24 ms·
Global warming has accelerated significantly
- zer0zzz 7mo agoThis entire thread is a demonstration in how doomed we are.
- afandian 7mo agoThis is open access. No need to post a researchgate link. Here's the original: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6079807/v1 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6079807/v1
- luxuryballs 7mo agoI’m out of the loop on researchgate, when you say “No need” is it like an archive.is? Why is it less desirable or, if I’m reading your tone correctly, a “backup option”?
- nyeah 7mo agoResearchGate isn't open access.
- noboostforyou 7mo agoHow so? I don't have an account but I am able to read the entire paper directly from the OP's link, is there some sort of free limit or something that I have yet to hit? I get some banner ads served on their site but I'm not seeing how it isn't open access.
- tokai 7mo agoResearchgate has nothing to do with OA. Its a social media page for researchers. OA is open licensing that give the reader the rights to download, distribute, etc.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- nyeah 7mo agoYou may be arguing that ResearchGate allows free access to its articles in general. If so, I believe there's a logical fallacy in your argument. But I've been warned that naming that logical fallacy is a ban-able offense on HN. (Surreal but true.)
- noboostforyou 7mo agoAh, gotcha - yes that explains my misunderstanding. I was equating "open access" to free access to the content via website. Thanks for clarifying.
- nyeah 7mo agoSome content on ResearchGate can be downloaded for free. Some can't.
- bee_rider 7mo agoResearchGate isn’t a journal, right? I think it is some sort of… pseudo-social-networking site for papers.
- nyeah 7mo agoRight, it's not a journal.
- serioussecurity 7mo agoThey're a user hostile attempt to extract money from people. They make their website hard to use.
- kergonath 7mo agoHow so? I am not paying anything and I don’t have any problem getting full texts when the authors uploaded them. In fact, I just logged in and don’t see even the possibility to pay for anything there. I assume they monetise their database, but everything there is supposed to be publicly accessible anyway. If I am not mistaken we can get documents without an account as well, unlike others.
- afandian 7mo agoI'm a bit of a scholarly infrastructure purist. The paper has a DOI, it leads to a landing page that has the full text, and the content is open licensed. Like if someone posted a link to an archive.is version of a Wikipedia page, you'd probably prefer to get the canonical link to that content. ResearchGate is a bit of commercial enclosure of infrastructure that is, and should be, open. Who knows, maybe it has other value. I'm not an academic so I don't know.
- miclill 7mo agoAs far as I understand this is a pre-print under CC-BY license, if this answers your question?
- pc86 7mo agoIf the original is available, posting anything else is by definition less desirable.
- kergonath 7mo agoMy position is that when it’s open access, we might as well link the primary source. ResearchGate is generally legal. It’s the responsibility of the authors to upload accepted manuscripts if the final document is not open access. AFAIK it does not do anything dodgy like archive.is does.
- dana321 7mo agoThe clue is in the name, research "gate"
- cubefox 7mo agoThe researchgate link has for me a deceptive ad at the bottom: it has a PDF logo and says "download now", suggesting that this will download the paper. It then links to a download page which in the fine print says it will actually download some kind of ebook collection which costs 30 bucks per month. That's a scam.
- dang 7mo agoOk, we've changed the URL from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389855619_Global_Warming_has_Accelerated_Significantly https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389855619_Global_Wa... to what that doi.org link redirects to. Is it better now?
- afandian 7mo agoCool, thanks. I approve! In a pure world everyone would use DOIs to refer to published literature. This would give two benefits: first, always link to the current version. Second, be a persistent identifier for the content. But HN isn't a specialist scholarly content platform, so it's practical to link to the landing page.
- rcbdev 7mo agoAnd what about countries where URNs are the identifier of choice? In my perfect world, we'd ban DOIs entirely from academic conduct and use only URNs respectively.
- teyopi 7mo agoHi, unrelated: Your personal website has an expired certificate. Seems like it expired end of Feb.
- afandian 7mo agoThanks! Certbot did renew it but looks like something went wrong.
- eykanal 7mo agoFor those (like me) who don't know the authors, apparently they are well-published authors in the field of climate science whose work is very highly cited: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=grant+foster+climate&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=gra... Not a perfect measure of whether this is a reputable article but at least readers should know this isn't from some randos in a basement somewhere.
- miroljub 7mo ago[flagged]
- Sharlin 7mo agoNo, it really does not work like that, for reasons that should be obvious.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- unethical_ban 7mo agoYes, credibility is one component of evaluating conclusions from evidence.
- NotGMan 7mo ago[flagged]
- teamonkey 7mo agoTheir credibility and experience makes it more likely that they will have followed scientific procedures correctly, that their measuring techniques will not have obvious flaws and their findings reflect the evidence. This is not an appeal to authority: the paper will be examined thoroughly by peer reviewers and likely by academics across the world, in part because of their credibility. That will take time. Meanwhile it should be taken seriously.
- draw_down 7mo agoOops you forgot this part: > Here we account for the influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. Whoops! Whoopsies! Oopsy doodles!
- xyzelement 7mo agoAs an observation, global warming has completely disappeared as social concern in the last few years. Great that someone is still publishing research, but it seems like being a climate scientist has gone from hottest field to nobody cares.
- hackyhacky 7mo agoNothing like fascism and war to take your mind off the environment.
- Octoth0rpe 7mo agoBecause of how policies are grouped together in many countries (particularly the US), the fight against fascism is necessarily concurrent with the fight against climate change.
- xyzelement 7mo ago[flagged]
- zoklet-enjoyer 7mo agoMore or less normal? Look around you. Look outside of your community. Does this seem normal?
- hackyhacky 7mo ago> the world would end the day Trump became president Have you been reading the news lately? Things are not going well.
- xyzelement 7mo agoI've been reading the news accross views and geographies for a looong time. Many people would say things are going great with a lot of long-standing problems getting solved.
- ck2 7mo agoBasically the oceans are way way way too hot which is melting even the most ancient ice and that can never be undone in our lifetimes (well maybe from a nuclear winter) USA is about to have another El Nino summer which will be scorching from overheating oceans But don't worry, USA is solving the problem by Biden banning cheap electric cars and Trump ending electric subsidies entirely, forcing coal plants to restart
- leetharris 7mo ago[flagged]
- monkaiju 7mo agoThankfully none of the serious solutions are nation-specific. Also they do not emit "orders of magnitude more" https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025 https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
- progval 7mo ago> India and China burn orders of magnitude more They don't, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#Fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... > and they aren't going to slow down. China already did, according to https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/11/china-co2-emissions-flat-or-falling-for-past-18-months-analysis-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/11/china-co2-emis...
- captainbland 7mo agoToday: this Tomorrow: trillions invested in new technology for simulating human torture accurately at the molecular level, requiring twice the level of all consumer electricity use on the planet. Advocates claim "all use is valid".
- inetknght 7mo agoArguments against call it immoral, while counter-arguments call it "legitimate". Meanwhile, three-time Billionaire claims he's solved the problem using soylent green while fifty thousand people react in awe at the live presentation.
- FrustratedMonky 7mo agoIs this a reference to "Torment Nexus"?
- inciampati 7mo agoI prefer to think of it as a reference in the Torment Nexus.
- captainbland 7mo agoWhile I'm sure that subconsciously influenced what I wrote, it was more a general jab at the sentiment that negative externalities can always be justified so long as a technology has users who prefer to use it.
- FrustratedMonky 7mo agoYeah. Did you see article that they made a brain organoid (actual brain neurons on a chip) play DOOM?. What are those neurons experiencing?
- layer8 7mo ago> What are those neurons experiencing? Doom. (Obviously.)
- SV_BubbleTime 7mo ago[flagged]
- epistasis 7mo agoYour comment seems to assume that this is somehow counter to the modeling; what models in particular do you think this contradicts?
- aqme28 7mo agoModeling is hard. Some did, some didn’t. Generally we have historically underestimated climate change.
- devin 7mo agoYou should educate yourself on the phrase: "All models are wrong, but some are useful". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
- 1970-01-01 7mo agoGo ahead and read the first sentence of the paper. It explains why.
- gspr 7mo agoYour attempts at derailing the discourse is not only frustrating – in the case of climate change it might just kill us all. You're a danger.
- FrustratedMonky 7mo agoChill. People need to cope, and humor, sarcasm, etc.. are ok
- devin 7mo agoIt is neither of those things. Their post history is pretty clear.
- throwway120385 7mo agoWe might actually hit the jackpot from The Peripheral.
- FrustratedMonky 7mo agoI don't buy it. I read the Peripheral, and through the whole thing I was always asking "who actually built all the stuff these guys were inheriting"??? Are we assuming robots got to a level where incredible magical worlds could be built to server just a few people?
- TychoCelchuuu 7mo ago[dead]
- giraffe_lady 7mo agoWe built it, before we were intentionally allowed to die of climate change and flu pandemics. If you sell your labor for money you are building it, there is no plan for you afterwards.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago> Are we assuming robots got to a level where incredible magical worlds could be built to server just a few people? Given the other tech in the novel, that seems highly likely. It includes nanobot "assemblers".
- giraffe_lady 7mo agoIt really does seem to be the goal.
- TimorousBestie 7mo agoA weird title. The content of the paper is summed up as “everyone felt like the climate changed after 2015, the data up to 2023 was inconclusive; we finally have enough to prove it with 95% confidence.” EDIT: The title is weird because it’s generic to the point of being unsearchable. I’m not disputing the facts of the paper.
- epistasis 7mo agoIt's one of those titles that makes perfect sense to a scientist working in the field, but which is quite inscrutable to those not working in the field. (Just like the titles of most HN submissions) Since manuscripts are written for those working in the field, and need to be, it's one of the big challenges of science communication. In the past these articles would be in a library and mailed out to the subscribing specialists, which minimized the confusion. In the age of the internet, even our dogs can read highly specialized scientific pre-prints that haven't even been peer reviewed yet.
- guenthert 7mo ago"inconclusive" only regarding the significant acceleration. The warming part wasn't in question. The actual abstract reads: "Recent record-hot years have caused a discussion whether global warming has accelerated, but previous analysis found that acceleration has not yet reached a 95% confidence level given the natural temperature variability. Here we account for the influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted data show that after 2015, global temperature rose significantly faster than in any previous 10-year period since 1945."
- TimorousBestie 7mo agoMan, I get definition-lawyered a lot on HN but this is something special.
- tjnaylor 7mo agoThe title is a fair summary. The paper isn't simply confirming the "climate changed [warmed]" since 2015. The paper is showing the climate warmed the past decade twice as fast as it had between the decades from 1960-2000. "This 58 indicates that the warming trend has been accelerating from a rate of 0.15 – 0.2 ◦C 59 per decade during 1980-2000, to more than twice that rate [0.4°C] most recently."
- pluc 7mo agoYeah but now you can ask a question instead of providing a search term!
- azan_ 7mo agoIt's not a great idea to blame AI, which is small addition to the global emissions. I suggest focusing on what's really important, not what's currently trendy.
- topaz0 7mo agoThis is like saying in 1910 "cars are a tiny fraction of our emissions, you should be focusing on the steam train and the woodstove"
- azan_ 7mo agoNo, it's not. The comparison makes zero sense and is fuelled by social-media sentiment, not facts.
- topaz0 7mo agoIt's already using on the order of 1% of global energy, and there are active plans to expand that by a factor of 5 or more in the near future. That's as a percentage of current energy use, which is already way higher than it should be, so if all other sectors reduced theirs to sustainable levels it would be like 5% now and 25% planned. It's a bit more complicated when you account for renewable energy, but certainly adding consumption is not helping there. Now that buildout may not happen as planned/advertised, but I think it's very reasonable to worry about new things that make the situation worse even by a few percentage points when you need to make things better overall by much more than that to make progress. Of course this is not to say that we shouldn't be worried about/working on other sources of consumption that are currently a larger fraction -- we need to keep doing that too. But giving a pass to hundreds of TWh from AI junk in favor of trying to reduce the thousands of TWh from some other source by a couple hundred is a good way to erase the gains that you make over there.
- spwa4 7mo agoWas anybody really expecting anything else? The only factor that would matter is if oil producing nations STOP producing oil entirely. Not reduce, not limit, stop. Same with coal and other small contributions. Note: limiting exports, CO2 limits in oil customer states, ... all of that just doesn't matter. And, obviously, this is just not on the table. There is no way these nations will make such a decision because what it would mean for their economy. Plus it wouldn't matter unless they all make that decision.
- ncr100 7mo agoYour initial question is a fantastic thought focus. The intention of the United States and the world is divided. We love our money too much to care about the Next generation, In my view.
- spwa4 7mo ago"The intention of the United States and the world is divided." What do you mean? The intention of the United States is maximizing oil use. The intention of the World is maximizing oil use. Even EU countries are panicking over maybe being forced to use just a little less oil. So where do you see this difference? Clearly, the entire world agrees: global warming is less serious than higher prices on oil. Much less important.
- briansm 7mo agoPeople are losing their minds at the prospect of oil availability dropping just 20% for a month or two with the closing of the Strait of Hormuz - even just this could collapse the global economy. So yea, no way is oil stopping or even dipping slightly any time soon.
- DrBazza 7mo agoAnd when we've somehow stopped using fossil fuels for electricity, what next? Guess what a lot of plastic is made from? And how planes fly, and boats move? And there's lots of countries that aren't at 'Western' living standards. So we have decades of those countries building and emissions to come. Plus of course there's a lag in CO2 emissions to climate change. The next couple of decades are going to get a lot worse, before they get better, if at all. https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas...
- pjmlp 7mo agoWhat a surprise with all the wars going on, and AI depleting Earth resources, what a change from about the pandemic era when everyone was into paper straws and cups and promising to be a better person, because that is what was going to change anything.
- unglaublich 7mo agoAI is nothing compared to automobiles and heating, construction and shipping. It uses a bunch of energy, but not so much compared to moving yourself around in a car of plane.
- pjmlp 7mo agoA bunch of energy, water and Earth rare materials, nothing really to care about.
- bluGill 7mo agoIt is also much more likely to use renewable energy. Data centers look at the local energy mix when planning where to put one. (though they are perhaps taking energy that would otherwise be shipped to a different city/state)
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- valiant55 7mo agoThis is definitely not always the case[0], let's not pretend these companies give a fuck about the communities in which their data centers operate[1]. 0: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk-xai-datacenter-memphis https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk... 1: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/10/09/texas-hood-county-crypto-noise-incorporate-city/ https://www.texastribune.org/2025/10/09/texas-hood-county-cr...
- bluGill 7mo ago
- lapcat 7mo agoSee also from yesterday, "Rising carbon dioxide levels now detected in human blood" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47261968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47261968
- Bombthecat 7mo agoThis is good! Better to be numb and stupid when we die of hunger on the streets
- luxuryballs 7mo agoIt’s these dang seltzer waters I can’t quit them!
- ndiddy 7mo agoI don't see the US doing anything about global warming regardless of who's in charge. China has won on manufacturing cheap wind/solar energy and is scaling up their cheap EV manufacturing right now. Trump is definitely accelerating China's future dominance by completely forgoing anything related to developing or manufacturing green tech in favor of fossil fuels, but I think both parties would rather get into a conflict with China than cooperate with them and purchase their energy tech to deploy domestically. Solar and wind power are already far cheaper than coal or natural gas, and are much quicker to deploy, but the US government would much rather prop up the domestic fossil fuel industry than cooperate with China on renewables because fossil fuel is where all the incumbent money is.
- shadowgovt 7mo agoAt this point, one possible 50-years projection of outcomes here is that China eventually declares the US an existential threat to humanity's continued existence and deploys economic or military power to stop it unless the US gets its act together on carbon emissions. Can't build those AI datacenters if China has physically embargoed the chips. That may seem extreme, but the Chinese culture is more collectivist than its Western counterparts and (perhaps unlike the US culture) can recognize a threat as complicated as "This entire nation's set of rules they treat the universe by threatens humanity existentially" even when said nation can't recognize it in themselves. Plus, India is hit hard and fast by climate change in the short run so China already has an ally in their backyard who would support them doing something about polluters.
- vixen99 7mo agoAnd this? https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/china https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/china
- shadowgovt 7mo agoCorrect; they are currently a major polluter. They are also cognizant of that issue and taking concrete steps to transition their power dependency off of fossil fuel. I don't think the same can be said for the United States, sadly. China currently emits per-capita co2 about half that of the US.
- lambdaone 7mo agoThis is terrifying, and those fighting against stopping or reducing global warming should at this point be regarded as hostis humani generis
- jpadkins 7mo ago[flagged]
- lambdaone 7mo agoAmazing hyperbole, and a deflection from the real issues. You can fight against wrongdoing without actually advocating people being killed. Right now, climate change is an undeniable fact, its causes well-known, and the evidence for it now part of everyday life. If anything, its effects have been underestimated to date, and 'non-believers' in it are either fools or acting based on morally repugnant principles.
- jpadkins 7mo agohostis humani generis is latin for "enemies of mankind". It is not hyperbole, it is not deflection. The GP is advocating that everyone is compelled to attack or persecute anyone who is "fighting against stopping or reducing global warming".
- queenkjuul 7mo agoThey didn't say "kill," you did
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7mo ago"hostis humani generis" implies "subject to violence and execution by anyone" (Wikipedia). The label has historically been a term/label for pirates, with the penalty for those caught generally being death. So yeah, they did suggest death for those people.
- 7mo ago
- ecshafer 7mo agoThe issue with any significant steps to curbing the climate or environmental impacts with laws or treaties is always: But the economy. It creates an incentive where someone doesn't follow the laws, burn everything they can to accelerate their economy, and take industry from other countries. My proposal is thus: create a supranational treaty organization with a EPA like authority(or whatever the European equivalent is) that can inspect and fine companies in member organizations. Then any treaty members agree with the following conditions: The EPA can enter their nation freely, inspect, and are able to fine companies that break rules. Members send delegates to a session to create new rules democratically. And most importantly all members act as a cartel, imposing large tariffs on any country outside of the organization. So if US was in and Mexico was out, you couldn't just pollute in Mexico, without some massive tariff. This creates an economic incentive to be in and clean.
- WarmWash 7mo agoThe real problem is that everyone has to sacrifice, but half the people think there is no problem and then other half thinks only corporations need to sacrifice (and are unwilling to sacrifice themselves).
- ComputerGuru 7mo agoNo one thinks only corporations have to sacrifice; they do think that it's folly to ask individual members of society, who on average contribute the smallest overall proportion to global warming, to sacrifice while corporations continue to squander away our natural resources. And the pareto principle agrees.
- kibwen 7mo agoNo, that's insufficient. Yes, corporations that cause the most warming will need to be curtailed if we're to survive. But those corporations are in the act externalizing costs. Once you force them to internalize those costs, the visible costs to consumers will increase, meaning less consumption overall. If you can't convince those consumers that less consumption is a good thing if it's in the service of saving the biosphere, then they're going to rebel against your efforts to properly force companies to account for the environmental costs of their products. There's no either/or here, it's the responsibility of both corporations and individuals.
- tsoukase 7mo agoThis ship has sailed, warming is irreversible. Developing nations mainly in Asia (China, India etc) are, well, developing and burn like there is no tomorrow. But they are not to blame. It is their turn to live nicely, like the US and Europe did for decades. Nobody can remove this right from them.
- hskalin 7mo agoNo only that, but per capita emissions of developed countries still remains higher. For example I found that US/Russia have 6x per capita emissions compared to India
- padjo 7mo agoThis perspective is so important. The wealthy in western society are responsible for a massively disproportionate amount of emissions.
- fjwater 7mo agoI don't think that's fair to say; the USA's CO2 emissions per capita are roughly 150% of China's, and the average Canadian emits more than 7x as much as an Indian citizen. The entire EU produces only about half of the USA's total emissions, despite having a population of over 100 million more people.
- O5vYtytb 7mo agoFair? Maybe not, but IMO it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is gross emissions. The effects of a warming planet will not be fair. We should be looking to reduce/eliminate emissions wherever they are happening.
- vrganj 7mo agoChina's actively fixing the problem. [0] Why aren't we? [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/11/china-co2-emissions-flat-or-falling-for-past-18-months-analysis-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/11/china-co2-emis...
- jokoon 7mo agoNothing will change until developed rich countries are starting to hurt. And I don't think it's going to hurt enough in 10 or 20 years. The pain will come slowly, people won't see it. It's like going back to the middle age so slowly, that the population don't realize or feel it. And honestly, wars and trump are making climate concerns so difficult to think about.
- gman83 7mo agoI think it'll start hurting sooner than that. We're already seeing property insurance rates spiking, and in some places it's even impossible to get property insurance. We could well be up for a 2008-level real estate crash. That should get Americans' attention.
- californical 7mo agoI feel like the possible real estate crash could be really interesting. Even different parts of a city would likely be affected very differently, where the edges near the fire risks crash, and the even mildly safer areas boom with high demand
- Frogeman 7mo agoThe majority of pollution is caused by 3rd world/ eastern countries. Do you want to go to war with China to enforce an environmentalist agenda?
- paganel 7mo agoIt's also closely correlated with this not very happy decision put in place in 2020 [1]: > On 1 January 2020, a new limit on the sulphur content in the fuel oil used on board ships came into force, marking a significant milestone to improve air quality, preserve the environment and protect human health.
- bobson381 7mo agowell we can stick planes in the upper atmosphere and sprinkle sulfur around to get some cooling, but it'll get worse before then. gonna be interesting.
- taeric 7mo agoWasn't this attributed pretty much directly to cleaning of the shipping lanes? With more direct sunlight on the ocean, we are getting warmer oceans. With warmer oceans, we get everything that goes along with that. I didn't see it mentioned in the article, though I did do a very brief read through. And it has been a while since I looked at the shipping lanes thing. I hasten to add this is not to claim we should not have cleaned the shipping lanes. I don't know enough to say on that front. My gut would be that it was still the correct move.
- BurningFrog 7mo agoCoordinating shared sacrifice between 7 billion people was always unlikely to achieve much. There are good workarounds though. I think this is what will/should happen: 1. For now, we can cool Earth artificially. 1 gram of SO₂ in the stratosphere offsets the warming effect of 1 ton of CO₂. It's known to be safe and effective. This company is already doing it: https://makesunsets.com https://makesunsets.com 2. Fossil fuels will be phased out over the next few decades, but CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for several centuries. The practical solution will probably have to be "carbon sequestration", where you capture CO₂ from the air and pump it underground where it stays forever. Such storage is mature tech in the natural gas industry, but the capturing CO₂ tech needs a lot of work.
- sealthedeal 7mo agoOh no!!! The Earth is Earthing!
- epolanski 7mo agoWorld is plagued by consumerism and gaslighted into over focusing on relatively smaller energy savings instead of overall habits. I have friends shoving sausages and burgers into them while ordering countless things on Amazon every day, yet they think they help by buying a hybrid car, couldn't even be bothered by using public transport even though it's faster and cheaper where they live, because "too many people, dirty". Go figure.
- bakies 7mo agoAll my friends drive pick up trucks to the office and drink all their water from 12 oz single use plastic bottles. The hybrids were too complicated or something.
- cryptoegorophy 7mo agoIf it is too late to do anything, why should we care? We can’t reverse it, so why should we care about slow down?
- wing-_-nuts 7mo agoThis is like punching a hole in your wall and saying 'there's already a hole, why shouldn't I just demolish my entire house'
- cryptoegorophy 7mo agoNo. It is like punching a hole in your wall when something else punches the wall daily with increased rate. No matter what you do at this point the wall will be destroyed.
- kergonath 7mo agoWe must limit the problem, then adapt and mitigate. Some damage is irreversible, it does not mean that it’s a good idea to stop trying to understand what will happen. You don’t stop weather forecasts when a hurricane touches land just because it’s going to happen anyway. Reality is not binary. There’s a whole spectrum of situations between "everything gets back to normal and all is well" (which was never on the cards after the 1980s) and "all humans die within a century". And the nuances in between still affect billions of people.
- cryptoegorophy 7mo agoFrom what I understood we are closer to the “all humans will die within a century” and if this is the case then what’s the point of doing anything? Does it matter if our effort just delays the “all humans will die” by let say 50 years? Radical change we need to do if we are serious is going back to caves. 0 consumption. I highly doubt anyone will do that.
- code4life 7mo agoWhere i live, we had the coldest winter on record in 30 years. I’m going with that.
- throwway120385 7mo agoThe jetstream which prevents the polar vortex from migrating south is getting weaker.
- cetinsert 7mo agoSure.
- therealdrag0 7mo agoYou don’t think weather is explainable, or?
- bakies 7mo agoDismissing thousands of years of global temperature averages because you had a cold winter, very smart.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- pstuart 7mo agoThere's plenty of money to be made mitigating this, unfortunately, there's plenty of money currently being made causing this, and those moneymakers are the ones in power and are happy to kill the planet as long as they themselves can live in luxury while it happens.
- cetinsert 7mo agoGood! Won't change a thing in how I live my life!
- maest 7mo agoYou must be American.
- small_model 7mo ago[flagged]
- jacquesm 7mo agoAre you going for a record in bad takes? Your account is a month old and yet I recognize it on sight for the bs takes. Try a bit harder please.
- small_model 7mo agoMy point is until it's peer reviewed it offers no value. Do you know how many papers are published that don't pass peer review?
- maest 7mo agoThere is a vast peer reviewed literature that points in the same direction. Getting hung up on how this has not yet been peer reviewed is just bizarre.
- alansaber 7mo agoOnly good news these days eh
- tlogan 7mo agoThe sad reality is that much of the climate work done in the West does not matter because China, India, and the rest of the world are not involved.
- kergonath 7mo agoThat is completely wrong. First, the West and particularly the US are still well ahead of China regarding both historical total emissions and per-capita annual emissions. And regardless of what China does in the future we still need to get our acts together domestically. Also, China is aggressively pushing low-carbon energy sources on all fronts. Where they are now is not necessarily an indication of where they will be in a decade or two. A large part of their emissions is the result of stuff they make for us. If we are serious about climate policy, we have to set up trade barriers proportional to greenhouse gases emissions to limit this effect. These policies must be informed by climate science. Finally, regardless of what the rest of the world does, mitigation depends only on us and how well prepared we are. Really, there is absolutely no scenario in which it is not a good idea to understand what the hell is going on with our climate.
- tlogan 7mo agoIf the United States stopped polluting 100%, global pollution would decrease by only about 10%. Probably even less, because much of that pollution would simply be exported through outsourcing. So what happens next?
- hnfong 7mo agoYou're arguing a hypothetical where the US stopped all emissions 100% and the rest of the world isn't doing anything. The reality is that China is aggressively pushing solar and electric vehicles, and the West is complaining about it. Meanwhile the current US president's maxim is "drill baby drill". I mean, if we don't need to stick to facts, let's discuss the hypothetical scenario where I am a powerful wizard, and when I say a magic word and I can halve the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? OK, now where's my Nobel peace prize dammit??
- pvaldes 7mo agoDropping bombs has accelerated significantly. The last one to leave, turn the light off.
- santiagobasulto 7mo agoWhat! you're saying that my selective recycling of paper and having the plastic caps attached to the bottles didn't work? SHOCKING (only europeans will understand)
- draw_down 7mo ago[dead]
- vrganj 7mo agoIt did work. There's wayyyyyy fewer lose plastic caps littering the streets now. There's more than one aspect to the environment. Plastic pollution and global warming are two separate concerns with separate ways of dealing with them.
- bakies 7mo agoCaps attached is to keep litter down. Plastic needs to stop being manufactured, recycling plastic is not effective and not green.
- storus 7mo agoI am wondering how much did war in Ukraine contribute to it? On one hand, EU is pushing green agenda, on the other hand there are daily oil storage facility explosions evaporating weeks of oil consumption in a few hours.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- blueeon 7mo agoI am in Wuhan, China. This past winter, I was able to bike along the lake all day. In previous winters, due to the cold and strong winds, we rarely exercised by the lake. This has had the biggest impact on me, and it's still a positive one.
- apt-apt-apt-apt 7mo agoIsn't this like a frog in a pot saying, ah the water was cold but now it's warm!, moments before getting cooked?
- blueeon 7mo agoSome say that when encountering difficulties, one should either change them or adapt to them, and be able to distinguish between the two. It is obvious that we cannot change climate change, and even if individuals can do some environmental protection, they still cannot change it.
- apt-apt-apt-apt 7mo agoHumans are actively causing climate change (or greatly contributing to it), so it must be possible to change it to some degree.
- blueeon 7mo agoYes. This can be achieved through strong government policies, sustained investment and publicity, and the participation of the entire population.
- nsxwolf 7mo agoWe already mined enough uranium for 500+ years of energy but people want to bury it in a mountain instead.
- fvv 7mo agoI believe that as soon as nuclear fusion becomes operational (and perhaps AI could be of great help in this regard in the next 5 years), all the carbon storage methods (efficient and otherwise) studied so far could be immediately put into action. In addition to the immediate reduction in the use of fossil fuels for energy production, the scenario could be completely changed in 10 years, water could be desalinated, desertification reversed, etc. Free and unlimited energy would be the solution to everything. The question is whether we will get there before it's too late... and perhaps AI is the answer?
- sulam 7mo agoFWIW my personal assessment is that this acceleration is both real and largely out of our control. Models in the past did not attempt to account for non-anthropogenic carbon emissions, but as we experience further warming, most especially in the Arctic, feedback loops and tipping points mean that this (carbon emissions caused by “natural” processes) are becoming more evident. This is especially sensitive because a large proportion of such emissions are methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas vs CO2, albeit with a much shorter expected effect time once airborne (~12 years). Consider also that warming is not uniform and the polar regions are warming significantly faster (3x) than lower latitudes, making permafrost melting a very significant climate tipping point. The last point I’ll mention is not about non-anthropogenic emissions but rather absorption. The world’s oceans have been a significant absorber of CO2 however that process is sensitive to temperature and is less effective as the planet warms, not to mention acidic ocean waters prevent shell formation, which is a minor but meaningful carbon sink all by itself. I’m of the opinion that direct air capture is the primary escape hatch we have for not hitting 3 or even 4C warming in the next 100-200 years, which mean major dieoffs in warm latitudes, even for humans, due to exceeding wet bulb limits. Oh and roughly 65M of sea level rise as the planet shifts to a snow/ice-free mode.
- pinkmuffinere 7mo agoNo offense, but internet opinions are a dime a dozen -- do you have some special experience / credentials in this area? The arguments you provide are all just the sort of thing that PhD students would study, and incorporate into their models. I'm inclined to believe the experts, but if you _are_ one, and are saying with authority that these effects are missed, that is a much more interesting story.
- hendler 7mo agoThe question is not if the commenter is an expert, but if they are correct. The claim that some models didn't take larger systems into account is also because an expert in the arctic wasn't an expert in oceans. And the expert in biodiversity isn't an expert in food supply chains. Expertise isn't the question. Instead it is - do all of us who are non experts (all of us) have enough expert data to have a systemic understanding of an accelerating trend?
- standeven 7mo agoThe main driver of this is human-produced CO2, and there are meaningful ways to reduce usage. -Switch to an electric vehicle -Migrate from gas appliances (range, furnace, water heater) to electric (induction, heat pumps) -If your power grid isn’t clean, add rooftop or balcony solar -Encourage friends and family to do the same
- nairoz 7mo agoAnd don't fly
- pinkmuffinere 7mo agoMy impression is that flying on a commercial plane produces less CO2 than driving? So if your only options are drive vs fly, I think flying is the correct choice -- is that right?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7mo agoIt's code for "don't travel, especially long distance"... because most people would simply not be willing to make many trips if the trips took as long as the non-flight option would require.
- zaken 7mo agoIt's about 60 mpg per passenger to fly domestically and 90 mpg per passenger to fly internationally. If you have a family of 4, you can think of it as the equivalent of a 15 mpg vehicle for domestic flight and 22 mpg vehicle for international flight. So somewhere in the range of a full-size pickup truck. But -- when you fly, you go very far. If you go on vacation to Hawaii from San Francisco once a year with your family, that's the equivalent of driving a Ford F-150 for 5000 miles. If you visit India or China that's 15,000 Ford F-150 miles! In a single trip, more than what most people drive in an entire year! So you can make a big difference just preferring local vacations instead of remote ones.
- SoftTalker 7mo ago"since 1945"
- bleuchase 7mo agoSurely such a small variable wouldn't change anything about the conclusion. And the method used to calculate global mean surface temperature has never changed either.
- sourcegrift 7mo agoI wish more people understood the severity of the situation but all we ever get is that "New York has been underwater since 2010". Do people really want to take action only after the problem is irreversibly bad!?
- tastyfreeze 7mo agoAdding a lot of weigh in the form of buildings causes land to sink. Apparently 1-2 mm/year on average. How much of "New York has been underwater since 2010" is the land sinking and how much is water rising from climate change?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- fragkakis 7mo agoIsn't it an irony that much of this is in the name of resolving World Problems, such as Global Warming
- lunias 7mo agoIt's my understanding that if you look at a large enough historical time window, although warming has accelerated recently (and we are in part to blame); the Earth is still relatively cool compared to historical averages.
- pcl 7mo agoOf course, the relevant thing for us as a species is whether or not the forecast temperatures are sustainable for us. The planet as a whole will do just fine. We're not going to break the planet. The reason that people bring up the huge anthropogenic spike in temperature is because us anthropoids evolved in the context of a narrow band, and it would seem as though we're moving the global climate out of that band.
- casey2 7mo agoWe aren't hunter gather's, mammals have been around for hundreds of millions of years, and Modern Humans can just use air conditioning tech, most people in india already have a tanki, people will just dig as far as they need to keep their water cool like they already do. Irronically the people most affected are the affluent in places like dubia, if the grid fails and they don't have backups.
- bakies 7mo ago> just use air conditioning tech > the people most affected are the affluent in places like dubia, if the grid fails Just use that noodle a little more. Connect the dots.
- crims0n 7mo agoI don't know why you are getting downvoted, you are absolutely correct: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/1...
- muwtyhg 7mo ago
- madman2890 7mo agoWe need the government to release the alien technology to the public now.
- chinathrow 7mo agoCompanies are setting up constantly running gas turbines for powering AI datacenters - insanity.
- bakies 7mo agoBillionaires just ignore any laws in place to stop it. Fines don't affect them.
- shevy-java 7mo agoI think it is already pretty clear to everyone, save a few scientistis who keep on preaching "we can prevent this!!!" that global warming will continue. I am all for being more energy efficient and what not, but the reality of the situation is that there are factors that are orthogonal to this - as well as a few states that sabotage everyone else. The USA in particular; the US government is by far the biggest troublemaker here. China and India are also troublemakers because they are so huge, although to be fair, China also invested a lot into green energy. We need to adjust strategies here. The "zero emission" strategy failed; it is not practical. Politicians love them because they are in the media, but everyone sees that this strategy is not working. Same with carbon tax - it drove prices up but didn't really help much at all otherwise. We need to stop pursuing strategies that do not work here.
- amelius 7mo ago> We need to stop pursuing strategies that do not work here. We tried top down. Didn't work. We tried bottom up. Didn't work.
- vorticalbox 7mo agoi think the only real strategy is that people take a hit to their standard of living but i don't think anyone will sign up for that.
- yoyohello13 7mo agoThey don’t need to sign up for it. It will happen regardless.
- a456463 7mo agoAnd yet yesterday people were gushing about more toxic waste from Apple!
- r2ob 7mo agoEl Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. it's not about us guys, relax.
- Dumblydorr 7mo agoI’m not sure if this comment was low effort or sarcasm but it certainly doesn’t further discussion per HN guidelines. Those are factors in this analysis that weren’t in all prior analyses, and the confidence levels in this analysis have improved greatly and we know much more certainly that global temps are rising faster now than earlier decades.
- tomgp 7mo agoInterstingly a paper was published today which confirms accelerated warming whislt accounting for the effects of natural fluctations (el nino, volcanism and solar radiation etc) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2025GL118804 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2025... >We remove the estimated influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted and thus less “noisy” data show that there has been acceleration with over 98% confidence, with faster warming over the last 10+ years than during any previous decade.
- knowaveragejoe 7mo agoAny excuse to pretend we aren't contributing.
- cataflam 7mo agoYou're getting downvoted because you didn't read the article. It is specifically about cleaning up the data by removing these 3 and showing a clearer picture of acceleration without these 3 factors.
- jjtheblunt 7mo agocuriosity rabbit hole spawned from the article, which got me wondering if the earth axis precession over ~26k years influences ice ages and those cycles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7mo agoThe paper doesn't seem to account for the reduction in sulfur emissions from ships, which was widely reported to be the cause for some of the recent warming?
- moffkalast 7mo agoThe worst thing you can do when you're actively geoengineering is to abruptly stop doing it. So naturally we found a way we were already doing it and cut it immediately to make sure we fuck ourselves as much as possible :) I'm almost convinced it's intentional at this point, the rich are busy building their offbrand vault tec bunkers and starting random wars for no real reason. Longtermism nonsense over the today.
- zahlman 7mo agoAirborne sulfur comes with its own negative environmental consequences, though.
- moffkalast 7mo agoClearly worth the tradeoff of not making the worst catastrophe we've ever faced as a species exponentially worse? I mean hell, piston engined airplanes use leaded fuel and crop dust it over everyone daily, but nobody cares as long as they get to fly them and that's a just minor money saving measure that causes a lot environmental consequences.
- dismalaf 7mo agoLet's be real, this won't be solved by reducing consumption, only carbon capture technology (likely well into the future). It's in no nation's interest, from a game theory perspective, to stunt their own growth to reduce emissions. If the US stops, Russia and China will destroy the west. If China stops, they'll never catch up technologically. Ditto for India. Smaller nations have even less incentive (they'll easily be conquered by neighbours), except for the ones surrounded entirely by friendly nations...
- Invictus0 7mo agoabsolutely nothing can be done about this
- gedy 7mo agoAll those RTO commuters /s
- honkycat 7mo agowe have had several manhattan project in the last 100 years, but they have all been for stuff like: - creating a new addictive form of entertainment we can use to brainwash people - Creating expensive data centers that MAY end up being extremely useful in the long run and never for saving the lives of the people on our planet. Humanity is doomed. We deserve it.
- nancyminusone 7mo agoDon't kid yourself - we closed this one with "Won't Fix" a while ago. "But what about <technology/option>?" No. Full stop. We're not going to do it, and we're not even going to apologize for it either. All we can do now is prepare, not that I've seen a lot on this front either.
- boxedemp 7mo agoWe'll fix it if it become cost effective. It might, but probably won't because if the scale.
- nielsbot 7mo agowe're going to chose the most convenient path. if climate disaster becomes inconvenient, we'll attempt to do something about it. it will be a disaster.
- casey2 7mo agoNothing can be done about it. If you leave it up to the market it will spiral away forever since the cost of dealing with the problem always increases both due to the size of the problem growing and the cost to insure solutions compounding. The "obstructionist" greens understand that the system is flawed and needs a structural change. We don't live in capitalist fairyland, there are baseline energy costs that can't be inflated away and our ability to work on the problem degrades after every disaster.
- BLKNSLVR 7mo agoIn the immortal words of Zapp Brannigan: https://youtu.be/DH_gPGl5FF4 https://youtu.be/DH_gPGl5FF4
- ares623 7mo agoJust need a map for all the bunkers. It's gonna be the future version of open-world video games.
- sph 7mo ago
- htx80nerd 7mo agolet me guess we only have 10 more years, again?
- kai_mac 7mo agocapitalism is going just great
- karol 7mo agoIt's gonna be great, when it's warmer.
- bigattichouse 7mo agoI'm hoping the current oil-war will cause people to re-assess fossil fuel use as expense becomes untenable and we start choosing electric vehicles and renewables.. which will just become "normal" and oil can stick around for synthetic chemistry routes.
- thinkcontext 7mo agoAgreed, it's a big sovereignty issue. Once a solar panel is installed it keeps working for 20+ years. It doesn't get cut off if there's a political problem that interrupts supply.
- 0ckpuppet 7mo agoUntil they ban private jets, why take this seriously?
- PowerElectronix 7mo agoAnd yet the minimum extension of artic ice ever recorded was in 2014. I think there are more effects to account for when extrapolating measured temperatures, mostly made on the ground with cataclismic effects. After all, all the carbon being emitted nowadays was in the biosphere back in the days. Why couldn't it return back to it without the earth becoming inhabitable?
- _aavaa_ 7mo agoThe argument isn’t that the whole earth becomes inhospitable. But that certain regions do, and the rest will have their climate differ drastically. If you live on the coast and the water level rises, your home is inhospitable, even if someone 100mi inland is fine. If you live in a region that usually was 90F in the summer and is now >110F regularly, that’s going to cause problem.
- alexk307 7mo agoThere isn't enough fossil fuels in the ground for us to burn to cause a 20F+ increase in annual summer temperatures globally...
- wewtyflakes 7mo agoTheir argument is not predicated on a 20F+ temp rise globally; their argument is about regions.
- alexk307 7mo agoMost of the increase in local temperatures are overnight lows in the Winter. I'm not sure there's any peer-reviewed mechanism to suggest that daytime Summer highs will increase 20F+ due to greenhouse gases in any parts of the world.
- wewtyflakes 7mo agoSo your argument that this statement by them: "If you live in a region that usually was 90F in the summer and is now >110F regularly, that’s going to cause problem." is hyperbole, then? Okay, going with that, what temperature range would you find credible, as to describe a region that is seeing wilder swings in summer highs?
- dcchambers 7mo agoThere's literally nothing that can be done about it. The people with actual ability to make a change don't care. We're going to have to figure out how to adapt to it. Expect many of the things you love now (seafood, coffee, etc) to be gone within your lifetime.
- n8cpdx 7mo agoThere were voters who could do part of it. Long term, having a US President that doesn’t cancel wind projects, tear up EV subsidies, and promote coal would probably be a difference maker for US emissions. And if the voters were just a bit smarter and not bought into the “China bad” narrative, we might even get proper, nice, affordable EVs in the US.
- tencentshill 7mo agoTrump is still all bluster and words. He can't change the math. I've convinced 2 people to get EVs over ICE this year. They still make economic sense even without federal subsidies (dependent on your home/work situation). Though I don't deny that most OEMs are likely selling at a loss now. It's foolish how foreign wars directly affect how much it costs you to get to work.
- dcchambers 7mo agoHere's the thing: NOTHING we do in the US matters when various Southeast Asian countries are rapidly industrializing. And in the rapid growth phase sustainability and clean energy is not a priority. Then there's a billion and a half people in Africa, also rapidly growing, that may be next.
- bakies 7mo agoOptimistically I'm hoping they're just bridging the gap to produce a ton of solar energy. Can't be upset until they eclipse the USA emissions. Although I'm surprised China doesn't just build nuke plants.
- tantaman 7mo agoHow are people handling this... mentally? and preparedness wise? I can't imagine what the next generation may have to live through.
- casey2 7mo agoMost serious people realized decades ago that you just build a bunch of nuclear powered DAC and require oil companies sequester it. What occurred for last 30 years was a bunch of nonsense political BS and signaling that annoys effective people but they largely ignore.
- mbgerring 7mo agoThe only extant “X-risk” is, and always has been, climate change. “AGI” is science fiction, and actually-existing AI is making climate change harder to deal with, by increasing electricity demand on our fossil-fuel-powered grid with no attendant increase in clean generation. Serious engineers need to stop whatever they’re doing and work on this problem. Also, if you’re hiring: I’m an expert on the U.S. regulated utility industry, demand management, and solar & battery system design, fabrication and deployment.
- patwater10 7mo agoAI is also a useful tool that offers a lot of potential to untangle the permitting thickets that make it difficult to build the infrastructure necessary for the energy transition...
- chneu 7mo agoReally AI is a drop in the bucket compared to other things. Beef and dairy take up an incredible amount of water, land, and energy but we don't complain about that. AI could lead to massive savings and improvements in terms of emissions and climate change. AI could possibly help us out of this. Beef and dairy have no chance of helping us. They'll kill us and the beef nuts will say how they saved 4% of emissions by moving some cows around. Problem solved.
- tdb7893 7mo agoI remember a couple years ago my family was worried about the Amazon burning and I was like "well, you could eat less beef as that's driving a lot of that in Brazil". Turns out they didn't care that much. With how generally hippie my family is it really made me realize how absolutely screwed we are ecologically. There's a reason bird populations are down 30% in my parents' lifetimes (https://www.audubon.org/press-room/us-bird-populations-continue-alarming-decline-new-report-finds https://www.audubon.org/press-room/us-bird-populations-conti...) and I don't think my generation is going to do much better.
- reducesuffering 7mo agoThe only extant “X-risk” is, and always has been, economic collapse due to loss of energy. “Climate Change” is science fiction. /s It amazes me climate change X-riskers scoff at denialists and then do the exact same denialism with AGI. How many leading AI scientists (like climate science) would it take to convince you? "Our great religion, their primitive superstition"[0] [0] https://imgur.com/EELDM6m https://imgur.com/EELDM6m
- shashurup 7mo agoTo be honest, looking at Paleogene climate reconstruction I believe it was the best time in earth history. The way things go shows us that all attempts to resist burning fossils are quite futile. It takes some kind of catastrophe to change people habits. The level of coordination required to achive the goal of lowering emissions looks unachievable to humanity. We have enough time to adapt, adaptation is more reasonable and pragmatic approach.
- adrian_b 7mo agoDuring the Paleogene, the terrestrial plants and animals were very different from those of today. Now on all continents and islands most of the big animals and plants are humans, domestic animals and cultivated plants. The wild animals and plants, even if they are much more varied, with many thousands times more species than the domestic ones, are much smaller in quantities, with only a few kinds that are non-negligible, e.g. ants, termites, rodents. So if we will return in a short time to the Paleogene climate, the main question is how this will affect the few dominant animal species, like chicken, humans, pigs, sheep, cattle, dogs and the main cultivated plants, all of which are not adapted to a Paleogene climate and which will not be able to adapt in such a short time. It is likely that places like Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Siberia, Antarctica might become nicer places where to live and practice agriculture, but the few people who live now there would not welcome invaders coming from places that are no longer habitable.
- shashurup 7mo agoI don't see that everything except Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica was inhabitable. For instance in Eocene the climate remained fairly warm and homogeneous (the most uniform in the Cenozoic). From the equator to the poles, forests grew. Fossilized remains of cypress and sequoia have been found on the Arctic Ellesmere Island, and palms — in Alaska and northern Europe. Equatorial and tropical forests (with palms, fig trees, and sandalwood trees) persisted in Africa, South America, India, and Australia. Eucalypts, sequoias spread widely, and new types of broad‑leaved trees appeared. By the end of the Eocene, rainforests were preserved only in the equatorial parts of South America, Africa, India, and Australia — due to the onset of cooling.
- oxqbldpxo 7mo agoFor a 1000 points: For the turkey, what is Thanksgiving? What is a Black swan?
- gethly 7mo ago[flagged]
- shrubby 7mo agoWe could chop of a quarter of total emissions (directly + rewilding effect) by ending factory animal production and swapping to plant based. Another quarter from the top 5 percent emissions that have practically nothing to do with the wellbeing, but only social comparison mechanisms (envy, herd mentality). But for that humanity would need leaders that are not either idiots, corrupt or spineless and toothless. But hey, I guess that's too much to ask, after all we're talking about unconscious reactive species that's only rumored to have brains or morals.
- xandrius 7mo agoI can barely get some people to do a week off eating red meat, imagine going cold turkey completely. If people haven't revolted about other stuff they definitely will for saving their meat consumption.
- bakies 7mo agoI think lab grown may be getting more promising?
- shrubby 7mo agoPeople are guided by two things. What others do first and after some programming what they're used to or comoulswd or addicted. So not a conscious one. Vietnam war shows us what's possible in terms of collective change. During the Vietnam War, heroin usage among U.S. enlisted men was high, with estimates indicating that 34% to 43% of service members tried the drug, and roughly 10% to 20% were addicted. Nixon was in panic about bringing heroin addicted killers back home. Which they did. And nothing happened. The ones who had issues before leaving to Nam continued using but almost everyone who started there quit and perhaps tried again. With conscious design of the society I don't think there's any habit we can't change should we decide. Just remove the AG subsidies and this will be mostly fixed in no time. We just need to collectively make a connection with the future outcome and Bob's your uncle.
- JackSlateur 7mo agoDo you know what it takes for plants to grow ? fertilizer Do you know how can fertilizer be produced without animals ? Oil
- ben5 7mo agoI think we're well past the point of no return. In my part of the world, this year's weather has been ---- weird. Global warming doesn't mean warming per se - but it does mean unpredictability.
- Aachen 7mo agoMore extreme weather events are a consequence I've seen mentioned before, as the main thing to expect besides a slightly higher average temperature. Is that what you mean by unpredictable?
- renewiltord 7mo agoThis is true, but sometimes I wonder if it is the biggest problem. Fortunately, the local environmental organizations explained to me that while it is a big problem it is much more important that we oppose infill housing and embrace sprawl because the former causes shadows to fall on parks used by underserved minorities. Another thing I have wondered is whether it is ethical to oppose solar power because I don’t like how it looks. Again here the environmentalists have an answer. Yes it is. Recently I was wondering about geothermal power as well, but I learned that the good people of black rock city believe that we should leave no trace and a geothermal plant would leave a trace so it’s far preferable to drive a large number of ICE vehicles to the desert. In general, I think that we probably exaggerate climate change a lot. It’s not a big deal, at least when compared to things like sunshine for a park for underserved minorities.
- Qiu_Zhanxuan 7mo ago[flagged]
- kristopolous 7mo agoAmerican here, you're correct.
- timmg 7mo agohttps://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=CHN~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...
- WindyTree 7mo agoI’ve heard hints of this same thing, the rates are described as quadratic, not linear. The feedback mechanisms I do not know, but it’s something related to a high degree of released ocean warming that was stored.
- beastman82 7mo agothe good news is that nuclear power is coming soon
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- tren_hard 7mo ago[dead]
- corisco 7mo ago[dead]
- vogu66 7mo agoThe article has comments on pubpeer (below) and comments on the pre-print page. https://pubpeer.com/publications/973ABFB81F504E8CB1B50E941CF3F7 https://pubpeer.com/publications/973ABFB81F504E8CB1B50E941CF... The gist of several comments is that the paper does not actually demonstrate an accelerated global warming, but instead an acceleration of anthropogenic global warming, when removing the influence of several natural factors. To be clear, they are not discussing the fact that there is global warming, just saying that currently, we cannot say that global warming has been getting faster after 2010 with statistical certainty.
- corisco 7mo ago[dead]
- djoldman 7mo agoBasically this is the slowest train wreck in history that just won't be stopped. By 2050 (only 24 years away), these cities are projected to flood more than 1/3 of the days of every year: Galveston, Texas Morgan’s Point, Texas Annapolis, Maryland Norfolk, Virginia Rockport, Texas Bay St. Louis, Mississippi Big cities close behind the above: Miami and Miami Beach, Florida Charleston, South Carolina Atlantic City, New Jersey
- BLKNSLVR 7mo agoCan we hope that the Strait of Hormuz remains essentially blocked to oil exports for an extended amount of time...?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- JohnMakin 7mo agoDon't Look Up
- mrs6969 7mo agoSo some people made up something called ai, made millions of people out of jobs, big scams in market, filled internet with rubbish things, killed people with delusional chatbots, killed the planet, and all to make themselves rich. If I do this, this would have been a crime. Nothing more.
- kulahan 7mo agoLiterally none of those things you wrote are inherently a crime. Granted, maybe that’s the problem, but no - it’s not illegal to get rich, or to use a lot of energy, or to make low quality products.
- mrs6969 7mo agoMaking scams in market by creating fake cycles is. Also killing peple with chatbots; what crime are you looking for?
- kulahan 7mo agoWho, specifically, is killing someone with a chatbot? What is the specific mechanism by which they kill someone? And “creating fake cycles”? What does that even mean?
- yowlingcat 7mo agoI'd be interested to see what things look like on a longer timescale, say 500, 1000, 2000, 7000 years. 80 years of time feels like a long time on a human lifescale, but on a civilizational timescale it is a lot shorter.
- jongjong 7mo agoUnfortunately, I can't accept the climate change narrative because I've been doing my own research. I've lived in multiple countries and came back to visit after decades. I didn't notice any change of temperature. Some years are slightly warmer, some years are slightly cooler but they all feel within the norm from how I can remember. I remember some very bad heat-waves during my childhood which I've never experienced again. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it's MY anecdotal evidence which I gathered first-hand and therefore I can trust. I gathered many data points over several decades. Also I have many alternative narratives which better fit the data. I've identified some critical flaws in climate models related to simulation complexity and also plant evolution, both backed by professional insights and independent scientific observations. So unfortunately, I just don't believe current narratives about climate change. The data doesn't fit that narrative, it fits other narratives much better.
- Kiboneu 7mo agoLet’s not pretend anymore. The uncomfortable truth is that that people in affluent countries don’t want to change their lifestyle. Affluent countries are less affected by global warming than countries responsible for a fraction of global emissions. All the emissions from manufacturing follow suit.
- cbeach 7mo ago[flagged]
- michaelt 7mo agoIs China often moved by western ire?
- xracy 7mo agoSaying "The West has deindustrialised" is incredibly disingenuous. The west's consumerism has driven a race-to-the-bottom for pricing of products in China and India.
- cbeach 7mo agoSeeking the cheapest goods is not a practice that's isolated to Westerners. But destroying our own industrial capacity by government policy is certainly something unique to our countries.
- triceratops 7mo ago> India and China’s contribution to CO2 emissions dwarfs the rest of the world Such brazen, bald-faced lies. How do you sleep at night? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-...
- throwaway290 7mo agodo you know how to read that graph? because this graph you linked exactly shows what you call "lies" is true.
- TacticalCoder 7mo agoThere's a huge hypocrisy in wanting others to pollute less, yet still have a lifestyle that pollutes, but just less than those polluting the most. I personally won't criticize people who take flights to go on vacation (I don't but I accept those who do). But I'll be pointing out the hypocrisy of those who take flights to go on vacation and yet want to micro-manage how others should live their lives so that they'd be "polluting less". Recently some infographic made the round for it showed the act a human can take and the pollution it generates. The reason it circulated a lot is because the first item was highly controversial: "having a kid". And yet there's lots of truth in that. For example my wife and I we got one kid and my wife is now in her forties and we won't have a second one. And I'll never ever take a single lesson about pollution from anyone who had two kids or more. I'm the one who don't fly. I'm the one who only had one kid. And I'm not criticizing other people's lifestyle and choices. But if you open your mouth, I'll point out the hypocrite you are if you either fly or had two kids or more.
- Dansvidania 7mo ago> There's a huge hypocrisy in wanting others to pollute less, yet still have a lifestyle that pollutes, but just less than those polluting the most > And I'll never ever take a single lesson about pollution from anyone who had two kids or more.
- rizpanjwani 7mo agoYou think you’re clever but I don’t see a contradiction here. He is not asking anyone to pollute less and won’t let anyone, especially someone with two kids or more to preach to him.
- JackSlateur 7mo agoThis is a serious question: have you ever consider killing people ?
- notjes 7mo ago> Our data is "approximate" > and there can be "no longer any doubt". Who has written this?
- yanhangyhy 7mo agoThe 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) outline draft has listed making new and significant progress in building a Beautiful China as one of its main objectives, with achieving the carbon peaking target on schedule being a crucial aspect of this goal. In 2020, China made a commitment to the world: to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and strive to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. Last year, China announced its 2035 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for addressing climate change. "The outline draft clearly emphasizes actively and prudently advancing and achieving carbon peaking, proposing that during the 15th Five-Year Plan period, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP will be reduced by 17%, and a preliminary clean, low-carbon, safe, and efficient new energy system will be established. This clear roadmap will help us achieve high-quality 'dual carbon' phase goals and lay a solid foundation for carbon neutrality," said Wei Yuansong, member of the CPPCC National Committee and Director of the Water Pollution Control Laboratory at the Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. from： https://www.news.cn/20260305/7ad8d5ee3a6d4b28b1b62230199f1d0f/c.html https://www.news.cn/20260305/7ad8d5ee3a6d4b28b1b62230199f1d0... this is in china's next 5 year plan
- iLoveOncall 7mo agoChina is already so much ahead in some aspects. I'm literally in the plane flying back from Shanghai right now, where cars have blue plates for petrol cars and green plates for electric ones. Easily 70% of the cars on the road are electric, and basically all of the scooters used for deliveries. The roads are so quiet it's sometimes dangerous because you don't hear the scooters come behind you. They'll undoubtedly be the world leaders in clean energy.
- yanhangyhy 7mo agohttps://youtu.be/WZKbEj39gEw https://youtu.be/WZKbEj39gEw Remind me of this video
- DeepSeaTortoise 7mo agoIsn't Shanghai a Tier 1 city? IMO it's not very representative of the whole country. It's also not like China is an overachieving outlier, but western nations actively having been sabotaged by its leadership at least since 1990 and MUCH MUCH more so since occupy wallstreet. FFS Germany is blowing up its nuclear powerplants on a never before seen record breaking schedule so that a potential successor government cant reactivate them.
- b0ner_t0ner 7mo agoWe're cooked: https://old.reddit.com/r/aivideos/comments/1r4g8xq/prioritities/ https://old.reddit.com/r/aivideos/comments/1r4g8xq/prioritit...
- trakkstar 7mo agoAs a meteorologist with a PhD in solar energy modelling, currently working as a quant developer in the energy industry: I hate to break it to you but I don't think this information is anything new.
- heraldgeezer 7mo ago[flagged]
- Duplicake 7mo agoWe're cooked