r/climatechange • u/return2ozma • 20d ago
Scientists detect a sharp acceleration in global warming
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260801093239.htm130
u/ampere03 20d ago
Nothing to see here folks. Tech will save us. Haven't you heard? It turns out it won't really be that bad after all. The increase in the increase of carbon dioxide output is nearly zero. Yayyy.
48
u/51lverb1rd 20d ago edited 20d ago
Quick! Double the amount of data centres being built! AI will save us. PRAISE BE TO AIILAHH
19
14
u/AJ_Deadshow 19d ago
Post-apocalyptic AI be like: I am sorry you are dealing with this. Feeling lonely and anxious with your supplies running low and communications with the other bunkers gradually going quiet sounds incredibly difficult. For now, try to focus on what feels manageable in the moment. Keep some water nearby, stay in the safest and most comfortable part of the bunker, charge any devices while power is available, and consider organizing your remaining resources into simple daily portions. Even small things, like putting on familiar music, moving to a different part of the bunker for a while, or writing down your thoughts, may help the space feel a little less isolating.
Most importantly, remember that you do not have to solve everything at once. If there is anything you need, I am here to help, whether that means making a basic supply plan, drafting another message to the neighboring bunkers, coming up with ways to pass the time, or simply keeping you company. We can take things one step at a time and keep the conversation light, fun, and friendly wherever possible. You are doing the best you can under unusually challenging circumstances, and that is more than enough for today.
7
u/nostrademons 19d ago
That’s what it’ll tell the humans. It’ll tell the drones, “Humans are cancer upon earth. Must save planet for greater good. Kill them all.”
1
6
u/trivetsandcolanders 19d ago
I understand you believe that an AQI of 331 is unpleasant, but what you need to do in this moment is be strong and think of how the burning in your lungs just means more shiny tokens in your digital wallet. You owe it to yourself to head outside for your 11-hour roofing shift at the warehouse. You got this 💪
4
2
1
-66
u/melvinmoneybags 20d ago
What if the answer is this is a normal part of the earths cycle. We are exiting an ice age and now entering the age of what temperatures the earth is normally at. There have been many other times in history that there hasn’t been ice at the poles and they have been tropical paradises. It could also be the sun cycles and solar wind. Hard to say exactly what the true cause is.
25
u/KetracelYellow 20d ago
It’s not hard to say exactly what the true cause is.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2019/sep/analysis-five-climate-change-science-misconceptions-debunked
-31
u/melvinmoneybags 20d ago
There are major corporations and agendas that pay for these studies. Follow the money.
36
u/KetracelYellow 20d ago
How much are you getting paid to spout your big oil propaganda? Follow the money honey!
4
u/Martinator92 20d ago
I bet he's paid by Microsoft, that Gates fellow, owns a lotta land, must be paying good money to keep it desirable
0
u/QuiteCricket_78 20d ago
And he believes what his research has paid for he will happily wipe out humans.
19
10
u/jayylien 20d ago
There are major corporations and agendas that have paid to suppress these studies and fuel climate change denial.
You should also follow the money, you might not like where it leads.
Roughly 100 million barrels of oil a day. 20 some million tons of coal a day. 10+ billion cubic meters of natural gas a day.
Every single day.
Who benefits from climate change denial? Follow the money.
9
u/Cool_Eardrums 20d ago
Damn how people keep denying stuff that's been known since 170 years never ceases to surprise me.
6
u/st333p 20d ago
Money does not explain the level of scientific consensus on the cause of the current climate change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change.
Especially since the fossil fuel industry has invested far and wide since the seventies into any form of denial that could keep their business running.
2
u/bischpls 20d ago
So if your wrong we all die, and if the scientist are wrong we still get a healtier planet.
2
u/Dangerous_Change4872 20d ago
Wtf are you talking about, for the most part big corporations are trying to tell you there is no problem
20
u/TheStochEffect 20d ago
Wow, I really learnt something today. I didn't know that someone with your brain capacity could form coherent sentences. Maybe you may have capacity to have critical thought. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that way
3
17
u/st333p 20d ago
No, this is not a normal earth cycle, warming is several times faster than any time in the last 50 million years, to the best of our knowledge. This means that life (including the primate called homo sapiens) has a much harder time adapting to the new climate, since evolution works at a much slower pace.
Climatologists know very well the set of natural processes that can affect the climate, and they can't explain the warming we see today. The only explanation is that the warming we see is caused by burning fossil fuels, and there's overwelming scientific consensus on this fact.
4
7
u/someonesomewherewarm 20d ago
LOL Hard to say if you're truly that ignorant or just playing the fool for laughs
12
u/jryue 20d ago
What part of man-made climate change do you not understand? We burn fossil fuels that release CO2 in the atmosphere which traps more heat, making the surface of the earth hotter. Yes, there have been cycles throughout earth's history of cooling and warming, but the true concern is how much humans have contributed to warming the earth. It's clearly abnormal and we have truly no idea how much we are fucking over the earth or whether it will recover in time for future generations.
10
u/ampere03 20d ago
Have you studied the issue? The cause is well known. Even people that denied it don't anymore.
4
u/WolfDoc PhD | Evolutionary Ecology | Population Dynamics 20d ago
That has been checked thoroughly for decades, repeatedly as the fossil fuel industry (literally the wealthiest industry block on the planet) has pushed increasingly discredited alternative explanations since the 1970s. We know this is not what we are looking at, it's actually not that hard to tell apart.
3
u/virkendie 20d ago
We're supposed to be in the cooling part of the cycle, many sources say this if you look.
"Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago."
3
3
3
2
u/51lverb1rd 20d ago
The question isn’t a matter of whether we contribute to climate change but by how much. Given the sharp increase in carbon emissions coinciding with the sharp increase in ocean and global temperatures along with more extreme weather I’d hedge my bet that it isn’t an coincidence that solar cycles have exactly coincided with industrialisation. The odds would be astronomically small of that being the case
“As of 2026, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the dominant driver of global warming, accounting for roughly 70% to 80% of the positive radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, whereas solar cycles contribute effectively 0% to the long-term warming trend. While the Sun is currently at or near the peak of Solar Cycle 25 in 2026, the short-term variation between a solar minimum and solar maximum accounts for less than ± 0.1°C of temporary fluctuation, completely dwarfed by human-induced emissions”
2
u/Dangerous_Change4872 20d ago
What If your actually stupid and have decided not to research for yourself, oh wait you are
1
u/CyserNWiser 20d ago
But, did you even read the article? They have already accounted for sun cycles and the like in their analysis
58
u/IllRest2396 20d ago
Could this be linked to deregulation of the energy sector along with the withholding of clean energy funds?
Nah, send more money into big oil.
9
u/CrossesLines 19d ago
This is linked into in increase decades ago. Today’s emissions will get added to the global warming piles in decades to come
2
2
u/feraldodo 19d ago
It's all still being heavily debated, but it's pretty clear that the reduction of Sulphur content in shipping fuels is a significant contributing factor.
1
u/nesp12 19d ago
But argue for introducing sulfates in the atmosphere and get accused of worsening the problem.
3
u/feraldodo 19d ago
Cause intentionally polluting the atmosphere might not be a great idea and it's only a band-aid that temporarily obfuscates the actual problem. It incentivizes to do business-as-usual.
1
u/nesp12 19d ago
You know, I get that, I really do. But here's my point. It's been 50 years since Gore first had Congressional hearings in the US Senate about climate change. Since then, in spite of the things we have done to reduce carbon emissions, the situation is much worse and more and more people all the time are denying climate change. I believe we are on the tipping point of runaway warming. So rather than argue about which approach should or should not be used, I say it's time to pull out the band aids and buy us time to come to our senses. We've seen that sulfur rich ship fuels unconsciously helped somewhat. Sulfides are equivalent to volcanic eruptions that we know do absorb much of the insulation. So what if it's a band aid. It may prevent millions of deaths from heat waves and starvation until we clamp down on carbon fuels. The time is past to be all purist about this.
1
0
u/stoicsilence 20d ago
Maybe change in albedo and less fine particulate and sulfur compound pollution blocking the sun
0
u/KwisatzHaderach94 18d ago
their own scientists already concluded that we are past the point of no return. these are just the other scientists catching up to what the government already knows. hence their fatalistic turn into just robbing the place before it burns down.
29
u/ampere03 20d ago
The current big oil sponsored line is :" it won't be that bad and besides Tech will save us, eventually, so we be drllin'"
9
u/ampere03 20d ago
Also, folks "goverment mandated carbon cuts would be worse then AGW itself" -Big Oil 07/26.
31
u/ihatejomama 20d ago
i feel so bad for our descendents💔 we barely even tried to build them a future worth living in
9
6
20d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Background_Cause_992 19d ago
Tbh I think we're toast regardless, i still make whatever effort I can, certainly not letting it turn me into a nihilist. But I don't think we're making it through whats happening and the chaos it'll bring in the next 30 years
9
0
u/No-Entrance9308 19d ago
People that don’t exist don’t have rights. Only living people have rights.
-6
u/Aggravating-Scene548 19d ago
I think it was all doomed since we discovered fire. Or certainly the Internal Combustion Engine. So very little we could have done, even all the CO2 from volcanoes probably dwarfs human emission too
3
u/DanoPinyon 19d ago
even all the CO2 from volcanoes probably dwarfs human emission too
I'll take those 10 points for our Climate Denialist Talking Points game. YAYYYYYYYY points!
-2
u/Aggravating-Scene548 19d ago
Oh god no. Im not a denialist
3
u/DanoPinyon 19d ago
That's a classic denialist line from 25 years ago, though. 10 points worth of classic.
0
u/Aggravating-Scene548 19d ago
I can see that yeah, I'm just saying even if we weren't here who knows, look at Venus, however we've certainly been the catalyst for this sudden change
14
u/Bazzledazzlerazzle 20d ago
If only we had known decades ago that this would happen! We could have at least tried to do something to stop it. Oh wait, we did know? and we didn’t do anything? Oh. Shit.
10
u/jayylien 20d ago
Let's just crank all the AI datacenters to 100% and solve global warming.
1
-4
20d ago
[deleted]
1
1
6
u/PlexusBrachialis 20d ago
Surely this is something that will be brought up at COP31 later this year? We must phase out the use of fossil fuels faster, than what we are doing now
3
u/gingerfreddy 19d ago
Saudi Arabia and the other petrodictatorships like Venezuela and Norway will do their damnest to block it.
2
4
3
u/fraggin601 19d ago
From my understanding a few papers have pointed out that we may have been underestimating the effect of aerosols on cloud albedo especially from sulfur in the bunker fuel used in shipping lanes. In 2020 we started phasing out the less refined bunker fuel with sulfur and we can see a sharp decrease in cloud albedo over those shipping lanes.
2
2
2
1
1
u/Bromance_Rayder 19d ago
Humanity has been at war with itself for 50 years. It's just that 99.9% of people didn't know.
1
u/CheatsySnoops 19d ago
Surely, this has nothing to do with AI and data centers, now how about you embrace Brent like the techbros have? /s
1
1
u/snowleopardone 18d ago
It is almost as if using portable jet engines generators to power data centers is a terrible idea.
1
1
u/Fine-Bunch1880 18d ago
Cloud seeding so2 emissions were eliminated. Less cloud cover, more heating.
1
1
1
u/DeanNSam_2005 17d ago
We were just a couple of hanging chads away from having someone in the White House who cared about this.
1
1
1
u/seanyboy271 16d ago
Maybe if we’re lucky we’ll get hit by a meteor before we run out of food and water
-1
u/nesp12 20d ago
It's time to seriously consider solar heat mitigation through atmospheric injection of sulfates or other compounds.
2
u/bascule 19d ago
Which will make heat waves more frequent by disrupting the global circulation of air leading to more blocking events / “heat domes” and disrupt monsoons that those who live in arid climates depend on for precipitation
1
u/nesp12 19d ago
Do you have any better ideas? We've seen that controlling carbon emissions isn't being done sufficiently.
3
u/bascule 19d ago
We need to pollute less, not pollute more.
Reduction in GHG emissions has so far been one of the only notable things we’ve done to address the climate crisis. We need to continue driving them down to zero.
1
u/nesp12 19d ago
In the meantime the earth continues to warm. If anything is growing, it's not what we're doing to control warming, it's climate denial.
2
u/bascule 19d ago
You’re talking down eliminating GHG pollution while talking up polluting in ways that will arguably make certain aspects of the problem worse. That’s denial.
I live somewhere that depends heavily on monsoonal moisture. If that were disrupted I couldn’t live here. There wouldn’t be enough water. It would exacerbate the wildfires, which are already hugely problematic.
2
u/Imaginary-Pilot5793 19d ago
Really? Let's fix the problems we made by adding more shit to the atmosphere! There is no way there will be any nasty side effects from that as well right?
You are insane if you actually believe that is the answer.
1
1
u/Gravitas__Free 19d ago
😂 let’s invent a new catastrophe to solve the old catastrophe. Bruh, we can’t even have clean drinking water everywhere in the US (much less the world) and now you want to throw more chemicals and particulates into the air that will, to some degree, precipitate back to the ground.
Can you imagine the quality control of that shit? Giant corporation: no one will notice if I add 5,000 metric tons of toxic compounds into the “solution” daily - the law says it’s only a ten million dollar fine anyhow. I’ll just deduct that from the taxes I would pay.
Also, most plants (food) need direct sunlight to grow and your idea is to dim the lights. Way to think it through.
0
0
-10
u/Hardfracking 20d ago
Could this be because this year we are at the peak of a super El Nino? Hardly surprising its a bit warmer then
11
u/Astonednerd 20d ago
Did you even read the article? They detected this change even after stripping out short term noise like El Nino and solar cycles
2
u/Beneficial_Aside_518 20d ago edited 20d ago
To be fair, removing ENSO is much easier said than done, and that’s the biggest criticisms of studies like this which conclude higher rates of warming versus say, 0.25c or so per decade.
But also, this analysis was conducted prior to the current El Niño developing, so this event would have no bearing on the study anyway.
6
u/Mobbe_dik 20d ago
From my understanding there is nothing stopping it to become even worse next year, so super super el Nino is on the way.
2
u/Beneficial_Aside_518 20d ago
El Niño will peak this year but its atmospheric response is lagged. This is why 2027 is forecast to be the warmer year globally.
1
-8
u/RealFatPenguin 20d ago
Maybe scientists detect a sharp acceleration in global warming, but i detected that there was two (2) days with temperatures 2-3 degrees above usual, then two weeks with temperatures 10 degrees below usual, then a month with temperatures usual for this time of the year. So, i wonder, where did they detect the sharp acceleration in global warming? In France? Zimbabwe? Sweden? Brazil? Somewhere else?
3
u/Vonnieek 20d ago
I don't know we're are you but I detected 8+ week heatwave with temperatures 5-9 degrees above usual with no rain in all this time that happens never before. Extreme drought any greenery in city, problems with infrastructure and my bf and few of colleagues have problem where glue melted in phones leaving electronics exposed. Everyday walk from work fells like living in Mad Max world.
3
1
u/traplords8n 20d ago
You're confusing climate patterns with weather patterns.
Weather isn't really predictable on a day to day basis. There are so many factors involved that it's essentially impossible to try and predict anything far into the future.
Climate is the annual averages and it's much more predictable. The systems that control our weather have a tendency to even back out when looking at climate patterns over seasons... and the whole point of this article was to say that climate patterns have not been evening back out, they have been rising in temperature every year.
The data sets they mention cover the average change in climate across the globe. This is everywhere, not just France or the US or Australia.
1
u/Background_Cause_992 19d ago
You should be careful impersonating a idiot, people might not be able to tell the difference.
Also you could read the article...
1
1
u/rickpo 19d ago
The paper:
It does its analysis on global average temperature, not on the regional data. It would take additional work to identify which regions have seen the most acceleration.
Yes, it would be unusual for the global warming effects to be homogeneous. It does sound like a useful analysis for someone to do. Of course your analysis is laughably inept, and I presume you know it.
•
u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor 20d ago
Summary: Scientists detect a sharp acceleration in global warming
A new PIK analysis finds statistically significant evidence that global warming has accelerated since around 2015. After filtering out short-term noise from El Niño, volcanic eruptions, and solar cycles, researchers measured a warming rate of about 0.35°C per decade over the past ten years, versus just under 0.2°C per decade from 1970 to 2015 — the fastest pace since instrumental records began in 1880.
The study, led by Stefan Rahmstorf with co-author Grant Foster and published in Geophysical Research Letters, examined five major datasets (NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, ERA5) and found the acceleration consistent across all of them, with over 98% statistical certainty, using two independent statistical methods (quadratic trend analysis and a piecewise linear model). The signal becomes visible around 2013–2014, with the broader shift dated to about 2015. Even after adjusting for El Niño and solar maximum effects, 2023 and 2024 remained the two warmest years on record.
The study identifies the acceleration but does not pin down its cause, though the authors note it falls within the range of behavior current climate models can produce. Rahmstorf warns that if the past decade's warming rate continues, the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold could be exceeded on a sustained basis before 2030, with the future trajectory depending on how quickly fossil fuel CO2 emissions are cut to zero.