World Still On Track For Catastrophic 2.6C Temperature Rise, Report Finds (theguardian.com) 176
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Guardian: The world is still on track for a catastrophic 2.6C increase in temperature as countries have not made sufficiently strong climate pledges, while emissions from fossil fuels have hit a record high, two major reports have found. Despite their promises, governments' new emission-cutting plans submitted for the Cop30 climate talks taking place in Brazil have done little to avert dangerous global heating for the fourth consecutive year, according to the Climate Action Tracker update (PDF).
The world is now anticipated to heat up by 2.6C above preindustrial times by the end of the century -- the same temperature rise forecast last year. This level of heating easily breaches the thresholds set out in the Paris climate pact, which every country agreed to, and would set the world spiraling into a catastrophic new era of extreme weather and severe hardships. A separate report found the fossil fuel emissions driving the climate crisis will rise by about 1% this year to hit a record high, but that the rate of rise has more than halved in recent years. The past decade has seen emissions from coal, oil and gas rise by 0.8% a year compared with 2.0% a year during the decade before. The accelerating rollout of renewable energy is now close to supplying the annual rise in the world's demand for energy, but has yet to surpass it. [...]
The new analyses also show a worrying weakening of the planet's natural carbon sinks. The scientists said the combined effects of global heating and the felling of trees have turned tropical forests in southeast Asia and large parts of South America from overall CO2 sinks into sources of the climate-heating gas. [...] The report projects that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will reach 425ppm (parts per million) in 2025, compared with 280ppm in the preindustrial era. It would have been 8ppm lower if the carbon sinks had not been weakened. The GCP projection for 2025 is based on monthly data up to September and has proven accurate in the previous 19 annual reports.
The world is now anticipated to heat up by 2.6C above preindustrial times by the end of the century -- the same temperature rise forecast last year. This level of heating easily breaches the thresholds set out in the Paris climate pact, which every country agreed to, and would set the world spiraling into a catastrophic new era of extreme weather and severe hardships. A separate report found the fossil fuel emissions driving the climate crisis will rise by about 1% this year to hit a record high, but that the rate of rise has more than halved in recent years. The past decade has seen emissions from coal, oil and gas rise by 0.8% a year compared with 2.0% a year during the decade before. The accelerating rollout of renewable energy is now close to supplying the annual rise in the world's demand for energy, but has yet to surpass it. [...]
The new analyses also show a worrying weakening of the planet's natural carbon sinks. The scientists said the combined effects of global heating and the felling of trees have turned tropical forests in southeast Asia and large parts of South America from overall CO2 sinks into sources of the climate-heating gas. [...] The report projects that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will reach 425ppm (parts per million) in 2025, compared with 280ppm in the preindustrial era. It would have been 8ppm lower if the carbon sinks had not been weakened. The GCP projection for 2025 is based on monthly data up to September and has proven accurate in the previous 19 annual reports.
We will avoid it late and suddenly, or not at all (Score:2)
I don't think we should expect to see steady progress toward a climate solution, I think it's going to happen quite suddenly after some combination of the technology to do it getting cheap enough and the climate producing enough "shit's getting real" moments for a large fraction of the first-world population. At that point either we'll get our asses in gear and set up oceanic and atmospheric carbon sequestration megastructures all over the planet with maybe a little SRM sprinkled on top, or we'll be too dis
Re: (Score:2)
We'll be wondering why there are so many starving refugees before we move a millimeter on the climate change issue. Of course, the longer we wait to act the more expensive and difficult it will be to overcome. But doing things the stupidest and laziest way possible is a bit of a pattern with us.
Re: We will avoid it late and suddenly, or not at (Score:2)
There is now only one way to "deal with it" and it is a massive war.
It is in the making, too.
A slight nuclear winter leaving 50-100 million in small pockets here and there is how it will all end.
At least we saw the best years of the huge manatee.
Re: (Score:2)
They will be coming to crop shortages in North America and Europe. So I don't think you get it.
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe if we stop the casual "otherism" from people like you, we can learn that people are just people and we should probably learn to get along rather than be divisive assholes living on the flawed premise of "I got mine because I was lucky enough to be born in a rich country, fuck everyone else."
It will happen before 2100. (Score:2, Interesting)
The cascading effects have already kicked in. Which means that the more "pessimistic" scientists were right. Or at least more right than others. Those target numbers always seemed a little lenient to me anyway.
Its NOT Stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is not that we are stupid, its that we are selfish and short-sighted. The current problems are easily manageable. They have no impact at all on most of us. In fact, you can even make some money off them and people do.
There is NO money to be made telling people they are going to need to change their lifestyle whether they like it or not. That Bill Gates can't fly in his private jet even if he can afford it. Much less that no one can use commercial airlines any more. Force auto companies to immed
"easy manageable" (Score:2)
Considering what you are saying we are heading towards a 4 degree C increase, I can not understand how you think even 2.6 is manageable. Have you read anything about what that actually means?
I can agree that people are short sighted but are you not the worst offender here?
ICE vehicles? (Score:2)
EVs arn't exactly carbon neutral - it takes years for them to break even wrt a similar ICE for total lifecycle emissions.
If you want to get people - in cities at least - out of their cars improve public transport.
Re: (Score:2)
And what about those of us that buy an EV and then drive it emissions-free for 10+ years? Especially those of us that "fuel" the EV with renewable energy from the grid or otherwise?
Seems that goes over the "break even" threshold you criticize, while ICE cars just keep pumping out the carbon as a course of normal operation as long as they are in the fleet.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems that goes over the "break even" threshold
That is comparing manufacturing, selling and using an EV compared to manufacturing, selling and using a new ICE vehicle. But compared to not manufacturing and selling either one there is no "break even" point ever. If the choice is a buying and using a used ICE car or a new EV, buying the used ICE car will result in fewer emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get people - in cities at least - out of their cars improve public transport.
I agree. Along walking, biking and land use laws and other changes to get people to live closer to their destinations.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not that we are stupid, its that we are selfish and short-sighted. The current problems are easily manageable. They have no impact at all on most of us. In fact, you can even make some money off them and people do.
There is NO money to be made telling people they are going to need to change their lifestyle whether they like it or not. That Bill Gates can't fly in his private jet even if he can afford it. Much less that no one can use commercial airlines any more. Force auto companies to immediately stop producing ICE vehicles because every one of them is going to produce emissions until it stops running? Ain't going to happen.
Suggest that economic growth is a bad thing. That it makes dealing with climate change impossible. See how many people will even consider the question.
Fine. We’ll be extra stupid and have an even Greater Depression instead to force-fuck a reset out of the economy. Or maybe yet another World War is in order. We always have a “solution” for Greed fucking up. Moar Greed fucking up bigly biggest.
Climate change? Hell, we can’t even slow progress because stock price. Were not even at the point of Mother Nature needing to be acknowledged.
Re: (Score:2)
For as articulate as your comments are, I'm surprised you think that's why Elon Musk got burned.
Re: (Score:2)
> That's not a "greed is good" Gordon Gekko speech
You say this, but then you say this:
> but because money is how we keep account of the things we do eat
If you think people should be able to coordinate the economy and grow/create the things they want, such as food, what you are saying is that greed is good. Wanting to be alive and having things to eat is greed; all wants and "needs" are just greed after all.
Its a political question; given the earths unknown but certainly finite ability to support huma
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no profit in lowering CO2 emissions then it won't happen.
End of discussion.
pointing to the biological need for more out than it put in for anything we do is vital for life.
Which is completely fallacious. Biological systems are sustainable. The laws of physics tell us you can't get more out than you put in. Profit is just our way of distributing whatever excess is temporarily left over. In this context its pretty simple. Telling Bill Gates he can't fly around in a private jet will reduce emissions. There is no biological barrier to doing that. People survived for a long time without flying anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
"easily manageable" = we just need to fundamentally change everything about everything and we'll be fine!
No "easily manageable" means that at this point you can just turn the air conditioning up when it gets hot. It will just cost you a little more. The current effects of global warming are trivial for most people. I was not suggesting that they would remain that way. To the contrary. The biggest climate deniers are the people who claim we can prevent those catastrophic future impacts without making any real changes to people's lives.
Moreover the dis-junction between the scale of the predicted calamitous futu
2.6C is the optimistic scenario (Score:2, Interesting)
We are hitting more and more negative feedback loops. It will not stop at 2.6C.
Re: (Score:3)
Negative feedback dampens. Positive feedback reinforces.
Re: (Score:2)
0.6 too much (Score:2)
The catastrophe begins already at 2.0 degrees C.
That's when our food supply is going to start break down.
Re: (Score:2)
1.5 was already a stretch goal we didn't want to reach.
We can stop it! (Score:2, Informative)
We just need massively higher taxes, fewer rights, and a lower standard of living. Are you doing your part?
Re:We can stop it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a much easier way. Cut all fossil fuel subsidies, direct and indirect, to zero. End corporate welfare. Let people pay the actual, unsubsidized price, and you'll see things change pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Let people pay the actual, unsubsidized price, and you'll see things change pretty quickly.
Indeed, that would be fixed the very next election.
Re: (Score:2)
I already have the higher taxes from living in Oregon, and the fewer rights due to this federal administration. Can I have fewer $10B storms?
Re: (Score:2)
No, storms will by the same or greater.
I'm quite certain we've already solved this. (Score:5, Interesting)
First off: I'm not a climate change denier. Secondly: I do worry about the current US administration that seems to be entirely unhinged.
However, I think climate change is a solved problem, it's just the implementation that takes a bit of time. Thing is, solar panels have gotten dirt cheap. Battery prices are also plummeting. The cheapest electricity you can get at the moment is .. solar. It pays itself back within a relatively short time period. It's an upfront investment - but the return on investment is so massive that it just makes sense to build it out.
Which is why China has been doing exactly that for some years now. Which is why India is investing massively. Which is why Chile is building out in the Atacama desert. Which is why southern europe has built out quite a bit. Which is why Australia has built out massively. .. and which is why we're now seeing Africa importing quite massive amount of solar panels.
Of course, the objections about "what to do when the sun don't shine?" is entierly valid. The answer to that question, however, is batteries. Those prices are also plummeting. I expect to replace the batteries I bought in 2020 in about 2030 - and pay the same price for twice the capacity. They'll be cheaper in reality - due to inflation.
China is currently generating about 20% of their needs from wind+solar. We only need to go 5 years back for that to be less than 5%. In another 5 years, I'll be very surprised if they haven't reached 35-40%.
There's of course the problem of grid inertia. Grid-following is nowhere near as good as grid forming. We do, however, have the technology to fix that too. From flywheels to grid-forming inverters.
Give it 2-3 more years and "everyone" will see that it's solved. Give it 5-6 years and we'll be "on schedule". Give it 10 years and we'll all be surprised that we're ahead of schedule.
And we won't even need government incentives. It'll just be everyone doing what makes economic sense. Unless actively sabotaged through tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers! (Score:2)
AI escalation (Score:2)
Humans Burn Down Civilization (Score:2)
News at Eleven.
Re:Estimates based on conjecture (Score:5, Informative)
Seems you have no clue how Science actually works. You know what would happen to climate scientists that did what you claim? Loss of job, in bad cases loss of their PhD. You know why you do not read about that happening? Because these people do not do it. All published and peer-reviewed models say pretty much the same, and hence one being radically different would be immediately obvious ans subjected to intense scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems you have no clue how Science actually works.
It seems to me you have no clue about how human beings work. Science has the same politics as everywhere else. If someone makes a discovery that makes a bunch of people's life work of dubious value they dispute the new discovery. Thus ...
All published and peer-reviewed models say pretty much the same, and hence one being radically different would be immediately obvious ans subjected to intense scrutiny.
And anything that supports those models won't be.
Right now a new study that shows global warming being worse than expected will be accepted. A study that suggests its not going to be that bad will be immediately questioned along with the credentials and bias of the researc
Re:Estimates based on conjecture (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you are the ignorant one here because you want to justify your denial. Because scientists are aware they are just human, there are a lot of safeguards in place. The first one being the scientific principle. But I guess you lack insight into what that actually does and why it was created.
Global warming is a settled issue but we are spending millions of dollars on studies to confirm it on the theory that what is lacking is proof.
This nicely illustrates how deep your ignorance goes. This is not why these studies are done. The reason they are done is to refine and get more detail. That will be invaluable for evaluating the impact of things that could still be done and to prepare for the effects.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not .hy these studies are done. The reason they are done is to refine and get more detail. That will be invaluable for evaluating the impact of things that could still be done and to prepare for the effects.
Your assertion that this information is actionable is totally unsupported by any evidence.
And its pure bullshit to suggest science requires it.
All science requires is intellectual curiosity and someone to pay the scientist to satisfy it. Like all intellectual endeavors it is knowledge for its own sake. That does not mean it ISN'T useful. But a blanket defense of any science as having some specific use without any evidence of that specific use is plain stupid.
But what we have here is a specific study tha
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion that this information is actionable is totally unsupported by any evidence.
Only by any evidence you have seen. Which seems to be none at all, as you so conveniently state. And that is because you have not looked. Really, all you are doing is showing how incapable you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists live and die by objectivity.
If a scientist does their job properly by assembling un-arguable evidence of their hypothesis / claim, then that becomes an accepted hypothesis / claim.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about - scientists are not "go along to get along" types - they have hypotheses and test them. And if the tests result in data that correlates with the hypothesis, they write papers and publish them in order to get other people looking at the work and either punching holes in i
Re: (Score:2)
scientists are not "go along to get along" types
No more or less than anybody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're agreeing with this:
ProTip: you are, as you said the same thing in a different way.
It's true that when you build a broad consensus over years through research, theory refinement, and accumulation of a wealth of supporting data, and then someone comes along out of the blue with a single study or other idea that contradicts all that, you're going to immediately question it. If it's a politically charged topic or you have other reason to think the newcomer has an agenda around deliberately sowing uncertainty, you might look into their credentials and evidence of bias. That's all part of th
Re: (Score:2)
Its not clear that everyone playing the game of science can overpower their instinct to win by any means necessary,
Well I agree. There are and always will be bad actors in science like anything else. I've never heard a scientist deny that this can happen.
Until this connection is broken, science will be flawed and untrustworthy
I'm just not understanding this conclusion though. It's quite a jump.
Re: (Score:2)
It will always be flawed. "Untrustworthy" I guess depends on what you're trusting it to do.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Ptolemic geocentrism was peer-reviewed at the time and all the Cool Kids had reached "consensus." Then stupid Galileo had to come around and say no, heliocentricity is where it's at. The power-that-be didn't like that at all and crushed his research, banned his books, and basically cancelled him.
Not much has changed, has it?
The power-that-be at that time was an institution that was part church, part international political power broker. Galileo simultaneously stepped on both of those feet, by both questioning religious dogma and publicly thumbing his nose at authority figures.
Your suggestion that 17th century religious dogma is comparable to modern "peer-reviewed" scientific "consensus" seems a bit of a stretch.
Not much has changed, has it?
In the world of scientific thought, an enormous amount has changed since the Renaissance.
In the world of political g
Re:Estimates based on conjecture (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupidity is more dangerous than evil.
Stupidity is a social phenomenon that arises when people surrender independent thinking.
This often results from group pressure and ideologies, specifically authoritarianism.
A stupid person repeats slogans and borrowed ideas (such as labels).
Stupidity is immune to evidence; stupid people react with anger or dismissal.
Stupid people believe that they are righteous, and are therefore more dangerous than deliberately evil people. Note: a sense of violated righteousness is often considered to be a root of anger.
Evil can be exposed, but one cannot argue with stupidity.
Stupidity grows when power concentrates.
Stupid people become passive, seek belonging, and avoid responsibility.
Reason doesn’t work against stupid people; debate reinforces divides and defenses.
Th only remedy for stupidity is to restore independence, reduce fear, and encourage responsibility.
Societies fall not from evil’s strength but from stupidity’s compliance.
Bonhoeffer’s warning to humanity: protect environments that support critical thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates is still flying because he'll be worm food before the shit starts hitting the fan. At least we'll always have that one emoji to remember him.
A better example would be to look at what younger climate activists are doing. Anybody checked up on that Greta girl lately?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
she's in prison in israel
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
she's in prison in israel
They deported her back to Sweden. It seems like lately she's more concerned with her pro-Palestine efforts than environmental activism. Honestly, it strikes me as an odd pivot since climate change is a global issue - people not getting along in the middle east is just business as usual.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of her climate action is based around justice. The big emitters are causing huge problems for people in the developing world. The yearly CO2 output of the EU or US is bigger than the total all-time emissions of many African nations, for example.
So naturally, other justice issues like genocide are of interest to her. There is also the fact that Israel is stealing Palestinian oil.
Re: Bill Gates is still flying (Score:2)
How about you wake up now?
Justice or not, China is pretty much doing its homework [asiatimes.com] and then some, on renewable energy and CO2 reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
he'll be worm food before the shit starts hitting the fan.
He was never going to be in front of that fan anyway. But the point wasn't really Bill Gates. The point was that despite the lack of any real progress in reducing emissions, we aren't even able to take the most trivial actions to force people to stop adding emissions to the pile.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if people were at least honest about it. But instead they push lie after lie and that makes things a lot worse. On the plus side, we are learning how incapable humans are, both as individuals and as groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates no longer cares about "climate change" because AI is the new hotness.
You can't build massive numbers of new power plants if you're banning CO2 because of your last round of scare stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we still talking about climate change again ?
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates is also saying humanity will continue to thrive (his exact word) with any of the coming climate changes.
Have you forgotten that billionaires have bunkers?
Thrive is relative. If we depopulate significantly, without triggering a nuclear war, it may "not lead to humanity's demise" (to use a few more of his exact words). Extinction is always possible but there are perhaps too many people throwing that word around. The probable scenarios all involve significant human suffering though.
Why are we still talking about climate change again ?
Because avoiding mass suffering is important to some people, and the topic of TFA that you clicked on.
Re:Bill Gates is still flying (Score:4, Informative)
Let's be real here. If Bill stopped flying and become a hermit living off foraged berries it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for the climate impact of humanity. We need larger changes and those sorts of changes can't be done by individuals, government regulation is needed. Unfortunately the Republicans either are too stupid to believe in climate change or realize they'll be dead so can benefit from short term profits by ignoring it
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be real here. If Bill stopped flying and become a hermit living off foraged berries it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket for the climate impact of humanity
Yes, lets be real here. Everything anyone does is a drop in the bucket.
government regulation is needed.
So you make private jets illegal. That's a slightly larger drop. Then you make personal airline travel of all kinds illegal or extremely rare. That is a lot of larger drop. Then you ban the manufacture of internal combustion engines. Then you require that people only charge their EV's when there is a surplus of emission free power. Then ration the amount of emissions created by energy people use in their homes and offices. Limit the size
Re:nothi (Score:5, Interesting)
the tip of the iceberg
In 100 years nobody will know what this means because icebergs won't exist.
Re:nothi (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a kid, we were going to run out of oil by the year 2000 and nuclear fusion was only twenty years ago.
Now we have governments telling us we can't burn all the oil we still have because of the dreaded CO2 and fusion is still only twenty years away.
All these forecasts are nonsense.
Re:nothi (Score:4, Informative)
Ignore governments. Ignore Al Gore. Ignore the theatrics.
Scientists have been warning us for 150 years that carbon will do stupid things to the climate, and so far climate predictions have been pretty much spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that if estimations are not 100% correct when they are made, they should never be revised as new challenges and more context is revealed?
This makes you a myopic idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well usable fusion being just 20-30 years away did happen and is still happening. I guess at some point they will even be right!
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
I think it’s probably now about 15 to 20 years [away],” says University of Cambridge nuclear engineer Tony Roulstone, who wasn’t involved in the Wendelstein experiments. “The superconducting magnets [that the researchers are using to contain the plasma] are making the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because new challenges are never discovered while you are building a thing that's never been built before.
You sound like someone that has never been involved with an engineering effort in your entire life.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will about Epstein, he never gave anyone black lung disease.
Re:Epstein files (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
On the one hand, coal is thousands of jobs and voters, on the other, the worst polluting, poorest energy producing and biggest dumping of radioactive waste on consumers of any power. GO BIG COAL GO BIG COAL. MAGA, MAGA. Yeah, f*** that, I skipped pep rallies in high school by hiding in the physics lab for this very reason.
Re: (Score:3)
42,600 jobs - about 0.02% of the US workforce.
https://www.investopedia.com/n... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the fixation that people have with cherishing coal as some paragon
Re: (Score:2)
It's noble because it's hard work and dangerous (e.g. collapse, explosions, black lung disease). It's the foundation of industrialization and without it we would still be an agrarian society.
Of course it's all changed now. Coal mining is heavily mechanized and workers do use PPE, but that's not the image in the majority's heads.
Coal mining is also a primary sector, which means it can prop up entire mining towns with its income. Hospitals can't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I rarely defend China, am deeply suspicious of their government & deplore the huge ramp in polluting coal plants they built in the early years of their expansion.
Were it up to me i would have taken a 5-10 years longer and built them all with the best available tech at the time.
but since them, and at least 10 years past by this point, China has enacted pollutions controls on coal plants that are on par with the most stringent in the West, at least in places where new coal is still allowed.
in addition th
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, coal is expensive. Solar is cheap. If the US goes all in on coal, oil, gas, etc. - she'll lose.
China has built out massive amount of solar and wind, and hunkering down on batteries. That means they get massive amounts of essentially free electricity.
If the US hunkers down on labour intensive, expensive, polluting stuff - then all the worse for her.
Re: Good News... (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, it is not a 4C rise... Yet.
But with the new policies of the trumpistan that goal is now also within easy reach.
The old people have doomed the future - they've always tried, but this is the first time they had the technological means to make it happen.
Good jorb, I guess.
Re: Good News... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure if we continue to apply the fundamental principles of "greed", "arrogance", "selfishness" and "stupidity", we can make 4C or even more!
Re: (Score:2)
The troll moderation is a sure sign of that.
Re: Good News... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Good News... (Score:2)
Just an idea. Maybe understand that youâ(TM)re going to need people who work from science based principles who are inside âoeTrumpistanâ to both help prevent and mitigate future climate problems.
Letâ(TM)s start by getting everything nuclear powered.
Need a scientific register of this (Score:2)
The scientific researchers need to make a register for this with year, prediction, agency/researcher making the prediction, funding sources, links to research data and paper that the estimate is based on.
There's no real way to follow-up on past predictions to separate the ones which are doing research and the grifters who have an incentive to parrot the most doom and gloom predictions to bump up their non-profit's funding source, their personal reputation, sell their books/consulting, etc.
It's about the sci
Re: (Score:2)
New Dacia Sandero launching soon?
Re: (Score:2)
Until it ends up underwater.
Re: this is getting old (Score:4, Informative)
You must live a sheltered life in your long dead mom's basement.
Literally everywhere things have gone from bad to worse.
New deserts are forming apace in Southern Europe and in Central Europe snow is now a rarity.
Asia is turning into a sweltering hell in the summers, India is enjoying gulf-desert temperatures.
Tree species are dying out, and with them all the wildlife they hosted.
Model projections of the 90s (30 years ago) have been proven correct:
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-... [phys.org]
Lucky you who have no kids and grandkids to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just lying. 45 in spain last summer, never ever seen before. Records are broken every year. Come on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Southern Europe, I have no idea what you are talking about.
The beauty of personal anecdotes on a planet of 8 billion people is you can say just about anything and maybe it's true for you but it has little bearing on the situation. Have you looked at any aggregated data for your region? The EU has lots, for example here's a simple picture showing an increase of about .3-.5 C per decade since the 60s. And we know from other evidence that that number is accelerating. And we know that with that increased average comes even higher peaks like some days we saw last su
Re: (Score:2)
of course I forgot the link because that's the kind of guy I am: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/a... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit of Googling (which you could have done, were you so inclined) suggests Barcelona and Majorca [euronews.com].
And before you say "they're not deserts yet", he did say "forming apace", not "currently here" so don't strawman him (but hey, maybe I'm strawmanning you). For evidence of "forming apace" you can look at the data in the study linked from the above article - already measured decreased overall rainfall, and increased droughts on top of that (ie: all the rain is concentrated in one time period, aka floods).
Of cou
Re: (Score:2)
He made a whole list of claims there, I do wish he'd cited some sources. Though you can easily google "Climate change in spain" or "desertification in spain" and get some specific data on what has happened, and what is projected in the next couple of decades. You can learn about specifically what the processes are and how human activity (global production of greenhouse gasses, and local activity like agriculture) contribute to the expansion of deserts.
My point is that it's possible to learn about the caus
Re: this is getting old (Score:2)
Two trolls with the same line.
Why am I not surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Central Europe. You seem to be a bit confused.
The beauty of personal anecdotes on a planet of 8 billion people is you can say just about anything and maybe it's true for you but it has little bearing on the situation. Have you looked at any aggregated data for your region? The EU has lots, for example here's a simple picture showing an increase of about .3-.5 C per decade since the 60s. And we know from other evidence that that number is accelerating. And we know that with that increased average comes even higher peaks like some days we saw last summer
Re: (Score:2)
of course I forgot the link because that's the kind of guy I am: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/a... [europa.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
one persons thorn is anothers blackberry. Areas like northern USA, Canada and Russian Siberia are headed for a climate golden age...
I see from the comments that we've hit a new stage in climate change denialism.
Stage 1: Denial of warming: Denying that the climate is changing at all.
Stage 2: Denial of human influence: Admitting the climate is changing but denying that humans are causing it.
Stage 3: Denial of impact: Admitting human causation, but claiming the impact will be insignificant.
Stage 4: Denial of solutions: Admitting that it's real, we're causing it and that it will be significant, but denying that there is anything w
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I forgot to add: Stage 6 is the dumbest and most short-sighted one yet. It only works by ignoring the large regions of the world which will become unlivable, or nearly so, and the fact that those regions are home to billions of people. Those people won't just lay down and die, so the areas that are still livable -- and maybe even more comfortable! -- with warmer temperatures are going to have to deal with the resulting refugee flood, and the wars caused by this vast population upheaval and relocation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're pro-pollution?
Why is it a bad thing to try to keep plastics out of the environment? What purpose could you possibly have in mocking such efforts?
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wee Wee Men!