Earth is Warming Faster Than Ever. But Why? (msn.com)
- Reference: 0180791114
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/02/14/070222/earth-is-warming-faster-than-ever-but-why
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/see-how-climate-change-is-accelerating/ar-AA1W7Eot
> According to a Washington Post analysis, the fastest warming rate on record occurred in the last 30 years. The Post used [2]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 [3]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 [4]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 [5]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..."
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/see-how-climate-change-is-accelerating/ar-AA1W7Eot
[2] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/25/climate-aerosols-shipping-global-cooling/
[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/science/environmental-science/scientists-have-a-new-explanation-for-the-last-two-years-of-record-heat/ar-AA1z2R6w
[5] https://www.msn.com/en-us/science/environmental-science/scientists-have-a-new-explanation-for-the-last-two-years-of-record-heat/ar-AA1z2R6w
Ocean's full (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the article being that there is no new balance point right now, instead, warming is accelerating.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a balance point, we haven't reached it yet. Following my idea, we've reached the point where the oceans have absorbed enough heat that the dynamics change and now the air's heating up faster.
We have a pretty good handle on atmospheric CO2 and insolation, so I'm betting the third major factor when we're not sure precisely what's going on (because we have certainty on the general process) is the ocean heat sink.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I think what is happening is that the "equilibrium" temperature we would reach eventually due to the gas we have put into the atmosphere is increasing faster than the actual temperature is. As the two temperatures get further apart it means there is more force on the current temperature to go up. This does not seem to be a suprise then, and it seems like measuring it might give some hint as to what the actual equilibrium temperature will be.
I suspect we are going to raise CO2 to the level where re-
Re: (Score:2)
The oceans are getting warmer and therefore release CO2
But why? (Score:3)
short term profit over everything.
How odd (Score:5, Informative)
Almost like scientists were saying there was a tipping point when global temperatures would start climbing. Here’s a handy graph for republicans. [1]https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
[1] https://xkcd.com/1732/
Re: How odd (Score:1)
And with rapid adoption of CARBON NEUTRAL EVs....no wonder.
Re: How odd (Score:2)
So science, not "Sciencism" or whatever, tells us that climate change is happening, and it's going to be really really bad.
That's the point you're agreeing with, yes? Real actual science done with real actual data that shows us the real actual detrimental impact that humans are causing to our planet's climate.
I agree. Real science for the win.
It's just a pity the politicians and many on the far right disagree with us.
But they don't understand real science. They understand money. Money before everything.
Re: (Score:2)
> Once again showing super leftists don't do math or science.
What does this have to do with left vs right? Liberal vs conservative? Straight vs gay? Trans vs ... I dunno, whatever not trans is.
The climate does not give a fuck about your politics, or your party affiliation, or your gender, or your pronouns, or whatever.
Neither does science. Or math.
If you think that making the world a less healthful and less livable place is a great idea, then there's simply something wrong with you. That's not being
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, denialism at it's finest. You are an ass.
Why would warming... (Score:1)
... 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.
monkeys boutta die out (meaning you) (Score:3, Insightful)
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:1)
If there were "Muh Runaway Processes", we wouldn't exist because the Earth would have melted millions of years ago.
And the stupid are the ones clinging to "Muh Climate Change" now AI data centres are the New Hotness. You can't have "Net Zero" and massive AI data centres using terawatts of power.
Stop hysterical hyperventilation (Score:2)
Nobody credible is predicting runaway greenhouse effect or conditions that would lead to our extinction. FUD that you are spewing is not based on any science.
I have a solution! (Score:2)
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.
You don't have a solution! (Score:2)
> 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.
Positive feedback loop (Score:3)
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.
Drill, baby, drill! (Score:2)
also means "burn, baby, burn!".
Despite attempts to have carbon emissions lowered, that really hasn't happened.
Re: (Score:2)
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
\o/ (Score:1)
Perhaps if you deploy sufficient compute to truly understand the cause, we might find observer effect?
Blame Charlie Sheen (Score:2)
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?
Inconceivable! (Score:2)
An accelerating feedback loop? That is incon.. er.. umm... as predicted.
It's The Sun's Fault (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck there, space cadet.
Re: (Score:2)
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:3)
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 re
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Wait ... it gets hotter the more "red" politics we have. And cooler when we have more "blue" politics. Hmmmmm .....
Re: It's The Sun's Fault (Score:2)
Pfft. Everyone knows blue indicates a hotter flame than red. Typical libs not even knowing their own science to follow...
Re: (Score:2)
Its the US that has the colours backward.
In the rest of the world, RED is the colour af the parties of the left. (examples include Labour, Social Democrats, and of course in the extremes, Socialists and Communists.
BLUE is the colour af the more conservative parties ,Tories Christian Democrats etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"red" was identified with Communists for decades in the USA, so it does seem to make sense that the left party should be red (or avoid red altogether if you want to say that "neither of them are Communist"). I have heard that color tv stations used random different colors and after a few years they all agreed to match one of them which happened to pick the colors we see.
Re: (Score:2)
I could play this game and claim that china and the anti-nuclear propaganda are a massive contributor to that, but shit gets complicated quite quickly.
Of course, turning on the coal power plants and blocking green energy don't help at all, and the AI craze DEFINITIVELY does not help at all.
We probably will have to do some crazy shit like filling the oceans with salp at this point.
Could happen (Score:2)
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.