UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : WMO Press Conference: Greenhouse Gas Bulletin

So thank you very much indeed for joining this briefing of the World Meteorological Organisation.

We are today releasing the annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, which reports on global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

We apologise for the bit of a scramble.

A major media outlet, namely the BBC, broke the embargo this morning.

It was a genuine mistake by the BBC and they've apologised.

But obviously it puts pressure on you for your, for your reporting and gives, you know, puts you at an unfair disadvantage.

So we apologise for that, it was beyond our control, but so thank you for your patience and understanding and a special thank you to UNTV for hosting us at the last minute.

We decided to give a technical level briefing to one day ahead of schedule to help you just in your understanding.

[Other language spoken]

Unfortunately, the rescheduling of the press conference meant that our Deputy Secretary General, Co Barrett couldn't join us.

So we've got Oxana Tarasova, the technical expert who will who will speak to you instead.

The media materials are all available now.

The press releases have been translated into all official languages and the bulletin should also be BB accessible.

So without any further ado, I will hand over to Oxana Terraceova and thank you very much.

Hello everybody.

Today we are reporting on the state of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere for the year 2024 Please, In 2024, based on the observations in the global atmosphere, there's about 200 stations which are making the measurements of some of those gases.

The concentration of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide showed new record levels.

All of them increased in the atmosphere with our reaching the highest levels are in the history of observations and since the pre industrial times.

The levels of our carbon dioxide is at 223.9 parts per billion and you can see also that it's the largest annual increase in the concentration of CO2 from the previous year.

The concentration of other gases also reached new heights whether CO2 at 1942 parts per billion and nitrous oxide at 338 parts per billion.

[Other language spoken]

As as you can see on the plots which are presented on the ballotin, there is a continuous increase in CO2 concentration are the increase in 2023 from 23 to 24 is 3.5 parts per million.

This is the largest increase our since we started the modern observations using the same measurement technique as we do now since 1957.

This increase represents 52% increase since the pre industrial levels which is quite a substantial increase.

We also need to remember that when we speak about carbon dioxide that these gas accumulates in the atmosphere, It has a very long lifetime.

It accumulates in the atmosphere and about quarter of the emissions are taken up by terrestrial biosphere and about quarter is taken up by the ocean.

[Other language spoken]

If we look at the increase in our CO2 in the perspective since our 1957, the increase accelerated from about 0.8 parts per million in 60s to about 2.4 in the last decade.

At the same time, the anthropogenic emissions has been increasing all the time and we've been relying largely on the sinks like ocean and terrestrial biosphere for taking up about 50% of emissions.

And in the report we speak about the decrease in those things which drove the largest observed increase in the concentration.

[Other language spoken]

The level of atmospheric methane also continues to increase.

We saw the new heights in 2024.

The increase of methane from 23 to 24 was not as substantial as the previous year, but it is still non 0.

If we compare this concentration with the level of pre industrial, it's 166% above the pre industrial level.

Or in the case of methane.

We need also to realise that about 40% of the sources are natural and 60% are anthropogenic and both some anthropogenic and most of natural sources are impacted by the climate change itself.

But methane stays in the atmosphere for shorter period about 10 years and then if we do the mitigation on methane, we can see fast reaction in the climate system.

[Other language spoken]

Nutrice oxide is the third most important under Virginia greenhouse gas.

It's concentration also reached a new high.

It's increased from 23 to 24 was close to the 10 year average.

If we put it in the perspective of pre industrial, it's 25% increase over the pre industrial level.

And as in the case of methane, there is a substantial proportion of the natural sources about 57%.

Those are also susceptible to climate change.

The lifetime of end to all in the atmosphere is about 120 years.

So if we take some action on this gas, we can also see quite our quick, relatively quick response on the climate system.

[Other language spoken]

So in the balloting, we also demonstrate the methodology, how we calculate the global average.

So it's not just one station.

The number is a collective effort of the big network which is supported by the Global Atmosphere Watch programme of what meteorological organisation to calculate the global average.

We collect the real data from the from the world observatories.

We do the very far quality control.

That's why we have a delayed our launch of the global average number.

And on the map we demonstrate where the stations are located.

We have large gaps in the areas which are particularly sensitive to climate change, for example our polar areas and tropics.

And this is we are the majority of feedbacks is happening and we wanted to stress that it's extremely important to sustain and increase the observing system because it provides us information about the state of the Earth system and greenhouse gases and that thank you very much.

[Other language spoken]

And at WMO, we often save, you know, these are more than statistics.

Every part per million makes a difference.

Do you want to just, in plain words, speak for two to three minutes just to explain why this matters?

[Other language spoken]

And then we'll go to questions.

I think it is, it is, it is important to understand that it's more than statistics because that the the numbers which represent the show the state of the global system.

So they show how the global systems are responding, but also they show that every single molecule which is emitted in the atmosphere will have a global impact.

And I usually use a pretty simple comparison that if you can imagine the CO2 molecule as a small heater, so which is actually absorbing the infrared radiation or heat from the Earth's surface and then flies in the atmosphere and Ray emits this heat back into the atmosphere that causes an increased heating.

So the more molecules we have, the stronger is the impact on climate.

And if we compare the impact of greenhouse gases on climate through the impact on the radiation, we can compare the impact since 1990 when we started negotiations on the greenhouse gases.

We increase the radiative impact by 54%.

That's pretty drastic increase, given that we already realised in 90s that we know what the greenhouse gases can do to the global climate.

And this means we have more energy in the atmosphere, which fuels not just the increase in global temperature, but fuels a lot of extreme events with a substantial losses to ecosystem, to human life and to the property.

[Other language spoken]

OK, There are any questions in the room?

If not, I'll go to the platform.

So I'll I'll start in the room and then I'll go to the platform.

So AFP, thank you.

What what is to blame for, for this year's notably big rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Is it is it greater emissions or, or is it the balance of of of feedback loops and the fact that the the atmosphere, the land and the sea can't absorb as much as it used to?

So for us the this increase is very important our in a sense that probably we started seeing the early indication of the limited capacity of natural systems to actually absorb everything what we need.

So the there was an early calculations through the global carbon project where they compared the outputs of the foot and different models.

And all of those models indicate that the substantial increase in 2024 is related to the limited capacity of terrestrial ecosystems in the ocean to absorb this this CO2 which is emitted in the atmosphere.

There is an interesting story which we put specifically that relates the impact of the biomass burning on the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The biomass burning season was #6 if you rank all the years from 2003 to 20/20/24 and the emissions from the biomass burning were 9% above average that have contributed substantially.

We could also see in particular region, for example, in the Amazon are in 2023, we had one of the strongest Del Nino, which actually finished in the beginning of 24.

So Del Nino did not prolong for the whole 24, but the onset of the drought which happened in Amazonia in 23 continued through the whole 24.

So there was a substantial decrease in precipitation amount and substantial increase in the temperature which put the trees under stress.

So if we look at the fluxes just from the Amazon, the Amazon was emitting through the whole 2024 does.

That answer your question, Jamie AP did you have that?

[Other language spoken]

Yes, I just wanted to follow up on that.

Let me just make sure I heard you correctly.

In other words, the Amazon was emitting as opposed to absorbing last year.

Is that what you said?

I'm sorry, I just want to make sure and that and how does that compare to the past?

I mean, I think most people in the world think of the Amazon as one of the things that's going to swallow up carbon dioxide in the planet.

I mean, help me correct that for laypersons point of view, if you could.

I mean, and, and the other thing is just, you know, I mean, I've had a couple of analysts respond already to this.

I mean, they're expressing some alarm.

I mean, can you convey that and, and say what policy makers should be specifically doing?

What should decision makers, including some who are continuing to say drill, baby drill and are leaning on carbon spewing forms of energy?

I mean, what do you say to those people?

I will respond from the physical point of view because I'm, I'm a scientist.

So from the physical point of view, if, if you want to see the decrease in atmospheric concentration, and this is what we want to see, right?

If you wanted to see the decrease in atmospheric concentration, you should decrease what you either what you put in or what you take out.

What we can see is that the sinks which we which we have, they started failing.

There was Amazon indeed is emitting CO2 despite the general understanding that if you have a tree it should absorb actually tree is not the the vacuum cleaner for CO2.

[Other language spoken]

The tree is a living species, which means it has a biological processes which include a respiration and photosynthetic activity.

So we are briefing so we're not photosynthesising.

So humans are also a source of CO2, but the trees are also briefing for their biological processes.

They are briefing which means that when we say that the trees are the sink of CO2 and is a very sensitive balance between the photosynthetic activity which is taking up CO2 and the respiration.

So if the tree is under stress, if it doesn't have water and has a very high temperature, it continues respirating, but it does not photosynthesise or it's photosynthesized but much smaller extent.

So the balance between us, those processes is going into the into the area of emissions and we reported before.

So we refer in the ballots into three nature papers which has been produced, which are based on the direct atmospheric measurements that demonstrate that the areas of the Amazon which are deforested, the largest deforested areas, they are for the last 10 years when we have the analysis, they are emitting more CO2 than they are absorbing.

So the common notion that if you have a forest should absorb, it's actually needs to be corrected in a sense that it's a living thing.

And it's super alerting because you can imagine, as I said, the forests are taking up 25% of human emissions.

If you have no forest or the forest is stressed, then there is no uptake plus the forest respiration.

We need to be very concerned with those climate feedbacks.

And what also may happen is that at a certain point we may flip over the tipping point and then the whole Amazon forest just starts dying out because of the a patched deforestation and the lack of continuity.

Which means that whatever we do on the side of emission reduction, if we, if we committed, I don't know, to net zero, assuming that the forest will do 25%, well, we have to somehow look at that 25% as well.

Policy makers, policy makers need to be alerted that the the systems, the natural systems are impacted as well and they may stop or reduce doing their work.

So our actions should be towards the side of emission reduction as fast as possible.

If we don't want to see the domino effect of the tipping points are the oceans.

The oceans also demonstrate the signs of the reduced, the reduced capacity.

So in the balloting we refer to the publication for the ocean uptake in 2023.

So the analysis of 24 is not ready, but we think that there will be some other situation.

So what happened in in 2023 is that there was it was OK.

So that was expected on on the projection that that will be the same, the same uptake because during during El Nino usually there is an increased uptake by the oceans because of the mixing.

What happened in 23 is that the ocean temperature in particular in non tropical regions was so high.

So that was a very strong marine heat waves that the uptake of the ocean was reduced by 10% in comparison to expected one.

Because again simple physics, if you have a cold glass and if you have a warm glass, you cannot push a lot of gas in the warm water.

[Other language spoken]

So this is what is happening.

So if you have a warmer temperature over the ocean, the NCO 2 dissolves much less.

Is it basically what you're saying to the?

It's basically what you're saying to the layperson that the world continues to emit fossil fuels for variety of, in a variety of different methods and, and, and heat trapping greenhouse gases.

At the same time, the things that would counterbalance or help absorb that CO2, whether it be in forests or in the oceans, their abilities are declining.

Is that generally the message that you're trying?

This is the message like we are increasing our emissions.

[Other language spoken]

I don't know if I can use this language because you asked me about the layperson.

So we use it as, as a collector of all our exhausts basically.

So the atmosphere is a collector of our exhausts.

We rely on the natural systems to help us offset our impacts, and those systems are so stressed that they start producing their help.

And obviously, you know, the, the timing of this is, is deliberate.

We release it as we do, you know, the greenhouse gas bulletin every year ahead of the UN climate change negotiations.

And we release it quite often in conjunction with the state of the climate update, which will be released just ahead of COP 30 this year.

So it's, it is part of a package of science and it is based on science to inform decision making.

So Olivier of Reuters been waiting on the platform.

So Olivier, your question, Thank you very much for this.

Certainly alarming.

[Other language spoken]

In the report, did you identify any particular hotspots in, in the world where there's been a a real drive in, in emissions?

CO2 emissions namely, I just wanted just to to get a bit more detail about the natural variability, which he said has also been driving an increase.

So just wondering if that relate to the marine heat waves you were describing or is or is that something else?

And also if you could just spell out a couple of examples of human activities cited in the report that are driving these emissions?

[Other language spoken]

If I may remind everybody, we are talking about the concentrations and not emissions in this report.

Concentration is a balance between the emissions which are put in the atmosphere and removals which are happening by natural processes largely.

So concerning the hotspots, we did not do the greatest distribution of the concentration.

So we're talking about one number, which is a global average number, which is based on the calculation of all the data points around the globe.

I'm averaging those so that they give us a an indicator for the impact of greenhouse gases on climate.

I concerning some episodes are we did identify a number of the episodes.

In particular, we focus on the variability related to the biomass burning and we speak about the substantial contribution of biomass burning in particular over South America into the global increases of greenhouse gases because that is one of the source of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are indeed speaking about the natural variability.

There is a high correlation between the increase and CO2 in the atmosphere and phenomena known as El Nino and La Nina, which is phenomena related to global circulation.

Usually when we have El Nino years, we have pretty dry conditions in tropics which are associated with reduced uptick of CO2 by the terrestrial biosphere and the biomass burning as well.

The interesting thing about 2024 is that El Nino officially finished in April and the drought which was associated by El Nino was prolonged in the year where we did not have El Nino.

So there are some changes in the system which are going beyond what we expected before.

The same is with the ocean.

You would expect that during El Nino and during those mixing, if you look at the projection models, that was always a much larger uptake during those years, not in 23, not in 24.

So the system is, if I may say, it's becoming broken.

So it actually changes the behaviour.

So we cannot actually predict if 3.5 this year will not be repeated next year.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you, I've just got a question online which I'll read out because perhaps you want to answer it.

How does this compare?

Is this just more of the same?

My reply would be no you.

Want respect?

More of the same.

Well, are we sort of, are we, you know, just repeating the same message over and over again every year or is there something that in particular struck you from this this year's report?

[Other language spoken]

So if we if we put it in perspective or within within last 10 years, the increase of CO2 was 2.5 to 7 this year at 3.5.

So it's about 30% higher than the previous observed.

Last year was a linear, this year was end of a linear and the changes which we observe are not very typical.

So that's, that's kind of a, a signal that the feedbacks have studied in the off system, which we would not expect to happen or not to the extent as they have.

If, if this helps, I mean, it's, of course, it's the same bad message.

And the, I mean, you cannot expect any, any different message because if you look at CO2, it's, it's, it's very intuitive.

If, if you look at CO2, the level in the atmosphere is driven by what you put on the system.

And if you put in the system, the level will increase.

The more you put, the more the level will increase.

Even if you put a little bit, the level will increase.

So somehow people think that if you have an immediate decline in emissions, for example, during COVID, we had a decline in emissions of 5.4%.

And what did happen, well, we put the the reminder 94% in the atmosphere, the levels increased.

So you can only expect the decrease in emissions where you have more removals than you put in.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you and thanks so much for your answer.

But before I just wanted to.

[Other language spoken]

Check, because forgive me as the embargo was broken early, I have been on another subject this morning, so I'm late coming to this now, but I just wanted to triple check what you said.

I understood correctly that CO2 levels have reached the highest ever recorded.

I know that that year on year there's been a substantial increase, more than 50%, but I just wanted to check whether I heard that right, that it's actually on record since the ever since records have been kept on this.

That's absolutely correct.

We have highest ever observed levels of main greenhouse gases C2 and methane and into O.

And if we put it in a historic perspective, we can actually reproduce and do similar measurements as we do now by analysing the the small bubbles of the air which is trapped in the ice.

We can go back to 800,000 years.

So the current levels of acetamethane and nitrous oxide are the highest during the history of observations and going back to at least 800,000 years.

And we can, we can put it even a longer perspective.

So are not direct but indirect measurements that allow us to reconstruct the level of CO2 shows that the similar levels of CO2 which we observe now were last time seen in the history of the planet.

I don't say history of the humans because there was no humans that time.

I was about 3 to 5 million years ago.

This is last time when we've seen over 400 parts per million of CE2 in the atmosphere.

The temperature was 2 to 3° higher, the sea level was 10 to 20 metres higher, but there was no humans.

[Other language spoken]

The cycle, a vicious climate cycle.

Can you translate what that means exactly to people?

Can you explain that?

The vicious cycle is is a very simple description that are the the feedbacks in the climate system are actually responding to the changes in the climate itself.

So you'll have higher temperature, you have higher emissions from, from natural systems, you have higher temperature, you have higher emissions in and, and and so on and so forth.

And then at certain point you, you pass the tipping point.

For example, if you have a collapse of global permafrost, then you have a massive, massive emissions of methane in the atmosphere.

And that even accelerate the warming.

So it's it's kind of a you, you do something and then it initiates the response in the system, which actually accelerates the response in the system even further.

Well, on, on that same topic of the vicious cycle and, and tipping points.

So are you saying that this year we're seeing the signs, early signs of that feedback and do we know how long it might take to, to reach the tipping point?

And when and when the tipping point comes, what will that actually look like?

Can I start from the end?

It will look like ugly, if I may say this.

So there is there's a whole group of scientists which is working on the tipping points.

So they produce the annual report on the tipping points.

They recently published their their report for 2324 and they demonstrated that for some areas, for example for the the cryosphere collapse are that the tipping point has been passed.

So which means that it will not recover even if you stop the warming.

There was there was also a thing information that we are at the very close or we are passing the the tipping points on the coral bleach because it was 83% are corals impacted by the bleaching events within the last two years.

And concerning the die out of the of the Amazon and potentially the collapse of permafrost, the climate prediction are not very precise.

So you cannot say that if, if the global average passes 1.578 data then it will happen.

So there is some some degree of uncertainty and what we see now is an indication that potentially we are approaching it how it will look like.

The tipping points are very different from the slow onset events.

So what happens with the tipping points as if you pass the tipping points, then the phenomena develops extremely fast.

For example, if you have a a permafrost collapse, it can collapse within a season.

So it's, it's a very fast event.

And the problem is that we are leaving in a, in a world which is, it's an ecosystem, right?

So it's, it's, it's enough system.

[Other language spoken]

If you pull 11 corner, the other corner will also fall.

So the same as with all the other phenomena which are connected as, as we discuss a vicious cycle, if you have a collapse in one thing, it actually impacts the atmosphere, for example, through increased emissions.

And then that triggers increasing the radiation regionally and then that changes the flow of the air.

So then it may trigger the next Evian.

So it's, it's very difficult to predict, but it's also very difficult to adapt to those Evians.

It's like it's like an extreme weather Evian but on a much larger scale.

There is, as Oksana said, there is a lot of research being being carried out into that subject and the World Climate Research Programme, which is WMO is one of the Co sponsors of this programme is hosting a, an event in Geneva I think in, in late November.

So, you know, we will keep you informed as to, you know, discussions at at that, but it is that there are there are many, many scientists working, working on this issue.

It's not, you know, it's not, it's it's it's not, it's not as simple as as as that.

We sorry, we have another question now online.

And I think this we should perhaps make this the final question from DPA, the German news agency.

[Other language spoken]

Yes, this is a great final question.

After all these doomsday, maybe you can try and find a grain.

Of hope somewhere and.

Deliver a message that would not all of us crawl.

Into the.

Ground and give up.

[Other language spoken]

I would say that we should never give up because actually our 1.5°, two degree and five degree, this is a big difference.

So we need to actually take any possible action on what is possible to do.

I don't know, reducing emissions, taking care of the environment, looking at the protecting the forest, protecting the ocean, there's a lot of that that we can do as an individual.

We've seen that again in this report which I referred about the tipping points.

There's been a reporting that the, for example, the technological tipping points on energy has been passed.

So the, there's a abundant availability of the renewable energy and we should take advantage of that.

It is, it is possible, but it takes a consolidated effort and we involve meteorological organisation out there to provide you a real fact are from the real world.

So it's not artificially generated data sets.

That's a lot of scientists who work out there in the fold to make sure that all the actions which are we are taking are backed by the best possible science.

Sorry and to I just have one, one question in the in the chat.

Just to just to clarify, this is from Kyoto Japanese news agency.

Just to confirm the level of CO2 hasn't been observed for the past 8000 years.

Could you confirm this?

It's different measurements 8.

[Other language spoken]

This is a combined data sets of direct measurements in the atmosphere plus the data which are coming from the measurements of the ear bubbles trapped in the ice.

We call them cone measurements.

OK, final, final question from AFP.

And we thought this was going to be quick.

So AFP and as we're seeing this, this rise in, in atmospheric CO2, we're seeing an equal rise probably in, in climate scepticism in the numbers of people around the world who simply don't believe this.

They don't believe any of it.

The greenhouse gas emissions are going up, that this is anything to be to be worried about.

So what would you, what would you say to those people to to try and convince them of of your side of the story?

The word here, they don't believe, I would say that the climate change is not a religion, that's a science.

So if you look at the global temperature, this global temperature is measured by thermometers.

I am sure those people look at the thermometer outside of their window when they choose their clothes.

So what we are doing in the World Meteorological Organisation that's doing the same on a global scale, making measurements, high quality measurements, are doing high quality observations, collecting it all together in a harmonised way.

So we have a data coming from all corners of the world and those data show the same story.

So it's it's a general scientific knowledge which we are producing here.

And it's a matter of the trust in science or not trust in science.

But well, this is, this is a scientific community what produces A peer review.

It's a very robust process.

So it's not believe or not believe.

It's about the scientific facts.

And I'm sure that those people who look at the thermometer behind their window to choose the close, they don't think that this is a religion, this is a habit.

And we need to realise that what we are doing as making measurements, delivering the data, it's not creating something.

[Other language spoken]

So it's it's a scientific facts which we are delivering.

[Other language spoken]

And on that I think we'll close this press conference.

Thank you very much indeed for coming at such short notice.

And again, my deepest thanks to UNTV for for hosting us at short notice.

[Other language spoken]

Oh, if I could just so the UN Environment Programme emissions gap report, they report on emission scenarios that will as far as I know be released early November, not released in Geneva.

And as I mentioned, the WMO State of the climate update, which will be reporting on the state of the climate so far in 2025, we will be releasing that just ahead of the the climate change negotiations in in, in Belem in Brazil.

So stay tuned for that and thank you very much.

WMO Press Conference: Greenhouse Gas Bulletin - 15 October 2025