Item — HN Reader

Europe is only going to get hotter and more dry for the foreseeable future.

Extreme Heat Has Transformed What Summer Means Across Generations in Europe - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/01/world/europe/europe-summe... | https://archive.today/XsX2m - August 1st, 2026

Europe’s Heatwaves Are a Taste of the Climate Costs Yet to Come - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-07-27/europe... | https://archive.today/AqWba - July 27th, 2026

Why Is Europe Warming Twice as Fast as the World Average? - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-26/europe-he... | https://archive.today/o68OH - June 26th, 2026

2 comments

> Why Is Europe Warming Twice as Fast as the World Average?

You'll find articles about every single land mass "warming up faster than average"... that's because the average include the 70% of the planet that is covered by oceans, these don't warm up nearly as fast as landmasses. We're all pretending we'll manage +1.5c or +2c by 2050, and in the average Joe's head that not much, in reality we're already fucked, July was +4c above normals in France, and we're in 2026 not 2025.

Australia is Warming Faster than Global Average: https://www.statista.com/chart/20404/mean-annual-temperature...

China warming faster than global average: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202607/02/WS6a462fd5a310986e...

Europe’s warming accelerates beyond global trend: https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/europes-warming-...

Warming in Brazil is already higher than the global average: https://www.wwf.org.br/en/?90683/Climate-Warming-in-Brazil-i...

Africa is warming more rapidly than the global average: https://www.cseindia.org/africa-is-warming-more-rapidly-than...

Sabine explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9cDpdTlQrc

Without watching that video yet (so it could be good) I must warn that Sabine is a known grifter when speaking outside her field of particle physics.

TLDR: 3 reasons. First the quickest warming is actually the poles (technically the south pole) which means the North pole cools Europe less. Europe's reduction in CO2 and other pollutants output, cause both more sunlight to hit the ground in Europe and make the likelihood of big airflows coming from the South (ie. Sahara) larger.

And yeah, my read is that this is more arguments in favor of: it doesn't matter which way CO2 evolves, we'll need to take control over the climate if we want cities to remain where they are.

We could start by running container ships on High Sulphur Fuel Oil. Same CO2, more cushion against Sun Rays.

We stopped high sulfur when we realized it was causing acid rain. CO2 is also acidifying the oceans, so there aren't a lot of things we can pump into the atmosphere without consequence. Best to avoid doing that altogether.

We won't stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (Germany, India and China actually increased coal burning in 2026, in all 3 cases despite all the good news about solar installations). Also we can't prevent fossil fuel producers from digging up fossil fuels.

And, because of entropy, reducing CO2 already in the atmosphere is a non-starter. For one thing, one can reasonably assume that would at minimum require doubling human energy output (because unmixing costs a lot more energy than mixing)

I mean if you put the belief behind the whole CO2 reduction in words, it's like this: if we slightly reduce CO2 output (not stop, reduce by single digit percent), we won't have to adapt. And if you put it like that it becomes easy to see: "no way in hell that's going to be true".

So there's not much of a choice: geoengineering it is. Next question: which method?

Germany's output is almost irrelevant in this context: it amounts to a mere 1.4% of the global output.

To add to that: there are no good alternatives to coal as the stabilizer in a renewables-fed grid, for Germany. They don't have hydro and don't have nuclear. Even Spain now runs some coal despite having near-100% renewable grid for a year. That big blackout was a big lesson for all grid operators. Please don't shame countries for running a small percentage of their grids on coal.

    > there are no good alternatives to coal as the stabilizer in a renewables-fed grid, for Germany.

Why not natural gas?

From different perspectives:

1) political: the only economical natural gas comes from Russia, which means it's a betrayal of Ukraine (especially after the many German, and worldwide promises not to do so)

Obviously that hasn't stopped Germany. Neither the promises nor the betrayal aspect. Hasn't stopped Spain either.

2) physical: the lines got bombarded, so Germany does not have physical access to Russian gas ("kinetic sanctions"), at any price (oh and, not that it actually matters, but Germany is not willing to invest in rebuilding the lines, and before you say it can't be done, Ukraine is rebuilding Russian oil lines that Russia bombed on Ukrainian soil. Germany can rebuild, for example, Nord Stream, they just don't)

3) second political reason: only LNG is doable. There is Qatarese gas, except not right now due to Iran war, and US gas, which Germany doesn't want (it's a little more expensive). So it's buying US LNG for at least the next decade (they had to sign long term contracts to get it at all).

4) ecological. Coal is 750g-1000g CO2 per kWh, but less than half that (ie. 300g per kWh with carbon capture, which is widespread in Germany). LNG, due to the many inefficient processing steps is 350g-750g CO2 per kWh. Qatar hides their numbers, but US LNG is certainly 650g per kWh. Canadese LNG is actually worse.

So LNG natural gas is not better than coal (anymore) and it's the only kind accessible to Germany (same goes for Spain and EU)

But let's not pretend Germany cares in the slightest, after all the German Green party supported switching to coal in 2023 and again in 2026 rather than switching back to nuclear. This is not the only choice Germany has, it is the one they decided on.

Btw: in order for CO2 to reduce, fossil fuel producers (ie. Russia and Saudi Arabia mostly) need to stop digging up oil. Other posts correctly point out that if Germany just stopped, or even absorbed the amount of CO2 it currently produces, that would be a rounding error.

Or we could spread aerosols in the atmosphere (because oil will run out, which means atmospheric CO2 will start reducing by itself, according to IEA predictions, around 2050)

> Even Spain now runs some coal despite having near-100% renewable grid for a year.

In fact Spain has less coal now than it did in 2025, or 2024, or 2023 and so on.

And no their grid isn't "near 100% renewable", they do have a lot more than most European countries but they have large gas imports too to run some of their conventional thermal power plants - what they're getting rid of, sensibly, is coal.

There's a 4x seasonal swing between summer and winter for Spain's solar power, and obviously the maximal swing (clear summer's day versus overcast mid-winter) is much larger, but they're nowhere close to being rid of fossil fuels even in July, much less January.

This whole "blackout was caused by renewables" stuff was crap when it was first spouted and didn't get any more plausible once we had more information.

No, I agree renewables didn't cause the blackout themselves. Spain due to not having hydro power had to use renewables that were inverter-based and didn't have rotating mass to dampen any oscillations. The Entso-E report said there was a direct consequence between not having this inertia and the resulting blackout. There is absolutely nothing wrong with renewables themselves, although it also has to be said if they never used renewables or not to this extent, this event simply wouldn't have occurred.

> Germany's output is almost irrelevant in this context: it amounts to a mere 1.4% of the global output.

Conveniently Germany is about 1% of the world population. You realize that if most countries use the same argument nothing ever change? (It's only 1% how can it make a difference)

I don't think it's as dire as you're supposing. I hadn't expected the rollout of renewables and the growth of EVs to be as swift as we've seen.

If we can cut emissions entirely then that's the first step. Next devote 5% of energy generation to CO2 removal and we'll take out a year of 100% emissions in less than 20 years. We don't need to go back down to 280 ppm, something like 320 would be fine. It's a long term project but it can work.

Need step one first though.

I think we should pump so much sulfur into the upper atmosphere it reduces the average temperature to -20 degrees. And when countries tell us to stop, we offer to stop if they stop emitting CO2.

Well... the holy grail is something that traps CO2, slows down hurricanes-typhoons, slows down desertification, makes urban heat sinks more bearable. What that could be, I have no idea.

You are obviously referring to trees. So assuming that's what you mean: that won't work.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-t...

Trees quickly reach equilibrium at which point CO2 out equals CO2 in. While they can sequester some CO2 while growing, they also generally cause an albedo increase (forests trap heat). So, for arguments sake, the opposite would actually help more: destroying forests reduces albedo reducing the planet's heat uptake, while not releasing most of the CO2 in the atmosphere, in fact, that causes it to get flushed into the ocean and it won't come back for millenia at least. Despite appearances, forest fires actually help against global warming. But not much.

In other words: right now to merely pause global warming we'd have to stop 99.7% of CO2 usage. If every square meter of the planet was covered in forests, merely to stop global warming from getting worse every year we'd have to stop ... 99.7% of CO2 usage (maybe 98% would do for 2-3 years while the trees are growing). And that's disregarding the massive albedo increase.

Also, global warming is causing massive forest expansion worldwide ... and that's making global warming worse, not better. If countries started destroying the many forests that have grown since 1900, that would help.

You want a suggestion that would actually do something? Seeding the oceans would help. It would mean global warming can be paused by a mere drop of 92% of fossil fuel usage, a big increase, at the cost of a HUGE loss of oceanic biodiversity. So I hope it's clear that while that is a far better suggestion, it is very far from a solution, and doesn't come without costs. Besides, if the climate warms further, my bet is that the oceans will "seed themselves" more and more.

I'm sorry to repeat, but no: the planet will not help us and stay static and stop warming (or even go back to normal warming) if we just "stop destroying nature". And building a few parks in cities, like it seems your real suggestion is, will do nothing at all.

> the oceans will "seed themselves"

Yes they already do, as evidenced by the sargassum that wrecked this season for Florida and Mexico.

> We stopped high sulfur when we realized it was causing acid rain

Coal AFAIK a bigger source of acid rains and world has not stopped using coal.

I would a well. Unfortunately, it seems that deliberate geoengineering always brings up concerns from people who think it's more ethical to just state at the lever as the trolly goes by. I partially blame the legal system. There won't be a lawsuit about not having deliberately spread more sulfur oxide.

If you want to do the sulfur oxide thing then just do it. No one is stopping you.