Europe is world's fastest warming continent: climate report

Hardest hit are the most vulnerable people and the world's poorest countries, who have done little to contribute to the fossil fuel emissions that drive up temperatures.

But impacts are becoming increasingly severe across the world, with regions in the northern hemisphere and around the poles seeing particularly rapid warming.

As usual global problems resulting from irresponsible human activity affect the most those countries that have less to protect themselves, the difference is that this time the consequences are so serious and devastating that first world countries will have to deal with them, maybe sooner than expected.

In the middle of the bad news this may be a small silver lining, the countries that can do the most to reduce the problems are now seeing it coming to them, maybe that will tilt the balance towards actually effective action instead of the usual situation of just talking about the issues while the developing world is destroyed.

Very good to see these environment articles regularly appearing.

However, given the severity of the issue of climate change, I'm always left wondering why news articles like this one aren't headline news.

As a famous teenager once said, we need to act as if our house is on fire. Or as the head of the UN recently said, our inaction is going to be collective suicide.

While I look at weather maps and the terrible meteorological news around the world, I am amazed that somehow Southern Cal has temporarily been spared. Our temperatures so far this spring have been below normal.

I do worry about what may happen to our family and friends in Scandinavia. There have been articles stating that the Gulf Stream ocean current, which keeps Northern Europe from becoming an icicle, may be shutting down. On the other hand, Arctic temperatures have been rising faster than anywhere else on the planet, so maybe the two things will cancel out.

With the high temps and drought scourging much of Europe, seems to me that it is important that areas near the ocean should adopt desalination technology as quickly as possible.

They take in new population masses like a vacuum cleaner there. And of course those people also radiate 36 degrees body temperature, produce methane after eating and for higher production of meat for their meals, additional they all need clothes, cars or other transportation, daily products for usage at home , chemical products etc. Of course it becomes hotter then. Did they think, they can take them out of Africa or Arabia and not becoming Africa or Arabia themselves? How naive.

The climate has been getting warmer and colder in different parts of the world at a different pace since the beginning of time. It's part of nature.

So, some continent had to be number 1.

The climate has been getting warmer and colder in different parts of the world at a different pace since the beginning of time. It's part of nature.

The article contradicts this claim in the very first sentence.

Europe should brace for more deadly heatwaves driven by climate change

Climate change is not part of nature, the scientific community of the world agree this is something caused by human activity and vastly different from the normal changes of climate that happen naturally.

The climate has been getting warmer and colder in different parts of the world at a different pace since the beginning of time. It's part of nature.

Yes, this is the history of the world. Nature existed long before humans started to walk the earth.

The article even supports the claim of different places having historically different temperatures than other places:

*the world's fastest-warming continent was some 2.3 degrees Celsius hotter last year than in pre-industrial times.*

Yes, this is the history of the world. Nature existed long before humans started to walk the earth.

The article even supports the claim of different places having historically different temperatures than other places:

What it does not support is the current warming being natural, instead it is clearly described as related to human derived climatic change. Unless you can provide evidence that contradicts the scientific community of the world when they say this is part of the consequences of the industrialization then it remains the best possible explanation for why it is happening.

What it does not support is the current warming being natural, instead it is clearly described as related to human derived climatic change. Unless you can provide evidence that contradicts the scientific community of the world when they say this is part of the consequences of the industrialization then it remains the best possible explanation for why it is happening.

You are completely entitled to have an opinion based on conjecture and personal bias of course.

Especially since you provide no evidence that contradicts any of my statements.

You are completely entitled to have an opinion based on conjecture and personal bias of course.

Especially since you provide no evidence that contradicts any of my statements

Citing the current scientific consensus ( as easily as consulting the climate related scientific institution of your choice) is not something based on conjecture or bias.

That would describe more closely a person trying to ignore this scientific consensus based on absolutely nothing.

Especially since you provide no evidence that contradicts any of my statements.

It is not me who contradicts your claims but every scientific institution that works in a field related to climate. If that were not the case you could simply bring a reference where one of such institutions supports your claim, but that has been of course impossible.

Okay, I'll bite.

Global warming has been statistically insignificant so far this century. Check the raw data if you don't believe me.

The "raw data", in this case NOAAglobaltemp, shows a roughly 0.5°C increase in global temperature since 2000. "Statistically insignificant" this is not.

OK, Roy. But would you admit that there has been no warming since 2015, despite 500 billion tons of CO2 emissions since then?

That’s the tricky thing about exponential curves… they trundle along looking very flat, until they turn upwards very quickly until they look like a rocket.

One such curve is electrical power generation. Countries like Norway and Canada have the topography for hydroelectric generation. No emissions. Electrifying the world isn’t doing the world any favors, especially the insanity of banning internal combustion engines for electric vehicles.

ICE cars today have so little tailpipe emissions that it’s difficult to even measure. There is no way wind, solar or biomass can meet the exponential curve of electrical demand of EV’s. Impossible. Generating capacity will have to increase from burning more oil, gas and coal. Duh.

And then there’s the accompanying exponential curve of waste heat. It contributes only a tiny percent of added heat to the closed system of the earth, but as electrical generation increases, pumping out more CO2 for damn EV’s, the cumulative waste heat accompanying it from generation, transmission and usage will shoot up also. Not good.

There are plenty of other bad environmental consequences, but the list is too long. Suffice it to say that anyone who buys an EV thinking they’re saving the plant and are environmentally friendly doesn’t understand the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

But would you admit that there has been no warming since 2015

You're trying to disprove a long-term trend by cherry-picking short-term deviations. That's not how it works, sorry.

While I look at weather maps and the terrible meteorological news around the world, I am amazed that somehow Southern Cal has temporarily been spared. Our temperatures so far this spring have been below normal.

Unusually cold sea surface temperatures along the US west coast are causing low pressure systems to drop down the coast one after another and the trend is predicted to persist into August. I live in the desert and am more than happy with the current weather pattern :)

This one chart of global average temperature going back to 1880 tells a clearer story of global warming.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 But would you admit that there has been no warming since 2015, despite 500 billion tons of CO2 emissions since then?

Facts are facts.

It is not me who contradicts your claims but every scientific institution that works in a field related to climate. If that were not the case you could simply bring a reference where one of such institutions supports your claim, but that has been of course impossible.

This is just hearsay, and a false appeal to authority and unless you list every scientific institution that you claim contradicts the facts I noted then it means you agree that historically temperatures have been changing in different parts of the world, with some growing colder and some growing warmer.

Facts are facts.

And experts are the best ones to make conclusions about those facts, if they are in agreement climate change is real and already happening you would need more data or better analysis to disprove what they have concluded.

This is just hearsay

No, it is not, as surely as that you have been completely unable to point to what supposed unveriable source the argument is based on. The same as every time you make this baseless accusation as an excuse for not using actual arguments.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/communicating-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-diverse-audiences-and-effects-over-time/

You on the other hand have provided exactly zero references from any respected institution saying this is not real.

and a false appeal to authority and unless you list every scientific institution that you claim contradicts the facts

Many have already been presented, and they do not contradict the facts, they use the facts to make valid scientific conclusions, the one trying to contradict the facts without having any basis would be you.

 I noted then it means you agree that historically temperatures have been changing in different parts of the world

So what? this do not disprove at all that the current elevation is derived from human activity and it is much faster and important than what would be expected from natural variations.

The world has warmed an average of nearly 1.2C since the mid-1800s,

And also since the ice-age.

And experts are the best ones to make conclusions about those facts, if they are in agreement climate change is real and already happening you would need more data or better analysis to disprove what they have concluded.

The experts are making conclusions that contradict your claims.

So what? this do not disprove at all that the current elevation is derived from human activity and it is much faster and important than what would be expected from natural variations.

Entirely not accurate.

OK, Roy. But would you admit that there has been no warming since 2015, despite 500 billion tons of CO2 emissions since then?

A fact that is difficult for some to confront.

You're trying to disprove a long-term trend by cherry-picking short-term deviations. That's not how it works, sorry.

Roy, if you look at the whole long-term picture, you'll see temperatures rebounding to mediaeval levels after the Little Ice Age. You'll also see, in addition to the mediaeval warm period, the Roman warm period and, going back further, the Holocene Maximum. I could go on.

Let's be honest, we just don't know to what extent human activities have contributed to warming, but we certainly shouldn't be worrying ourselves about warming too much. It's much, much better than cooling.

What experts are contradicting the conclusions of the article? none of the main institutions that deal with climate contradicts the conclusion that climate change comes human activity. None say either that this is innacurate nor that it follows what would be expected from a natural phenomenon.

Let's be honest, we just don't know to what extent human activities have contributed to warming

The scientists do know to a very high degree of certainty, do you have any scientific argument to contradict their conclusions?

but we certainly shouldn't be worrying ourselves about warming too much. It's much, much better than cooling.

That is also against what the experts have to say about climate change, the consequences of the changes are dramatic and can cost a lot of lives, it is perfectly justifiable to worry about it. Better yet to do something to reduce those consequences.

The world has warmed an average of nearly 1.2C since the mid-1800s, 

And there had been a human presence on earth in that era too.

And a natural cooling trend for the 1-2 thousand years prior to that.

And there had been a human presence on earth in that era too.

And a natural cooling trend for the 1-2 thousand years prior to that.

That is the point of the scientific consensus that concludes the human industrialization is the one to blame for the increase, not a natural phenomenon.