World's First Year-Long Breach of Key 1.5C Warming Limit (bbc.com) 302
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: For the first time, global warming has exceeded 1.5C across an entire year, according to the EU's climate service. World leaders promised in 2015 to try to limit the long-term temperature rise to 1.5C, which is seen as crucial to help avoid the most damaging impacts. This first year-long breach doesn't break that landmark Paris agreement, but it does bring the world closer to doing so in the long-term.
Urgent action to cut carbon emissions can still slow warming, scientists say. "This far exceeds anything that is acceptable," Prof Sir Bob Watson, a former chair of the UN's climate body, told the BBC Radio 4's Today Program. "Look what's happened this year with only 1.5C -- we've seen floods, we've seen droughts, we've seen heatwaves and wildfires all over the world." The period from February 2023 to January 2024 reached 1.52C of warming, according to the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service. The following graph [here] shows how that compares with previous years.
The world's sea surface is also at its highest ever recorded average temperature -- yet another sign of the widespread nature of climate records. As the chart [here] shows, it's particularly notable given that ocean temperatures don't normally peak for another month or so. Science groups differ slightly on precisely how much temperatures have increased, but all agree that the world is in by far its warmest period since modern records began -- and likely for much longer.
Urgent action to cut carbon emissions can still slow warming, scientists say. "This far exceeds anything that is acceptable," Prof Sir Bob Watson, a former chair of the UN's climate body, told the BBC Radio 4's Today Program. "Look what's happened this year with only 1.5C -- we've seen floods, we've seen droughts, we've seen heatwaves and wildfires all over the world." The period from February 2023 to January 2024 reached 1.52C of warming, according to the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service. The following graph [here] shows how that compares with previous years.
The world's sea surface is also at its highest ever recorded average temperature -- yet another sign of the widespread nature of climate records. As the chart [here] shows, it's particularly notable given that ocean temperatures don't normally peak for another month or so. Science groups differ slightly on precisely how much temperatures have increased, but all agree that the world is in by far its warmest period since modern records began -- and likely for much longer.
We're boned (Score:2, Insightful)
Urgent action is basically impossible without international agreement. We're struggling to keep China from taking over the gas fields in the South China Sea, let alone a dozen other territorial conflicts that amount to fossil fuel resources. Telling them not only to stop their bullshit but to also stop using fossil fuels all together is going to be a hard sell and take long-term diplomacy and a redirecting of multiple economies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the article. The conservatives in the UK dismantled their $28 billion green energy program. The world is literally being pillaged by neocon zerglings.
Re: (Score:2)
The conservatives in the UK dismantled their $28 billion green energy program.
Eh... that's not quite what happened. Labour had to abandon the commitment because fiscal conditions mean that it is simply unaffordable. The Conservatives are arguably in many ways responsible for those fiscal conditions, but to say they "dismantled" the program implies that they were targeting it specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm calling out this lie:
EU is not "burning coal like there's no tomorrow". In fact EU coal usage is down by 60% since 1990, and down 5% since 2019. Eurostat Energy Mix [europa.eu]
Re:We're boned (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, someone should have sent not 200, but 2000 tanks to Ukraine, and in 2022 and not 2023.
Re: (Score:2)
The basically overnight collapse of defense during the last few weeks in long sieged Avdiivka is looking suspiciously like the UAF is running on fumes...
What do you mean, "looking susupiciously like", Ukrainian troops have been complaining about lack of weapons and ammo for months now. They were thrown to the wolves by the fear of the republican congresspeople that the donald will say something bad about them.
It is a repeat of the republican behavior in the first years of the WWII.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean it as an understatement. But I don't think the lack of help has much to do with party politics. US foreign policy is not really a partisan thing, although it is made to look like it, like most of everything else that is going on. I think there are two themes going on here.
The first is that the US just doesn't give a damn. "Fuck the EU", said Nuland, and they did. And Ukraine is completely expendable for the US, like any other poor soul that has had the misfortune to rely on them. "To be an enemy of t
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand there is Russia who was able to ramp up production, outproducing the West eight times in shells and doing it seven times cheaper for example,
That's putin statistics. Most of the "ramp-up" is from North Korean imports. How cheap or expensive that was is obvious from the speed of disappearance of moscow's national wealth fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not Putin statistics. Western.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-ammunition-manufacturing-ukraine-west-officials-2023-9
Estonia is rather anti-Russian, for obvious historical reasons, so there is no fun for them to admit Russia is doing good. Rather it is something they can not afford to not take note of.
You will find more if you care to look.
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/putin-redirects-russias-economy-to-war-production-1e14265f
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ramping-up-war-production/32658857.h
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to follow Russian sources, not their retelling.
Russia's central bank, ministry of finance, stuff like that. And draw my own conclusions from their data.
I've learned long, long time ago how to read between the lines of Soviet-like statistics.
Re:We're boned (Score:5, Informative)
You seem unable to read a graph and translate the data into some sort of representative english sentence. Let me labor the point. (yawn)
20% increase over a period of 2 years following an exceptional response to an aggressive narcissist is not "Europe had to go back to coal". It's a swing of 1.6% in the energy mix. I wouldn't call a 1.6% change a "Burning coal line there's no tomorrow" or a "Europe had to go back to coal, since it got played out of gas" even. Let name be explicit, you are using a false "all or nothing" statements where the truth is actually nothing like that.
Again, apologies to other readers for the patronizing post, but sometimes idiots posting patently false binary style statements (ALL, NOTHING, GOT OUT OF, GOT INTO) seem to need calling out.
Europe continues to use pretty much the same amount of Natural Gas now as before the Russian business, Coal usage rose to represent 11%, from a low point of just under 10%. Again actually quite a small change.
As regards your personal experience, that's unfortunate but not at all in conflict with the statistics and likewise does not support your sweeping (false) assertions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read figurative speech as literal, you are going to have a bad time. Try to see words more like pointing a direction, not as map coordinates. Nothing binary about my statements, just good ol' joy about the expressiveness of the English language.
Like I said, the statistics you linked do not include 2022 and 2023. And even if they did, I would probably take issue with them, because the statistics also say that Europe has reduced dependence on Russian oil, but the fact is they are just buying it via Ind
Biden is solving this (Score:2, Troll)
Re:We're boned (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We're boned (Score:4, Insightful)
We're struggling to keep China from
We're struggling to keep China from producing even a fractions of the emissions per capita that we produce. But they are the problem because we got ours and therefore they should stay poor for the sake of the planet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, no. China agreed a very aggressive goal of peaking its emissions in 2030 at the last Paris summit. In fact they are due to peak around 2025, i.e. in the next year or two.
While it's still not enough, the reality is that China does take the climate emergency seriously and is taking strong action to address it. We can negotiate with them and they stick to their promises, in fact they greatly exceed them.
The real issue with China is that WE aren't willing to work with them. China installed more sola
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing emissions are increasing emissions. It doesn't matter that they produce less than us when their increases more than cancel out our own decreases. Global warming doesn't give a toss about what's fair in terms of economic development.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you care about increases or decreases and not totals?
Sigh.... because increases in emissions mean a higher total in the one total that really matters, total global emissions.
You can complain all you want about whats fair but at the end of the day global warming doesnt care. As a planet we need to be dropping emissions and dropping them quickly and while here in the US we should certainly be doing more having what we are doing being canceled out by the developing world is actively working against solving the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the desertification of parts of China will get their attention: https://www.worldbank.org/en/r... [worldbank.org]
But then again, Xi Jinping is mostly concerned with taking Taiwan to distract his mainlanders from getting the idea that Chinese do not need a parasitic leach like the CCC to succeed in the world.
Re:We're boned (Score:5, Insightful)
We've gone past the point where we could return to per-industrial global temperatures, at least in our lifetime.
Everything going forward is damage control. We can choose today how difficult our future will be.
Re:We're boned (Score:4, Insightful)
We've gone past the point where we could return to per-industrial global temperatures, at least in our lifetime. Everything going forward is damage control.
Why is the pre-industrial temperature the "correct" one? I get conservatism and not ever wanting change, but still wondering.
Re: We're boned (Score:5, Informative)
That's the climate that we've had when domesticing the vast majority of our food crops. And no, global warming doesn't mean we're going to get to grow mangoes in Ohio.
Re: We're boned (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Human civilisation, as it currently stands, has population patterns and patterns of agriculture that are optimised for the mean climate over the past few thousand years. Adapting to change in that is going to cost money, and is going to involve strife as populations relocate in certain parts of the world. Trying to do those things quickly is going to be even worse. So there is value in limiting the rate of change, even if we can't bring it to zero or stop it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: We're boned (Score:5, Insightful)
But US and Canada is mostly empty.
First, 'are' mostly empty. Second, let's keep it that way. Maybe you like being hemmed in on all sides by your neighbors, but there are those of us who don't want to live in stacked cages.
If the natives cant utilize the land properly,
The natives were doing fine utilizing the land. They had all they needed, did crop rotation, didn't overuse the land, fertilized the land, and lived in harmony with the land.
its the old world's job to teach them intensive agriculture.
By overusing the land, needing to buy expensive, proprietary fertilizers because the land is so worn down, destroying the native wildlife, losing billions of tons of top soil because of overuse of the land, and generally making a mess of things, just like they did in the old country.
Re: We're boned (Score:5, Interesting)
But US and Canada is mostly empty. Whats wrong in following in Columbus's steps. If the natives cant utilize the land properly, its the old world's job to teach them intensive agriculture.
Canadian here. There's a reason those areas are mostly empty: there's not much reason to be there, and communities need a reason to exist. Those areas are not great for agriculture (and a changing climate isn't going to fix that - they have thin soils), and they're far from the rest of civilization. There's lots of resource extraction in the form of forestry and mining, but there's not enough growth potential there to support population growth. So yeah, you could fill those areas up with climate refugees, but how are they going to support themselves?
It would also cost trillions of dollars to build the infrastructure necessary for large-scale settlement of those areas. Why not just spend those trillions of dollars on fighting climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
California built levees that closed off meadowlands and seasonal marshes to flooding, routing the water out to the ocean instead. This enabled much more traditional agriculture and a century later lead to a massive growth of suburban housing as some of the farm land was repurposed. But those areas were acting as a floodplain to recharge aquifers, and now they are depleted so far that we've been getting sinkholes and those damaged aquifers cannot be restored.
The point being, converting everything into farm
Plus.... (Score:3)
Add on to that the large increase in extreme weather events our rapidly changing temperatures are already causing.
Re:We're boned (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "correct", it's just a baseline. But you need baseline figures to talk about the rate of change of something. In this case we're talking about 1.5 degrees per roughly 150 years or in round figures 1 degree per century. In comparison, an extremely rapid *natural* warming event like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, might entail 0.025 degree warming per century.
If we were talking about change at a rate like that -- extreme, but still natural -- we'd be talking about 1.5 degrees *over six thousand years*, not 150 years. The 1.5 degree threshold was chosen based on the remaining probability of avoiding further unnaturally fast warming. It's the threshold beyond which will have no choice but to turn some of our attention away from ounces of prevention to pounds of cure.
Denialists like to bring up past geological time scale temperature shifts to argue that change *per se* is natural, which of course it is. The kind of change we're looking at, if spread over hundreds of thousands of years, absolutely wouldn't matter. But denialists don't really care about what happens in Deep Time, nor (probably) should you. What they are concerned about is having to change *right now*, even changing the type of light bulbs they buy triggers their fury.
The heart wants what the heart wants, it isn't irrational per se to want things to remain the way they were when you were young. But where they go wrong is thinking change will magically go away if they believe hard enough that it's not happening. Climate change *at the rate we are experiencing it*, will force change upon us in our lifetime. Changes that will hurt, like cutting back on coffee, or spending billions on flood control projects. And we're past the point of preventing some of these things; the more we further ignore the problem, the more we'll have our lifestyles transformed involuntarily by geophysics.
Re: (Score:2)
To add to your comment. I watched this a few weeks ago. This person has unquestionable credentials as far as I can tell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And his story is different from the mainstream take...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We won't be alive! Who cares?"
Good luck getting past that when they are already pulling in mountains of cash based on their behaviors.
Very little seems to affect the trajectory of money other than whomever is the biggest affecting the trajectory into their pockets. This is unwinnable. Western society will collapse long before the planet itself is wiped out; however, I suspect the majority of the next hundred thousand years will be lived by people with only basic food and shelter. And then life itself is ex
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In contrast those who keep on producing children will be producing a lot more CO2 and waste even if they are 10x more efficient and environmentally friendly.
So I'm doing my part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: More class warfare... (Score:2)
I don't think anyone knowledgeable in the subject considers CO2 different based on point if origin. For better or worse, the American dream of "cars, house, white picket fence etc" now covers the world. It doesn't take much math to realize that much of the world won't achieve it ever.
The world is saying: "Give us a new American dream with much less CO2." While there are ideas, on the whole no one knows how.
It's likely Americans will either be the first to figure it out, or the drought vulnerable areas wil
Re: (Score:2)
Your car is driving off the side of a mountain. You have a moment where you can still fasten your seatbelt. Do you do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We're boned (Score:2)
Might be simpler to build a rocket and send all the idiots to Venus. We already have most of the tech for it, we simply lack the will to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Venus isn't "warming". While it is quite warm already, the temperatures are stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like "dead" is a stable physical condition.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, as the dead decompose. But if you choose a suitably small time interval, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every atmosphere is "a classic example of a greenhouse effect".
Re: (Score:2)
The dose is the poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a number I need (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe in anthropogenic climate change - that we are, in fact, warming the planet by releasing vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I also believe it's not going to be a great ride as climate zones shift and coastal areas become marine habitats and the energy available to power storms grows.
Having thrown all those disclaimers in, I do want some better context for the last year. If last year hit the 1.5c threshold, what would the normal expected variation from the previous year's average temperature be? Is this a peak with a potential minor 'relapse', or is it the new low and we keep going up consistently? Is a single year enough to update our measurements of the rate of global warming?
Then we can move on to why - loss of ice coverage, reduced cloud cover, increased CO2, methane release from thawed former 'perma'-frost... whatever.
None of which really changes what we should be doing and mostly aren't, but I'd still like better detail. I'm not a climatologist with a PhD, but I'm not a drooling moron either - I have the capacity to understand more than a single-sentence shock headline.
Re: (Score:2)
The variations are clear and we can see that in the next 8 years +/- a couple we would expect to see a year as exceptionally warmer than this year as this year was over the last extreme year which was 2016, perhaps a 1.54+ degree year.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the temperature chart in the article. The rise in temperature is exponential. 50 years to go from 0 to 1C. 10 years to go from 1 to 1.5 C. You can guesstimate what's "expected" just by looking at that graph.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the temperature chart in the article. The rise in temperature is exponential. 50 years to go from 0 to 1C. 10 years to go from 1 to 1.5 C. You can guesstimate what's "expected" just by looking at that graph.
Useful to remember carbon based atmospheric heating is constrained by saturation effect. There is increasing diminishing returns as a function of increased concentration. Absorption for CO2 only works in certain IR bands and existing atmospheric concentrations already place it into diminishing returns territory. Having said that much of the contributions have yet to equilibrate so things will certainly continue to get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not useful at all because it isn't true, it isn't supported by the physics, obse
Re: (Score:2)
Its not useful at all because it isn't true
What specifically are you disagreeing with?
isn't supported by the physics,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.030... [arxiv.org]
observation and its comprehensively disproven by the astronomical data from our own backyard.
We are at 0.0421% CO2. Venus is at 96% CO2.
The atmosphere of Venus is a hundred times thicker than earths.
https://www.researchgate.net/f... [researchgate.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's a number I need (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you just google for the climate stats instead of expecting us to give a list of references you won't read?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you want to study some actual climate science basics. Good. Slashdot is probably not the best place, since it is a debate forum. There are plenty other resources, and not that hard to find.
Yeah, not going to happen (Score:5, Funny)
Then we have India who is building loads of new coal plants. They are 3rd largest emitter of CO2 and like China, continue to grow their GHG emissions.
The west accounts for less than 1/3 of emissions, and are dropping, but not fast enough. As it is, the west, esp. America, have dropped emissions for the last couple of years that equals what undeveloped nations, including India, increased by. But then you add in CHina and they continue to grow theirs massively each year.
The ONLY way for this to go down is IFF western nations will start taxing all of our consumed goods based on where the worst part/sub-service comes from. And skip looking at levels, just look at direction. But this will not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not fast enough"
The West as a whole is at pre-industrial levels of emissions. They've been dropping for decades. How low do you think we can go? Given the population is many times as large, I'm thinking there's a limit to how little we can dump pollutants into the air.
I'm not saying it's pointless, but it's definitely self-defeating to compromise economic viability in favor of low emissions. That's going to backfire.
Re: (Score:2)
rising temperatures will compromise economic viability
Re:Yeah, not going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese increasing emissions are more than canceling our decreasing emissions. That's not a path to solving our problems with climate change at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Total global emissions are going up while in the US they are going down. Why do you not see total global emissions still going up as not a problem?
Re:Yeah, not going to happen (Score:5, Informative)
No, they've been increasing, dramatically. This isn't controversial.
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Err... while the guy you're replying to claiming the west is at "pre-industrial" levels of emissions is laughable, using "worldwide emissions" as a means to say "the west" has been increasing dramatically is equally wrong.
Here are US emissions [statista.com]. Here are the EU's [statista.com]. Here are China's [statista.com]. Notice anything?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3)
China's emissions are due to peak in the next year or two, and then fall quite rapidly. More rapidly than they fell in any Western nation. They are 5 years ahead of where they agreed to be at Paris.
So yes, while they are building new coal plants, the context is falling emissions and those plants proving to be uneconomical or relegated to peaking only. They had some issues a few years ago with blackouts due to rapidly increasing demand in some areas, and coal was a quick and dirty solution. Now those plants
Re: (Score:2)
So not going to happen they continue to add more coal plants, as well as more new LICE/HICE than EV/*ICE removal.
Look, I’ve been optimistic for a long time that we could beat this. I have posted here for a long time that by start of 2024, western/Chinese EV sales would be at 50%. As I predicted, we would see total Vehicle sales drop, but nowhere near what I thought/hoped. Why not? Government have no incentive
Re: (Score:2)
Sales of EVs in China account for 60% of the entire world. Of new vehicles sold there, 27% are EVs. It's not enough, but it's quiet rapid progress compared to almost everyone else.
There are good reasons to be pessimistic, but we shouldn't let that translate into inaction, or putting politics above the climate emergency. As an example, the EU has tariffs on cars made from parts made outside the EU, including EV batteries. China has the best EV batteries, and the most manufacturing capacity. Of course they wa
Re: (Score:2)
China is NOT a friend to the west....period.
Do you really want to put your country even MORE dependent on China now....for all your transportation needs?
We're ta
Exponential Temperature Gains (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the temperature chart in the article, it took us 10 years to go from 1.0C to 1.5C, whereas it took 50 years to go from 0 to 1. That means we'll be at 2C in less than a decade. We are absolutely doomed. I don't see any way we can avoid the consequences of what's about to happen. Not with conservatives trying to pillage the planet for their bank accounts.
Re: (Score:3)
Not with conservatives trying to pillage the planet for their bank accounts.
So... what about the people who can not be labelled as Conservative who are also trying to plunder the planet? People without any particular Political ideology, just a desire to grab as much as they can?
Is it necessary for a person to be a Conservative in order to be a bad actor?
Honestly, with your statement, you have divided the world into two parts and every part must fall within one of the two extremes. Is this a useful way to look at the world?
Remember the Ozone. (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.bbc.com/future/art... [bbc.com]
It's a shame so many people could understand the problem with losing the Ozone but not the problem of heating the entire planet. The Ozone protects us from cancer and cataracts, what's wrong three degrees Fahrenheit?
I'm practically at the point of "let them see what CO2 can do" because that's the only way they'll learn. If they can't see it(smog), touch it (great pacific garbage patch) or be UV burned by it, they just don't get it or are willfully choosing to look the other way.
Re: Remember the Ozone. (Score:2)
We could lock them in a greenhouse for 48 hours
So, what do we do about it? (Score:2)
What should we do to mitigate against the worst of global warming? Well, I'm listening to the scientists that show their work. They demonstrate that if we keep on this path of avoiding nuclear power that we will not lower CO2 emissions. What are some of the responses to that?
Nuclear power is not safe.
Global warming is not safe either. Figure out which poses the least danger and pick the least bad option. Choosing to walk away from nuclear fission for energy is walking into global warming. When compari
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> People keep bringing up the problem of global warming and when someone brings up a problem to me I have a habit of seeking solutions for them.
I guess you haven't faced many wicked problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] or predicaments.
I agree that Nuclear is necessary, but I also think it won't help too much in the long term.
My point against Nuclear: If, as a society, we lose the capacity to maintain the Nuclear infrastructure (reactors, cooling ponds, storage...) , what happens with Nuclear then?
The Tongan volcano (Score:3)
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, unlike the suphur dioxide injected by Mt Pinotubo, which cooled the planet. So it's possible the temperature will drop next year as the water precipitates out.
Re: (Score:2)
Tonga does change the overall trajectory. Read the stats and stop choking on gnats.
What do we have so far? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets see who we've got so far:
-Honga Tonga water vapor.
Nope, 0.035C is the estimated contribution. https://eos.org/articles/tonga... [eos.org]
- negative feedbacks, specifically more rain -> cooler land.
More rain yes, but most often within extreme weather events. https://www.epa.gov/climate-in... [epa.gov] . It won't cool the land, it will flood it.
- +1.5C would be nice where I live.
That's not how averages work. Stick your head in an oven, your feet in a fridge. Your average temperature might still be 37C, but you're definitely not going to be fine.
- Vikings in Greenland. (that one might have been in jest)
Greenland melting means adios coastal cities. And under glaciers, there is no topsoil, only gravel. That land will be barren, not suitable for growing/grazing anything. Not to mention sweet water changing the density in the area and affecting the AMOC.
- Move to siberia (taken from another post,thanks)
https://hir.harvard.edu/climat... [harvard.edu] Most current infrastructure there will be broken by the melting and shifting land.
- Who are we to determine the "correct" temperature for the planet. (aka - it was hotter when dinosaurs were here, and the planet was fine)
If you don't care about humanity and its civilization, which so far has only ever existed in the 10000 year stable holocene, sure...
Re: (Score:3)
"CO2 is good for plants" is almost here, so expanding:
CO2 does promote plant growth, however, the nutrient content goes way down.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Essentially, we'll be growing junk food, instead of having to create it.
CO2 dissolves in the ocean, rendering it more acidic. This prevents plankton organisms from growing their calcite shells (currently making them more fragile).
Pour vinegar on some limestone to actually see how that works.
I'm not sure how evolution could solve this as basic chemi
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't care about humanity and its civilization, which so far has only ever existed in the 10000 year stable holocene, sure...
Why should they care?
First, they will be dead by the time it gets really bad.
Second, their children will have no stake in the future as they won't own anything, it will all be rentals and subscriptions. They won't even be able to buy their own shelter.
Third, nobody listens anyways. Since there are stupid people without money, why should we listen to people without money since the morons will flood the discussion? (the implication being is that the person deciding to listen or not MUST be smart; otherwise, t
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies.
AMOC -- Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. The heat conveyor belt keeping Europe warm. A well known part of it is the Gulf Stream.
No time for democracy (Score:2)
Taken out of context... (Score:2)
TFA takes a small piece out of a larger graph, deliberately making it look more dramatic than it is. Visit the actual Copernicus website [copernicus.eu] and scroll down a bit to see the original graph, which forecasts 1.5C in 2033.
What I find annoying, though, is that the data source for that graph is not specified. Is it based on ground stations? Satellites? Some combination thereof? This matters, and really should be specified as part of the chart.
Re: (Score:2)
The data source is specified in the 1.5C article: https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
And here is your data source: https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forec... [ecmwf.int]
The projection appears to be a linear fit of the current trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing edit button. Forgot to link this: https://cds.climate.copernicus... [copernicus.eu]
Then we'd better get hot ... (Score:2)
... pun intended, and start building nuclear plants, and figuring out more technological solutions.
We aren't going to de-industrialize, and arguing on a worldwide computer network that we should do so is the height of silliness.
Re:we've seen floods, droughts, wildfires... (Score:4, Informative)
Ah...another of the regular trolls puts in an appearance.
"The evidence points to a clear link between climate change and a surge in modern slavery: When crop failures, drought, floods, or fires wipe out livelihoods and homes, people migrate in the hopes of improving their lotâ"but can find themselves vulnerable to human trafficking and forced labor and other human rights abuses. And the overall economic cost is staggering: The global economy could lose $23 trillion to climate change by 2050."
https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/issues/human-rights/forced-labor/ [rainforest-alliance.org]
"Rising temperatures are likely to reduce global wealth significantly by 2050, as crop yields fall, disease spreads and rising seas consume coastal cities, a major insurance company warned Thursday, highlighting the consequences if the world fails to quickly slow the use of fossil fuels."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/climate/climate-change-economy.html [nytimes.com]
"Global warming worsens wildfires by drying vegetation and soil, creating more fuel for fires to spread further and faster. In some areas like southeastern Australia and California, altered atmospheric patterns may also be creating stronger and/or more frequent high pressure systems, resulting in less precipitation and thus both dryer conditions and longer fire seasons."
https://skepticalscience.com/wildfires-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is fine
Re:we've seen floods, droughts, wildfires... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Rising temperatures are likely to reduce global wealth significantly by 2050
Most people don't give a FUCK for "global wealth" as they do not get to participate in it. They are allocated X resources and those resources are NOT based on how wealthy the world is. In most cases, even in the USA, most people don't even own their own homes. They can be removed simply, easily, and effectively after only 90 days notice.
And the resources that are allocated are shrinking despite huge advances in global wealth.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The only thing I regret about being old is that I won't be there when these idiots can't afford food anymore because we can't really grow enough anymore and they die.
And I can't stand there like Nelson, point at them and go "Ha ha".
Re:we've seen floods, droughts, wildfires... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, many of these idiots won't be alive at that point either. Many of these people just don't give a shit about future generations and just try to justify this with climate change denialism.
Re: Move To Siberia (Score:3)
Uhhh, about that⦠https://hir.harvard.edu/climat... [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Siberia is thawing out. What was once tundra is becoming a mosquito infested marsh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We were told 1.5C was the tipping point that we had to avoid otherwise it was all over... now it's just a warning?
For 8 billion people tomorrow is just another day.
Re: (Score:2)
And in 40 years, tomorrow will be a damn hot day.
Re: (Score:2)
Increased rainfall in Greenland would likely result in the destabilisation of the ice sheet there. That's about 8 meters of sea level rise. Just because there may be mechanisms that will eventually slow the rate of change doesn't mean that the new normal will be cheap for humanity to adapt to. Historically populations haven't reacted well to mass migration of other populations into their territory.
Re: (Score:2)
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more acidic oceans. Make them acidic enough and there goes a major food source. There, I didn't even have to invoke climate warming to give you a nasty result.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Asshole will get elected Pres again and go on a Buy Greenland quest because he failed the first time.