A comprehensive 2024 report reveals the escalating dangers of climate change, with 2023 marking record-breaking temperatures and sea levels.
The study updates 35 vital signs of planetary health, highlighting irreversible threats like ice sheet collapses and the need for urgent actions like implementing a global carbon price and enhancing renewable energy use to curb this global emergency.
Climate Emergency
A new report published in BioScience warns that the world is facing a climate emergency of unprecedented magnitude. The “2024 State of the Climate Report,” by an international team of scientists led by William Ripple and Christopher Wolf from Oregon State University, presents alarming evidence that climate change is accelerating at a perilous rate.
Unprecedented Climate Trends
In the report, the authors update 35 annually reported “planetary vital signs,” which provide ongoing time-series of human climate-related activities and climate responses. Among the authors’ key findings:
- Record-breaking temperatures and sea levels in 2023
- Annual energy-related emissions exceeding 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent for the first time on record.
- Accelerating loss of ice sheets and glaciers
- Rising frequency of billion-dollar climate-related disasters
Tipping Points and New Threats
The authors state: “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled.” The report highlights several climate “tipping points” and feedback loops that could trigger catastrophic changes, including the collapse of major ice sheets and widespread forest dieback. The authors also discuss emerging threats such as Arctic rivers turned orange by toxic metals, an effect that coincides with permafrost thaw.
“We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis,” the scientists warn. They emphasize that current policies have placed Earth on track for approximately 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100, far exceeding the internationally agreed limit of 1.5°C.
“We’re already in the midst of abrupt climate upheaval, which jeopardizes life on Earth like nothing humans have ever seen,” added William Ripple. “For example, Hurricane Helene caused more than 200 deaths in the southeastern United States and massive flooding in a North Carolina mountain area thought to be a safe haven from climate change.”
Immediate Actions for Climate Mitigation
The authors call for urgent action, including:
- Implement a global carbon price that could limit emissions by the wealthy while potentially providing funding for further climate action.
- Enhance energy efficiency and conservation while replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon renewables.
- Curb emissions of greenhouse gases, including those categorized as short-term pollutants such as methane.
- Protect and restore biodiverse ecosystems, which play key roles in carbon cycling and storage.
- Encourage a shift toward eating habits that emphasize plant-based foods.
- Promote sustainable ecological economics and greatly reduce overconsumption and waste by the wealthy.
- Integrate climate change education into global curriculums to boost awareness, literacy and action.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
“The future of humanity hangs in the balance,” the report concludes. “Only through decisive action can we safeguard the natural world, avert profound human suffering, and ensure that future generations inherit the livable world they deserve.”
For more on this report, see Scientists Reveal Dire Climate Predictions for the Future.
Reference: “The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth” by William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Jillian W Gregg, Johan Rockström, Michael E Mann, Naomi Oreskes, Timothy M Lenton, Stefan Rahmstorf, Thomas M Newsome, Chi Xu, Jens-Christian Svenning, Cássio Cardoso Pereira, Beverly E Law and Thomas W Crowther, 08 October 2024, BioScience.
DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biae087
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
27 Comments
“The “2024 State of the Climate Report,”…, presents alarming evidence that climate change is accelerating at a perilous rate.”
Interestingly, another recent study finds no evidence of an acceleration in warming, only a linear increase.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/global-warming-is-happening-but-not-statistically-surging-new-study-finds/ar-AA1sfrdn?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=9683caf47a9b4bb49f6c515a3acd2f5f&ei=983
Who are you going to believe? The statisticians or the hyperbolic biologists?
Earth surface temperature is 2 percent of the heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. The rest of the heat is in the deep ocean. If you can’t understand the subject you should keep your mouth shut.
It took me awhile to respond. I had to stop laughing before I could compose my thoughts. Yes, others (whom you have probably seen reported by the Media) have made that claim. However the numbers don’t add up. Water accounts for about 71% of the area of the surface of the Earth, but the very deep water, below the mixing level, is older than the water above — and also much colder. However, even the surface waters are typically colder than air temperatures. Since heat flows from hot to cold by conduction, it seems that even if the 98% claim were true, it is an inconsequential fact when the concern is about air temperatures. How is the “deep ocean”, close to freezing, supposed to heat the air?
Since you consider yourself so knowledgeable about the subject that you feel you have the license to tell us dumb people to “keep your mouth shut,” I’ll tell you what. If you can explain it to me in a manner that even I can understand (No fair getting help from an AI ‘bot), using your own words, that an average high-schooler will understand, I WILL keep my mouth shut in the future. Is that a deal?
I don’t have to ask you to keep your mouth shut. I expect I won’t hear another peep out of you.
https://scitechdaily.com/nasa-data-show-earths-deep-ocean-warmed/
I’m still waiting for your ‘peep.’
I just noticed two familiar names in the author list — Michael E Mann and Naomi Oreskes.
The first is a man commonly referred to as a renowned climatologist, largely because that is currently his academic job title. However, his degrees are in geophysics and mathematics. He is best known for developing an algorithm that purportedly shows a rapid increase in temperatures in recent decades, commonly called a ‘hockey stick’ because of its shape. The problem is, a statistician has demonstrated that the algorithm will generate a so-called ‘hockey stick’ even if supplied with noise as input!
The second is a woman who claims expertise in the HISTORY of science, although she does have an academic background in geology.
I have a background in geology too, with an undergraduate emphasis in geophysics. I wonder what I should call myself? How about, a “gadfly?”
Noise will not replicate the graph. You are a bald faced lier.
On what basis do you call me a “bald faced lier (sic)?’ Have you read the following:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL021750
wherein, the authors state, “Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue.”
Incidentally, I did NOT say that noise will “replicate the graph. I said, “… the algorithm will generate a so-called ‘hockey stick’ even if supplied with noise as input!”
You either have a degree in geology or you don’t. My guess is you don’t.
You would guess wrong, which isn’t surprising. Wishful thinking? Others here have found my background and education.
Maybe you should call yourself a lier.
You again misspelled “liar.” Maybe, when you are accusing Boba of having flunked out of the 6th grade, you are just projecting. Why don’t you demonstrate, by what you write, that it isn’t true. It would help if you turned on your spell checker. There is an old saying that you only have one chance to make a first good impression. You blew it!
At this point the doom-mongering is jusr stupidly blatant and 100% motivated by special interests.
In a way, it’s just the medieval “the end is nigh” adjusted for the modern times – but very, very calculated.
My guess is you flunked out in the 6th grade.
The ONLY thing that can possibly head off the growing dangers from warming in the near-medium term is sunlight reflection, or what is technically called “solar radiation management” or SRM.
The solutions in this article may sound extreme, may be extreme. Yet at the same time they are plainly inadequate to deal with the danger the article presents.
SRM is a far less extreme solution. And it could actually work.
To be sure, carbon reductions are needed as well as SRM. But they can help significantly only in the longer term. SRM is essential for the short-medium term.
Research and development on SRM is urgently needed. It is the only thing that could turn the plans for carbon reductions into a relevant and realistic solution for global warming.
Too much of our discussion refuses to face this reality. It ends up in a deadly cycle of escalating unrealism and denial:
1. Showing, mostly accurately, a catastrophic climate danger.
2. Demanding severe, often extreme measures against the danger, yet inherently insufficient ones.
3. Neglecting to even mention the only measures that could potentially enable us to prevent the catastrophe.
4. Instead calling for ratcheting up the old, inherently insufficient measures still higher; still without getting even close to adequacy for managing the problem.
5. Seeing more people reject this program as both extreme and irrelevant.
6. Blaming the skeptics for their sometimes-denial of the problem, without ever facing the symbiotic denial of policy realism and relevance on the believers side.
7. Reason is squeezed out by the symbiotic blindnesses on both sides.
8. The cycle repeats itself, but at a higher level of danger and absurdity: in worsened conditions, with heightened dangers, with still costlier yet still inherently inadequate policies.
9. The sense of helplessness grows — the only logical thing in this vicious circle.
The circle truly is vicious. We need to break out of it.
To get out of the circle, we must start talking about real solutions, and acting on them. This will have to start with urgent research preparations on SRM.
“The ONLY thing that can possibly head off the growing dangers from warming in the near-medium term is sunlight reflection, or what is technically called “solar radiation management” or SRM.”
How about making a case for your claim instead of just expecting readers to believe you? While you are at it, you might define SRM. Are you suggesting geoengineering to alter the amount of sunlight that gets reflected in the atmosphere, such as by sulfate or carbonate aerosols? If not, just what are you suggesting?
Currently, there is a small positive gain in energy retained in the system. How do you propose to balance the net reflected energy so delicately that it isn’t over done and makes the world cold? If a mistake is made (after all, humans aren’t perfect) what is the backup plan to undo what was done? How long would it take to reverse an over zealous adjustment?
I hope it’s not too late to save our planet from ourselves because we are the only one to blame maybe it would help to stop using fossil fuels now and I mean stop for real there are better ways to heat our homes and businesses with going green it would work the only thing holding us back is greed which can cost us our lives and our family’s and their family and so on etc…..
“… there are better ways to heat our homes and businesses with going green …”
I take it you have never lived anywhere that gets really cold in the Winter. Particularly places like Siberia or the North American Arctic, where it gets cold enough that wind turbine drive-shafts can crack, or the sun is low on the horizon and solar panels are covered with snow frequently.
I’m always astounded when people like yourself make unsupported assertions like “better ways,” with the same certainty that people speak about the sun rising tomorrow, yet demonstrate little knowledge about the technologies.
Oh how shocking this is,
But where is the report on what war ill do to climate change
And why have you got no answer to stop this coming event ?
When there is a simple solution to stop wars.
Will you be the first to stop the crowing roosters that want war
and those who have become aggressors, such as Putin, Xi, Un. Ayatollah,
Hamas, Hezbollah, Those who cause terror in other countries to have others fight to defend themselves,
The answer is simple.
Start asking for a world bounty on the fools that rule and those that follow wanting war, and those that accuse others
Don’t forget Netanyahu and assorted USA Presidents back to………well, at least Theodore Roosevelt…. and of of course we peace-loving Brits and Germans and Frenchies and Japanese and etc etc etc………
This is obviously alarmist PR. There are many organizations devoted to this stuff. All though history, we enjoyed lush forests, including a green, wet Sahara – with lakes and rivers – brought by a relatively unchanging 0.2% C02 atmosphere. A scant million years ago, it started it fall to the present 0.04%. Where we have failing forests trying to hold on past the Soy and Palm Oil businesses eating through the southern hemisphere (the real problem).
But that stands even-toed with the well-paid climate alarmists trying to lower atmospheric C02. Were they successful (and they have nothing but impressionable people listening), to halve the level to: 0.02%, ALL PLANT LIFE ON EARTH would die.
Of course, just like a deadbeat SciFi horror flick: Is anyone listening?
Dear Clyde,
Are you aware of the exponential growth of human population that runs in lockstep with a similar curve for increase in atmospheric CO2 etc and the exponential increase int he burning of hydrocarbons , all since 1945-50?
Just a passing thought. CO2 was recognised as greenhouse gas back around 1827 and the increase in atmospheric CO2 has increased since the 1770s by about 140-150 ppm (not much, but that’s by an interesting percentage….). And of course you are aware that H.sapiens is an extremely aggressive animal, particularly if someone has the resources that someone else thinks they needs to survive.
Life will go on; but our global civilisation won’t, if Anthropogenic Global Heating is even half what it is cracked up to be. Never mind; threaten to shoot the meteorologists forecasting hurricanes such as hit Florida recently; that’s very USA
Rob, how could I not be aware of the unprecedented growth in the human population? The thing is, you are implying that humans are totally responsible for the growth in CO2. Almost certainly the increase in temperature has been good for agriculture and helped the human population boom. So, the question becomes, are humans driving CO2, or is CO2 contributing to the fecundity of humans? It is pretty clear from looking at monthly CO2 levels that the seasonal changes in CO2 are the result of photosynthesis and decomposition of organic detrital material. NASA has documented a ‘greening’ resulting from the fertilization effect of CO2. When human activities were reduced during the 2020 COVID pandemic, the decline in monthly anthropogenic CO2 emissions was as high as 14-18% in April alone; in general, during the Winter-Spring seasonal ramp-up phase, human emissions were down. However, the graph of the 2020 ramp-up phase was indistinguishable from 2019 and 2021. Those facts strongly suggest that the net effect of a complex feedback system is driving CO2, which is the opposite of the common assumption.
If you have any trouble getting to sleep at night, I suggest looking up and reading about ‘spurious correlations.’ Just because two measurements are increasing over the same time interval does not mean that one is driving the other.
Yes, we have known about the ability of CO2 to absorb IR for a long time. But, that is taking a simple fact out of context. What we need to know is how the complex system of feedback loops interact and what the NET result is. Global Circulation Models are an attempt to address that. However, the majority of the model ensembles have always run too warm, and only got worse with the latest set of runs.
To paraphrase James Hansen. The Earth’s climate is characterized by delayed response and amplifying feedbacks.
Once we see the acceleration it will be too late.
Hansen should be best known for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Senators in 1988 by arriving early, opening the windows on what was forecast to be a hot day, and turning off the A/C in the meeting room. In the graphs he presented to the Senators, he used his model to predict the future temperatures based on CO2 emissions with business as one scenario. However, to emphasize the importance of reductions, for the reduced-emissions scenarios, he assumed two volcanic cooling events, which were hypothetical, and didn’t happen. Even so, a simple linear extrapolation of his own data over the subsequent 30-years proved to be more accurate than even his hypothetically-cooled, reduced emissions scenarios. That is “business as usual.”
The authors of this study claim, “presents alarming evidence that climate change is accelerating at a perilous rate.” Which is it? Is it obviously “accelerating at a perilous rate,” or will we not see acceleration until it is too late, as you claim? Who should we believe, and why?
That should be “… based on CO2 emissions with business [as usual] as one scenario.”
CO2 is a byproduct of the “green house effect”, not a cause.
Interesting that a gas that is vital to the earth’s ecosystems, which constituted 0.0% of the atmosphere before the industrial age, and STILL constitutes 0.0% of the atmosphere today, wreaks so much havoc on the earth’s climate.
As for the go-to climate-expert alarmist response to the trace-gas argument that basically states, “Poisons can cause deadly disruptions of biological processes in trace amounts,” the atmosphere is not a delicate biological process, and CO2 is most certainly NOT a poison.
Even the term “greenhouse gas” is a total distortion. Greenhouses trap heat by physically preventing air warmed by proximity to solar-heated ground from rising and escaping. They have roofs made of transparent or translucent solid panels, not, say, screens that are 99.9% open. That would be stupid. But not as stupid as the people that blindly accept the “CO2 causes catastrophic global warming” dogma.
Given the climate alarmist mafia’s 0-and-50 record of disaster predictions over the past fifty-odd years, and the wildly inaccurate mathematical modelings, I’ll remain a skeptic (NOT a “denier,” that term sounds akin to religious persecution to me)