5 ms·
Earth is trapping much more heat than climate models forecast
- vardump 1y agoI wish people would take this more seriously and understand climate science has nothing to do with politics.
- sieabahlpark 1y ago[dead]
- klysm 1y agoUnfortunately it has everything to do with politics because fixing it requires political action
- hedora 1y agoYeah, but if you’re a human that expects to live another 10-20 years, it’s strongly in your self interest to take action. In that sense, it shouldn’t be political.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoWhat is the age of the average politician?
- georgemcbay 1y agoHere in the US where I am, about 60 years old. But even more worrying than their average age are things like the fact that a not-insignificant number of these people are literally Christian Zionist fanatics whose unwavering support for Israeli-involved conflict is fueled by their insane belief that this conflict will bring about the biblical return of Jesus and the Rapture. Hard to get someone to care that climate change might make the Earth uninhabitable in a couple of decades when they believe they are helping to usher in the literal End Times in a couple of years. Trump is an absolute disaster but he's ultimately just predictably transactional and driven by boring old garden variety greed. The shadow he casts now is in some ways obscuring the fact that even when he's gone, a lot of people with a lot of power in the US government are religious fundamentalist lunatics.
- Dig1t 1y ago>uninhabitable in a couple of decades This is hyperbole, the Earth will be habitable for a very long time no matter what humans do. Using fear like that is the type of thing that ultimately hurts your cause. For example people who grew up hearing about how the ice caps were going to melt by 2020 and that Los Angeles would be underwater become more skeptical when they grow up and see that none of those scary predictions came to pass. If you want to be taken seriously it is probably a good idea to dial back the “end is nigh” language. Also suggesting solutions like banning meat, forcing people to buy solar panels (like in California), or instating regressive taxes that hurt poor people the most (California just added yet another tax on gasoline) are just not going to work. Normal people see WEF talks about eating bugs and banning meat and think your cause is insane and dangerous. Honestly, they are mostly correct.
- fzeroracer 1y agoWell, the key thing is that many of them don't expect to live longer than 20 years, which means its strongly in their self interest to instead grab as much power, money and influence NOW no matter the cost. It's not an understatement to say a lot of the ultra wealthy almost belong to a cult of nihilism either. We've ceded power to people who only care about things in the immediate future and the end result is disasterous.
- deadfoxygrandpa 1y agoif its not solvable via your own individual action then it's political
- klysm 1y agoI think people use the word political to mean “partisan issue”
- Dig1t 1y agoIt’s also an extremely useful political tool. You can convince people to do all kinds of things if you tell them that the world is ending.
- cyanydeez 1y agounfortunately, climate scientists need to model the politics involved in solving the problem. The easiest way to do that is to create two forces, simulating a zombie apocalypse. One force is the "good" guys who want to maximize the number of survivors and the "bad" guys who want to maximize the amount of resources per survivor. You can then see how, as the climate change destroys habitats, forcing good guys and bad guys into closer quarters, the tension between resource allocation and survivability naturally creates strife. Also, the models can't do shit about predicting volcanos, eruptions, ocean burps and a bunch of aperiodic events that can expel methane and CO2 all without billionaires flying their jets around convincing everyone that Technology Jesus will save us. Anyway, it's a seriously bad position to think that "if only we accepted climate change" that there'd suddenly be an agreement on how to implement "fair" controls on the drivers of change.
- imtringued 1y agoFuture AIs won't go out of control because they are malfunctioning, they'll attack humans because their hands are forced to do so, since that is the best course of action towards increasing the number of survivors.
- staticautomatic 1y agoHave you read the IPCC working group reports? It’s hard to conclude the direction of most climate research is anything other than political.
- asacrowflies 1y agoCitation.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- vardump 1y agoCan you elaborate a bit?
- nielsbot 1y agoThe research is political in what way?
- devwastaken 1y agono amount of “we can fix this!” will magically change humans out of their animal behaviors. at scale, instinct always beats out higher level thought. Climate change is a species consuming too many resources and causing their environment to not sustain their population. Humans will survive, underground with the use of basic climate control tech. the earth will cool again, “humans” come back to the surface. except, humans decided to create artificial materials that are destructive to reproduction. the genome will be so far removed that humans as we know them now wont exist. the fallout universe is an accurate representation.
- asacrowflies 1y agoI for one will NOT go quietly into the night nor will I be passive in allowing these greedy stains to destroy the rest of the non human biosphere. I think your prediction vastly undersells the violence and civil wars that this process of collapse will entail.
- vivzkestrel 1y agocurious question: if suddenly the entire population of the earth went vegan at once, would it cut down emissions by 60%?
- lazide 1y agoNo
- eutraveler 1y ago[flagged]
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoYeah because bacon is surely a larger factor in emissions that let's say, SUVs or private jets xD
- collingreen 1y agoHow do the emissions from the meat+dairy+husbandry+fishing industries compare to the emissions of suvs (and/or the car industry) and private jets (and/or the airline industry)? I think that is the actual question being asked.
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoTo that add the increased costs of logistics, because above some latitude you can only survive with a vegan diet with "exotic" produce brought to you with.. huge ass trucks. The northerners did not all converge to meat eating diet out of taste, but because very few things grow up there. I don't have the numbers but even then, 60% is simply funny.
- rini17 1y agoNot true, commoner europeans ate bread, potatoes, beans. Meat and dairy was an exception. Vitamin C all winter was available from sauerkraut. Most deaths were not nutrition related, except for famines. If you meant seal-hunting latitudes - these are only tiny part of population.
- bmacho 1y ago> Why has it changed so fast? > We don’t yet have a full explanation. But new research suggests changes in clouds is a big factor. > Clouds have a cooling effect overall. But the area covered by highly reflective white clouds has shrunk, while the area of jumbled, less reflective clouds has grown. > It isn’t clear why the clouds are changing. One possible factor could be the consequences of successful efforts to reduce sulfur in shipping fuel from 2020, as burning the dirtier fuel may have had a brightening effect on clouds. ... It seems to me that the climate change will be totally solvable by releasing some random gas into the atmosphere. No need to fret about it.
- vardump 1y ago> It seems to me that the climate change will be totally solvable by releasing some random gas into the atmosphere. No need to fret about it. Yeah, what could go wrong...
- bmacho 1y agoHonestly, if they choose this option, they surely will run a bunch of simulations before it, unlike the current path, when they are just randomly substracting gases from the atmosphere.
- isthatafact 1y agoIn addition to the likely high costs and predictable negative side-effects, one could extrapolate from the article title that climate engineering could also have unpredictable negative effects. Making big changes to a complex system that we do not fully understand seems very dangerous to me.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoWell, they "randomly subtracted" a gas that they were previously "randomly adding". In fact, even "subtracted" is wrong - they randomly stopped adding a gas that they had been randomly adding. They did not run a bunch of simulations before randomly adding the gas.
- 1y ago