Global temperature record could be broken as soon as 2027, with El Niño expected later this year
A record-breaking hot year is almost certain by 2030 as the climate crisis intensifies, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization has warned.
With an El Niño event expected later this year, the global temperature record could fall as soon as 2027.
Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are continuing to rise, trapping more heat and driving more extreme weather, including the record-breaking heatwave that has hit the UK and Europe this week.
Global heating is already estimated to be taking one life every minute, with the toll likely to rise unless emissions fall rapidly.
Don’t think of it as the hottest year of the last 200 years. Think of it as the coldest year of the next 200
FYI in statistical language “almost certainly” means with probability 1.
100% probability.
The math of measure theory allows for such an outcome to happen, just with immeasurably small chance.
Eh, I’ll just start running my AC lower and open the windows. Its fine guys.
Haven’t like 9 of the last 10 years been record hot years? Not really going out on a limb here, UN.
It’s statistical proof that climate change will get worse in the next years regardless of what we do.
A definitive statement like that is rare in climatology.
(It’s still essential to fight against climate change, but even with 0 CO2 output starting today, it would continue to get hotter for many years, since the system reacts slowly).Global population record will be smashed by 2030!
Not really, the global population is only growing slowly now.
So it’s misleading to call it “smashed”.slowly
Last year, just like every year prior to that since the 1950s, we’ve added the net population of the entire United Kingdom to this planet. All of those people consume, pollute and want a space to call their own. Just like the other 8.4 billion of us.
As a species, the environment hasn’t ever been our priority.
This is pretty close, and it is true that the population has been growing by about the same amount of people per year since the 1950’s. But the same amount of people means decreasing percentage, and that means slower.
But another significant factor is that in the industrialized world the growth had already almost completely stopped in the 50’s.
Now the growth is beginning to decrease in Asia, and the expectation is that after 2050 the growth will be only on Africa.pewresearch: worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century
As a species, the environment hasn’t ever been our priority.
Kind of true, but it definitely began to be in the 60’s in western democracies. other countries were a bit later, typically the priority of the environment follows when the economy reaches a certain level, where the balance between environment and more economy begin to shift.
Problem is that with the global environment, some countries like especially USA don’t give a shit. Despite they have contributed more to the problem than any other country in the world.
I feel like you may have missed the joke.
I mean it wasnt a particularly funny joke, but the sentence was designed to illustrate the absurdity of making an engaging headline from a predictable occurrence.
OK, But the headline of the article here does not contain such language as “smashed”, so IMO it’s a bit misplaced, but I get what you mean. Because the headline remains pretty stupid in being extremely obvious.
I know a guy that lamented all throughout Biden’s term that “the debt is the highest it’s ever been!” He truly didn’t understand how the US debt works. He also hasn’t cared that, to no one’s surprise but his own, the debt under trump’s current term is higher still.
Start hoarding water now.
The fuck do you mean later this year we just had it like yesterday
I’m French and remember in the 70s/80s even 90s we never had 30+°C in fucking May. Now we have 35+ for days, multiple times a year, it’s incredible.
“incredible” is not usually used to mean “not credible” (or “not believable”) in English. It usually means “really good”. I’d go with “unbelievable” or “insane”, personally.
This might just be a North American thing though.
On the contrary, this meaning is a newer thing. As recently as the 70s incredible and fantastic were used in place of unbelievable but not always in a positive way.
agree, “unbelievable” or “insane” are better, I am not an english native speaker :)
“incredible” works perfectly fine. Think of the phrase “He had incredible strength” meaning an unbelievably high measure of strength.
French has incroyable which means literally the same exact thing with the same root
No shit. I remember the messages from climate scientists in the 1980s about global warming (as it used to be called), and its almost as if the whole conversation didn’t rear its head properly till mid 2010s. It isn’t something I’m an expert on, but I feel like we are beyond the point of no return. In the UK we have just this week set the record high temp, a month sooner than the usual weather starts. It isn’t that its getting hotter, it is that it is now on average far hotter earlier and longer. The absolute insane greed of the stock markets around the world putting their il gotten gains into AI data centres is just going to exacerbate the problem. As it gets hotter, people buy more air conditioning which then makes it worse! Its a vicious circle.
There is part of me that hopes that the current ruling generation will soon all pass and this age of greed will cease and the earth can breath a sigh of relief, but no. It appears there are a long list of cunts who will happily sacrifice their children’s future and everybody else’s for the next few billion dollars. The 1% simply do not give a shit at all. They literally think, “Well I wont be here when the world burns, why should I care now?”
The worst part is it wasn’t the 1980s, it was almost 100 years before when people first started understanding that humans could affect the climate.
I remember that image too, I was speaking from my perspective that the first time I remember being made aware of it was in the 1980s. I should have been more clear, sorry.
global warming
I think the term is making a comeback, it was abandoned to not offend global warming deniers. And it was instead called climate change. Because some parts of the globe can still get colder, and that is apparently too confusing for American Christian and Republican morons to understand.
It is and always was global warming that is the actual issue, so we should all go back to calling it that again.
Couldn’t agree more. Well said.
We had a US Senator bring a fucking snowball onto the floor of the Senate to disprove global warming.
Yeah I remember, the idiocy of that is astounding.
It’s child logic
Duh. 🤡
Are Americans really still denying global warming?
If they are, I don’t see why that crowd should be considered worth informing, they are clearly immune to reason and evidence.Will there be a solution ???
Well, we’re about 60 to 80,000 years from the next ice age. If we haven’t all died by then we could wait for that?
Or just about every developed nation on the planet needs to move to sustainable fuels now!
Nuclear fusion would be an absolute game changer. Clean, infinite energy, but it is too far away for it to make a difference let alone be able to reverse the damage that is being done. For future generations sake, as a leader of a nation, I’d be throwing all my money at it. Like, yesterday.
Just a friendly correction: we currently are in an ice age. You’re thinking of the next glaciation. The confusion is understandable because you are using that term exactly how it’s generally used by lay people, but I think the distinction is important, especially as we’re thinking of long term natural history and understanding climate science.
It’s not a technology problem. It can be solved with wind farms, solar arrays, batteries and trees. All of which exist today, and are already cheaper than building new fossil fuel, nuclear or fusion power.
The problem is that those solutions decentralize and democratize power generation, which cuts into big corpo profits.Anyone still advocating for nuclear or fusion power now that better, cheaper alternatives exist, just wants a solution that keeps power generation in the hands of a few.
I disagree. Fusion / fission is a long term goal. Solar is cheap to produce but requires big areas and currently not very efficient. Wind power i think is probably our best immediate term bet. The UK nearly went through the whole of April this year entirely on sustainable fuels alone. Within fusion there are enough countries doing their own thing with varying levels of success that there is enough competition for it to be spread world wide. It is also easily monetized, however i envision it would be expensive for the consumer first as companies claw money back from R&D.
Fusion and even new nuclear power plants will be too late to fix this.
We need non-fossil power at a global scale within 10-20 years.
In that context, framing fusion and nuclear as solutions for the climate crisis is just plain wrong.
We need to put all available funding into solar and wind NOW cause they can be built much faster.
When the immediate crisis is over (hopefully), sure go ahead and develop fusion, although I’m not sure at that point it will still be necessary.
At least theoretically yes. We can release particles into the atmosphere that has the opposite effect of the greenhouse gasses. That instead of keeping the heat within the atmosphere, would reflect heat back to the universe.
But since USA seems keen to continue to completely drop the ball on the issue, for such solutions we probably need to look to EU or China.
My suggestion would be to put particles in geostationary orbit above USA, because they are the main villain that has caused this problem, and has done the least to help solve it. So it might as well be them that get less sunlight.
Global heating is already estimated to be taking one life every minute, with the toll likely to rise unless emissions fall rapidly.
I think it’s going to be a while. We’re still committed to the infinite growth paradigm and infinite growth requires infinite energy.
There’s debate about the feasibility of green growth, but the fact is green energy is already helping to fuel growth. It’s a relatively small percentage of the overall energy mix now, but green energy will grow, and so will fossil fuel energy. We’ll have green growth and fossil fuel growth, and probably nuclear growth, too. As long as we keep growing, we’ll need it all.
Infinite sacrifice.
