Europe Warming Twice As Fast As Rest of the World, New Report Reveals 161
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Space.com: The European continent is bearing the brunt of climate change, warming at a rate that is twice as fast as the global average, a new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) found. The report analyzed 30 years' worth of data from 1991 onwards, revealing a disconcerting trend of speedy warming across Europe that is faster than the warming experienced by any other continent. Average temperatures in Europe were rising at a rate of 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade over the studied period, reaching an overall average of 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels. That is way above the 1.5 degree C (2.7 degrees F) limit set by the international climatology community with the goal of minimizing devastating environmental effects of climate change.
The report, which was compiled in cooperation with the European Earth-observation program Copernicus, stated that Europeans are already feeling the pinch of this warming. According to estimates, the summer of 2022 was the driest in 500 years, with widespread water shortage and wildfires affecting even those nations that are usually accustomed to wetter summers. Alpine glaciers lost about one hundred feet (30 meters) in ice thickness from 1997 to 2021 as a result of the warming, according to the report. In 2021 alone, weather related disasters, mostly related to floods and storms, caused damages worth $50 billion across all European countries.
Scientists don't know exactly why Europe is warming so fast, Samantha Burgess, deputy director for climate change services at Copernicus told Space.com in a previous interview. The fast-paced warming may have something to do with the proximity of the Arctic, which is by far the world's fastest warming region. "We know that the Arctic is warming about three times faster than the global average rate," Burgess told Space.com last year. "It's already 3 degrees C [5.4 degrees F] warmer than in the pre-industrial times. It is quite complicated to unpick the scientific reasons behind why the warming is happening so much faster there." [...] The new WMO report states that regardless of emission reduction efforts, temperatures in all regions of Europe will continue to rise at a rate higher than the global average.
The report, which was compiled in cooperation with the European Earth-observation program Copernicus, stated that Europeans are already feeling the pinch of this warming. According to estimates, the summer of 2022 was the driest in 500 years, with widespread water shortage and wildfires affecting even those nations that are usually accustomed to wetter summers. Alpine glaciers lost about one hundred feet (30 meters) in ice thickness from 1997 to 2021 as a result of the warming, according to the report. In 2021 alone, weather related disasters, mostly related to floods and storms, caused damages worth $50 billion across all European countries.
Scientists don't know exactly why Europe is warming so fast, Samantha Burgess, deputy director for climate change services at Copernicus told Space.com in a previous interview. The fast-paced warming may have something to do with the proximity of the Arctic, which is by far the world's fastest warming region. "We know that the Arctic is warming about three times faster than the global average rate," Burgess told Space.com last year. "It's already 3 degrees C [5.4 degrees F] warmer than in the pre-industrial times. It is quite complicated to unpick the scientific reasons behind why the warming is happening so much faster there." [...] The new WMO report states that regardless of emission reduction efforts, temperatures in all regions of Europe will continue to rise at a rate higher than the global average.
As usual... (Score:3, Informative)
As usual: The people who make the most effort to do the right thing are the ones who get shafted first.
Re:As usual... (Score:4, Informative)
As usual: The people who make the most effort to do the right thing are the ones who get shafted first.
Much of Europe will benefit from longer growing seasons and warmer winters. So I wouldn't say they are getting "shafted".
The real harm from global warming will fall on arid tropical and semi-tropical countries.
But none of this is unexpected. Areas closer to the poles are warming much faster than the rest of the planet, and Europe is further north than most people realize. NYC is considered a northern city in America, yet it is at the same latitude as Madrid, Spain. London is as far north as Newfoundland.
I'm not so sure about that (Score:2)
This isn't the 1700s, the world market is global...
Europe's gonna get shafted like everyone else. There's no "winners and losers" here. It's all losers. We're a global civilization clinging to nationalism that was
Re: (Score:2)
Longer grow cycles are only useful if you don't also screw up the water cycle and wind up with droughts,
The warming in Europe is highly dependent on latitude. Norway and Finland are warming much faster than Spain and Italy.
If you tell Scandinavians that global warming will mean less rain, they will jump for joy and go back to burning coal.*
There's no "winners and losers" here. It's all losers.
Of course. But some will lose much more than others. People in Niger will starve. Norwegians will have to buy more sunscreen.
*Not really.
Re: I'm not so sure about that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By which you mean the continent that's been polluting longer than any other, still has the second highest emissions per capita of any continent? The continent which invented the industrial revolution that caused global warming, which has almost certainly pumped out more greenhouse gasses over the centuries than any other despite a much smaller population than Asia?
Re: As usual... (Score:2)
Re: As usual... (Score:2)
Cumulative, Europe still produced more than everyone else except perhaps the US and China
Re: As usual... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The reliance on russian gas (especially Nord Stream 2) was indeed a very bad choice.
That said, this isn't really true overall. There's been a very significant shift away from fossil fuels sine the mid 2000s [europa.eu], and from coal to gas within those, which is, despite the issues, still an improvement from the environmental point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I get it to some extent but combined with EU sanctions, I see it as the equivalent of spitting on your butcher and then complaining why he doesn't want to sell you meat anymore.
Russia wants to sell it, we don't want to buy it any more.
The problem is that it was one of the top single source for natural gas, which gave russia a lot of leverage to fuck with Europe. Now they don't have it, and we don't have gas.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cost of energy in the same timeframe has risen from 2% of GDP to 9% GDP. "
Wait until global warming really hits, you won't believe how much must be spent on energy just to keep cool. Then there is the lack of water, Europe's rivers are drying out. The Mississippi is also drying out as are its tributaries.
And just for giggles, look at https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu... [unl.edu]. Notice how much of the U.S. is now under drought.
So keep hiding behind your Ayn Rand stupidity in your notion of "cost".
It's well know why it's 2x as fast (Score:2)
It's because they measured it in Celsius rather than Fahrenheit.
Badaboom... thanks you've been a wonderful audience
Re: (Score:3)
Even that has its problems. A decade or more ago, the concern was that global warming would shut down the gulf stream circulation, and that northern Europe, particularly the UK, would freeze.
Once again, the science is academic conjecture. Yes, science does eventually correct itself, but those who believe the latest scientific conjecture are almost always wrong, at least partially so, in the long run. It has happened with biology and scientific racism; it happened with psychology and electroshock thera
Re: As usual... (Score:2)
Those are two things that you have very limited knowledge about...
Re: (Score:3)
by "doing the right thing" you mean now burning fossil fuel from the usa instead at insane prices and having it to transport by ship across an entire ocean burning even more fossil fuel? yeah, right.
btw, not that i think you are interested in anything but lame flaming, but for what is worth:
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
by "doing the right thing" you mean now burning fossil fuel from the usa instead at insane prices and having it to transport by ship across an entire ocean burning even more fossil fuel? yeah, right.
Well, Germany is going to buy hydrogen from canada at insane prices and transported by ship across an entire ocean, so it won't all be fossil fuel :D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, it will be green hydrogen from wind:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
I thought "green hydrogen" came from that rotten egg smell? H2S /s
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.pv-magazine.com/20... [pv-magazine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No. By do the right thing they clearly mean that Europe has generally been a leader in renewal adoption.
Taking a single happening that is likely to be over in a year or two and making a claim that it represents all of history is kind of a stupid thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking a single happening that is likely to be over in a year or two and making a claim that it represents all of history is kind of a stupid thing to do.
except i never did such a thing, not even remotely? more likely you're reacting to the wrong comment, which clearly was a sarcastic remark to a troll that actually made such a stupid claim. reading a bit more slowly might help :-)
Re: (Score:2)
by "doing the right thing" you mean now burning fossil fuel from the usa instead at insane prices and having it to transport by ship across an entire ocean burning even more fossil fuel? yeah, right.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
That's not sarcasm, you're describing literal current events.
Re: (Score:2)
well, then show me where i claimed that this "represents all of history"?
btw, your sarcasm detector is definitely broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, describing literal current events is not sarcasm. Europe is literally buying super expensive American gas right now that is shipped across the ocean to burn in their power plants exactly as you stated
After that, you seemed to be saying that in support of the fact that Europe isnt doing disproportionally more than other countries in adopting renewables. Obviously Europe's current situation does not mean they havent done a lot in adopting renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, describing literal current events is not sarcasm.
you're wrong. there are no such limitations as to how to express sarcasm. i could write a poem with nothing but current literal events and it would still be poetry.
Europe is literally buying super expensive American gas right now that is shipped across the ocean to burn in their power plants exactly as you stated
exactly. which is why i pointed out these facts in a sarcastic way to ridicule the original poster who was actually doing what you are complaining about: attributing the current exceptional heat levels to europe's wrongdoing, and particularly referring the pipeline with russia. with is pure nonsense, just a troll. it's funny that you completely i
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to engage in a long lengthy debate with you on this. You're never going to accept that there was nothing obviously sarcastic about your post at all and that's that. Pursuing this topic is a waste of my time.
Re: (Score:2)
such petulance! you could have simply admitted a mistake, we all make mistakes! :o)
anyway, safe travels to you and your valuable time, sir!
Re: (Score:2)
such petulance! you could have simply admitted a mistake, we all make mistakes!
Hahaha, nice. I could say the exact same thing to you.
I've seen dozens of posts like yours and every single time someone points out the sarcasm isnt at all clear to anyone who isnt the author the person who wrote the post will defend their post to their dying breath as "obviously sarcasm" so as I said, pretty sure pursuing said topic with you is a waste of my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, nice. I could say the exact same thing to you.
i'm sure you could say that. it still wouldn't be true and you wouldn't be able to back it with proof.
is a waste of my time.
again, the waste of your valuable time, of course. waste which for some reason you insist in incurring in. know what? it might seem like an outlandish idea to you but i can't help but to think you are actually, secretly enjoying this. amirite? be my guest! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not European and the US didnt blow up any pipelines. Get a clue conspiracy nut.
Furthermore, the pipelines from Russia to Europe are hardly "blown up". Repairing them is not a problem and after losing this war Russia will be eager to rejoin the global economic community so they can begin rebuilding their economy.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters the US is not omnipotent, it has no say over whether a gas pipeline in the Baltic opens or not. After that, apparently you've never heard of the Nordstream 1 pipeline which is where Europe was already getting most of its Russian gas from and which the US has never said anything about shutting down. The Nordstream 2 has never been operational, you'd know that if you actually read your link (third paragraph down).
Finally, you're claiming that a US declaration (however impotent such a declaration
Re: (Score:2)
Well Joe Biden disagrees with you, he literally said he would not allow it, and I am pretty sure he is the President of the US so I am going to believe him over some random dude from the Internet.
As I've already fucking explained to you Biden has never said anything about permanently shutting down any operational pipeline from Russia to Europe. Nordstrom 2 has never been operational.
Furthermore, it cracks me up that you're claiming you believe every single thing every single president tells you. I guess that fits though, from what I remember you're an election denier.
So you never answered: are you saying that Russia will reopen the flow of gas in a couple of years and Europe will go back to paying billions to Russia every year for it? Europe already indicated they will not do that. And you call me a conspiracy theorist?
I've already stated that Russia will be eager to sell their gas and you're a twit if you think Europeans will never touch a drop of Ru
Re: (Score:2)
Doh, I keep typing Nordstrom for some reason. Nordstrom = Nord Stream.
Re: (Score:2)
How am I an election denier? I even voted for Biden in the last election (but will not again).
I remembered incorrectly then, my apologies.
As for the rest, you're an idiot, I didnt say anything that you're trying to put on me there. I very specifically went on at length about how Europe would never go back to business as usual. And once fucking again (I'm typing in all caps as I've decided that maybe speaking louder will breach that thick head of yours)
EUROPE HAS NEVER EVER GOTTEN A DROP OF GAS FROM NORD STREAM 2 SO BIDENS STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CONVERSATION.
Europe was buying gas all the wa
Re: (Score:2)
Ask France (Score:2)
Ask France.
(And to a lesser extent Norway. Or Austria. Or even here around in Switzerland, though we were kicked out of the accords on energy interconnection).
There are other energy sources beside burning fossils.
(Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermic, etc.)
France's extremely low CO2 emission thanks to Nuclear is an example of what has been already achieved. Just hope that their completely WTF politics won't waste this for stupid idiotic shit like shutting the power plants for no other reasons than eco vi
Re: (Score:2)
France's extremely low CO2 emission thanks to Nuclear is an example of what has been already achieved. Just hope that their completely WTF politics won't waste this for stupid idiotic shit like shutting the power plants for no other reasons than eco virtue signaling.
Too late for that! Like 10 years ago they set off to reduce the share of nuclear by 50% (or to 50%?) by 2025. And they were on track to achieving that by stopping new construction and canceling modernization and updates.
So... now that shit hit the fan, lots of plants are down for maintenance that wasn't performed earlier and some will have to have their operating life extended. I think they're like 10GW down from last year right now. Hopefully they can unfuck it before the winter really kicks in.
Re: (Score:2)
by "doing the right thing" you mean now burning fossil fuel from the usa instead at insane prices and having it to transport by ship across an entire ocean burning even more fossil fuel? yeah, right.
It's either that or keep dealing with the pathetic little war criminal in charge of Russia. Short term pain for long term gain. The EU will adjust. Putin's trade with the west is gone forever.
Re: (Score:3)
it was indeed hilarious to see biden (a potus, after all) calling for putin being prosectued as a war criminal by the international criminal court, exactly the same court that every potus for decades has derided and deemed not acceptable of prosecuting war criminals ... of north american origin. the parody ... :-D
yeah, well. putin's trade with the west was i guess a big part of the whole thing. it's always business. now here we are. the adjustment might be a bit dramatic, still.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
history, as always, will be written by the winners. i'm not certain at all there will be a clear winner coming out of this huge mess anytime soon.
business is blooming, though!
Re: (Score:2)
history, as always, will be written by the winners.
That is only true in the short term. As time goes on winners and losers come and go, and our view of history becomes more objective. Look back a few hundred years and who won or lost does not matter so much anymore, just the facts of the matter.
Re: As usual... (Score:2)
Re: As usual... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The continent that kept buying and burning fossil fuel from Russia until it blew up in their faces is trying real hard to do the right thing... now that they've been forced.
Being cynical is really one of the great pastimes of our Internet age.
Actually, its mostly gas, which is much better for the climate than oil and coal.
And if you'd bothered to be informed before making your cynical statements you'd realize that Europe started making a major shift to renewables many years ago. Not just recently.
Re: (Score:2)
But not so good as nuclear or solar....
Re: As usual... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you are confusing Europe with Germany. Germany might be in Europe but it isn't Europe.
You are right. Instead of Europe, MacMann should have said all of Europe other than France and Iceland (is that part of Europe?). Happy now? You think Germany is the only European country with a non-nonsensical energy policy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did the US nimbys stop opposing nuclear?
Much of Europe is pretty far North (Score:5, Informative)
The areas closer to the poles are generally warming faster than the areas further from the poles. Much of Europe is pretty far North. Just looking at a map, Paris seems to be about as far North as Boston.
So the title is misleading, and the article isn't surprising.
Re: Much of Europe is pretty far North (Score:2)
x is warming twice as rest of the world (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Telling the world to stop with the clickbait is like trying to tell the professional fisherman to stop fishing when they're catching a fish every fucking catch.
The problem with clickbait lies between the keyboard and the chair, not between the marketeer and the server.
That said, half of marketing should be requested to report to the gallows for necktie sizing. That way, the rest of them will know the value of Truth in Advertising and we might find our way back to honesty driving profits instead of deceit.
Re:x is warming twice as rest of the world (Score:4, Insightful)
30 years is probably too short to establish a trend. Probably it will regress to the mean over the next few decades... but who knows.
Re: (Score:3)
It's those fiends at the World Meteorological Association. I get the sense you're the kind of person who's able to find nefarious motives whenever your preconceptions are being challenged.
I probably shouldn't feed the trolls, but there are hundreds of hockey stick graphs and they all show the same thing. Thousands of years of relative stability with rapid warming following industrialization. If there's one you don't like, look at the 99 others. For example, here's sea level rate for the last 2000 years [springernature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no, I don't. In this case, however, I was using that as a bad example, to show why you need to know something about the people running the study before you know how much to trust it. And, it you want to know what the original hockey stick graph really shows, look at it without the error bars and see how much the climate varied up and down during the "thousand of yea
Re: (Score:2)
it you want to know what the original hockey stick graph really shows, look at it without the error bars and see how much the climate varied up and down during the "thousand of years of relative stability."
I'm guessing you mean "with" the error bars to include the uncertainty or variation? If so, my graph included error bars. Here it is again. [springernature.com]
As noted though, there are hundreds of different hockey sticks. Some look at global mean temperature, some look at the cryosphere, some look at sea level. Each using different methods and proxies to investigate those climate aspects. If there's one you don't like, just discard it. There is a consilience of evidence backing up the finding that finding.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I wrote without the error bars, because that's what I meant. I don't know what your image looks like, because my browser claims it isn't a
Re: x is warming twice as rest of the world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are looking at it exactly backwards. The error bars are the extent of any variability. The actual results may have been much higher or much lower but are likely within those error bars. You may be referring to the graph shown in the 2001 IPCC report [newscientist.com]. The error bars are huge. It's especially poorly constrained before 1600.
It's good that they show them quite so prominently otherwise people might assume that the climate hadn't changed a bit for centuries. In fact, the figure makes it clear that it's
Re: (Score:2)
So now, being skeptical makes me stupid? I don't think so. And, I'll bet money that I was voting before you were born. I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing because it clearly is. I am, however skeptical about the claims that humanity is the main cause of it.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't know why (Score:2)
But we should trust the models?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just quoting you to circumvent somebody's absurd down-moderation. People who don't believe in thermometers can suck it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I assume that all the climate models predict that the region will warm twice as fast as the rest of the world? If so, it should not be a surprise. If not, then the models are no good.
Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Gulf Stream (Score:2)
The Gulf Stream, a significant ocean current (see https://earth.nullschool.net/#... [nullschool.net]), has long had a moderating effect on EU climate. That's why you can grow tulips in Holland and British gardens are so easy. The Gulf Stream has been significantly South of it's historic path. I defer to the scientists discussing the Arctic, but have to believe the Gulf Stream is part of the reason. Or perhaps the warming Arctic is part of what is pushing the Gulf Stream South.
WUWT to the rescue? (Score:2)
I'm sure the giant brains over at Watts Up With That will have a ready explanation as how this isn't really happening & how much hotter Europe used to be at some time in the past
Well, I guess they won't need as much natural gas (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
If Putin really wants to screw over NATO, he should cut back on Russian greenhouse gas emissions. And convince his allies, China and India to do the same. Freeze Europe and make them come begging for Russian natural gas.
Population density? (Score:2)
How strange (Score:2)
Counterpoint: why is this not good? (Score:2)
If indeed Europe alone is warming faster than other places, that would be really good for Europe.
It would mean milder winters and longer growing seasons.
What is the downside - for Europe specifically?
If it were some place tropical, I would be more concerned about a region seeing much greater than average warming. But this actually seems OK.
Re: (Score:2)
lethal heat waves?
Re: (Score:2)
It's Europe man, they hardly have heat waves as it is, so a slight increase is not so bad compared to the benefits of improved winters and agriculture.
Cold kills too you know, so a let harsh winter should offset somewhat hotter summers.
Re:Counterpoint: why is this not good? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes we most certainly do have heat waves! This year they were responsible for thousands of excess deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Ok but so is every other country. (Score:2)
I think this blog [andrewromanviews.blog] summarizes it well.
A voice from northern Europe.. (Score:2)
.. saying YEY!
I hear (Score:2)
I hear though that they will have a big cooldown this winter.
Bad headline and UHI (Score:2)
No, Europe may be warming faster than other places on average but the most warming is still in the Arctic.
The reason is simple. It has a dense population and cities are hot. This is called urban heat island effect and is easily measured. The centre of Melbourne runs 4 deg C hotter than the countryside around it. Guess where the thermometers are?
https://www.epa.gov/heatisland... [epa.gov]
Heat pumps (Score:2)
The bad data is obviously coming from europe (Score:2)
I mean, it's the obvious deduction when a journal article claims a political entity is selectively experiencing a global effect
You mean man-made climate change ... (Score:2)
... doesn't exist because it was unusually hot sometimes back in 1900?
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting video with some eye-opening data. And we all know that journalists and news are competing for attention and probably guilty of good doses of hyperbole and sensationalism more often than not.
But you see there are two simple things that are demonstrable, scientific truths:
1. CO2 traps heat
2. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at unprecedented levels
So the news behaving erratically on a certain topic doesn't necessarily mean that all about it is false.
Some people are getting annoyed at t
Re: (Score:2)
It's shocking! Shocking, I tell you! [archive.org]
awesome video
Re: (Score:2)
The Gulf Stream tearing off is one thing, however, if it gets warm enough for that to happen it's likely to get _so_ warm that it will effect Europe just as much as the rest of the world. We're having regular droughts and water shortages in Germany now, and the speed of that is only just picking up.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
The 2.5 K are thus clearly visible. The old ends of the glaciers for instance leave a small natural wall of detritus, and you can tell from the age of the shrubs growing above the wall when the detritus was deposited. You can clearly see the moraines (the stone walls) from the 18th, 19th, and 20th century and compare them with today's end of the glaciers. You can also refer to old postcards from the 19th and early 20th centuries and look at the glacier ends as depicted there and compare with today's glaciers.
Re: FUD (Score:2)
This is true (I also live in the Alps, in Switzerland). However, as you also indicate, glaciers have been retreating for centuries. Since the Little Ice Age, to be precise.
How much of the warming is AGW is an important question. Unfortunately, articles like TFA always imply that it *all* is. Which us simply not true.
Re: FUD (Score:2)
When you look up the valleys you see a clear demarcation line to where they were filled up with ice until fairly recently (10ky-5ky ago) when the melting process started and accelerated due to lower albedo. We're in the final stages of the latest ice age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have the luxury to do without nuclear power any more
Really, we never did. We thought we probably needed nuclear by 1995 and we were completely sure it was going to be basically the only solution by 2010. But we have been sure of that for over a decade now so at this point.
Think about how many things were going against renewables: 1) they are unreliable so you have to couple them to another source of variable generation, 2) the grid needs to be balanced, 3) they don't provide baseload power so "smart grids" were theorized but that was always unrealistic
Re: (Score:2)
but they all seem to not want to give up their comfy suburban homes and Western lifestyles and thus are non-serious hypocrites. Flag as Inappropriate
Yea, here is the thing. Doing that wouldn't do any good. You can't conserve your way out of AGW. The basic reason is that we need hydrocarbons to make fertilizer and we need fertilizer to grow enough food. There are other reasons, but basically if we scale nuclear we don't have to change our lifestyles at all. If we don't, no amount of reducing the standard of living will be enough. So brow beating everyone to conserve, use less, etc doesn't do any good. That's part of why you are seeing such a part
Re: (Score:2)