The world has experienced its first year-long breach of the key 1.5°C warming limit, marking a significant milestone in the fight against climate change, according to the EU's climate service.

 

Since the landmark Paris agreement in 2015, global leaders have pledged to limit the long-term temperature rise to 1.5°C, recognizing its importance in mitigating the most severe impacts of climate change. However, the recent breach, where global warming surpassed 1.5°C for an entire year, signifies a concerning trend that brings the world closer to surpassing this critical threshold on a long-term basis.

 

Despite this breach, scientists emphasize that urgent action to reduce carbon emissions can still mitigate further warming. Professor Sir Bob Watson, a former chair of the UN's climate body, described the breach as unacceptable, citing the devastating floods, droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires witnessed globally within this 1.5°C threshold.

 

 

The period from February 2023 to January 2024 saw a warming of 1.52°C, as reported by the EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service, underscoring the urgency for immediate action to curb emissions and address climate change.

 

The concerning climate developments coincide with shifts in political priorities, with the UK's Labour Party abandoning its ambitious green investment plan, and the Conservative Party scaling back on key climate targets. These policy changes raise questions about global efforts to combat climate change effectively.

 

Moreover, the unprecedented warming extends to the world's oceans, with sea surface temperatures reaching record highs. The widespread nature of these climate records underscores the urgent need for concerted global action to address climate change.

 

The breach of the 1.5°C limit is primarily attributed to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. While natural climate phenomena like El Niño have contributed to recent temperature spikes, the long-term warming trend remains largely driven by human-induced factors.

 

Despite the challenges posed by the breach, there is still hope for mitigating further warming through ambitious emissions reduction efforts. Green technologies such as renewables and electric vehicles offer promising avenues for transitioning to a low-carbon future. However, achieving net-zero carbon emissions remains a crucial milestone in curbing global warming and averting the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

 

While the breach of the 1.5°C limit raises concerns about the future, it also serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for decisive action to address climate change and safeguard the planet for future generations.

 

09.02.24

Source

 

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

15 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

 

Basic fact - when we take deep ice cores, study very old tree rings and examine sea and lake sediments we're able to understand thousands of years of climate change.

 

IMHO - this is not an area of opinion, this is an area of fact. These are not even disputed by the conspiracy-addled (once you explain it to them with pictures).

 

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

Since the landmark Paris agreement in 2015, global leaders have pledged to limit the long-term temperature rise to 1.5°C, recognizing its importance in mitigating the most severe impacts of climate change. However, the recent breach, where global warming surpassed 1.5°C for an entire year, signifies a concerning trend that brings the world closer to surpassing this critical threshold on a long-term basis.

55555 Drama Queens, It Will get a bit wormer before it cools down again. 

It Won't happen overnight but it Will happen. Maybe 10 or 100 or 1000 years.

It happened all before.. Believe this or not  Up to You . 

C'mon let's have it.

 

Once it hits 2 degrees, the human race will follow the dinosaurs into oblivion.  The oil companies keep buying the politicians and soon their money won't do them much good.

10 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

Basic fact - when we take deep ice cores, study very old tree rings and examine sea and lake sediments we're able to understand thousands of years of climate change.

 

IMHO - this is not an area of opinion, this is an area of fact. These are not even disputed by the conspiracy-addled (once you explain it to them with pictures).

 

 

It's not just ice cores. There are lots of ways to get independent correlation from various biological processes. And they confirm each other. I don't know if you are familiar with the hockey stick controversy. Michael Mann, a climatologist, published a study that showed a sharp rise in temperatures. Denialists jumped all over it. Subsequent studies, drawn from different sets of data have all confirmed this. 

 

Bear in mind when they talk about removing carbon from the world...Human beings are carbon.

 

If carbon dioxide is so bad why do they use raised levels in greenhouses and produce much higher crop yields ?

 

How is it that C02 levels where at least 5 times higher in the age of Dinosaurs than today's levels

temperatures were roughly 5°C–10°C higher than today, and sea levels were 50–100 meters higher  ?  man made ?   nope.

If so dire, why are the ones who are most freaked out, unable to embrace nuclear energy, where the science & safety is clear?

Doomsday media and the righteous (and to a large extent want govt to spend trillions, transform economies towards some green world government utopia) blithely ignore higher temperatures previously, ask the vikings, and see no redeeming outcomes, at all. They are around, but again we don't hear too much, while every weather event is due to Climate Change, absurd.

Meanwhile China is laughing as the renewables industry is keeping it afloat while they open a new coal plant every few weeks. Fortunately they are also aggressive with nuclear, but we don't hear too much about that.

Let's mitigate sensibly without the shrill and some ridiculous policies, like closing down gas plants and banning gas stoves. Fortunately the pendulum is shifting - ordinary citizens and especially farmers (who know a thing or two about generational climate extremes) are pushing back and the Donald will truly set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Oh goody, I see all the resident climate experts (i.e. climate deniers), who think they know what they’re talking about, are chiming in, as per usual. I always wonder how these people can think they actually know better than the vast majority of climate scientists who have often been studying this for decades. 

6 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

"probably nil effect over the next 200 years"?

Given what the planet has experienced in just the last decade I wouldn't wager on it.

BTW, you have heard of carbon dating and data gleaned from core samples from boring through the Antarctic ice which scientifically backs up all these findings haven't you? So: not 200 years but many millenea.

I used to laugh at climate change deniers. Now I weep.

The bottom has now doubt fell out of the beachfront property market no doubt.

13 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

"probably nil effect over the next 200 years"?

Given what the planet has experienced in just the last decade I wouldn't wager on it.

BTW, you have heard of carbon dating and data gleaned from core samples from boring through the Antarctic ice which scientifically backs up all these findings haven't you? So: not 200 years but many millenea.

I used to laugh at climate change deniers. Now I weep.

What has the planet experienced in the last decade that it did not experience in the decade before? 

 

Why does all the change have to come on the backs of the poor? 

 

I used to laugh at climate alarmists, I still do. 

1 hour ago, koolkarl said:

Once it hits 2 degrees, the human race will follow the dinosaurs into oblivion.  The oil companies keep buying the politicians and soon their money won't do them much good.

..and if CO2 levels fall below 150ppm all the plants will die. Game over.🤔

2 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

Oh goody, I see all the resident climate experts (i.e. climate deniers), who think they know what they’re talking about, are chiming in, as per usual. I always wonder how these people can think they actually know better than the vast majority of climate scientists who have often been studying this for decades. 

If you read the UNIPCC reports carefully you'll find:

1. They don't go to the doomsday lengths that a lot of mainstream media and activists declare, selectively quoting left wing scientists
2. They see nuclear energy as playing an important role in reducing emissions.

You don't have to be a climate denier to challenge the sweeping narrative of the Left/Greens, who with their bias/ignorance have hindered nuclear development for decades, complicit in the situation we find ourselves - playing catchup. Could you imagine how 30% nuclear energy now, which is emissions free, would have helped? Triple nuclear energy by 2050, gosh could have been much sooner.

8 minutes ago, Donga said:

If you read the UNIPCC reports carefully you'll find:

1. They don't go to the doomsday lengths that a lot of mainstream media and activists declare, selectively quoting left wing scientists
2. They see nuclear energy as playing an important role in reducing emissions.

You don't have to be a climate denier to challenge the sweeping narrative of the Left/Greens, who with their bias/ignorance have hindered nuclear development for decades, complicit in the situation we find ourselves - playing catchup. Could you imagine how 30% nuclear energy now, which is emissions free, would have helped? Triple nuclear energy by 2050, gosh could have been much sooner.

California off-cycling nuclear and destroying hydroelectric dams. 

15 hours ago, KhunLA said:

1st time, maybe, since records being kept.  Nothing to do with MMCC .. IMHO  Less than 200 yrs of records over millions of existence isn't much of a CC change indicator.

 

Along with probably nil effect over the next 200 years.

 

 

The climate that supported development of our civilization is changing - which means there are going to be ramifications all over the globe.

 

Let me paraphrase you:

 

"The river that provides water to our city has dried up!"

 

KhunLA: "No problem, it also dried up in the days of the dinosaurs".

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

California off-cycling nuclear and destroying hydroelectric dams. 

The loss of nuclear is problematic, but no one has developed a truly safe and non-polluting nuclear system.

2 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

..and if CO2 levels fall below 150ppm all the plants will die. Game over.🤔

Your point is that CO2 levels must be contained within a narrow band to maintain our civilization.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What has the planet experienced in the last decade that it did not experience in the decade before? 

 

Why does all the change have to come on the backs of the poor? 

 

I used to laugh at climate alarmists, I still do. 

The impacts of climate change are on the poor. Rising sea levels cause displacement of poor people.

 

Drought most impacts the poor.

 

Flooding mostly impacts the poor.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The bottom has now doubt fell out of the beachfront property market no doubt.

Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/

Well, if SeeBS said it, it must be a fact.

 

I think blaming California fires on climate change is like Biden blaming his ten million illegals on Republicans.

 

 

4 hours ago, johng said:

Bear in mind when they talk about removing carbon from the world...Human beings are carbon.

 

If carbon dioxide is so bad why do they use raised levels in greenhouses and produce much higher crop yields ?

 

How is it that C02 levels where at least 5 times higher in the age of Dinosaurs than today's levels

temperatures were roughly 5°C–10°C higher than today, and sea levels were 50–100 meters higher  ?  man made ?   nope.

You are displaying a lack of knowledge about climate.

 

Human civilization was developed in a very narrow climate band. If the climate warms out of that band, many will suffer.

 

The temperatures and sea level you mention happened before our civilization existed. If sea levels increase by 100 meters, many would suffer.

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Well, if SeeBS said it, it must be a fact.

 

I think blaming California fires on climate change is like Biden blaming his ten million illegals on Republicans.

 

 

I think its too early to conclude that California wildfires are caused by climate change. The fires are prompted by heavy winter rains and low summer rainfall. It is not clear that climate change is causing more winter rains or summer droughts.

 

In the past decade, California has had years with both record-high and record-low precipitation – swings consistent with climate change projections. Notably, 2012 to 2015 set a record for the driest consecutive four-year period, while 2017 was one of the wettest years on record.

46 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Homes in parts of the U.S. are "essentially uninsurable" due to rising climate change risks

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insurance-policy-california-florida-uninsurable-climate-change-first-street/

It's not clear that the current weather is part of a long term trend.

 

Part of the problem is that the impacts of climate change are unpredictable. Its not just warming, it could changrs in rainfall.

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It's not clear that the current weather is part of a long term trend.

 

Part of the problem is that the impacts of climate change are unpredictable. Its not just warming, it could changrs in rainfall.

Yes it is clear. As far as Florida is concerned, consensus now is that hurricanes, while fewer, are stronger, develop more quickly, drop more precipitation and last longer. Also, sea level rise means flooding in Florida even in the absence of storms.

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes it is clear. As far as Florida is concerned, consensus now is that hurricanes, while fewer, are stronger, develop more quickly, drop more precipitation and last longer. Also, sea level rise means flooding in Florida even in the absence of storms.

Yes, there are global effects, such as warming and sea level rise.

 

The problem is seeing the weather impacts on specific areas.

27 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You are displaying a lack of knowledge about climate.

You are displaying a lack of knowledge about  human ingenuity

I'm certain that we (humans) can adapt to the changing climate

It just means that we (humans) need to work together to improve the lives of everyone instead of fighting senseless and endless wars.

Use the energy systems we have at the moment to improve standards of living for everyone  not just those who can pay a "carbon tax"

when/if  a clean energy source becomes reality  make it available to everyone universally no patents no sanctions.

 

37 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The temperatures and sea level you mention happened before our civilization existed

 

Yes exactly  they where not caused by "man"  are they caused by man now ?

3 hours ago, johng said:

 

Yes exactly  they where not caused by "man"  are they caused by man now ?

Climate can change due to natural forces, or human factors.

 

Do you disagree?

 

 CO2 is nearly a trace gas, less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere and methane is a

trace gas. I wish media outlets would state this fact. Oh but does this mean that trees will grow in the arctic as they did in the distant past?

 just curious.

Harvey

Climate scientist Michael Mann wins defamation case against conservative writers

 

"Michael Mann, among the world's most renowned climate scientists, won a defamation case in D.C. Superior Court against two conservative writers.

Mann, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, had sued Rand Simberg, a policy analyst, and Mark Steyn, a right-wing author, for online posts published over a decade ago, respectively, by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review".

 

Strangely enough, I know Rand Simberg quite well.