Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth

Earth is Warming Faster Than Ever. But Why? (msn.com) 114

Posted by EditorDavid from the we're-having-a-heat-wave dept.
"Global temperatures have been rising for decades," reports the Washington Post. "But many scientists say it's now happening faster than ever before." According to a Washington Post analysis, the fastest warming rate on record occurred in the last 30 years. The Post used a dataset from NASA to analyze global average surface temperatures from 1880 to 2025. "We're not continuing on the same path we had before," said Robert Rohde, chief scientist at Berkeley Earth. "Something has changed...." Temperatures over the past decade have increased by close to 0.27 degrees C per decade — about a 42 percent increase...

For decades, a portion of the warming unleashed by greenhouse gas emissions was "masked" by sulfate aerosols. These tiny particles cause heart and lung disease when people inhale polluted air, but they also deflect the sun's rays. Over the entire planet, those aerosols can create a significant cooling effect — scientists estimate that they have canceled out about half a degree Celsius of warming so far. But beginning about two decades ago, countries began cracking down on aerosol pollution, particularly sulfate aerosols. Countries also began shifting from coal and oil to wind and solar power. As a result, global sulfur dioxide emissions have fallen about 40 percent since the mid-2000s; China's emissions have fallen even more. That effect has been compounded in recent years by a new international regulation that slashed sulfur emissions from ships by about 85 percent.

That explains part of why warming has kicked up a bit. But some researchers say that the last few years of record heat can't be explained by aerosols and natural variability alone. In a paper published in the journal Science in late 2024, researchers argued that about 0.2 degrees C of 2023's record heat — or about 13 percent — couldn't be explained by aerosols and other factors. Instead, they found that the planet's low-lying cloud cover had decreased — and because low-lying clouds tend to reflect the sun's rays, that decrease warmed the planet... That shift in cloud cover could also be partly related to aerosols, since clouds tend to form around particles in the atmosphere. But some researchers also say it could be a feedback loop from warming temperatures. If temperatures warm, it can be harder for low-lying clouds to form.

If most of the current record warmth is due to changing amounts of aerosol pollution, the acceleration would stop once aerosol pollutants reach zero — and the planet would return to its previous, slower rate of warming. But if it's due to a cloud feedback loop, the acceleration is likely to continue — and bring with it worsening heat waves, storms and droughts.
"Scientists thought they understood global warming," reads the Post's original headline. "Then the past three years happened."

Just last month Nuuk, Greenland saw temperatures over 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average, their article points out. And "Parts of Australia, meanwhile, have seen temperatures push past 120 degrees Fahrenheit amid a record heat wave..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Earth is Warming Faster Than Ever. But Why? More

Earth is Warming Faster Than Ever. But Why?

Comments Filter:

  • It's The Sun's Fault (Score:4, Funny)

    by SlashbotAgent ( 6477336 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @02:38PM (#65989016)

    All the global warming, all of it, is coming directly from the Sun.

    We've got to put the Sun out, before it kills us all and destroys the planet.

    Out with the Sun!

    • Good luck there, space cadet.

    • Well, there are people who want to block a part of the sun from earth in order to slow down this "heating". Well, let's see what happens once they do it!

      • Who has standing to sue the sun? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by shanen ( 462549 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @03:35PM (#65989110) Homepage Journal

        I like the opening joke of the discussion. On your idea, I sort of like the idea of orbital mirrors that could be rotated as needed. For example, street lighting in cities done in a quite sustainable and inexpensive way. However when you start doing it at a large scale to play games with the weather, then I think it would require much better weather and climate modeling than we currently have, and possibly better than is possible since the so-called "butterfly effects" can never be fully accounted for.

        So reverting to my solution obsession, I think we're in pert' big trouble. Much more than a fail to communicate between various cesspools of the vanities, but rather a fundamental breakdown in the solution process. My newest short formulation is that we have made a LOT of changes even during my lifetime, and some of those changes have created problems that are rising to existential levels. We need more changes to fix those problems, but the people with power and resources to push for solutions are unwilling. They profited greatly from creating the problems and they are now most focused on blocking any changes that would threaten their "supreme" power and resources. The worst of them would even explicitly argue that the biggest problem is their personal need for more, More, MORE, but I would argue that is a fake problem with no conceivable solution.

        (Just came across an interesting variation in a book I am reading:

        To Marcel Duchamp's blithe "There is no solution, because there is no problem," the Japanese visual artist Shigeko Kubota replied, "There is no problem, because there is no solution."

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by spitzak ( 4019 )

          Mirrors in space are not usable for lighting. The sun is not a point, it occupies an angle of view, and the spread of the light from the mirror to the earth's surface will have the same angle. The mirror therefore has to be really large.

          It does seem like a worthwhile thing to consider is small mirrors that are designed to block sunlight. They would look like a diffuse clould from the earth. The primary advantage is that if they have any kind of thrusters on them they can quickly re-orient to increase or dec

          • Re:Who has standing to sue the sun? (Score:4)

            by Uecker ( 1842596 ) on Sunday February 15, 2026 @02:47AM (#65989958)

            I find it rather absurd to even consider anything orbital or flying as a solution. This seems based on a grotesque misjudgement of scale and economics. What needs to be done is known very well: Massive and quick rollout of renewables in combination with more efficient and smarter use of energy.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by shanen ( 462549 )

            Let me be clear that I am NOT advocating for this. More of a fantasy triggered by too much SF in my youth. I still read some, but either I or the SF world has gone kind of dark recently...

            However what I was imagining is basically a large loop with a thin reflective film stretched across it. There would be a control module with gyroscopes in the middle, and the angle of the mirror would be controlled by spinning the gyroscopes in the opposite direction of each desired movement. Solar powered, obviously.

      • Ahh, so this Explains why the USA is wanting to go back to the Dark Ages.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GeekBoy ( 10877 )

        Have we learned NOTHING from Highlander Part 2!?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Well, stratospheric aerosol injection [wikipedia.org] is exactly that. Except it uses gasses and not a solid shield.

    • Suddenly hitting the deadline for Proton decay could bring the Sun's fusion process to a screeching halt. Hopefully there is no proton decay, but I also don't know of a way to prove it can't ever happen.

      • So, you're telling me that there's a chance.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        It would be a half-life like all other random decay, and that's why we even bother looking for events. It's not like an alarm would sound and all protons would just fall apart.

    • You could be onto something here... Earth is currently at the peak of its solar cycle, also calles Solar Cycle 25.

  • Haven't looked haven't done the math, but I believe the ocean's been taking up a lot of heat. It probably slows down as it gets closer to the new balance point.

  • But why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Growlley ( 6732614 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @02:49PM (#65989030)
    short term profit over everything.

    • It's not about short-term profit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @09:31PM (#65989632)
      It's about power. We are going to transition to solar power and the current owners of all the oil are intentionally slowing that transition down so that they can make sure they are the ones who own all the capital and infrastructure and get all of the money generated by it.

      Common Sense dictates that we just have publicly owned solar power since it's literally going to be a universally desired service that has little or no cost beyond the original setup and then some maintenance and recycling.

      But we threw common Sense out the window decades ago when we decided to go all in on reaganism and thatcherism. Or whatever your local equivalent is to pseudocapitalism.

      So instead banks will loan billions and billions of dollars to private individuals so that they own the infrastructure needed for electricity and get to decide where that electricity goes while profiting from it and I suspect they will just default on the loans and we will all get stuck bailing out those two big to fail Banks like we always do.

      Socialize the losses privatize the profits

  • How odd (Score:5, Informative)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @02:58PM (#65989052)

    Almost like scientists were saying there was a tipping point when global temperatures would start climbing. Here’s a handy graph for republicans. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]

    • And with rapid adoption of CARBON NEUTRAL EVs....no wonder.

    • And if you go to the NOAA website to find the year-by-year graph of atmospheric CO2 level [noaa.gov] and match the graph against important dates in the fight against CAGW -- the launch of the UNFCCC, COP1, COP3, the Kyoto Protocol Treaty, COP15, COP21, the Paris Agreement, COP28, and COP30 -- you'll see that all the efforts of all the world governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions have done Sweet Fanny Adams to reverse, or even slow, the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. But, of course, if you follow the pronou

      • Shut the frick up you psychotic autist lying sack of cow dung. You idiots would be blaming everyone but yourselves even if the world were ending tomorrow. Literally narcissists to the core and to your dying breath,

      • Just so we're clear, no matter how many times you guys try and twist the graphs, or come up with half baked theories about why physics wont work in the sky so theres nothing to worry about, physics will still refuse to comply with libertarian ideology.

        We've known about global warming for 150 years now, the evidence continues to stack up. chanting political talismans at it wont change that.

  • ... prevent low lying cloud? Clouds form when theres enough moisture and the temp drops low enough. A one degree increase in average air temps would only push the cloudbase up by 150-200 metres or so, so something more subtle must be going on.

    • Part of the problem is that when it gets hotter in certain places it also gets drier and there is less plant growth. Plants give shade and give off little bits which help form clouds and rain. Reduce plants things get warmer and drier. Deserts expand as things get hotter. If you want things to get cooler it helps to plant things which give shade and also to stop cutting down what forests we already have.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Globally, higher temperatures result in increased humidity, so more clouds. It may be drier in certain places, but it's more than made up for by the rest.

  • monkeys boutta die out (meaning you) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by invisiblefireball ( 10371234 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @03:18PM (#65989080)

    How conveniently we forget.

    The whole and only point of not hitting +2 degrees was to avoid the runaway processes beyond which we could not predict what would happen from our position of ignorance.

    Yes the world's climate is always changing. It does so through some obvious and predictable mechanisms, and some others less obvious. All we knew was the probability of runaway process we did not understand got unacceptably high if we hit +2 through the CO2 mechanism.

    We all know how that played out - the stupid won.

    Flap your jaws if you want, they never mattered anyway

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The whole and only point of not hitting +2 degrees was to avoid the runaway processes beyond which we could not predict what would happen from our position of ignorance.

      Indeed. That process is called "Risk Management" and something most people do not even begin to understand.

      the stupid won.

      Yes. As a species, the human race is incapable on an advanced level. Sometimes that has rather drastic consequences.

  • Just extend the Marco-Rubio-collective-punishment sanctions on Cuba's oil to all countries. Then everyone will just have to get by without oil.

    • Then everyone will just have to get by without oil.

      You do understand that without oil we can't produce fertilizer, plastics, etc... and "getting by without oil" would translate to billions dead, most notably in the developing world that is not food secure? That is, you are actively calling for genocide that would make Hitler blush.

      • You do realise there are other sources of oil than dinosaurs and the remains of 300 million year old rainforests?

  • Positive feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @03:32PM (#65989108) Homepage

    It's called a positive feedback loop. And it will be way more annoying that a squeal from a speaker too close to a mic.

  • also means "burn, baby, burn!".

    Despite attempts to have carbon emissions lowered, that really hasn't happened.

    • Unfortunately, tech needs to look in the mirror. Crypto, ai, and the latest musk crazey, launch 10K annually. Yeah like that isn't going to make some CO2. And now with R's in power, what little CO2 that could have been prevented by using renewables for some of that power, are actively being discouraged/canceled. Burn baby burn may well happen. Life will go on of course. Life is quite resilient. It just may not be human. I thought Dino's liked it hot. Maybe we could do some fancy DNA cloning from the dead to

  • Perhaps if you deploy sufficient compute to truly understand the cause, we might find observer effect?

  • He assured us he got rid of the aliens in The Arrival. But at the end...

    Why was there no sequel, Charlie? Why no follow up?

  • An accelerating feedback loop? That is incon.. er.. umm... as predicted.

  • Dansgaard-Oeschger “D–O signals [10-16C warming events within decades to centuries] are not just seen in Greenland – they are registered globally.” – Liu et al., 2026
    From 57,000 to 29,000 years ago, with Last Glacial atmospheric CO2 concentrations flatlining at ~200 ppm, there were 11 instances when Greenland abruptly warmed by 10-16C within a span of just 50 to 200 years

  • On a geological scale, the earth is still recovering from the last ice-age. The water temperature (which doesn't fluctuate as much as air temperature) of the oceans are still approx 2 degree C below the temperature usually reached 20.000 years or so after the maximum reach of an ice-age. In fact, it has been unusually stable for the last 1500 years. It is therefore reasonable it increase faster for a couple of hundred years once the earth leaves the temporary plateau.

    That said, yes, human activity might i

    • You could just look up this information to see how everything you said is untrue. But no, lead poisoning and narcissism has led you down a path of ignorance and denial.

    • We've been in a continuous ice age for 34 million years. You are confusing glacial maximums and ice ages. But no, the Earth is not recovering from that either and was in a cooling period for 8000 years until very recently (some argue 2000 years of stability and 6000 years of cooling) and in terms or orbital tilt, wobble, etc., should still be in one. It's was a very, very gentle period of cooling.

  • "Scientists can't explain why warming is accelerating. Science can't explain it. Therefore global warming is a crock."

    -- The authoritative opinion of a random ignoramus.

  • "Just last month Nuuk, Greenland saw temperatures over 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average, their article points out. And "Parts of Australia, meanwhile, have seen temperatures push past 120 degrees Fahrenheit amid a record heat wave..." Greenland is Celsius, you insensitive clod.

  • In actual reality you usually will get the average case. If it is something new and only partially understood, you often run into unpleasant surprises and get something significantly worse.

    Real risk management can deal with that. The amateur-level stuff most people use cannot and what evil scum like Trump does simply ignores all risks because they do not care what happens to others.

  • Co-incidentally (or not) during the last 30 years, Chinese GDP grew by 20x. During the same period, the U.S. GDP increase was only 2x. Obviously, green-house gas emissions are tied to GDP growth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Uecker ( 1842596 )

      Luckily, we know that growth can be decoupled from CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions from Germany and the EU are decreasing since 90s and of the US and high-income countries overall since the last 20 years (per capita emissions in the US are still relatively high in the US due to wasteful lifestyle and processes). China also seemed to have peaked now due to rollout of renewables. Unfortunately, CO2 emissions are coupled to stupidity and I see no end here.

  • Why? Wars. (Score:3)

    by YuppieScum ( 1096 ) on Sunday February 15, 2026 @04:22AM (#65989988) Journal

    The combustion products of modern firearm propellants, from pistols to artillery, are the same things we seek to minimise generation of in civilian life - carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

    Things on the receiving end of artillery, missiles and bombs tend to catch fire.

    Even military vehicles, unlike their civilian counterparts, are not designed with low engine emissions as a primary design goal.

    So, maybe not going to another country, shooting people and burning their stuff might help. Just saying...

  • Perhaps there's something happening in the Earth's core or crust that helps it. Maybe a super volcano brewing somewhere, creating a stove-like hotspot.

  • ...some geopolitical thing we're not supposed to be looking at?

  • and I like it a lot.

  • In university, when I studied prehistoric Europe (in archaeology classes) we learned that we are coming out of a glacial period into an interglacial period. The Earth has been swinging between glacial (ice ages) and interglacial periods for most of its history. IIRC, that is largely due to fluctuations in the sun's total energy output, which isn't always constant, and some of this was influenced by mass deforestation as we discovered and developed metallurgy.

    Also, as a kid growing up, there was a lot of pan

    • It doesn't help that the article seems to be saying both that reducing areosols is the problem, and the solution. That warming will slow if we get rid of them, even though it will be harder for clouds to form?
  • I do like the way we've all been like conserve power, save the earth etc etc for ages then all of a sudden start poring more energy than ever before into datacentres for glorified chatbots and not even mentioning it.
  • Low lying cloud cover is decreasing, and that's making it hotter. Those clouds form around aerosols, but, "the acceleration would stop once aerosol pollutants reach zero"?

    Even if aerosol pollutants could reach zero, wouldn't that make it worse? That sounds like fewer clouds, which means hotter.

Slashdot Top Deals

The best laid plans of mice and men are held up in the legal department.

Close