20 ms·

Oceans hit highest temperature on record

• lbriner 1mo ago
  When I was younger, I remember thinking, "a few degrees, what difference does that make?" Then when I grew older I realised that in Climate science a few degrees is the difference between survival and annihilation. A few degrees warmer in the ocean and El Niño becomes an incredible problem for half the world. I am glad that I live far away from the effects but it is sad to think of people losing all kinds of things for the lack of respect of Mother Earth!
  • larsfaye 1mo ago
    >I am glad that I live far away from the effects Are you not on planet earth? Unless you're on Mars, you're not far away from any effects.
    • ceejayoz 1mo ago
      There are regions on the planet that will likely fare better than others, though.
      • bix6 1mo ago
        Not for long.
      • mullingitover 1mo ago
        And we can tell ourselves that those regions which fare better will be left entirely alone. No one is going to, say, kill all the inhabitants and take the land from them.
        • hackable_sand 1mo ago
          You can't own land, so that solves that issue.
      • consumer451 1mo ago
        Maybe you will require less insulation reconfiguration than some other regions, but it will be hard to escape the effects of billions of people suffering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrisis edit: To be clear, I still think there is time to react, and stop the worst impacts. We just need to get way off the rails of the route that we are currently on. If we put half of the heroic engineering + global capital that we put into fossil fuel extraction into better things, we could get most of the way to the goal. Fossil fuel extraction is like many simultaneous Manhattan Projects. It's nuts what we put into that. Would be super cool if some of the breakout sessions titled "surviving WW III," were replaced by "avoiding WW III."
      • Muromec 1mo ago
        Luckily the residents of the regions that fare worse will not know what those other regions are.
      • geraneum 1mo ago
        Do you happen to source everything you consume locally? From the phone and computer to building materials, clothing, food, healthcare equipment, etc.? If not, you’re in for a surprise when shit hits the fan.
      • AlecSchueler 1mo ago
        The bad news is we're all reliant on global supply chains. And even ignoring the human side your ecosystem is probably reliant in some way on things like the migrations of birds and fish etc etc
      • grougnax 1mo ago
        [dead]
    • TiredOfLife 1mo ago
      I live in a region where due to global warming our winters are colder than usual, also summers are colder (except for like a week where it was much hotter)
  • toomuchtodo 1mo ago
    “Climate change will manifest as a series of disasters viewed through phones with footage that gets closer and closer to where you live until you're the one filming it.” You cannot outrun agriculture and crop failures, infrastructure failures, insurance costs accelerating to properly price the risk, wild fires, etc. US cattle herds are at record lows from climate related input costs. Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian nuclear reactors no longer have enough water to operate. The Colorado River Basin will only continue to dry out. And so on. Some will be impacted more than others, but everyone will feel some impact, and it potentially will only worsen over time. If you believe in climate change, do your best to mitigate the impact for the remainder of your lifetime. If you don't believe, oh well, good luck. https://x.com/ZackBornstein/status/1877055187241594986 https://x.com/ZackBornstein/status/1877055187241594986 Londoners Find ‘Horrendous’ Cracks in Their Homes After Successive Heat Waves - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-23/londoners-find-horrendous-cracks-in-homes-after-heat-waves https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-23/londoners... | https://archive.today/koMaT https://archive.today/koMaT - August 23rd, 2026 > “The impact that climate change is having is undeniable.” -- Laura Hughes, Head of general insurance at the Association of British Insurers. > 20%-25%: The average property devaluation as a result of subsidence, according to the Federation of Master Builders The Age of Unstoppable Wildfires Has Reached Europe - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-europe-summer-wildfires/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2026-europe-summer-wildfi... | https://archive.today/OjDZH https://archive.today/OjDZH - July 30th, 2026 Climate Change Is Already Showing Up in the Cost of Living - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-24/climate-change-is-already-making-the-affordability-crisis-worse https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-24/climate-c... | https://archive.today/EYTqo https://archive.today/EYTqo - April 24th, 2026 Heat Strains US Power Grids That Need Off-Season Repairs - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-19/rising-heat-strains-us-power-grid-in-need-of-off-season-repairs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-19/rising-he... | https://archive.today/K9VF0 https://archive.today/K9VF0 - May 19th, 2026 US Spending on Climate Damage Nears $1 Trillion Per Year - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/us-spending-on-climate-damage-nears-1-trillion-per-year https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/us-spendi... | https://archive.today/9IJWo https://archive.today/9IJWo - June 17th, 2025 (Texas night time temps are staying high enough [~78F] that the utility equipment does not get time to cool off and cycle, leading to more faults, for example, and the manufacturing supply chain for transformers has a backlog measured in years)
  • jimt1234 1mo ago
    This is exactly what I hear from my MAGA relatives: Why should I care if the ocean rises a few inches? I don't own beachfront property in Florida.
    • kenhwang 1mo ago
      From what we've seen, so far the (not projected to be underwater) coastal areas might be the areas spared in this scenario too, because being by the water still moderates temperature swings. It's everywhere else that'll be getting record breaking heat/drought and snow, which have been far more damaging. The disaster radius of hurricanes reaches far more inland than just the coast.
    • ElProlactin 1mo ago
      Your relatives clearly aren't MAGA if they're not concerned about what rising sea levels will do to Mar-a-Lago.
      • Terr_ 1mo ago
        Careful, that's a pitfall there if we assume MAGA words reflect an internal belief system. Too often the words are whatever they have to say in order to secure continued membership in the group: The Emperor's New Clothes are a glorious blue today. P.S: Also, we have always been [about to start|recently victorious] in the [illegal war|undeclared "excursion"] against Irania, and the tariff-free chocolate ration has been raised to twenty grammes per week.
      • ColdStream 1mo ago
        You know we might just be seeing the starting seed of the future legend of the Merica Atlantis. The fabled sunken land of Mar-a-lago where the King in Orange's folly took his treasures to the dark depths. Although after a few hundred years and many verbal re-tellings it might be the forgotten lands of Margaritaville. King Trump was a fan of a Cheeseburger in paradise. ;)
    • twothreeone 1mo ago
      I mean they're right, rising oceans will be a drop in the bucket for the majority of us. Unless we act together, human civilization will end through the combination of breakdown of global trade, mass migration due to heat and resource wars, and collapse of our food chain. Ocean levels are just one of the side effects that goes along with rising global temperatures. Beef production in the US is already down from 30 years ago. At some point you won't be able to raise cows anywhere, less alone feed them. Corn and wheat have seen tremendous fluctuations in the past and will likely continue to fall. Imagine corn yields dropping by more than 80% in the US [1]. Of course MAGA people will probably only notice once the shelves aren't being restocked. [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0906865106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0906865106
  • triska 1mo ago
    > "a few degrees, what difference does that make?" Maybe this helps: Think about when we have a fever of "a few degrees", say, instead of 37 degree Celsius, we have 40. It shows that also a few degrees can make a huge difference.
    • charcircuit 1mo ago
      The temperature of a fever is not measuring the temperature outside.
      • deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
      • groby_b 1mo ago
        This may be hard to understand, but that was an illustrative example on why sometimes a few degree difference have bigger absolute impact than you'd expect from the purely numerical value. Nobody (well, almost nobody, I guess) considered it an explanation or model of climate change.
        • deleted 1mo ago
          [deleted]
        • charcircuit 1mo ago
          It's like saying the sea level's altitude is important because if a drone assumes it is off by a few meters it can crash into the ground. It ignores that the altitude of a drone is based off of the output of a control system. If you just ignore the control system and adjust the altitude of the drone to the point where it crashes it is just ignoring what happens in reality and is not representative of what is trying to be discussed.
    • Isaackoz 1mo ago
      Think even bigger. 1 degrees inside your house? Not noticeable at all. But on a planet-wide scale? A 1 degree difference requires a LOT of energy. It's like boiling a cup of water vs an Olympic sized swimming pool. The latter is going to take a lot more energy than the former.
  • wcfrobert 1mo ago
    It's like interest rates. I used to think it's weird why people are so obsessed with a couple percentage points. But it's turns out those couple of percent could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars difference for a 30 year mortgage
  • yodsanklai 1mo ago
    > A few degrees warmer in the ocean and El Niño becomes an incredible problem for half the world. Ice age was only 6 degrees less than now, half of Europe was under ice
    • Windchaser 1mo ago
      And when the Earth was 3C cooler, NYC was nearly under an ice sheet. The current estimate is that we're heading for +3C warmer, which is gonna have some big impacts.
      • ColdStream 1mo ago
        Not only are we heading there it might be a lot quicker than we anticipate. The warming is accelerating quickly as the CO2 is cumulative and the feed back loops get more intense. The last decade has seen a 0.48c increase in temperature and due to the decade base line shifting every year and it is increasing in pace. https://www.intelligentliving.co/global-warming-acceleration-2026/ https://www.intelligentliving.co/global-warming-acceleration... The more realistic climate scientists think we will blow past 2c by roughly 2035. We are on track to 3c by 2050 and emissions growth has yet to stop despite all the additional renewables being built. This is why many have said next year with the flow on effects of El Nino that we will be getting a preview of 2035.
        • Windchaser 1mo ago
          > The more realistic climate scientists think we will blow past 2c by roughly 2035. We are on track to 3c by 2050 I keep hearing this, but not from the climate science community, but from laypeople. I don't understand it. I haven't yet heard reasonable physical mechanisms that would push us past 3C by 2050, when the mean expectation from major models is still ~2.7C by 2100. We haven't even hit 1.5C yet, not as a running decadal-ish average, using "1.5C target" the way that climate scientists traditionally meant it. How are we going to add another 1.5C in the next 25 years? That'd require 0.65C/decade. I don't understand it. The math ain't mathin'. For what it's worth, the link you cite talks about the reasons for the acceleration. But some of those reasons (El Nino, aerosols) lead to one-off pops that don't translate to higher long-term trends. Meaning, it would be reasonable to guess that the recent acceleration will taper off some, and we'll head back towards 0.2 - 0.25 C/decade from the current 0.35C/decade. But even if we keep up the current 0.35C/decade, we aren't getting to +3C until ~2075.
  • giarc 1mo ago
    I fell in the same trap "So it'll be 25C in summer instead of 23C!". Sometimes it's small things that make you realize how small changes make big impacts. For example, I was watching a documentary about caribou in Northern Canada. A whole herd starved and died because of a slight warming during winter. Normally they dig through the snow to find food in the winter. But a slight warming meant the snow fell as freezing rain and left a thick layer of ice on top of the snow. The caribou couldn't dig through it and therefore couldn't eat and they died. A tiny change in temperature wiped out a huge colony.
  • cameldrv 1mo ago
    Honestly I think American scientists not speaking in Fahrenheit units to an American audience is an incredibly simple and stupid, but very significant cause of the problem. If I tell you the Earth is going to get 2 degrees C warmer, Americans are going to think, "2 degrees, not that much, barely noticeable." If you tell them it's 4 degrees F, they'll think, that's not a ton, but it's definitely noticeable.
    • N_Lens 1mo ago
      I like the 30 year mortgage analogy, something people can connect with. 2% increase in mortgage rate likely means low 6 figures difference in total interest paid.
  • cmrdporcupine 1mo ago
    > I am glad that I live far away from the effects but it is sad to think of people losing all kinds of things for the lack of respect of Mother Earth! I thought this too, feeling a bit more smug living in southern Ontario, safer than my family in BC and Alberta next to raging forest fires and potential drought. But seems we now get a few weeks of forest fire smoke every year even down here in lush green great lakes land. And the number of tornadoes and ice storms seem to increase every year. Plus watching the Children of Men style xenophobia and callous disregard for climate refugees set in all over the world. Blech. I love my kids but I think my perspective would be much different and positive if I'd just remained childless.
    • TacticalCoder 1mo ago
      > Plus watching the Children of Men style xenophobia and callous disregard for climate refugees set in all over the world. There are no climate refugees... Yet.
      • infinite8s 1mo ago
        The collapse of Syria was partly due to an extended drought causing famine. A lot of the current xenophobia in Europe is due to the small amount of refugees escaping the effects of this famine and subsequent civil war.
    • ColdStream 1mo ago
      Cortisol is the hormone that creates tight social bonds. It is what make you love your kids so much. So the secret to a loving and kind society is to just pour this stuff in the drinking water supply, right? No it strengthened social bonds, both toward family and friends and equally against others. It makes people VERY tribal. Cortisol is also released in long term stressful situations. With a rising tide of poverty and climate blow back, I suspect stress will increase and so too will said tribalism. What we see today with the rising popularist and isolationist political parties is but an echo of the future. We see some of these tendencies when a few thousand or tens of thousands of refugees turn up in a country. What happens when this becomes millions? I have said it for years, many will be welcomed with open arms - those arms being machine guns, bombs and drones. This is the dark future I fear and I hope I am wrong. I do not have kids, it wasn't by choice. But what looked like something of a negative might actually turn out to be a near miss in future. Just keep your kids safe and try to have peace and compassion to others that are trying to do the same.
  • fragmede 1mo ago
    It's a marketing copy thing. If instead of 1 degree, they said 1.4 million TWh, which is the amount of energy needed to heat the Earth by 1 degree, it would hit better extreme number emotional buttons, but I'm not in charge of things.
    • stouset 1mo ago
      Frankly I think expressing it in Celsius has made Americans think it’s less of a problem than it is. It took me awhile to realize that it’s basically 4°F, which is enormous.
  • ColdStream 1mo ago
    Someone I know who worked in the climate sciences once put it so clearly to me. An increase of 1 degree is global, and with 70% of the world being ocean that raises much slower, the temperature rise over land is effectively doubled. So 1c degree is 2c. A 2c world is 4c. That when CO2 was 100 point less than the 280ppm baseline we had an ice age with glaciers down to the 40th(ish) parallels in the Northern Hemisphere. We have now pushed it 150 above the baseline in effectively 150 years and fast accelerating. What seems like something trivial, is actually forcing on an unbelievable scale. Also a fun visualization, roughly speaking 1 part per million in water vapor is what a cloud looks like. If CO2 had the same visual properties as water, it would be pitch black on the ground. People keep looking to the past for answers, and yes it does provide valuable context. But what we are doing now has never happened on this planet, we are blindly rushing into a future that is beyond comprehension. Some things will go worse than expected, some thing will go a lot better, but nobody really knows just yet. Also to the last line "I am glad that I live far away from the effects", alas, this isn't like empires of the past that are geographically limited. Those that can collapse but there is still plenty of untouched lands and civilizations. We now live in a global system, a six continent supply chain. We will all be impacted.
  • flakeoil 1mo ago
    I think this talk about 1.5C or 2C degree increase is confusing and make the issue look less alarming. Firstly this is a global average, including both land and ocean temperature. The land temperatures will increase much more than the ocean temperatures and the oceans cover a higher surface. So with a 2C incease on average globally could mean 6-8 degrees more on land on average. And we are also talking about averages and globally at the same time. So at specific instances and specific places it will get even warmer, say 10-20 degrees during days or weeks. So GIEC, researchers, magazines and others should more clearly describe what this means and stop talking about these 1.5C and 2C degree increases and instead talk about how much warmer it will be on land or some other more useful measure.
    • olmo23 1mo ago
      Eurostar has upgraded the technical specifications for its new fleet of double-decker trains to operate in temperatures of up to 55°C (131°F).
  • AlecSchueler 1mo ago
    > I am glad that I live far away from the effects I've heard it said that we'll all be watching a series of disasters play out on our phones until it comes time to see one play out through our windows.
  • ainiriand 1mo ago
    Sea water temperature here in Valencia was something crazy this year. I do not remember anything like this before.
  • prime_ursid 1mo ago
    If the climate effects don’t get you, the political fallout of a million climate refugees showing up at your borders will.
  • meta-level 1mo ago
    reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/
  • tsoukase 1mo ago
    I am also in a convenient place expecting more heat (mountainous region with cold nights/winters, enough water). I admit I enjoy the warmer months and wait for people come visit me for Coolidays.
• gmuslera 1mo ago
  "highest temperature on record"... so far. There are still ~4 months till peak El Niño, and then some months to spread effects.
  • WithinReason 1mo ago
    > ... so far That's what "on record" means
    • gmuslera 1mo ago
      Is not the same a record that may be broken in the next 100 years than one that will be broken most days till end of year. One is an event, the other is a running process with no clear end, besides that won’t be the current point.
      • adammarples 1mo ago
        No, "on record" here means simply "recorded", ie. measured. It doesn't mean "a record", like a maximum.
• cdrnsf 1mo ago
  Meanwhile governments are electing to either do nothing or actively make the problem worse (particularly in the case of the US — expanding fossil fuel extraction, pushing data center build out and attacking renewables like wind).
  • pstuart 1mo ago
    This has been aided by the fact that energy has been heavily politicized. Fossil fuels are 'murican and renewables are woke. It's horrifying.
    • virissimo 1mo ago
      Does your hypothesis predict that Texas would be one of the most renewable-energy-heavy states in the U.S.?
      • bix6 1mo ago
        That’s just economics. That doesn’t excuse what the current admin has done in terms of prioritization.
        • HeyLaughingBoy 1mo ago
          That "just" is really doing a lot of heavy lifting. Economics is what makes this country work. If converting to renewables makes more money, that's what will happen and the people making the money will find a way to justify it politically.
          • datsci_est_2015 1mo ago
            Which makes it all the more remarkable given the century+ headstart fossil fuels had in entrenching itself in our political process and power structures. Texas is doing something right, that’s for sure. But it’s not so clear what that thing is that the topic can be considered settled without debate.
          • 1mo ago
• yboris 1mo ago
  My favorite source of graphs about this ongoing catastrophe: https://x.com/EliotJacobson https://x.com/EliotJacobson - retired professor of mathematics and computer science Example: https://x.com/EliotJacobson/status/2091911667903041543 https://x.com/EliotJacobson/status/2091911667903041543
  • IAmGraydon 1mo ago
    Then you might like this site: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2 https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
  • threetonesun 1mo ago
    Posting them on x.com and his Substack is all AI generated hero images so one wonders if he's more interested in the line going up for engagement purposes.
• ang_cire 1mo ago
  As someone who works in risk management, I think I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be so blase about climate change. Like, it truly takes a level of willful ignorance to have something so dire happening, and just choosing to either ignore it, or ignore the evidence for it. Like, even if you think the science isn't that accurate, the impacts, the massive potential harms, should outweigh the choice to just ignore it. Then again, there are people buying wooden homes in wildfire, hurricane, and flood zones, so who knows; maybe doing risk management as a job has just inured me to head-in-the-sand reactions, since I've seen what happens when you don't beat the odds. This isn't a personal risk, either, like riding a motorcycle where you're the only one who's going to get hurt when your number comes up. This is literally going to kill millions.
  • kazinator 1mo ago
    The millions it will kill first won't be among the overconsumers who are driving climate change.
  • smcg 1mo ago
    they don't care who lives or dies. they probably think it only affects "bad" people.
  • chasd00 1mo ago
    so I don't want to ignore it nor the evidence, now what?
    • ang_cire 1mo ago
      So now use whatever political power you have to push for changes to mitigate, respond, or prevent as much of it as possible?
      • HDBaseT 1mo ago
        [flagged]
  • zem 1mo ago
• neom 1mo ago
  BBC did a pretty good deep dive a few days ago on what we're in for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xZCh8eDZFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xZCh8eDZFc DW also, similar stuff, but the guest is quite good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcl5Mn373Oc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcl5Mn373Oc Anton Petrov covered it from a much more science lens a couple months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRoU3whzX_Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRoU3whzX_Q
  • bayganyo 1mo ago
    I see what you did there. Bravo.
  • pfisch 1mo ago
    The eu is stupid for not engaging in active climate engineering right now. They are the most at risk and should take decisive action before they end up living in a glacier. All the downvotes are just showing why no action is being taken even though right now we are literally terraforming the planet with no plan, and it is going to stop the transatlantic currents that keep Europe from becoming arctic. But sure, just do nothing until Europe becomes an uninhabitable tundra and it is too late to take action. Great plan.
    • fchicken 1mo ago
      Spoken as if climate engineering were an established science with no potential pitfalls or downsides...
      • pfisch 1mo ago
        We are ALREADY doing it. It is already going poorly because we are doing it without any goals. So we can just continue geoengineering with no aim, or we can act with purpose. There is no third option that is realistic.
    • worik 1mo ago
      What could possibly go wrong?
• Varelion 1mo ago
  Thank God we have a new technology that is aggressively using water, power, and making the world increasingly hotter.
  • the_real_cher 1mo ago
    I know. Banning internal combustion engines is a good first step.
    • Zambyte 1mo ago
      Seriously. People fuss over LLM energy consumption, but I did the math on my rig, and if I were to use my machine at full tilt for all of my waking hours, I would use roughly 1/10th the amount of energy the average American uses driving. By the way, I highly recommend the Priority 600 :-)
      • infinitezest 1mo ago
        I think OP is talking about datacenters which likely use a little more power than your home rig.
        • the_sleaze_ 1mo ago
          Extrapolate
        • Zambyte 1mo ago
          And I use SOTA models that are hosted on hardware I don't have access to a handful of times a month at this point, and most of the people I talk to regarding LLM usage are either in the same boat, or are asking about hosting things themselves. The diminishing returns for using the best of the best models just aren't worth it for most things anymore.
    • HDBaseT 1mo ago
      I will kill myself the day I can no longer drive an internal combustion engine. I don't really see any purpose if we have to be confined to computer enabled cars with built in surveillance with no resemblance of quality, control or freedom.
• johnnyApplePRNG 1mo ago
  I can feel it. The weather this year up in Canada here has been extremely odd. Constantly. You can tell something is off.
  • Noaidi 1mo ago
    I live in a minivan and drive around the United States every year. I started noticing it two years ago, but last year was really difficult for me to go to the usual places I went. I’m up in the Pacific Northwest right now and I’m not even planning where I’m gonna go this year because I’m definitely gonna just be following the weather. One thing I will definitely not be doing is staying around the Palm Springs area, which I usually do because of the risk for earthquakes if the heavy rain flow into the Salton sea.
    • johnnyApplePRNG 1mo ago
      That's crazy! Are you enjoying the van life? Always dreamed of doing it myself.
      • Noaidi 1mo ago
        It was forced on me, so I have to enjoy it (Homeless, the rent is too damn high). Just hard to do when you live off of disability with a serious mental illness. Also, my van is a 2001 dodge grand caravan so don't get too excited. :)
    • andsoitis 1mo ago
      > One thing I will definitely not be doing is staying around the Palm Springs area, which I usually do because of the risk for earthquakes if the heavy rain flow into the Salton sea. Heavy precipitation would have negligible impact on earthquake hazard. Interestingly, Palm Springs area has considerably higher earthquake risk than most of the US because it sits near 4 major active faults: San Andreas, San Jacinto, Banning, and Garnet Hill.
  • contingencies 1mo ago
    In Sydney it has been raining almost non stop for a year. Really odd. Garden loves it, I'm planting non-endemic native (primarily tropical) species from further north along the coast. I expect a snap-back to extreme drought during this or the subsequent summer. But come further warming, we'll have a jungle.
• elorant 1mo ago
  Meanwhile, canned sardines went 20% up in the last month in Greece. And that's while we have plenty of local production. I can't imagine what it would be in countries where they import everything. Give it a few years and all fish food prices could go up substantially.
  • stevenwoo 1mo ago
    It hasn’t gone up yet here in California but I see from the boxes I usually eat that these are sourced from Vietnam (in spite of Monterrey being a short trip away) so these could come from China (one of the usual tariff bypass mechanisms) and hence anywhere in the world (ghost fleets) and possibly not reflect real world ecosystem pressure until multiple fishery collapse.
    • ColdStream 1mo ago
      Multiple fishery collapses are probably incoming in the next decade or so. For as much as we have and do catch from the ocean, it is as a whole a fairly nutrient bare place by comparison to the land. Its scale and exploitation beyond recovery has allowed it to look far more prosperous than it really is.
• karol 1mo ago
  OMG, that's like 200 years of 4.5bn?
  • jgord 1mo ago
    to be fair.. almost all of human civilization happened over the last ~10k years, the Holocene, during which the climate was unusually stable. Its reasonable to question whether our agriculture at scale is adaptable to such sudden climate change.
    • hydrolox 1mo ago
      it's not just reasonable to question, it's all but obvious and anyone who comes up with a retort like "what about millions/billions of years before civilization" is being, at best, insincere
• zero-sharp 1mo ago
  I remember watching a documentary which talked about feedback loops in the climate. It might have been in the context of history. If the ocean warms up enough, it causes the CO2 in the ocean itself (either in the deposits or the gas saturated in the water) to get released into the atmosphere. Maybe I'm not using the right technical words, but there is a certain amount of CO2 that sits within the ocean that is separate from the atmosphere. In any case, after a certain point it becomes a feedback loop: warmer climate -> more CO2 joins the atmosphere -> warmer climate.
  • jeffbee 1mo ago
    You may be thinking of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
    • zero-sharp 1mo ago
      Yes I think so too. It wasn't CO2, but methane in the form of methane hydrate.
  • ColdStream 1mo ago
    We don't even need the oceans temperature to rise, as the arctic tundra permafrost melts the amount of plant material ready to release its CO2 is massive. Some estimate think it would double the amount of our total emissions if all of it defrosts. But this did lead to one of the more ridiculous head line from a few years back. Thawing Permafrost Is Artificially Chilled to Stabilize Alaska Oil Pipeline https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thawing-permafrost-is-artificially-chilled-to-stabilize-alaska-oil-pipeline/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thawing-permafros...
  • igor47 1mo ago
    Warmer water holds less dissolved gases of all kinds, including CO2. You can see this yourself by heating water in your kitchen. Well below the boiling point, you can observe tiny bubbles, which are composed of nitrogen and oxygen dissolved in the water coming out of solution. The oceans will eventually become carbon sources, not carbon sinks, if they warm enough, but that's not projected to happen this century. However, there are regions of the oceans which currently absorb lots of CO2 which will absorb much less as time goes on. One important example is the AMOC, which, by turning over lots of water, helps sink surface dissolved CO2 into the deeper ocean. In recent years, oceanographers have observed a weakening of the AMOC, which was predicted but is happening much earlier than expected. This is one of the important planetary tipping points, which could cause a dramatic shift in the planet's climate. But don't worry -- the Trump administration is defunding programs like the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, decommissioning the Ocean Observatories Initiative, and is planning to shutter NOAA's research arm altogether -- thus solving the problem once and for all.
• willmeyers 1mo ago
  This El Niño is going to be interesting come Christmas time. Lot's of weather and climate unpredictability coming to a region near you!
  • didgetmaster 1mo ago
    I hope so! The area I live in has been experiencing drought and everyone seems to be predicting a wet period coming from this. Personally, I don't put much faith in weather predictions that are more than a week away.
    • cogman10 1mo ago
      El nino predictions are pretty spot on. They won't be able to tell you "There will be a storm on the 30th" but they will be able to tell you that you should expect flash floods next year. Unfortunately for where I'm at, the prediction due to el nino is more drought, which sucks because we are already desperately dry. Hopefully the following la nina year will bring us some moisture.
      • kbrisso 1mo ago
        Predicting El Niño vs. La Niña vs. neutral: relatively reliable. Predicting how strong the El Niño will be: harder. Predicting exactly what it will do to rainfall, temperatures, storms, or snowfall: substantially less reliable.
        • didgetmaster 1mo ago
          And yet people will put forth dire predictions (drought, flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, etc.) every chance they get. No wonder so many people think it is all a hoax.
          • perrygeo 1mo ago
            Yes, scientists have put forth dire predictions of extreme weather. Here's the thhing though - we actually see measurable increases in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. They put forth dire predictions.. and they are absolutely correct. It's right there in the observational record.
• livinglist 1mo ago
  I scuba dive in Monterey, CA every other weekend, and just came back from a liveaboard in Galapagos in May. The water is much warmer this year, and it is very noticeable because usually in Galapagos, divers are expected to wear 8mm wetsuit or dry suit to be comfortable in the water, but this year even a 5mm made me feel too warm. In Monterey, water temp used to be around 11-13°C but this year it’s easily above 16°C, divers also reported more sightings of spiny lobsters which were rare in Monterey because water was too cold for them.
• cb321 1mo ago
  The "scatter line plot" in TFA is all same shade of red on white with no year labels. This seems like a missed visualization opportunity. Using some kind of color scheme/gradient to represent the 1979-2026 years in a way that can show long-term "trend". (A 50 frame movie at, say, 5 fps with same axes or maybe "all years" as faded background as the current year pops around in bold is another possibility, but a scientific paper format doesn't let people do .mp4s.) I know I've seen multi-colored "scatter lines" in IPCC reports. Seemed worth asking rather than doing it myself.
  • black_puppydog 1mo ago
    Yeah, kinda like the spirals used for (air?) temperature: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5190/ https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5190/
• layer8 1mo ago
  Original source: https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-daily-global-sea-surface-temperature-breaks-2024-record https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-daily-global-sea-su...
• jauntywundrkind 1mo ago
  Not adding anything super major here, but to repeat the broadcast: this has such a broad danger to it, is a core driver of ocean acidification (along with the ambient CO2 the ocean sinks up), by reducing the oxygen carrying capacity of water. > Ocean acidification has been called the "evil twin of global warming" and "the other CO2 problem". Increased ocean temperatures and oxygen loss act concurrently with ocean acidification and constitute the "deadly trio" of climate change pressures on the marine environment. The impacts of this will be most severe for coral reefs and other shelled marine organisms,as well as those populations that depend on the ecosystem services they provide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
• asphodele 1mo ago
  With less ice around than there used to be, the same incident energy can do a lot more ocean heating. It takes 80 calories to convert 1 gram of ice at 0C to 1 gram of water at 0C. Once the ice is melted, a further 80 calories can raise the temperature of the gram of water at 0C to 80C
  • ColdStream 1mo ago
    Yep, once you learn about Latent temperature fusion, ones view on these things change drastically. It also explains why boiling water doesn't spontaneously just explode into vapor once it hits that temperature
    • aqfamnzc 1mo ago
      The concept of heat of fusion blew my mind when I learned about it in high school chemistry. Feels extremely counterintuitive at first.
• s5300 1mo ago
  [dead]
• tehnoslow 1mo ago
  Worrying news, but honestly not surprising anymore. What's interesting is that El Niño hasn't even peaked yet, if it gets as strong as they're predicting 2027 is gonna be even hotter. Also kinda depressing to realize that no matter how much one person does, it won't make a dent globally. And what really stings is that even when decisions get made they're either too late or half-assed. Guess all we can do is hope we don't live to see things get really bad...
  • cogman10 1mo ago
    My understanding is that 2027 is when all the energy stored in the ocean will ultimately be released in the form of massive storms. IDK if it'll be hotter or not, but it's predicted to be pretty insane, particularly throughout the southern US.
• floro 1mo ago
  The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. China produces 60% of global Co2. When you look at the graph, Europe isn't even visible. If we truly cared about climate change we would stop buying from China. But we all know this won't ever happen because we don't really care enough. It's just virtue signaling. Buy an AC you're not saving the planet by sweating your ass off.
  • Dumblydorr 1mo ago
    Per capita emissions are way higher in the USA. It’d make a much bigger dent if Americans changed their ways than citizens of developing nations.
  • Windchaser 1mo ago
    > The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. If you look at total historic emissions to date, the US is responsible for 25% of all of them, and the EU is close behind at 22%. China is at 13%. And if you look at historic emissions per person, then each American has produced ~8x as much as the average Chinese person. https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 Yes, the west has played the dominant role in GHG emissions. I don't blame China for now, quite recently, increasing their GHG emissions as they try to get to standards of living we've had for many decades. As we led the way into the industrial revolution and high GHG emissions, we should also lead the way back out. And yet US emissions per capita are still about 50% higher than Chinese!
    • contingencies 1mo ago
      Also, to be more holistic in evaluating things through this icky nationalist lens, China has been a globally significant contributor to alternate fuels including solar and micro-hydro, plus the transition to EVs notably including EV buses (now becoming globally popular) and high speed rail.
    • 0xy 1mo ago
      96.6% of new energy capacity in the US came from green sources from 2024 to 2026 (nuclear, batteries, wind, hydro, solar). In China, in that time period, they built 52 brand new coal plants.
• zmmmmm 1mo ago
  The big question / risk is whether there are unknown tipping points where things run away. Many are talked about - ice melting, reducing reflectivity, more heating causes more heating etc. But some fraction of these are probably unknowable.
• jgord 1mo ago
  Recent studies estimate climate warming is happening faster than it was, ballpark +0.3C per decade. As we are at or nearing +1.5C now, with global emissions at an all time high [ perhaps peaking soon ] theres a good chance we are headed toward +2.6C by ~2060. Keep in mind the CO2 stays up there for a long time, centuries, so when we get to net-zero its max-CO2 and therefore max-heat.
  • convolvatron 1mo ago
    does it stop? the more co2 the more heat is retained. so the relation between co2 and temperature is an integral over time. were we suddenly to stop burning things how far does it go up before infrared emissions equilibrate with the larger thermal flux? that and the lower albedo and other knockoff effects may continue to make things worse even if we were to stop.
    • jgord 1mo ago
      yeah, Id actually like to see a reasonable prediction of the trajectory, factoring in recent few years data [ faster warming, current emissions, cleaner air / reduced aerosols and issues like those you mention such as equilibration and ocean heat buffering ] The graphs I see all have ridiculous ranges, either +1.5C hopium or +6C hellscape - whereas +2.6C within 20 to 30 years seems a most likely [and unpleasant] scenario.
    • frozenwind 1mo ago
      Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play here? What about the AMOC collapse. IF too much heat disrupts some weather patterns which are heating the northenr emisphere, that would mean an increase in the ice cover again and therefore more heat reflection again.
  • Valakas_ 1mo ago
    But in 50 years we'll defo have technology to remove that CO2.
    • sfn42 1mo ago
• julienchastang 1mo ago
  Does anybody else feel like this is the answer to the Fermi paradox? Advanced civilizations simply exploit, consume, and pollute their way of existence.
  • swingboy 1mo ago
    14 billion years and not a single piece of evidence of a prior civilization.
    • toasty228 1mo ago
      The universe is vast, both in space and time. You would not detect anything from a past civilization that died a few millions of years ago in the closest solar system, which is really not that far in either time nor space
      • swingboy 1mo ago
        [flagged]
  • deepfriedchokes 1mo ago
    As they say, “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Perhaps humanity shouldn’t have absolute power over the planet. Perhaps we should check our own power to save ourselves. We’ve done it with government, to insure stability and longevity, why not the planet?
    • slidehero 1mo ago
      >why not the planet? greed
    • ColdStream 1mo ago
      Love the planet as you love your self. Just be. Easy to say, difficult to do.
  • Ancalagon 1mo ago
• smetannik 1mo ago
  Next year will be a new record
• lanon123 1mo ago
  [dead]
• lanon123 1mo ago
  [dead]
• bpavuk 1mo ago
  okay, now we are boiling the ocean. literally. P.S. for pedantic folk: yeah, it's far from the actual boiling threshold of ~100°C, but to boil the humanity, you don't even have to go 80-90% of the way there
• jesse_dot_id 1mo ago
  Unfortunately, nothing is really going to happen to mitigate this until it starts fucking up things (literal things, property, etc) for the richest people. Then, miraculously, all of our scientific focuses will be realigned to find solutions.
• aliasxneo 1mo ago
  I try to do my part to the best of my ability. But obviously it's only a droplet in the ocean (hah). But if I'm being honest, what scares me far more than this is the capability of humans to "force" a solution on the world.
  • epolanski 1mo ago
    If one would have to do the best of its ability then one should adapt very quickly its consumption patterns (stop buying so many things, get minimalist), food patterns (food is likely the per-capita biggest environmental destroyer, eating fish and beef is very taxing on the planet e.g.), travel patterns (no airplanes, use bikes/feet/public transports, cars as last resort). Those aren't small things to ask and I understand why people and governments pretend to gaslight with just energy, as it asks for no impact on daily life.
    • ColdStream 1mo ago
      Pretty much this. While each action is tiny, collectively they add up. The rain drop doesn't blame itself for the flood.
  • jeroenhd 1mo ago
    We fixed the hole in the ozone layer. All the countries came together, worked together, and fixed the problem threatening to doom us all with skin cancer and worse. Humanity can come together. Unfortunately, the threat of total annihilation of human civilisation is currently not outweighing the short-term profit incentives of those in power, and they've turned the issue into fuel for their culture war so I doubt we'll find a real solution before the current generation of politicians is dead.
    • Tadpole9181 1mo ago
      IIRC, the Montreal protocol only worked because it could be solved with existing technology, quickly, with almost no economic cost and happened in a totally different era of global politics. Climate change has... well... none of that. Not only that, but by the time it gets bad enough to convince people, it may be literally impossible to stop. It's grim to think about, but if the nuke is falling it's too late to build an iron dome. We have several nuclear bombs dangling above us. We know they're there - permafrost, AMOC, ocean life collapse - just not exactly where, and we're blinding swinging a knife on a stick while actively yelling for a longer stick and telling the research committees not to tell them if they're getting close.
• kylehotchkiss 1mo ago
  I often think of how much of government lethargy to climate change is because of miserable marketing like Greta thunburg yelling at a bunch of old EU bureaucrats or teenagers throwing paint at art or glueing themselves to highways. There was too few “there are green technologies superior to the carbon based ones” (heat pumps got really good). Well, there are two problem spaces - innovating ways to reduce emissions AND inventing new ways to help people cope with rising temperatures - and I hear very little about the second one despite the immediate humanitarian need for it
• Robdel12 1mo ago
  I always will think of how everyone laughed at Bernie Sanders' reply in ~2016 to "What is the greatest threat to national security" and he replied "Climate change". It's going to get ugly when large swaths of the human population struggles to get food & clean water.
  • bamboozled 1mo ago
    Last night I had insomnia due to stress, and I was compulsively scrolling social media. The comments section of most videos just made me realize how actually fucked we are. It might just be a context thing and people are on average smarter than what the comment section makes out but yeah, wasn't filling me with confidence what I saw.
    • teloli 1mo ago
      Quitting social media is probably one of the best things you could do to bring stress levels back to normal!
      • bamboozled 1mo ago
        It was mostly Youtube but yes, it's social media, I just couldn't imagine quitting YT!
• kombine 1mo ago
  https://world.hey.com/dhh/three-sacred-cows-that-must-die-so-europe-can-live-1afb203d https://world.hey.com/dhh/three-sacred-cows-that-must-die-so... > Behind this climate hysteria is an even deeper delusion, though: that degrowth will deliver us all from the sins of modernity. That energy use in and of itself is suspect. That salvation will be delivered through abstinence. It's all nonsense. Maybe slightly off-topic, but here a prominent figure in SV who now also got into Linux is mocking those concerned about climate change.
• xyst 1mo ago
  humanity is quite literally cooking. it was a nice run while it lasted, but seems humanity is nearing its end as the world/nature is trying to purge humanity to save itself.
• npc36586 1mo ago
  Humanity has only a few weeks left. Because some awful people decided to vote for Trump.
• asdfman123 1mo ago
  The good news for gulf coast residents is El Nino wind shear will do a lot to disrupt hurricane formation this year. The bad news is that if it's hot again next year, La Nina will actually help hurricanes form.
• lolive 1mo ago
  Cons: So long polar bears [and decent weather] Pros: my next iPhone will travel faster from China to Europe. #alwaysLookAtTheBrightSideOfLife
• anonu 1mo ago
  Lets hope that those touting a "reversion to the mean" are right.
  • mempko 1mo ago
    they are not
• jambalaya8 1mo ago
  Of all of the side effects, the top-down worst problem will be the effects on phytoplanktons, and how that will affect the marine, and thus terrestrial, food chain.
• josefritzishere 1mo ago
  That sounds bad.
• thelastgallon 1mo ago
  With the growth in solar, it is easy to think that we can solve it, we just do more renewables, but the decline of fossil fuels is negligible: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:7438918221094772736/ https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:7438918221... Globally, fossil fuels supply 81.1% today (2023). Only marginally down from 81.4% in 2000. Fossil fuels are not on track to end by 2050. But rather in 4-10 centuries.
  • 0cf8612b2e1e 1mo ago
    Solar + wind were 99% of new generation capacity last year. Fossil fuel usage dropped for one of the first times ever. Renewables generated more than coal. Solar installation is huge and the increase continues to accelerate. Every year has seen a record amount of installed solar. Solar started at zero two decades ago and is already curbing other sources.
    • thelastgallon 1mo ago
      That 99% may be just Australia and not the entire world? There seems to be a ton of new coal and gas plants still coming online, 95% of them in China and India. 100 GW of new coal plants and 100 GW of gas. There are probably ~1000 gas plants in the pipeline just in US for data centers. And a ton more onsite gas turbines, like Musks Colossus DC, 1GW of compute powered by gas turbines. From: https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-coal-plants-hit-10-year-global-high-in-2025-but-power-output-still-fell https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-coal-plants-hit-10-year-glob... > In 2025, coal-capacity growth hit a 10-year high, with 97 gigawatts (GW) of new power > The number of new coal-fired power plants built around the world hit a “10-year high” in 2025 > It adds that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China. > 70% of the coal-fired units scheduled to retire globally in 2025 did not do so
      • 0cf8612b2e1e 1mo ago
        Even the title and first line of that article supports my point, “New coal plants hit ‘10-year’ global high in 2025 – but power output still fell”. Coal capacity is increasing, but it is not being used. Mostly China is constructing new plants but leaving them idle. Check the Ember 2026 report for all the global details: ..In another global milestone, renewables overtook coal power in 2025. Solar, wind, hydropower and other renewable sources together contributed more than a third of global electricity generation for the first time in the modern power system. Conversely, the share of coal power fell below a third for the first time in history. .. Driven by record solar growth, low-carbon power generation increased by 887 TWh in 2025, outpacing electricity demand growth of 849 TWh. Solar power alone met 75% of the net increase in electricity demand. Together with wind, the two sources met almost all (99%) demand growth. For the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, and only the fifth time this century, fossil generation did not rise, recording a small fall of 38 TWh (-0.2%). Also, a whole 200GW new coal+gas capacity in the pipeline! OMG! In 2025, the world installed 647GW of solar capacity, generating 2778 TWh. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2026/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-...
• thelastgallon 1mo ago
  The things that will work, but can't be done: Walk/bike instead of vehicles, no crypto and AI (tremendous hype and speculators and grifters), Lower population (religions are opposed to it), degrowth (nobody wants to live a relatively substandard life, all the stuff is for status signaling), fly less, don't eat as much beef, etc. Degrowth is the best way, but nobody can walk entire population down that path. It has to be everyone or no one will do it because its all comparison based living. What are possible? 1) Plug-in solar and batteries: The next population boom is in Africa. Africa probably has the advantage of no legacy grid with fossil fuel interests and power plants. They can leap frog and go entirely offgrid or mini community level grids. 2) Vertical solar: Solar deployments at scale today use the legacy grid, production far away and transmission lines to bring power to cities. Solar is dirt cheap, the biggest costs now are land and transmission lines. Instead, we can do vertical solar in cities. Cover every surface. Adds ~4 hours of production every day. We already know rooftop solar works, with vertical, maybe cities can become self-sufficient. 3) EVs for energy storage. 1.8 billion vehicles in the world, if they all become EVs, they are the biggest energy storage without having to build a separate energy storage layer saving trillions of dollars. The first step is to stop buying ICE cars. It will take 20 years for the entire fleet to be electric. Solar is growing now, but curtailment is at 20%. Storage is the bottleneck. Solar will soon hit a wall, we can't grow solar because it becomes financially unviable to add more production, curtailment will increase and prices will go a lot more negative (500 million times/year in the US). People are going to buy cars anyway, we can't convince anyone to walk/bike, just have them buy EVs instead. This creates the storage to continue to grow solar.
• linuxhansl 1mo ago
  We knew about this all since the 1980's. Carl Sagan testified before congress in 1985 [1]. That's over 40 years ago. Yet, we continue to burn more and fossil fuels; solar, wind, EVs, etc, non-withstanding. And right now some governments are actively spending money to work against renewable energy. At this point I am afraid that we humans will only act when the alternative is unaffordable, when the forest is already on fire. I hope by that time it won't be too late. Those of us who have been saying this all along won't even get the hollow satisfaction of an "I told you so!", because we'll be too busy surviving. Vote, drive less (combustion engines), fly less, use public transportation, check your utility mix (and demand a larger renewable fraction), install solar, lobby, buy more local (where possible), consume less, support those with jobs displaced by renewables, accept some loss on your fossil stocks, ... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI
• wazoox 1mo ago
  An excellent reminder Jancovici makes in his climate presentations, is that the difference between 1950 climate and the last Ice Age is only 4 to 5°C. Obviously, 8 billion humans wouldn't be able to live in the last Ice Age. A more indirect analogy is body temperature : having your body temperature 2°C above normal is a pretty bad fever; at 4°C, your life is in immediate danger; anything over that you're seriously harmed or dead.
• ricardobayes 1mo ago
  This seems to be directly linked to the lowered maritime shipping emissions, especially sulphur aerosols. Perhaps we should stop doing ad-hoc interventions until we can figure out a good, global path to tackle this challenge. ps. please don't downvote this. I'm NOT a climate change denialist. Aerosol removal is linked to the recent temperature spike. Don't mix CO2 with aerosols. We need to get rid of CO2. Peer-reviewed article covering the topic: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/13681/2024/ https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/13681/2024/ (best resource) https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2206885119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2206885119 (covering reduced cloud coverage after the emissions being lowered)
• grougnax 1mo ago
  [dead]
• vee-kay 1mo ago
  [dead]
• amai 1mo ago
  Please disperse, there's nothing to see here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAKnbIr6TE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAKnbIr6TE
• vismit2000 1mo ago
  A few degrees closer to "boiling the ocean"
• AuthAuth 1mo ago
  China needs to reduce emissions badly. They should have started 15 years ago.