5 ms·

And as oceans heat up, they slow down absorbing CO2, eventually stop and then start releasing the CO2 back. You know, like soda. The oceans, to date, have abso

And as oceans heat up, they slow down absorbing CO2, eventually stop and then start releasing the CO2 back. You know, like soda. The oceans, to date, have absorbed 1/3 of human CO2 emissions. Climate change is full of tipping points and feedback loops, many of them unmapped and unknown to us.

goneri 2y ago
This also leads to an decrease of the ocean pH with is a huge problem for the sea ecosystems. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html Edit: pH decrease, thans nwellinghoff
- nwellinghoff 2y ago
  Decrease in ph. Lower is more acidic.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - goneri 2y ago
    Oops, thank you.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
Please, don’t spread misinformation. The problem is already bad enough. The ocean is far from being saturated in CO2 even at the projected temperature increase. It will not release its content into the atmosphere. That’s not how this particular equilibrium works. The potential issue we are facing is not a release but the end or more likely a slow down of absorption as currents bringing water from the surface to the depth are distributed. That could lead to surface water becoming effectively saturated. This would be a big issue because the current strategy to limit overall warming is reaching net zero in 2050 and then letting the ocean socks up some of the excess CO2. From my point of view, that’s why we should be sceptical of a purely net zero based solution and need to invest heavily in carbon capture, clean abundant energy (we really need fusion more than ever) and seriously study geo-engineering based temporary solutions to grant us the time we need.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- silverquiet 2y ago
  > current strategy to limit overall warming is reaching net zero in 2050 It appears to me that the "current strategy" is to increase carbon emissions ad infinitum until we can no longer find hydrocarbon deposits in the Earth or we can no longer harvest them because economic/life systems on Earth have collapsed too much to support civilization. Your idea is certainly smarter, but I haven't seen any evidence that it will actually be implemented.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    You may not be aware of the current strategy/goings on then. The amount of renewables being installed right now is mind boggling, it's a huge portion of the newly installed capacity in the last few years. A bunch of work is ongoing to try and get a reactor design that is both cheap enough and able to get through the terrible nuclear beaurocracy to bring that emissions nearly free energy source online in a more meaningful way. Electric cars have also come down in cost to now only be stupid for many of us. This looks to change as better/cheaper battery chemistry comes on line in the next ten years so that may actually be an actuarily sound idea for most of us by the end of the decade. There's also a bunch of advances in air conditioning that look quite interesting (that's a big deal as ac consumes ~10 % of world electricty and that should clime as world temperature climbs). It's broadly pretty positive out there, with many things starting to hit the market, which should slowly phase out the old gear as it wears out, which should have major impact in the coming decades.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      I live in Texas, which makes me feel like I am at least a bit aware of the situation. Texas is installing more renewables and grid batteries than any other state I believe but also keeps that rather quiet because of political nonsense. On that note, they also put a rather punitive registration fee on electric vehicles. On the other hand, Texas is home to the Permian Basin (I actually just went to the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum in Midland, TX a few weeks ago and can heartily recommend it in the area, which you almost certainly never will be). It, along with oil and gas the country over are booming; I believe natural gas is so cheap that it goes negative in price at some times, and energy demand seems only limited by supply. Carbon content in the atmosphere recorded a record increase from last year to this year. You are not wrong that there are some positive developments, but I would disagree that it is broadly pretty positive; it is possible (likely even?) that it is too late to stop the process that we have set in motion. My one real hope is that we seriously consider solar radiation management - while it is not exactly a "solution" it does seem like it could buy time to work the problem and allow some of the tech you mention to mature.
openrisk 2y ago
What is remarkable is the near-complete lack of fear as to what we might be "engineering" with our ever expanding environmental footprint. On the one hand there is a systemic underappreciation of the impact we have, a behavioral relic from bygone eras when, indeed, homo sapiens was just another species competing. On the other hand there is overconfidence in our ability to solve technology-induced problems using other technologies. This behavior is in turn a relic of the recent industrial-scientific revolution, when indeed homo sapiens saw dramatic empowerement over the rest of nature. This entenched denialism and lack of concern means that as environmental deterioration loops into itself and hits from unexpected corners, people's psychology will increasingly resolve the stresses by inventing scape goats etc. in a pointless and innefective blame shifting exercise. All in all, a once-in-a-species level of challenge that if we manage to survive will have changed human society more than all previous revolutions combined.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  > the near-complete lack of fear I'm terrified of what appears to be coming, but I'm told that this is an anxiety disorder.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  This might be an unpopular opinion here but the people that think like you appear to come off as really bad at analysis. You are raising the alarm like the changes are going to happen over night when the models forecast the changes to be gradual over the next 100 years. As just one example, it would be a disaster if sea level rose 60 centimeters ( as it is in the current policies 3 C temp) but it's almost a non issue over 100 years because every piece of infrastructure in the flooded area today will be depreciated multiple times over on that timespan. You also seem to disregard technological progress, which is a stupid thing to do on such a long timeline. You also seem to totally misunderstand cost/benefit analysis/ human thought. You are asking people to give up a lot today for some moderately far future potential thing that may or may not happen. Of course a lot of people are going to look at the trade off and very rationally tell you to pound sand.
  - openrisk 2y ago

goneri 2y ago

This also leads to an decrease of the ocean pH with is a huge problem for the sea ecosystems. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html Edit: pH decrease, thans nwellinghoff

nwellinghoff 2y ago
Decrease in ph. Lower is more acidic.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- goneri 2y ago
  Oops, thank you.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

Please, don’t spread misinformation. The problem is already bad enough. The ocean is far from being saturated in CO2 even at the projected temperature increase. It will not release its content into the atmosphere. That’s not how this particular equilibrium works. The potential issue we are facing is not a release but the end or more likely a slow down of absorption as currents bringing water from the surface to the depth are distributed. That could lead to surface water becoming effectively saturated. This would be a big issue because the current strategy to limit overall warming is reaching net zero in 2050 and then letting the ocean socks up some of the excess CO2. From my point of view, that’s why we should be sceptical of a purely net zero based solution and need to invest heavily in carbon capture, clean abundant energy (we really need fusion more than ever) and seriously study geo-engineering based temporary solutions to grant us the time we need.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
silverquiet 2y ago
> current strategy to limit overall warming is reaching net zero in 2050 It appears to me that the "current strategy" is to increase carbon emissions ad infinitum until we can no longer find hydrocarbon deposits in the Earth or we can no longer harvest them because economic/life systems on Earth have collapsed too much to support civilization. Your idea is certainly smarter, but I haven't seen any evidence that it will actually be implemented.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  You may not be aware of the current strategy/goings on then. The amount of renewables being installed right now is mind boggling, it's a huge portion of the newly installed capacity in the last few years. A bunch of work is ongoing to try and get a reactor design that is both cheap enough and able to get through the terrible nuclear beaurocracy to bring that emissions nearly free energy source online in a more meaningful way. Electric cars have also come down in cost to now only be stupid for many of us. This looks to change as better/cheaper battery chemistry comes on line in the next ten years so that may actually be an actuarily sound idea for most of us by the end of the decade. There's also a bunch of advances in air conditioning that look quite interesting (that's a big deal as ac consumes ~10 % of world electricty and that should clime as world temperature climbs). It's broadly pretty positive out there, with many things starting to hit the market, which should slowly phase out the old gear as it wears out, which should have major impact in the coming decades.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I live in Texas, which makes me feel like I am at least a bit aware of the situation. Texas is installing more renewables and grid batteries than any other state I believe but also keeps that rather quiet because of political nonsense. On that note, they also put a rather punitive registration fee on electric vehicles. On the other hand, Texas is home to the Permian Basin (I actually just went to the Permian Basin Petroleum Museum in Midland, TX a few weeks ago and can heartily recommend it in the area, which you almost certainly never will be). It, along with oil and gas the country over are booming; I believe natural gas is so cheap that it goes negative in price at some times, and energy demand seems only limited by supply. Carbon content in the atmosphere recorded a record increase from last year to this year. You are not wrong that there are some positive developments, but I would disagree that it is broadly pretty positive; it is possible (likely even?) that it is too late to stop the process that we have set in motion. My one real hope is that we seriously consider solar radiation management - while it is not exactly a "solution" it does seem like it could buy time to work the problem and allow some of the tech you mention to mature.

openrisk 2y ago

What is remarkable is the near-complete lack of fear as to what we might be "engineering" with our ever expanding environmental footprint. On the one hand there is a systemic underappreciation of the impact we have, a behavioral relic from bygone eras when, indeed, homo sapiens was just another species competing. On the other hand there is overconfidence in our ability to solve technology-induced problems using other technologies. This behavior is in turn a relic of the recent industrial-scientific revolution, when indeed homo sapiens saw dramatic empowerement over the rest of nature. This entenched denialism and lack of concern means that as environmental deterioration loops into itself and hits from unexpected corners, people's psychology will increasingly resolve the stresses by inventing scape goats etc. in a pointless and innefective blame shifting exercise. All in all, a once-in-a-species level of challenge that if we manage to survive will have changed human society more than all previous revolutions combined.

silverquiet 2y ago
> the near-complete lack of fear I'm terrified of what appears to be coming, but I'm told that this is an anxiety disorder.
snapplebobapple 2y ago
This might be an unpopular opinion here but the people that think like you appear to come off as really bad at analysis. You are raising the alarm like the changes are going to happen over night when the models forecast the changes to be gradual over the next 100 years. As just one example, it would be a disaster if sea level rose 60 centimeters ( as it is in the current policies 3 C temp) but it's almost a non issue over 100 years because every piece of infrastructure in the flooded area today will be depreciated multiple times over on that timespan. You also seem to disregard technological progress, which is a stupid thing to do on such a long timeline. You also seem to totally misunderstand cost/benefit analysis/ human thought. You are asking people to give up a lot today for some moderately far future potential thing that may or may not happen. Of course a lot of people are going to look at the trade off and very rationally tell you to pound sand.
- openrisk 2y ago