this post was submitted on 28 May 2026
178 points (99.4% liked)

World News

56702 readers
1902 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Global temperature record could be broken as soon as 2027, with El Niño expected later this year

A record-breaking hot year is almost certain by 2030 as the climate crisis intensifies, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization has warned.

With an El Niño event expected later this year, the global temperature record could fall as soon as 2027.

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are continuing to rise, trapping more heat and driving more extreme weather, including the record-breaking heatwave that has hit the UK and Europe this week.

Global heating is already estimated to be taking one life every minute, with the toll likely to rise unless emissions fall rapidly.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 68 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Haven't like 9 of the last 10 years been record hot years? Not really going out on a limb here, UN.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Global population record will be smashed by 2030!

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Not really, the global population is only growing slowly now.
So it's misleading to call it "smashed".

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

slowly

Last year, just like every year prior to that since the 1950s, we've added the net population of the entire United Kingdom to this planet. All of those people consume, pollute and want a space to call their own. Just like the other 8.4 billion of us.

As a species, the environment hasn't ever been our priority.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

This is pretty close, and it is true that the population has been growing by about the same amount of people per year since the 1950's. But the same amount of people means decreasing percentage, and that means slower.

But another significant factor is that in the industrialized world the growth had already almost completely stopped in the 50's.
Now the growth is beginning to decrease in Asia, and the expectation is that after 2050 the growth will be only on Africa.

pewresearch: worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century

As a species, the environment hasn’t ever been our priority.

Kind of true, but it definitely began to be in the 60's in western democracies. other countries were a bit later, typically the priority of the environment follows when the economy reaches a certain level, where the balance between environment and more economy begin to shift.

Problem is that with the global environment, some countries like especially USA don't give a shit. Despite they have contributed more to the problem than any other country in the world.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like you may have missed the joke.

I mean it wasnt a particularly funny joke, but the sentence was designed to illustrate the absurdity of making an engaging headline from a predictable occurrence.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

OK, But the headline of the article here does not contain such language as "smashed", so IMO it's a bit misplaced, but I get what you mean. Because the headline remains pretty stupid in being extremely obvious.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I know a guy that lamented all throughout Biden's term that "the debt is the highest it's ever been!" He truly didn't understand how the US debt works. He also hasn't cared that, to no one's surprise but his own, the debt under trump's current term is higher still.

[–] mech@feddit.org 10 points 3 weeks ago

It's statistical proof that climate change will get worse in the next years regardless of what we do.
A definitive statement like that is rare in climatology.
(It's still essential to fight against climate change, but even with 0 CO2 output starting today, it would continue to get hotter for many years, since the system reacts slowly).

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't think of it as the hottest year of the last 200 years. Think of it as the coldest year of the next 200

[–] TheVoiceOfRaison@thelemmy.club 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

No shit. I remember the messages from climate scientists in the 1980s about global warming (as it used to be called), and its almost as if the whole conversation didn't rear its head properly till mid 2010s. It isn't something I'm an expert on, but I feel like we are beyond the point of no return. In the UK we have just this week set the record high temp, a month sooner than the usual weather starts. It isn't that its getting hotter, it is that it is now on average far hotter earlier and longer. The absolute insane greed of the stock markets around the world putting their il gotten gains into AI data centres is just going to exacerbate the problem. As it gets hotter, people buy more air conditioning which then makes it worse! Its a vicious circle.

There is part of me that hopes that the current ruling generation will soon all pass and this age of greed will cease and the earth can breath a sigh of relief, but no. It appears there are a long list of cunts who will happily sacrifice their children's future and everybody else's for the next few billion dollars. The 1% simply do not give a shit at all. They literally think, "Well I wont be here when the world burns, why should I care now?"

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The worst part is it wasn’t the 1980s, it was almost 100 years before when people first started understanding that humans could affect the climate.

Newspaper article from early 1900s

[–] TheVoiceOfRaison@thelemmy.club 3 points 3 weeks ago

I remember that image too, I was speaking from my perspective that the first time I remember being made aware of it was in the 1980s. I should have been more clear, sorry.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

global warming

I think the term is making a comeback, it was abandoned to not offend global warming deniers. And it was instead called climate change. Because some parts of the globe can still get colder, and that is apparently too confusing for American Christian and Republican morons to understand.

It is and always was global warming that is the actual issue, so we should all go back to calling it that again.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We had a US Senator bring a fucking snowball onto the floor of the Senate to disprove global warming.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah I remember, the idiocy of that is astounding.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

It's child logic

[–] TheVoiceOfRaison@thelemmy.club 4 points 3 weeks ago

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

[–] Magister@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

I'm French and remember in the 70s/80s even 90s we never had 30+°C in fucking May. Now we have 35+ for days, multiple times a year, it's incredible.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

FYI in statistical language “almost certainly” means with probability 1.

100% probability.

The math of measure theory allows for such an outcome to happen, just with immeasurably small chance.

Meaningless title, we are already breaking records every year for over a decade

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago

The fuck do you mean later this year we just had it like yesterday

[–] MrKoyun@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Eh, I'll just start running my AC lower and open the windows. Its fine guys.

[–] CyroSignal@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Will there be a solution ???

[–] TheVoiceOfRaison@thelemmy.club 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Well, we're about 60 to 80,000 years from the next ice age. If we haven't all died by then we could wait for that?

Or just about every developed nation on the planet needs to move to sustainable fuels now!

Nuclear fusion would be an absolute game changer. Clean, infinite energy, but it is too far away for it to make a difference let alone be able to reverse the damage that is being done. For future generations sake, as a leader of a nation, I'd be throwing all my money at it. Like, yesterday.

[–] mech@feddit.org 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's not a technology problem. It can be solved with wind farms, solar arrays, batteries and trees. All of which exist today, and are already cheaper than building new fossil fuel, nuclear or fusion power.
The problem is that those solutions decentralize and democratize power generation, which cuts into big corpo profits.

Anyone still advocating for nuclear or fusion power now that better, cheaper alternatives exist, just wants a solution that keeps power generation in the hands of a few.

[–] TheVoiceOfRaison@thelemmy.club 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I disagree. Fusion / fission is a long term goal. Solar is cheap to produce but requires big areas and currently not very efficient. Wind power i think is probably our best immediate term bet. The UK nearly went through the whole of April this year entirely on sustainable fuels alone. Within fusion there are enough countries doing their own thing with varying levels of success that there is enough competition for it to be spread world wide. It is also easily monetized, however i envision it would be expensive for the consumer first as companies claw money back from R&D.

[–] mech@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Fusion and even new nuclear power plants will be too late to fix this.
We need non-fossil power at a global scale within 10-20 years.
In that context, framing fusion and nuclear as solutions for the climate crisis is just plain wrong.
We need to put all available funding into solar and wind NOW cause they can be built much faster.
When the immediate crisis is over (hopefully), sure go ahead and develop fusion, although I'm not sure at that point it will still be necessary.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Just a friendly correction: we currently are in an ice age. You're thinking of the next glaciation. The confusion is understandable because you are using that term exactly how it's generally used by lay people, but I think the distinction is important, especially as we're thinking of long term natural history and understanding climate science.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

billionaire bunkers and secret underground cities

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

At least theoretically yes. We can release particles into the atmosphere that has the opposite effect of the greenhouse gasses. That instead of keeping the heat within the atmosphere, would reflect heat back to the universe.

But since USA seems keen to continue to completely drop the ball on the issue, for such solutions we probably need to look to EU or China.

My suggestion would be to put particles in geostationary orbit above USA, because they are the main villain that has caused this problem, and has done the least to help solve it. So it might as well be them that get less sunlight.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Duh. 🤡

Are Americans really still denying global warming?
If they are, I don't see why that crowd should be considered worth informing, they are clearly immune to reason and evidence.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, build a wall around them and don't let any of them out. We'll be better off

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Global heating is already estimated to be taking one life every minute, with the toll likely to rise unless emissions fall rapidly.

I think it's going to be a while. We're still committed to the infinite growth paradigm and infinite growth requires infinite energy.

There's debate about the feasibility of green growth, but the fact is green energy is already helping to fuel growth. It's a relatively small percentage of the overall energy mix now, but green energy will grow, and so will fossil fuel energy. We'll have green growth and fossil fuel growth, and probably nuclear growth, too. As long as we keep growing, we'll need it all.

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

Infinite sacrifice.

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

Start hoarding water now.

load more comments
view more: next ›