- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
1.5°C Threshold Could Be Exceeded Before 2030
Threshold is based on rolling 10 year average. Every year since 2023 has had at least one dataset report 1.5C threshold. 2026 will continue that trend.
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.
‘Sharp acceleration’ meaning 75% faster warming in the last decade compared to the 40 years previous, and blowing past the 1.5° target in 3-4 years. No speculation was given, but I think it’s likely we’re seeing the limits of oceanic absorption of co2 and heat. The ocean’s latent heat capacity has flattened the curve for more than a century, and it’s very hard to predict when that will run out, but sea surface temperatures spiking all over have been good evidence that we have passed a major tipping point in the last few years.
They also banned sulphur oxide in ship fuel which would have had a cooling effect, that was hiding the full extent of the damage and is slowly dissipating
Won’t be long until we start doing that again on purpose
Good news is cloud seeding is viable? Bad news is we’re probably gonna need it.
How great fixing pollution with more pollution.
🎵 The solution to pollution is…more pollution? 🎵
Actually it’s kinda good news as it shows we can make direct impact to the climate. Just with a substance actually made for it.
Don’t take it too seriously, there is an effect but it’s not that large. And anyways, the change in maritime fuel standards happened in 2020, while this trend goes back to 2015. A geoengineering project is just going to cause more problems, we don’t know nearly enough about how the world works, truly.
I’ve read that the models used to predict the rate of change were too optimistic or an assumption about them was too conservative and thus not very realistic. Now we have data showing the models under-predicted the rate of change, so one argument is that we were already on this path since decades ago, we just didn’t model it right.
In any case, we’re all fucked so who gives a shit anyway no?
Is there a name for when we know what the right thing to do is but we keep not doing it?
Great Filter.
All of the climate models have adjustable parameters. We are still within the bounds of the worst case scenarios but scientists are always afraid to claim too much. An academic’s reputation is a lot less recoverable than a pop star or politician in the sense that they, and their colleagues, actually take their words and predictions seriously. I don’t want to completely dismiss the effect of lobbying and corruption toward the downplaying of global warming, but making smaller-than-necessary claims is a common sight in most academic fields.
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.
Anecdotally, just the other day, I roamed around a little and realized that the large rapeseed fields around my city are all totally
burned. EDIT: meant to write: shriveled up. Dry as bone.
Just… gone.
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.
There is some hope if we chip at it as much as we can. No action is too small:
- less travelling. Life is fun near home. Happiness isn’t tied to an airplane and a beach far away
- eat less animals. You ll get used to whatever diet in a few weeks. It doesnt have to be vegan or nothing. Also, beans are delicious:)
- bamboo toilet paper. Grows fast, renewable.
- plant bushes, trees. Look up local resilient species. I’ve been planting everywhere I can. You can call your local municipality, they have regreening programs.
- buy less stuff. Available tech is already good enough.
- vote with your wallet. This is the only real power we have over corporations, imo. Lots of great easy to repair brands. Fair trade, etc.
If we convince ourselves we are screwed, we ll give up. Be the hero of your own story. YOU DO NOT NEED TO GET IT 100% RIGHT. Any improvement is improvement. We all live different lives, and the economy is hard on alot of us.
I believe:)
Edit: I get that industries/billionaires represent a majority of this issue. I also believe that change starts home. We gotta tackle this at every level, even if it seems lost. The alternative is watching it happen and wait for the others to change. This is a prime “tragedy of the common” problem. You drink filtered tap water? Well those plastic bottles dont get made, thrown away. Do this a lifetime and those bottles represent a hill of waste that never existed.
I m rooting for you, for us!
Unfortunately, you missed the mark. The individual is not the problem and will not make an iota of difference.
Billionaires are the enemy. They are useless. They are pitting the average citizen against one another. There is no good billionaire.
If we dont support billioniares business’, and turned “the individual” into an organized mass, it would work.
I dont know if this opinion, to change using amazon and the other big retailers, will ever come though. I saw someone legit promoting aliexpress for a product not too long ago, and I was surprised no one gave them shit for it.
If Working for and using, for example, amazon, was suddenly shamed and everyone stopped using it, it would stop making the billionaire at the top money. If no one buys the product, no one is willing to work for the company, the company would disolve. bezos still wouldnt be broke, or held to account, but this revenue stream would stop.
Will it happen though? I feel like a nhilist for saying, I dont think so.
12% of global emissions are individual car drivers alone. The individual is a sizable portion of the problem, and we need a multi pronged approach that attacks corporations outsized impact and reduces certain emissions from individuals as well.
There are over a billion cars on the road. Individually it is nothing and 12% is a small percentage. Where is the other 88. I’m sick of this blame the individual when companies are doing most of the polluting. We could stop driving all cars today and it wouldn’t help. But anything to keep arrow going up. Only thing people can really do is consume less but that is a hard ask for Americans who consume far more then other countries.
deleted by creator
The kys comedy is too low hanging fruit nowadays. Do better.
deleted by creator
and yes, more putting the onus on us, when all of our individual yearly pollution barely amounts to a day of pollution released by average industry.
You know it was industrial propaganda that started the whole personal responsibility thing to begin with right? to shift blame away from themselves and onto you and me.
I mean, yeah, you can make yourself feel good by reducing, but its doing fuckall compared to industrial release.
I don’t think you should think about it in terms of blame, I think that’s a big part of the propaganda. Seeding of anger, frustration, and apathy. Rather than allowing empowerment, organizing, and hope.
Blame should only be reserved for those that act with careless disregard. And doing things that are good for the environment shouldn’t be seen as ‘paying back’. You are actively doing more than you should and letting your actions speak louder than your words. And those actions can (and should) be part of building the collective that will force those truly responsible from stopping.
That’s my one wish for lists like OP posted. It should always contain that the only lasting change is organizing.
This sounds like some empty corporate focus tested “Don’t blame us, its not our fault” BS.
Did you respond to the wrong person?EDIT: Okay, you’re responding elsewhere, so you’re just not going to respond to leaving a nonsensical but also kind of vile comment? Crazy, considering I was mostly agreeing with you, other than saying you shouldn’t accept the propagandized idea that people are or should be doing something to make up for some perceived guilt. Rather than doing it to empower themselves and foster collective action.
industry doesn’t need to pump out so much product if we consume less
Industry doesnt need to overproduce so much product right now, but it does, and sends tons of it to landfill every quarter
So if its already doing it, what makes you think they’ll stop doing it if sales reduce a few % points.
EDIT: WHOOPS! Wrong comment.
Where did I even allude to that?
I very clearly laid out where the problem is that we have to deal with. Which is the actual drivers of climate change. Not you choosing to drive to work instead of walking 8 miles in the heat.
I replied to the wrong comment. My bad, dude.
No worries.
If people didn’t consume so much corporations would have to change. But people need the latest phone, car and whatever else.
If that was true landfills wouldnt be filled at the end of every season with perfectly usable goods.
Individual action was a myth designed by FF companies to shift responsibility
This is true but individual action is still necessary. Just because it’s important that we hold corporations and the wealthy accountable and curb industrialized pollution doesn’t mean that the average person isn’t needing to make significant changes. We can’t both maintain a consumer mindset and abdicate individual responsibility while also demanding sweeping societal changes.
We can consume the wealthy and abdicate them of the responsibility of carrying on and also demand change. Especially if we consume them while they’re still alive, as a mob, and do it with dull forks.
The survivors will be far more willing to listen.
We can’t both maintain a consumer mindset and abdicate individual responsibility while also demanding sweeping societal changes.
And you think it’s the “demanding sweeping societal changes” that has to go?
Maybe we need to start with the individualism and “consumer mindset”?
And you think it’s the “demanding sweeping societal changes” that has to go?
Not even slightly. I’m just trying to point out that neither of them “have to go;” shouting down someone advocating for either form of action helps no one.
And this stance betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the relative scale of damage each causes.
Sure, we can do that, but keep in mind that unilateral individual actions will not make the difference, all you can do is trying to create more broad awareness, form coalition and support for tighter laws and regulation, in order to have meaningful effect.
Also avoid blaming or moralizing individuals for their own choices, this will cause fatigue and infighting, which will distract from focus on policy change.
If we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide today, crashing the world economy in the process, we would still have to deal with the same temperature levels we have right now. We not only need to reduce emissions, but we now have to reverse it. Nothing short of an immediate global transition to nuclear power and/or nuclear fusion coming online will stop what is happening.
"If all human emissions of heat-trapping gases were to stop today, Earth’s temperature would continue to rise for a few decades as ocean currents bring excess heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface. Once this excess heat radiated out to space, Earth’s temperature would stabilize. Experts think the additional warming from this “hidden” heat is unlikely to exceed 0.9° Fahrenheit (0.5°Celsius). With no further human influence, natural processes would begin to slowly remove the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and global temperatures would gradually begin to decline.
It’s true that without dramatic action in the next couple of decades, we are unlikely to keep global warming in this century below 2.7° Fahrenheit (1.5° Celsius) compared to pre-industrial temperatures—a threshold that experts say offers a lower risk of serious negative impacts. But the more we overshoot that threshold, the more serious and widespread the negative impacts will be, which means that it is never “too late” to take action."
And you trust an American government website… Why?
It just showed up at the top on search results. Sems totally legit, with references to scientific studies. Must be pre-Trump.
Considering they’re talking about possibly passing 1.5 by the end of the century, and that we haven’t blown past it in the last 5 years, I would take it with a grain of salt.
No way… billionaires with yachts and private planes releasing more carbon in an afternoon then I use in a lifetime and I’M the one you think should wipe his ass with bamboo… get the fuck out of here. Eat the rich then tell me I’m not doing enough because I eat a burger and use proper toilet paper
less travelling
Lol. I don’t think anyone reading this is going to stop the minimal traveling they do in the short breaks from The Grind that they get while dipshit rich people are yachting and jetting all over the planet. And they shouldn’t. Average people shouldn’t have to give up any travelling whatsoever because their budgets prevent them from doing enough to actually cause significant harm anyway. We need to use force to make the real culprits adjust their habits.
Other than that I fully agree.
vote with your wallet
“I don’t think I’ll super size it after all”, I saw as I drive past the MegaCity One GigaChad data center.
The judge dredd universe is better then ours. The government has actually taken steps to address the housing crisis.
And vote. Pay attention to issues and vote. Don’t get caught up in a single issue, or voting with emotions or spite: vote for your future
I appreciate you. Thank you for posting that thoughtful and insightful comment.
You’re awesome.
What a show of willful misunderstanding in comments. Thank you, and I am rooting for you too
Taylor Swift’s jets alone cancel out any benefit all of your steps might have for a few million or hundreds of millions of people.
It’s wonderful to want to try to do something about this, but the only real way we have to do something about it is to stop the people and corporations who are the actual biggest contributors to the issue.
I’m thinking less along the lines of voting and more along the lines of stabbing.
Individual action won’t fix systemic issues like major polluters being almost exclusively from industry but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the suggested actions in any case. Just don’t fool yourself that it is enough.
“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 🙄
But at least we made a bunch of grotesque genocidal pedophiles obscenely wealthy.
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.
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.
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.
100 thousand years ago you’d say human nature was to live in small bands and only assemble for seasonal hunts or cultural events. Anything else would be perpetual war.
10000 years ago you would be saying that it’s against human nature to be sedentary or do repetitive work so agriculture is ultimately only a hobby at best.
4000 years ago you’d say it’s human nature to live in city states ruled by tyrant warrior-kings and dedicate your life to cereal farming.
Maybe human nature isn’t some well characterised and stiff thing? humans have lived in more ways than you can dream of.
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!
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…
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.
Meanwhile, my workplace just announced RTO, starting next year. It’s a moderately large, 100% white collar office site.
Gotta drive those CO2 numbers up, baby!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.
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.
More. But enough?
The chaos president is indeed forcing everyone to look for a more resilient energy production model, but it’s a very cynical way of looking at things. War itself has a huge (environmental) cost, the DoD/W is one of the largest polluters on the planet and receives record funding.
War itself has a huge (environmental) cost, the DoD/W is one of the largest polluters on the planet and receives record funding.
That’s true under every president.
But under Trump, we’ve got fewer boats in the water and fewer bases on the ground than ever before
We tried capitalism in a hundred different ways and we are all out of ideas.
I wish we had tried it in a hundred ways. Best we can do is try it in two ways: monopoly consolidation, followed by oligarchy
If we’re good little consumers we can have some trickle down crony capitalism for dessert.
