6 ms·

Even if we stopped emissions today, Earth will keep warming up for a couple of decades. We’re not at equilibrium temperature for the current CO2 levels.

by adrianN 2mo ago

spwa4 2mo ago
[flagged]
- trescenzi 2mo ago
  The fundamental reason that climate change is an issue is because it happens over timescales which the ecosystem and human society struggle to keep up. No one reasonable believes we can cool from where we're headed, minus some extreme technical approaches, slowing it down is the goal. You don't seem to be denying human caused, or maybe you'd say accelerated, climate change. If we could flip a switch and spread the future warming over a millennium instead of half a century I think everyone would take that deal.
  - spwa4 2mo ago
    > You don't seem to be denying human caused, or maybe you'd say accelerated, climate change. If we could flip a switch and spread the future warming over a millennium instead of half a century I think everyone would take that deal. You know, that's yet another major problem. You're wrong. If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet. Big, highly populated areas of our planet will dry up (Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Ganges valley in India depends significantly on meltwater. That's easily 2 billion people) In the past century, humanity has adapted itself to constant climate change. Any variable that depends on the temperature delta that we depend on will rapidly become problematic if we stop accelerating global warming. Now I live in Europe. I don't expect water problems here (or only temporary). I do however expect problems. I'm not even sure what but there is a fuckton of things that will change back if global warming slows and I highly doubt that will just go down smoothly. I know the theory behind green parties is "let's just stop doing what humanity is doing, and nature will save us". I'm kind of hoping people will realize that that, too, is bullshit. We will need to decide and agree what we want the climate to do, and then make it happen. No matter the choice made, this will have existential consequences for a bunch of places on this planet, and nothing can help that. "Let's stop global warming" is not a solution to ecological problems, and not necessarily a better solution than continuing it. We WILL need to take control of the climate, and that includes dealing with the consequences of whatever decision we make. "stop CO2" is as much a soundbite, and as stupid, as "drill, baby, drill". Thunberg is as problematic as Trump, it's just harder to realize that that is the case. Not that I think there's a chance in hell that global warming will stop or even just slow down whatever we decide to do in the west. Getting China, South Asia, and now more and more India and in the future Africa to agree to not use fossil fuels is not politically feasible. There is no solution there either. So my vote? Aerosols to cool the planet. Which one, and how to spread? TBD. And, yes, that may mean the planet cools again BUT ALSO parts of the planet become uninhabitable. We'll need to agree and deal with that.
    - looperhacks 2mo ago
      > If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet How? Why? Meltwater comes from the temperature difference between summer and winter, how does it have anything to do with this? > Any variable that depends on the temperature delta that we depend on will rapidly become problematic if we stop accelerating global warming. What variable depends on a temperature _delta_? > Now I live in Europe. I don't expect water problems here (or only temporary). We have water problems right now. Agriculture has problems, nuclear reactors have to shut down because of too warm(France) or missing (Romania) water. Dry forests leading to more fire. > I know the theory behind green parties is "let's just stop doing what humanity is doing, and nature will save us". I have never heard of this, I have a hard time that anybody relevant claims this.
    - myrmidon 2mo ago
      > You're wrong. If we did that [spread manmade climate change over next millennium], meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet. What exactly are you talking about here? Meltwater amounts would be roughly the same compared to the last millennium, until glaciers start vanishing (only, in that obviously favorably scenario, in 500ish years instead of this century). I get the impression that you think that manmade climate change is somewhat helpful compensation for natural trending towards ice age. This is not the case at all, because the rate of change is too high. See https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. A (natural) looming ice age is not problematic or threathening at all because that happens so slowly that we get many centuries to act.
    - beej71 2mo ago
      > If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years) If we stopped CO2 emissions today and, like you said, warming would continue unabated for decades, why would the meltwater situation change in 2 years?
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
BurningFrog 2mo ago
One not very well known fact is that even if we stop emissions today, the elevated CO₂ levels will remain for many centuries. They way I think/hope we can fix this is two parts: 1. The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale is to permanently sequester it underground. The oil/gas industry can cheaply deposit huge amounts of gas there. The unsolved problem is extracting enough CO₂ from the atmosphere at reasonable cost. People are working on that, but it will probably be decades before it's is approaching practicality. Which is why we need to do this in the meantime: 2. Spray the stratosphere with SO₂. This reflects some some sunlight and cools the planet. It sounds scary, but is actually safe: https://makesunsets.com/pages/new-faq https://makesunsets.com/pages/new-faq
- michaelbarton 2mo ago
  Only safe if we never stop doing it once we start I think? Otherwise it ends up being worse than if we had not done it in the first place
  - 0x_rs 2mo ago
    It's been reduced before through cracking down on pollution. The results are directly suspected to be responsible for an increase in warming rate, both locally and worldwide. The only way in which it would be necessary to keep releasing it, and in increasingly higher quantities, is only if no other measure or action is taken, which is obviously not the intended goal: its purpose is to make up for the damage already done that will linger for longer than anyone currently alive. The emission reductions in our simulations correspond closely to the emissions reductions realized in East Asia over the period 2010–2023, in magnitude and geographical location. This allows us to put our results in the context of the recent uptick in the observed rate of global mean surface warming. Here, we find that emissions reductions in East Asia have contributed up to 0.05 °C/decade since 2010, explaining a large fraction of the observed increase of 0.06 °C/decade over the same period, after filtering out the effects of interannual variability. (from https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02527-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02527-3)
- ndsipa_pomu 2mo ago
zeristor 2mo ago
I wonder what would happen if there was one of those large volcanic eruptions. There’s been a few over the last few hundred years. If there’s dust and haze it might be a respite, apart from famines due to poor harvests. I guess we’ll find out should it happen. We’re in a more precarious state, and these random natural events could be very tricky.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago
  >. If there’s dust and haze it might be a respite, apart from famines due to poor harvests. When the Canada haze hit here the temp dropped from "forecasted 90s" to "pleasant 70s" and not only were the temps lower but there was no direct sun beating down. Me and the boys were expecting some outdoor work we had planned to suck and take a long time. We ran through it in no time flat.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    You're breathing that 'haze' the whole time though. That can't be good.
- euroderf 2mo ago
  AFAIK, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo(sp?) made it quite a bit harder to build the case for warming. What about the effects of that big kaboom in the Pacific a year or two ago ?
- LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago
  Already forgotten about that lil' burpie at the end of 2021 to the beginning of 2022? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga-Hunga_Ha'apai_eruption_and_tsunami#Climate_and_atmospheric_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga-Hunga_Ha'apai... Aug 02, 2022: https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/ https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unpreceden... December 20, 2023: https://research.noaa.gov/hunga-tonga-2022-eruption/ https://research.noaa.gov/hunga-tonga-2022-eruption/ 20 May 2025: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01056-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01056-2 I'd say ongoing...

Even if we stopped emissions today, Earth will keep warming up for a couple of decades. We’re not at equilibrium temperature for the current CO2 levels.

by adrianN 2mo ago

Even if we stopped emissions today, Earth will keep warming up for a couple of decades. We’re not at equilibrium temperature for the current CO2 levels.

spwa4 2mo ago

[flagged]

trescenzi 2mo ago
The fundamental reason that climate change is an issue is because it happens over timescales which the ecosystem and human society struggle to keep up. No one reasonable believes we can cool from where we're headed, minus some extreme technical approaches, slowing it down is the goal. You don't seem to be denying human caused, or maybe you'd say accelerated, climate change. If we could flip a switch and spread the future warming over a millennium instead of half a century I think everyone would take that deal.
- spwa4 2mo ago
  > You don't seem to be denying human caused, or maybe you'd say accelerated, climate change. If we could flip a switch and spread the future warming over a millennium instead of half a century I think everyone would take that deal. You know, that's yet another major problem. You're wrong. If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet. Big, highly populated areas of our planet will dry up (Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Ganges valley in India depends significantly on meltwater. That's easily 2 billion people) In the past century, humanity has adapted itself to constant climate change. Any variable that depends on the temperature delta that we depend on will rapidly become problematic if we stop accelerating global warming. Now I live in Europe. I don't expect water problems here (or only temporary). I do however expect problems. I'm not even sure what but there is a fuckton of things that will change back if global warming slows and I highly doubt that will just go down smoothly. I know the theory behind green parties is "let's just stop doing what humanity is doing, and nature will save us". I'm kind of hoping people will realize that that, too, is bullshit. We will need to decide and agree what we want the climate to do, and then make it happen. No matter the choice made, this will have existential consequences for a bunch of places on this planet, and nothing can help that. "Let's stop global warming" is not a solution to ecological problems, and not necessarily a better solution than continuing it. We WILL need to take control of the climate, and that includes dealing with the consequences of whatever decision we make. "stop CO2" is as much a soundbite, and as stupid, as "drill, baby, drill". Thunberg is as problematic as Trump, it's just harder to realize that that is the case. Not that I think there's a chance in hell that global warming will stop or even just slow down whatever we decide to do in the west. Getting China, South Asia, and now more and more India and in the future Africa to agree to not use fossil fuels is not politically feasible. There is no solution there either. So my vote? Aerosols to cool the planet. Which one, and how to spread? TBD. And, yes, that may mean the planet cools again BUT ALSO parts of the planet become uninhabitable. We'll need to agree and deal with that.
  - looperhacks 2mo ago
    > If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet How? Why? Meltwater comes from the temperature difference between summer and winter, how does it have anything to do with this? > Any variable that depends on the temperature delta that we depend on will rapidly become problematic if we stop accelerating global warming. What variable depends on a temperature _delta_? > Now I live in Europe. I don't expect water problems here (or only temporary). We have water problems right now. Agriculture has problems, nuclear reactors have to shut down because of too warm(France) or missing (Romania) water. Dry forests leading to more fire. > I know the theory behind green parties is "let's just stop doing what humanity is doing, and nature will save us". I have never heard of this, I have a hard time that anybody relevant claims this.
  - myrmidon 2mo ago
    > You're wrong. If we did that [spread manmade climate change over next millennium], meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet. What exactly are you talking about here? Meltwater amounts would be roughly the same compared to the last millennium, until glaciers start vanishing (only, in that obviously favorably scenario, in 500ish years instead of this century). I get the impression that you think that manmade climate change is somewhat helpful compensation for natural trending towards ice age. This is not the case at all, because the rate of change is too high. See https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. A (natural) looming ice age is not problematic or threathening at all because that happens so slowly that we get many centuries to act.
  - beej71 2mo ago
    > If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years) If we stopped CO2 emissions today and, like you said, warming would continue unabated for decades, why would the meltwater situation change in 2 years?
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

BurningFrog 2mo ago

One not very well known fact is that even if we stop emissions today, the elevated CO₂ levels will remain for many centuries. They way I think/hope we can fix this is two parts: 1. The only way I think you can get rid of the excess CO₂ at scale is to permanently sequester it underground. The oil/gas industry can cheaply deposit huge amounts of gas there. The unsolved problem is extracting enough CO₂ from the atmosphere at reasonable cost. People are working on that, but it will probably be decades before it's is approaching practicality. Which is why we need to do this in the meantime: 2. Spray the stratosphere with SO₂. This reflects some some sunlight and cools the planet. It sounds scary, but is actually safe: https://makesunsets.com/pages/new-faq https://makesunsets.com/pages/new-faq

michaelbarton 2mo ago
Only safe if we never stop doing it once we start I think? Otherwise it ends up being worse than if we had not done it in the first place
- 0x_rs 2mo ago
  It's been reduced before through cracking down on pollution. The results are directly suspected to be responsible for an increase in warming rate, both locally and worldwide. The only way in which it would be necessary to keep releasing it, and in increasingly higher quantities, is only if no other measure or action is taken, which is obviously not the intended goal: its purpose is to make up for the damage already done that will linger for longer than anyone currently alive. The emission reductions in our simulations correspond closely to the emissions reductions realized in East Asia over the period 2010–2023, in magnitude and geographical location. This allows us to put our results in the context of the recent uptick in the observed rate of global mean surface warming. Here, we find that emissions reductions in East Asia have contributed up to 0.05 °C/decade since 2010, explaining a large fraction of the observed increase of 0.06 °C/decade over the same period, after filtering out the effects of interannual variability. (from https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02527-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02527-3)
ndsipa_pomu 2mo ago

zeristor 2mo ago

I wonder what would happen if there was one of those large volcanic eruptions. There’s been a few over the last few hundred years. If there’s dust and haze it might be a respite, apart from famines due to poor harvests. I guess we’ll find out should it happen. We’re in a more precarious state, and these random natural events could be very tricky.

cucumber3732842 2mo ago
>. If there’s dust and haze it might be a respite, apart from famines due to poor harvests. When the Canada haze hit here the temp dropped from "forecasted 90s" to "pleasant 70s" and not only were the temps lower but there was no direct sun beating down. Me and the boys were expecting some outdoor work we had planned to suck and take a long time. We ran through it in no time flat.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  You're breathing that 'haze' the whole time though. That can't be good.
euroderf 2mo ago
AFAIK, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo(sp?) made it quite a bit harder to build the case for warming. What about the effects of that big kaboom in the Pacific a year or two ago ?
LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago
Already forgotten about that lil' burpie at the end of 2021 to the beginning of 2022? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga-Hunga_Ha'apai_eruption_and_tsunami#Climate_and_atmospheric_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga-Hunga_Ha'apai... Aug 02, 2022: https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/ https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unpreceden... December 20, 2023: https://research.noaa.gov/hunga-tonga-2022-eruption/ https://research.noaa.gov/hunga-tonga-2022-eruption/ 20 May 2025: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01056-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01056-2 I'd say ongoing...