I’m sure it has nothing to do with the billionaire pedophiles not giving a fuck.
Of course not. It’s not enough people recycling their grocery bags.
1.5°C Threshold Could Be Exceeded Before 2030
Come to Europe one of these days. We’re at 2.3°C.. Come and see our cities getting closer to temperatures of Phoenix, or the many forest fires, the droughts, powerplants shutting down because of a lack of water, transportation issues. The idiots saying more CO2 being good for plants can ask the farmers how things are going. We’re not having a good summer.
The thing that doesn’t get called out enough is that many greenhouse gasses have a lag time before they actually start causing heat. CO2 for example takes about 20 years if I recall correctly. So we are seeing the results of what was emitted years ago… not necessarily the current emissions.
Really? I’ve never heard of this, and I’m a climate scientist… Not saying it’s definitely wrong, but a citation would be good.
Edit: Huh, seems it’s true: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001 although that is for large pulses of CO2, I don’t know how that translates into a constant stream of emissions…
Well greenhouse gases are often described as a blanket and a blanket doesn’t immediately get warm, it take time. I doubt the trickling effect is much different in lag time than sudden pulses, its just gradually increasing the blanket rather than pulling it all on at once. Its still gonna take time for more solar energy to accumulate by bouncing off the trickling in CO2.
In the book plows, plagues, and petroleum, the author uses several factors of humans history to argue that man made climate change was slowly having an impact much before the industrial revolution, which is the common “starting point” for most people and scientists. Althought not as drastic as this sudden increase in fossil fuel burning, they argue that impacts such as deforestion and burning of cropland in early human settlements had a measureable impact on carbon sinks and carbon releases, still enough to start skewing the natural rate of climate change.
Yeah… realising I was not making a distinction between greenhouse effect (e.g. increased rate of warming), and the result (e.g. actual increased heat content/temperature. I think the rate of warming increase is basically instant, but yes, it takes some time for the temperature levels to catch up.
I don’t know if I was explicitly taught it at uni, buy I have always understood as a climate scientist that GHG emissions started before the industrial revolution (albeit small). I think that’s common knowledge in climate science.
Not true at all. Compare:
“lag time before they actually start causing heat” and
“the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average”
A “start” and a “maximum” are completely different. IR absorption starts immediately and increases over years to a maximum.
I don’t think that last bit is right, see my other comment to FireRetardant’s reply. I think the increase in warming rate is basically instantaneous (maybe a few months for atmospheric mixing), it’s the peak of temperature/heat that is delayed (agreeing with your 3rd paragraph)
Apologies I should have linked a source in that claim. I only had a rough understanding of it and had read an article on phys.org that mentioned that previously. Arguably still a big concern since we could not be seeing the actual warming done in present day 2026 for another decade or more.
I wonder if this have anything to do with moving quickly from “we must all limit our energy consumption” to “we must burn as much energy possible for no real purpose”.
I guess we’ll never know /s
we should ask AI!
Fire up the natural gas generators, this baby isn’t grid tied yet!
Since it started in the mid 2010s, it’s probably not AI related. That will be an extra addition…
“Data centers fix this” -billionaires probably
And then AI says the should reduce emissions and they order some engineers to fix that clearly broken model 🙄
Crypto farming, feeding the ai bubble, large scale wars of aggression, commuters replacing cars with trucks, buying throwaway junk has never been easier. That’s the relatively new completely unnecessary hubris that I can think off atm. These should be the low hanging fruits to just not do, but apparently we’re going to continue doing them anyways. If we can’t address the low hanging fruits, then tackling the harder challenges will remain a pipe dream until it’s too late. Climate stability is fucked, and we’re in for a rough ride.
The real “low hanging fruit to not do” is blaming individual choices for societal issues. Capitalism is the one and only reason for anthropogenic climate change. Ending capitalism is the one and only way to solve it. There is no individual action you can take that is effective, we have to reorder society in such a way that it is impossible to profit from environmental destruction.
the only real solution to climate change is renewable energy, and solar energy in particular. capitalism or no capitalism basically doesn’t matter.
Except for the part where capitalism is actively sabotaging the transition to renewables, because fossil fuels areore profitable, so it really does matter.
Human nature is the reason. Regardless of the system we live in. People want more, better, etc. and feel important/strong/rich/… It has always been like that. Heck, even monkeys display such things.
Like 3/5 things that poster mentioned were not individual choices. The 2/5 that are individual choices are real issues. It is an issue, not just societally but also environmentally and in terms of public health, that the world is polluted by plastic because people wanted momentary convenience. Capitalism has to end and it incentivizes those choices of convenience, but people are still simultaneously responsible for making those choices unless they have no alternative… in which case it’s not really a choice.
I have difficulty accepting that corporations did this and therefore we should all keep going with the status quo. Although an individual’s choices don’t amount to enough in and of themselves, the choices of masses of individuals drive the consumer market. The more disposable shit we buy, the more disposable shit corporations make.
We as a society have normalized be everyone individually owning 17 appliances that are used 0-2 times per year, having 53 outfits made by overseas slave labour, and accumulating gigabyte after gigabyte of data that must be managed. And if you tell someone this, they will say it’s all necessary - what the pandemic taught me is the degree to which people cannot identify the difference between essential services and non-essential, as everything becomes justifiable based on niche situations and the blanket defense of mental health.
If we all forever point the finger and say that someone else is actually responsible, and therefore we refuse to make changes, then nobody is ever going to get started. Much like on a national scale how the US simultaneously blames climate change on China and India (“we shouldn’t bother doing anything, they’re bigger!”) and Canadian forest fires (although by the previous logic, a country with 1/8 the population should be incapable of changing their climate).
…this message brought to you by Exxon-Mobil corporation.
In what way is my suggestion that people should be environmentally conscious with their choices supporting oil companies?
So we should just sit back and wait for the oil companies to benevolently act on our behalf? Forgive me if I don’t feel like circling the drain without a fight.
In what way is my suggestion that people should be environmentally conscious with their choices supporting oil companies?
In the way that it reinforces the oil companies’ favorite narrative where individual consumers are responsible for the damage the company does to generate profit for its parasitic shareholders.
So we should just sit back and wait for the oil companies to benevolently act on our behalf?
No, we should be doing things we don’t organize in public posts on social media to make the executives and shareholders of those companies absolutely terrified of what will happen if they don’t do as we demand.
Forgive me if I don’t feel like circling the drain without a fight.
Funny, that’s exactly what your first comment shows is the only thing you’re willing to do.
What? And stop indiscriminately slaughtering babies? You monster!
Yearly average global mean surface temperature from five data sources, in two versions: (top) unadjusted, (bottom) adjusted for El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanism, and solar variation. All are aligned so that the average from 1991 to 2020 equals 0.88°C, to approximate warming since pre-industrial.
i mean that curve is pretty clear. were the scientists they were talking to expecting a linear model?
I have also detected this by the way it is.
That’s pretty neat!
The mark 1 ass can detect extreme heat or cold and earthquakes and local humidity.
Even if you ignore anything else, just speak to ANY mountaineer, and they’ll all tell you that glaciers are drying up
yeah, back when i was young and had energy there was this 12 mile run up a mountain to the glacier (or where it was) and back i’d do once or twice a year. last time i saw the glacier was like, 20 years ago.
Lakes in Minnesota are frozen something like 30 days less per year on average than they were in 1975.
Climate change deniers are either stupid, greedy, or both.
My family would always go skiing in the nearby mountains every Christmas. We are starting to have the conversation of changing that plan, given how bad the snow has been the past two years, and predictions for the future are only getting worse.
During the late 1970’s, ExxonMobil scientists predicted global warming would accelerate with use of fossil fuels. They were shockingly accurate and the f’ed up weather patterns are the result. Keep buying and driving gas guzzlers.
The economy is fucked, no one can afford anything that isn’t a gas guzzler, barely can even afford the gas guzzlers themselves.
So, we are fucked, it was (not really that) nice while it lasted I guess ^_^
Meanwhile the Megayacht business is booming.
We tried capitalism in a hundred different ways and we are all out of ideas.
We can’t even stop a rise in fascism, an incredibly stupid thing, across the globe. We don’t stand a chance against global warming. We’re cooked.
We’ve done more in the last five years to curb fossil fuel consumption than at an point in human history.
From a massive pivot to renewable energy to our Green-Centric foreign policy of blowing up Nordstrem II, embargoing Venezuela, and shutting down the Straight of Hormuz, we are absolutely turning a corner on future fossil fuel consumption.
Donald Trump may go down in history as the most climate friendly leader in our generation. A hundred thousand Greenpeace activists could not have achieved in their lifetime what he’s done in less than two terms as president.
Hilariously, you are right. It certainly wasn’t his intention to do so, but it is happening. Strangely aligned with China spending like crazy to pivot to a green energy super-supplier. End of an era, although no one will admit it yet.
we can’t even stop a rise in fascism because we lack the tools to do so, most importantly we lack the tool of understanding. we don’t even understand what fascism is or why people follow it, thus we stand no chance of tackling the problem at its root. if you really want to combat fascism, you have to understand it first.
Both the ideological underpinnings of fascism and the reasons why this ideology is psychologically attractive are understood quite well.
The US military is one of, if not the largest, enemy of the environment. Every one of us could do our part but without militaries being mindful too, the environment is cooked.
the air force literally dumps jet fuel all the time so they can adjust to proper weight to land
It’s messed up, but it’s better than burning it.
How is it better? It all just evaporates and breaks down into the same amount of CO2, while also poisoning some habitat along the way. I guess it’s less NOx, so maybe that’s a benefit?
Even the billionaire cult conterences shifted from “debunking global warming” to “adapting to global warming”.
Do you think burning more coal would help?
Depends… who is on top of the burning pile of coal?
Needs more data centers
