The Science Is In: Global Warming Is Accelerating
- Gregory Andrews

- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Something deeply worrying just appeared in the scientific literature. A new paper by respected climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf and colleagues shows that the rate of global warming has significantly accelerated since 2015. After filtering out natural variability from things like El Niño, volcanic eruptions and solar cycles, Rahmstorf and his colleagues found a statistically significant acceleration in warming with over 98 percent certainty.
Put simply: the planet is now heating faster than it was.
The Earth warmed at roughly 0.2°C per decade from 1970 and 2015. But over the past decade the rate has jumped to 0.35°C per decade. This isn’t a small change in the margins of the data. It is a profound shift in the trajectory of our climate system.
Scientists have long warned that warming will accelerate if emissions don’t come down and as feedback loops kick in. This new analysis shows that acceleration is now occurring. The world isn’t just warming. It’s warming faster.
What This Means for the Future
Climate scientist Kevin Anderson has spent years warning that policymakers are dangerously underestimating the consequences of continued fossil-fuel emissions. He argues that if the world continues on its current trajectory we could see 4°C of warming by 2100. And he’s been blunt about what that means. The impacts on food systems, water supplies, ecosystems and sea levels will combine into what he describes as “systemic collapse of economies within a collapsing climate system.”
These aren’t fringe views. Anderson is a professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester and a former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, one of the world’s leading climate institutes.
His point is not that 4°C is inevitable. His warning is that our current policies are consistent with that level of warming unless we radically change course. And the new evidence that warming itself is accelerating makes his warning even harder to ignore.
The Political Silence
Yet if you listen to political debate in Australia or many other countries right now, you would barely know any of this. Wars dominate the headlines. Security, immigration and ‘cost of living’ propaganda are at the forefront.
While culture wars dominate, the single largest threat to the long-term stability of human civilisation receives, at best, sporadic coverage between other crises.
This is politically convenient. Wars rally national unity and justify massive spending. They dominate media cycles. They allow governments to posture as decisive and patriotic.
Climate change, by contrast, demands something far more difficult: confronting powerful fossil-fuel industries, redesigning energy systems, and asking wealthy societies to change how they consume energy. So the climate crisis continues in the background while politics focuses elsewhere.
But the atmosphere doesn’t pause while we’re distracted. Carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise - even more so due to the wars themselves. Because when bombs and missiles fall, the environment pays a heavy price. The oceans continue to absorb heat. The planet continues to warm.
The Window’s Still Open - Just
The most important point in the new research is urgency. Warming is driven overwhelmingly by human emissions. That means the trajectory can still change if emissions fall rapidly.
Physics doesn’t negotiate with politics or respond to the spin and talking points we hear from our Government, but it does respond to action. Cut fossil-fuel emissions to zero and warming eventually stops. Fail to do so and the climate system continues moving towards levels that human civilisation has never experienced.
That’s the choice before us. The science is clearer. The warnings are louder. The key question is whether we will listen.




Thanks, Greg. Yes, wars contribute significantly to global warming. The trouble is, politicians are not scientists and they push for all kinds of trumped-up ideas that result in poor outcomes. Take the push for nuclear power in Australia, for instance. Nuclear power is very inefficient, producing only 30% of power for conversion into electricity. The rest, around 70%, is dissipated into the environment as steam, contributing to global warming. It requires vast water resources for the cooling towers. It is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, including that we would rely on US for the required technical expertise. So, this push raises question as to what political gains may come with the deal?
so many people in climate NGOs were dismissive of Kevin Anderson simply bc they found his “messaging” depressing. i guess these NGO folks are the kind who’d rather go to a firing squad blind folded than try to do something.
"The key question is whether we will listen"... Not a chance in hell based on what we see...stupid is as stupid does.
😢🤬