Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth

2025 Will Be World's Second or Third-Hottest Year on Record, EU Scientists Say (reuters.com) 43

Posted by msmash from the worrying-signs dept.
This year is set to be the world's second or third-warmest on record, potentially surpassed only by 2024'S record-breaking heat, the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said on Tuesday. From a report: The data is the latest from C3S following last month's COP30 climate summit, where governments failed to agree to substantial new measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reflecting strained geopolitics as the U.S. rolls back its efforts, and some countries seek to weaken CO2-cutting measures.

This year will also likely round out the first three-year period in which the average global temperature exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial period, when humans began burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale, C3S said in a monthly bulletin. "These milestones are not abstract -- they reflect the accelerating pace of climate change," said Samantha Burgess, strategic lead for climate at C3S.

2025 Will Be World's Second or Third-Hottest Year on Record, EU Scientists Say More | Reply

2025 Will Be World's Second or Third-Hottest Year on Record, EU Scientists Say

Comments Filter:

  • only 2nd or 3rd? (Score:3)

    by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2025 @04:48PM (#65846891)

    Come on, just 2nd or 3rd? You can do better, next year we'll be #1 again!

  • Thermometers are a Democrat hoax (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Have you ever, while reading the bible, noticed a character comparing the weather to a previous year's weather? Hell no. So why are you doing that in contemporary times? You don't need thermometers and you don't need memories of previous years. Quit fooling yourself with Satan's Instruments!

    • Don't blame Trump! for all of his bs and bluster, we are not drilling more, the saudi's are simply flooding the market with oil, the purpose, I suspect, is to bankrupt American oil companies. They have gone bankrupt before, and will again, no biggie.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by BranMan ( 29917 )

        Proof positive we elected an idiot. Smart play is to ban drilling, shut down all oil production, and sit on our reserves. Let the rest of the world drain all its oil supplies, in competition with each other. THEN, when everyone else is tapped out, OWN the worlds petroleum markets as a monopoly.

  • Could have waited ... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    ... with this news until the Northeastern US wasn't under a polar vortex forecast.

    Screw the C3S forecasts and CO2 cutting efforts. Throw another lump of coal in the stove, Bob Cratchet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smooth wombat ( 796938 )

      Except part of the reason for the cold is because the warming atmosphere is messing with the air currents which normally keep the cold air north.

      If you have a 5 gallon bucet of cold water and pour in a quart of hot water, that hot water will mix with the cold water causing currents until everything equalizes.

      Same with the atmosphere.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Doesn't matter. That sort of thing is lost on the majority of the public. The climate change folks need to put a better spin on their marketing pitch.

        • The "climate change folks." We are the worst crew of the only inhabited space object we know of. Should we not all be "the climate change folks?"
          • Seems like the general thinking is, "Fuck this place; we'll go to Mars when stuff gets bad." Like we can just be-bop on over and populate Mars whenever. We're not very smart.
          • How about being anti pollution? Is that a radical concept?
        • The climate change folks did try to put a better spin on their marketing pitch, they changed the name from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change.'

          They made it sound less ominous. So now no one cares. it's a marketing failure.

      • Unfortunately your analogy isn't correct. Hot and cold water don't mix unless you force them to mix or the density differences pushed them against each other. The hot will attempt to rise to the top, the cold to the bottom. It's a physical property exploited by tank water heaters to get more heating power out than gets put in by heating different areas of the water tank differently at different times knowing that the fresh cold water added at the bottom won't mix with the hot. Your bucket example upside dow

  • Time for Slashdot to wake up. Along with the Copernicus Climate Change Service.

    Rightly or wrongly the vast majority of the world's nations don't believe in any kind of climate crisis. They don't believe there is any 'accelerating rate of climate change'. They don't believe anything much is going on. This includes the ones whose emissions are greatest and fastest growing. And even within the nations whose political leadership does still claim to believe in it, their populations increasingly do not.

    Then y

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by frenchgates ( 531731 )
      Whether or not you refuse to accept climate change, fossil fuels cause all kinds of other empirically obvious damage to the biosphere. Eliminating that incredible poison, toxic in every stage of its extraction, use, and disposal, to the extent feasible is an obvious priority.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Budenny ( 888916 )

        "Eliminating that incredible poison, toxic in every stage of its extraction, use, and disposal, to the extent feasible is an obvious priority"

        My point, which none of the replies address, is: who is it a priority for? Only for the countries that are doing about 5% of global emissions. Whether we believe there is a climate crisis or not, 95% of the world doesn't, and are acting accordingly.

        What people in the English speaking countries need to recognize is that the world is not going to lower emissions. Th

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Local ID10T ( 790134 )

      Rightly or wrongly the vast majority of the world's nations don't believe in any kind of climate crisis. They don't believe there is any 'accelerating rate of climate change'. They don't believe anything much is going on.

      Reality does not care whether you believe in it or not. Change is happening. People are making it worse.

      In a few generations things are going to be unrecognizable. Floods, droughts, famine, disease, and wars over increasingly limited resources. They are already happening, but they will intensify.

      Ignore it if you wish. You will be dead long before it gets bad.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ZipNada ( 10152669 )

      >> First, there is no crisis.

      Obvious lie.

    • If you really want to safeguard your population against the supposed climate crisis, do something that is achievable and effective if achieved.

      OK, good idea. What do you propose?

      • Thermonuclear war. It is achievable today and very effective at reducing the number of people affected by the climate.
    • Reality doesn’t need anyone to believe it for it to be true. It just is. Politically and economically people can pretend and deny, but that doesn’t change the facts on the ground. It just means the reckoning will be far, far worse when the it comes. It means more people will suffer and die. It’s like people are actively, subconsciously, or even just incidentally trying to bring on an armageddon to the human race.

      The planet will be fine. It’s not going anywhere. But our worldwide c

    • Then you have to look at the measures proposed by those of the activist persuasion.

      Well yeah. There's a lot of money to be made in activism! Thing is, though, that in order to keep your spot at the trough, you have to always have something to complain about. Optimistically, we're seeing push back as people get wise to the scam. "First they came for the incandescent lights, then they came for the gas stoves and furnaces, then they came for the beef..."

  • Dooooom! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Daina.0 ( 7328506 )

    I just laugh at these clowns predicting climate disasters because their models have all been wrong. Not just by a little, but by a lot. No connection to reality.

    If it wasn't for the dangerous politicians who leverage the hysteria for political and monetary gain, I would ignore them completely.

    • Re:Dooooom! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sique ( 173459 ) on Tuesday December 09, 2025 @06:40PM (#65847189) Homepage
      The funny bit is that the climate models contained in the 1990 IPPC report have been spot on (after 35 years, we are right in the middle of their prediction range), and all subsequent climate models were underestimating the effects. Apparently exactly those politicians you accuse of hysteria for personal gain were in fact pressuring climate scientist to modify their models and give less hysterical predictions - and they have been wrong, because they systematically underestimated the change.

      But that's no wonder. While the amount of money spend on climate science is about 5 billion dollar a year, just the amount of subsidies given to oil, gas and coal is about 500 billion dollars a year, and no industry wants to lose half a trillion.

    • And if you (and the other climate denialists peddling this idiotic view) actually believed that, then there's a clear route to you becoming very rich. Currently the major reinsurance companies are all pricing in climate change as part of their risk profiles. If climate change isn't real, then the actual risk is much lower than the reinsurers are accounting for. So, why not set up your own reinsurer, undercut the rest of the market, and make billions?

      No, seriously. Why are all the right-wing billionaires
  • Let's at least remove the deception from the title.... It should say "2025 Will Be World's Second or Third-Hottest Year since 1940" since that's the only data they used. There's plenty of data out there showing the earth has been a whole lot hotter in the past. Also, including the line in the article about how 1850 was right before the industrial revolution shows a bias. They could just as easily have said it was the end of the little ice age (or not biased it with either description), but that doesn't fit

Slashdot Top Deals

Modeling paged and segmented memories is tricky business. -- P.J. Denning

Close