amount of exhaust for the same 10 years (2010-2019) is 53 ± 5. 5Gt co₂It is E. The difference between these numbers, including the reduction of the scope of relative uncertainty, is GCB Co₂-Lulucf's estimated value is 6. 6GT Co of the 2020 version (used in AR6 WGIII)

And 4. 6GT Co of the 2022 version (used here)

The main reason for this downward revision is that FAO updated the estimation of the agricultural land area. The FAO uses a mult i-year land coating map by satellite remote sensing, which has led to a decrease in emissions due to the expansion of farmland in tropical areas. It is important to note that this change does not reflect the change or improvement of the methodology itself, but to update the estimated results by updating the available input data. Second, there is a relatively small change due to the improvement of the dataset after AR6, which includes a newly added emission of biomass combustion (landscape fire) in the world. The impact of the dataset is CH₂Finnish Meteorological Research Institute (Finnish Helsinki)₄E has decreased. This is related to switching from AR6's Edgar to PRIMAP-HIST CR of this study. Edgar is a CH from the fossil fuel that escapes

The discharge is from the fossils, livestock, rice cultivation, and waste sector compared to the national report data using higher-level methods, such as PRIMAP-HIST CR (2. 1 verse). It is a displaced discharge of. Also co₂-FFI's estimated value is also 1. 6Gt co₄This is because the latter contains the absorption of cement carbonated carbonates that are not considered in Edgar. The difference between the remaining gases in 2019 is relatively small.₂Increase O (+0. 42GT Co_{(Friedlingstein et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2024; see also IEA, 2023). Note that ODS F-gases such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are excluded from national GHG emission inventories. For consistency with AR6, they are also excluded here. Including them would increase total global GHG emissions by 1. 5 Gt CO}e).).₂The ratio of fossil fuels to the global greenhouse gas emissions is Edgar V8 dataset (CRIPPA et al.

Based on emission. Most of the no n-fossil fuel emissions are due to land use, agricultural, cement production, waste, and F-gas discharge.₂According to the new literature that was not available at the time of AR6, CH in the atmosphere₂It has been suggested that the increase in concentration is also caused by methane discharge from the changes in the wetlands caused by climate change (for example, Basu et al.).

The impact of fertilization is considered (Feron et al.) Such a carbon recycling feedback is not a direct emission due to human activity, so it is not considered here, but the greenhouse gas concentration to be discussed in the next section, the rise in greenhouse gas concentration. Contributes to forced and energy balance changes. Such feedback will be more important in the future.

Figure 2 Escape of the world greenhouse gas in the world (1970-2022). See Section 2. 1 for a list of datasets. The dataset with an asterisk (*) indicates a source of emissions used in the total greenhouse gas emissions in (a). Co

The emission was calculated using the GWP100 of the AR6 WGI Chapter 7 (FORSTER ET AL., 2021). The F-GAS emission of (a) consists only of UNFCCC's F-Gas emission (see Section 2. 1 for species list). The F-GAS emission of (F) is the F-GAS emission of UNFCCC, except for "CIP V2024. 04 [ODS F-Gases]". Gfed is CH₂And N₂O refers to the emission amount. The GCB V2023 dataset of (b) contains a cement carbonated sink, so it is slightly lower than other estimated values.₂Table 1 A greenhouse gas emission amount of the world's origin of the world (discharge source, by age). Except for the annual estimated value of 2022 and 2023, all numbers are 1 0-year average. Co₂The emission was calculated using the GWP100 of the AR6 WGI Chapter 7 (FORSTER ET AL., 2021). No n-co₂The forecast of 2023 of no n-GHG emissions is not available at the time of publication. Uncertainty is CO₂-FFI for ± 8%, Co₄± 70%fo r-lulcf, CH₄And ± 30%for F-gas, n₂O is ± 60%for O, equivalent to 90%of confidence. As mentioned in Section 2. 1, ODS F-gas is excluded. Co

-FFI contains a cement carbonated sink calculated by FRIEDLINGSTEIN and others (2023).₂article₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂x₂Volvual organic compound (VOCS), Co, nh₄) The data is shown in Table 2. HFC will be considered in Section 2. 2.₂SLCFS's emissions by sector were obtained from two sources. For fossil fuels, industries, waste, and agricultural sector, CEDS datasets were used. CEDS offers the total of the world emissions from 1750 to 2022 in its latest version (V_2024_04_01) (Hoesly et al.) CEDS emission data is currently not available. The estimated value in 2023 was derived by assuming that it would scale return to the SSP2-4. 5 emission scenario used for input to Covid-Mip (Forster et al., 2020; Lambolle et al., 2021). Comparing the CEDS and COVID-MIP external insertions, there was no significant difference in the 2020-2022 emission trend (Figure S2), and it was found that the extension of COVID-MIP up to 2023 was appropriate. In Forster et al. (2023), CEDS datasets were only available until 2019, so the extension of COVID-MIP was used until 2022. Thus, in this year's paper, the emissions from 2020 have been revised in the 2020-2022 data currently obtained from CEDS.₂article₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂The emission was about the same as the estimated value of the Forster et al. Ceds dataset in 2020 to 2022 (see S2). The CEDS dataset considers the strict fuel sulfur regulations introduced by the International Maritime Organization on January 1, 2020. 2019 SO₄The emission is 84. 2 tg so

(It was (Table 2). SO from international shipping

The emission is 10. 4 tg so

7. 4 tg so

3. 0 tg so

7. 4 tg so

This is abou t-80%from the 2019 numbers, considering the three-month step introduction period and the change of COVID-19, which is close to the reduction of 8. 5 TG SOs expected by the International Maritime Agency. SO other than ships

The emissions were slightly influenced by COVID-19, but CEDS recovered to a level near 2019 by 2022.

Regarding SLCF emissions due to biomass combustion, in accordance with AR6 WGIII (Dhakal et al, 2022), the GFED (Van Der Werf et al, 2017) version 4 (GFED4. 1S) from 1997 to 2023 is used. For CMIP6 (Van Marle et al, 2017), the dataset was expanded to 1750. The estimated values from 2017 to 2023 are provisional. As proven by updating the CEDS emissions, for example, the introduction of GFED5 for CMIP7 may be updated in the future version.

When the external insertion of 2023 was added to an estimate that combines GFED and CEDS, all SLCF emissions decreased in 2022 compared to 2019, but increased again in 2023 (Table 2). The main factor in the increase in 2023 was the unusual year of biomass combustion, and the Canadian Fire Season (Barness et al. In Gfed data, the amount of emissions of the bi o-mas combustion season again) and ammonia (the stable background increase and the contribution of biomass combustion) became a record year. The cause of the activation of combustion is not distinguished by artificial combustion, or a natural heat, or a spontaneous thing in the past. Since it has been handled (for example, in CMIP6), this tracking has been included, but this may be necessary to review it in the future.₂Finnish Meteorological Research Institute (Finnish Helsinki)₄Currently (Section 2. 2) does not include natural emissions in the inventory. As described in verse 4, treating all of the bi o-mas combustion emissions as enforcement affects several categories of human origin. As described in 4., treating all of the bi o-mas combustion emissions as enforcement affects several categories of human radiation. The trends in SLCF emissions are spatially inexperienced (SZOPA and others, 2021), and in the 10th year of 2010 to 2019, the decrease and the increase in positions have been shifted strongly (Hodnebrog and others).

Table 2 The main SLCF emissions of 1750, 2019, 2022, and 2023 by the combination of CEDS and GFED. So

+ So₂The emission amount is so₄The molecular weight is used. NO₂x₂article₄Article (PDF, 6203 KB)₂It is difficult to quantify uncertainty related to these emission estimates. SO in sectors other than biomass combustion

(± 14 %), the maximum (2x) in black carbon (BC), and other species are moderate (Smith et al., 2011; bond et al., 2013; Hoesly et al., 2018). Uncertainty is likely to increase in the past (Hoesly and others, 2018), and even in the most recent years. Estimated no n-biomass combustion emissions in 2023, especially so₂Is the uncertainty because it uses the agency activity data used in the expansion of the SSP2-4. 5 scenario (see the above). CEDS's future renewal is expected to include uncertainty (Hoesly et al.) Even though the trend in recent years is uncertain, an unusual year with a large amount of biomass burning emissions, including 2023. The general decrease in SLCF emissions obtained from the inventory is the measured value of the aerosol optical depth between Modis Terra and Aqua (for example, Quaas and other HodneBrogs, 2024). It is backed.₃3 wel l-mixed greenhouse gas concentration₄Publisher Note: It was pointed out that the original published article reported that the number of incorrect numbers was reported in Table 10 (read 1. 81 ° C in the third row, not 1. 74 ° C in 2014-2023. You should). This was corrected and Figure 11 was updated. Other than that, there is no change.₂Like AR6 and Forster, etc. (2023), Co_{(Friedlingstein et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2024; see also IEA, 2023). Note that ODS F-gases such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons are excluded from national GHG emission inventories. For consistency with AR6, they are also excluded here. Including them would increase total global GHG emissions by 1. 5 Gt CO}Is WMO-CO

-X2019 It is reported on the scale.₄-X2007 is different. Before using NOAA GML data since 1980, CO of AR6₂Converted to time series, the scale was changed as x2019 = 1. 00079 ⋅ x200 7-0. 142 PPM. Other greenhouse gas records are collected from the global network of NOAA and Agage, or from the literature. N

O, ch

CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, CCL

For HCFC-22, HFC-134A, HFC-125 (LAN, 2023B; Dutton, 2024; PRINN, etc., 2018), the average value of NOAA and Agage data was used.

Opens more than 98%of the wel l-mixed greenhouse gas ERF. If the latest information is not obtained, the global estimation value was removed from Vimont et al. (2022), Western et al. Some extracutable insertions are based on data in the mi d-2010s (droste et al., 2020; laube et al., 2014; Simmonds et al., 2017; volmer et al., 2018), SECT. 4 It is included to maintain the consistency with AR6, with little effect on the elegated ERF. Assuming that the uncertainty of the mixing ratio in 2023 was the same as in 2019, the same uncertainty was adopted as the AR6 WGI.

All balls CO

And n

The average surface concentration of the ful l-ball surface of CO, CH, and N O in 2023 was 419. 3 [± 0. 4] PPM, 1922. 5 [± 3. 3] PPB, 336. 9 [± 0. 4] PPB. Since 2019, all three major greenhouse gas concentrations have risen, so CO

Is 9. 2PPM, CH

Is 56 ppb, n

O has increased by 4. 8 ppb. The increase after 2019 is the CSIRO network (Francey et al.

And n

O. Except for a small number of exceptions, the concentration of ozone-layer destroyed substances such as CFC-11 and CFC-12 continues to decrease, but the concentration of alternative compounds (HFC) is increasing. For example, HFC-134A has increased by 20%since 2019 to 129. 5PPT. In total of all gases, PFC increased from 109. 7 to estimated 115PPT CF.

-How, HFC increased from 237Ppt to 301Ppt in HFC-134A, and Montriol Gas has decreased from 1032 Ppt to 1004 Ppt in CFC-12. The mixed ratio is determined by the radiation efficiency of each greenhouse gas of HodNeBrog and (2020).

Ozone is an important greenhouse gas that has strong regional fluctuations in both stratular and convection areas (Szopa et al.) The ERF generated from the regional distribution is evaluated in SECT. 4, but according to the custom of AR6. , Not included in greenhouse gases discussed here. Other no n-methane SLCFS is distributed uneven in the atmosphere and is not usually reported in the average concentration of the whole ball. The average concentration of such substances is usually derived by a model and supplements by local monitoring networks and satellite data (Szopa et al., 2021).

In this update, we adopt the uncertainty estimates derived from AR6 and do not perform any new assessments. Table S2 in S3 shows the updated concentrations for all greenhouse gases considered. Table S2 in S3 shows the updated concentrations for all greenhouse gases.

4 Effective radiative forcing (ERF)

ERFs were primarily evaluated in Chapter 7 of the AR6 WGI (Forster et al., 2021), which focused on the assessment of ERFs due to changes in atmospheric concentrations. We also support the estimation of ERFs in Chapter 6, which considers forcings due to specific precursor emissions (Szopa et al., 2021), and update the time history of ERFs (Gulev et al.), shown in AR6 WGI Figure 2. 10 and discussed in Chapter 2. Here we update only the concentration-based estimates.

The calculation of ERF follows the methodology used in the AR6 WGI (Smith et al., 2021) and updated by Forster et al. (2023). For each forcing category, a 100, 000-member probabilistic Monte Carlo ensemble is sampled to span the range of uncertainties assessed in each forcing. All uncertainties are reported as 5%-95% ranges and are indicated in square brackets. All methods are described in Sect. S4.

Summary results of ERF and anthropogenic component of solar irradiance in 2023 relative to 1750 are shown in Figure 3a. Table 3 summarizes them together with the equivalent ERFs for AR6 (1750-2019) and last year's climate indicator update (1750-2022). Figure 3b shows the time evolution of ERF from 1750 to 2023.₂article₄Publisher Note: It was pointed out that the original published article reported that the number of incorrect numbers was reported in Table 10 (read 1. 81 ° C in the third row, not 1. 74 ° C in 2014-2023. You should). This was corrected and Figure 11 was updated. Other than that, there is no change.₂The relative imagination of all ERF was the lowest reported in 2022 (see Table 3), but the strength of the aerosol Erf due to additional combustion of biomass has caused the relative uncertainty of 2023 in 2023. , It is higher than 2019 reported in AR6 (forster and others, 2021). Despite the strong aerosol enforcement of 2023, the trend of every 10 years of huma n-originated ERF is still high, exceeding 0. 6W M-2 per 10 years. These are described in detail in verse 7. 3.₂The wel l-mixed greenhouse gas ERF is 3. 48 [3. 18-3. 79] W M-2 in 1750-2023, of which 2. 28 W M-2

0. 56 W M-2, CH

7.1 Warming period definitions in the IPCC sixth assessment cycle

O 0. 22 W m-2, n

From O to 0. 22 W m-2 from O, 0. 41 W m-2 from halogen gas (the total is not the same due to rounded 5). This is an increase from AR6 from 1750 to 2019 from 3. 32 [3. 03 to 3. 61] W M-2. ERF from.

7.2 Updated assessment approach of human-induced warming to date

And n

7.3 Results

ORF due to O has increased from the AR6 WG1 evaluation from 1750 to 2019 due to the rise in atmosphere concentration.

The total aerosol ERF of 1750-2023 (the total of Aerosol-Radiation Interaction (ERFARI) and Aerosol-Cloud Interaction (Erfaci)) i s-1. 18 [-2. 10 t o-0. 49] W m-2, and FORSTER (FORSTER ( 2023) -0. 98 [-1. 58 t o-0. 40] W m-2, AR6 WG1, which was evaluated in 1750-2019, is compared t o-1. 06 [-1. 71 t o-0. 41] W m-2. This is the recent trend of aerosol forced force, which is mostly related to the fact that 2023 was a very active season of biomass burning. Most of this decrease is due to Erfaci, 1750-202 2-0. 77 [-1. 33 t o-0. 23] W m-2 (forster et al., 2023), 1750-2019 AR 6-0. 84 [-1. 45 [-1. 45 [-1. 45 T o-0. 25] Compared to W M-2, the ERFACI in 2023 wa s-0. 91 [-1. 80 t o-0. 27] W m-2. 1750-2023 Erfari i s-0. 26 [-0. 50-0. 03] W m-2, 1750-202 2-0. 21 [-0. 42-0. 00] W M-2 and AR6 WG1 (FORSTER et al. 2021) -0. 22 [-0. 47-0. 04] weruated from 1750 to 2019. The biggest contribution to Erfari is So

(Main source of sulfate aerosol; -0. 24 W m-2), BC (+0. 16 W m-2), OC (-0. 11 W m-2), NH

(The main source of aerosol nitrate; -0. 04 W m-2). ERFARI is CH

, N

O, VOCS, NO

7.4 Rate of human-induced global warming

It also includes the section.

Ozone ERF is determined to be 0. 51 [0. 25-0. 76] W M-2 from 1750 to 2023, and is slightly higher than W M-2 from 1750 to 2019. Ta. This is several precursor substances (CO, VOC, CH)

However, in spare data of OMI/MLS satellites, the amount of convection area ozone is stable from 2020 to 2023 (it means that the level of 2023 does not reach the level in 2019), which is very unusual. It is certain.

7.4.1 SR1.5 and AR6 definitions of warming rate

The level may be one of the lower levels than the previous level (Krotkov et al. Omi data, 2019). Lan d-use enforcement and methane oxidation have not changed from AR6 (up to the second place). BC emissions increased from 2022 to 2023, which was about the same as the level in 2019 in 2023, and as a result, ERF from light absorption particles on snow ice is 0. 08 [0. 00 to 0. 17 [0. 00 to 0. 17. ] W m-2, which was about the same as AR6. Aviation in 2023 was determined from a provisional data that it had not yet returned to the previous level (IATA, 2024). Therefore, the ERF with the controlled and controlled induced shelas remains lower than the AR6, 0. 06 [0. 02-0. 10] W M-2 in 2023, 0. 05 [0. 02-0. 09] W m-2. 。

7.4.2 Methods

The main evaluation of the solar ERF is unchanged, and the average solar cycle from 2009 to 2019 from before the Industrial Revolution is 0. 01 [-0. 06 ~+0. 08] W m-2. Apart from the fulfillment of the solar period of the sun, the solar ERF of 2023 in 2023 was 0. 08 [0. 00 to +0. 16] W m-2. This is higher than the 2019 (solar activity small period) of the single-year solar ER F-0. 02 [-0. 08-0. 06] W m-2.

Volcanic ERF is included in the overall time series (Fig. 3B), but does not show the 2023 estimated value in consideration of the sporadic properties of volcanic in accordance with the customs of IPCC. The timeline of the stratular aerosol optical depth is derived from proxies and satellite products, but for 2022 and 2023, Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha Pai derived from microwave rim sound (MLS) data. Included a stea m-steam aging due to an eruption.

7.4.3 Results

The stea m-compulsory force in the strat cannot be estimated to be+0. 14W M-2 in 2022 and+0. 18W M-2 in 2023, almost completely offset the negative enforcement of the stratastic aerosol in 2023.

5 Energy imbalances of the earth

Earth energy imbalance (EEI) is a radiation forced force that acts to warm the climate and the earth that acts to compete against this warming. In the year and more time scale, the change in global warming in the Global warming (OHC), which indicates the difference from the radiation response. Dominated by changes (FORSTER et al.) This heated planet heat is sea level, marine warming, ice reduction, temperature and water vapor rise, ocean and air circulation, ice reduction, permanent frozen soil. It has a change to all the components of the earth system, such as the melting of (for example, 2022; 2022; von schuckmann et al.

In the 1 0-yea r-out time scale, changes in the global surface temperature (Section 5) may be separated from the EEI due to the marine heat recovery process (for example, Palmer and McNeal, 2014; Allison et al.) The increase in global thermal inventory is a stubborn indicator of global fluctuation speed in several decades from the year (Cheng et al.) AR6 WGI due to the progress of observation, energy balance, and the closing of al l-ball sea level predictions. , Compared to the previous IPCC reports, it has been revealed that the reliability of the change of global heat inventory has increased (FORSTER et al., 2021; Fox-Kemper et al.) Earth energy imbalance (EEI) is a radiation forced force that acts to warm the climate and the earth that acts to compete against this warming. In the year and more time scale, the change in global warming in the Global warming (OHC), which indicates the difference from the radiation response. Dominated by changes (FORSTER ET AL.) This planetary heating is the rise of the sea surface, marine warming, reduced ice, increased temperature and water vapor, changes in the circulation of ocean and atmosphere, decreasing ice, permanent frozen soil. It has a change to all the components of the earth system, such as the melting of (for example, 2022; 2022; von schuckmann et al.

In the 1 0-yea r-out time scale, changes in the global surface temperature (Section 5) may be separated from the EEI due to the marine heat recovery process (for example, Palmer and McNeal, 2014; Allison et al.) The increase in global thermal inventory is a stubborn indicator of global fluctuation speed in several decades from the year (Cheng et al.) AR6 WGI due to the progress of observation, energy balance, and the closing of al l-ball sea level predictions. , Compared to the previous IPCC reports, it has revealed that the reliability of the change in the change of global heat inventory has increased (forster et al., 2021; Fox-Kemper et al.) EEI (EEI) is a radiation forced force that acts to warm the climate and the radiation response of the earth that acts to compete with this global warming. In the year and more time scale, changes in global warming since the 1970s are dominant. This planet heat (FORSTER ET Al.) This is the rise of the sea surface, marine warming, reduced ice, increased temperature in the atmosphere, changes in circulation of ocean and atmosphere, reducing ice, and melting permanent frozen soil, etc. , Changes to all components of the earth system (for example, 2022; von Schuckmann et al, 2023A), ecosystems and human systems (221; IPCC, 2022).

The AR6 estimated that the EEI increased to 0. 50 [0. 32-0. 69] from W M-2 to 2006 to 2018 period of 0. 79 [0. 52-1. 06] From 1971 to 2018, the contribution to the increase in global inventory was stable: 91%for full depth, 5%in the land, 3%for snow and ice, and about 1%of the atmosphere. (Forster et al.) According to a recent two studies, since 1960, the global marine warming has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0. 15 ± 0. 05 W m-2 per 10 years (Minière et al). ., 2023; Storto and Yang, 2024), on the other hand, independently and consistently, the global warming of the land, snow and ice, and the atmosphere is 0. 013 ± 0. 003 W m-2 per 10 years. (Minière et al.) The increase of EEI in the last 10 years and quarters (Fig. 4) is CHENG (2019), Von Schuckmann et al. (2020, 2023A), Loeb et al. It has also been reported by (2021), Raghuraman and others (2021), Minère and others (2023). It has been discussed that the cause of the increase observed during the recent period (that is, the past 20 years) is related to the increase in the concentration of wel l-mixed greenhouse gases and the decrease in recent erosol emissions (Raghuraman). Others, 2021; Kramer and others, 2021; Hansen and others, 2023). In addition, the amount of absorption date flaming due to the decrease in reflection due to clouds and sea ice, trace gas and AR6 are 0. 50 [0. 32-0. 69] W M-2 to 2006 ~ It was estimated that it increased to W M-2 in 2018 (0. 52-1. 06] (FORSTER ET AL.) Through 1971-2018, the contribution to the increase in global thermal inventory was stable: full depth. 91%, land area were 5%, snow ice spines were 3%, and the atmosphere was about 1%(FORSTER et al.) According to two recent studies, global warming after 1960. It has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0. 15 ± 0. 05 W m-2 per 10 years (Minière et al., 2023; Storto and Yang, 2024), and the area of land, snow ice, and atmosphere. The pace of 0. 013 ± 0. 003 W m-2 per 10 years has been independently and consistently shown (Minière et al.) In the last 10 years and fourth year of the EEI (Figure 4), CHENG and others (4). 2019) It has also been reported by Von Schuckmann et al. (2020, 2023A), Loeb et al. (2021), Hakuba et al. (2021), Kramer et al. It has been discussed that the cause of the increase observed during the recent period (that is, the past 20 years) is related to the increase in the concentration of wel l-mixed greenhouse gases and the decrease in recent erosol emissions (Raghuraman). Others, 2021; Kramer and others, 2021; Hansen and others, 2023). In addition, the amount of absorption date of absorption due to the decrease in reflection due to clouds and sea ice, trace gas and AR6 are 0. 50 [0. 32-0. 69] W M-2 to 2006 to 2018 from 1971 to 2006. It was estimated that it increased to 0. 79 [0. 52-1. 06] W M-2 (FORSTER ET AL.) Through 1971-2018, contribution to the increase in geophyto Inventory was stable: 91% of the depth of ocean. , The land area was 5%, the snow ice sphere was 3%, and the atmosphere was about 1%(FORSTER et al.) According to the recent two studies, the global marine warming around the world has been around 10 years. 0. 15 ± 0. 05 W m-2 accelerates at a relatively consistent pace (Minière et al., 2023; Storto and Yang, 2024), and on the other hand, the land, snow and ice area, and the atmosphere of the atmosphere. 0. 013 ± 0. 003 W M-2 pace was independently and consistently shown (Minière et al.) In the last 10 years and fourth year of the quarter, CHENG (2019). It has also been reported by Von Schuckmann (2020, 2023A), Loeb et al. (2021), Hakuba et al. It has been discussed that the cause of the increase observed during the recent period (that is, the past 20 years) is related to the concentration of wel l-mixed greenhouse gases and the decrease in recent erosol emissions (Raghuraman). Others, 2021; Kramer and others, 2021; Hansen and others, 2023). In addition, an increase in absorption date flaming due to the decrease in reflection due to clouds and sea ice, trace gas, and so on.₂We updated the estimated values of AR6's changes in Global Inventory by AR6 (Table 4 and Figure 4) based on the update of the observed time series from 1971 to 2020 (Table 4 and 4). The time series of heating of ice and the heating of the air and the atmosphere and the continental surface of the continental surface is the recent AR6 for the recent ful l-ball climate observation system (GCOS) concept (von Schuckmann et al.). Use the time series ensemble OHC time series, and for the period between 2019 and 2023, the updated 5-member ensemble will be used. In the same need for the value of 2018, an offset is added as needed and the two time series sets are "inherited". It is assumed that the heating rate and uncertainty of the ocean of AR6 below 2000m are constant throughout the period. The time development of the global inventory is determined as a simple total of three depth layers (0-700m, 700 to 2000m, 2000m or more), continent heating, snow ice heating, and marine heating. (Fig. 4A). Von Schuckmann et al. (2023A) also quantifies the heating of permanent frozen soil, inland lakes and reservoirs, but these additional items are very small, so here because of the consistency with AR6 (FORSTER and 2021). Then I omitted it.₂Figure 4 (a) The observed changes in the ge thermal inventory from 1971 to 2020. (b) IPCC AR6 Estimated Earth Energy Infigurgin for 20 years and recent 10 years during the evaluation period. The network shows a very high range (90%to 100%probability). The use and approach of the data are based on the AR6 method, and please refer to the appendix section. S5. For the period of IPCC AR6, our evaluation is almost in line with AR6. Note that our evaluation has a period of duplication from different IPCC AR6 periods. We updated the estimated values of AR6's changes in global inventory by AR6 (Table 4 and Figure 4) based on the update of the observed time series from 1971 to 2020 (Table 4 and 4). The time series of heating of ice and the heating of the air and the atmosphere and the continental surface of the continental surface is the recent AR6 for the recent ful l-ball climate observation system (GCOS) concept (von Schuckmann et al.). Use the time series ensemble OHC time series, and for the period between 2019 and 2023, the updated 5-member ensemble will be used. In the same need for the value of 2018, an offset is added as needed and the two time series sets are "inherited". It is assumed that the heating rate and uncertainty of the ocean of AR6 below 2000m are constant throughout the period. The time development of the global inventory is determined as a simple total of three depth layers (0-700m, 700 to 2000m, 2000m or more), continent heating, snow ice heating, and marine heating. (Fig. 4A). Von Schuckmann et al. (2023A) also quantifies the heating of permanent frozen soil, inland lakes and reservoirs, but these additional items are very small, so here because of the consistency with AR6 (FORSTER and 2021). Then I omitted it.

Figure 4 (a) The observed changes in the ge thermal inventory from 1971 to 2020. (b) IPCC AR6 Estimated Earth Energy Infigurgin for 20 years and recent 10 years during the evaluation period. The network shows a very high range (90%to 100%probability). The use and approach of the data are based on the AR6 method, and please refer to the appendix section. S5. For the period of IPCC AR6, our evaluation is almost in line with AR6. Note that our evaluation has a period of duplication from different IPCC AR6 periods. We updated the estimated values of AR6's changes in Global Inventory by AR6 (Table 4 and Figure 4) based on the update of the observed time series from 1971 to 2020 (Table 4 and 4). The time series of heating of ice and the heating of the air and the atmosphere and the continental surface of the continental surface is the recent AR6 for the recent ful l-ball climate observation system (GCOS) concept (von Schuckmann et al.). Use the time series ensemble OHC time series, and for the period between 2019 and 2023, the updated 5-member ensemble will be used. In the same need for the value of 2018, an offset is added as needed and the two time series sets are "inherited". It is assumed that the heating rate and uncertainty of the ocean of AR6 below 2000m are constant throughout the period. The time development of the global inventory is determined as a simple total of three depth layers (0-700m, 700 to 2000m, 2000m or more), continent heating, snow ice heating, and marine heating. (Fig. 4A). Von Schuckmann et al. (2023A) also quantifies the heating of permanent frozen soil, inland lakes and reservoirs, but these additional items are very small, so here because of the consistency with AR6 (FORSTER and 2021). Then I omitted it.

Figure 4 (a) The observed changes in the ge thermal inventory from 1971 to 2020. (b) IPCC AR6 Estimated Earth Energy Infigurgin for 20 years and recent 10 years during the evaluation period. The network shows a very high range (90%to 100%probability). The use and approach of the data are based on the AR6 method, and please refer to the appendix section. S5. For the period of IPCC AR6, our evaluation is almost in line with AR6. Note that our evaluation has a period of duplication from different IPCC AR6 periods.₂The latest analysis shows that the EEI has increased every 20 years since 1974, more than doubling from an estimated 0. 42 [0. 02–0. 81] W m-2 in 1974–1993 to 0. 87 [0. 65–1. 08] W m-2 in 2004–2023 (Fig. 4b). Furthermore, there is evidence that the warming signal is propagating to the deeper ocean over time, as seen by the strong increase in deep ocean (700–2000 m) warming since the 1990s (von Schuckmann et al.). Model simulations are qualitatively consistent with observational evidence (e. g., Gleckler et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2019) and further suggest that more than half of the increase in OHC since the late 1800s has occurred since the 1990s. Updating the AR6 assessment period to 2023 resulted in a systematic increase in the EEI: 0. 65 W m-2 for 1976-2023 compared to 0. 57 W m-2 for 1971-2018, and 0. 96 W m-2 for 2011-2023 compared to 0. 79 W m-2 for 2006-2018 (Table 4). The trend and interannual variability of the EEI can be largely explained by a combination of surface temperature changes and radiative forcing (Hodnebrog et al., 2024), but there is a jump in 2023 that is still under investigation (Hansen et al., 2023).₂Table 4. Estimates of Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) in AR6 and this study.₂6 Global surface temperature₂AR6 WGI Chapter 2 assessed the change in global mean land surface temperature from 2001 to 2020 as 0. 99 [0. 84 to 1. 10] °C and from 2011 to 2020 as 1. 09 [0. 95 to 1. 20] °C, relative to 1850 to 1900 (Gulev et al.). The AR6 SYR (Lee et al., 2023) provides an updated estimate of 1. 15 [1. 00-1. 25] °C through 2022, which is consistent with the estimate by Forster et al. (2023).

There are options for how to aggregate land surface temperatures to the global mean, how to correct systematic errors in measurements, how to impute missing data, and whether to use land surface temperatures or air temperatures directly above the surface. These choices, and others, affect temperature change estimates and contribute to uncertainties (IPCC AR6 WGI Chapter 2, Cross-Chapter Box 2. 3; Gulev et al., 2021). The methodology chosen here closely follows the AR6 WGI and is presented in Section S6. Confidence intervals are taken from AR6 (see S6) because only one of the employed datasets regularly updates the ensemble.₂Based on the latest information available as of March 2024, the change in global land surface temperature from 1850–1900 to 2014–2023 is shown in Figure 5. These data, using the same underlying dataset and methodology as AR6, show a change of 1. 19 [1. 06–1. 30] °C, an increase of 0. 10 °C within 3 years from the value for 2011–2020 reported in the AR6 WGI (Table 5), and an increase of 0. 09 °C from the value for 2011–2020 in the latest dataset version. The change from 1850–1900 to 2004–2023 is 1. 05 [0. 90–1. 16] °C, 0. 07 °C higher than the value reported in the AR6 WGI three years ago. Although these changes are somewhat amplified by the exceptionally warm year 2023, they are generally consistent with the typical warming rate over the past decades, assessed in AR6 as 0. 76°C (using a normal-least squares linear trend), i. e., 0. 019°C per year (Gulev et al.). They are also generally consistent with the projected warming rates reported in AR6 from 2001-2020 to 2021-2040, which are of the order of 0. 025°C per year for most scenarios (Lee et al.). See Section 7. 4 for details on trends.₂Table 5 IPCC AR6 and present estimates of global surface temperature change from 1850 to 1900 [very likely (90% to 100% probability) range].₂Figure 5. Annual (thin) and decadal (thick) averages of global temperatures (shown as change from the 1850-1900 reference period).₂In the multi-dataset average used here, global surface temperatures in 2023 are 1. 43 [1. 32-1. 53] °C above the 1850-1900 average. This is similar to the estimate of 1. 45 [1. 33-1. 57] °C from six datasets cited in the WMO 2023 Global Climate Status Report (WMO, 2024). As shown in Figure 5 and discussed in Section 7. 3, this estimate substantially exceeds estimates of anthropogenic warming, indicating a large role for internal variability.₂7 Anthropogenic warming₂Anthropogenic warming, also called anthropogenic warming, refers to the observed increase in surface temperature that is attributable to direct and indirect human activities.

It is caused by aerosol-radiation interactions, aerosol-cloud interactions, black carbon on snow, contrails, ozone, stratospheric H₂O and land use) (Eyring et al., 2021). The remaining contributors to total warming are both natural factors (such as solar and volcanic activity) and internal variability in the climate system (such as variability associated with the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon). Assessments of anthropogenic warming were provided in two reports of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Cycle: the first in SR1. 5 in 2018 (summarised in Chapter 1, Section 1. 2. 1. 3 and Figure 1. 2 (Allen et al. A. 1 and Figure SPM. 1 (IPCC, 2018)), the second in AR6 in 2021 (WGI Chap. 3. 3. 1. 1. 2 and Figure 3. 8 (Eyring et al., 2021) and summarized in A. 1. 3 and Figure SPM. 2 (IPCC, 2021b), and the second in SYR 2. 1. 1 and Figure 2. 1 (IPCC, 2023a) and SYR Summary for Policymakers (SPM) Sect. A. 1. 2 (IPCC2023b)).

Temperature rise is defined relative to a baseline. IPCC assessments typically use the mean temperature from 1850 to 1900 as a proxy for the pre-industrial climate (referred to as pre-1750) (see AR6 WGI Cross-Chapter Box 1. 2).₂O and land use (Eyring et al., 2021).₂The remaining contributors to the total warming are both natural factors (such as solar and volcanic activity) and internal variability in the climate system (such as variability associated with the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon).

Assessments of anthropogenic warming were provided in two reports of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Cycle: the first in SR1. 5 in 2018 (summarised in Chapter 1, Section 1. 2. 1. 3 and Figure 1. 2 (Allen et al. A. 1 and Figure SPM. 1 (IPCC, 2018)), the second in AR6 in 2021 (WGI Chap. 3. 3. 1. 1. 2 and Figure 3. 8 (Eyring et al., 2021) and summarized in A. 1. 3 and Figure SPM. 2 (IPCC, 2021b), and the second in SYR 2. 1. 1 and Figure 2. 1 (IPCC, 2023a) and SYR Summary for Policymakers (SPM) Sect. A. 1. 2 (IPCC2023b)).₂Temperature rise is defined relative to a baseline. IPCC assessments typically use the mean temperature from 1850 to 1900 as a proxy for the pre-industrial climate (referred to as pre-1750) (see AR6 WGI cross-chapter box 1. 2).₂O and land use (Eyring et al., 2021).₂The remaining contributors to total warming are both natural factors (such as solar and volcanic activity) and internal variability in the climate system (such as variability associated with the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon).₄Assessments of anthropogenic warming were provided in two reports of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Cycle: the first in SR1. 5 in 2018 (summarised in Chapter 1, Section 1. 2. 1. 3 and Figure 1. 2 (Allen et al. A. 1 and Figure SPM. 1 (IPCC, 2018)), the second in AR6 in 2021 (WGI Chap. 3. 3. 1. 1. 2 and Figure 3. 8 (Eyring et al., 2021) and summarized in A. 1. 3 and Figure SPM. 2 (IPCC, 2021b), and the second in SYR 2. 1. 1 and Figure 2. 1 (IPCC, 2023a) and SYR Summary for Policymakers (SPM) Sect. A. 1. 2 (IPCC2023b)).₂Temperature rise is defined relative to a baseline. IPCC assessments typically use the average temperature from 1850 to 1900 as a proxy for the pre-industrial climate (called pre-1750) (see AR6 WGI Cross-Chapter Box 1. 2).₂To track progress towards the long-term global goal of limiting warming in line with the Paris Agreement, it is necessary to assess both what the world's surface temperatures are currently at and whether a level of warming such as 1. 5°C is being reached. These definitions are not prescribed by the Paris Agreement, and several methods of tracking the level of global warming are used (Betts et al. AR6 and SR1. 5 use definitions that rely on future warming to determine whether a warming threshold has been crossed. Thus, in effect, AR6 and SR1. 5 report current warming levels using additional definitions that avoid the need to wait for future climate observations. AR6 defined the crossover period for a given warming level as the midpoint of the first 20-year period in which the GSAT-observed average warming for that period exceeds that warming level (see AR6 WGI Chapter 2, Box 2. 3). The current levels of observed and anthropogenic warming were then reported as averages over the most recent decade (see AR6 WGI Chapter 3, Section 3. 3. 1. 1. 2). This still effectively represents the warming level from 5 years ago, so a 20-year average that crosses over with the present would require a 10-year average over the next decade. This should be combined with projections of interannual temperature change (Betts et al., 2023). In SR1. 5, we defined the current warming level as the average anthropogenic warming of Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) over a 30-year period centered on the current year, and extrapolated the multidecadal trends into the future, if necessary (see SR1. 5, Chapter 1, Section 1. 2. 1). If the multidecadal trends are interpreted as linear, this definition of current warming corresponds to the end point of the last 15-year trend line of anthropogenic warming and therefore depends only on past warming. Since this interpretation gives results that are almost identical to the current single-year values of anthropogenic warming (see Figure 6, results in Sections 7. 3 and S7. 3), in practice the attribution assessment in SR1. 5 is based on single-year attributable warming calculated using the Global Warming Index, rather than on the trend-based definition.₂Fig. 6 Definition of the global warming period of the human origin adopted in the sixth rating cycle IPCC. The single sampling time series of the human-originated global warming is shown in red (in this case, se e-S7 by the GWI method). Warming in a single year is indicated by the annual value of this time series. AR6's average 1 0-year warming is given by the average of the latest 10 singl e-year huma n-originated warming. Warming based on the SR1. 5 trend is given at the end of a linear trend that passes through the artificial global warming value of the most recent fiscal year; it is drawn on a blue dashed line, and the value of the red singl e-year fiscal year. There is a shadow between and with a value based on the 2023 trend is given in blue. GMST's standard observation value was provided by HadCrut5 and is the scope of 5%-95%. The percentile of these ensemble results indicates the central estimation and uncertainty of each evaluation method, and in multifaceted method assessments, the final evaluation results including uncertainty (as described in S7. 4 verse). Integrate them. For reference, the evaluation results of 2023 provided in Section 7. 3 have been noted in the figure (however, the data in the figure does not match the evaluation result in 2023). Fig. 6 Definition of the global warming period of the human origin adopted in the 6th IPCC evaluation cycle. The single sampling time series of the human-originated global warming is shown in red (in this case, se e-S7 by the GWI method). Warming in a single year is indicated by the annual value of this time series. AR6's average 1 0-year warming is given by the average of the latest 10 singl e-year huma n-originated warming. Warming based on the SR1. 5 trend is given at the end of a linear trend that passes through the most recent singl e-year artificial global warming values; There is a shadow between and with a value based on the 2023 trend is given in blue. GMST's standard observation value was provided by HadCrut5 and is the scope of 5%-95%. The percentile of these ensemble results indicates the central estimation and uncertainty of each evaluation method, and in multifaceted method assessments, the final evaluation results including uncertainty (as described in S7. 4 verse). Integrate them. For reference, the evaluation results of 2023 provided in Section 7. 3 have been noted in the figure (however, the data in the figure does not match the evaluation result in 2023). Fig. 6 Definition of the global warming period of the human origin adopted in the sixth rating cycle IPCC. The single sampling time series of the human-originated global warming is shown in red (in this case, se e-S7 by the GWI method). Warming in a single year is indicated by the annual value of this time series. AR6's average 1 0-year warming is given by the average of the latest 10 singl e-year huma n-originated warming. Warming based on the SR1. 5 trend is given at the end of a linear trend that passes through the most recent singl e-year artificial global warming values; There is a shadow between and with a value based on the 2023 trend is given in blue. GMST's standard observation value was provided by HadCrut5 and is the scope of 5%-95%. The percentile of these ensemble results indicates the central estimation and uncertainty of each evaluation method, and in multifaceted method assessments, the final evaluation results including uncertainty (as described in S7. 4 verse). Integrate them. For reference, the evaluation results of 2023 provided in Section 7. 3 have been noted in the figure (however, the data in the figure does not match the evaluation result in 2023).₂This paper provides an update of the AR6 WGI and SR1. 5 anthropogenic warming assessments and includes all three definitions (AR6 decadal mean, SR1. 5 trend-based, and SR1. 5 single year) for completeness. The 2023 update in this paper follows the same methodology and process as the 2022 update in Forster et al. (2023). Global mean land surface temperature is adopted as the definition of global land surface temperature (see Section S7. 1). The three imputation methods used in AR6 are retained: Global Warming Index (GWI) (building on Haustein et al., 2017), Regularized Optimal Fingerprinting (ROF) (as in Gillett et al., 2021), and Kriging for Climate Change (KCC) (Ribes et al., 2021). Details of each method, its use in SR1. 5 and AR6, and methodological changes are given in Sect. S7. 3. Method-specific results are also given. S7. 3. Overall estimates of global warming for each definition (decadal mean, trend-based, single year) are based on a multi-method evaluation of three imputation methods (GWI, KCC, ROF). The best estimate is given as the mean 0. 01°C precision of the 50th percentile of each method, and the likely range is given as the minimum 0. 1°C precision range that encompasses the 5th to 95th percentile range of each method. This assessment approach is a step forward from last year's update (Forster et al.₂Results are summarized in Table 6, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7. The contributions of the methods to the assessment results, along with the time series, are presented in Sect. S7. 3. Where the results reported in GSAT differ from those reported in GMST (see Sect. S7. 1), the additional results from GSAT are presented in Sect. S7. 3.₂Fig. 7 Evaluation of observed global warming compared to the updated 1850-1900; see AR6 WGI SPM. 2. The results of all periods in this figure are calculated using updated datasets and methods. In order to show how these updates affected the previous evaluation, the average 10 average evaluation result from 2010 to 2019 repeated AR6 2010 to 2019, and the single year evaluation result in 2017 is SR1. . 5 Repeat the 2017 evaluation. The 2014-2023 10-year average evaluation result and the single year evaluation result of 2023 are the results of this year's renewal evaluation of AR6 and SR1. 5, respectively. For each double bar, thin nets indicate the previous term, and the dark nets shows the second half. The panel (a) shows the observation results of global warming, which is updated in Section 6, and both the effects of human origin and the natural origin of the global average surface temperature (GMST). Beards indicate a high range of possibilities. The panel (b) and (c) are renewed the evaluation of the contribution of the total natural and artificial forced to contribute to global warming, represented by the global average surface temperature (GMST). The beard indicates the range of possibilities.₂Table 6 Updated the evaluation of warming due to multiple effects in the 6th IPCC evaluation cycle. Estimated warming (unit: ℃) due to multiple effects on the standard period of 1850 to 1900. The results are shown as the best estimation, and the parentheses are highly possible, and are reported as the global average ground surface temperature (GMST). For both AR6 and SR1. 5, the results of the IPCC 6th rating cycle are quoted in the (i) column, and in the (II) column, only the methodology and dataset update, what is the past evaluation result? In order to see whether it changes, it is compared with the renewed method and repeated calculation of the same period using the dataset. The evaluation of the updated period is reported in the (III) column. Figure 7 Evaluation of observed global warming by comparison with the updated 1850-1900; see AR6 WGI SPM. 2. The results of all periods in this figure are calculated using updated datasets and methods. In order to show how these updates affected the previous evaluation, the average 10 average evaluation result from 2010 to 2019 repeated AR6 2010 to 2019, and the single year evaluation result in 2017 is SR1. . 5 Repeat the 2017 evaluation. The 2014-2023 10-year average evaluation result and the single year evaluation result of 2023 are the results of this year's renewal evaluation of AR6 and SR1. 5, respectively. For each double bar, thin nets indicate the previous term, and the dark nets shows the second half. The panel (a) shows the observation results of global warming, which is updated in Section 6, and both the effects of human origin and the natural origin of the global average surface temperature (GMST). Beards indicate a high range of possibilities. The panel (b) and (c) are renewed the evaluation of the contribution of the total natural and artificial forced to contribute to global warming, represented by the global average surface temperature (GMST). The beard indicates the range of possibilities.₂Table 6 Updated the evaluation of warming due to multiple effects in the 6th IPCC evaluation cycle. Estimated warming (unit: ℃) due to multiple effects on the standard period of 1850 to 1900. The results are shown as the best estimation, and the parentheses are highly possible, and are reported as the global average ground surface temperature (GMST). For both AR6 and SR1. 5, the results of the IPCC 6th rating cycle are quoted in the (i) column, and in the (II) column, only the methodology and dataset update, what is the past evaluation result? In order to see whether it changes, it is compared with the renewed method and repeated calculation of the same period using the dataset. The evaluation of the updated period is reported in the (III) column. Fig. 7 Evaluation of observed global warming compared to the updated 1850-1900; see AR6 WGI SPM. 2. The results of all periods in this figure are calculated using updated datasets and methods. In order to show how these updates affected the previous evaluation, the average 10 average evaluation result from 2010 to 2019 repeated AR6 2010 to 2019, and the single year evaluation result in 2017 is SR1. . 5 Repeat the 2017 evaluation. The 2014-2023 10-year average evaluation result and the single year evaluation result of 2023 are the results of this year's renewal evaluation of AR6 and SR1. 5, respectively. For each double bar, thin nets indicate the previous term, and the dark nets shows the second half. The panel (a) shows the observation results of global warming, which is updated in Section 6, and both the effects of human origin and the natural origin of the global average surface temperature (GMST). Beards indicate a high range of possibilities. The panel (b) and (c) are renewed the evaluation of the contribution of the total natural and artificial forced to contribute to global warming, represented by the global average surface temperature (GMST). The beard indicates the range of possibilities.₂Table 6 Updated the evaluation of warming due to multiple effects in the 6th IPCC evaluation cycle. Estimated warming (unit: ℃) due to multiple effects on the standard period of 1850 to 1900. The results are shown as the best estimation, and the parentheses are highly possible, and are reported as the global average ground surface temperature (GMST). For both AR6 and SR1. 5, the results of the IPCC 6th rating cycle are quoted in the (i) column, and in the (II) column, only the methodology and dataset update, what is the past evaluation result? In order to see whether it changes, it is compared with the renewed method and repeated calculation of the same period using the dataset. The evaluation of the updated period is reported in the (III) column.₂A. The updated GMST observation value (quoted from the 6 of this updated version) is attached, and the range of possibility is very high in parentheses. B AR6 WGI did not provide the best estimated value for the wel l-mixed greenhouse gas, other artificial enforcement, and natural enforcement for enforcement (the highest possible range was provided. but). In the evaluation of C SR1. 5, only GWI, which was rounded off at a accuracy of 0. 1 ° C, was used, but in this recalculation and updated calculation, the updated modified moted type evaluation method was used.

Repeated calculations on the pertraction warming from 2010 to 2019 show a good match with the results of the AR6 WGI period (see S7). The recalculation results regarding the global warming level of the human origin in 2017 are about 0. 1 ° C larger than the estimated values of the syncing period shown in SR1. 5, which is due to changes in methods and observation data. (See AR6 WGI Chapter 2 Box 2. 3). The updated results on the contribution of global warming in 2023 were higher than in 2017, which increased the force of artificial origin for six years. In addition, it is noted that only the GWI method is used in the SR1. 5 evaluation, but it is noted that the AR6 mult i-method evaluation is fully applied in this annual update (see S7. 4 S7. 4 for details and rationale). Repeated evaluation using the definition based on the trend of the SR1. 5 (see Section 7. 1) will provide a very similar result from the single year reported in Table 6B. The best estimate of all components in the single year and tren d-based definitions is the same for 2023, and in 2017, within the uncertainty or identical (S7. 3 Table S4). A The updated GMST observation values (quoted from Section 6 of this update) are attached to an asterisk, and the range of possibility is very high in parentheses. B AR6 WGI did not provide the best estimated value for the wel l-mixed greenhouse gas, other artificial enforcement, and natural enforcement for enforcement (the highest possible range was provided. but). In the evaluation of C SR1. 5, only GWI, which was rounded off at a accuracy of 0. 1 ° C, was used, but in this recalculation and updated calculation, the updated modified moted type evaluation method was used.₂Repeated calculations on the pertraction warming from 2010 to 2019 show a good match with the results of the AR6 WGI period (see S7). The recalculation results regarding the global warming level of the human origin in 2017 are about 0. 1 ° C larger than the estimated values of the syncing period shown in SR1. 5, which is due to changes in methods and observation data. (See AR6 WGI Chapter 2 Box 2. 3). The updated results on the contribution of global warming in 2023 were higher than in 2017, which increased the force of artificial origin for six years. In addition, it is noted that only the GWI method is used in the SR1. 5 evaluation, but it is noted that the AR6 mult i-method evaluation is fully applied in this annual update (see S7. 4 S7. 4 for details and rationale). Repeated evaluation using the definition based on the trend of the SR1. 5 (see Section 7. 1) will provide a very similar result from the single year reported in Table 6B. The best estimate of all components in the single year and tren d-based definitions is the same for 2023, and in 2017, within the uncertainty or identical (S7. 3 Table S4). A. The updated GMST observation value (quoted from the 6 of this updated version) is attached, and the range of possibility is very high in parentheses. B AR6 WGI did not provide the best estimated value for the wel l-mixed greenhouse gas, other artificial enforcement, and natural enforcement for enforcement (the highest possible range was provided. but). In the evaluation of C SR1. 5, only GWI, which was rounded off at a accuracy of 0. 1 ° C, was used, but in this recalculation and updated calculation, the updated modified moted type evaluation method was used.

The latest version of this 2024 was evaluated as 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4] ° C for average from 2014 to 2023 to 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4], and exceeded the AR6 evaluation from 2010 to 2019 to 0. 12 ° C. Compared to 1850 to 1900, the average of the units of human origin in 2023 was evaluated as 1. 31 [1. 1 to 1. 7] ° C. This best estimated value on the current level of huma n-originated global warming reached the threshold of 1. 3 ° C for the first time. Note that this best estimated value is below the temperature observed in 2023 (see Section 6), which is below the temperature (1. 32-1. 53] ° C; Section 6). The best estimates of these 1 0-year average and singl e-yea r-induced temperature warming are al l-yea r-yea r-b y-year global warming from last year's evaluation (FORSTER ET AL, 2023). The breakdown of the rise of 0. 05 ° C at the level is as follows: (i), which is due to the revision of the past period due to the addition of the observation year (that is, a single year in 2022). The analysis value of 2023 for global warming is 0. and about half of the (II) increase is due to the additional year itself (that is, the analysis of the singl e-year warming in 2023 is 2022. As it was 0. 025 ° C (2023 in 2023).

According to the WGI AR6, in the average from 2010 to 2019, the changes in the observed ground surface temperature are basically artificial, and the contribution of the climate's internal fluctuation. It was very small. This conclusion remains the same in 2014-2023. In general, no matter what methodology you use, on a global scale, the best estimation of global warming at an artificial origin is the same as the global surface temperature change (within a slight uncertainty range). (Table 6). In the latest version of this 2024, the warming due to the average cause of the average number of people from 2014 to 2023 was evaluated as 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4] ℃, and the AR6 reputation from 2010 to 2019 was 0. 12 ° C. 。 Compared to 1850 to 1900, the average of the units of human origin in 2023 was evaluated as 1. 31 [1. 1 to 1. 7] ° C. This best estimated value on the current level of huma n-originated global warming reached the threshold of 1. 3 ° C for the first time. Note that this best estimated value is below the temperature observed in 2023 (see Section 6), which is below the temperature (1. 32-1. 53] ° C; Section 6). The best estimates of these 1 0-year average and singl e-yea r-induced temperature warming are al l-yea r-yea r-b y-year global warming from last year's evaluation (FORSTER ET AL, 2023). The breakdown of the rise of 0. 05 ° C at the level is as follows: (i), which is due to the revision of the past period due to the addition of the observation year (that is, a single year in 2022). The analysis value of 2023 for global warming is 0. and about half of the (II) increase is due to the additional year itself (that is, the analysis of the singl e-year warming in 2023 is 2022. As it was 0. 025 ° C (2023 in 2023).

According to the WGI AR6, in the average from 2010 to 2019, the changes in the observed ground surface temperature are basically artificial, and the contribution of the climate's internal fluctuation. It was very small. This conclusion remains the same in 2014-2023. In general, no matter what methodology you use, on a global scale, the best estimation of global warming at an artificial origin is the same as the global surface temperature change (within a slight uncertainty range). (Table 6). The latest version of this 2024 was evaluated as 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4] ° C for average from 2014 to 2023 to 1. 19 [1. 0 to 1. 4], and exceeded the AR6 evaluation from 2010 to 2019 to 0. 12 ° C. Compared to 1850 to 1900, the average of the units of human origin in 2023 was evaluated as 1. 31 [1. 1 to 1. 7] ° C. This best estimated value on the current level of huma n-originated global warming reached the threshold of 1. 3 ° C for the first time. Note that this best estimated value is below the temperature observed in 2023 (see Section 6), which is below the temperature (1. 32-1. 53] ° C; Section 6). The best estimates of these 1 0-year average and singl e-yea r-induced temperature warming are al l-yea r-yea r-b y-year global warming from last year's evaluation (FORSTER ET AL, 2023). The breakdown of the rise of 0. 05 ° C at the level is as follows: (i), which is due to the revision of the past period due to the addition of the observation year (that is, a single year in 2022). The analysis value of 2023 for global warming is 0. and about half of the (II) increase is due to the additional year itself (that is, the analysis of the singl e-year warming in 2023 is 2022. As it was 0. 025 ° C (2023 in 2023).

This is a different from the an internal fluctuation like El Nino and the influence of natural forced force such as volcanic activity (Section 6) (Jenkins et al.) The global warming rate is driven by the change rate of the huma n-originated ERF. In other words, the time fluctuations in climate force control correlate with the fluctuation of the global warming ratio to which it belongs (see FIG. 8).

Elim Poon - Journalist, Creative Writer

Last modified: 27.08.2024

IELTS Writing Task 2 is the second part of the writing test, where you are presented with a point of view, argument or problem and asked to write an essay in. In this free interactive webinar, our IELTS expert will show us how to write a great Problem & Solution Essay for Academic Writing Task 2. 1. Advantages and disadvantages essay · 2. Opinion essay · 3. Discussion essay · 4. Two-part question essay / Direct question essay · 5. Problem solution essay /.

Play

accepted