presentations global warming

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

indigenous canada

8 templates

26 templates

6 templates

mother teresa

18 templates

welcome back to school

124 templates

38 templates

Global Warming Presentation templates

Our planet is experiencing an increase in temperatures like no other. and it's not a natural process: it's something caused by humans. due to global warming, many icebergs are melting, raising the water level, which poses a danger to many coastal towns. let's take action prepare presentations with these google slides & powerpoint templates and start raising awareness.

It seems that you like this template!

Environmental activist cv infographics.

Download the Environmental Activist CV Infographics template for PowerPoint or Google Slides and discover the power of infographics. An infographic resource gives you the ability to showcase your content in a more visual way, which will make it easier for your audience to understand your topic. Slidesgo infographics like this...

Climate Change

Download the Climate Change presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic resources. You...

Global Warming Facts Infographics

Don't you think that the temperatures are higher every year? Maybe it's not noticeable from year to year, but it is when comparing decades. Global warming is a serious issue, so if you need to raise awareness about it, use these infographics to give some facts about this matter. Presenting...

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Are you preparing a presentation on climate change for class? Surprise your teacher with this professional template. It has green colors, connected to the environment, and includes pedagogical illustrations related to ecology. It has a guide index to help you focus your presentation. Begin with an introduction about what climate...

Global Warming Awareness for Business

Corporate social responsibility, three words that together make up a beautiful concept. If your company is aware of the problems our environment faces, and is willing to do something about it, share your ideas and give a speech or a conference about the topic! We have a nice template that...

Causes of Global Warming Lesson for Elementary

You don’t need to keep looking, you’ve already found the perfect presentation for your elementary lesson about global warming. Here’s what you’re going to find in this template: lots of cute stickers of the Earth, tables, graphs, charts, maps… Do you need more? Icons, illustrations, infographics, exercises… Well, the list...

Environmental Health Engineering Major for College: Hydroelectric Energy

Download the Environmental Health Engineering Major for College: Hydroelectric Energy presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. As university curricula increasingly incorporate digital tools and platforms, this template has been designed to integrate with presentation software, online learning management systems, or referencing software, enhancing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of student...

Global Warming vs. Climate Change

We only have one planet, and we must take care of it. It is our home, and it will be the home of future generations (we are not yet certain of the existence of the typical spaceship from the movies that will take us beyond the Solar System). Concepts such...

CSR Infographics

Download the "CSR Infographics" template for PowerPoint or Google Slides and discover the power of infographics. An infographic resource gives you the ability to showcase your content in a more visual way, which will make it easier for your audience to understand your topic. Slidesgo infographics like this set here...

Causes of Global Warming Lesson for Middle School Infographics

Download the Causes of Global Warming Lesson for Middle School Infographics template for PowerPoint or Google Slides and discover the power of infographics. An infographic resource gives you the ability to showcase your content in a more visual way, which will make it easier for your audience to understand your...

Ozone Layer & Depletion - Science Lesson for High School to Celebrate World Ozone Day

Not to go into excessively scientific terms and concepts (we leave the science to the experts), the ozone layer is basically our protector from the sun's rays, which makes it possible to live "pleasantly" on Earth, in terms of temperature. However, it is weakening for many reasons and there are...

Architecture and Environmental Design Major for College

Why are cities built the way they are? It's probably due to environmental design, combined with architecture. Sounds like a headache? For us, it sounds like a great degree to study! If you agree with us, download this template and prepare future students for what's to come! What will they...

Environmental Friendly Newsletter

Download the Environmental Friendly Newsletter presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. Attention all marketers! Are you looking for a way to make your newsletters more creative and eye-catching for your target audience? This amazing template is perfect for creating the perfect newsletter that will capture your audience's attention from the...

Environmental Engineering Thesis

After studying so hard and working on a dissertation, now it's time to defend it! The topic of this new editable template is environmental engineering, a discipline that aims to improve the quality of the environment, so its color palette revolves around green and yellow. The backgrounds contain natural landscapes...

Environmental Conservation Project Proposal Infographics

Download the Environmental Conservation Project Proposal Infographics template for PowerPoint or Google Slides and discover the power of infographics. An infographic resource gives you the ability to showcase your content in a more visual way, which will make it easier for your audience to understand your topic. Slidesgo infographics like...

Climate Change Awareness Campaign

Download the Climate Change Awareness Campaign presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. Improve your campaign management with this template that will definitely make a difference. It will empower you to organize, execute, and track the effectiveness of your campaign. Enriched with innovative resources, it facilitates seamless communication, meticulous planning, and...

Causes of Global Warming Lesson for Elementary Infographics

Make your lesson about the causes of global warming more interesting with this set of infographics! This Google Slides and PPT template features a cream background with adorable doodles and illustrations to help explain the subject matter in a fun and unique way. Perfect for teachers and educators, it will...

Social Issues Thesis: Climate Change

Investigations about climate change are a key role that will help us preserve the Earth by identifying the problems and suggesting solutions. Focus on the most important part of your thesis, your content, and let us take care of the design as a gratitude gift for having invested so many...

• Page 1 of 6

Climate Matters • November 25, 2020

New Presentation: Our Changing Climate

Key concepts:.

Climate Central unveils Our Changing Climate —an informative and customizable climate change presentation that meteorologists, journalists, and others can use for educational outreach and/or a personal Climate 101 tool.

The presentation follows a ”Simple, Serious, Solvable” framework, inspired by climate scientist Scott Denning. This allows the presenter to comfortably explain, and the viewers to easily understand, the causes (Simple), impacts (Serious), and solutions (Solvable) of climate change. 

Our Changing Climate is a revamped version of our 2016 climate presentation, and includes the following updates and features:

Up-to-date graphics and topics

Local data and graphics

Fully editable slides (add, remove, customize)

Presenter notes, background information, and references for each slide

Supplementary and bonus slides

Download Outline (PDF, 110KB)

Download Full Presentation (PPT, 148MB)

Updated: April 2021

Climate Central is presenting a new outreach and education resource for meteorologists, journalists, and others—a climate change presentation, Our Changing Climate . This 55-slide presentation is a guide through the basics of climate change, outlining its causes, impacts, and solutions. This climate change overview is unique because it includes an array of local graphics from our ever-expanding media library. By providing these local angles, the presenter can demonstrate that climate change is not only happening at a global-scale, but in our backyards.

This presentation was designed to support your climate change storytelling, but can also double as a great Climate 101 tool for journalists or educators who want to understand climate change better. Every slide contains main points along with background information, so people that are interested can learn at their own pace or utilize graphics for their own content. 

In addition to those features, it follows the “Simple, Serious, Solvable” framework inspired by Scott Denning, a climate scientist and professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University (and a good friend of the program). These three S’s help create the presentation storyline and outline the causes (Simple), impacts (Serious), and solutions (Solvable) of climate change. 

Simple. It is simple—burning fossil fuels is heating up the Earth. This section outlines the well-understood science that goes back to the 1800s, presenting local and global evidence that our climate is warming due to human activities.

Serious. More extreme weather, rising sea levels, and increased health and economic risks—the consequences of climate change. In this section, well, we get serious. Climate change impacts are already being felt around the world, and they will continue to intensify until we cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

Solvable. With such a daunting crisis like climate change, it is easy to get wrapped up in the negative impacts. This section explains how we can curb climate change and lists the main pathways and solutions to achieving this goal. 

With the rollout of our new climate change presentation, we at Climate Central would value any feedback on this presentation. Feel free to reach out to us about how the presentation worked for you, how your audience reacted, or any ideas or topics you would like to see included. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS & SPECIAL THANKS

Climate Central would like to acknowledge Paul Gross at WDIV-TV in Detroit and the AMS Station Science Committee for the original version of the climate presentation, Climate Change Outreach Presentation , that was created in 2016. We would also like to give special thanks to Scott Denning, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and a member of our NSF advisory board, for allowing us to use this “Simple, Serious, Solvable” framework in this presentation resource.

SUPPORTING MULTIMEDIA

Blog – Creative Presentations Ideas

infoDiagram visual slide examples, PowerPoint diagrams & icons , PPT tricks & guides

7 PowerPoint Templates for Impactful Climate Change Presentations

Last Updated on February 20, 2024 by Anastasia

If you’re planning to talk about ecology, circular economy, sustainability, or any climate change-related topics, using graphical aids can help you illustrate more data with less text and make your slides more dynamic and motivating. See how you can improve climate change presentations, whether you’re teaching, training, or inspiring your audience.

Visual illustrations can help clarify the message and ideas you want to convey. Using imagery to support rich data can help you take your environmental presentation to the next level and keep your listeners’ focus.

Check out this list of PowerPoint templates we put together. It can be a source of visual inspiration for your climate change presentations.

Transform your business presentations with our expert resources. Discover more on our business performance presentations webpage.

These seven decks will help you create high-quality presentations and illustrate various ecology and climate change-related topics:

• Actions against climate change
• Triple bottom line sustainable strategy
• Circular economy and sustainability
• Climate change impacts & business actions
• Plastic pollution & waste
• Ecology & green projects presentation
• Environmental and ecology icons

You can get any deck presented here as an editable file. Simply click on the images to see and download the source illustrations. Check the full collection of Climate & Ecology PowerPoint Templates here .

Actions Template Against Climate Change

Spreading knowledge and giving practical tips on what each of us can do to help slow down climate change and global warming is a very important part of combating this crisis.

If you want to explain the problems, go into the details. and show solution examples for a company, consumers, or employees, the climate change actions PPT deck is the one. It includes definitions, causes, and consequences of climate change, information on major sources of greenhouse emissions, practical action layouts, calendar and checklist slides, ESG principles, and many other diagrams.

You can use it to share knowledge, inspire, and motivate your community to be more conscious and effective in actions.

Check our blog to learn how visuals can help you drive climate change.

If you are an education professional or an NGO member, please contact us . We can give you a discount on our graphics or offer some of our presentations free of charge.

Triple Bottom Line Sustainable Business Strategy

The triple bottom line (TBL) is an accounting framework that incorporates three dimensions of business performance: social, environmental, and financial. Measuring business using TBL is one of the evaluation methodologies to verify how sustainable the business is, and how profitable it is.

The triple bottom line PowerPoint deck contains slides to illustrate the definition, metrics, quotes, and circular economy model. Also, you’ll find diagrams to show three areas of the TBL concept: Social Sustainability (People), Environmental Sustainability (Planet), and Economical Sustainability (Profit).

See how you can structure your TBL presentation and present various parts of it in this article . To learn more about accounting framework background, we recommend checking this Wikipedia article .

Circular Economy and Sustainability PPT Diagrams

The circular economy is a model of production & consumption. It involves sharing, reusing, repairing, and recycling materials and products for as long as possible. To present the essence of the circular economy and principles of the sustainable development model effectively, we encourage using visuals.

The circular economy PowerPoint template includes quotes slides, linear timelines, loop diagrams, comparison graphics, listings, processes, and layouts to show the difference between circular versus linear economies.

You can use these infographics in a broad spectrum of contexts to:

• Compare circular and linear economic models
• Show circular economy benefits
• Teach the green economy framework
• Design a lifecycle of a sustainable product
• Explain the 7R model principles with attractive graphics
• Create suggestive slides to emphasize the potential of a sustainable economy
• Give real-life examples of running a sustainable business

For more information about circular economy history and applications see this article .

If you’re talking about sustainability principles, types, or core pillars, see how icons can help translate abstract ideas into easy-to-read slides.

Climate Change Impacts & Business Actions Template

Explaining global warming effects or analyzing climate change risks? If you need to put together a general presentation on the climate change impacts and actions to be taken to combat it, have a look at the deck below.

Climate change impacts & business actions PPT deck contains diagrams for showing the impacts of global warming, facts, definitions, and quotes on climate from recognized institutions (UN, IPCC, NASA).

See simple design tips on improving your environmental presentation with visual examples.

Plastic Pollution & Waste PowerPoint Infographics

Plastic pollution has become one of the most pressing environmental issues. The rapidly increasing production of disposable plastic products influences the world’s ability to deal with them. The numbers are shocking: by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean.

You can use plastic pollution & waste slides collection to illustrate the effects of plastic pollution, statistics of pollution and global waste, pollution contributors, actions we can take to tackle it and reduce plastic in our daily lives, and ways to increase employee engagement in recycling.

Graphics will help make the heavy data more user-friendly and it will be easier for you to persuade the audience you’re presenting to that steps and actions toward a more sustainable economy need to be taken now.

Creative Eco & Green Projects Presentation Template

Pitching your new green technology idea to investors or presenting an eco-project? Get inspired by the following visualizations in green theme to help you to convey your ideas in an out-of-the-box format.

Such slides with organic blob shape designs are easily associated with a natural and environmental style and will give your presentation a personal touch. You can use these layouts to illustrate any part of your presentation, such as the agenda, project team, vision & mission statements, problem & green solution, project development & implementation timelines, solutions benefits, roadmap calendar, and many more.

Ecology Icons Bundle for PowerPoint

You don’t necessarily need very complex graphics to make your presentation or another document look more professional and modern-looking. Start small: add icons to highlight your points better.

Ecology icons PPT bundle contains various symbols for illustrating natural resources, sustainable transport & architecture, green energy, waste industry (types, treatment, and prevention), and ecosystems concepts.

See creative ways to use icons in slide design to make it easier for the reader to remember the content.

Why use strong visuals for climate change presentations

Adding graphics, even simple ones, will definitely make a difference in your presentation. Therefore it will help you convey your ideas better. This especially concerns climate change presentations, because you probably want to motivate people to take action and better-presented information will help you connect with them.

Having a set of easily editable templates can make your work easier. Pre-designed graphics will help you save time and focus on presentation content.

To ensure the professional look of your slides, check our articles from our designer’s advice about graphical consistency rules  and  aligning elements  properly.

Check our YouTube movie with examples of how you can illustrate climate change or global warming concepts:

Resources: PowerPoint Templates to Use for Climate Change Presentations

The slide examples mentioned above can help you provide environmental education content, prepare marketing material, and kickstart a positive change for a sustainable future.

Explore the set of presentation graphics on climate change, global warming, and other connected topics:

Environmental & Climate Change Presentation PPT Templates

To try out how those graphics work, get a sample of  free PPT diagrams and icons . You can use it to see if this kind of presentation visuals is a good fit for you.

Home Collections Nature Global warming

Global Warming Presentation Templates

Start vital discussions on climate issues with our global warming powerpoint templates and google slides themes. covering topics from greenhouse effects to disaster management, our free, customizable templates facilitate clear communication of complex environmental concerns. use our platform to inspire change, prompt engagement, and support our planet..

• Comprehensive Topics for Holistic Understanding: Our templates span an array of subjects related to global warming. From in-depth discussions on the greenhouse effect to the socio-economic impacts of climate change and globalization , we've got you covered. Touch upon related natural phenomena like tornadoes, and volcanoes, or delve into topics like the NOISE analysis model and disaster management strategies.
• Engaging Designs for Maximum Impact: A message is only as powerful as its presentation. Our global warming slides template boasts a blend of stunning visuals, compelling infographics, and a cohesive narrative flow, ensuring your audience remains hooked from start to finish.
• Customizable for a Personal Touch: No two presentations are the same, and your unique voice deserves to stand out. With our fully editable global warming PPTs, tailor every slide to align with your perspective, ensuring your presentation is both personal and powerful.
• Accessible to All: To ensure everyone has access to quality resources, our collection includes free downloads , making impactful presentations accessible to all, irrespective of budget constraints.

We're here to help you!

What is global warming.

Global warming is the incremental increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, caused mainly by the emission of certain gases from human activities, including burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

What are Global Warming Presentation Templates?

Global Warming Presentation Templates help you to create presentations about global warming and climate change. You can explain the causes and effects of global warming and present potential solutions to the problem.

Where can we use these Global Warming Slides?

You can use these Global Warming Slides for educational classrooms, presentations, conferences, and seminars. Anyone can use these slides for research and discussion around global warming.

How can I make Global Warming PPT Slides in a presentation?

Start by researching global warming. Understand the leading causes of global warming and how it affects the planet. Use images, diagrams, and other visuals to illustrate your points and make them easier to understand. Suppose you want to create slides by yourself. Visit Tips and tricks for detailed instructions.

Who can use Global Warming Presentation Templates?

Anyone can use global Warming Presentation Templates, including teachers, students, environmental activists, and anyone who wishes to educate others about the impacts of climate change.

Why do we need Global Warming Presentation Slides?

Global warming Presentation slides can educate and inform people about the causes and effects of global warming. You can use them to provide facts and data to help people understand the issue and how it affects their lives.

Where can I find free Global Warming Templates?

Many websites offer free Global Warming templates. Slide egg is one of the best PowerPoint providers. Our websites have a selection of uniquely designed templates allowing you to inspire people to take action and make a difference.

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions
• Climatic variation since the last glaciation
• The greenhouse effect
• Radiative forcing
• Water vapour
• Carbon dioxide
• Surface-level ozone and other compounds
• Nitrous oxides and fluorinated gases
• Land-use change
• Stratospheric ozone depletion
• Volcanic aerosols
• Variations in solar output
• Variations in Earth’s orbit
• Water vapour feedback
• Cloud feedbacks
• Ice albedo feedback
• Carbon cycle feedbacks
• Modern observations
• Prehistorical climate records
• Theoretical climate models
• Patterns of warming
• Precipitation patterns
• Regional predictions
• Ice melt and sea level rise
• Ocean circulation changes
• Tropical cyclones
• Environmental consequences of global warming
• Socioeconomic consequences of global warming

How does global warming work?

Where does global warming occur in the atmosphere, why is global warming a social problem, where does global warming affect polar bears.

• What is the Kyoto Protocol?

global warming

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• U.S. Department of Transportation - Global Warming: A Science Overview
• NOAA Climate.gov - Climate Change: Global Temperature
• Natural Resources Defense Council - Global Warming 101
• American Institute of Physics - The discovery of global warming
• LiveScience - Causes of Global Warming
• global warming - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• global warming - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Human activity affects global surface temperatures by changing Earth ’s radiative balance—the “give and take” between what comes in during the day and what Earth emits at night. Increases in greenhouse gases —i.e., trace gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that absorb heat energy emitted from Earth’s surface and reradiate it back—generated by industry and transportation cause the atmosphere to retain more heat, which increases temperatures and alters precipitation patterns.

Global warming, the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near Earth’s surface over the past one to two centuries, happens mostly in the troposphere , the lowest level of the atmosphere, which extends from Earth’s surface up to a height of 6–11 miles. This layer contains most of Earth’s clouds and is where living things and their habitats and weather primarily occur.

Continued global warming is expected to impact everything from energy use to water availability to crop productivity throughout the world. Poor countries and communities with limited abilities to adapt to these changes are expected to suffer disproportionately. Global warming is already being associated with increases in the incidence of severe and extreme weather, heavy flooding , and wildfires —phenomena that threaten homes, dams, transportation networks, and other facets of human infrastructure. Learn more about how the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, released in 2021, describes the social impacts of global warming.

Polar bears live in the Arctic , where they use the region’s ice floes as they hunt seals and other marine mammals . Temperature increases related to global warming have been the most pronounced at the poles, where they often make the difference between frozen and melted ice. Polar bears rely on small gaps in the ice to hunt their prey. As these gaps widen because of continued melting, prey capture has become more challenging for these animals.

Recent News

global warming , the phenomenon of increasing average air temperatures near the surface of Earth over the past one to two centuries. Climate scientists have since the mid-20th century gathered detailed observations of various weather phenomena (such as temperatures, precipitation , and storms) and of related influences on climate (such as ocean currents and the atmosphere’s chemical composition). These data indicate that Earth’s climate has changed over almost every conceivable timescale since the beginning of geologic time and that human activities since at least the beginning of the Industrial Revolution have a growing influence over the pace and extent of present-day climate change .

Giving voice to a growing conviction of most of the scientific community , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), published in 2021, noted that the best estimate of the increase in global average surface temperature between 1850 and 2019 was 1.07 °C (1.9 °F). An IPCC special report produced in 2018 noted that human beings and their activities have been responsible for a worldwide average temperature increase between 0.8 and 1.2 °C (1.4 and 2.2 °F) since preindustrial times, and most of the warming over the second half of the 20th century could be attributed to human activities.

AR6 produced a series of global climate predictions based on modeling five greenhouse gas emission scenarios that accounted for future emissions, mitigation (severity reduction) measures, and uncertainties in the model projections. Some of the main uncertainties include the precise role of feedback processes and the impacts of industrial pollutants known as aerosols , which may offset some warming. The lowest-emissions scenario, which assumed steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions beginning in 2015, predicted that the global mean surface temperature would increase between 1.0 and 1.8 °C (1.8 and 3.2 °F) by 2100 relative to the 1850–1900 average. This range stood in stark contrast to the highest-emissions scenario, which predicted that the mean surface temperature would rise between 3.3 and 5.7 °C (5.9 and 10.2 °F) by 2100 based on the assumption that greenhouse gas emissions would continue to increase throughout the 21st century. The intermediate-emissions scenario, which assumed that emissions would stabilize by 2050 before declining gradually, projected an increase of between 2.1 and 3.5 °C (3.8 and 6.3 °F) by 2100.

Many climate scientists agree that significant societal, economic, and ecological damage would result if the global average temperature rose by more than 2 °C (3.6 °F) in such a short time. Such damage would include increased extinction of many plant and animal species, shifts in patterns of agriculture , and rising sea levels. By 2015 all but a few national governments had begun the process of instituting carbon reduction plans as part of the Paris Agreement , a treaty designed to help countries keep global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above preindustrial levels in order to avoid the worst of the predicted effects. Whereas authors of the 2018 special report noted that should carbon emissions continue at their present rate, the increase in average near-surface air temperature would reach 1.5 °C sometime between 2030 and 2052, authors of the AR6 report suggested that this threshold would be reached by 2041 at the latest.

The AR6 report also noted that the global average sea level had risen by some 20 cm (7.9 inches) between 1901 and 2018 and that sea level rose faster in the second half of the 20th century than in the first half. It also predicted, again depending on a wide range of scenarios, that the global average sea level would rise by different amounts by 2100 relative to the 1995–2014 average. Under the report’s lowest-emission scenario, sea level would rise by 28–55 cm (11–21.7 inches), whereas, under the intermediate emissions scenario, sea level would rise by 44–76 cm (17.3–29.9 inches). The highest-emissions scenario suggested that sea level would rise by 63–101 cm (24.8–39.8 inches) by 2100.

The scenarios referred to above depend mainly on future concentrations of certain trace gases, called greenhouse gases , that have been injected into the lower atmosphere in increasing amounts through the burning of fossil fuels for industry, transportation , and residential uses. Modern global warming is the result of an increase in magnitude of the so-called greenhouse effect , a warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere caused by the presence of water vapour , carbon dioxide , methane , nitrous oxides , and other greenhouse gases. In 2014 the IPCC first reported that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides in the atmosphere surpassed those found in ice cores dating back 800,000 years.

Of all these gases, carbon dioxide is the most important, both for its role in the greenhouse effect and for its role in the human economy. It has been estimated that, at the beginning of the industrial age in the mid-18th century, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). By the end of 2022 they had risen to 419 ppm, and, if fossil fuels continue to be burned at current rates, they are projected to reach 550 ppm by the mid-21st century—essentially, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in 300 years.

A vigorous debate is in progress over the extent and seriousness of rising surface temperatures, the effects of past and future warming on human life, and the need for action to reduce future warming and deal with its consequences. This article provides an overview of the scientific background related to the subject of global warming. It considers the causes of rising near-surface air temperatures, the influencing factors, the process of climate research and forecasting, and the possible ecological and social impacts of rising temperatures. For an overview of the public policy developments related to global warming occurring since the mid-20th century, see global warming policy . For a detailed description of Earth’s climate, its processes, and the responses of living things to its changing nature, see climate . For additional background on how Earth’s climate has changed throughout geologic time , see climatic variation and change . For a full description of Earth’s gaseous envelope, within which climate change and global warming occur, see atmosphere .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 04 June 2024

Global groundwater warming due to climate change

• Susanne A. Benz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6092-5713 1 , 2 ,
• Dylan J. Irvine   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3543-6221 3 ,
• Gabriel C. Rau 4 ,
• Peter Bayer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4884-5873 5 ,
• Kathrin Menberg 6 ,
• Philipp Blum 6 ,
• Rob C. Jamieson 1 ,
• Christian Griebler 7 &
• Barret L. Kurylyk   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8244-3838 1  

Nature Geoscience ( 2024 ) Cite this article

5381 Accesses

391 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change impacts
• Projection and prediction

Aquifers contain the largest store of unfrozen freshwater, making groundwater critical for life on Earth. Surprisingly little is known about how groundwater responds to surface warming across spatial and temporal scales. Focusing on diffusive heat transport, we simulate current and projected groundwater temperatures at the global scale. We show that groundwater at the depth of the water table (excluding permafrost regions) is conservatively projected to warm on average by 2.1 °C between 2000 and 2100 under a medium emissions pathway. However, regional shallow groundwater warming patterns vary substantially due to spatial variability in climate change and water table depth. The lowest rates are projected in mountain regions such as the Andes or the Rocky Mountains. We illustrate that increasing groundwater temperatures influences stream thermal regimes, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, aquatic biogeochemical processes, groundwater quality and the geothermal potential. Results indicate that by 2100 following a medium emissions pathway, between 77 million and 188 million people are projected to live in areas where groundwater exceeds the highest threshold for drinking water temperatures set by any country.

Similar content being viewed by others

Evapotranspiration depletes groundwater under warming over the contiguous United States

Recent and projected precipitation and temperature changes in the Grand Canyon area with implications for groundwater resources

Global peak water limit of future groundwater withdrawals

Earth’s climatic system warms holistically in response to the radiative imbalance from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases 1 . While the ocean absorbs most of this additional heat 2 , the terrestrial subsurface and groundwater also function as a heat sink. With a stable climate, seasonal temperature variation penetrates to a depth of 10–20 m, below which temperatures generally increase with depth in accordance with the geothermal gradient 3 . However, present-day borehole temperature–depth profiles frequently show an inversion (that is, temperature decreasing with depth) for up to 100 m due to recent, decadal surface warming 4 . Deviations from steady-state subsurface temperatures in deep boreholes (for example, >300 m) have been used to evaluate terrestrial heat storage and to estimate past, pre-observational surface temperature changes at a global scale 5 . Previous multi-continental synthesis studies on subsurface warming provide critical information on climate dynamics, but impacts on groundwater resources and associated implications are commonly ignored.

With the advent of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, global datasets and global hydrological models, there is an emerging body of global-scale groundwater research 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 . However, global-scale groundwater studies so far have focused on resource quantity (for example, levels, recharge rates and gravity signals), whereas global-scale research into groundwater quality, including temperature, is rare. Furthermore, prominent syntheses of the relationship between anthropogenic climate change and groundwater (for example, refs. 10 , 11 ) concentrate on quantity leaving quality aspects unexplored 12 . Water temperature, sometimes known as the ‘master environmental variable’ (ref. 13 ), is an understudied groundwater quality parameter in the context of climate change.

Whereas global studies of river and lake warming have been conducted 14 , 15 , there are no global assessments of climate change impacts on groundwater temperatures (GWTs). This is despite the high importance of groundwater, which represents the largest global reservoir of unfrozen freshwater 16 , providing at least part of the water supply for half the world 17 and close to half of the global irrigation demand 18 . It also sustains terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 19 , particularly in the face of climate change 10 . Given the role of temperature as an overarching water quality variable and observational evidence of groundwater warming in different countries in response to recent climate change 4 , 20 , 21 , the potential impact of climate warming on groundwater temperatures at a global scale remains a critical knowledge gap.

Groundwater temperature influences a suite of biogeochemical processes that alter groundwater quality 22 . For example, an increase in temperatures reduces gas solubility and raises metabolism of organisms, with an increased rate of oxygen consumption and a shift in redox conditions 23 . Because many aquifers already possess low oxygen concentrations, a small change in temperature could trigger a shift from an oxic to a hypoxic or even an anoxic regime 24 , 25 . This switch can in turn facilitate the mobilization of redox-sensitive constituents such as arsenic, manganese and phosphorus 26 , 27 . Increases in soluble phosphorus in groundwater discharging to surface water can trigger harmful algal blooms 28 , and elevated arsenic and manganese contents in potable water supplies pose direct risks to human health 29 . Groundwater warming will also cause a shift in groundwater community composition with a challenge to biodiversity and the risk of an impaired cycling of carbon and nutrients 24 , 25 . Shallow soil and groundwater warming may also cause temperatures in water distribution networks to cross critical thresholds, with potential health implications such as the growth of pathogens such as Legionella spp. 30 .

Diffusive discharge of thermally stable groundwater to surface water bodies modulates their temporal thermal regimes 30 . Also, focused groundwater inflows can create cold-water plumes that provide thermal refuge for stressed aquatic species 31 , including many prize cold-water fish. Accordingly, groundwater warming will increase ambient water temperatures in surface water bodies and the temperatures of groundwater-sourced thermal refuges. Spring ecosystems will also be affected. For example, crenobionts (true spring water species) have a very narrow temperature optimum and tolerance; hence, warming groundwater near the mouths of springs will lead to changes in their reproduction cycles, food web interactions and finally a loss of sensitive species 32 .

Groundwater warming can also have positive effects as the accumulated thermal energy can be recycled through shallow, low-carbon geothermal energy systems 33 . Whereas studies typically focus on recycling the waste heat from anthropogenic sources, particularly from subsurface urban heat islands 34 , the subsurface heat accumulating due to climate change also has the potential to sustainably satisfy local heating demands 35 . However, increased warming will make cooling systems less efficient 36 .

Here we develop and apply a global-scale heat-transport model (thermal diffusion) to quantify groundwater temperatures in space and time and their response to recent and projected climate change (Fig. 1a,b ). Our objective is to reveal the potential magnitude and long-term implications of ongoing shallow groundwater warming and to identify ‘hotspots’ of concern. The model utilizes standard climate projections to drive global groundwater warming down to 100 m below ground surface but with a focus on temperatures at the depth of the water table. We discuss (1) where aquifer warming will influence the viability of shallow geothermal heat recycling in the shallow subsurface (Fig. 1c ), (2) given how it impacts microbial activity and groundwater chemistry, where groundwater temperature may cross key thresholds set by drinking water standards (Fig. 1d ) and (3) where discharge of warmed groundwater will have the most pronounced impact on river temperatures and aquatic ecosystems (Fig. 1e ). Our model is global, and its resolution limits detailed capture of small-scale processes, producing conservative results based on tested hydraulic and thermal assumptions, including realistic advection from basin-scale recharge. More localized processes may lead to higher groundwater temperatures in areas with increased downward flow (for example, river-based recharge) or elevated surface temperatures (for example, urban heat islands) (Supplementary Note 1 provides details).

a – e , Increases in surface air and ground surface temperatures ( a ) drive increases in groundwater temperatures ( b ) that, in turn, impact the geothermal potential for shallow geothermal energy systems ( c ), groundwater chemistry and microbiology, which in turn impacts water quality ( d ) and groundwater-dependent ecosystems ( e ). Figure created with images from the UMCES IAN Media Library under a Creative Commons license CC BY-SA 4.0 .

Groundwater temperatures

We use gridded data to calculate transient subsurface temperature–depth profiles across the globe ( Methods ). Besides past and current temperatures, we present potential (modest mitigation) and worst-case (no mitigation) projections to 2100 based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 2–4.5 or SSP 5–8.5 climate scenarios of phase 6 the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) (ref. 37 ). Results can be accessed and visually explored using an interactive Google Earth Engine app available at https://susanneabenz.users.earthengine.app/view/subsurface-temperature-profiles . Figure 2a–c displays maps of mean GWT at the depth of the water table and at 5 and 30 m below ground surface for 2020.

a – c , Map of modelled mean annual temperatures at the depth of the water table ( a ), at 5 m below ground surface ( b ) and at 30 m below ground surface ( c ) in 2020. d , Comparison of modelled and observed groundwater temperatures. Blue markers are (multi-) annual mean temperatures observed between 2000 and 2015 at an unspecified depth against modelled temperatures of the same time period at 30 m depth. Grey markers are temperatures of a single point in time versus modelled temperatures of the same time and depth. A histogram of the errors (observed minus modelled temperatures) is shown in the upper left corner. e , Modelled temperature–depth profiles showing mean annual temperatures and the seasonal envelope for the locations displayed in a . Please note that we use bulk thermal properties, and the water table depth is thus not an input parameter into our model.

Comparison with measured data demonstrates a good accuracy of the model given the global scale with a root mean square error of 1.4 °C and a coefficient of determination of 0.75 (Fig. 2d ). An in-depth discussion on model reliability, uncertainty and limitations is given in Supplementary Note 2 .

The median GWT at the water table in 2020 was 21.0 °C (5.6 °C, 29.3 °C; 10th, 90th percentile; Fig. 2a ). In comparison, using the same ECMWF re-analysis (ERA-5) data product, air temperatures in 2020 were lower at 17.6 °C (1.4 °C, 27.0 °C). This thermal offset is attributable to various processes and conditions including snow pack insulation in colder climates 38 and increased temperatures with depth following the geothermal gradient.

Simulated temperature–depth profiles are displayed at six example locations in Fig. 2e , including their seasonal envelope. Supplementary Note 3 provides a discussion of seasonality. Whereas all locations show an inversion of the temperature–depth profile, the depth at which this thermal gradient ‘inflection point’ (ref. 4 ) is reached varies greatly based on the rate and duration of recent climate change. At the example location in Mexico, temperatures begin to increase with depth (as expected based on the local geothermal gradient) from approximately 10 m downwards, whereas at the example location in Brazil, the inflection point reaches a depth of 45 m (Fig. 2c ). Globally, it has reached 15 (<1, 40) m (Extended Data Fig. 1a ). Heat advection from vertical groundwater flow may also influence the depth of the inflection point 4 , but only heat diffusion is considered in our model as this is the dominant heat-transport mechanism at the modelled spatial scale ( Methods ).

To better assess the impact of recent climate change on groundwater temperatures at the water table depth, we compare annual mean GWTs from 2000 and 2020. Over this 20-year period, GWTs increased on average by 0.3 (0.0, 0.8) °C (Fig. 3a ). We do not find any distinct large-scale patterns. However, some of the highest temperature increases occur in parts of Russia (for example, > + 1. 5 ∘ C north of Novosibirsk), while parts of Canada experienced cooling (for example, < −0. 5 °C in Saskatoon) between the two years. Both regions have shallow water tables, with GWTs tightly coupled to seasonal surface temperature variations and short-term intra-annual changes, rather than just the long-term surface temperature signals. As such, one hot summer can drastically alter the modelled GWT difference between 2000 and 2020. The influence of weather conditions for a given year is also notable in the depth profiles for six selected locations (Fig. 3d ). Noticeable variations occur in the upper 5 m of mean temperature range profiles with temperature changes of 1.1 °C at the location in Australia, compared with 0.5 °C at the location in Nigeria. These effects of intra-annual and short-term interannual variations in weather are attenuated at greater depths (for example, 30 m). Long-term (climate change) effects penetrate deeper, although groundwater warming may be less pronounced with depth due to the time lag between surface and subsurface temperature signals (Fig. 3c ).

a – d , Recent (2000 to 2020) changes. e – h , Projected (2000–2100) changes. a , e , Map of the change in annual mean temperature at the depth of the water table. The line in the legend indicates 0 °C. b , c , f , g , Temperature change 5 m below the land surface ( b , f ) and 30 m below the land surface ( c , g ). d , h , Change in temperatures between 2000 and 2020 ( d ) and difference between 2000 and 2100 ( h ) as depth profiles for selected locations (symbols in a and e ). Lines in h indicate median projections, whereas 25th to 75th percentiles (pct.) are presented as shading.

Over the entire century (between 2000 and 2100), groundwater warming is also projected to increase; globally averaged GWTs at the water table (at its current level) increase by 2.1 (0.8, 3.0) °C following SSP 2–4.5 median projections (Fig. 3e–g ; Extended Data Fig. 2 for 25th (1.7 (0.6, 2.5) °C) and 75th percentile (2.6 (1.0, 3.6) °C) projections) and by 3.5 (1.0, 5.5) °C following SSP 5–8.5 median projections (Extended Data Figs. 3a–d and 4 ; 25th percentile projections 3.0 (0.8, 5.8) °C; 25th percentile projections 4.6 (1.3, 7.1) °C).

We observe a clear signal of climate change by studying the depth down to which the temperature profile is reversed and temperatures are decreasing outside of seasonal effects. In 2100 the geothermal gradient inflection point is projected to reach 45 (9, 90) m on average following SSP 2–4.5 median projections (40 (6, 90) m for 25th percentile and 45 (15, 80) m for 75th percentile projections) or 60 (40, 100) m following SSP 5–8.5 median projections (60 (35, >100) m for 25th percentile and 60 (45, >100) m for 75th percentile projections; Extended Data Figs. 1b,c and 5 ).

Accumulated energy

The overall increase in GWT can be quantified as accumulated energy ( Methods ). By 2020, a net energy amount of 14 × 10 21  J has already been absorbed by the terrestrial subsurface (Fig. 4a ; 119 (45, 202) MJ m −2 ) since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In comparison, 436 × 10 21  J or about 25 times more has been absorbed by the oceans over a similar time period 39 . A review of Earth’s energy imbalance identifies a total heat gain of 358 × 10 21  J for the time period 1971–2018 only, attributing about 6% of that to land areas including permafrost regions (21 × 10 21  J, that is, a similar magnitude as our estimate) 40 . In a similar range is the 23.8 × 10 21  J that was stored in the continental landmass since 1960 following a recent study; 90% is from heat storage 41 .

a – c , Current status in 2020. d – f , Projected status in 2100 under SSP 2–4.5. a , d , Accumulated heat from the surface to 100 m depth. The line in the legend indicates 0 MJ m −2 . b , e , Map showing locations where maximum monthly GWTs at the thermal gradient inflection point (coldest depth) are above guidelines for drinking water temperatures (DWTs) 43 . c , f , GWT changes between 2000 and 2020 ( c ) and between 2000 and 2100 ( f ) at stream sites with a groundwater signature 49 . The line in the legend indicates 0 °C.

We project that by 2100 accumulated subsurface energy will be 41 × 10 21  J following SSP 2–4.5 median projections (343 (251, 463) MJ m −2 ; Fig. 4d ), 30 × 10 21  J following 25th percentile projections (255 (162, 361) MJ m −2 ) and 50 × 10 21  J following 75th percentile projections (424 (324, 560) MJ m −2 ; Extended Data Fig. 6 ). Under SSP 5–8.5 we get 62 × 10 21  J for the median projections (518 (384, 689) MJ m −2 ; Extended Data Fig. 3e ), 49 × 10 21  J for the 25th percentile projections (412 (285, 564) MJ m −2 ) and 77 × 10 21  J for the 75th percentile projections (644 (493, 844) MJ m −2 ; Extended Data Fig. 7 ). This accumulated heat can be extracted from the subsurface through wells in productive aquifers, but in lower-permeability zones and the unsaturated zone, less-efficient borehole heat exchangers would be necessary 33 . Hence, we assessed the energy accumulated in the saturated zone only (below the current water table) in Extended Data Fig. 8 —on average, there is 68 (13, 133) MJ m −2 of heat in the global subsurface saturated zone in 2020.

By comparing the accumulated aquifer thermal energy in the United States (about 45 MJ m −2 ) with local residential heating demands (about 35,000 MJ per household in 2015 following the US Energy Information Administration 2015 Energy Consumption Survey), we find that, if recycled, the energy accumulated below an average home (250 m 2 for the floor area in new single-family houses following the 2015 ‘Characteristics of new housing’ report, US Department of Commerce) in 2020 would fulfil about four months of heating demands. However, by 2100, global heat storage in the saturated zone is projected to increase to 233 (75, 363) MJ m −2 following SSP 2–4.5 and 352 (105, 536) MJ m −2 following SSP 5–8.5 median projections (Extended Data Figs. 8 and 9 for 25th and 75th percentile projections). With heating demands projected to decline due to higher temperatures and improved building insulation, recycling this subsurface heat will therefore become more feasible and is a carbon-reduced heat source that will benefit from climate change 35 . Conversely, cooling systems that rely on geothermal sources will be less efficient.

Implications for drinking water quality

Whereas groundwater warming offers benefits for geothermal heating systems, the accumulated heat also threatens water quality. In many developing countries or in poor and rural areas within developed countries, groundwater may be consumed directly without treatment or storage. It may also indirectly impact temperatures of drinking water within pipes 42 . In these regions in particular, the changes in water chemistry or microbiology that are associated with groundwater warming have to be carefully considered.

According to the World Health Organization, only 18 of 125 countries have temperature guidelines for drinking water 43 . These temperature guidelines, which are often aesthetic guidelines, range from 15 °C to 34 °C, with a median of 25 °C. Figure 4b shows where annual maximum groundwater temperatures at the geothermal gradient inflection point, that is, the most conservative depth as it is the coldest point in the temperature–depth profile, are above these thresholds in 2020. At this time, more than 29 million people live in areas where our modelled maximum GWT exceeded 34 °C. If water is extracted at the depth of the water table, this increases to close to 31 million (Extended Data Fig. 10 ). Following SSP 2–4.5 median projections by 2100, these numbers will increase to 77 million to 188 million depending on the depth of extraction (72 to 101 for 25th percentile projection; 86 to 395 for 75th percentile projections; Fig. 4d and Extended Data Figs. 5 and 9 ). Following SSP 5–8.5 median projections, 59 million to 588 million people will live in areas where maximum GWTs exceed the highest thresholds for drinking water temperatures (54 to 314 for 25th percentile projection; 66 to 1,078 for 75th percentile projections; Extended Data Figs. 3f , 6 and 9 ). Due to the different population distributions, SSP 5–8.5 projects fewer people at risk than SSP 2–4.5 for the lower estimates.

Implications for groundwater-dependent ecosystems

The ecosystems most dependent on groundwater are those in the aquifers themselves. A temperature increase may threaten groundwater biodiversity and ecosystem services 44 , 45 . Also, the increased metabolic rates of microbes caused by warming will accelerate the cycling of organic and inorganic matter, additionally fuelled by the increasing importance of dissolved organic carbon to the subsurface 46 . Combined with decreasing groundwater recharge as projected for many North African, southern European and Latin American countries 47 , this may transform oxic subsurface environments into anoxic 24 .

Groundwater warming also threatens many riverine groundwater-dependent ecosystems and the industries (for example, fisheries) that they support 48 . To capitalize on past continental-scale research related to groundwater, river temperature and ecosystems, we compare our modelled spatial patterns of groundwater warming in the conterminous United States to a recent distributed analysis of 1,729 stream sites 49 . The amplitude and phase of seasonal temperature signals in these surface water bodies were used to reveal the thermal influence and source depth of groundwater discharge to these streams, with about 40% classified as groundwater dominated. Our results show that GWT at the water table for the groundwater-dominated stream sites increased by 0.1 (0.0, 0.4) °C between 2000 and 2020 and 1.3 (0.3, 2.6) °C and 1.9 (0.4, 4.5) °C between 2000 and 2100 following SSP 2–4.5 and SSP 5–8.5 median projections, respectively (Fig. 4c,f and Extended Data Fig. 3g ). Twenty-fifth percentile projections reveal 0.7 (−0.1, 1.5) °C and 1.0 (0.0, 2.9) °C and 75th percentile projections 2.0 (0.5, 4.0) °C and 2.9 (0.6, 6.7) °C between 2000 and 2100 following SSP 2–4.5 and SSP 5–8.5, respectively (Extended Data Figs. 6 and 7 ).

The warming groundwater will inevitably raise the ambient temperature of surface water systems thermally influenced by groundwater discharge. Furthermore, such groundwater warming will even more strongly impact the thermal regimes of groundwater-fed thermal refuges (for example, at the outlets of springs or groundwater-dominated tributaries flowing into rivers) and cause them to more regularly cross critical temperature thresholds for resident species seeking relief from thermal stress. Given the connection between aquifer thermal regimes and river sediment temperatures 50 , groundwater warming also threatens the thermal suitability of benthic ecosystems and spawning areas for fish 51 , posing a major risk to fisheries and other dependent industries.

Summary and model application

In summary, global climate change is leading to increased atmospheric and surface water temperatures, both of which have already been assessed across spatial scales ranging from local to global. Here we contribute to the global analyses of environmental temperature change and of groundwater resources through the presentation of projected groundwater temperature change to 2100 at a global scale. Our analyses are based on reasonable hydraulic and thermal assumptions providing conservative estimates and allow for both the hindcasting and forecasting of groundwater temperatures. Future groundwater temperature forecasts are based on both SSP 2–4.5 and 5–8.5 climate scenarios. We provide global temperature maps at the depth of the water table, 5 and 30 m below land surface, and these highlight that places with shallow water tables and/or high rates of atmospheric warming will experience the highest groundwater warming rates globally. Importantly, given the vertical dimension of the subsurface, groundwater warming is inherently a three-dimensional (3D) phenomenon with increased lagging of warming with depth, making aquifer warming dynamics distinct from the warming of shallow or well-mixed surface water bodies.

To facilitate more detailed future analyses, the temperature maps are included in a Google Earth Engine app at https://susanneabenz.users.earthengine.app/view/subsurface-temperature-profiles . The gridded GWT output could be integrated with global river temperature models 52 to more holistically understand future warming in aquifers and connected rivers. Whereas the warming of Earth’s groundwater poses some opportunities for geothermal energy production, it increasingly threatens ecosystems and the industries depending on them, and it will degrade drinking water quality, primarily in less-developed regions.

Diffusive heat transport

We hindcast monthly subsurface temperatures (and therefore also groundwater temperatures (GWTs) based on the assumption of local equilibrium) from the surface to a depth of 100 m for the years 2000 to 2020. We also force our model with future projections following SSP 2–4.5 and SSP 5–8.5 up to the year 2100. Subsurface temperatures in the shallow crust are generally controlled by one-dimensional (1D) (vertical) diffusive heat transport. Heat advection due to water flow plays a lesser and often inconsequential role in controlling subsurface temperatures 54 , 55 , 56 , particularly at larger spatial scales that average out focused groundwater flows in faults and fractures and groundwater exchange with surface water bodies. We adopt our 1D diffusion-dominated approach rather than a 3D numerical model of coupled groundwater flow and heat transfer as there are presently neither the parameterization data nor the computing power to enable such a coupled, 3D water and thermal transport model at a global scale. Also, whereas the influence of heat advection on steady-state or transient, subsurface temperature–depth profiles can be detected with precise temperature loggers and yields valuable insight into vertical groundwater fluxes when heat is used as a groundwater tracer 57 , the rate of shallow groundwater warming is often not thought to be strongly influenced by typical basin-average, vertical groundwater flux rates. Accordingly, heat advection has been ignored in some past local-scale groundwater warming studies (for example, ref. 58 ). However, to further investigate the thermal effects of multi-dimensional flow, we run a suite of scenarios and find that advection only exerts a minor influence on groundwater warming rates for typical groundwater flow conditions (Supplementary Note 1 ), enabling us to employ our approach.

Appropriate initial conditions can be far more important for reliable simulation of temperature–depth profiles than the inclusion of heat advection 59 . To ensure our initial conditions are not influenced by any preceding climate change, we initiate our model in 1880 when the industrial revolution had not yet increased atmospheric greenhouse gasses and the climate was relatively stable. As default initial setting, we define a temperature–depth profile that increases linearly with depth z from the surface T S in accordance with the geothermal gradient a : T ( z ) =  T S  +  a z (ref. 55 ). In permafrost regions, warming above critical thresholds requires latent heat to thaw ground in addition to the sensible heat to raise the temperature. As we do not include latent heat effects, model results are not presented for permafrost regions 60 .

We use the following analytical solution to the transient 1D heat diffusion equation for a semi-infinite homogeneous medium subject to a series of n step changes in surface temperature 55 :

where j is a step change counter (counting by month), t is time, T S ( t ) is the time series of the ground surface temperature, D is the thermal diffusivity and erfc is the complementary error function. This equation is often used in an inverse manner to reconstruct pre-observational ground surface temperature history from observed, deep temperature–depth profiles, demonstrating its utility for investigating the response of subsurface thermal regimes to surface warming.

We run our model in Google Earth Engine (GEE) 61 , and the results are presented in the form of a Google Earth Engine app openly accessible at https://susanneabenz.users.earthengine.app/view/subsurface-temperature-profiles . The application presents zoomable maps of annual mean, maximum and minimum GWT at different depths and seasonal variability (maximum minus minimum) for selected years and climate scenarios. All datasets were created at a native 5 km resolution at Earth’s surface. However, Google Earth Engine automatically rescales images shown on the map based on the zoom level of the user. Charts that represent temperatures at a given location at a 5 km scale are created by clicking on the map and can be exported in CSV, SVQ or PNG file formats. For all analyses showing annual mean data at the water table depth, we first calculate monthly temperatures at the associated monthly groundwater level before averaging the results.

Ground surface temperatures

We use two distinct ground surface temperature time series: (1) one for the analysis of current (2020) temperatures based primarily on the ERA-5 data 62 and (2) one for the analysis of projected changes based on CMIP6 data 37 . On the basis of available computational power and data, we are not able to utilize monthly temperatures for the entire time period between the years 1880 and 2100. Instead, we present monthly temperatures from 1981 onwards and annual mean temperatures for 1880. The threshold 1981 is selected as ERA-5 data were available in Google Earth Engine from this point on when developing the model.

As these data are input into the analytical step function model (equation ( 1 )), we supplement them with mean temperatures of the early 1980s (that is, three-year mean 1981 to 1984) to reduce artefacts of the sudden onset of seasonal signals in our data. An example of the ground surface temperature time series is shown in Supplementary Fig. 11 .

For the analysis of current GWT, we use monthly mean soil temperature at 0–7 cm depth for the years 1981 to 2022 based on the ERA-5-Land monthly average reanalysis product 62 to form the ground surface temperature boundary condition for equation ( 1 ). These data have a native resolution of 9 km at the surface and are available through the GEE data catalogue. We also used annual ground temperature anomalies of 1880 of the top layer following the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) atmospheric model E 63 . This dataset gives the temperature difference between 1880 and 1980 in a horizontal resolution of 4° × 5° (approximately 444 km × 555 km at the equator) and can be extracted from https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/transient/Rc_ij.1.11.html . To obtain absolute temperatures of 1880, we subtract the anomalies from three-year mean temperatures (1981 to 1984) of the ERA-5 data.

Future projections of ground surface temperatures are based on monthly soil temperatures closest to the surface for scenarios SSP 2–4.5 and SSP 5–8.5 from the CMIP6 programme available from 2015 to 2100. Model selection and methodology follow previous work 64 , but were updated to CMIP6 based on availability. In total we use nine models: BCC-CSM2-MR, CanESM5, GFDL-ESM4, GISS-E2-1-G, HadGEM3-GC31-LL, IPSL-CM6A-LR, MIROC6, MPI-ESM1-2-LR, NorESM2-MM. Where available, we used data from the variant label r1i1p1f1; however, for GISS-E2-1-G and HadGEM3-GC31-LL, these were not available, and we had to use r1i1p1f2 or r1i1p1f3 instead. Furthermore NorESM2-MM was missing data for January 2015; thus, we replaced them with data from December 2014 from the historic scenario. Data were collected from the World Climate Research Programme at https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/ . In addition, monthly data of the historic scenario were prepared for January 1981 to December 2014 and the annual mean data for 1880. To account for the difference between the CMIP6 models and ERA-5 reanalysis, we adjust the CMIP6 outputs based on mean temperatures \(\overline{T}\) from ERA-5 between 1981 and 2014 (that is, the overlap between ERA-5 and the CMIP6 historic scenario) for each of the CMIP6 models separately as follows:

Temperatures are determined for each model before being presented as the median and the 25th and 75th percentiles.

Thermal diffusivity

For our analysis we use the ground thermal diffusivity D :

where λ (W m −1  °C −1 ) is the bulk thermal conductivity and C V (J m −3  °C −1 ) is the bulk volumetric heat capacity. Ground thermal conductivity and volumetric heat capacity for various water saturation values are derived following previous examples 35 , 65 . This method links λ and C V values for different soil and/or rock types following the VDI 4640 guidelines 66 to a global map of soil and/or rock type. This map is based on grain size information of the unconsolidated sediment map database (GUM) 67 . Where there is no available sediment class, we link to soil type in GUM. When this is also not available, we rely on the global lithological map database (GLiM) 68 . All required datasets were uploaded to Google Earth Engine in their native resolution. For assigned values, refer to Supplementary Table 1 .

We acknowledge that the distribution of subsurface thermal properties is heterogeneous. However, specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity for rocks are both well constrained to within less than half an order of magnitude 69 , 70 compared with the many orders of magnitude for hydraulic conductivity 71 . We also note that water saturation can change the individual thermal properties and have accordingly run our model for six example locations with three different diffusivity values: (1) a dry soil, (2) a moist soil (default) and (3) a water saturated soil (Supplementary Fig. 12 ). The influence of water saturation on thermal diffusivity can be complex as both the heat capacity and thermal conductivity increase with water content (equation ( 3 )). Overall, for locations with unconsolidated material in the shallow subsurface, groundwater warming rates increase with water saturation. However, the effect is nonlinear and the overall impact of water saturation on the thermal diffusivity is negligible for relative saturation values between 0.5 and 1 (ref. 72 ). A map of the diffusivity utilized here is given in Supplementary Fig. 13a .

Geothermal gradient

When advection is absent, the geothermal gradient a (°C m −1 ; equation ( 1 )) is the rate of temperature change with depth due to the geothermal heat flow Q (W m −2 ) and thermal conductivity λ (W m −1  °C −1 ):

with global values for λ derived as described earlier, and the mean heat flow Q available as a global 2° equal area grid (about 222 km at the equator) 73 . Due to their resolution, these data do not incorporate fractures and major faults, and we thus are not able to estimate groundwater temperatures at these locations properly. The grid was uploaded to GEE in its native resolution for analysis (Supplementary Fig. 13b ).

Water table depth

Much of our analysis and interpretation focuses on the future projection of temperatures at the water table depth. We therefore use the results of a previously published global groundwater model 74 , 75 with a 30 sec grid (about 1 km at the equator) to obtain the mean water table depth for 2004 to 2014. These data are available as monthly averages that we uploaded to GEE in their native resolution. In temperate climates, the model underestimates the observed water table depth by 1.5 m, and we therefore set the minimum water table depth to 1.5 m as was done in a previous study 35 . Still, whereas the global-scale hydro(geo)logical model of Fan et al. 74 , 75 can reveal large-scale patterns, it is of limited use for small-scale analysis and must be used with caution. Hence we run additional information for best- and worst-case scenarios where we add or subtract 10 m to the depth of the water table (Supplementary Note 4 ).

To calculate mean annual GWTs at the water table, temperatures for each month were determined at the corresponding water table depth by setting z in equation ( 1 ) to this depth. Future changes of water table elevation are challenging to predict, and we therefore base our analysis on the assumption that future water table elevations are unchanging. If we assume that the water table will rise, then warming would be more extreme; should the water table lower, warming as projected here is overestimated. A more detailed discussion, modelling water table changes of ± 10 m, can be found in Supplementary Note 4 . However, we note that a modelled temperature–depth profile (equation ( 1 )) is not impacted by the choice of the water table depth, and thus the results at 10 and 30 m are independent of the water table model.

Model evaluation

To assess the performance of our GWT calculations, we use two datasets of measured GWT or borehole temperatures. First, we compare our data to (multi-)annual mean shallow GWTs introduced in Benz et al. 35 . These data comprise more than 8,000 individual locations, primarily in Europe, where GWTs were measured at least twice between 2000 and 2015 at less than 60 m depth. Measurements are filtered based on their seasonal radius, a measure describing if a well was observed uniformly over the seasons and mean temperatures are therefore free of seasonal bias 76 . Second, we compare our data to temperature–depth profiles from the Borehole Temperatures and Climate Reconstruction Database at https://geothermal.earth.lsa.umich.edu/core.html . For these data, an exact date and depth of measurement are known. We filter the database based on time of measurement and depth of the first measurement, using only data taken after the year 2000 and starting at less than 30 m depth, resulting in 72 borehole measurements. To evaluate the model, we compare it to the observed groundwater temperatures described above. We compare the shallow (multi-)annual mean temperatures to mean temperatures at 30 m depth (the middle between 0 m and 60 m, the maximum depth of the observations) between 2000 and 2015. For the dataset of one-time borehole temperature–depth profiles, we compare the shallowest data points to temperatures from our model at the same depth (rounded to the nearest metre), month and year.

Example locations

We use six locations distributed over all latitudes as examples in many of our figures, with locations in Australia (longitude 149.12°, latitude −35.28°), Brazil (−47.92°, −15.77°), China (116.39°, 39.90°), Mexico (−99.12°, 19.46°), Norway (10.74°, 59.91°) and Nigeria (7.49°, 9.05°). For convenience, each point is at the location of the capital city. However, as our model is not able to adequately describe the impact of urban heat on measured groundwater temperatures, groundwater at these locations is expected to be warmer, potentially by several degrees. Our focus is on the rate of warming in response to climate change.

Depth of the geothermal gradient ‘inflection point’

To find the depth d i down to which annual mean temperature–depth profiles T ( z ) are inverted (that is, decrease with depth as opposed to increase following the geothermal gradient 4 ), we find the maximum depth where T ( d i ) >  T ( d i +1 ). Given our computational resources, we test this at a resolution of 1-m steps for the first 10 m, then in 5-m steps down to 50 m depth and lastly in 10-m steps down to the maximal depth of 100 m.

To quantify shallow subsurface accumulated energy I (J m −2 ), we compare mean annual temperature–depth profiles down to 100 m depth to the initial conditions T ( z ) =  T S ( t  = 1,880) +  a z by solving the following integral in 1-m steps:

This analysis utilizes annual mean subsurface temperatures \(\overline{T}(z)\) for 2020 or 2100 for the current and projected analyses, respectively. The volumetric heat capacity C V ( z ) of the unsaturated zone (for z above the water table) and the saturated zone (for z below the water table) uses discrete values given in Supplementary Table 1 .

Drinking water temperature thresholds

To assess the impact of groundwater warming on drinking water resources, we compare annual maximum groundwater temperatures to thresholds for drinking water temperatures summarized by the World Health Organization 43 . We do so for temperatures at the depth of the thermal gradient inflection point, the coldest point in the temperature profile and thus a best-case scenario, and for the depth of the water table to capture the 6% to 20% of wells that are no more than 5 m deeper than the water table 77 . To quantify populations at risk of exceeding the threshold, we compare the resulting maps with population counts. For temperatures in 2022, we use the 2015 United Nations-adjusted population density from the Population of World Version 4.11 Model 78 . For future scenarios, we rely on the global population projection grids for 2100 from the SSPs 79 , 80 . These data are available through the socioeconomic data and applications centre.

Impact on surface water bodies

Temperatures in surface water bodies are strongly influenced by atmospheric heat fluxes, but groundwater discharge and other processes can decouple temperatures in the atmosphere and water column. In the United States, 1,729 stream sites have been analysed by Hare et al. 49 to determine the dominance of groundwater discharge and to ascertain the relative depth (shallow or deep) of the associated aquifers. We use these sites to extract changes in mean annual groundwater temperature at the depth of the water table from our results to assess the impact of groundwater warming on these surface water bodies.

Data availability

Raster files (5 km resolution, in the GeoTIFF format) and tables (.CSV) used to create all figures of this study are made available at the Scholars Portal Dataverse at https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/GE4VEQ (ref. 81 ). An online tool to facilitate exploration of our groundwater temperature model is available at https://susanneabenz.users.earthengine.app/view/subsurface-temperature-profiles .

Code availability

All codes used are also available at the Scholars Portal Dataverse under https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/GE4VEQ (ref. 81 ). This includes codes written with Jupyter Notebook (Python) and Google Earth Engine (Javascript and GoogleColab/Python) and a detailed description of the process (readme.txt).

Meinshausen, M. et al. Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (CMIP6). Geosci. Model Dev. 10 , 2057–2116 (2017).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Arias, P. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 33–144 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

Kurylyk, B. L. & Irvine, D. J. Heat: an overlooked tool in the practicing hydrogeologist’s toolbox. Groundwater 57 , 517–524 (2019).

Bense, V. F. & Kurylyk, B. L. Tracking the subsurface signal of decadal climate warming to quantify vertical groundwater flow rates. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017gl076015 (2017).

Smerdon, J. E. & Pollack, H. N. Reconstructing earth’s surface temperature over the past 2000 years: the science behind the headlines. WIREs Climate Change 7 , 746–771 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Döll, P. & Fiedler, K. Global-scale modeling of groundwater recharge. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12 , 863–885 (2008).

Famiglietti, J. S. The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Change 4 , 945–948 (2014).

Wada, Y. et al. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010gl044571 (2010).

Gleeson, T., Befus, K. M., Jasechko, S., Luijendijk, E. & Cardenas, M. B. The global volume and distribution of modern groundwater. Nat. Geosci. 9 , 161–167 (2015).

Taylor, R. G. et al. Ground water and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 322–329 (2012).

Green, T. R. et al. Beneath the surface of global change: impacts of climate change on groundwater. J. Hydrol. 405 , 532–560 (2011).

Rodell, M. et al. Emerging trends in global freshwater availability. Nature 557 , 651–659 (2018).

Hannah, D. M. & Garner, G. River water temperature in the United Kingdom. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 39 , 68–92 (2015).

Bosmans, J. et al. FutureStreams, a global dataset of future streamflow and water temperature. Sci. Data https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01410-6 (2022).

O’Reilly, C. M. et al. Rapid and highly variable warming of lake surface waters around the globe. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gl066235 (2015).

Ferguson, G. et al. Crustal groundwater volumes greater than previously thought. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl093549 (2021).

Zektser, I. S. & Everett, L. G. Groundwater Resources of the World and Their Use (UNESCO, 2004).

Siebert, S. et al. Groundwater use for irrigation—a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14 , 1863–1880 (2010).

de Graaf, I. E. M., Gleeson, T., van Beek, L. P. H. R., Sutanudjaja, E. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Environmental flow limits to global groundwater pumping. Nature 574 , 90–94 (2019).

Chen, C.-H. et al. in Groundwater and Subsurface Environments (ed. Taniguchi, M.) 185–199 (Springer, 2011).

Benz, S. A., Bayer, P., Winkler, G. & Blum, P. Recent trends of groundwater temperatures in Austria. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22 , 3143–3154 (2018).

Riedel, T. Temperature-associated changes in groundwater quality. J. Hydrol. 572 , 206–212 (2019).

Cogswell, C. & Heiss, J. W. Climate and seasonal temperature controls on biogeochemical transformations in unconfined coastal aquifers. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jg006605 (2021).

Griebler, C. et al. Potential impacts of geothermal energy use and storage of heat on groundwater quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem processes. Environ. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6207-z (2016).

Retter, A., Karwautz, C. & Griebler, C. Groundwater microbial communities in times of climate change. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 41 , 509–538 (2021).

Bonte, M. et al. Impacts of shallow geothermal energy production on redox processes and microbial communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 , 14476–14484 (2013).

Bonte, M., van Breukelen, B. M. & Stuyfzand, P. J. Temperature-induced impacts on groundwater quality and arsenic mobility in anoxic aquifer sediments used for both drinking water and shallow geothermal energy production. Water Res. 47 , 5088–5100 (2013).

Brookfield, A. E. et al. Predicting algal blooms: are we overlooking groundwater? Sci. Total Environ. 769 , 144442 (2021).

Bondu, R., Cloutier, V. & Rosa, E. Occurrence of geogenic contaminants in private wells from a crystalline bedrock aquifer in western Quebec, Canada: geochemical sources and health risks. J. Hydrol. 559 , 627–637 (2018).

Agudelo-Vera, C. et al. Drinking water temperature around the globe: understanding, policies, challenges and opportunities. Water 12 , 1049 (2020).

Mejia, F. H. et al. Closing the gap between science and management of cold-water refuges in rivers and streams. Glob. Chang. Biol. 29 , 5482–5508 (2023).

Jyväsjärvi, J. et al. Climate-induced warming imposes a threat to north European spring ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21 , 4561–4569 (2015).

Stauffer, F., Bayer, P., Blum, P., Molina Giraldo, N. & Kinzelbach, W. Thermal Use of Shallow Groundwater (CRC Press, 2013).

Epting, J., Müller, M. H., Genske, D. & Huggenberger, P. Relating groundwater heat-potential to city-scale heat-demand: a theoretical consideration for urban groundwater resource management. Appl. Energy 228 , 1499–1505 (2018).

Benz, S. A., Menberg, K., Bayer, P. & Kurylyk, B. L. Shallow subsurface heat recycling is a sustainable global space heating alternative. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31624-6 (2022).

Schüppler, S., Fleuchaus, P. & Blum, P. Techno-economic and environmental analysis of an aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) in germany. Geotherm. Energy https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-019-0127-6 (2019).

Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9 , 1937–1958 (2016).

Zhang, T. Influence of the seasonal snow cover on the ground thermal regime: an overview. Rev. Geophys. 43 , RG4002 (2005).

Zanna, L., Khatiwala, S., Gregory, J. M., Ison, J. & Heimbach, P. Global reconstruction of historical ocean heat storage and transport. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 1126–1131 (2019).

von Schuckmann, K. et al. Heat stored in the earth system: where does the energy go? Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12 , 2013–2041 (2020).

Cuesta-Valero, F. J. et al. Continental heat storage: contributions from the ground, inland waters, and permafrost thawing. Earth Syst. Dyn. 14 , 609–627 (2023).

Nissler, E. et al. Heat transport from atmosphere through the subsurface to drinking-water supply pipes. Vadose Zone J. 22 , 270–286 (2023).

A Global Overview of National Regulations and Standards for Drinking-Water Quality 2nd edn (WHO, 2021); https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/350981

Griebler, C. & Avramov, M. Groundwater ecosystem services: a review. Freshw. Sci. 34 , 355–367 (2015).

Mammola, S. et al. Scientists’ warning on the conservation of subterranean ecosystems. BioScience 69 , 641–650 (2019).

McDonough, L. K. et al. Changes in global groundwater organic carbon driven by climate change and urbanization. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14946-1 (2020).

Atawneh, D. A., Cartwright, N. & Bertone, E. Climate change and its impact on the projected values of groundwater recharge: a review. J. Hydrol. 601 , 126602 (2021).

Meisner, J. D., Rosenfeld, J. S. & Regier, H. A. The role of groundwater in the impact of climate warming on stream salmonines. Fisheries 13 , 2–8 (1988).

2.0.CO;2" data-track-item_id="10.1577/1548-8446(1988)013 2.0.CO;2" data-track-value="article reference" data-track-action="article reference" href="https://doi.org/10.1577%2F1548-8446%281988%29013%3C0002%3ATROGIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2" aria-label="Article reference 48" data-doi="10.1577/1548-8446(1988)013 2.0.CO;2">Article   Google Scholar  

Hare, D. K., Helton, A. M., Johnson, Z. C., Lane, J. W. & Briggs, M. A. Continental-scale analysis of shallow and deep groundwater contributions to streams. Nat. Commun. 12 , 1450 (2021).

Caissie, D., Kurylyk, B. L., St-Hilaire, A., El-Jabi, N. & MacQuarrie, K. T. Streambed temperature dynamics and corresponding heat fluxes in small streams experiencing seasonal ice cover. J. Hydrol. 519 , 1441–1452 (2014).

Wondzell, S. M. The role of the hyporheic zone across stream networks. Hydrol. Process. 25 , 3525–3532 (2011).

Liu, S. et al. Global river water warming due to climate change and anthropogenic heat emission. Glob. Planet. Change 193 , 103289 (2020).

Tissen, C., Benz, S. A., Menberg, K., Bayer, P. & Blum, P. Groundwater temperature anomalies in central Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 104012 (2019).

Bodri, L. & Cermak, V. Borehole Climatology (Elsevier, 2007).

Carslaw, H. S. & Jaeger, J. C. Conduction of Heat in Solids (Oxford Univ. Press, 1986).

Turcotte, D. L. & Schubert, G. Geodynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

Kurylyk, B. L., Irvine, D. J. & Bense, V. F. Theory, tools, and multidisciplinary applications for tracing groundwater fluxes from temperature profiles. WIREs Water https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1329 (2018).

Taylor, C. A. & Stefan, H. G. Shallow groundwater temperature response to climate change and urbanization. J. Hydrol. 375 , 601–612 (2009).

Bense, V. F., Kurylyk, B. L., van Daal, J., van der Ploeg, M. J. & Carey, S. K. Interpreting repeated temperature-depth profiles for groundwater flow. Water Resour. Res. 53 , 8639–8647 (2017).

Brown, J., Ferrians, O., Heginbottom, J. A. & Melnikov, E. Circum-Arctic map of permafrost and ground-ice conditions, version 2. NSIDC https://nsidc.org/data/GGD318/versions/2 (2002).

Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202 , 18–27 (2017).

ERA5-Land monthly averaged data from 2001 to present. Copernicus Climate Data Store https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/doi/10.24381/cds.68d2bb30 (2019).

Hansen, J. et al. Climate simulations for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE. Clim. Dyn. 29 , 661–696 (2007).

Soong, J. L., Phillips, C. L., Ledna, C., Koven, C. D. & Torn, M. S. CMIP5 models predict rapid and deep soil warming over the 21st century. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jg005266 (2020).

Huscroft, J., Gleeson, T., Hartmann, J. & Börker, J. Compiling and mapping global permeability of the unconsolidated and consolidated earth: GLobal HYdrogeology MaPS 2.0 (GLHYMPS 2.0). Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 , 1897–1904 (2018).

VDI 4640—Thermal Use of the Underground (VDI-Gesellschaft Energie und Umwelt, 2010).

Börker, J., Hartmann, J., Amann, T. & Romero-Mujalli, G. Terrestrial sediments of the earth: development of a global unconsolidated sediments map database (GUM). Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 19 , 997–1024 (2018).

Hartmann, J. & Moosdorf, N. The new global lithological map database GLiM: a representation of rock properties at the earth surface. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gc004370 (2012).

Clauser, C. in Thermal Storage and Transport Properties of Rocks, I: Heat Capacity and Latent Heat (ed. Gupta, H. K.) 1423–1431 (Springer, 2011).

Clauser, C. in Thermal Storage and Transport Properties of Rocks, II: Thermal Conductivity and Diffusivity (ed. Gupta, H. K.) 1431–1448 (Springer, 2011).

Rau, G. C., Andersen, M. S., McCallum, A. M., Roshan, H. & Acworth, R. I. Heat as a tracer to quantify water flow in near-surface sediments. Earth Sci. Rev. 129 , 40–58 (2014).

Halloran, L. J., Rau, G. C. & Andersen, M. S. Heat as a tracer to quantify processes and properties in the vadose zone: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 159 , 358–373 (2016).

Davies, J. H. Global map of solid earth surface heat flow. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 14 , 4608–4622 (2013).

Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339 , 940–943 (2013).

Fan, Y., Miguez-Macho, G., Jobbágy, E. G., Jackson, R. B. & Otero-Casal, C. Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 10572–10577 (2017).

Benz, S. A., Bayer, P. & Blum, P. Global patterns of shallow groundwater temperatures. Environ. Res. Lett. 12 , 034005 (2017).

Jasechko, S. & Perrone, D. Global groundwater wells at risk of running dry. Science 372 , 418–421 (2021).

Gridded population of the world, version 4 (GPWv4): population density adjusted to match 2015 revision UN WPP country totals, revision 11. CIESIN https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v4-population-density-adjusted-to-2015-unwpp-country-totals-rev11 (2018).

Gao, J. Global 1-km downscaled population base year and projection grids based on the shared socioeconomic pathways, revision 01. CIESIN https://doi.org/10.7927/q7z9-9r69 (2020).

Gao, J. Downscaling Global Spatial Population Projections from 1/8-Degree to 1-km Grid Cells (NCAR/UCAR, 2017); https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/technotes:553

Benz, S. Global groundwater warming due to climate change. Borealis https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/GE4VEQ (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.A.B. was supported through a Banting postdoctoral fellowship, administered by the government of Canada, and since October 2022 as a Freigeist fellow of the Volkswagen Foundation. B.L.K. was supported through the Canada Research Chairs programme. K.M. was supported by the Margarete von Wrangell programme of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts Baden-Württemberg (MWK). We thank C. Tissen for sharing data she collected in her study on groundwater temperature anomalies in Europe 53 and the many other people and agencies collecting groundwater temperature data and making them available through (publicly accessible) databases. Without these data, successful validation of our method would not have been possible.

Open access funding provided by Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Water Resources Studies and Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Susanne A. Benz, Rob C. Jamieson & Barret L. Kurylyk

Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

Susanne A. Benz

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia

Dylan J. Irvine

School of Environmental and Life Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

Gabriel C. Rau

Department of Applied Geology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

Peter Bayer

Institute of Applied Geosciences, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

Kathrin Menberg & Philipp Blum

Department of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Christian Griebler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.A.B., B.L.K. and D.J.I. designed the study. S.A.B., B.L.K., D.J.I., G.C.R., P. Blum, K.M. and P. Bayer developed the methodology. S.A.B. prepared all data and code for analysis and designed figures. D.J.I. designed Fig. 1 . D.J.I. and G.C.R. designed, performed and led the discussion of the analysis in Supplementary Note 1 . S.A.B., B.L.K., D.J.I. and G.C.R. wrote the manuscript. All authors interpreted results and edited the manuscript together.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Susanne A. Benz or Barret L. Kurylyk .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Geoscience thanks Maria Klepikova and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Thomas Richardson, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 depth to the inflection point..

Shown is the depth down to which we can trace the impact of climate change in form of inverted temperature-depth profiles, that is temperature is decreasing with depth and not increasing with depth as expected based on the geothermal gradient. a and b , The depth to the geothermal inflection point in 2020 and 2100 following SSP 2-4.5. c , The depth to the geothermal inflection point in 2100 following SSP 5-8.5.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Change in groundwater temperatures following SSP 2-4.5, 25th and 75th percentile projections.

a – f , Map of the change in annual mean temperature between 2000 and 2100 following SSP 2-4.5 at the depth of the water table (under consideration of its seasonal variation). Temperatures in 2000 are based on the historic CMIP6 scenario. The line in the legend indicates 0 ∘ C. b and e , Annual mean groundwater temperature 5 m below the surface. c and f , Annual mean groundwater temperature 30 m below the surface. a – c , Annual mean groundwater temperature 25th percentile projected changes. d – f , Annual mean groundwater temperature 75th percentile projected changes.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Change in groundwater temperatures between 2000 and 2100 and implications following SSP 5-8.5.

a , Map of the change in annual mean temperature between 2000 and 2100 following SSP 5-8.5 (median projections) at the depth of the water table (under consideration of its seasonal variation). Temperatures in 2000 are based on the historic CMIP6 scenario. The line in the legend indicates 0 ∘ C. b , temperature change 5 m below the surface, and c , 30 m below the surface. d , Change in temperatures between 2000 and 2100 as depth profiles for selected locations. Lines indicate median projections whereas 25th to 75th percentile are presented as shading. e , Accumulated heat down to 100 m depth. The line in the legend indicates 0 MJ per m 2 . f , Map showing locations where maximum monthly GWTs at the thermal gradient inflection point (that is coldest depth) in 2100 are above guidelines for drinking water temperatures (DWTs). g , GWT changes between 2000 and 2100 at stream sites with a groundwater signature.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Change in groundwater temperatures following SSP5-8.5, 25th and 75th percentile projections.

a and d , Map of the change in annual mean temperature between 2000 and 2100 following SSP5-8.5 at the depth of the water table (under consideration of its seasonal variation). Temperatures in 2000 are based on the historic CMIP6 scenario. The line in the legend indicates 0 ∘ C. b and e , Annual mean groundwater temperature 5 m below the surface. c and f , Annual mean groundwater temperature 30 m below the surface. a to c , Annual mean groundwater temperature 25th percentile projected changes. d to f , Annual mean groundwater temperature 75th percentile projected changes.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Depth to the inflection point for 25th and 75th SSP projections.

The depth down to which we can trace the impact of climate change in form of inverted temperature-depth profiles, that is temperature is decreasing with depth and not increasing with depth as expected based on the geothermal gradient. a and b , The inflection point for SSP2-4.5 in 2100 based on 25th percentile or 75th percentile projections, respecively. c and d , The inflection point for SSP5-8.5 in 20100 based on 25th percentile or rather 75th percentile projections.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Implication of groundwater warming for SSP 2-4.5 25th and 75th percentile projections.

a and d , Accumulated heat down to 100 m depth for SSP 2-4.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively. The line in the legend indicates 0 MJ per m 2 . b and e , Locations where maximum monthly GWTs at the thermal gradient inflection point (that is coldest depth) in 2100 are above guidelines for drinking water temperatures (DWTs) for SSP 2-4.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively. c and f , GWT changes between 2000 and 2100 at stream sites with a groundwater signature for SSP 2-4.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Implication of groundwater warming for SSP 5-8.5 25th and 75th percentile projections.

a and d , Accumulated heat down to 100 m depth for SSP 5-8.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively. The line in the legend indicates 0 MJ per m 2 . b and e , Locations where maximum monthly GWTs at the thermal gradient inflection point (that is coldest depth) in 2100 are above guidelines for drinking water temperatures (DWTs) for SSP 5-8.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively. c and f , GWT changes between 2000 and 2100 at stream sites with a groundwater signature for SSP 5-8.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Accumulated heat in the saturated zone (that is, below the water table) down to 100 m depth.

a , Accumulated heat in the saturated zone in 2020. b and c , Accumulated heat in the saturated zone in 2100 following median projections of SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Accumulated heat in the saturated zone (defined as below the water table down to 100 m depth) and maximum temperatures (based on monthly GWTs) at the depth of the geothermal inflection point showing exceedence of guideline thresholds for drinking water temperatures (DWTs) for 25th and 75th percentile SSP projections.

a and b , Accumulated heat in the saturated zone for SSP 2-4.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively. c and d , Locations where maximum temperatures exceed guideline thresholds for drinking water temperatures (DWTs) for SSP 2-4.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively. e and f , Accumulated heat in the saturated zone for SSP 5-8.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively. g and h , Locations where maximum temperatures exceed guideline thresholds for DWTs for SSP 5-8.5 25th and 75th percentile projections, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Locations where maximum monthly GWTs at the depth of the water table exceed guideline thresholds for drinking water temperatures (DWTs).

a , Maximum monthly GWTs at the depth of the water table in 2020. b and c , Maximum monthly GWTs at the depth of the water table in 2100 following median projections of SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5, respectively.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Notes 1–4, Figs. 1–17 and Tables 1–5.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Benz, S.A., Irvine, D.J., Rau, G.C. et al. Global groundwater warming due to climate change. Nat. Geosci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01453-x

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 04 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01453-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Presentation and Press Releases

Presentation

Click on the image above to download the SR15 Slide Deck.

Press release

Summary for Policymakers

• I Introduction
• A Understanding Global Warming of 1.5°C*
• B Projected Climate Change, Potential Impacts and Associated Risks
• C Emission Pathways and System Transitions Consistent with 1.5°C Global Warming
• D Strengthening the Global Response in the Context of Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty
• + Core Concepts Central to this Special Report
• + Acknowledgements
• SD SPM Downloads

Framing and Context

• ES Executive Summary
• 1.1.1 Equity and a 1.5°C Warmer World
• 1.1.2 Eradication of Poverty
• 1.1.3 Sustainable Development and a 1.5°C Warmer World
• 1.2.1.1 Definition of global average temperature
• 1.2.1.2 Choice of reference period
• 1.2.1.3 Total versus human-induced warming and warming rates
• 1.2.2 Global versus Regional and Seasonal Warming
• 1.2.3.1 Pathways remaining below 1.5°C
• 1.2.3.2 Pathways temporarily exceeding 1.5°C
• 1.2.3.3 Impacts at 1.5°C warming associated with different pathways: transience versus stabilisation
• 1.2.4 Geophysical Warming Commitment
• 1.3.1 Definitions
• 1.3.2 Drivers of Impacts
• 1.3.3 Uncertainty and Non-Linearity of Impacts
• 1.4.1 Classifying Response Options
• 1.4.2 Governance, Implementation and Policies
• 1.4.3 Transformation, Transformation Pathways, and Transition: Evaluating Trade-Offs and Synergies Between Mitigation, Adaptation and Sustainable Development Goals
• 1.5.1 Knowledge Sources and Evidence Used in the Report
• 1.5.2 Assessment Frameworks and Methodologies
• 1.6 Confidence, Uncertainty and Risk
• 1.7 Storyline of the Report
• FAQs Frequently Asked Questions
• SM Supplementary Material
• CD Chapter Downloads

Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development

• 2.1.1 Mitigation Pathways Consistent with 1.5°C
• 2.1.2 The Use of Scenarios
• 2.1.3 New Scenario Information since AR5
• 2.1.4 Utility of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) in the Context of this Report
• 2.2.1.1 Geophysical uncertainties: non-CO 2 forcing agents
• 2.2.1.2 Geophysical uncertainties: climate and Earth system feedbacks
• 2.2.2.1 Carbon budget estimates
• 2.2.2.2 CO 2 and non-CO 2 contributions to the remaining carbon budget
• 2.3.1.1 Socio-economic drivers and the demand for energy and land in 1.5°C pathways
• 2.3.1.2 Mitigation options in 1.5°C pathways
• 2.3.1.3 Policy assumptions in 1.5°C pathways
• 2.3.2.1 Variation in system transformations underlying 1.5°C pathways
• 2.3.2.2 Pathways keeping warming below 1.5°C or temporarily overshooting it
• 2.3.3.1 Emissions of long-lived climate forcers
• 2.3.3.2 Emissions of short-lived climate forcers and fluorinated gases
• 2.3.4.1 CDR technologies and deployment levels in 1.5°C pathways
• 2.3.4.2 Sustainability implications of CDR deployment in 1.5°C pathways
• 2.3.5 Implications of Near-Term Action in 1.5°C Pathways
• 2.4.1 Energy System Transformation
• 2.4.2.1 Evolution of primary energy contributions over time
• 2.4.2.2 Evolution of electricity supply over time
• 2.4.2.3 Deployment of carbon capture and storage
• 2.4.3.1 Industry
• 2.4.3.2 Buildings
• 2.4.3.3 Transport
• 2.4.4 Land-Use Transitions and Changes in the Agricultural Sector
• 2.5.1 Policy Frameworks and Enabling Conditions
• 2.5.2.1 Price of carbon emissions
• 2.5.2.2 Investments
• 2.5.3 Sustainable Development Features of 1.5°C Pathways
• 2.6.1 Geophysical Understanding
• 2.6.2 Integrated Assessment Approaches
• 2.6.3 Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

Impacts of 1.5ºC global warming on natural and human systems

• 3.1 About the Chapter
• 3.2.1 How are Changes in Climate and Weather at 1.5°C versus Higher Levels of Warming Assessed?
• 3.2.2 How are Potential Impacts on Ecosystems Assessed at 1.5°C versus Higher Levels of Warming?
• 3.3.1 Global Changes in Climate
• 3.3.2.1 Observed and attributed changes in regional temperature means and extremes
• 3.3.2.2 Projected changes in regional temperature means and extremes at 1.5°C versus 2°C of global warming
• 3.3.3.1 Observed and attributed changes in regional precipitation
• 3.3.3.2 Projected changes in regional precipitation at 1.5°C versus 2°C of global warming
• 3.3.4.1 Observed and attributed changes
• 3.3.4.2 Projected changes in drought and dryness at 1.5°C versus 2°C
• 3.3.5.1 Observed and attributed changes in runoff and river flooding
• 3.3.5.2 Projected changes in runoff and river flooding at 1.5°C versus 2°C of global warming
• 3.3.6 Tropical Cyclones and Extratropical Storms
• 3.3.7 Ocean Circulation and Temperature
• 3.3.8 Sea Ice
• 3.3.9 Sea Level
• 3.3.10 Ocean Chemistry
• 3.3.11 Global Synthesis
• 3.4.1 Introduction
• 3.4.2.1 Water availability
• 3.4.2.2 Extreme hydrological events (floods and droughts)
• 3.4.2.3 Groundwater
• 3.4.2.4 Water quality
• 3.4.2.5 Soil erosion and sediment load
• 3.4.3.1 Biome shifts
• 3.4.3.2 Changes in phenology
• 3.4.3.3 Changes in species range, abundance and extinction
• 3.4.3.4 Changes in ecosystem function, biomass and carbon stocks
• 3.4.3.5 Regional and ecosystem-specific risks
• 3.4.3.6 Summary of implications for ecosystem services
• 3.4.4.1 Observed impacts
• 3.4.4.2 Warming and stratification of the surface ocean
• 3.4.4.3 Storms and coastal runoff
• 3.4.4.4 Ocean circulation
• 3.4.4.5 Ocean acidification
• 3.4.4.6 Deoxygenation
• 3.4.4.7 Loss of sea ice
• 3.4.4.8 Sea level rise
• 3.4.4.9 Projected risks and adaptation options for oceans under global warming of 1.5°C or 2°C above pre-industrial levels
• 3.4.4.10 Framework organisms (tropical corals, mangroves and seagrass)
• 3.4.4.11 Ocean foodwebs (pteropods, bivalves, krill and fin fish)
• 3.4.4.12 Key ecosystem services (e.g., carbon uptake, coastal protection, and tropical coral reef recreation)
• 3.4.5.1 Global / sub-global scale
• 3.4.5.2 Cities
• 3.4.5.3 Small islands
• 3.4.5.4 Deltas and estuaries
• 3.4.5.5 Wetlands
• 3.4.5.6 Other coastal settings
• 3.4.5.7 Adapting to coastal change
• 3.4.6.1 Crop production
• 3.4.6.2 Livestock production
• 3.4.6.3 Fisheries and aquaculture production
• 3.4.7.1 Projected risk at 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming
• 3.4.8 Urban Areas
• 3.4.9.1 Tourism
• 3.4.9.2 Energy systems
• 3.4.9.3 Transportation
• 3.4.10.1 Livelihoods and poverty
• 3.4.10.2 The changing structure of communities: migration, displacement and conflict
• 3.4.11 Interacting and Cascading Risks
• 3.4.12 Summary of Projected Risks at 1.5°C and 2°C of Global Warming
• 3.4.13 Synthesis of Key Elements of Risk
• 3.5.1 Introduction
• 3.5.2.1 RFC 1 – Unique and threatened systems
• 3.5.2.2 RFC 2 – Extreme weather events
• 3.5.2.3 RFC 3 – Distribution of impacts
• 3.5.2.4 RFC 4 – Global aggregate impacts
• 3.5.2.5 RFC 5 – Large-scale singular events
• 3.5.3 Regional Economic Benefit Analysis for the 1.5°C versus 2°C Global Goals
• 3.5.4.1 Arctic sea ice
• 3.5.4.2 Arctic land regions
• 3.5.4.3 Alpine regions
• 3.5.4.4 Southeast Asia
• 3.5.4.5 Southern Europe and the Mediterranean
• 3.5.4.6 West Africa and the Sahel
• 3.5.4.7 Southern Africa
• 3.5.4.8 Tropics
• 3.5.4.9 Small islands
• 3.5.4.10 Fynbos and shrub biomes
• 3.5.5.1 Arctic sea ice
• 3.5.5.2 Tundra
• 3.5.5.3 Permafrost
• 3.5.5.4 Asian monsoon
• 3.5.5.5 West African monsoon and the Sahel
• 3.5.5.6 Rainforests
• 3.5.5.7 Boreal forests
• 3.5.5.8 Heatwaves, unprecedented heat and human health
• 3.5.5.9 Agricultural systems: key staple crops
• 3.5.5.10 Agricultural systems: livestock in the tropics and subtropics
• 3.6.1 Gradual versus Overshoot in 1.5°C Scenarios
• 3.6.2.1 Risks arising from land-use changes in mitigation pathways
• 3.6.2.2 Biophysical feedbacks on regional climate associated with land-use changes
• 3.6.2.3 Atmospheric compounds (aerosols and methane)
• 3.6.3.1 Sea ice
• 3.6.3.2 Sea level
• 3.6.3.3 Permafrost
• 3.7.1 Gaps in Methods and Tools
• 3.7.2.1 Earth systems and 1.5°C of global warming
• 3.7.2.2 Physical and chemical characteristics of a 1.5°C warmer world
• 3.7.2.3 Terrestrial and freshwater systems
• 3.7.2.4 Ocean Systems
• 3.7.2.5 Human systems

Strengthening and implementing the global response

• 4.1 Accelerating the Global Response to Climate Change
• 4.2.1.1 Challenges and Opportunities for Mitigation Along the Reviewed Pathways
• 4.2.1.2 Implications for Adaptation Along the Reviewed Pathways
• 4.2.2.1 Mitigation: historical rates of change and state of decoupling
• 4.2.2.2 Transformational adaptation
• 4.2.2.3 Disruptive innovation
• 4.3.1.1 Renewable electricity: solar and wind
• 4.3.1.2 Bioenergy and biofuels
• 4.3.1.3 Nuclear energy
• 4.3.1.4 Energy storage
• 4.3.1.5 Options for adapting electricity systems to 1.5°C
• 4.3.1.6 Carbon dioxide capture and storage in the power sector
• 4.3.2.1 Agriculture and food
• 4.3.2.2 Forests and other ecosystems
• 4.3.2.3 Coastal systems
• 4.3.3.1 Urban energy systems
• 4.3.3.2 Urban infrastructure, buildings and appliances
• 4.3.3.3 Urban transport and urban planning
• 4.3.3.4 Electrification of cities and transport
• 4.3.3.5 Shipping, freight and aviation
• 4.3.3.6 Climate-resilient land use
• 4.3.3.8 Sustainable urban water and environmental services
• 4.3.3.7 Green urban infrastructure and ecosystem services
• 4.3.4.1 Energy efficiency
• 4.3.4.2 Substitution and circularity
• 4.3.4.3 Bio-based feedstocks
• 4.3.4.4 Electrification and hydrogen
• 4.3.4.5 CO2 capture, utilization and storage in industry
• 4.3.5.1 Disaster risk management (DRM)
• 4.3.5.2 Risk sharing and spreading
• 4.3.5.3 Education and learning
• 4.3.5.4 Population health and health system adaptation options
• 4.3.5.5 Indigenous knowledge
• 4.3.5.6 Human migration
• 4.3.5.7 Climate services
• 4.3.6 Short-Lived Climate Forcers
• 4.3.7.1 Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
• 4.3.7.2 Afforestation and reforestation (AR)
• 4.3.7.3 Soil carbon sequestration and biochar
• 4.3.7.4 Enhanced weathering (EW) and ocean alkalinization
• 4.3.7.5 Direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS)
• 4.3.7.6 Ocean fertilization
• 4.3.8.1 Governance and institutional feasibility
• 4.3.8.2 Economic and technological feasibility
• 4.3.8.3 Social acceptability and ethics
• 4.4.1.1 Institutions and their capacity to invoke far-reaching and rapid change
• 4.4.1.2 International governance
• 4.4.1.3 Sub-national governance
• 4.4.1.4 Interactions and processes for multilevel governance
• 4.4.2.1 Capacity for policy design and implementation
• 4.4.2.2 Monitoring, reporting, and review institutions
• 4.4.2.3 Financial institutions
• 4.4.2.4 Co-operative institutions and social safety nets
• 4.4.3.1 Factors related to climate actions
• 4.4.3.2 Strategies and policies to promote actions on climate change
• 4.4.3.3 Acceptability of policy and system changes
• 4.4.4.1 The nature of technological innovations
• 4.4.4.2 Technologies as enablers of climate action
• 4.4.4.3 The role of government in 1.5°C-consistent climate technology policy
• 4.4.4.4 Technology transfer in the Paris Agreement
• 4.4.5.1 The core challenge: cost-efficiency, coordination of expectations and distributive effects
• 4.4.5.2 Carbon pricing: necessity and constraints
• 4.4.5.3 Regulatory measures and information flows
• 4.4.5.4 Scaling up climate finance and de-risking low-emission investments
• 4.4.5.5 Financial challenge for basic needs and adaptation finance
• 4.4.5.6 Towards integrated policy packages and innovative forms of financial cooperation
• 4.5.1 Assessing Feasibility of Options for Accelerated Transitions
• 4.5.2.1 Assessing mitigation options for limiting warming to 1.5˚C against feasibility dimensions
• Enabling conditions for implementation of mitigation options towards 1.5˚C
• 4.5.3.1 Feasible adaptation options
• 4.5.3.2 Monitoring and evaluation
• 4.5.4 Synergies and Trade-Offs between Adaptation and Mitigation
• 4.6 Knowledge Gaps and Key Uncertainties

Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities

• 5.1.1 Sustainable Development, SDGs, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities
• 5.1.2 Pathways to 1.5°C
• 5.1.3 Types of Evidence
• 5.2.1 Impacts and Risks of a 1.5°C Warmer World: Implications for Poverty and Livelihoods
• 5.2.2 Avoided Impacts of 1.5°C versus 2°C Warming for Poverty and Inequality
• 5.2.3 Risks from 1.5°C versus 2°C Global Warming and the Sustainable Development Goals
• 5.3.1 Sustainable Development in Support of Climate Adaptation
• 5.3.2 Synergies and Trade-Offs between Adaptation Options and Sustainable Development
• 5.3.3 Adaptation Pathways towards a 1.5°C Warmer World and Implications for Inequalities
• 5.4.1.1 Energy Demand: Mitigation Options to Accelerate Reduction in Energy Use and Fuel Switch
• 5.4.1.2 Energy Supply: Accelerated Decarbonization
• 5.4.1.3 Land-based agriculture, forestry and ocean: mitigation response options and carbon dioxide removal
• 5.4.2.1 Air pollution and health
• 5.4.2.2 Food security and hunger
• 5.4.2.3 Lack of energy access/energy poverty
• 5.4.2.4 Water security
• 5.5.1 Integration of Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development
• 5.5.2 Pathways for Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development
• 5.5.3.1 Transformations, equity and well-being
• 5.5.3.2 Development trajectories, sharing of efforts and cooperation
• 5.5.3.3 Country and community strategies and experiences
• 5.6.1 Finance and Technology Aligned with Local Needs
• 5.6.2 Integration of Institutions
• 5.6.3 Inclusive Processes
• 5.6.4 Attention to Issues of Power and Inequality
• 5.6.5 Reconsidering Values
• 5.7 Synthesis and Research Gaps
• GD Glossary Downloads

June 6, 2024

We’re Approaching 1.5 Degrees C of Warming, but There’s Still Time to Prevent Disaster

Scientists say it’s likely that at least one of the next five years will exceed an average increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures

By Chelsea Harvey & E&E News

The sun sets behind smoke from a distant wildfire as drought conditions worsen on July 12, 2021 near Glennville, California.

David McNew/Getty Images

CLIMATEWIRE | The world is careening toward a major planetary milestone, leading meteorological organizations said Wednesday. Nations are striving to halt global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius — yet global temperatures already are nudging temporarily above that threshold.

A new report from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service warns that the last 11 months in a row have all seen global average temperatures above the 1.5 C threshold. And the last 12 have all been characterized by record-breaking monthly heat; temperatures last month hovered about 1.52 degrees above Earth’s preindustrial average.

Meanwhile, the World Meteorological Organization said Wednesday that there's an 80 percent chance at least one of the next five calendar years will exceed a 1.5 C average. Nearly a decade ago — in 2015 — that chance was nearly zero.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

It wouldn’t be the first time a 12-month span has crossed 1.5 C. Copernicus reported earlier this year that the yearlong period between February 2023 and January 2024 averaged 1.52 C above preindustrial levels, marking it the hottest 12 months on record at the time.

Temperatures have continued to inch higher since then. The yearlong period that just ended in May saw global temperatures average about 1.63 C above preindustrial levels, making it the new hottest 12-month span.

Still, temporary fluctuations into 1.5 C territory don’t suggest the threshold has yet been permanently crossed.

The Paris climate agreement doesn’t explicitly outline the definition of when a temperature threshold has passed. But most scientists agree that the 1.5 C target refers to a long-term average. The exact amount of time that defines “long term” is also debatable, but it generally refers to years or even decades.

It's even possible the world could cross the 1.5 C threshold without realizing it for years .

For now, even a whole year above the 1.5 C threshold wouldn’t push the long-term average over the red line. If scientists look back at the average over the past 10 years, they'll find that it’s still below the threshold.

It’s a point that United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres raised in a passionate speech in New York on Wednesday for World Environment Day.

“The 1.5 degree limit is still just about possible,” he said. “Let’s remember, it’s a limit for the long term, measured over decades, not months or years. Stepping over the threshold for a short time does not mean the long-term goal is shot — it means we need to fight harder.”

But even if the Paris Agreement’s most ambitious target remains technically feasible, experts are increasingly skeptical the world can achieve it. According to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global emissions would need to peak by 2025 — next year — and then fall 42 percent by 2030 in order to keep warming below 1.5 C.

The world then would need to hit net-zero emissions around 2050.

Meanwhile, recent research has suggested the world likely can burn only about 200 billion metric tons of additional carbon dioxide before the threshold is out of reach. Global emissions are still rising, and nations worldwide currently are spewing nearly 40 billion tons of CO2 annually from the burning of fossil fuels alone.

That means the odds of overshooting the 1.5 C target are rapidly rising . And scientists are growing more candid about those risks.

“It is almost inevitable that we will at least temporarily overshoot 1.5,” said Jim Skea, an energy expert at Imperial College London, at a presentation of the third and final installment of the IPCC’s most recent major assessment report in April 2022. Skea was a co-chair of the working group that prepared the report.

In December 2023, leading international researchers presented an annual climate science report to the U.N. warning that overshooting the 1.5 C target is “becoming inevitable.”

It’s possible that world leaders could lower the planet’s temperatures back below a 1.5 C threshold even if they temporarily overshoot, using various technological means to suck CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

But that’s not a guarantee — and some climate impacts are virtually irreversible once they’ve occurred, such as sea-level rise or plant and animal extinctions, making it crucial for world leaders to limit warming as much as possible while they still can.

That means even if an overshoot becomes inevitable, keeping global temperatures as close to 1.5 C is the next step. And that still means reducing global emissions as rapidly as possible.

“Why all the fuss about 1.5 degrees?” Guterres said in Wednesday’s speech. “The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees could be the difference between extinction and survival for some small island states and coastal communities. The difference between minimizing climate chaos or crossing dangerous tipping points.

"One-and-a-half degrees is not a target. It is not a goal. It is a physical limit.”

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Hold the French Fries! Paris Olympics Chart a New Gastronomic Course.

The environment will come first as France tries to revitalize the global image of its cuisine.

By Roger Cohen

Reporting from Paris

There will be no French fries for the 15,000 athletes at the Olympic Games that open in France in July. Yes, you read that right.

In what is being called the biggest restaurant in the world — a 700-foot-long former electrical power plant at the heart of the Olympic Village — there will be no foie gras, either, but vegetarian hot dogs and quinoa muesli will abound.

Strolling the length of what is known as the nave, a light-filled vaulted space where some 45,000 meals a day will be served 24/7 throughout the Olympics and Paralympics, Stéphane Chicheri and Charles Guilloy, the chefs in charge, sang the praises of vegetarian shawarma, za’atar-spiced sweet potatoes with hummus, cabbage pickles, beetroot falafel and grilled eggplant with smoked paprika.

This is a far cry from the classic French cuisine of elaborate sauces and “enough melted butter to thrombose a regiment,” as A.J. Liebling once described a dish .

But these are 21st-century Games on a warming planet. Carbon imprint trumps cassoulet. Vegetable protein is the thing; and of course athletes have to perform in a country of a thousand epicurean delights that are no-noes to their exacting nutritionists.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

L.A. gets some love at the World’s 50 Best Restaurants awards ceremony in Vegas

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

To reach the shop serving the best cup of coffee within walking distance of my hotel, I left my room around 8:30 a.m. and rode down the elevator with three men in shorts and T-shirts, each clutching red to-go cups. The air around them fizzed with the scent of rum. They sang along as James Taylor’s “Your Smiling Face” bopped through the speakers.

I turned left through the round-the-clock jangling and blinging of the Wynn casino and followed the patterned red carpet to the Esplanade shops, passing Chanel and Gucci and Rolex, none of them yet open for the day, and out the exit toward to an escalator that led to the Venetian Resort next door. Back into the air conditioning; through two more casinos; past Cut by Wolfgang Puck, Emeril Lagasse’s Delmonico and Matteo’s Ristorante Italiano; and ignoring the long line at Starbucks, I crossed the hallway instead to Dandelion Chocolate , which sells single-origin bars and bags of hot chocolate mix but also doubles as an espresso bar using beans from San Francisco-based Ritual Coffee Roasters. A smooth cortado felt like the triumphant end to a treasure hunt.

Good morning from nowhere else on earth but Las Vegas.

The best eating in Vegas

I am back on the Strip for the second time in a month. In May, Jenn Harris, Betty Hallock and I spread out across the city, often facing multiple dinners nightly to compile a fresh, thorough guide to dining in Vegas . We have nearly 50 recommendations on and off Las Vegas Boulevard, including the best among new openings, favorites in Chinatown and revisits to long-standing taquerias and luxury dining rooms that qualify as institutions in this always-evolving playground.

This week I circled back to attend the World’s 50 Best Restaurant awards , held in Vegas for the first time. It was at once a fitting and oddly surreal location for the proceedings.

British trade magazine Restaurants conceived the awards in 2002; its owner, William Reed media company, continues to run the World’s 50 Best Restaurants brand and its many-pronged spinoffs. After being held annually in London for more than a dozen years, the awards ceremonies began to migrate globally, hosted since 2016 in cities such as New York, Melbourne, Singapore and Valencia, Spain.

Jenn recapped this week’s event , which culminated with the crowning of Disfrutar, a modernist tasting-menu restaurant in Barcelona run by three chefs, Oriol Castro, Eduard Xatruch and Mateu Casañas. They all worked years ago with Ferran Adrià at now-closed El Bulli, the first restaurant to claim the top prize 22 years ago.

What we talk about when we talk about restaurant awards

If you’re reading this newsletter, you probably already have your own feelings about a publicity platform like World’s 50 Best: curiosity, devotion, disdain, apathy, a fluctuating mix. When we were both at Eater, my colleague Ryan Sutton covered the awards regularly with deserved critical analysis that resonated with me: The honors almost always go to extravagantly expensive restaurants, the majority of them helmed by men in European countries.

Recent attempts to diversify the list have shifted the demographics slightly. Last year, for example, the No. 1 slot went to Central in Lima, founded by Virgilio Martínez and joined a year later by Pia León, who became his wife and partner in the operation, with her own adjacent restaurant, Kjolle (which earned the No. 16 spot in this year’s list). Restaurants that take the top spot transcend after a year into a “Best of the Best” category, giving other restaurants a chance at No. 1 annually. (Disfrutar was No. 2 on the list in 2023.)

Video montages and brief descriptions announced each honoree during the live countdown. Sitting in the audience, what struck me most was how, beyond the near-universal pics of sculpturally arranged food on exquisite ceramics, nearly every restaurant stressed a purposeful sense of place as a key part of its identity.

“Sense of place” is a threadbare phrase in food-media speak, I know. My point is, I was chewing on the irony that these driven, highly publicized chefs — these de facto ambassadors of their countries from nearly every corner of the Earth — converged to celebrate themselves in a city where the nexus of tourism is devoted to fantasy. There is no “here” on the Strip. There is what conglomerates dictate the identity to be, yard by yard, and what visitors embrace, and where the chefs producing the best cooking often take second billing to the more celebrated personalities on the marquees, or to the restaurant’s concept.

I argued back to myself that chefs on the World’s 50 Best Restaurants list also create their own versions of fantasy meals: laboriously prepared, sumptuously framed and graciously presented flights of the imagination. They can blur notions of art and craftsmanship, and intellect and heart, for those who are able to afford them.

Hometown pride disrupted my spiraling thoughts.

The year’s 50 top restaurants included only two in the United States: Atomix in New York at No. 6, and SingleThread in Healdsburg, Calif., which reentered the list at No. 46. But the event also includes a handful of addendum awards, including an annual “One to Watch” commendation. It was revealed a few weeks ago that Kato in Los Angeles was this year’s recipient.

For the Times’ most recent 101 Best Restaurants in Los Angeles guide, I ranked Kato No. 1 for Jon Yao’s masterful Asian diaspora-inspired cuisine (and for the incredible beverage program ). In the video that accompanied the “One to Watch” presentation at the ceremony, Yao talks about representing the food he grew up eating in the San Gabriel Valley, and the way he entwines memory and nostalgia with the bounty of Southern California. Then Yao and several of his team members filed out of their seats and walked to the stage, where they looked emotional and visibly nervous as they stood close together and tried to take in the applause.

At a time of well-documented crisis for L.A. restaurants, where the futures of all kind of businesses that feed people for a living are uncertain, how could I think about Kato’s bootstrap origins in a West L.A. strip mall eight years ago and not be moved by the recognition?

Awards can be meaningless and self-congratulatory, and they can also be validation to nudge praiseworthy people to keep the faith in their meaningful work.

• Speaking of Kato and our annual guide, here’s a handy list published this week highlighting all the best downtown restaurants mentioned in the current 101.
• It’s Pride month, so Julia Carmel and Danielle Dorsey have updated our list of favorite L.A. drag brunches to enjoy in June and all year long.
• In our pizza-obsessed city, Stephanie Breijo has a breakdown of three pizza newcomers worth checking out — plus a pizza omakase from one of our established standard-bearers.
• In Hyde Park, Jenn Harris finally finds a green juice she loves (with lots of ginger).
• Daniel Miller reports on how a $6.8 million L.A. County program promised free food carts for vendors — and it hasn’t delivered .

Eat your way across L.A.

Get our weekly Tasting Notes newsletter for reviews, news and more.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Bill Addison is the restaurant critic of the Los Angeles Times. He is recipient of the 2023 Craig Claiborne Distinguished Restaurant Review Award from the James Beard Foundation, among numerous other accolades. Addison was previously national critic for Eater and held food critic positions at the San Francisco Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News and Atlanta magazine.

More From the Los Angeles Times

18 downtown dining destinations from the 101 Best Restaurants guide

June 7, 2024

How to have the best Sunday in L.A., according to Nancy Silverton

Restaurants may be able to keep service fees if menu shows the charges

June 6, 2024

This is the best restaurant in the world, according to the World’s 50 Best Restaurants