world

WMO urges drastic action as global average temperature set to rise again

39 Comments
By Emma Farge

The global average temperature is set to rise to at least 1.2 to 1.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels over the next five years, a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) official said on Monday, close to a limit adopted in a global treaty.

The prediction comes as governments are due to meet in New York for the U.N. Climate Action Summit to build on their pledges from the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to cap the global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees.

The agreement, adopted by almost 200 nations, set a goal of limiting warming to “well below” a rise of 2C above pre-industrial times while “pursuing efforts” for the tougher 1.5C goal.

A rise of 2C is expected to wipe out more than 99 percent of coral reefs and melt most of the sea ice in the Arctic.

"Basically we are on track to reach at least 1.2- 1.3 degrees centigrade (above pre-industrial levels) over the next five years," said Omar Baddour, WMO senior scientific officer, in response to a Reuters question at a Geneva news conference.

"It needs drastic actions," he added.

The comments came after the U.N. agency released a report on Sunday showing that the period from 2015 to 2019 was set to be the warmest five-year period on record, rising by 0.2 degrees Celsius over 2011-2015.

"Not only are these statistics alarming they dispel any false sense of security that maybe we will muddle through this," said Maxx Dilley, director of the climate prediction and adaptation division of the WMO, told journalists.

"There is going to have to be a dramatic scale up in the level of ambition and as well as in the level of actual follow through on the current policies that are intending to address this," he added.

The WMO report also showed record carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere recorded over the same period, with the pace of carbon dioxide growth up 20 percent versus the last five-year assessment.

There is a lag in the period that the world's climate responds to carbon dioxide and other gasses, meaning that the emissions produced today can affect temperatures 20 years later, Dilley added, locking in the warming trend.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

The rising sea level and the sinking of Islands are dangerous mix. When coupled with stupidity of the govt, it is not sexy and fun at all.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Unless all the worlds nations enact laws immediately banning any new road vehicle from being full electric and phasing out of old gasoline/diesel engine vehicles within two years. Scrapping of Coal powered and gas powered power stations within five years and ensuring that all new buildings both domestic and business are constructed to be energy self sufficient, then its already too late.

We don't have 10 or 20 years to fix this. Action is needed right now. As insurance for humanity to survive and for science and knowledge to survive there needs to be constructed in space two separate "arks" that are fully self sufficient for everything but raw resources which could be mined from asteroids and meteors. Population of the arks would need to be as large as is possible to support. Include as many different species as is possible from insects to fish to birds, reptiles, predators, farm and domesticated animals and vegetation with seeds, everything needed to start life on Earth again and repopulate as many diverse species as we can.

This is no longer science fiction but is the only way for this civilization to survive. We work hard together and we just might have a slim chance. Drag it out, put it off and fail to cooperate and it's all over.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

If the climate deniers get it wrong then further generations will be faced by greater stronger natural disasters and hotter weather.

If the climate change supporters get it wrong we will have a cleaner environment and more use or renewable energies.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

[ This is no longer science fiction but is the only way for this civilization to survive. We work hard together and we just might have a slim chance. Drag it out, put it off and fail to cooperate and it's all over. ]

When did everyone ever work hard together for a sustained period of time regarding such a contentious topic? The only possibility would be if the US did a severe about-face and basically forced everyone to be extremely green...Big Oil suddenly going to roll over? Military going to significantly curtail their consumption of fossil fuels within the near future?

This is the legacy of the 20th century. We know who rose to prominence and what sort of policies they have spread around the world via free markets/mass consumerism. This is the bed that has been made for all of us to lie in.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If the climate change supporters get it wrong we will have a cleaner environment and more use or renewable energies.

I am all for a cleaner environment. But CO2 is not dirty.

I don't buy the global warming hysteria. Focusing on global warming will take resources away from taking care of pollution.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Raw Beer: "I don't buy the global warming hysteria."

I  would rather accept the consensus of climate scientist than uniformed commenters.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Raw Beer, "I don't buy the global warming hysteria."

What a one dimensional thinking ! If the globe isn't warming, then is it cooling ?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

But CO2 is not dirty.

Nobody is claiming that it is. But burning fossil fuels, as well as releasing CO2, also release pollutants.

Focusing on global warming will take resources away from taking care of pollution.

By tackling global warming through reducing CO2 emissions, you also tackle a large part of pollution.

I don't buy the global warming hysteria.

Temperatures are rising. It's happening. You are confusing 'concern' with 'hysteria'. You wait a few decades, you'll see real hysteria.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

When did everyone ever work hard together for a sustained period of time regarding such a contentious topic?

The global ban on the use of CFC's comes to mind.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Raw Beer said "I am all for a cleaner environment. But CO2 is not dirty."

Hahaha, by definition "CO2 refers to the case when gas pressure built up in the rectum expels feces with an unusual amount of force." Very clean.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

When did everyone ever work hard together for a sustained period of time regarding such a contentious topic?

Ozone hole, a global environmental problem now pretty much solved by international cooperation.

Lots of people from many countries also laid down their lives to fight fascism. You don't have to laid down your life to fight climate change, just eat less meat, fly less, and vote for politicians who'll subsidize sustainable things, not fossil fuels, the global arms industry, corporate meat production, etc. It is a very small price to pay. As with the Impossible Burger, some people may not even notice the difference.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I would rather accept the consensus of climate scientist than uniformed commenters.

There is a third alternative: familiarize yourself with the basic concepts and evidence that lead the the people who study the topic to overwhelmingly conclude that the global climate is changing, humans has and are causing it, and it will greatly disrupt life on the planet, humans included.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Greenhouse gases

Water vapor (H2O)

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Methane (CH4)

Nitrous oxide (N2O)

Ozone (O3)

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

Hydrofluorocarbons (includes HCFCs and HFCs)

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The global ban on the use of CFC's comes to mind.

CFC's ain't oil and coal. Lot's of very rich people and their servants make tons of money on oil and coal.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Black Sabbath - There is a third alternative: familiarize yourself with the basic concepts and evidence that lead the the people who study the topic to overwhelmingly conclude that the global climate is changing, humans has and are causing it, and it will greatly disrupt life on the planet, humans included.

Unless the climate change zealots can stop the global warming/global cooling cycle, the planet is going to get warmer. Until the planet gets cooler. Since the climate change zealots can't stop global warming, they should be advocating for methods that would allow the human population to survive global warming until the planet begins to cool again. More, and better, insulation will be needed. And it needs to be installed sooner rather than later. More energy is required to meet the higher demand for much needed air conditioning. Solar, wind, and wave power can supplement nuclear, coal, and gas power plants, but they can't produce enough energy to replace them.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I would imagine that global warming believers would live out thier beliefs practically by unplugging thier air cons, TV's and other devices and household appliances, walking to work/school, refusing to fly in planes, etc, etc.

It will be interesting to hear how those on this forum are practically acting out thier beliefs.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

arrestpaul

I do not see a reply in your post. I spoke only to the false choice that -- you, me, them, everybody -- can either believe the scientists or not believe them.

You, me. them, everybody has at least two more choices: remain agnostic.

Or rather than rely on others, do a little research and a little thinking, and learn. Learn why the vast majority of the people who study climate change have concluded it a thing, we're doing it, and it's gonna be a tough ride.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Black Sabbath - Or rather than rely on others, do a little research and a little thinking, and learn. Learn why the vast majority of the people who study climate change have concluded it a thing, we're doing it, and it's gonna be a tough ride.

The planet has been in a warming cycle since the last ice age. The planet is getting warmer. The current global warming zealotry can not stop global warming. The zealots are not trying to stop global warming. They're trying to slow it down. Instead of a 2 deg. increase, they're trying for a 1.5 deg. increase, or a 1 deg., or a .05 deg. increase. If the global warming zealots can't stop global warming, then shouldn't they be advocating for methods to help people to survive this "tough ride" of continued global warming?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@Black Sabbath

Learn why the vast majority of the people who study climate change have concluded it a thing, we're doing it, and it's gonna be a tough ride

Why are there many honest scientists who firmly disagree with the 'vast majority'? If global warming was an incontrovertible scientific fact proven by observable evidence then there would be no room for a sane person to deny it.

Do any scientists deny the existence of the law of gravity, or that water can freeze or that the earth rotates? No, because these are clearly observable scientific facts.

No global warming advocating scientist can produce recorded temperatures from past millennia to compare with modern temperatures nor can they prove without doubt that human activity is responsible for recent higher temperatures. IT IS A THEORY. That's why there is not universal consensus.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

And we still have posters here who think other people are as stupid as they are to believe the claims of a political party in America over the findings of scientists who dedicate their lives to study of the matter.

Then they whine that we look down on the and point out that their actions are deplorable.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

I would imagine that global warming believers would live out thier beliefs practically by unplugging thier air cons, TV's and other devices and household appliances, walking to work/school, refusing to fly in planes, etc, etc.

Many do. But, individual actions of people as compared to industry, produce only a tiny percentage of the greenhouse gasses. Even if every person on the planet wound down their activities to produce less emissions, it would have minimal impact.

On top of that, without a coordinated effort by people to reduce their emissions, we all need to do it, not only a percentage of us.

Its sure a lot easier to just discount it and ensure the static quo by quoting a bunch of American right wingers who will see their profit margins hit hard if they admit that what they were saying were lies and falsehoods.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@Strangerland

Why are there many honest scientists who firmly disagree with the 'vast majority'?

There aren’t. That’s what the social hater warriors would have you believe

Here's a list of scores of dissenting scientists who doubt the theory of global warming/climate change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@Strangerland

I would imagine that global warming believers would live out thier beliefs practically by unplugging thier air cons, TV's and other devices and household appliances, walking to work/school, refusing to fly in planes, etc, etc.

Many do

Many do what? -Nothing, that's what. Some of the biggest global warming advocates fly around in private jets and live in huge mansions.

If you really believe it then why are you enjoying all the modern conveniences rather than living like the Amish?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Anyways, there you have it folks. The problem exists, but I use a computer, so we need to ignore the problem, and instead criticize me for using a computer.

Reminds me of a smoker complaining because the ashtray is full.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Strangerland

It's not an issue of belief. Frame it that way, and you lose. bPeople can and do believe whatever they want.

It's not about belief. It's about what is going on. And, at the risk of repeating myself, this is what is going on:

The overwhelming majority of those who study the problem have concluded that 1) global climate change is happening, 2) it's man-made, and 3) it's gonna cause a lot of real problems.

Either you understand why they have reached that conclusion, or you do not. If you do not, then you really have no basis for your belief.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The overwhelming majority of those who study the problem have concluded that 1) global climate change is happening, 2) it's man-made, and 3) it's gonna cause a lot of real problems.

Either you understand why they have reached that conclusion, or you do not. If you do not, then you really have no basis for your belief.

Hence my disdain and condescension of such morons.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Strangerland

.......individual actions of people as compared to industry, produce only a tiny percentage of the greenhouse gasses.

True, but these industries serve to produce the products you are using. If you and the rest of the climate change advocates stopped using these products those industries are going to collapse, thus reducing carbon emissions.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The three countries producing the greatest quantities of greenhouse gases are India, America and China.

Americans consume twice the electricity as the Japanese.

Under Trump, I think 50 coal fired power plants have shut and 5,000 miner have lost their jobs contrary to what he claimed he would do.

Since 1750 America has outproduced all countries on CO2.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/24/18512804/climate-change-united-states-china-emissions

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The global ban on the use of CFC's comes to mind.

A global ban eh? Doesn’t do any good if countries don’t give sh#t.

Ozone hole mystery: China insulating chemical said to be source of rise

9 July 2018

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Here's a list of scores of dissenting scientists who doubt the theory of global warming/climate change.

And from that page;

"A minority [of dissenting scientists] are climatologists. "

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change."

"These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations."

"The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."

In other words, people who know what they are talking about agree on climate change. And the national science academies of every major nation agree with them. So this is either some huge, elaborate and impenetrable scientific scam for an unknown purpose or a theory based on global scientific research dating back over a century.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

CFC's ain't oil and coal. Lot's of very rich people and their servants make tons of money on oil and coal.

Irrelevant. They cant buy a new world to live on. Money is a man made concept and has no real world value except what people give it. It is now an obstacle to our very survival and it must be modified or changed or ignored in order to do what is needed to save the planet. If not then a small percentage of people who are mega rich will die along with the rest of the planet in a short period of time. But at least they die rich right.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@ClippetyClop

"Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change."

Thanks for pointing this out. You have proved my point. That is that the global warming theory is disputed by 2-3% of climate scientists. If something is an incontrovertible scientific fact, such as regarding the law of gravity or that the earth turns on its axis, there would be absolutely zero dissenters.

The fact that 2-3% disagree or doubt means that there are gaps in the hypothesis. The gaps are:

1: No global warming advocating scientist can produce recorded temperatures from past millennia to compare with modern temperatures

2: Nor can they prove without doubt that human activity is responsible for recent higher temperatures

I would also argue that the percentage of dissenting scientists is higher than the above but they are afraid of saying so due to the consequences.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Concerned

Firstly, you need to research what scientific theory means. It isn't a few blokes in a pub who have an idea.

If something is an incontrovertible scientific fact

Climate theory can never be a fact. The evidence that underpins it is fact. You don't understand the fundamental differences between scientific law and theory. 'Theory' in science does not mean tentative speculation or conjecture.

If you are clinging to 2-3% for salvation then you are in some trouble. If 97% of bacteriologists told you that a certain food was unsafe, would you eat it? It's a very, very big consensus.

Wrong. Ice core samples can tell us this from past millenia, and also the composition of the atmosphere at that time. Information can also be taken from silts, coral reefs, volcanic rocks etc. Cimate science didn't begin with thermometers & Al Gore, it's been around since the 19th century and so has the theory which is constantly being refined with new data.

They have proven beyond 'reasonable doubt' that it is. Can you prove beyond doubt that it isn't? If it isn't, what is the cause? So far climate change deniers have been unable to come up with a single answer apart from a shrug of the shoulders and 'natural cycle', as if an entire planet just decides to heat up in a few lively decades.

We're getting tired of waiting for you to use some critical thinking and stop hoping that it will all just go away.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@ClippetyClop

Firstly, I appreciate your honest and respectful comments without the name calling and snide remarks. My responses are also given with respect.

Climate theory can never be a fact. The evidence that underpins it is fact.

I agree. This is why I call it a theory. Everything is a theory until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and has universal consensus with zero dissent. I agree that climatologists base this theory on actual evidence they observe in nature. What is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is their conclusions, which are up for debate.

What bothers me is that the proposals by climate change theory embracing politicians are going to put millions our of work, burden the economy with massive debt, etc. They are telling us 'You won't be allowed to drive your car', but I can guarantee you they will still be driving theirs. It's always like that.

I agree that pollution in cities needs to be dealt with. I agree that waste needs to be recycled and dealt with and that renewable energy is cleaner and preferable. But I will not be told something is a fact when it is not universally agreed upon, and I won't watch my fellow citizens have their livelihoods stripped from them by city slicker limousine liberals who decree theory is universal fact.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Concerned, you're welcome. I also respect that you haven't made this into a left / right thing like it inevitably seems to become these days.

What is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt is their conclusions, which are up for debate.

I disagree, because at its heart climate change theory is very simple. We add more CO2 & other greenhouse gases, the atmosphere becomes warmer. So do the seas, the major determining factor in our climate. This leads to more water vapor, which traps more heat. It also releases more melted ice, more methane from the permafrost. I could go on.

which are up for debate.

They are indeed, as they should be

They are telling us 'You won't be allowed to drive your car', but I can guarantee you they will still be driving theirs.

Who exactly is saying this? Is it politicians telling lies about other politicians? Nobody is proposing this, because it won't happen.

But I will not be told something is a fact when it is not universally agreed upon

97% and rising. A mass of evidence from over a century of research. Real-time effects today. A rampaging and modernising world population, coupled with a hunger for dwindling resources. If you refuse to believe anything unless every man & woman also believes in it then it's not going to get any easier for you to ignore this problem.

and I won't watch my fellow citizens have their livelihoods stripped from them by city slicker limousine liberals who decree theory is universal fact.

Ah, the 'liberal' card at last. Nobody wants to strip any livelihoods. Nobody wants an economic collapse. What is being proposed is a steady but complete energy revolution to prepare the earth for 10 billion consumers that can somehow survive without destroying the varnish-thin ecosystem that protects us. If it works, it will be the greatest achievement in our short history.

I urge you to read this and try to understand the peril of the 3%ers being wrong.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If all the science is on your side why do you need to send children to the UN to try to make your point?

Why are kids as young as 5 years old being marched in the streets by their liberal teachers during school hours?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If all the science is on your side why do you need to send children to the UN to try to make your point?

Who is 'you'? Science doesn't have a 'side' otherwise it would be politics. I imagine politics and 'sides' determines pretty much everything you do.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@ClippetyClop

I read the article. Thanks.

My conclusion? They may very well have a point. However some factors still trouble me. One of the main ones being the many references to and comparisons with pre recorded history (eg. 800,000 years ago) of which nothing can be proved definitively.

This topic, unproven in my and many scientists opinion, has usurped far more immediate and undisputed threats and evils happening before our eyes. While this debate rages, we have hundreds of millions in abject poverty, hunger and disease, multitudes embroiled in war and conflict, homelessness, millions of innocent babies brutally dismembered and slaughtered in the womb, etc.

While I will keep an open mind to proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that would leave no room for me and the sceptical 3% of scientists to disagree, it's my sincere opinion that we've got more immediate and real human suffering problems to take care of.

With respect.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

While this debate rages, we have hundreds of millions in abject poverty, hunger and disease, multitudes embroiled in war and conflict, homelessness, millions of innocent babies brutally dismembered and slaughtered in the womb, etc.

Agreed, but it will be billions if our ability to supply the exploding population in food & energy isn't addressed.

With respect.

And to you fella.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites