If Im not mistaken, Delhi's hottest month isn't in peak summer but in May and June, so now. As the climate is largly influenced by the monsoon season.

Next year also doesn't necessarily need to be worse, now going from an el niño into a la niña makes that somewhat unlikely, although regional differences will probably make some places worse, compared to this year.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but people may be already dying by the thousands. Isn't it rather difficult for a doctor to point down the reason of death to heat?

If not next year, it will get worse rather quick, that's for sure. Much, much worse.

I also thought about wet bulb and checked the humidity in Delhi, which seems to be just 7 % or so. According to wet bulb calculators that's still good, like around 23 °C wet bulb.

Interestingly the wet bulb temperature calculators that I tried only work until 50 °C, so that was what I put in.

At 50 °C you need about 35 % humidity to get to 35 °C wet bulb.

Regarding your second point: If I'm not mistaken, the hottest month in the region is around May. The temperature is influenced by monsoons, and although the sun peaks higher in summer, it is generally also more cloudy and rain cools of the surface. That's why usually temperatures peak just before rain season.

Thank you!

Do you have a link to source of that? I'm pretty sure there are many sensors measuring the temperatures in a city that size.

From the article:

At the SMS hospital in Rajasthan’s capital, Jaipur, so many bodies of casualties of the heat have arrived at the mortuary that its capacity has been exceeded.

Warning: comment includes heavy slurs

Edit: Deleted for now, cause I can't figure out how to warn alert my comment.

Edit 2: I think I got it now. Please let me know in case it doesn't work.

It is far from over.

We are currently doing the easy part of dropping emmissions. We have not yet peaked, globally speaking. Then we need to get to zero.

The only possible pathway now is overshoot and return. Which means we depend on carbon removal in a big style, in whatever form that will be.

It also means we will go temporarily over 2 °C. That is a critical number where several tipping points could be reached.

Pretty much the hardship has just begun. Now we need to stop emitting completely, somehow in the same time start to remove atmospheric CO² and hope that while we will be over 2 °C that no crucial tipping points will be reached.

Wow, I never thought I would enjoy Electro-J-Pop-Metalcore! Those guys humor is just addicting!

While these policies aren't nice and your assumptions might be right, it's still a valid point that it's unfair for people to suffer the consequences of other people's actions.

In an ideal world everybody and everything would need to face the consequences of their own action. We don't live in that world. So it's not wrong to point out unfairness and fight for better solutions. Not being perfectly right yourself doesn't take away the right to point out wrongness in others.

Now away from the ideal world into reality. In the (hopefully) long term the Maledives are doomed. And they aren't alone. We screwed up the climate so much and we are still screwing up and haven't even peaked our emmissions yet.

We need to accept the fact that life will get hard. We need to finally accept the fact that if we don't overcome our differences, the human suffering will be absolutely brutal.

Unfortunately I am very pessimistic in this regard. Already and maybe since always human suffering gets ignored if it's not your tribe. It seems like humans can't overcome their tribe thinking. It seems like humans don't improve on their hate and brutality against each others. And it seems that many humans aren't able to feel sorry for human suffering if it's far, far away.

The future looks bleak and we made it and still make it look that way.

Usually in a tornado you have a lot of debris flying around. The faster the blades go, the higher the probability to hit debris and damage the expensive blades.

Good read!

It did not mention the nuclear bombs that have been lost somewhere.

I'm not denying that humanity is responsible for all the climate mess we are in. I'm saying that I can imagine el niño having higher than average CO² releases due to the weather effect it brings looking at a single year, not the climate 30 years.

Of course we humans brought not only ourselves but the vast majority of life into an crisis that seems now to run off. I am very pessimistic about the future as I see still no meaningful reply to this.

Still I find it plausible that in an el niño year there could be more than average CO² emmissions while neutral or la niña years could have less, so they would cancel each other out. If that is so, it would merely be on top of human made emissions, which are still higher than ever.

However, we're probably at a point now where one can't say anything for sure, because no human being has ever experienced 427 ppm CO² and the whole system has an inertia. With this sentence I don't want to say that scientists work not well. I want to say that it is much harder to come to a conclusion to values that have never been seen before compared to data that we can compare with historic data.

Of course that doesn't mean that we can't blame fossil fuel use, because humans emissions are the ones we control most and if we want to continue our lives than we need to stop emmitting.

I could imagine that el niño can contribute to CO² emmissions indirectly.

Maybe there are in an el niño year more wildfires happening compared to other years for example, which would release additional CO². Or maybe swamps get less water or a combination of several el niño weather effects.

You are right. I kind of read your first comment like "Why don't we simply take matters in our hands" instead of "it's strange that many accept this exploitation of environment and even humans as perfectly normal".

It is interesting and depressing to look at. It's also fascinating to see how many people seem to be successfully brainwashed or whatever the reason is they vote against their own interest.

I think your idea is a very fine idea but at the same time very naive.

One can start advocating what you did. Looking at classes like poor and rich, the poor are definitely the majority, so theoretically one should be able to plant the seed of thought.

But in praxis that doesn't necessarily work that way. I believe one will immediately be called 'too extreme' if not 'terrorist' and struggle to gain supporters. It doesn't help that much of the media is owned by few people.

At the same time the rich showed already that they have no intention to stop poisoning our life basis if that would mean less money for them.

So even if one gets people to follow the idea and starts to get political attention, rich corporations that have a threat to their income have also shown many times that it is not too difficult for them to make people disappear or that they 'tragically die' somehow.

Very interesting and ambitious mission.

I just read a little about it. Going to the far side is by far more complicated as going to the side that faces Earth. As communication will be lost as soon as the rocket is behind the moon.

In order to keep contact, there are 2 lunar satellites launched acting as a bridge.

The far side is believed to have a very different composition compared to the near side and part of this mission is to find out why.

Any thoughts, ideas?

I thought maybe the far side receives much more impacts as it's not protected by Earth, so maybe has much more "imported" materials from different areas of space while the near side is still much more Earth like. But that would probably just be surface, I don't know.

Incredible poor title. OP please add a sentence or two explaining the article.

I'll start of doing that so other people don't need to blindly click on a link that could be anything.

It's about a welsh coal mine that got closed (not sure if because of environmental reasons or because of less demand) and then after rains turned into a toxic lake.

Article is questioning if the toxic lake and coal imports are any improvement environmentally compared to extracting coal locally.

I think it's not asking the right questions. So there is a toxic lake now and maybe it's worse than a coal mine, but that shouldn't lead to the conclusion that the coal mine was maybe less bad. Instead it should come to the conclusion that companies need to be held responsible and can't just abandon sites like that. Maybe they need to fill in some land or I don't know, but their mess is their responsibility in my opinion.

That's an article giving hope for sure. I don't know how realistic it is. Maybe there'll be an emmissions peak in 2024 while we should half emmissions by 2030.

The difficulty is: even if we're peaking, we have only a few years to half these emmissions, which means there is no time at all to relax. We need to push even harder.

I'm worried about many countries switching to natural gas and declaring natural gas climate neutral. I believe this could be a big threat.

Sidenote: maybe I'm getting just old, but I did hard concentrate on that article where every other word is bold.

Lol. The Atlantic Ocean is freakishly warm since March 2023, not just now. It's still.

Why should I be surprised now, after another year of hardly climate mitigation politics?

And especially why should I be scared? Scientists tell us what is coming since decades if not centuries. I don't think fear is a good emotion for a response.

I'm neither scared nor surprised. I'm highly worried. Paris goals my ass, I don't trust political leaders to solve this. I'm worried about extreme weather and famine. But most of all I'm worried about our human reaction to these crisis, political instability, conflicts, selfishly "we can't help all" and "you or me".

I haven't read the article. Dumb question anyway. Yes, AMOC is approaching a tipping point, that science has been public since years. Yes, AMOC has already slowed down some dozen or more per cent.

And while we here answering the same questions as always: yes the climate is changing, yes climate change is also occuring naturally, however this one is human made and yes, the outlook isn't good at all. No, we shouldn't continue burning fossil fuels to feed our energy hunger and yes, we need to do something now or better yeaterday. And no, asking repetitive questions isn't action enough.

Edit: excuse me. I got a little emotional. Education about climate change is good. I'm just a little tired of reading the same stuff since decades I guess, while at the same time we continue to burn more and more fossil fuels.

Another update: Interesting Youtube video about this topic.