8 ms·

Since spring of 2023, the world has been warmer than climate models anticipated

68 points by orcul 2y ago

sheefrex 2y ago
I opened this article hoping it would mention the point about the rules concerning reduced sulfur content of the fuel used in super tanker marine shipping, and it didn't disappoint: "A lot of people have looked at the impact of the marine shipping regulation change. If you take that and you put it into some climate model and you estimate the temperature change, right now you’d expect about 0.05 of a degree, 0.08 of a degree [of warming per year], and then building over a decade to about 0.1 degree. So that seems like it helps, but it doesn’t seem like it’s sufficient."
- pixelfarmer 2y ago
  There was a recent article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-c... Seems like the models have quite a few holes. It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    Do you mean "a full model so that you can analyze it with fluid dynamics, differential equations, and thermodynamics", or do you mean "a pre made Gish Gallop that you can rattle off without having to actually think about any of them"?
    - kortilla 2y ago
      Don’t be anti-intellectual by default
      - pjc50 2y ago
        The "models are wrong" climate change deniers basically mean that the prior likelihood of someone on the internet being genuinely interested in understanding and improving the models is below 1%.
    - sshine 2y ago
      Something in-between a macro-economic model and a physical simulation.
  - sheefrex 2y ago
    That doesn't surprise me. Yes, would be interesting to see those assumptions, but I guess the issue (as in most modelling of complex systems) is that as you relax the assumptions, the models become intractable.
  - defrost 2y ago
    There are families of models that focus on different things, each family with a number of members that have differing paremeter weightingss, etc. Yes, there are big overviews of the models and how they differ - the IPCC look at the over|under predictions of all the models and look at the spread and assumptions to select a "most probable" middle ground prediction for climate going forward. For example while the current year has been warmer than expected it's also been cooler than a number of worst case scenarios that assume faster methane releases and water vapor increases, etc. I had a goto link for a good overview .. currently it's redirecting to: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is working on our digital Special Collections and the connection with OSTI. This includes all LLNL produced Technical Reports, Theses & Dissertations, and eSholarship content. We are working at making these available through OSTI. We apologize for the interruption in service.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail. Yes, they did, it's called an "ensemble model" when multiple models are collated to account for their different modelings. A friend of mine did his physics PhD on cloud formation at a molecular level exactly to tackle the issue some models had to account for that over longer time scales, most of the holes you can think of from the top of your head have been considered, there are many thousands of very smart people working on these models for the past 30-40 years.
beedee33 2y ago
[flagged]
andrewmcwatters 2y ago
> But the big uncertainty that determines whether 2100 is a happy place or a less happy place is our decisions on what we do with emissions. And they dwarf the uncertainties that we’re talking about here. We’re talking 0.1, 0.2 degrees. Well, the difference emissions make is 1 degree, 2 degrees, 3 degrees. So it’s an order of magnitude larger. And given the non-linearity of impacts, that’s a much, much larger amount of impact that we would see. What’s staggering to me is that the climb towards 1.5 C is of course not evenly distributed across the globe. But what it does result in is some places going up as much as 15 F+ above average since 1970.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
atoav 2y ago
Capitalism is now trying to avoid doing the absolute minimum that we would need to do if the climate catastrophe shall be avoided. In fact I am convinced that if you had to invent a system that that optimized a societies reaction to climate annihilation in such a way that it does the bare minimum as predicted to be needed by climate models it would probably look a lot like what we have today. The inly issue with that kind of optimization is, just like with all optimization, that by cutting out too much slack from the system you — well —don't have any slack in the system. Slack that would save the day if models are wrong or unpredicted things happen.
- sagolikasoppor 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - arj 2y ago
    You mean China that built more solar last year than the rest of the world combined? Not to mention batteries.
    - greyw 2y ago
      Concurrently, china also built the most coal power generation capacity last year than the rest of the world.
      - arj 2y ago
        Coal in China is declining. "In the first half of this year, China permitted only 10% of the new coal plants as the same period last year." https://cleantechnica.com/2024/09/30/china-likely-to-have-lower-ghg-emissions-than-usa-by-2035/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/09/30/china-likely-to-have-lo...
  - namaria 2y ago
    China is autocratic but it's not communist or 'non-capitalist' by any stretch of the imagination.
Yizahi 2y ago
Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.
- namaria 2y ago
  We are collectively in full on denial about the consequences of climate change. Only directly accountable organizations like militaries and insurers are actually acting on the data. People are still buying cheap stuff from overseas, traveling and generally spending energy like there's no tomorrow. We will only see real changes in behavior and policy once coastal flooding in major metropolises becomes a reality a few decades down the line.
  - concordDance 2y ago
    Why do people keep bringing up coastal flooding? Its one of the smallest and least concerning climate change effects. The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence. Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise. Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ghastmaster 2y ago
      > Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise. Temperature and co2 increases are beneficial to plant growth. What is the problematic aspect you are referring to?
      - pjc50 2y ago
        Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.
wordofx 2y ago
Spring time and it’s 7 degrees. Usually higher this time of year.
- notanormalnerd 2y ago
  Weather is not climate...
  - wordofx 2y ago
    “What’s Causing the Recent Spike in Global Temperatures?”
    - defrost 2y ago
      They're not talking about local weather, they're talking about longer timeframe lager region moving averages. Eg: three month moving average for a north american climatic cell rather than a local daily spring tempreture.
  - anodari 2y ago
    It's crazy that there are still people who don't get this. "It's cold here, so there's no such thing as global warming." They forget that the other hemisphere is on fire.
    - wordofx 2y ago
      What’s amazing is despite flawed science people keep believing it and insulting anyone who questions it.
      - anodari 2y ago
        Who claims that climate science is flawed? The deniers? All science has degrees of uncertainty, look at physics, biology, medicine. But even so, they provide robust results, unlike creationism, flat-earthers, etc.
      - 2y ago
onetokeoverthe 2y ago
The skeptical view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ
- namaria 2y ago
  Post a couple of videos about ancient aliens inventing civilization and time travel while you're at it
- anodari 2y ago
  You mean the deniers' view. There may have been skeptics 20 years ago, but now no one seriously doubts it. I don't understand how technology people make decisions to deny a problem even if there is no 100% certainty. In my company, even if there is less than a 1% chance of something going wrong, we have to think of ways to mitigate it.
  - namaria 2y ago
    Anthropogenic global warming has been proposed and modeled since the late XVIII century. The window to reasonably doubt it has been closed since at least the 1980s when Exxon put it on paper they knew about it and wanted to suppress awareness about it.
arj 2y ago
We all live in the same planet, the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share. For far to long certain countries have taken up much more of their share. To such a point that our whole carbon budget has been used in a single or two generations. Now is the time for those better of to contribute their fair share in solving this mess.
- m1n7 2y ago
  which countries? china, the west? more importantly, we should stop pointing fingers and act within our reach!
- amitport 2y ago
  yeah well.. the world will literally burn before that
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  "the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share" That doesn't sound reasonable to me. How do you to find equal? Who implements the counting and penalties for someone taking more or less than their Fair share? Is there anybody who is going to be left out of "we"? I could go on...
  - sd9 2y ago
    What do you think sounds reasonable?
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      With the vast amount of money and power involved with any approach, I don't think there is a reasonable solution that is feasible.
- avar 2y ago
  > the most reasonable way to > share this is that we get an > equal share. For far to long > certain countries have taken > up much more of their share. As someone from a country where people commonly lived in mud huts well into the 20th century, and which wasn't considered developed until 1975: Yes, we sure got the raw end of that deal by having more developed countries spearhead technological development. I'd much rather be doing sustainance farming today, rather than taking my chances with the IPCC's estimate of climate change depressing world GDP by 2-10% in 2100. Yes, developed countries should be leading the way to becoming carbon neutral or negative, e.g. with nuclear, solar, etc. But let's not make this into some mischaracterization of early industrialized countries taking something away from the rest of us. That's bullshit.
readthenotes1 2y ago
Wasn't this a result of removing sulfur from Ocean going vessel fuels?
- defrost 2y ago
  No. Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either. Both are addressed in the article along with other possibilities.
  - ghastmaster 2y ago
    > Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either. The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099381 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL09...
    - defrost 2y ago
      There are two components, 'regular' SO2 and HCl and 'unusual' high magnitude H2O (water vapor): From the NASA interview linked here: And the first paper that came out about the volcano, they said, no, no, the normal cooling volcanic pollution is still bigger than the warming water vapor component. From the wikipedia article you didn't link: One study { of this specif eruption ) estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years, although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk. Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres. More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga... Which is contrary to the time sequence you claim. FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as: Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor. 'may not' and 'could potentially' Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed. According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.
schnitzelstoat 2y ago
Governments still don't take it seriously though. Here in Spain, we still plan to shut down our nuclear reactors (while many other countries are restarting their nuclear programmes) and at the same time the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs so the transition to electric vehicles remains unaffordable for most people. When appeasing an ideological voter base or German shareholders remains more important than lowering emissions, we don't have much hope of making further progress.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs That was my "OK, so you're completely unserious about this" moment. Governments have been subsidizing EVs, now they're cheap enough to not require subsidy, and you're cutting them off to appease the VW liars?
  - schnuri 2y ago
    VW is against import tariffs on Chinese cars as they fear repercussions (and China is an important export market to them). There are other car manufacturers in the EU which depend much more on domestic sales.
  - vasco 2y ago
    The climate emergency is just a way to make you pay more taxes and accept a worse life for you and your children than what your parents had. It shames you into accepting we are using up too much, but a select few can still eat meat and fly private jets since they can pay for all the extra taxes, meanwhile you should accept your life of sacrifice for the planet. If we actually are in trouble the people in power can easily geo-engineer cooling the whole planet. Countries have done cloud seeding for decades, we can cool the planet if we want.
- schnuri 2y ago
  I think it’s important to point out that German car manufacturers and the German government opposed import tariffs on Chinese cars.
agilob 2y ago
Not only the climate is warmer than models anticipated, we're doing worse to prevent it than pessimistic expectations.
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  Not only that, we're approaching a massive tipping point in just a couple of weeks. Some of the "poser pontificators" claim to be concerned about the climate, yet they're not even sure they will vote. If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.
  - FeepingCreature 2y ago
    I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be beneficial to have a weaker FAA. Hence probably Trump." If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_solutions_and_%22Space_bubbles%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_sol...
    - grecy 2y ago
      SpaceX doesn’t need a weaker FAA to keep launching very frequently, they’re already doing that. A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.
    - worstspotgain 2y ago
      That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax. Why not just steer an asteroid onto Earth. The sooner it gets obliterated, the sooner life can reemerge. /s
ned99 2y ago
It's still going to get worse, until we find a fix, a ultimate fix, but as far as i know, we haven't found it yet. It's like in the movies, until it becomes a global crisis and disaster, nobody pays attention, just scientists.
alperakgun 2y ago
Does being in an El Niño period affect the average world temperature?
- ghastmaster 2y ago
  Likewise, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption resulted in a large amount of water into the stratosphere. Water is far more an effective heat trap than co2. We do not know exactly how long the effects of this eruption will last. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻapai_eruption_and_tsunami https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻap...
- gmuslera 2y ago
  It was a weaker El Niño than I.e. 2016 one. And it ended, by May, but still temperatures are far higher than what they should be. There are still record breaking months or only surpassed by 2023 ones.
gmuslera 2y ago
The explanation more than a single factor could be all over the place, positive feedback loops are adding their own weight to emissions and direct warming. Less ice and permafrost, more forest fires, warming waters and so on may be having by now a noticeable enough impact to explain that divergence.
normalaccess 2y ago
I have zero fear of global warming. BUT if I did, the only real way to reduce energy usage is to reduce the population of earth drastically. People cannot be made to live in squalor willingly. From the Georgia Guide stones: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. For those who are keen on math, that means we need to eliminate 7.6 billion people to return to "balance".
- EForEndeavour 2y ago
  I mean this genuinely: why do you choose to quote and trust some unreferenced and completely arbitrary 500 million population number that some bizarre unidentified group of people with zero accountability carved into a random stone monument 45 years ago, but "have zero fear of global warming" despite the alarm bells rung by modern, rigorously studied, data- and evidence-informed scientific discourse? Why should readers of this comment give any credence whatsoever to the Georgia Guidestones?
  - normalaccess 2y ago
    Because the World Economic Forum has presenters like this: WEF Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5U7R73_9xQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5U7R73_9xQ You might not agree with the Guidelines but are you going to disagree with the entire World Economic Forum? It's even in the popular zeitgeist. Like this example where Bill Maher is advocating for population collapse: New Rule: Let the Population Collapse | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc
    - EForEndeavour 2y ago
      Thank you for sharing some sources. To refute your first one: - Jane Goodall in this 36-second clip does NOT advocate reducing the global population down to 450 million - Jane Goodall speaking at a 2020 WEF panel does NOT imply that the WEF endorses any part of her comments Your comment falsely distorts her words, and falsely equates her with the entire WEF. More details: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-jane-goodall-population-299442560681 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-jane-goodall-populatio...

68 points by orcul 2y ago

I opened this article hoping it would mention the point about the rules concerning reduced sulfur content of the fuel used in super tanker marine shipping, and it didn't disappoint: "A lot of people have looked at the impact of the marine shipping regulation change. If you take that and you put it into some climate model and you estimate the temperature change, right now you’d expect about 0.05 of a degree, 0.08 of a degree [of warming per year], and then building over a decade to about 0.1 degree. So that seems like it helps, but it doesn’t seem like it’s sufficient."

pixelfarmer 2y ago
There was a recent article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-c... Seems like the models have quite a few holes. It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Do you mean "a full model so that you can analyze it with fluid dynamics, differential equations, and thermodynamics", or do you mean "a pre made Gish Gallop that you can rattle off without having to actually think about any of them"?
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Don’t be anti-intellectual by default
    - pjc50 2y ago
      The "models are wrong" climate change deniers basically mean that the prior likelihood of someone on the internet being genuinely interested in understanding and improving the models is below 1%.
  - sshine 2y ago
    Something in-between a macro-economic model and a physical simulation.
- sheefrex 2y ago
  That doesn't surprise me. Yes, would be interesting to see those assumptions, but I guess the issue (as in most modelling of complex systems) is that as you relax the assumptions, the models become intractable.
- defrost 2y ago
  There are families of models that focus on different things, each family with a number of members that have differing paremeter weightingss, etc. Yes, there are big overviews of the models and how they differ - the IPCC look at the over|under predictions of all the models and look at the spread and assumptions to select a "most probable" middle ground prediction for climate going forward. For example while the current year has been warmer than expected it's also been cooler than a number of worst case scenarios that assume faster methane releases and water vapor increases, etc. I had a goto link for a good overview .. currently it's redirecting to: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is working on our digital Special Collections and the connection with OSTI. This includes all LLNL produced Technical Reports, Theses & Dissertations, and eSholarship content. We are working at making these available through OSTI. We apologize for the interruption in service.
- piva00 2y ago
  > It made me wonder if anyone has considered making a complete list of assumptions that are baked into these models, so they can be looked at in detail. Yes, they did, it's called an "ensemble model" when multiple models are collated to account for their different modelings. A friend of mine did his physics PhD on cloud formation at a molecular level exactly to tackle the issue some models had to account for that over longer time scales, most of the holes you can think of from the top of your head have been considered, there are many thousands of very smart people working on these models for the past 30-40 years.

beedee33 2y ago

[flagged]

andrewmcwatters 2y ago

> But the big uncertainty that determines whether 2100 is a happy place or a less happy place is our decisions on what we do with emissions. And they dwarf the uncertainties that we’re talking about here. We’re talking 0.1, 0.2 degrees. Well, the difference emissions make is 1 degree, 2 degrees, 3 degrees. So it’s an order of magnitude larger. And given the non-linearity of impacts, that’s a much, much larger amount of impact that we would see. What’s staggering to me is that the climb towards 1.5 C is of course not evenly distributed across the globe. But what it does result in is some places going up as much as 15 F+ above average since 1970.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

atoav 2y ago

Capitalism is now trying to avoid doing the absolute minimum that we would need to do if the climate catastrophe shall be avoided. In fact I am convinced that if you had to invent a system that that optimized a societies reaction to climate annihilation in such a way that it does the bare minimum as predicted to be needed by climate models it would probably look a lot like what we have today. The inly issue with that kind of optimization is, just like with all optimization, that by cutting out too much slack from the system you — well —don't have any slack in the system. Slack that would save the day if models are wrong or unpredicted things happen.

sagolikasoppor 2y ago
[flagged]
- arj 2y ago
  You mean China that built more solar last year than the rest of the world combined? Not to mention batteries.
  - greyw 2y ago
    Concurrently, china also built the most coal power generation capacity last year than the rest of the world.
    - arj 2y ago
      Coal in China is declining. "In the first half of this year, China permitted only 10% of the new coal plants as the same period last year." https://cleantechnica.com/2024/09/30/china-likely-to-have-lower-ghg-emissions-than-usa-by-2035/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/09/30/china-likely-to-have-lo...
- namaria 2y ago
  China is autocratic but it's not communist or 'non-capitalist' by any stretch of the imagination.

Yizahi 2y ago

Worth remembering that even IPCC itself has models which predict way higher temperatures by 2100 than goes into IPCC reports. We have just decided to collectively ignore them.

namaria 2y ago
We are collectively in full on denial about the consequences of climate change. Only directly accountable organizations like militaries and insurers are actually acting on the data. People are still buying cheap stuff from overseas, traveling and generally spending energy like there's no tomorrow. We will only see real changes in behavior and policy once coastal flooding in major metropolises becomes a reality a few decades down the line.
- concordDance 2y ago
  Why do people keep bringing up coastal flooding? Its one of the smallest and least concerning climate change effects. The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence. Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise. Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghastmaster 2y ago
    > Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise. Temperature and co2 increases are beneficial to plant growth. What is the problematic aspect you are referring to?
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.

wordofx 2y ago

Spring time and it’s 7 degrees. Usually higher this time of year.

notanormalnerd 2y ago
Weather is not climate...
- wordofx 2y ago
  “What’s Causing the Recent Spike in Global Temperatures?”
  - defrost 2y ago
    They're not talking about local weather, they're talking about longer timeframe lager region moving averages. Eg: three month moving average for a north american climatic cell rather than a local daily spring tempreture.
- anodari 2y ago
  It's crazy that there are still people who don't get this. "It's cold here, so there's no such thing as global warming." They forget that the other hemisphere is on fire.
  - wordofx 2y ago
    What’s amazing is despite flawed science people keep believing it and insulting anyone who questions it.
    - anodari 2y ago
      Who claims that climate science is flawed? The deniers? All science has degrees of uncertainty, look at physics, biology, medicine. But even so, they provide robust results, unlike creationism, flat-earthers, etc.
    - 2y ago

onetokeoverthe 2y ago

The skeptical view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

namaria 2y ago
Post a couple of videos about ancient aliens inventing civilization and time travel while you're at it
anodari 2y ago
You mean the deniers' view. There may have been skeptics 20 years ago, but now no one seriously doubts it. I don't understand how technology people make decisions to deny a problem even if there is no 100% certainty. In my company, even if there is less than a 1% chance of something going wrong, we have to think of ways to mitigate it.
- namaria 2y ago
  Anthropogenic global warming has been proposed and modeled since the late XVIII century. The window to reasonably doubt it has been closed since at least the 1980s when Exxon put it on paper they knew about it and wanted to suppress awareness about it.

arj 2y ago

We all live in the same planet, the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share. For far to long certain countries have taken up much more of their share. To such a point that our whole carbon budget has been used in a single or two generations. Now is the time for those better of to contribute their fair share in solving this mess.

m1n7 2y ago
which countries? china, the west? more importantly, we should stop pointing fingers and act within our reach!
amitport 2y ago
yeah well.. the world will literally burn before that
readthenotes1 2y ago
"the most reasonable way to share this is that we get an equal share" That doesn't sound reasonable to me. How do you to find equal? Who implements the counting and penalties for someone taking more or less than their Fair share? Is there anybody who is going to be left out of "we"? I could go on...
- sd9 2y ago
  What do you think sounds reasonable?
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    With the vast amount of money and power involved with any approach, I don't think there is a reasonable solution that is feasible.
avar 2y ago
> the most reasonable way to > share this is that we get an > equal share. For far to long > certain countries have taken > up much more of their share. As someone from a country where people commonly lived in mud huts well into the 20th century, and which wasn't considered developed until 1975: Yes, we sure got the raw end of that deal by having more developed countries spearhead technological development. I'd much rather be doing sustainance farming today, rather than taking my chances with the IPCC's estimate of climate change depressing world GDP by 2-10% in 2100. Yes, developed countries should be leading the way to becoming carbon neutral or negative, e.g. with nuclear, solar, etc. But let's not make this into some mischaracterization of early industrialized countries taking something away from the rest of us. That's bullshit.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Wasn't this a result of removing sulfur from Ocean going vessel fuels?

defrost 2y ago
No. Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either. Both are addressed in the article along with other possibilities.
- ghastmaster 2y ago
  > Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either. The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099381 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL09...
  - defrost 2y ago
    There are two components, 'regular' SO2 and HCl and 'unusual' high magnitude H2O (water vapor): From the NASA interview linked here: And the first paper that came out about the volcano, they said, no, no, the normal cooling volcanic pollution is still bigger than the warming water vapor component. From the wikipedia article you didn't link: One study { of this specif eruption ) estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years, although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk. Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres. More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga... Which is contrary to the time sequence you claim. FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as: Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor. 'may not' and 'could potentially' Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed. According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.

schnitzelstoat 2y ago

Governments still don't take it seriously though. Here in Spain, we still plan to shut down our nuclear reactors (while many other countries are restarting their nuclear programmes) and at the same time the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs so the transition to electric vehicles remains unaffordable for most people. When appeasing an ideological voter base or German shareholders remains more important than lowering emissions, we don't have much hope of making further progress.

pjc50 2y ago
> the EU has placed crippling tariffs on Chinese EVs That was my "OK, so you're completely unserious about this" moment. Governments have been subsidizing EVs, now they're cheap enough to not require subsidy, and you're cutting them off to appease the VW liars?
- schnuri 2y ago
  VW is against import tariffs on Chinese cars as they fear repercussions (and China is an important export market to them). There are other car manufacturers in the EU which depend much more on domestic sales.
- vasco 2y ago
  The climate emergency is just a way to make you pay more taxes and accept a worse life for you and your children than what your parents had. It shames you into accepting we are using up too much, but a select few can still eat meat and fly private jets since they can pay for all the extra taxes, meanwhile you should accept your life of sacrifice for the planet. If we actually are in trouble the people in power can easily geo-engineer cooling the whole planet. Countries have done cloud seeding for decades, we can cool the planet if we want.
schnuri 2y ago
I think it’s important to point out that German car manufacturers and the German government opposed import tariffs on Chinese cars.

agilob 2y ago

Not only the climate is warmer than models anticipated, we're doing worse to prevent it than pessimistic expectations.

worstspotgain 2y ago
Not only that, we're approaching a massive tipping point in just a couple of weeks. Some of the "poser pontificators" claim to be concerned about the climate, yet they're not even sure they will vote. If you have relatives in college in MI, WI, PA, NC, GA, NV or AZ who are concerned about the climate, get them to shake off the stupor.
- FeepingCreature 2y ago
  I mean, I'm not even sure which way I'd vote for climate. Here's one take: "Things are clearly out of control. We need climate mitigations that can be done unilaterally. One promising and surprisingly-feasible approach is a sun-synchronous solar-shade swarm.[1] That needs very cheap and frequent launches to be feasible. The only option is SpaceX/Starship. Politically, to get that going as soon as possible, it may be beneficial to have a weaker FAA. Hence probably Trump." If you think the "business-as-usual" climate mitigations will be insufficient, it may be worthwhile to go for high-variance approaches that leave humanity better able to react relatively quickly to unexpectedly large warming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_solutions_and_%22Space_bubbles%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade#Lightweight_sol...
  - grecy 2y ago
    SpaceX doesn’t need a weaker FAA to keep launching very frequently, they’re already doing that. A bit faster approvals for Starship, sure. They’re getting it done.
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    That's a good one, vote for the guy who's against EVs and thinks climate change is a hoax. Why not just steer an asteroid onto Earth. The sooner it gets obliterated, the sooner life can reemerge. /s

ned99 2y ago

It's still going to get worse, until we find a fix, a ultimate fix, but as far as i know, we haven't found it yet. It's like in the movies, until it becomes a global crisis and disaster, nobody pays attention, just scientists.

alperakgun 2y ago

Does being in an El Niño period affect the average world temperature?

ghastmaster 2y ago
Likewise, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption resulted in a large amount of water into the stratosphere. Water is far more an effective heat trap than co2. We do not know exactly how long the effects of this eruption will last. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻapai_eruption_and_tsunami https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga–Hunga_Haʻap...
gmuslera 2y ago
It was a weaker El Niño than I.e. 2016 one. And it ended, by May, but still temperatures are far higher than what they should be. There are still record breaking months or only surpassed by 2023 ones.

gmuslera 2y ago

The explanation more than a single factor could be all over the place, positive feedback loops are adding their own weight to emissions and direct warming. Less ice and permafrost, more forest fires, warming waters and so on may be having by now a noticeable enough impact to explain that divergence.

normalaccess 2y ago

I have zero fear of global warming. BUT if I did, the only real way to reduce energy usage is to reduce the population of earth drastically. People cannot be made to live in squalor willingly. From the Georgia Guide stones: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. For those who are keen on math, that means we need to eliminate 7.6 billion people to return to "balance".

EForEndeavour 2y ago
I mean this genuinely: why do you choose to quote and trust some unreferenced and completely arbitrary 500 million population number that some bizarre unidentified group of people with zero accountability carved into a random stone monument 45 years ago, but "have zero fear of global warming" despite the alarm bells rung by modern, rigorously studied, data- and evidence-informed scientific discourse? Why should readers of this comment give any credence whatsoever to the Georgia Guidestones?
- normalaccess 2y ago
  Because the World Economic Forum has presenters like this: WEF Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5U7R73_9xQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5U7R73_9xQ You might not agree with the Guidelines but are you going to disagree with the entire World Economic Forum? It's even in the popular zeitgeist. Like this example where Bill Maher is advocating for population collapse: New Rule: Let the Population Collapse | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc
  - EForEndeavour 2y ago
    Thank you for sharing some sources. To refute your first one: - Jane Goodall in this 36-second clip does NOT advocate reducing the global population down to 450 million - Jane Goodall speaking at a 2020 WEF panel does NOT imply that the WEF endorses any part of her comments Your comment falsely distorts her words, and falsely equates her with the entire WEF. More details: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-jane-goodall-population-299442560681 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-jane-goodall-populatio...