If we ever manage to halt this accelerating crisis we should seriously consider a modern-day equivalent of the Nuremberg trials. Thousands upon thousands needlessly dead, https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766 (from 2024)
The complicit parties of climate change are so wide you would probably have to try thousands and thousands of people across most of the developed world. The cohort is probably so large that it’s more a reflection of society generally than the malicious acts of a few.
Oh believe me, there is a part of the political aisle which would be more than happy to put millions of people in forced labour camps, especially if they are wealthy. Any excuse is a good excuse.
Nonsense. Anyone who wants forced labor camps is a fascist. I don't care what they call themselves. Once you stop caring about wellbeing for everyone you stop being a leftist. (Which is your insinuation.)
Also, there is more than one political aisle. The left (who broadly want to redistribute wealth) is distinct from democrats (who are capitalists) is distinct from the various parts of the GOP.
We do not have infinite resources. Committing 7-11 years and countless billions to build a NPP leads to those funds and other resources to be unavailable elsewhere.
Each wind farm, each set of solar panels, each battery storage will begin to pay dividends immediately as each one is finished. While the huge plant will be nothing-nothing-nothing-... for years upon years.
Builders, engineers, capital, and such is better suited to be investing in other sources of energy.
Solar maybe NOW is, but this isn't a 5 or even 10 year old problem. And cost effective compared to what? We'll consider sending people to Mars to save humanity but reactors are "too expensive"?
AI and bitcoin, regardless of what one thinks of them, have made negligible contributions to climate change. It is below the noise floor relative to other major industrial and commercial sources of atmospheric CO2.
Virtually all of the current conditions were in motion before bitcoin and AI were even a thing.
Not exactly background noise but totally incomparable to the normal CO2 outputs of major nations like the US or China. I.e. ~20 Million Tons CO2 vs 4 Trillion and 13 Trillion Tons respectively.
Sure. But you have to weigh any application relative to (1) how useful it is and (2) how easy it would be to rely on a carbon-neutral alternative.
And I would argue the usefulness of bitcoin is negative from the viewpoint of a free society.
AI is to a certain degree a different story, but also there it depends what you're doing.
We live in a thin atmospheric skin around the planet, and that skin has a finite volume. If earth was the size of an apple, the atmosphere is thinner than the Apple's skin in proportion.
Pretending we can do whatever we like for infinitly long inside an finite volume is completely unhinged. The financial and political elites, who some frame as the true geniuses point to technological solutions that are always "just around the corner" for the past decades with some of them even eying to leave the planet behind entirely.
All of that while we know how to address the issue.
No, excessive fossil fuel use is the cause by an immense margin. It's completely dominated by commercial shipping (boats), followed by planes. Then I think it may actually be gas from cattle before cars. Bitcoin and AI are so recent and still relative to everything else small.
This is completely incorrect. Aviation contributes 2.5% of global emissions (but is terrible on a per capita basis, as only around 10% of the world's population travels on any given year). Global shipping accounts for 2.3% of global human-made emissions [1].
In transport emissions, passenger vehicles dominate by far (with around 12% of global GHG emissions), even more so in developed countries. Then freight by road with 7.5% of total emissions.
Maritime shipping is actually the least carbon intensive way to transport goods over long distances by at least two orders of magnitude [2].
Widespread use of nuclear power for civilian merchant shipping is a non-starter. It's simply too expensive to train and pay enough qualified nuclear engineers. The US Navy barely manages this for a few dozen nuclear powered vessels with a huge budget and limited concern for cost effectiveness.
Plus there are the security concerns. Every civilian nuclear power plant has armed guards on duty around the clock. Those guards have to also be trained and paid. Many foreign countries have laws against bringing weapons into their ports.
If we want to reduce CO2 emissions from merchant ships then use nuclear or renewable power on shore to manufacture carbon neutral synthetic liquid fuel. Use that to run the ship engines.
I really feel like if the US really wanted to support US shipbuilding (like what the Jones act was supposed to do) it would subsidize building a fleet of nuclear shipping boats.
Lots of manufacturing projects, lots of related industries boosted, a renewed investment in nuclear engineering bringing a lot of nuclear job experience, and a way to potentially dig deeper into the backbone of global trade again.
Would Iran be as likely to have hit one of these ships if the result was potentially a nuclear meltdown close to their shoreline? It would pretty radically change the costs to them for such an attack, wouldn't it?
If you sink nuclear ship you won't get nuclear meltdown. You have enough thermal mass to cool down anything if you are underwater. Some level of loss of nuclear material would happen. But meltdown is not something that would happen.
Do you propose climate action with effects that we will see in decades, if not centuries, is going to save the vulnerable who are currently dying by the thousands?
I do not think that you believe so.
How is it acceptable that the actionable solution is entirely ignored in favor of performative speech?
You cannot talk about thousands dying today, neglect to mention the actionable solution, and talk only about climate action which will help on a time frame of decades to centuries.
Or Europe should just get air-conditioning and enjoy the beautiful weather. Can’t make it through the winter without heat. Why would you want to make it through the summer without air-conditioning?
That being said fuck pollution and the ruining of our environment.
I think we should start charging the worst emitters with manslaughter now. We shouldn't wait for the crisis to be halted; the law should be part of how we force firms to recognize part of the harm.
I've been reading up on the inevitable collapse of the AMOC (the potsdam institute has a number of really good videos covering the subject).
Everyone hears 'winters will be up to 10C cooler', but few realize that this will also cause the jet stream to be more wavy, and exacerbate the number of heat waves as well.
Sad that europe's mild climate is about to get a whole lot worse...
Even if you read just the conclusion at the bottom it seems obvious that there is no consensus about a collapse being inevitable:
> Overall though, there is some common ground in recent research: evidence for AMOC weakening having begun is growing, albeit is not clear in every AMOC metric; a substantial decline is expected with current emissions, that over centuries could potentially push the AMOC to a slow ‘shutdown’ state; and there remains a real but uncertain chance that this slowdown could pass a tipping point beyond which this shutdown is locked in, even if warming is halted or even declines. Exactly how much and quickly the AMOC is weakening, and the likelihood of it reaching a tipping point, remain much more uncertain, but what we do know is enough to justify concern and action to reduce the risk of AMOC shutdown
It will probably be warm but this is from the GFS model that was forecasting 50 degrees during the last heat wave. Apparently, it tends to "overegg temperature projections for Europe in the summer by around 2-2.5c. ... it dries out soil too fast in its models."
Somehow, somehow, everyone’s heads are still in the sand. Desperately trying to bury them deeper. It’s like CICO denialism.
I expect this to be a deeply unpopular take here, but solutionism will fail. Magic technology will not come to save us. All of our industrial tekhne has been in the service of rolling down the stored-energy hill faster and faster. To put the genie back in the bottle, to take apart the CO2 and turn it back into hydrocarbons, we’d have to do more work than everything that was done in the last two centuries. And that’s an extremely conservative lower bound.
It’s so dire. I don’t think most people understand that everything around them is made out of petroleum. Not just your ability to travel, or your clothes. Your food is made of petroleum. Your institutions are made of petroleum. Your gender equality is made of petroleum. Your freedom is made of petroleum.
There is no putting this thing in reverse. If the AI doesn’t get us first, thermodynamics will topple all of this.
While it is true that reversing combustion would require more energy than was released burning it, I don't think anyone reasonable is proposing it. The proposal is to redirect future energy production away from fossil extraction and into cleaner sources (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal) which is a completely different thermodynamic problem. The constraints are things like grid storage capacity, permitting timelines, and critical mineral supply chains - not physics.
If we overcome these very real contraints, we reduce the rate of new additions to atmospheric CO2. We will still need to do the thermodynamically hard work of removing CO2 at gigaton scale, but deferring that until removal tech is more mature is the right sequencing.
Of course, this assumes that we are actually working towards the CO2 output reductions right now and really committed to CO2 removal in the near future.
Seems likely that within our lifetime multiple countries in europe may turn into deserts, and there is little we can do against it except for maybe attempt to terraform the climate by seeding clouds or changing ecosystem flora to something resilient in the face of 40C weather. Losing a huge amount of food production would be my greatest concern.
"2027 is likely to be WAY worse than this 2026 in terms of extreme heat, drought, fires, crop losses. WAY worse. In the Northern hemisphere, we have half a year to prepare for next summer and save some lives.
Everyone is acting like 2026 is a blip. No: far worse is to come."
This is a harbinger for insane weather in the United States this fall and winter.
I am expecting my homeless life in in minivan to be choatic trying to chase where the weather will be favorable.
My main concern if is there is heavy rains in California after the drought of rain they have had this summer. The Salton Sea is at an all time low[1] and many people do not know that a rapid fill of water into the Salton Sea from the Cochella Valley is a known trigger for earthquakes on the San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults[2][3].
As of now, our worst problem in Central Europe seems to be drought. Some of the mightiest rivers of the continent are barely there. You can walk across the Danube, the Rhine or the Wisla in some places, drenching yourself a bit, but never losing contact with the bottom.
First the UK, then leadership of Europe via behind-closed-doors politics, then a gentle colonization of both the east and the west using our amazing cheese, bread that is baked rather than synthesized from fossil fuels, and 30 days of paid vacations per year. The path forward is clear.
Erasing any datacenter ever built (and planned) would do almost nothing to stop climate change.
What we need is (global) electrification of transport and heating, CO2 free electricity and CO2 neutral concrete and steel.
Very effective ways to make this happen would be high prices on emissions, enforced on every local industry and all imports.
But too many people love their cheap fossil-based transport too much and are unwilling to make even small sacrifices to keep the climate stable; sad reality.
The warming is terrible and deadly, AND ALSO Europeans are negligent in not protecting themselves however they can.
The idea that Europe could slow warming by not using air-conditioning is absurd, when the emissions mostly come from elsewhere. France, in particular, gets most of its energy from nuclear power, but also makes it very hard to get climatisation.
People live longer in many parts of Europe than the USA. Does that mean the USA is somehow negligent?
Excess deaths due to heat are primarily the in the elderly. The excess numbers we are seeing now are because the proportion of elderly people in France, Germany and Spain are higher than in the USA.
If the population pyramid in the EU was more similar to that of the USA the number of excess deaths would be lower. I'm not sure negligent is the correct word to use. Climate change will reduce quality of life. Because of these changes people will not live as long.
When I lived in a rather hot area of Spain for a year, I was shocked to find out that many apartments don't have an air conditioner. In a place where a similar heat wave happens every year, for months. A friend of mine moved there from Germany and being somewhat frugal, rented a place without and aircon. Let me just say that he didn't enjoy the summer nights one bit.
I myself had one, but I could probably rent a car for the cost of running it.
I will say this - air conditioning costs to establish room temperature are inversely proportional to the degree the building is insulated. If your whole country is comprised of uninsulated or barely insulated housing stock, you have a MUCH larger project than simply buying some small window units for a few hundred euro per person and then paying a few hundred euros extra per year in energy costs.
Some of these places don't get very cold, others rely on coats, others south facing window solar gain. Very old buildings are common. I'm not claiming all of Europe is uninsulated, just a large enough portion to render heatwave safety a much bigger problem.
If you can't run one fifth of your nuclear plants, because the water levels are to low or the water temperatures too high in the rivers used to cool them, you may want to reconsider whether that is truly the best choice here¹
In the meantime my fathers solar roof allows him free AC cooling, because as it turns out AC generally needs most energy when the sun shines the most.
I am not arguing nuclear plants do not have benefits, I just argue that solar with storage may be a much better fit for powering ACs.
>Europeans are negligent in not protecting themselves however they can.
Well, if the people in charge say or think global warming isn't real, that's what you get: not "other" solutions to the "unacceptable propositions" the Green parties suggest, but no proposition at all, as there is no problem.
The current situation is a direct consequence of pure negationism from conservative parties, not a disagreement on how to deal with climate change between the Right and the Left. The Left proposed solutions you may not agree with, but the Right has been completely rejecting the reality of climate change.
BTW, how do you propose Europe protect not only people from the heat, but also forests from burning, rivers from drying up, fields from being unfit for cows and sheep, lakes from blooming with algae, nuclear plants from being shut down due to river water being too hot and seawater being full of jellyfish, etc, etc, etc? In the end, there are so many things to "adapt" that it would cost less to try to organize a global effort to lower CO2.
[H]ow do you propose Europe protect not only people from the heat, but [all these other things]?
Why does it have to be framed as all-or-nothing? I agree that using air conditioning to reduce the number of people who die from the heat does nothing to help with the problem of jellyfish, but how is that relevant, exactly?
One avenue looks like: build tons and tons of nuclear power plants in the 70s and 80s and retire most fossil-fuel based plants globally; invest in solar and wind and battery technologies in the 80s and 90s; introduce a carbon tax to reflect externalized costs in the 90s and 2000s to shift transportation and production away from carbon-based sources; enjoy our close-enough-to-carbon-neutral economy from the 2010s and avoid almost all the bad climate change impacts.
You'll notice this plan requires a time machine. If we don't have access to one of those, then the plan is to do all of the above in the next 5 years and also spend 50x as much money as all of that will cost in order to mitigate the damage we did over the last 50 years. Every year we don't do that increases the cost 10x.
For as long as I can remember, my hometown had extreme summers with temperatures climbing as high as 45c. This was in the early 90's. This year is no different. Location: North Macedonia
For as long as I remember I never had a summer this warm and this dry. And I don't even have to rely on memory alone here as this is backed by actual historic measurements all the way back since humans started to record temperatures in my countries.
You do realize North Macedonia is not representative of all EU countries, and that other EU countries have abnormal heat waves compared to the 90s? With effects like the first pyrocumulonimbus in France's recorded history?
I think denying climate change and it's impact in the face of all evidence is something hard to justify lol.
If we ever manage to halt this accelerating crisis we should seriously consider a modern-day equivalent of the Nuremberg trials. Thousands upon thousands needlessly dead, https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152766 (from 2024)
The complicit parties of climate change are so wide you would probably have to try thousands and thousands of people across most of the developed world. The cohort is probably so large that it’s more a reflection of society generally than the malicious acts of a few.
Oh believe me, there is a part of the political aisle which would be more than happy to put millions of people in forced labour camps, especially if they are wealthy. Any excuse is a good excuse.
Nonsense. Anyone who wants forced labor camps is a fascist. I don't care what they call themselves. Once you stop caring about wellbeing for everyone you stop being a leftist. (Which is your insinuation.)
Also, there is more than one political aisle. The left (who broadly want to redistribute wealth) is distinct from democrats (who are capitalists) is distinct from the various parts of the GOP.
Would opposing nuclear energy qualify as such action? The emission difference was well known and fully scientifically provable at time.
No, because nuclear energy is not a cost effective measure against climate change. Solar is.
If climate change is indeed an existential threat, then by definition nuclear is cost-effective.
And at any rate, why not both?
We do not have infinite resources. Committing 7-11 years and countless billions to build a NPP leads to those funds and other resources to be unavailable elsewhere.
Each wind farm, each set of solar panels, each battery storage will begin to pay dividends immediately as each one is finished. While the huge plant will be nothing-nothing-nothing-... for years upon years.
Builders, engineers, capital, and such is better suited to be investing in other sources of energy.
Solar maybe NOW is, but this isn't a 5 or even 10 year old problem. And cost effective compared to what? We'll consider sending people to Mars to save humanity but reactors are "too expensive"?
We should start with all the people on HN who told us we didn’t need nuclear power.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=nuclear+climate+change
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Start 11 years ago and go backwards
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1439337600&dateRange=custom&...
Satoshi would be first in line?
AI and bitcoin, regardless of what one thinks of them, have made negligible contributions to climate change. It is below the noise floor relative to other major industrial and commercial sources of atmospheric CO2.
Virtually all of the current conditions were in motion before bitcoin and AI were even a thing.
Opinion stated as fact
Its a well trod problem: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
Not exactly background noise but totally incomparable to the normal CO2 outputs of major nations like the US or China. I.e. ~20 Million Tons CO2 vs 4 Trillion and 13 Trillion Tons respectively.
Sure. But you have to weigh any application relative to (1) how useful it is and (2) how easy it would be to rely on a carbon-neutral alternative.
And I would argue the usefulness of bitcoin is negative from the viewpoint of a free society.
AI is to a certain degree a different story, but also there it depends what you're doing.
We live in a thin atmospheric skin around the planet, and that skin has a finite volume. If earth was the size of an apple, the atmosphere is thinner than the Apple's skin in proportion.
Pretending we can do whatever we like for infinitly long inside an finite volume is completely unhinged. The financial and political elites, who some frame as the true geniuses point to technological solutions that are always "just around the corner" for the past decades with some of them even eying to leave the planet behind entirely.
All of that while we know how to address the issue.
No, excessive fossil fuel use is the cause by an immense margin. It's completely dominated by commercial shipping (boats), followed by planes. Then I think it may actually be gas from cattle before cars. Bitcoin and AI are so recent and still relative to everything else small.
This is completely incorrect. Aviation contributes 2.5% of global emissions (but is terrible on a per capita basis, as only around 10% of the world's population travels on any given year). Global shipping accounts for 2.3% of global human-made emissions [1].
In transport emissions, passenger vehicles dominate by far (with around 12% of global GHG emissions), even more so in developed countries. Then freight by road with 7.5% of total emissions.
Maritime shipping is actually the least carbon intensive way to transport goods over long distances by at least two orders of magnitude [2].
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport
[2] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/transport/06_figure_8-6/
Electricity (including heating) is actually the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, but transport is indeed number 2: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Followed by agriculture & manufacturing.
Is that so? Too bad nuclear civilian ships are not common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
Widespread use of nuclear power for civilian merchant shipping is a non-starter. It's simply too expensive to train and pay enough qualified nuclear engineers. The US Navy barely manages this for a few dozen nuclear powered vessels with a huge budget and limited concern for cost effectiveness.
Plus there are the security concerns. Every civilian nuclear power plant has armed guards on duty around the clock. Those guards have to also be trained and paid. Many foreign countries have laws against bringing weapons into their ports.
If we want to reduce CO2 emissions from merchant ships then use nuclear or renewable power on shore to manufacture carbon neutral synthetic liquid fuel. Use that to run the ship engines.
I really feel like if the US really wanted to support US shipbuilding (like what the Jones act was supposed to do) it would subsidize building a fleet of nuclear shipping boats.
Lots of manufacturing projects, lots of related industries boosted, a renewed investment in nuclear engineering bringing a lot of nuclear job experience, and a way to potentially dig deeper into the backbone of global trade again.
I love the theory, but the security concerns around nuclear anything are a big deal when we're talking ships that sail around the world.
Imagine if even one of the tankers hit in the strait of Hormuz was nuclear.
Would Iran be as likely to have hit one of these ships if the result was potentially a nuclear meltdown close to their shoreline? It would pretty radically change the costs to them for such an attack, wouldn't it?
If you sink nuclear ship you won't get nuclear meltdown. You have enough thermal mass to cool down anything if you are underwater. Some level of loss of nuclear material would happen. But meltdown is not something that would happen.
I’d put people who have maliciously and intentionally undermined action on climate change first. Donald Trump comes to mind.
On the topic of thousands needlessly dead, look at the UN's suggestions:
Useless yapping about opening windows at night, protecting the vulnerable, limiting global warming to 1.5C, and not drinking caffeine.
Is any of this "Call to Action" actually actionable?
Obviously not; and it is pathetic.
What should be actioned:
- remove regulatory hurdles to AC installation
- mandate such installation in residences that otherwise reach unbearable temperatures
- make funds available to subsidize the installation or train more workers for AC installation
That would 'protect the vulnerable'.
Talking about opening windows at night or climate change does nothing, and is performative only.
I think we can all agree that if we just stop talking about climate change, maybe it will go away.
Do you propose climate action with effects that we will see in decades, if not centuries, is going to save the vulnerable who are currently dying by the thousands?
I do not think that you believe so.
How is it acceptable that the actionable solution is entirely ignored in favor of performative speech?
Big AC strikes again.
Yes and: doing things that fight the cause of the warming?
Sure, but this should be an afterthought here.
You cannot talk about thousands dying today, neglect to mention the actionable solution, and talk only about climate action which will help on a time frame of decades to centuries.
The thousands dying are just a means to an end. They don't really care about them.
Or Europe should just get air-conditioning and enjoy the beautiful weather. Can’t make it through the winter without heat. Why would you want to make it through the summer without air-conditioning?
That being said fuck pollution and the ruining of our environment.
Walking outside with 40°C is not "enjoying the beautiful weather", it is miserable. Air conditioning only solves part of the problem.
Walking outside in 40° weather is enjoyable
I think we should start charging the worst emitters with manslaughter now. We shouldn't wait for the crisis to be halted; the law should be part of how we force firms to recognize part of the harm.
I've been reading up on the inevitable collapse of the AMOC (the potsdam institute has a number of really good videos covering the subject).
Everyone hears 'winters will be up to 10C cooler', but few realize that this will also cause the jet stream to be more wavy, and exacerbate the number of heat waves as well.
Sad that europe's mild climate is about to get a whole lot worse...
I do not think a collapse is inevitable, see:
https://climatetippingpoints.info/2026/05/06/news-explainer-...
What in that link do you think is saying it is not inevitable?
Even if you read just the conclusion at the bottom it seems obvious that there is no consensus about a collapse being inevitable:
> Overall though, there is some common ground in recent research: evidence for AMOC weakening having begun is growing, albeit is not clear in every AMOC metric; a substantial decline is expected with current emissions, that over centuries could potentially push the AMOC to a slow ‘shutdown’ state; and there remains a real but uncertain chance that this slowdown could pass a tipping point beyond which this shutdown is locked in, even if warming is halted or even declines. Exactly how much and quickly the AMOC is weakening, and the likelihood of it reaching a tipping point, remain much more uncertain, but what we do know is enough to justify concern and action to reduce the risk of AMOC shutdown
Any good books on the subject you'd recommend?
It will probably be warm but this is from the GFS model that was forecasting 50 degrees during the last heat wave. Apparently, it tends to "overegg temperature projections for Europe in the summer by around 2-2.5c. ... it dries out soil too fast in its models."
https://www.reddit.com/r/weather/comments/1um7tyn/sometimes_...
The soil is quite dry already.
This is a two week forecast, one month ago. There is no good two week forecast.
There is a heat wave right now, again.
Just in France, cost of this year heat waves has been estimated between 10 and 15 billion euros (figure shared by a ministre today).
Not to mention the cost of premature deaths of children and the elderly who don't deal with heat as well
That's the value of a single third-tier AI startup.
Somehow, somehow, everyone’s heads are still in the sand. Desperately trying to bury them deeper. It’s like CICO denialism.
I expect this to be a deeply unpopular take here, but solutionism will fail. Magic technology will not come to save us. All of our industrial tekhne has been in the service of rolling down the stored-energy hill faster and faster. To put the genie back in the bottle, to take apart the CO2 and turn it back into hydrocarbons, we’d have to do more work than everything that was done in the last two centuries. And that’s an extremely conservative lower bound.
It’s so dire. I don’t think most people understand that everything around them is made out of petroleum. Not just your ability to travel, or your clothes. Your food is made of petroleum. Your institutions are made of petroleum. Your gender equality is made of petroleum. Your freedom is made of petroleum.
There is no putting this thing in reverse. If the AI doesn’t get us first, thermodynamics will topple all of this.
While it is true that reversing combustion would require more energy than was released burning it, I don't think anyone reasonable is proposing it. The proposal is to redirect future energy production away from fossil extraction and into cleaner sources (solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal) which is a completely different thermodynamic problem. The constraints are things like grid storage capacity, permitting timelines, and critical mineral supply chains - not physics.
If we overcome these very real contraints, we reduce the rate of new additions to atmospheric CO2. We will still need to do the thermodynamically hard work of removing CO2 at gigaton scale, but deferring that until removal tech is more mature is the right sequencing.
Of course, this assumes that we are actually working towards the CO2 output reductions right now and really committed to CO2 removal in the near future.
> Your gender equality is made of petroleum.
That is the weirdest and wokest comment I read this year on the internet. Could you please explain?
Seems likely that within our lifetime multiple countries in europe may turn into deserts, and there is little we can do against it except for maybe attempt to terraform the climate by seeding clouds or changing ecosystem flora to something resilient in the face of 40C weather. Losing a huge amount of food production would be my greatest concern.
It's not targeting the area though is it? It's not like someone is moving this dome across to Europe and saying "Yeah, take that, that'll show 'em".
"2027 is likely to be WAY worse than this 2026 in terms of extreme heat, drought, fires, crop losses. WAY worse. In the Northern hemisphere, we have half a year to prepare for next summer and save some lives. Everyone is acting like 2026 is a blip. No: far worse is to come."
https://nitter.catsarch.com/JKSteinberger/status/20874034329...
This is a harbinger for insane weather in the United States this fall and winter.
I am expecting my homeless life in in minivan to be choatic trying to chase where the weather will be favorable.
My main concern if is there is heavy rains in California after the drought of rain they have had this summer. The Salton Sea is at an all time low[1] and many people do not know that a rapid fill of water into the Salton Sea from the Cochella Valley is a known trigger for earthquakes on the San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults[2][3].
[1] https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-10254005...
[2] https://www.sdsu.edu/news/2023/07/drying-salton-sea-has-stav...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXqOn0GILtA
Adding...
https://subjecttoclimate.org/news/study-las-earthquake-risk-...
As of now, our worst problem in Central Europe seems to be drought. Some of the mightiest rivers of the continent are barely there. You can walk across the Danube, the Rhine or the Wisla in some places, drenching yourself a bit, but never losing contact with the bottom.
The Po River is drying up as well...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/environment/2026/08/10/climate-...
Install Air Conditioning... It's literally not rocket science
Enjoy it while it lasts; it'll never be this cool again.
Not if Count Binface wins the elections.
First the UK, then leadership of Europe via behind-closed-doors politics, then a gentle colonization of both the east and the west using our amazing cheese, bread that is baked rather than synthesized from fossil fuels, and 30 days of paid vacations per year. The path forward is clear.
And he'll pay for this by "putting up everyone's taxes except yours"!
More data centers for plagiarizing code and solving 10 unimportant Erdos problems per year will fix this!
Erasing any datacenter ever built (and planned) would do almost nothing to stop climate change.
What we need is (global) electrification of transport and heating, CO2 free electricity and CO2 neutral concrete and steel.
Very effective ways to make this happen would be high prices on emissions, enforced on every local industry and all imports.
But too many people love their cheap fossil-based transport too much and are unwilling to make even small sacrifices to keep the climate stable; sad reality.
The warming is terrible and deadly, AND ALSO Europeans are negligent in not protecting themselves however they can.
The idea that Europe could slow warming by not using air-conditioning is absurd, when the emissions mostly come from elsewhere. France, in particular, gets most of its energy from nuclear power, but also makes it very hard to get climatisation.
People live longer in many parts of Europe than the USA. Does that mean the USA is somehow negligent?
Excess deaths due to heat are primarily the in the elderly. The excess numbers we are seeing now are because the proportion of elderly people in France, Germany and Spain are higher than in the USA.
If the population pyramid in the EU was more similar to that of the USA the number of excess deaths would be lower. I'm not sure negligent is the correct word to use. Climate change will reduce quality of life. Because of these changes people will not live as long.
That's how excess deaths work.
When I lived in a rather hot area of Spain for a year, I was shocked to find out that many apartments don't have an air conditioner. In a place where a similar heat wave happens every year, for months. A friend of mine moved there from Germany and being somewhat frugal, rented a place without and aircon. Let me just say that he didn't enjoy the summer nights one bit.
I myself had one, but I could probably rent a car for the cost of running it.
I will say this - air conditioning costs to establish room temperature are inversely proportional to the degree the building is insulated. If your whole country is comprised of uninsulated or barely insulated housing stock, you have a MUCH larger project than simply buying some small window units for a few hundred euro per person and then paying a few hundred euros extra per year in energy costs.
Don't they have to heat them in the winter too? That also costs more and creates more emissions without insulation.
Some of these places don't get very cold, others rely on coats, others south facing window solar gain. Very old buildings are common. I'm not claiming all of Europe is uninsulated, just a large enough portion to render heatwave safety a much bigger problem.
If you can't run one fifth of your nuclear plants, because the water levels are to low or the water temperatures too high in the rivers used to cool them, you may want to reconsider whether that is truly the best choice here¹
In the meantime my fathers solar roof allows him free AC cooling, because as it turns out AC generally needs most energy when the sun shines the most.
I am not arguing nuclear plants do not have benefits, I just argue that solar with storage may be a much better fit for powering ACs.
¹: https://www.euronews.com/2026/08/12/heatwave-and-jellyfish-a...
>Europeans are negligent in not protecting themselves however they can.
Well, if the people in charge say or think global warming isn't real, that's what you get: not "other" solutions to the "unacceptable propositions" the Green parties suggest, but no proposition at all, as there is no problem.
The current situation is a direct consequence of pure negationism from conservative parties, not a disagreement on how to deal with climate change between the Right and the Left. The Left proposed solutions you may not agree with, but the Right has been completely rejecting the reality of climate change.
BTW, how do you propose Europe protect not only people from the heat, but also forests from burning, rivers from drying up, fields from being unfit for cows and sheep, lakes from blooming with algae, nuclear plants from being shut down due to river water being too hot and seawater being full of jellyfish, etc, etc, etc? In the end, there are so many things to "adapt" that it would cost less to try to organize a global effort to lower CO2.
[H]ow do you propose Europe protect not only people from the heat, but [all these other things]?
Why does it have to be framed as all-or-nothing? I agree that using air conditioning to reduce the number of people who die from the heat does nothing to help with the problem of jellyfish, but how is that relevant, exactly?
Your AC isn't going to work when your power plants are stuffed with jellyfish and have to shut down.
We need a grassroots Tiktok campaign against Big Jellyfish
Honest question. How could effective global climate action look?
One avenue looks like: build tons and tons of nuclear power plants in the 70s and 80s and retire most fossil-fuel based plants globally; invest in solar and wind and battery technologies in the 80s and 90s; introduce a carbon tax to reflect externalized costs in the 90s and 2000s to shift transportation and production away from carbon-based sources; enjoy our close-enough-to-carbon-neutral economy from the 2010s and avoid almost all the bad climate change impacts.
You'll notice this plan requires a time machine. If we don't have access to one of those, then the plan is to do all of the above in the next 5 years and also spend 50x as much money as all of that will cost in order to mitigate the damage we did over the last 50 years. Every year we don't do that increases the cost 10x.
It's pretty grim.
For as long as I can remember, my hometown had extreme summers with temperatures climbing as high as 45c. This was in the early 90's. This year is no different. Location: North Macedonia
For as long as I can remember, I turned off the lights in the bathroom. Yet, I just checked, and turns out they are on.
Feel free to remember the past how you want, that doesn't change it.
Good thing we have more reliable data than your memory:
https://doma.edu.mk/en/research-and-education/macedonia-and-...
For as long as I remember I never had a summer this warm and this dry. And I don't even have to rely on memory alone here as this is backed by actual historic measurements all the way back since humans started to record temperatures in my countries.
Locations: Southern Austria and Northern Germany
You do realize North Macedonia is not representative of all EU countries, and that other EU countries have abnormal heat waves compared to the 90s? With effects like the first pyrocumulonimbus in France's recorded history?
I think denying climate change and it's impact in the face of all evidence is something hard to justify lol.