8 ms·

2020 Had the Warmest September on Record, Data Shows

87 points by tertiary 6y ago

forgttnpass 6y ago
Is this not anxiety inducing for anyone else? Is that why I see these posts fall away quickly, or is news like this just expected now, and so not that interesting?
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  I have had enough life experience to know that so much is beyond our control. We could die of a car accident tomorrow. Cancer could strike us down within the next six months. We know the problem here. We have some solutions. We just need to act!
  - mempko 6y ago
    Yes! You could die in a car accident tomorrow, you can also ask the car companies to make safer cars. You could die of cancer within the next six months, and you can also ask the medical companies to make drugs to fight cancer.
- georgeplusplus 6y ago
  Here’s my issue. What amount of carbon cutting would satisfy you? If we cut by 50% and the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more? How far do you want to go and how much needs to be risked Before you’re satisfied that our carbon levels are acceptable. Sorry that you feel the world isn’t following your desires and expectations but they need more than a promise that things may get better to enact policy that will dramatically alter their entire economy, way of living, and social order. Edit: sure downvote me and throw insults. That’s a good way to promote healthy discussion.
  - ploika 6y ago
    That's covered fairly extensively in the vast amounts of literature on climate change mitigation, with all due respect. Carbon neutral in the next few decades is the short answer to your question. Otherwise increasingly severe floods, droughts and storms will dramatically alter the economy, way of living and social order for billions of people anyway.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I have heard it claimed that 90% would be enough. I don’t know why, as at first glance that seems like it would merely slow down the rate of increase of CO2, not prevent further increases. Likewise, I don’t know how close the world temperature is to the equilibrium for the current level of greenhouse gasses. If levels remain constant, is the global average temperature going to go up 0.5C? 0.01C? Or is equilibrium reached faster than the seasons change? That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      > I have heard it claimed that 90% would be enough. I don’t know why, as at first glance that seems like it would merely slow down the rate of increase of CO2, not prevent further increases. CO₂ isn't a fixed quantity in the atmosphere that we add to. If we don't add to it, it gradually gets absorbed by natural processes on the Earth's surface. The reason the amount in the upper atmosphere is rising is because we're producing more faster than the other processes can absorb it. The picture is a little more complicated than that though. We are also destroying some of those absorption processes. For example through deforestation of the Amazon. Also, CO₂ is now a proxy measure for other greenhouse gases produced by human activity. Methane in particular is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, so that matters too and the aborption processes are different. So there are a number of cycles of different things going on, and it's a fairly complicated picture, thus all the models. However, there are some useful simplifications, and it's too important to let arguing over details be used to avoid dealing with the basic problem. CO₂ is still the main concern and target, because it's produced by a large number of human activities, and they can be changed. Basically anything that involves burning things, whether obviously like in a car, or hidden away in some power station where you can't see it. All that said, even if we get net CO₂ emissions down to zero now, or even negative (if we find a way), it is generally accepted that we are too late to stop a significant average temperature rise that will cause significant climate changes affecting us, and especially affecting nature across the world. Because of this, targets these days are the result of negotiating some kind of "realistic" level of harm, which of course involves setting temperature-rise targets, and lots of politics, and plenty of political and industrial leaders trying to see what they can get away with. Nobody is really happy because some people would like less harm than the "realistic" minimum now, and some people would like to carry on with life as before because it was fun, and maybe their wealth depends on it. > That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time. I'm completely with you on this. Technology will save the day if... well, the trouble is technology can't be taken for granted, even if there are plenty of great inventions around, and potential future inventions. Technology can only save the day if politics, behaviour and the economy line up to allow it to happen. I really don't think we can assume politics and people are collectively all that aligned on these issues or much else at the moment. We can't even agree on whether to protect each other from Covid or not by simple behavioral changes (social distancing, mask use etc), and that's a much more visible, short-term and simpler issue to understand than climate change.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more Cutting human carbon emission to zero today would still result in temperature increases over the next decade or so, because there's a planet-sized throughput delay in the system. Can't turn the oil tanker around that quickly. The IPCC suggested target is 1.5-2C over the next century as being both reasonably achievable while not having too drastic an impact on the environment and agriculture.
  - derbOac 6y ago
    So, being genuine here. I don't care about carbon fuel, in the sense I have no particular attachment to it. In every case where I've replaced carbon with something else, it's turned out to be preferable. Cleaner, quieter, lighter, longer lasting. To me, there are lots of other reasons for cutting carbon than the environment. The environment is just a big plus. If we cut all carbon fuel and ended up with longer lasting, more efficient products, but global warming increased, why would I think cutting carbon had been a waste? Personally, I'd like to see some state where there was a hypercompetitive market of many different energy sources, rather than being dominated by carbon. I'm not sure what that would eventually look like — maybe carbon would be a part, maybe not — but it would be better.
    - mempko 6y ago
      Markets won't fix this. The scale of the problem has no market solution.
  - mempko 6y ago
    I believe at this point it's negative, negative carbon. We are at the point where we have to start taking carbon out of the air soon. It's also not about satisfying "us" whoever "us" is. It's about preventing collapse of all life on earth including ours.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eznat 6y ago
  As long as air conditioners continue to work and temperatures do not become unbearable in my lifetime, I don't see warming as a pressing problem.
  - adammunich 6y ago
    Extreme weather kills crops. We can't air condition our way out of that one.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
      I have money. I can afford whatever the cost of food rises to.
      - Gravityloss 6y ago
        True, this is the argument of a best selling book going around now. Isn't so fun being a subsistence farmer in deteriorating conditions.
        eznat 6y ago
        >Isn't so fun being a subsistence farmer in deteriorating conditions. I would tell you that I don't care, but then I would be called a troll, despite mine being the mainstream position.
        Gravityloss 6y ago
        It's more honest. If climate change will kill millions, and I'm causing it, the reaction earlier was to say "The science of climate change is false".
      - pjc50 6y ago
        .. this does sound like somebody from the "before" of a country where people bring wheelbarrows of devalued currency to exchange for bread.
      - 6y ago
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  These large issues are tackled with large coordinated effort. Voting is the primary way to affect this.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    So, like it has worked for so many other issues...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - sam_goody 6y ago
    Now, all we need is a place to vote if we want Climate Warning or not! Instead, we have vote for president. That vote may affect the actions on climate change, but it may not be in the way you want. And it has lots and lots of related side affects. Let us say that the president who would take more steps to curb global warming would also cause growth in a non US country that is environmentally destructive. Or that they themselves would make so many deals and compromises that the deal that gets passed is actually a long term net loss. I am totally not saying that will happen, but making things too black and white can lead to surprises.
- pjc50 6y ago
  shrug I'm already maxed out on anxiety. Disaster is indeed expected now.
torstenvl 6y ago
It is distinctly unhelpful to keep trying to make people feel bad. People experiencing negative emotions are less capable of effecting positive outcomes. It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. It's hypocritical and provides ammunition to climate change deniers when they say things like "But this spring was really cold!" Weather is not climate and a year over year comparison of one calendar month is not a trend. This is exactly the kind of nonsense article I would publish if I were a climate change denier.
- smt88 6y ago
  > It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. I don't know if you're in the US, but this is untrue here. Our most-watched media outlet spreads climate-change denial, as does the (minority) party that has controlled our federal -- and most state -- governments for the last few years. One of their tactics is literally to say that there is still snow, so global warming can't be real[1]. Articles like this are the counterpoints to that narrative, and there is evidence that individual data points are convincing[2] to people who are not able (or willing) to understand long-term statistical information. 1. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/02/3-years-ago-we-all-laughed-at-james-inhofes-snowball-the-joke-was-on-us/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/02/3-years-ago-... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-change-denial-changing-minds https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-chan...
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Taking the dumbest argument from your political opponent and then masturbating over its stupidity is not effective in terms of provoking change.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    If your plan is to defend the truth with lies, don't be surprised when your political opponents don't take you seriously. The environmentalist movement has long been dogged by a sizeable aura of people who dilute the message with craziness and false claims. They are the major reason why progress is so slow - very few people trust them anywhere near anything important. I've yet to see an English-speaking Green party that I'd accept as competent to set policy even assuming they have the correct problems identified.
anonymouswacker 6y ago
It’s hard to take NYT seriously. I do not understand why it is allowed on here. Their inherent bias and target audience (policy makers and influencers) runs counter to startup culture, innovation, and hacking. Mainstream News posted here should be apolitical if not providing divergent opinions... since this article is, respectfully, an opinion of a paid government research group and not demonstrated fact...
- c06n 6y ago
  Excuse me, are you insane? What fact other than temperature do you need? What other facts are you counting on to show that 2020 did not have the warmest September?
  - georgeplusplus 6y ago
    Are you insane? Temp alone is NOT proof that their is man made global warming. The world was covered in ice without humans. So the ability of the planet to change temperature inherently is self evident. All you do when you call people insane for bringing their counter points to YOUR argument is stymie discussion and polarize the subject.
    - WorkLobster 6y ago
      A good resource for basic questions/misunderstandings such as these: https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/ https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/ > How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities? > Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences. > Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now? > All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt.
Theodores 6y ago
I expected more from Covid, for it to be a miracle cure for global warming, what with planes grounded and people not in the same consumption patterns. But no, turning off the taps or turning down the taps a tiny bit isn't going to suddenly bring a halt to warming temperatures. Interestingly though we have some people wanting to bring emissions to a halt for climate change reasons. But, with things like Chess you have to think a few moves ahead. Has anyone thought ahead past a drastic cut in emissions? If everyone stopped consuming (as if) and temperatures still went up, how would that work out? It would be a bit like Covid where lockdowns happen but the pandemic is not brought under control, maybe just slowed down for a bit.
- tremon 6y ago
  Why would you have expected Covid to have any effect on the current climate? Even the most short-lived greenhouse gas (methyl bromide) has a lifetime of 0.7 years, so any changes in emissions would not show up until now. And its relevance today is next to zero, since it's been banned along with many CFCs since the Montreal Protocol. The relevant greenhouse gases have lifetimes of years to decades.
  - Theodores 6y ago
    My point is that even if we were able to drastically cut emissions (which is the current campaigning goal) we actually need to think a step further ahead than that, as in okay, we cut emissions, what now? I have been reading the news on this climate chaos for decades so I am not naive enough to think that the planet will be magically restored to perfect tranquillity the minute the last burger eating SUV driver throws away their car keys and goes vegan. We all know we must cut emissions and go carbon negative but Covid has given us a glimpse as to how much work this really entails and how long we can sustain change for.
    - moritzwarhier 6y ago
      I think you overestimate the effect of Covid on carbon emissions. By a lot.
dc1rjj 6y ago
Well, don't look back... see forward: September 2020 was one of the coldest Septembers of the next hundred years!
rs999gti 6y ago
It's an election year, lots of hot air is being emitted.
fallingfrog 6y ago
The really scary thing about climate change is the time lag. The warming we are experiencing today is the effects of the carbon emitted 20 years ago. If we stopped cold turkey right now we’d still get another 20 years of warming- but we won’t. So 20 years from now, we’re going to look around and go, gee, this is getting bad, but at that point we will be committed already to another 20 years of warming after that.

87 points by tertiary 6y ago

Is this not anxiety inducing for anyone else? Is that why I see these posts fall away quickly, or is news like this just expected now, and so not that interesting?

gogopuppygogo 6y ago
I have had enough life experience to know that so much is beyond our control. We could die of a car accident tomorrow. Cancer could strike us down within the next six months. We know the problem here. We have some solutions. We just need to act!
- mempko 6y ago
  Yes! You could die in a car accident tomorrow, you can also ask the car companies to make safer cars. You could die of cancer within the next six months, and you can also ask the medical companies to make drugs to fight cancer.
georgeplusplus 6y ago
Here’s my issue. What amount of carbon cutting would satisfy you? If we cut by 50% and the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more? How far do you want to go and how much needs to be risked Before you’re satisfied that our carbon levels are acceptable. Sorry that you feel the world isn’t following your desires and expectations but they need more than a promise that things may get better to enact policy that will dramatically alter their entire economy, way of living, and social order. Edit: sure downvote me and throw insults. That’s a good way to promote healthy discussion.
- ploika 6y ago
  That's covered fairly extensively in the vast amounts of literature on climate change mitigation, with all due respect. Carbon neutral in the next few decades is the short answer to your question. Otherwise increasingly severe floods, droughts and storms will dramatically alter the economy, way of living and social order for billions of people anyway.
- ben_w 6y ago
  I have heard it claimed that 90% would be enough. I don’t know why, as at first glance that seems like it would merely slow down the rate of increase of CO2, not prevent further increases. Likewise, I don’t know how close the world temperature is to the equilibrium for the current level of greenhouse gasses. If levels remain constant, is the global average temperature going to go up 0.5C? 0.01C? Or is equilibrium reached faster than the seasons change? That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    > I have heard it claimed that 90% would be enough. I don’t know why, as at first glance that seems like it would merely slow down the rate of increase of CO2, not prevent further increases. CO₂ isn't a fixed quantity in the atmosphere that we add to. If we don't add to it, it gradually gets absorbed by natural processes on the Earth's surface. The reason the amount in the upper atmosphere is rising is because we're producing more faster than the other processes can absorb it. The picture is a little more complicated than that though. We are also destroying some of those absorption processes. For example through deforestation of the Amazon. Also, CO₂ is now a proxy measure for other greenhouse gases produced by human activity. Methane in particular is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂, so that matters too and the aborption processes are different. So there are a number of cycles of different things going on, and it's a fairly complicated picture, thus all the models. However, there are some useful simplifications, and it's too important to let arguing over details be used to avoid dealing with the basic problem. CO₂ is still the main concern and target, because it's produced by a large number of human activities, and they can be changed. Basically anything that involves burning things, whether obviously like in a car, or hidden away in some power station where you can't see it. All that said, even if we get net CO₂ emissions down to zero now, or even negative (if we find a way), it is generally accepted that we are too late to stop a significant average temperature rise that will cause significant climate changes affecting us, and especially affecting nature across the world. Because of this, targets these days are the result of negotiating some kind of "realistic" level of harm, which of course involves setting temperature-rise targets, and lots of politics, and plenty of political and industrial leaders trying to see what they can get away with. Nobody is really happy because some people would like less harm than the "realistic" minimum now, and some people would like to carry on with life as before because it was fun, and maybe their wealth depends on it. > That said, I am optimistic: given the current exponential growth of renewables, I don’t think it matters. Even without major new breakthroughs in storage, all we need is to build the factories to build the solar panels, the batteries, the hydrogen electrolysis plants and the Sabatier machines. We can be carbon neutral and save money/grow our economies at the same time. I'm completely with you on this. Technology will save the day if... well, the trouble is technology can't be taken for granted, even if there are plenty of great inventions around, and potential future inventions. Technology can only save the day if politics, behaviour and the economy line up to allow it to happen. I really don't think we can assume politics and people are collectively all that aligned on these issues or much else at the moment. We can't even agree on whether to protect each other from Covid or not by simple behavioral changes (social distancing, mask use etc), and that's a much more visible, short-term and simpler issue to understand than climate change.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > the temperature is still rising year over year do we need to cut more Cutting human carbon emission to zero today would still result in temperature increases over the next decade or so, because there's a planet-sized throughput delay in the system. Can't turn the oil tanker around that quickly. The IPCC suggested target is 1.5-2C over the next century as being both reasonably achievable while not having too drastic an impact on the environment and agriculture.
- derbOac 6y ago
  So, being genuine here. I don't care about carbon fuel, in the sense I have no particular attachment to it. In every case where I've replaced carbon with something else, it's turned out to be preferable. Cleaner, quieter, lighter, longer lasting. To me, there are lots of other reasons for cutting carbon than the environment. The environment is just a big plus. If we cut all carbon fuel and ended up with longer lasting, more efficient products, but global warming increased, why would I think cutting carbon had been a waste? Personally, I'd like to see some state where there was a hypercompetitive market of many different energy sources, rather than being dominated by carbon. I'm not sure what that would eventually look like — maybe carbon would be a part, maybe not — but it would be better.
  - mempko 6y ago
    Markets won't fix this. The scale of the problem has no market solution.
- mempko 6y ago
  I believe at this point it's negative, negative carbon. We are at the point where we have to start taking carbon out of the air soon. It's also not about satisfying "us" whoever "us" is. It's about preventing collapse of all life on earth including ours.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eznat 6y ago
As long as air conditioners continue to work and temperatures do not become unbearable in my lifetime, I don't see warming as a pressing problem.
- adammunich 6y ago
  Extreme weather kills crops. We can't air condition our way out of that one.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
    I have money. I can afford whatever the cost of food rises to.
    - Gravityloss 6y ago
      True, this is the argument of a best selling book going around now. Isn't so fun being a subsistence farmer in deteriorating conditions.
      - eznat 6y ago
        >Isn't so fun being a subsistence farmer in deteriorating conditions. I would tell you that I don't care, but then I would be called a troll, despite mine being the mainstream position.
        Gravityloss 6y ago
        It's more honest. If climate change will kill millions, and I'm causing it, the reaction earlier was to say "The science of climate change is false".
    - pjc50 6y ago
      .. this does sound like somebody from the "before" of a country where people bring wheelbarrows of devalued currency to exchange for bread.
    - 6y ago
Gravityloss 6y ago
These large issues are tackled with large coordinated effort. Voting is the primary way to affect this.
- coldtea 6y ago
  So, like it has worked for so many other issues...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- sam_goody 6y ago
  Now, all we need is a place to vote if we want Climate Warning or not! Instead, we have vote for president. That vote may affect the actions on climate change, but it may not be in the way you want. And it has lots and lots of related side affects. Let us say that the president who would take more steps to curb global warming would also cause growth in a non US country that is environmentally destructive. Or that they themselves would make so many deals and compromises that the deal that gets passed is actually a long term net loss. I am totally not saying that will happen, but making things too black and white can lead to surprises.
pjc50 6y ago
shrug I'm already maxed out on anxiety. Disaster is indeed expected now.

torstenvl 6y ago

It is distinctly unhelpful to keep trying to make people feel bad. People experiencing negative emotions are less capable of effecting positive outcomes. It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. It's hypocritical and provides ammunition to climate change deniers when they say things like "But this spring was really cold!" Weather is not climate and a year over year comparison of one calendar month is not a trend. This is exactly the kind of nonsense article I would publish if I were a climate change denier.

smt88 6y ago
> It is also unhelpful to keep referring to individual points like this as illustrative. I don't know if you're in the US, but this is untrue here. Our most-watched media outlet spreads climate-change denial, as does the (minority) party that has controlled our federal -- and most state -- governments for the last few years. One of their tactics is literally to say that there is still snow, so global warming can't be real[1]. Articles like this are the counterpoints to that narrative, and there is evidence that individual data points are convincing[2] to people who are not able (or willing) to understand long-term statistical information. 1. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/02/3-years-ago-we-all-laughed-at-james-inhofes-snowball-the-joke-was-on-us/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/02/3-years-ago-... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-change-denial-changing-minds https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/03/climate-chan...
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Taking the dumbest argument from your political opponent and then masturbating over its stupidity is not effective in terms of provoking change.
- roenxi 6y ago
  If your plan is to defend the truth with lies, don't be surprised when your political opponents don't take you seriously. The environmentalist movement has long been dogged by a sizeable aura of people who dilute the message with craziness and false claims. They are the major reason why progress is so slow - very few people trust them anywhere near anything important. I've yet to see an English-speaking Green party that I'd accept as competent to set policy even assuming they have the correct problems identified.

anonymouswacker 6y ago

It’s hard to take NYT seriously. I do not understand why it is allowed on here. Their inherent bias and target audience (policy makers and influencers) runs counter to startup culture, innovation, and hacking. Mainstream News posted here should be apolitical if not providing divergent opinions... since this article is, respectfully, an opinion of a paid government research group and not demonstrated fact...

c06n 6y ago
Excuse me, are you insane? What fact other than temperature do you need? What other facts are you counting on to show that 2020 did not have the warmest September?
- georgeplusplus 6y ago
  Are you insane? Temp alone is NOT proof that their is man made global warming. The world was covered in ice without humans. So the ability of the planet to change temperature inherently is self evident. All you do when you call people insane for bringing their counter points to YOUR argument is stymie discussion and polarize the subject.
  - WorkLobster 6y ago
    A good resource for basic questions/misunderstandings such as these: https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/ https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/ > How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities? > Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences. > Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now? > All major climate changes, including natural ones, are disruptive. Past climate changes led to extinction of many species, population migrations, and pronounced changes in the land surface and ocean circulation. The speed of the current climate change is faster than most of the past events, making it more difficult for human societies and the natural world to adapt.

Theodores 6y ago

I expected more from Covid, for it to be a miracle cure for global warming, what with planes grounded and people not in the same consumption patterns. But no, turning off the taps or turning down the taps a tiny bit isn't going to suddenly bring a halt to warming temperatures. Interestingly though we have some people wanting to bring emissions to a halt for climate change reasons. But, with things like Chess you have to think a few moves ahead. Has anyone thought ahead past a drastic cut in emissions? If everyone stopped consuming (as if) and temperatures still went up, how would that work out? It would be a bit like Covid where lockdowns happen but the pandemic is not brought under control, maybe just slowed down for a bit.

tremon 6y ago
Why would you have expected Covid to have any effect on the current climate? Even the most short-lived greenhouse gas (methyl bromide) has a lifetime of 0.7 years, so any changes in emissions would not show up until now. And its relevance today is next to zero, since it's been banned along with many CFCs since the Montreal Protocol. The relevant greenhouse gases have lifetimes of years to decades.
- Theodores 6y ago
  My point is that even if we were able to drastically cut emissions (which is the current campaigning goal) we actually need to think a step further ahead than that, as in okay, we cut emissions, what now? I have been reading the news on this climate chaos for decades so I am not naive enough to think that the planet will be magically restored to perfect tranquillity the minute the last burger eating SUV driver throws away their car keys and goes vegan. We all know we must cut emissions and go carbon negative but Covid has given us a glimpse as to how much work this really entails and how long we can sustain change for.
  - moritzwarhier 6y ago
    I think you overestimate the effect of Covid on carbon emissions. By a lot.

dc1rjj 6y ago

Well, don't look back... see forward: September 2020 was one of the coldest Septembers of the next hundred years!

rs999gti 6y ago

It's an election year, lots of hot air is being emitted.

fallingfrog 6y ago

The really scary thing about climate change is the time lag. The warming we are experiencing today is the effects of the carbon emitted 20 years ago. If we stopped cold turkey right now we’d still get another 20 years of warming- but we won’t. So 20 years from now, we’re going to look around and go, gee, this is getting bad, but at that point we will be committed already to another 20 years of warming after that.