80% Chance of Record Heat in Coming Years, Climate Agencies Forecast (apnews.com) 57
The world faces an 80% probability of breaking another annual temperature record within the next five years, according to a forecast released Wednesday by the World Meteorological Organization and the UK Meteorological Office.
The projections, derived from more than 200 computer simulations run by 10 global scientific centers, indicate an 86% chance that one of the next five years will surpass the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming threshold established by the Paris climate accord, with a 70% chance that the entire five-year period will average above that milestone.
For the first time, the agencies identified a slight possibility that global annual temperatures could reach the more alarming 2 degrees Celsius benchmark before the decade's end.
The projections, derived from more than 200 computer simulations run by 10 global scientific centers, indicate an 86% chance that one of the next five years will surpass the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming threshold established by the Paris climate accord, with a 70% chance that the entire five-year period will average above that milestone.
For the first time, the agencies identified a slight possibility that global annual temperatures could reach the more alarming 2 degrees Celsius benchmark before the decade's end.
I guess the agencies mus be abolished (Score:1)
Trump fired the climate change, did he not? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So much winning! (Score:1)
A great, creat voctory over climate that wanted to keep things stable! Cannot have that, we are going to have a great, golden age ahead!
Re: (Score:2)
Drill, baby, drill!
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this even news? Anybody paying attention is aware that the cascading effects of man-made global warming have already kicked in and are now ramping up and feeding back on each other. Some minimal fundamental knowledge and basic common sense is all that's required to be aware that this was coming for us.
I only hope that the new equilibrium isn't a global plus of 5 degrees centigrade or something. That would spell the end of modern civilization, and despite how messy things can be these days I don't want that.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who has studied the Earth's climate knows we are in the bottom 90% of temperatures over time, and we are exiting an interglacial, and that the earth is unstable at this cold temperature. There isnt meant to be ice on the surface. Thats a strange state given the earth's makeup and position relative to the sun. Even the rate of change isn't unique in Earth's storied history.
I guess you missed the memo. The conservative school of thought is that the climate isn't changing.
See, the problem is once you accept the concept that the climate actually is changing (even if you believe the cause is natural rather than man-made), then you're still forced to acknowledge that there will be consequences from said changes, most of which won't be particularly pleasant. Some people living in countries that are poorly equipped to adapt to the changing climate might decide they'd rather live h
Re: (Score:2)
At this point it's like when an American mentions football, you can just assume they mean "American Football" and not soccer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who has studied the Earth's climate knows we are in the bottom 90% of temperatures over time, and we are exiting an interglacial, and that the earth is unstable at this cold temperature.
A bit of an exaggeration, but let's assume it's exactly right. It's irrelevant. The conditions in the Archaen Eon or the Cretaceous Period tell us nothing about what would be good for *us* and the other species that currently inhabit the Earth. What matters to species living *now*, including us, is what would is typical of he Quaternary Period. Those are the conditions we've evolved to survive in.
There isnt meant to be ice on the surface.
Says who? In any case, there have been at least four major ice ages prior to the Quaternary Period (past 2.6 million years). The Quaternary represents less than 1% of the time in which the Earth has had major ice sheets.
Even the rate of change isn't unique in Earth's storied history.
This is just wrong. Since 1990 the rate of change of global average temperature has been around 2 C / Century. It's never reached 1 C / Century before on a global basis so far as we know. Of course there have been regional events in the 1 C/ Century range, like the termination of the Younger Dryas, but that high rate of warming was regional and those regions experienced catastrophic mass extinctions.
There is no "right" temperature for the Earth. There isn't even a "normal" one. Humans, if we continue to exist as a species for another million years, will experience states of the Earth that will look very alien to us, and they'll like it that way because that's what they'll be used to. The problem for us right now is the rate of change is beyond what we would experience as economic *stress*, and well beyond the levels that triggered mass extinctions in the geologic past.
Re: (Score:1)
bit of an exaggeration, but let's assume it's exactly right. It's irrelevant. The conditions in the Archaen Eon or the Cretaceous Period tell us nothing about what would be good for *us* and the other species that currently inhabit the Earth. What matters to species living *now*, including us, is what would is typical of he Quaternary Period. Those are the conditions we've evolved to survive in.
I am not saying we should not geo-engineer the climate to stabilize it. That is a whole other conversation. What I am saying is even if we weren't here, it was never stable to begin with, and would have naturally warmed whether we industrialized or not, because we were born in a relatively cold earth. I was not arguing for what to do about it. You seem to be and I am inclined to agree with you. I dont want my home insurance costs to increase, or have parts of the earth uninhabitable, but I dont think turnin
Re: (Score:2)
This is just wrong.
It's probably not wrong. I'd imagine that the Chicxulub impact caused the climate to change faster. Possibly the Siberian Traps eruption, too. Thing is all of the things I can think of which are likely to be worse all have something in common.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even 5 degrees wouldn't be the end of modern civilization. There are still more than enough room to fit 8 billion people in what would remain the livable areas. The thing most people don't understand is that the problem is that we would be poorer as a whole (not saying some people or even countries wouldn't be richer, but overall mankind would be poorer). And that is compared to if we acted to limit increase by reducing greenhouse gases emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I only hope that the new equilibrium isn't a global plus of 5 degrees centigrade
I would mod you up, but with the new /. changes I have to unblock like 10 sites, I will not do that. :)
But I am certain we will hit 5C in a few decades. In reality we need to stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere now. But with Trump cutting incentives in the US, AI and *crypto I do not see any significant reductions anytime soon.
I heard Trump is trying to jump start nuclear power, but that is too little to late, the US should have followed France and started 40 years ago. Even Germany is now look at nucle
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is dead. It can't compete with renewables and China has proven that you can install vast amounts of it, with storage, and maintain a stable and low cost grid.
If you want to give the US economy a nice boost, incentivize building more renewables and storage. Solar, turbine, and battery factories on a huge scale. Installers all over the country putting it in. Grid upgrades where needed. Lots of jobs, lots of economic activity, and nice upgrades to quality of life for everyone.
Is it better to be up North? (Score:2)
As the world heats up, are we going to see an increased migration of people towards Northern/cooler areas?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
If you're over 60 you probably won't die before the worst of it in classic I got mine fuck you fashion but for everybody else interesting times.
Re: Is it better to be up North? (Score:3)
Combine this with DEI and UBI (Score:2)
Re:The Met Office invents temperature data (Score:5, Informative)
The methodology how this is done is published, the stations are marked accordingly, and if you don't like the methodology, come up with a better way!
What you are doing is simply dishonest, and I would rather believe the Met Office than someone who apparently has not enough information (best case) or is willingly misrepresenting the information he has (which is called lying).
Re:The Met Office invents temperature data (Score:4, Insightful)
The Met Office has zero credibility
As if conspiracy sites like that Daily Sceptic you link to have any.
Re:The Met Office invents temperature data (Score:4, Informative)
Global Warming was always real (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can still limit global temperature rise. If it's too late for 1.5C it might not be too late for 2 or 3C. Which would be a lot better than 5C which would itself be a lot better than 8C.
The way to achieve that is to reduce (or at the very least limit increase) of greenhouse gases emissions. Now, what is the best way to do that? We don't know. That is the software equivalent of premature optimization. It's best left to the market, through either a carbon tax or a cap and trade scheme. The result will likely
Re: (Score:1)
Except we do know what the best result is. Germany has spent 500 billion euros on renewables and failed. Their electricty is dirtier per kWh than Texas.
There are zero examples of a country deep decarbonize with just solar and wind. Zero. Given Germany's failure it is wise to pursue nuclear energy.
France deep decarbonized their electrical grid decades ago, and they spent a fraction of what Germany did.
Leaving things to the market is what lead us to 80% fossil fuels.
Re:Global Warming was always real (Score:4, Insightful)
Except we do know what the best result is. Germany has spent 500 billion euros on renewables and failed. Their electricty is dirtier per kWh than Texas.
Let see (source: wikipedia)
Texas:
In 2023, the electrical energy generation mix was 51.1% natural gas, 22.2% wind, 13.2% coal, 7.5% nuclear, 5.1% solar, 0.4% other gases, 0.2% biomass, 0.2% hydroelectric and 0.1% other sources.
Germany:
In 2023, 55% of energy produced was from renewable energy sources, a 6.6 percentage-point increase from 2022.[6] Within the 55%, 31.1% was attributed to wind, 12.1% to solar, 8.4% to biomass and the remaining 3.4% to hydropower and other renewables.
So Germany has about 26% coal and 10% gas. Texas is 51% gas and 13% coal. Not sure which one is dirtier. So I asked ChatGPT. https://chatgpt.com/share/6837... [chatgpt.com]
Its answer is that Germany is cleaner compared to Texas (371 g CO2/kWh compared to 400-500 for Texas). Let say they are pretty comparable.
But of course, Texans consume (and waste) a lot more electricity and energy in general compared to Germany.
Leaving things to the market is what lead us to 80% fossil fuels.
Only because we allowed pollution costs to be externalized. It doesn't have to be that way. The UK successfully got rid of coal power plants. Other countries can as well. That might be using nuclear but we don't know that. It's not because nuclear made in the 1970s than it still is. Anyways, the solution is simple. Just tax carbon and whatever is the winner replacement technology will win. Market forces work, as long as you use them properly.
Again if you want to compare Germany to Texas, it's 7.7 vs 25 tons of CO2 emitted per person per year overall. It's not all about the electricity, especially not per kWh. The goal is not to produce as much energy as possible, but to get the best standards of living as possible. Emitting too much CO2 reduces standards of living of mankind as a whole.
Backtesting results (Score:1)
Breaking news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Excepting the core predictions. The heating up part (India is hitting the wet-bulb as predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]), the melting glaciers (as predicted https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]), the ocean rise (as predicted https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09... [cnn.com]), the weather pattern changes, etc. You point to outrageous fiction like The Day After Tomorrow and missed the science. It's ok, the adults deal with reality while you post nonsense.
The actual report (Score:2)
Look 90+ Millions miles away (Score:1)
Heck, I could have predicted that.... (Score:2)
This is false (Score:1)