2026 Will Bring Heat More Than 1.4C Above Preindustrial Levels, UK Met Office Says (theguardian.com) 48
The UK Met Office projects that 2026 will see global temperatures rise between 1.34C and 1.58C above preindustrial levels, placing it among the four hottest years since records began in 1850 and continuing a streak of extreme warming that has pushed the planet into unprecedented territory. The central forecast is slightly cooler than the 1.55C recorded in 2024, the warmest year on record. But climate scientist Adam Scaife, who led the forecast, noted that "the last three years are all likely to have exceeded 1.4C" and 2026 would be the fourth consecutive year to do so. "Prior to this surge, the previous global temperature had not exceeded 1.3C," he said.
The forecast suggests another temporary exceedance of the 1.5C threshold set by the Paris Agreement is possible in 2026, following the first such breach in 2024. The 1.5C target is measured as a 30-year average, so it remains technically achievable even as individual years cross the line. EU scientists said last week that 2025 is "virtually certain" to rank as the second or third-hottest year on record.
The forecast suggests another temporary exceedance of the 1.5C threshold set by the Paris Agreement is possible in 2026, following the first such breach in 2024. The 1.5C target is measured as a 30-year average, so it remains technically achievable even as individual years cross the line. EU scientists said last week that 2025 is "virtually certain" to rank as the second or third-hottest year on record.
Re: (Score:2)
Though at the same time, human heat engines will have some sort of impact on the environment. To claim otherwise is fallacious.
Imagine your house at 10C and you turn your 2000W computer on, then you'll be warming that space to above the initial 10C. If enough human made machines are generating heat, then the environment will heat faster than what the environment will be doing without our influence. In the end, it is the humans and the other living species that will suffer from the resulting climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Marine aerosols [Re:Which record?] (Score:5, Informative)
Simultaneously, do we not remember the article from June 2023 on science.(com? org?) where they describe how cleaning up ship fuels ended up being a bad idea because the pollutants were actually causing clouds to form, cooling the environment?
The phrase "a bad idea" is editorializing. It is true that sulfate aerosol emission from shipping had a cooling effect, and reducing these emissions had an (unexpected) warming effect. Whether reducing these emissions was a bad idea or not depends on whether the beneficial effects of reducing sulfate pollution outweighs the negative effects of the slight reduction in cooling. The cooling effect of the marine sulfates was estimated at about 0.12 w/m^2, which is small compared to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, currently estimated at about 3.5 W/m^2.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Marine aerosols [Re:Which record?] (Score:4, Interesting)
An improvement is an improvement, and your own claims support it. The fact-based article is not "editorial"..
No article was linked. Your assertion, on the other hand, contained both a fact ("the pollutants were actually causing clouds to form, cooling the environment") and an editorial ("a bad idea".) The fact is accurate. The editorial addition is an opinion.
If you had linked an article, probably this [wiley.com] one, you would discover that it nowhere contained the editorial you added to it, "a bad idea."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, I mentioned science.(com? org?). Regardless, I'm not your research assistance. Look it up yourself.
I did. And gave a link.
Re: (Score:2)
All changes involve trade-offs. Every. Single. Last. One. To simply ignore the other effects of a change is not analysis.
Uhm, ignoring the other effects? Heating up the earth while just saying, "Oh, shucks. We didn't think that out. We really shouldn't have done that." Yep, there was a tradeoff. A really stupid one.
All changes involve trade-offs. Every. Single. Last. One.
Here's a personal one I made. I stopped eating shitty food. I got healthier. Nice tradeoff there. I started exercising. I can do a lot of stuff I was never capable of doing before. I enjoy doing physical activities I didn't used to be able to do. You're right, there are tradeoffs. I gave the "pleasure" of stuffing
Re: Which record? (Score:2)
Did you say the dinosaurs caused an asteroid impact?
Waste heat [Re:Which record?] (Score:3)
Though at the same time, human heat engines will have some sort of impact on the environment. To claim otherwise is fallacious.
True, but it turns out that waste heat is a very small contributor to the global temperature change compared to greenhouse gasses. Basically, if you emit one erg of energy from a heat engine, that's one erg of energy one time, and done. On the other hand, if greenhouse gasses absorb one erg of energy and reradiate it downward, that same carbon dioxide will keep on absorbing and reradiating energy for the lifetime of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, estimated to be hundreds of years under current condit
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is not the heat from you computer or the heat from the power plant. Simply speaking, that heat would just vanish into space. The problem is the CO2, which causes heat to be reflected back to earth. And the reflected heat is mostly coming from sunlight, your 2000W computer doesn't contribute as much as the sun sends to us. Not even including the heat in the power plant.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not the heat from you computer or the heat from the power plant. Simply speaking, that heat would just vanish into space. The problem is the CO2, which causes heat to be reflected back to earth. And the reflected heat is mostly coming from sunlight, your 2000W computer doesn't contribute as much as the sun sends to us. Not even including the heat in the power plant.
True, now I need to look at what research says. Is it CO2 only, or is there a combined effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Which record? (Score:2)
"Which country will welcome them openly? "
Did you just make the case for open borders?
Re:Which record? (Score:4, Informative)
But, the immanent collapse of the north Atlantic current that keeps the UK warm will cause it to freeze.
The right hand really needs to coordinate with the left hand before they both start wanking at same time.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Too bad nobody thought of this or accounted for this when figuring out any of this information. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Fer sure. (Score:1)
There is no doubt they will be correct, as they have already prepared all the temperature readings for 2026.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're saying they're going to follow Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's process of declaring a reason for autism will be found and a few months later state it's caused by vaccines?
Fascinating.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm cool about it (Score:2, Funny)
As a hiker, I'm looking forward to a sunny walking season.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone with enough years behind me, I no longer have any energy left to care what people decide or don't do about keeping humanity alive. The planet will keep orbiting the sun for a long time and nature will find a way to continue.
Meawhile I'm not one for walks on sunny days. Too hot and sweaty for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a lot of the themes from Jurassic Park that are glossed over in the movie version.
"Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."
-- Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park
That's not how that works (Score:2)
So for example a whole bunch of trails you want to walk are going to be closed because heavy rain washes them away. On the other hand you also probably are going to have droughts. Because you're going to get big sudden rain storms that do damage to the trail you want to walk followed by little or no rain...
There is no upside to what's happening here no matter what the oil companies tell you.
Re: But of course no critical thinking because we (Score:2)
Sounds like you've got at least 3 spoons worth in yours. Maybe if you lift that tinfoil hat they'll evaporate through your ears from all the heavy thinking that you're doing for the society.
Re:I'm cool about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you won't if it's sunny, hot and muggy at the same time. It's less "oh it's going to be more pleasant" and more "it's going to be more miserable".
It's just more energy into a chaotic system which only gives you more chaos. It might be a sunny day, but then the chaos means you get hit with a sudden downpour and a lightning storm, then it dries up again but because the water it is walking in the heat with 100% humidity
1.4C would be a bit of a win after 2 years at 1.5C (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Poor Carnot.
There are too many people living check to check (Score:2, Informative)
And it doesn't do any good to explain why climate change is going to make the economy worse. Nobody wants to hear your explanation. They want to hear that somebody is going to make groceries cheaper and rent cheaper. If you're not telling them that they've already tuned you out.
Remember when you're explaining you're losing.
Bad timing again. (Score:2, Troll)
They would post this during a snowstorm. It's only the second one this winter though and it is December.
The woodstove is going having been kindled with the still bounteous supply of junk mail.
So? (Score:2)