2024 Was the First Year Above 1.5C of Global Warming, Scientists Say (msn.com) 80
Scientists said the world just reached a grim milestone: the first full year where global temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial times. Reuters reports: The milestone was confirmed by the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), which said climate change is pushing the planet's temperature to levels never before experienced by modern humans. "The trajectory is just incredible," C3S director Carlo Buontempo told Reuters, describing how every month in 2024 was the warmest or second-warmest for that month since records began.
The planet's average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius higher than in 1850-1900, the "pre-industrial period" before humans began burning CO2-emitting fossil fuels on a large scale, C3S said. Last year was the world's hottest since records began, and each of the past ten years was among the ten warmest on record. Britain's Met Office confirmed 2024's likely breach of 1.5C, while estimating a slightly lower average temperature of 1.53C for the year. U.S. scientists will also publish their 2024 climate data on Friday.
Governments promised under the 2015 Paris Agreement to try to prevent average temperatures exceeding 1.5C, to avoid more severe and costly climate disasters. The first year above 1.5C does not breach that target, which measures the longer-term average temperature. Buontempo said rising greenhouse gas emissions meant the world was on track to soon also blow past the Paris goal - but that it was not too late for countries to rapidly cut emissions to avoid warming rising further to disastrous levels. "It's not a done deal. We have the power to change the trajectory from now on," Buontempo said.
The planet's average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius higher than in 1850-1900, the "pre-industrial period" before humans began burning CO2-emitting fossil fuels on a large scale, C3S said. Last year was the world's hottest since records began, and each of the past ten years was among the ten warmest on record. Britain's Met Office confirmed 2024's likely breach of 1.5C, while estimating a slightly lower average temperature of 1.53C for the year. U.S. scientists will also publish their 2024 climate data on Friday.
Governments promised under the 2015 Paris Agreement to try to prevent average temperatures exceeding 1.5C, to avoid more severe and costly climate disasters. The first year above 1.5C does not breach that target, which measures the longer-term average temperature. Buontempo said rising greenhouse gas emissions meant the world was on track to soon also blow past the Paris goal - but that it was not too late for countries to rapidly cut emissions to avoid warming rising further to disastrous levels. "It's not a done deal. We have the power to change the trajectory from now on," Buontempo said.
Who cares (Score:5, Funny)
We're buying Greenland. We don't need the continental US low lying lands anyway we can live on Greenland which is the size of 13 Floridas without alligators, pythons, and Florida mans.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And you think you can, say, do reasonable farming on Greenland? Well, you will be able to. In 10'000 years or so. It is a bit more than just a question of temperature.
Ah, human stupidity. Alive and thriving. Thanks for reminding me.
Incidentally, after what the convicted criminal and certified moron just said, there is zero chance of Greenland being for sale in the next few decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Incidentally, after what the convicted criminal and certified moron just said, there is zero chance of Greenland being for sale in the next few decades.
That isn't true. The plan I've seen rumored around is to offer each of Greenland's 57,000 citizens $1 million each. That's an offer of $1 million cash to every person. A family of 4 would get $4 million cash. Sorry but there's no way a majority of Greenlanders would turn down $1 million in cash. That would cost the US $57 billion. And throw in another $3 billion to build some recreation centers, roads, or something. So that's $60 billion. That's a mere 1% of our federal budget (annual federal budget is $6,5
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
See that's where trump messed up. Should've just got the dead to vote for him instead. Much cheaper!
Re: (Score:2)
See that's where trump messed up. Should've just got the dead to vote for him instead. Much cheaper!
That is exactly what Republicans [newsweek.com] did [newsweek.com] in the 2020 [8newsnow.com] election [nbcnews.com], and he still lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Things are not at all that clear. Also, such an offer may well be criminal to accept.
Pray to the great God Mammon all you like, but reality is not that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like democracy to me?
As for being criminal for Greenlanders to sell Greenland to the US, I'm sure the US Supreme Court would disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Greenlanders" can not sell Greenland to the USA.
Greenland is part of Denmark. Only Denmark can sell it.
And a Greenlander with literally free healthcare in a nation with multiple parties where he actually can vote, is not selling his land for a million. To be unable to vote properly, a broken leg will cost 1/4 of a million and as soon as something bad happens with his house: the insurance has an excuse not to pay.
What is next, the new owners remove the internet from a country that has the fastest and on
Re: (Score:3)
The fastest way to make a million dollars worthless is to give everyone else a million dollars too. And take away all property rights in exchange, then slap a tax on moving out of "state", it's all such a stupid joke, yet the moment Trump says something moronic there is no end to the attempts to normalize it.
Trump has literally lost his mind, he needs to be institutionalized, yet here we are talking about how crazy talk is perfectly reasonable, in fact it's about to happen!
Re: (Score:2)
And SCOTUS would definitely decide they have jurisdiction over international law.
"Sounds like democracy to me?"
A sovereign nation is governed by its constitution, not by "democracy". A sovereign nation is not property that can be sold by the voters.
But then, you think the SCOTUS rules over citizens of other nations, explaining anything is wasted on you.
Re: (Score:2)
such an offer may well be criminal to accept.
Based on what? My understanding is that the Danish government wouldn't oppose the Greenlanders holding a referendum and choosing to go their own way.
Re: (Score:2)
A million dollars is nothing. That barely gets you a house in most of Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Houses in the US are typically cheap crap.
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
offer each of Greenland's 57,000 citizens $1 million each.
The Economist has an article [economist.com] showing that Greenland would be a bargain even at several times that price.
Greenland has more rare earth deposits than anywhere else but China. Huge stocks of fish in territorial waters. Strategic location. Etc.
Greenlanders will likely accept the deal. That's a lot of money for a struggling family, and there are advantages to American citizenship.
The only way to stop it is to prohibit a referendum.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably can't have a referendum on giving up sovereignty of their country. Most places prohibit it, to stop richer countries doing this kind of thing.
The EU would certainly never allow it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why not. There was a referendum in Gibraltar about becoming part of Spain, which the EU seemed happy with. Spain wasn't very happy with the result, but that's a different matter.
Now, the idea of paying people to vote a particular way in a referendum, that might be an issue - but not the referendum itself.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an advisory referendum with a certain outcome, and the EU stood to gain.
Re: (Score:2)
the idea of paying people to vote a particular way in a referendum, that might be an issue
Nope, because they are not paid for their vote.
If the referendum is approved, everyone gets the money, regardless of how each individual voted.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nope, because they are not paid for their vote."
Yes, even worse. No one gets paid until the vote turns out my way!
"If the referendum is approved, everyone gets the money, regardless of how each individual voted."
Right, the Trump way! LOL
If the referendum is approved, no one gets the money. That's how the Trump world works. Go back to Shanghai, Bill.
Re: Who cares (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Greenland, being a part of Denmark, _is_ part of the EU.
But being part of Europe, Greenland remembers what fascism looks like and so doesn't want any part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Greenlanders will likely accept the deal. That's a lot of money for a struggling family, and there are advantages to American citizenship."
It's not when every other struggling family also has a million dollars, and who says they get American citizenship? Or they would get to keep any of it.
No one confuses you, ShanghaiBill, of being stupid enough to believe any of that shit. You're a self-servicing liar as we've all known for quite some time.
Re: (Score:1)
Greenland has some 100 meters of ice on top of it.
No one is going to set up a mining operations there - soonish.
And I doubt there are any reliable facts about what minerals you can^H^H^H could mine there.
Re: (Score:2)
Offer them a billion each and then don't pay. Isn't that how it's always done anyway? Have Steve Bannon set up a GoFundMe, then pardon him for the fraud.
And besides, didn't we trade that shithole country Puerto Rico for it?
"That isn't true."
Sure it's not, a sovereign nation is nothing more than a piece of real estate, right? Why not just annex it, Putin-style? Why not promise a million to each citizen and then impose a million dollar tax on them? Why even bother disguising your intent to steal it, it's
Re: (Score:2)
Are you paying for all the moving vans?
Re: (Score:2)
Non-refundable deposit for a mover is $1 million.
1849 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So the temperature was higher in 1849. People must have been smoking too much rope back then.
Congratulations on posting the first relevant comment.
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Informative)
I thought this was a joke but other people are taking it seriously.
You aren't getting Greenland, for the record.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's not a joke, this is what MAGA has become. Unbridled greed, bigotry and idiocracy.
What's going on is not about Greenland. The fascists have won, they do not believe they will ever relinquish power again. In their mind, they are entering a phase where the rich and powerful divide up the world. What we are seeing is Trump claiming "dibs" on what he's gonna take while Putin and other dictators take theirs. It's about looting the entire world.
Trump hasn't laid claim to just Greenland, in the same breat
Re: (Score:2)
Buying LOL It's already ours! Just like the Gulf of America and the Panama Canal!
Meanwhile in Los Angeles (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No amount of evidence is going to convince an idiot in an idiot-bubble.
It's all a conspiracy! Trump said so on "Truth Social", which is doublespeak for "Antisocial Misinformation".
What a dystopia we live in.
Re: Meanwhile in Los Angeles (Score:2)
"Trump is badman evil guy, I heard it on social media and the TV agrees."
Your idiot bubble is tired and played out. Get a new one.
Re: Meanwhile in Los Angeles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, the numbers in TFS are collected by exactly the same ideologically aligned bunch of sick people so it's hard not to doubt the methodology they used. It would take hours for common citizens to validate the numbers by themselves. In short , those numbers are easily manipulable without anybody noticing and the ones who would be able to validate them and find discrepancies would simply be called oil shills and cancelled.
Oooh, and now a comment that's not only on topic but right-headed...
What next?
Re: (Score:2)
Since we stopped trying to convince climate sceptics that change is real, they have been coming up with increasingly silly conspiracy theories. I see we have reached "cut the firefighting budget to push their agenda", as if it's going to have any meaningful impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Not from US but I heard on the news that it's normal not to have water during those fires because they cut off the power to avoid lighting up more fires. Seriously? No emergency autonomous systems for the water utility?
Re: (Score:2)
You think power is required for water? Have you ever even experienced a power outage? How old are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Listen buddy, that's what the US president explained to us, they are working on bringing in generators so they can restore the water supply. So, there was no emergency circuits nor any emergency generators already in place nor any tanks in place which could provide water simply by gravity. So, no solution was planned in advance to supply water in case of such fire and they are still working to bring in generators to restore the power.
See for yourself here:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
And don't forget that they spent the money on DEI instead! Wildfires are caused by libs loving brown people too much!
There is nothing that isn't made just a little bit better by adding racism, so says Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, everything bad is caused by Joe Biden, The Real Donald said so. He also declares the Democratic Party is "Giddy" because he's not doing x, just before he promises (only promises, mind you) to do x.
Every time the GOP gets power, their silence is deafening. They've got much to say when someone else is making choices and total silence when it's their job.
Re: (Score:2)
First year since when?
Since the last interglacial period, which was 125,000 years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
This is simply incorrect. According to Copernicus' own press release, the time period in question is 1979-2024:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
This is what "first full year on record" refers to.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, climate is defined as the average weather over a 30 year period.
That's the difference in average weather compared to a certain reference period of 30 years. Currently, the time period from 1980-2010 is widely used as reference.
That's a completely different question, and it has nothing to do with
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, you are simply plain wrong. There is nothing to "confuse" or "disentangle" here.
We are discussing an article stating that 2024 was the warmest year "since records began".
Somebody asks what "since records began" means in this context. This question is valid and pertinent. It also has just a single correct answer, and it has nothing to do with isotopes, ice ages or whatever happened in 1736 in Mannheim, Germany.
The answer, as I pointed out and linked to, is found expressly in the original press release
Re: (Score:2)
False and intentionally dishonest.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, facts are ideological propaganda. The only truth is political allegiance.
Re: (Score:1)
Provide the facts then. What is the time period referenced by "first full year on record"?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the OP's OWN LINK provided records back to 1940, so we already know 1979 was a lie.
But sure, because the article didn't give a specific year defining "on record" you must be right. We cannot simply assume that "on record" might mean something like "for any year for which we have records". I mean, the mere use of the term "on record" must be a conspiracy to hide the truth, right?
Will we ever find anything to stupid even for MAGAts?
Re: (Score:2)
Since humans started pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, the negative effects of global warming start before 1.5 degrees, which is just a number picked for the Paris Agreement.
Re: (Score:1)
The actual time period for which "first year" applies, however, is only betwen 1979 and 2024, i.e., a 45-year interval. This is clearly stated in Copernicus' own press release, upon which the reporting in the global press is based:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
The reference period for the average now exceeded by 1.5 degrees has been set as 1991-2020.
The underlying dataset, starting 1979, upon which many climate-related news stories have been based over the last few years is called "ERA5". Interestingly,
Re: (Score:2)
According to NASA, the raising of global temperature has occurred since at least 1880, The largest part has occurred since 1975. But I just repeated the article and summary above, that states the following:
The planet's average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius higher than in 1850-1900, the "pre-industrial period" before humans began burning CO2-emitting fossil fuels on a large scale, C3S said.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a liar.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
This is part of their "press release", it provides data back to 1940.
"The underlying dataset..."
The underlying dataset is not all records in human existence.
"Interestingly, ERA5 is not simply raw measurements but a post-processed "re-analysis" combining measurements and a climate model:"
Wow, that sure is interesting! Must be a conspiracy! Imagine that data might not merely be "raw measurements". Imagine that a "climate model" might be involved!
"Make of this
Re: (Score:1)
Which arbitrary point in history are we stopping our comparison for ideological propaganda purposes this time?
And now the first deeply relevant, very much to the point comment. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which arbitrary point in history are we stopping our comparison for ideological propaganda purposes this time?
I pick the arbitrary point where civilization started and humans started to become dependent on the planet's ecosystem. Call me a racist but I don't give a fuck about dinosaurs. They are nothing but dumb scaley and feathered cannibals. Make the human race great again. Homosapien lives matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern Humans? (Score:1)
"European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), which said climate change is pushing the planet's temperature to levels never before experienced by modern humans. "The trajectory is just incredible," C3S director Carlo Buontempo told Reuters, describing how every month in 2024 was the warmest or second-warmest for that month since records began.
Perhaps the wording could have been a bit better?
Thread is unreadable (Score:1)