Global Temperatures Likely To Exceed Key Limit For First Time
- Reference: 0175426451
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/11/07/1838212/global-temperatures-likely-to-exceed-key-limit-for-first-time
- Source link:
> Holding long-term warming to the 1.5-degree target compared to the preindustrial era is crucial for lowering the risk of triggering climate change tipping points, beyond which potentially catastrophic impacts have a higher likelihood of occurring, studies show. Holding warming to that target is viewed as necessary for small island states and other extremely vulnerable nations to avoid being wiped out by sea level rise, drought and other threats.
>
> The data -- and proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores -- shows this year is likely to be the hottest in at least 125,000 years. Right now, the world is on track for as much as 3.1C (5.58F) of warming based on already pledged emissions cuts, assuming they are fulfilled. Copernicus Climate Change Service reported early Thursday that the year is headed for a temperature anomaly of more than 1.55C (2.79F) above preindustrial levels. Last year fell just shy of the 1.5C threshold relative to the 1850-1900 average.
[1] https://www.axios.com/2024/11/07/global-temperatures-exceed-paris-target
Don't make me tap the sign (Score:1)
More batteries, more solar panels, more immigrants.
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain how the "more immigrants" bit is relevant here?
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change makes people migrate from certain parts of the world to other parts?
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on local immigration laws, but anyway, what does it have to do with "More batteries, more solar panels"?
don't focus on the number. (Score:2)
1.5 C is merely a number that was picked because it is a nice round number for the Paris accords. There is no particular tipping point that we believe will happen at 1.5C. It is worse than, say, 1.3C, but not as bad as, say 2C.
Stop focussing on the number. The problem is not exceeding any one particular number, it is that the number will keep rising indefinitely as long as we keep increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Re:don't focus on the number. (Score:5, Interesting)
> The problem is not exceeding any one particular number, it is that the number will keep rising indefinitely as long as we keep increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Good ol' tragedy of the commons. A country increasing its CO2 output is beneficial for them (financially) but detrimental to everyone else long-term. Similarly, a country decreasing its CO2 output is detrimental for them (financially) but beneficial to everyone else long-term.
Historically, humans have solved the tragedy of the commons problem by either fencing areas off or by enacting local regulations (enforced by the local monopoly of force). But when it comes to the climate, you can't fence off the atmosphere and you can't enforce regulations using force on a global scale (because there is no Earth Police). Personally, I think humans aren't suitably equipped from an evolutionary standpoint to tackle a problem like climate change, the planetary-scale cooperation and mutual understanding mechanisms required for that simply don't exist in our species. We are screwed.
Re:don't focus on the number. (Score:5, Informative)
There was a little more to it than it being a "nice round number ": [1]https://news.mit.edu/2023/expl... [mit.edu] . In comparing the destructiveness of two "nice round numbers" +1.5 versus +2.0, the models indicate that the latter is much much worse for many more areas of the planet ... so the decision was to target +1.5.
We are going to hit +2.0 in about 25 years, so I guess we will get to see first hand just how destructive this will be.
[1] https://news.mit.edu/2023/explained-climate-benchmark-rising-temperatures-0827
Re: (Score:1)
25 years, you are really optimistic. I reckon 5-10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
"We are going to hit +2.0 in about 25 years,"
With the (R)s doing a clean sweep (Prez, Senate, and House) I am sure we can hit that by the end of the decade (that's Dec 31, 2030)
Don't forget that other countries are also going to be increasing their emissions.
Of course a worldwide depression could prevent that, which Trump might be able to achieve.
One thing though is that the swing states (MI, PA and WI) are less likely to be as badly affected by climate change than the coastal southern states that always v
Good thing that this is all a "hoax' (Score:2)
Or I would be worried! lol
Pledges are worthless (Score:5, Informative)
There are pledges to reduce emissions and then the reality that every year, despite these pledges, greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise. Caveating +3.1C with "based on already pledged emissions cuts" is ignoring the evidence. Scientists need to stop ignoring the evidence that humans are failing to moderate their behavior.
We are at +1.5C now and heading for at least +3.5C -- which is the equilibrium temperature for our current greenhouse gas concentration, but every year we increase, not decrease the greenhouse gas levels. As is clearly shown in this paper, temperature is a lagging indicator: [1]https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/i... [fau.edu] The entire mass of the atmosphere is 1/5 the mass of the ice in Antarctica. There are a lot of heat sinks holding the temperature back from its ultimate equilibrium point, but the planet will get there eventually.
And it looks like we have likely warmed the planet enough to initiate ever increasing microbial methane production which in ~70 years will become the primary driver of global warming. [2]https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com] .
[1] https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/impacts/i4-sea-change/explanation1a.php
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GB006009
I think we've given up. (Score:4, Insightful)
We've decided "the economy", SUVs, and hamburgers are more important. We've elected leaders that will end all this pesky economy-killing climate regulation. It's not human caused anyway!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well if both sides face the same obstacles, and one side is more willing to endure them to vote, it seems to me that it's another mechanism of measuring the will of the people. It's not the most direct measure, but how is it that much different than people staying home by default rather than hardship?
Not saying it's great... but one side had their shit together on motivating their base, and one did not. How they got there isn't really relevant.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
exit poll data suggests men with children chose Trump by wide margin and women with children only went Harris by like 51% or so.
source: CNN
So if kids were the issue, it probably suppressed the Trump vote more. Look man I know it is hard, you have been gaslit for the last decade or so by the media, but the reality is a majority, all be it a small majority or Americans are NOT progressives.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You're forgetting all the effort Republicans put into [1]removing voting locations [abc7chicago.com] from predominantly [2]Democratic/black [reuters.com] [3]areas [texastribune.org].
By making it as difficult and inconvenient as possible for "those people" to vote, this makes it easier to get the result you want.
[1] https://abc7chicago.com/post/vanishing-voting-sites-states-see-number-polling-places-decline-ahead-2024-election/15490043/
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/southern-us-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-gr-idUSKCN1VV097/
[3] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/23/texas-voting-polling-restrictions/
Re: (Score:2)
No. That is on the election officials to have a backup plan when they knew a hurricane was coming. They chose not to put forth the effort and instead said to use [1]mail-in ballots [nbcnews.com].
Removing the number of available locations to prevent people from voting is a deliberate, conscious act designed to suppress certain segments of the voting population.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/north-carolina-voting-flexibility-hurricane-helene-rcna174352
Re: (Score:1)
You mean the democratic election officials who tried to fuck over the Republican voters in the impacted areas?
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you look into it you'll find the swing states in America had 7 hour wait times to vote. The secretaries of state were Democrats but they fucked up badly. When you're dealing with 7 hour wait times to vote people have work and kids and frankly they're just too exhausted from those things to stand in line for 7 hours. As a result 15 million fewer people voted Democrat. This was less of a problem for the Republicans because they motivate their base with fear and because they rely heavily on the baby boomers and older Gen x who have nothing but time. I don't know if America is ever going to have another election again. The Republican party has detailed plans to stop that. They're done just suppressing the vote they're going to just not allow it anymore. But if we do we need to do what we did with the DMV when the lines got bad and people had had enough. Laws were passed requiring no more than 15 minutes in line. That forced the state legislatures to stop fucking around and properly fund the DMV. It might require a constitutional amendment at the state level though but without it this is just going to keep happening
Don't know WTF you're talking about with the DMV. I've never waited less than fifteen minutes for any reason at the DMV. Usually it's more around an hour and a half.
Oh, wait. It's fifteen minutes or less in line to get the number, then go take your seat. After that it can be as long as it takes. I suppose in some way they did improve it over the old days where you just stood shuffling forward one body length at a time for hours. Now you get to sit in the most uncomfortable chairs in existence for hours inst
Re: (Score:1)
In California, I could make an appointment months in advance or I could walk in. As a walk-in, I made sure to get there before they opened in the morning so I was "only" 20-30 people back. Then it was 15-20 minutes to get a number and 2-3 hours to get my issue resolved.
I'm now in Florida. I called ahead to ask about making an appointment when I got here about getting my license. She didn't understand what I was asking. They don't have appointments. But she did say if I showed during their busy hours a
Re: (Score:2)
> In California, I could make an appointment months in advance or I could walk in. As a walk-in, I made sure to get there before they opened in the morning so I was "only" 20-30 people back. Then it was 15-20 minutes to get a number and 2-3 hours to get my issue resolved.
> I'm now in Florida. I called ahead to ask about making an appointment when I got here about getting my license. She didn't understand what I was asking. They don't have appointments. But she did say if I showed during their busy hours around lunch time I might have to wait as long as 5-10 minutes to talk to someone. Not get a number, but actually be talking to the person who resolves my issue. Showing at any other time you just walk up to the counter.
> California: blue state, very high taxes Florida: red state, zero income and moderate property taxes
> You decide what the DMV issue could possibly be.
I'm in South Dakota, almost as red a state as there is. We can make appointments, the appointment gets you a number and then you wait for your number to be called same as anyone else. The problem is bureaucracy, regardless of political party in charge. Well, that and the DMV does have a reputation to uphold.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm in South Dakota
Well, as long as all 15 people in the state don't go to renew their license at the same time, you shouldn't have a wait.
I jest, of course. Honestly, the ND DMV in Bismarck was actually pretty good. It never took me more than one trip, and rarely waited very long in line. I can't say it was pleasant, but so much better than MN's.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMV at the county seat where I now live, is closed on Mondays.
Not just holidays like MLK and veterens day, any Monday
and it is an (R) voting county
(no trouble with voting in theTWP though)
Re: (Score:2)
So 15 million fewer democrats voted but the same number of republicans voted.
In every election in the last 20 years the democrats got roughly 65m votes. Except 2020 where 15m extra ballots got counted. Then this year we went back to ~65m again. Where did the extra 15m come from in 2020 is the question everyone should ask, not why aren't they voting this year.
Re: (Score:1)
> So 15 million fewer democrats voted but the same number of republicans voted.
> In every election in the last 20 years the democrats got roughly 65m votes. Except 2020 where 15m extra ballots got counted. Then this year we went back to ~65m again. Where did the extra 15m come from in 2020 is the question everyone should ask, not why aren't they voting this year.
That's the question all right. Somehow they materialized and just like that they disappeared. Not suspicious at all
Re: (Score:1)
I believe and continue to believe that 2020 was decided by chicanery - lets wait on this particular point for the final totals from this year to come in.
Inept states like CA and AZ aside that still have a good deal of their vote uncounted to the tune 30% the rest of the country still has perhaps 1-2% of ballots outstanding too. That missing turnout could show up in those numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe and continue to believe that 2020 was decided by chicanery - lets wait on this particular point for the final totals from this year to come in.
Considering all the whining the convicted felon did about "illegal voting" taking place in Philadelphia and elsewhere, now that he's won it is a certainty he'll direct his people to find all those "illegal" votes. Absolutely, 100% sure he'll do this.
Re: (Score:2)
> I believe and continue to believe
Lots of people believe that the solar system, our planet, and every living thing on it was conjured out of nothing by a mythical sky being over the course of a week. The number of people that believe something doesn't change the accuracy of the belief. You've had four years to prove "chicanery" on the scale to swing an election. I assume we'll see it any day now?
Were there fingers all over the scales in 2020? Absolutely. As there were in every election since the beginning of elections, and as there will be
Re: (Score:2)
2020 was decided by 30k votes.
2024 was millions apart.
I assume you can see the difference between chicanery that changes a result and chicanery that does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicanery is chicanery. Are you arguing that it was more effective or less effective in 2024? And, I assume you know proof is?
Re: (Score:3)
The 20% less voters doesn't surprise me.
A few people I know that never have voted Republican voted Trump (they were minorities too).
On top of that, a lot of fairly reliable voters I know didn't vote this year.
While in 2020 people didn't like Biden, there was a lot more stop trump vibes, while this year the vibes were "we're all fucked anyway".
Additionally, in 2020 the bigger the polling miss (the average was 3.5%, but states where it was higher skewed nore towards Trump) the more Trump votes vs polls which
Re: (Score:2)
> In every election in the last 20 years the democrats got roughly 65m votes. Except 2020 where 15m extra ballots got counted. Then this year we went back to ~65m again. Where did the extra 15m come from in 2020 is the question everyone should ask, not why aren't they voting this year.
> She got demolished, it's done. Cry it out and move on. Further discussion of the past is mental masturbation and boring.
The irony is astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the good news is, the US has committed to killing its economy. With American's unable to buy any goods once the 20% to 100% tariffs are applied, and the hyper inflation takes off (tax cuts, lower interest rates, tariffs, and added money printing to fund SS and Medicare), it will end this pesky economy, SUV's and hamburgers.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what hyper inflation is?
Because it seems incredibly unlikely too happen.
Re: (Score:2)
> fund SS and Medicare.
Optimist.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the mass deportations. There are jobs American companies won't pay enough for American workers to do, and Americans don't make enough babies to keep the economy going on their own. Anything undesirable that can't be automated immediately will get very expensive or no longer get made/done.
It's crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
> "the economy"
Yeah. Keep behaving like its nothing.
The people have figured it out. But feel free to keep marginalizing yourself: you're transparent.
You have meaningful options. You can embrace growth and prosperity and our technological capabilities, such as nuclear power, and actually solve problems you claim to care so much about. That would involve foregoing your deeply held desire to inflict energy poverty, and all the other poverty that you know comes with it. I know that's really tough, but you do have tha
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah a CCC style effort to build lots of renewable energy and nuclear power would be the sort of jobs program that could reach out and help small towns and blue collar workers. There seems to be a lot of anxiety about EVs because they'll require less machinists and oil extraction but those people can be maintaining wind farms or drilling geothermal power and so on. Making it easier to get college loans doesn't seem to have helped as much as everyone thought.
Re: (Score:2)
> Making it easier to get college loans doesn't seem to have helped as much as everyone thought.
Flooding postsecondary education with a horde of government financed midwits hasn't just not helped. It's been an enormous detriment. It has compromised academic standards, turned colleges and universities into overpriced diploma mills and devalued academic credentials. Not to mention saddling the young with debt.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the trade war Trump wants to start with the entire world part of embracing "growth and prosperity"?
Re: (Score:3)
> So is the trade war Trump wants to start with the entire world part of embracing "growth and prosperity"?
I don't know precisely what the impact of increasing our aggression in the on-going trade war will be. I know you don't either.
What do know is this: the overlap in the Venn diagram of people bleating about the economic destruction that tariffs will supposedly bring and the people who cannot fathom how ever higher taxes will produce the same outcome is 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't know precisely what the impact of increasing our aggression in the on-going trade war will be. I know you don't either.
No, Trump's plans (if enacted as he's claimed) mean repercussions for us. Do you honestly have any doubts that most of the world won't reply with similiar when we drop very large tariffs on everything they sell us? Claiming doubt on that outcome is like claiming a dropped rock wont hit the ground, it's pretty much guaranteed to happen.
> What do know is this: the overlap in the Venn diagram of people bleating about the economic destruction that tariffs will supposedly bring and the people who cannot fathom how ever higher taxes will produce the same outcome is 100%.
Hahaha. It's funny because not only are you being a dick and exaggerating what I'm saying while creating a false dichotomy of options but I'm pretty sure you didn't get your t
Don't forget the trade war! (Score:3)
> We've decided "the economy", SUVs, and hamburgers are more important.
Don't forget the trade war we essentially just voted to authorize! Across the board tariff increases (a core part of Trump's platform) against every other country in the world is a guaranteed start to one. What a win for America, more global warming and a recession on the horizon!
The silver lining to if Trump pulls off this recession in waiting is we'll get to watch the dedicated Trumpers make up fantasies about how it's not his fault. Sadly, having seen how things go though, the blame will never stick to h