Climate change Snowballing effect of global warming might cause the end of civilisation as we know it as early as 2030

70% of the Earth's surface is made up of oceans. Heat absorbed by water takes time to be released into the air. It takes a few months for ocean heat records to translate to heat records in the atmosphere. Therefore we can predict what is going to happen in the next few months. It looks like global air temperature side going to keep increasing fast for more than one year. Of course it could be much longer as predictions based on ocean temperatures don't tell us what's going to happen in 2 years or more. The graph below shows the global sea surface temperature (SST).

oisst2.1_world2_sst_day.png
 
The data for October has been released by Copernicus.

"The global temperature anomaly for October 2023 was the second highest across all months in the ERA5 dataset, behind September 2023. The month as a whole was 1.7°C warmer than an estimate of the October average for 1850-1900, the designated pre-industrial reference period."

F-ZJ6x-XwAADhPV.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • F-XMemsXEAIC2A3.jpeg
    F-XMemsXEAIC2A3.jpeg
    120.1 KB · Views: 47
Last edited:
It's official now. The average global temperature yesterday exceeded +2°C above pre-industrial averages for the first time in human history. It's only one day but considering the trend of the last 5 months there is a good chance that the monthly average for December will also exceed 2°C. That's the mark the world was trying to avoid by 2100. Global warming is accelerated so much in the last few months that we are 77 years early! By the way, if I haven't mentioned it before, there is no going back from this. In the context of global warming once a temperature has been reached it would take centuries or millennia to lower the global temperatures. Even if we stopped all emissions in the world today (which is impossible) the temperature which remains stable. So we'll have to brace ourselves for +3°C and +4°C in the coming decades.

1700816185438.png
 

Attachments

  • F_VDjvjWMAE2__a.jpeg
    F_VDjvjWMAE2__a.jpeg
    255.6 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
The nuclear could have saved us from all this.
Today, to many people believe in an ideal world, without trade-offs.
It leads us toward the wrong decisions.
 
The nuclear could have saved us from all this.
Today, to many people believe in an ideal world, without trade-offs.
It leads us toward the wrong decisions.
No, it would not. Electricity production only represents less than 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally (25% with heating, which is mostly natural gas and fuel oil). So even if all countries in the world had 100% low-carbon electricity production (nuclear, solar, wind...), it would only reduce emissions by a fifth.

1700816562641.png


Agriculture represents another quarter, and with a fast increasing world population the only way to hope to reduce it a bit is to cut down on meat, especially beef. A first step would be to heavily tax beef in every country (at least as much as tobacco in Europe, which would increase the price about five fold).

1700816652918.png
 
Last edited:
Yes, but now they want to electrify everything, including transportation, heating and cooking.
It means electricity output should be multiplied by more than 5.
Because heating or cooking with electricity instead of fuel is nonsense from a thermodynamic view (2nd law of thermodynamics).
Heating with electricity requires more overall energy than with fuel.
You could only justify this if you had a big surplus on green electricity output.
 
Instead of explaining the fundamentals of energy production and consumption, activists try to mobilise the people by spreading panic.
Whether this panic is justified or not, this strategy won't work and won't solve the problem.
 
The nuclear could have saved us from all this.
Today, to many people believe in an ideal world, without trade-offs.
It leads us toward the wrong decisions.
Nuclear is only a provisory answer, and yet, it's too late compared to the ever warming speed at work. The time needed to build new reactors is too long to avoid us the worst.
And nuclear doesn't resolve all our problems of moving in industrial individualist capitalist societies. Even its cost is underrated evrytime, IMO.
 
Instead of explaining the fundamentals of energy production and consumption, activists try to mobilise the people by spreading panic.
Whether this panic is justified or not, this strategy won't work and won't solve the problem.
What to do to wake people up when their brains are hypnotised by stuff consomption and lying advertising? The most of the people WANT NOT look at reality in our countries. Too much strive to do to leave their habits. And in emerging countries they dream to do the same errors as us. And our money "porspectors" are not ready to change, even less than ordinary people... Panic? Not for the most, I would even say too less fear still among people, otherwise things would have been already changed more...
 
Nuclear is only a provisory answer, and yet, it's too late compared to the ever warming speed at work. The time needed to build new reactors is too long to avoid us the worst.
And nuclear doesn't resolve all our problems of moving in industrial individualist capitalist societies. Even its cost is underrated evrytime, IMO.
It is often the same people who are responable for the closure of the nuclear who are now alarmist about climate change. Sorry, but it does not do any good to the credibility of these people.

If we hadn't shut down all these nuclear power plants, the climate wouldn't be saved yet, but we would be a lot better off.
And if licenses for guaranteed 50 years production without increasing taxes along the way would be given, it would be worthwhile to invest in new nuclear power plants.
I don't know how it is in France, but the Belgian government doesn't want to give any long term license. On the contrary, they want to close down both remaining plants within 10 years.

I don't believe climate change can be resolved within 20 years. We have to make a longer and more realistic plan, and accept that in the mean time there will be collateral dammage. We have to realise that every measure is a trade-off. A solution without downsides does not exist.

Those who say the climate has to be saved within 20 years are the ones who stand in the way of a realistic long term solution.
They think they can save the planet and a the same time maintain their own dogmas.
 
i think there is no valid unique source of energy and the all-electric thing is nonsense, as you seem to think too. But nuclear has been created ( bombs left aside) to boost more and more consomption as well of energy as of other stuff. The
As you I think we 'll need more than 20 years to ameliorate climate and it 'll be a lot of disasters falling on Mankind meanwhile. An allover shift in our bed (what I do'nt like at all but...). Shall Mannkind change enough to realise it? I don't know, I eben doubt. All the way I 'll be gone in smoke a lot of time before... My descendants?.... Economic growth is so a religion.
 
Time for a monthly update on the situation of global warming. December was 1.8°C warmer than an estimate of the December average for 1850-1900, the designated pre-industrial reference period.

2023 as a whole was the warmest year ever recorded by a huge margin, at nearly 1.5°C above pre-industrial averages.

2024 has barely started and new records are already being smashed, even compared to 2023! Look at the graph below. 👇 The yellow line is 2023. The first few days of 2024 are the red line on the top left.

GDaQDYwa4AAZedc.jpeg
 
Unfortunately I'm only bringing more bad news. When you think that things couldn't get much worse much faster, turns out they do. 😞

30.7°C was recorded in Spain yesterday, about 15°C higher than normal for January! You read that correctly. Not 1.5°C but 15°C! Summer temperature in the middle of winter. Unless there is a complete reversal of this trend (I don't see how), Spain is going to become a desert very soon.

GEtc1azWEAAZFI6.jpeg


It was even 19°C today in Scotland! That's actually summer temperature for Scotland.

GE7b3T5bMAA1XsD.png
 
Last edited:
What to be afraid indeed, spite the scepticism of some dumb people.
 
My family is from Arizona here in the United States and this last summer was, by a wide margin, the worst we’ve ever seen through the generations. Typically the severity of a summer here is measured by the number of days at 110 degrees F or above per year. We typically average around 20. This last year we had about 60, maybe more. Also, we’re highly dependent on the monsoon season in the summer to bring much needed rainfall. This last summer (2023), we had virtually no measurable rainfall during the monsoon.
 
From this Tweet :

"Model and reality: Above the average forecast of the CMIP5 models from 2014 for December 2023, assuming the worst emissions scenario ("Hell on Earth Scenario" RCP8.5), below the actual temperatures in December 2023. The deviation from is shown in each case Average 1979-2000. From the Climate Reanalyzer. Via Niko Froitzheim"

GE_u9IpWUAAdH4f.jpeg



The chart below shows scenarios based on reference socio-economic trajectories – the SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) – developed by the scientific community in order to create a common framework for thinking about the issues related to climate change.

  • SSP1-1.9: very ambitious scenario to represent the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement
  • SSP1-2.6: sustainable development scenario
  • SSP2-4.5: intermediate scenario
  • SSP3-7.0: regional rivalry scenario
  • SSP5-8.5: fossil-fuel based development
We've already passed the peak methane concentration for the SSP2-4.5 scenario. The current trajectory points towards over 5°C of warming by 2100.

GFCsDLbXYAAmlXL.jpeg
 
The British newspaper the Guardian posted this.

1707899500761.png

1707899480437.png

1707899424715.png


Don't be fooled by the humorous format, it could be really serious. Recent studies mentioned in the Wikipedia article about AMOC all concur to say that the Gulf Stream is going to weaken in the coming decades. This will make Europe but also the East coast of the US much colder and drier.

The Wikipedia articles says:

"Downturn of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has been tied to extreme regional sea level rise."

"A study published in 2016 found further evidence for a considerable impact of a slowdown on sea level rise around the U.S. East Coast. The study confirms earlier research findings which identified the region as a hotspot for rising seas, with a potential to divert 3–4 times in the rate of rise, compared to the global average."

So the East coast of the US has the most to lose by a collapse of the Gulf stream, especially coastal cities in the northeast like New York and Boston that could suffer from a sudden rise of sea level of about 1 metre combined with even colder winter temperatures and hotter summers.
 
Last edited:
The British newspaper the Guardian posted this.

View attachment 15343
View attachment 15342
View attachment 15341

Don't be fooled by the humorous format, it could be really serious. Recent studies mentioned in the Wikipedia article about AMOC all concur to say that the Gulf Stream is going to weaken in the coming decades. This will make Europe but also the East coast of the US much colder and drier.

The Wikipedia articles says:

"Downturn of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation has been tied to extreme regional sea level rise."

"A study published in 2016 found further evidence for a considerable impact of a slowdown on sea level rise around the U.S. East Coast. The study confirms earlier research findings which identified the region as a hotspot for rising seas, with a potential to divert 3–4 times in the rate of rise, compared to the global average."

So the East coast of the US has the most to lose by a collapse of the Gulf stream, especially coastal cities in the northeast like New York and Boston that could suffer from a sudden rise of sea level of about 1 metre combined with even colder winter temperatures and hotter summers.
Helas! You have just to look at the recent French Government decisions concerning Agriculture (at the service of industrial food production and magnified import-export) to understand that concerning climate we are rather coming back than going onwards...
 

This thread has been viewed 3147 times.

Back
Top