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.
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
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.
It’s odd to bring percentages into it as the other factors of the equation aren’t growing at the same rate. In fact, they are decreasing.
The absolute number of people continues to increase steadily, consuming more and more and more of the finite resources we have.
There are more humans on this planet today than have ever been on this planet in the past, and the same will be true for as long as our projections can reliably predict, and we have no intention to reduce that number.
I don’t think the word “slow” has any place in describing this growth unless one wishes to deliberately obfuscate it by using an exponential scale.
You obviously didn’t look at the link I provided, and no the declining percentage will eventually make it slow down. Zero percent is obviously zero, and no it’s not strange to bring that in, because it’s math.
I’m sorry I didn’t comment on your unrelated source. I think we agree that the population is continuing to grow until 2100, as the UN projected.
This just isn’t true btw. Nearly every single deomgrapher in the world predicts net zero population growth by 2050, and all the most well respected predict we’ll be at 1.8 or below fertility rate by 2050.
The population hasn’t been growing steadily since the 1990s.
What, exactly, is incorrect in my comment? There will be significantly more people in 2050 than there are today.
‘significantly more’ is around 10%, 20% if we solve climate change by 2050 btw.
That’s not that significant given we’re up 25% from 24 years ago.
But the important part is no, fertility rates have never been lower in world history, and they’re dropping faster than at any point in world history post-glacial-period-induced population squeeze. Most of the world is far below replacement, and the rest of the world is catching up thanks to the modernization of China and Africa.
By 2050 we will see a year where more humans die than are born. By 2100 there will be (actually) significantly fewer humans alive than there are today. We are two generations, at most, out from significant and rapid population decay, if not outright collapse.
Fertility rates, while interesting and relevant, were not what my comments were about.
My first comment made an observation that last year alone, we added the equivalent of the current population of the United Kingdom to the planet, and we’ve been doing that every year, for the past 70 years. (As an aside, I argue that the net addition is “significantly more.”)
My second comment remarked on the skewed perspective of looking at relative growth rates, which is why I specifically called out the human population in absolute numbers.
I fail to see how anything I’ve said is incorrect but I’m open to the feedback.
You were speaking about population growth. Fertility rate is the definition that we use for population growth and prediction.
I don’t believe you are reading any comments, or if you are you’re not understanding them because you believe you are right and there is no possible information that will ever make you believe otherwise.
Have a good life, it will be full of confusing and wonderful things that you will never be able to explain or understand.
I understand that, but again, that’s not the point of my comments. We’re talking about different things and I’m fully aware of lowering fertility rates.
I don’t know a better way to explain the motivation of my comments than that it is deliberately separating relative population growth (yes it absolutely has to do with fertility rates!) from absolute population growth.
I’ve been trying to encourage the reader to not think about fertility rates and just be in awe of the sheer amount of humans adding to the total population. The purpose of that thought experiment is to factor in that the growth shouldn’t be solely compared to a number from a previous period, because the growth doesn’t occur in a vacuum: the necessary resources here on Earth don’t grow at the same rate. Simply looking at a growth rate and saying it’s declining draws an extremely misleading picture.
I, too, genuinely wish you the best in life. However, I have no inclination to be passively aggressive about it.