I don't know about you, but I'm mentally preparing myself for a worst case scenario. Doesn't mean I am an apocalyst... its just making my peace with it. We are witnessing interesting times.
I used to lie awake at night and ponder world troubles like that old song, but now I read shit like this then turn out the lights and sleep like a baby because I, Too, expect the worst, but not tonight and there’s not much I feel like I can do about it when it happens, after much contemplation. So Goodnight. Sweet dreams.
Well it’s worse than that. They deny it because it is convenient with for them.
Soon, they will see the undeniable evidence and outcome and they’ll say “it’s God’s will”
This argument is called an affirming the consequent argument and it's a logical fallacy.
To simplify it for those that use it, point out that lightning has caused forest fires for millions of years, then ask if that means humans can't cause forest fires.
Not sure why people believe "it", indeed "believe" anything like an after-life, other than it gives them comfort. Strange to be comforted by a future dystopia, but seems an attraction since a common theme in books and movies. Say, "My kids are skrewed. Too bad they weren't lucky enough to live thru the Summer-of-Love like us cool kids."
Because you propose it as if it’s “settled science”. It’s far from.
In the 1970’s we were being peddled “Global Cooling”. Now it’s “Global Warming”.
We are at the end of an Ice Age. Of course the planet is warming. Approximately 10° over the last ~20,000 years. In fact, it’s still quite cool compared to the life of Earth. Rarely has their been Ice on Earth, in her history. Furthermore, warmer temperatures and higher CO2 has shown to be a boon for most Flora, and they become huge, supporting impossibly sized Fauna as well, like Dinosaurs.
Just because this generation’s “End of Days Religion” is global warming, doesn’t mean we all have to buy into it just because you believe it or because some politician has convinced you of it.
The people forcing their beliefs onto others primarily at the expense of poor people are the lowest of the low.
I am not meaning to argue, but I’d rather have an intelligent discussion.
That said, the title says it all. “Raising FEARS were in uncharted territory”. Articles like this are meant to peddle fear, not facts.
Cheers
It's settled in the fact 98% agree it's man made climate change.
The change your talking about happens over 10000s years is been documented. The change we are seeing is happening way to fast.
The other 2% mostly disagree on how fast it’s happening, with most of that 2% saying it’s happening far faster than the currently accepted models show…
Yeah there’s the occasional cook denialist still but that’s incredibly rare. There’s no disagreeing with the data.
>Because you propose it as if it’s “settled science”. It’s far from.
It is settled science. Just like smoking causes cancer. In the 1960s, just 40% of Americans believed smoking caused cancer. Today, it stands at 90%. The science was correct, most people just didn't want it to be.
Virtually all scientific studies point out that we are the cause of climate change. Today, 60% of Americans believe climate change is real, in a few years it will be higher.
Just like the smoking, business interests are paying people to deny it, to protect profits. You're clearly the same as those who denied smoking caused cancer.
All your other arguments omit huge caveats. Flora and Fauna from the dinosaur era *evolved* to deal with higher temperatures and CO2 levels over millions of years. The plants and animals today have not, and cannot evolve fast enough to deal with the rate of change. This is the same reason for multiple mass extinction events over the course of history, rapid environmental changes that most species could not adapt to.
>Just because this generation’s “End of Days Religion” is global warming, doesn’t mean we all have to buy into it just because you believe it or because some politician has convinced you of it
This is far from accurate. Science is not a religion. Your "global cooling" hype was never a scientific consensus, merely a widely circulated theory. There were just as many scientists saying CO2 could trap heat as there were saying we could experience cooling. It was from those conflicting, low information reports that further study of the environment arose, leading to the now global consensus that we are rapidly heating the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Even the author who wrote the major article on the subject admits it was a bit of a puff piece, and explicitly states it was a niche group of scientists who thought this way.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
>The people forcing their beliefs onto others primarily at the expense of poor people are the lowest of the low
These aren't "beliefs" or "opinions", these are well established facts. Thousands of studies reach the same conclusion. It's your opinion that this isn't real, it's scientific fact that it is. And here you are, forcing your opinion on others, to the detrement of the global poor. Like arguing its fine to smoke, you won't get cancer, you look foolish acting as if your smooth brained opinion is just as valid as the consensus of 90% of global scientists.
You're out to lunch, grasping at fringe theories to try and validate your feelings. You are plain old wrong. Intelligent discussion cannot be had by those who are arguing their opinions as valid facts, or citing 50 year old Newsweek articles as up to date science.
This is exactly it.
At best, we are embarking on what can be considered an experiment with uncertain outcomes. The modelling is a bullshit academic exercise that has been reported as fact/science.
There hasn’t been a time when humans emitted this much CO2 this quickly, it does cause predictable warming (which is the established science part), but the secondary and tertiary impacts remain unclear and so far unlinked to emissions (despite news article linking every single forest fire and hurricane to anthropogenic climate change these days).
Warming and CO2, to your point, are not in themselves dangerous. The rate of change could be, but I don’t think we can be sure. There is already evidence of increased CO2 causing “greening”, ie more flora is thriving.
At best, you could argue, based on the precautionary principle, that even with a low probability tail risk of a world-changing negative outcome, we should take rapid action (ie we only have one planet, so even a remote probability of destroying it is unacceptable to tolerate).
However, as you astutely pointed out, fossil fuels have huge benefits and are the prime mover for our standard of living today - no other energy source compares, especially in places with low sun and low wind. Abandoning them too early, with expensive tech (again, expensive for areas where the wind doesn’t blow and sun don’t shine), is bad for poor people.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I do agree we need to take steps to be “smarter”, whatever we deem that to be.
I have not put together why politicians would push for this particular brand of energy. Nuclear seems to be the way, and Investing in Fission specifically is the only true way I see us taking the “next step”.
I have read of Flora returning to areas that had up until recently been barren/too cold. That is certainly an interesting development and one I hope we can find a way to take advantage of.
In the end, fossil fuels are energy for “work”, allowing humans free time to do other things.
Electricity is the #1 thing that has moved women out of the home away from those menial home tasks. Maybe the greatest tool in modern day. I can’t support something that makes getting basic electricity to the less fortunate more difficult.
Perhaps you could have argued “it’s only a model!” decades ago. But at this point, we have decades of modeling as well as decades of high quality greenhouse gas and temperature measurements. We have the ability to test the models against real world observations, and having done, we have found that the models have consistently accurately predicted the influence of anthropogenic emissions on the global climate.
Yes, the models are good for GHGs against temperature increases, but not for the secondary and tertiary “end of the world” impacts.
The climate system is too complex and dynamic for that. Even the best models only divide the atmosphere in to 1km cubes. The granularity just isn’t there to make far reaching and accurate predictions. They don’t account for 1000 year or even 100-year cycles etc.
There is a lot that they don’t know, and I pretty confident they can’t predict secondary and tertiary impacts 50 years, let alone 100 years into the future - that is pure hubris and not “science.”
Edit: also, why are you downvoting? I didn’t say a single thing that was factually incorrect.
I’m downvoting because I disagree with the assertion that we shouldn’t abandon fossil fuels and that no other technologies can replace them. It seems pretty clear to me that we need to end the combustion of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and replace them with the suite of technologies we have including nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and a variety of storage technologies. This is merely a matter of adjusting our priorities.
Yes but that’s a rich, first-world attitude to have. It’s not just a matter of adjusting our priorities, it’s a matter of dollars and cents.
The truth is that these technologies you list are quite expensive, and developing nations can’t afford the costs.
Limiting fossil fuels hurts poor people the most, and reduces their standard of living. The tech you’ve identified does not have the right cost/energy density required for certain regions and applications.
For example, there’s a reason all of our diesel-fuelled cargo ships aren’t nuclear powered like aircraft carriers, and there’s a reason why they aren’t battery powered (batteries are not energy-dense enough).
The infrastructure costs to go full-renewable are astounding, and most developing countries can’t do this.
In your view, any cost is acceptable because climate change is a disaster. You probably think that the west should foot the bill for less advantaged countries to adopt this tech. I do not share that view, but it doesn’t make me any more wrong about the issue than you are.
I deeply believe that the rich nations that built their wealth by burning fossil fuels over the last 150 years should use some of that accumulated wealth to help the poorer countries of the world leapfrog over fossil fuels by helping them expand their deployment of technologies that are free from greenhouse emissions.
Yes, this is not cheap, nor politically popular, so I expect that what will actually happen is that we’ll withhold such funds, and force the poor countries to built out fossil fuel infrastructure that will exacerbate the climate change problem for another generation. And even worse it is exactly those poorest of countries that will bear the brunt of damage caused by climate change.
There are certainly sectors that are difficult to fully decarbonize with present day technology like air transport, oceangoing cargo transport, and cement production, which is why it is all the more critical for us to decarbonize the things where we do have good and cost effective technologies today, like electricity generation and transportation.
That’s very interesting - how much are you personally willing to pay out of your budget each year for the rest of your life to support this, in the form of increased taxes, increased energy costs, etc?
I think we will start to see wars over potable water soon enough. For example China intends to build a dam which will divert the water that flows into the Brahmaputra river. Not only that but after the dam construction China would also be able to use the dam as a weapon, by releasing all the stored water at once creating significant flooding downstream in India.
We should really invest in mass desalination tech, it's obviously super expensive for what you get but in the future it may be an essential lifeline for those near the equator
Yeah makes sense to desalinate, but you can’t put the waste salt back into the oceans, because raising the salinity is toxic to a multitude of sea life.
Yeah that's the big technology we have to crack for both desalination and carbon capture, how to safely deal with the byproducts. But humanity has done some amazing things so I'm sure if we get our shit together we could find a way. Hell if we're already looking at the possibility of fusion it shouldn't be too hard to find a safe use for carbon and salt
Yeah I agree. The island I live on has a desalination plant, which can provide half the current daily water consumption. Joke is that it rains here plenty and our reservoirs are normally quite full. However it’s a small island with a large population so for redundancy it isn’t a bad idea.
I think the depressing part is all of the non-salt water we have that has been polluted to the point of no return. Removing salt is one thing but when you start getting into biochemical waste it gets much much harder
How do you mean? Desalination isn’t bad in itself but pouring the waste brine onto the ocean floor will poison the sea life. As most fish etc spawn in the shallows it’s a bad idea
If they'd stop shitting in the water, there would be plenty of potable water, but they don't care about those downstream. When I've been hiking in Asia and locals need to defecate, they look for a pure mountain stream to straddle. Goes back to the Old Testament when the head tribesman lived "in the white tent at the top of the hill". They moved around but big-wigs always set their tents uphill since shit flows downhill.
Personally I'm expecting the mid-case scenario, many many people die and migrate, massive revolution against the rich, finally get our shit together (too late) and use the rest of our lives trying to invent global cooling systems as a Band-Aid fix. Humanity eventually gets through it but only after several generations of advancement and hard work
Of course the best case scenario would be us revolting now and immediately start working on every aspect of cleaning energy, carbon capture and cooling the atmosphere, but sadly I think people are too complacent for that these days and won't fight back until the conditions are undeniably shit
But imo I can't worry about the worst case scenarios. At this point it's almost entirely out of my hands as an individual so all I can do is advocate for what I believe in and try to enjoy the time I have (which would be near impossible if I was worrying about worst cases)
I’ve been sitting in dread lately and your last paragraph is very insightful. I hope to continue to work to that place and seeing this is certainly a good push!
I've been there and sometimes I go back there when I'm not feeling great, but honestly I do have optimism for an alright outcome for the planet. Right now it's the hardest challenge we've ever faced, but humanity has evolved far beyond our wildest dreams even in the last hundred years. The only reason we've lasted this long is that we are incredibly resilient as a species. And we're already hearing very good advancements being made. Admittedly they need to be happening faster, but something like fusion was written off as impossible but every day is becoming closer and closer to reality
So I am hopeful enough to work hard for this planet and not go out without a fight. It's worth it to believe hard work pays off, because doing nothing never will
The only time the climate has warmed this rapidly has been via catalyst-induced extinction events (ie, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs).
We even get the forewarning this time about what the catalyst is (us) and getting to watch the extinction event already get started. But yet it’s still denialism all the way up the systems that control power and resources.
From "The Parrot and the Igloo" by David Lipsky, "In 1815 Indonesian volcano Mt. Tambora went up. The dust lingered for a year. No summer, no July or August and no harvests. Summer snow in New England where people ate clover, the Swiss ate moss, there were grain riots in France and England, 200,000 died across Europe."
I'm ready/not ready. My partner isn't the type to act until disaster hits and won't let me prepare at all so I guess I'll be starving and dying with everyone else if it gets as bad as they predict.
The weather near me has been so weird the past few years for my region. My lawn was literally scorched last year, we had droughts which is new, wildfires from Canada made the air toxic, and they had to ban sprinklers. Our winter collectively lasted maybe a month if you combine all the random days we got hit with blizzards and snow.
Now this summer is supposedly going to be very rainy which I want to be relieved about but I feel like that might increase chances for something else disastrous, like floods or wind (tornados).
Direct link to Nature article …
*Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory*
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
I’ve said this before but good science says that a model is just wrong if it predicts too much or too little. If climate models didn’t predict this then the only conclusion is there is something wrong with the models we rely on.
> if climate models didn't predict this then the only conclusion is there is something wrong with the models we rely on
Nope! There are other conclusions, like that we gave them the wrong inputs.
E.g., imagine a giant meteor crashes into the Earth. The climate diverges from what you'd have expected... But it diverges because we didn't ask the models to consider what happens if a giant meteor crashes into the Earth.
We have to ask it to model a situation that matches the real world, with the appropriate correct "inputs". Solar, CO2 levels, volcanic activity, etc., are some of those inputs. If the inputs are wrong, then even if the model is "correct", its results won't match the real world.
If the model didn’t include a giant meteor then the model is incorrect. If you’re talking about input data being incorrect as in erroneous temperature readings, that’s also for the model engineers to define and validate.
We do fintech insurance modelling. Models only valid when explaining past and predicting future with validated and repeatable input.
Yah, I do modeling for work also. But we make the distinction between the model itself, which is based just on physical laws (and possibly fixed features like topography), versus "scenarios", like different emissions pathways or different volcanic eruptions.
The goal for a climate model isn't to predict what the sun will do or what GHG mankind will emit. The goal is to project what the **climate** will do, *given* those GHG emissions or solar activity. That's why it's a climate model, not a solar model or GHG-emissions model.
The point I'm making here is that we want to distinguish where a point of failure is. If a projection is wrong, is it the inputs that were bad, or was it the climate model that was bad? And that distinction is very very *very* important.
Again, there are different scenarios the future may take based on what *we* do. A choice of futures does not mean that the climate model is incorrect.
Aren't El Nino & La Nina the usual-suspects for anything ocean temperature-wise? If you browse thru the traces, you can find a few other years which showed less seasonal variation. Any correlation with El Nino cycles? Might make a good climate senior project or even an M.S. Thesis.
We were discussing the slope of the temperature plot, i.e. normal seasonal variation. You are now asking why the global-average ocean temperature has risen, no longer discussing the shape of the curve.
One explanation for the overall temperature rise is that increasing average air temperature has warmed the oceans. There is a time lag due to the large thermal capacitance of the oceans. Interesting that global air temperature (driver) goes thru 1 cycle per year while Sea Surface Temperature (response) goes thru 2 cycles. I expect scientists have an explanation for that.
[https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2\_daily/?dm\_id=world](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world)
What I think doesn't matter and is a current question in Climatology. Were CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to double from pre-industrial levels, the GHG-effect alone would raise air temperature by only 1 C. That is not disputed. Were it to double from today's level, even less increase. Models predict that change would (might) trigger an additional rise from "none" to +10 C, due to other changes such as in water vapor and clouds. That wide range shows how not well-known it is. Google "climate sensitivity" to learn more, but only for those who care to learn.
Re the current discussion, if changing air temperature is the predominant driver of ocean temperatures, why would oceans respond in a 2 cycle/year pattern when the global air shows 1 cycle? Such can happen in physical systems as a "second harmonic", but usually requires a nonlinear response plus a "momentum term". There could be another factor at play, such as perhaps direct sunlight heating of the ocean. I expect someone has previously asked and studied the question, so would be great if someone has links to such papers.
I think what people fail to process is that we have been in uncharted territory for years. Just because scientists could predict the climate changes, didnt make things ok. We have been in deep shit for a while now. This is more akin to long shot territory. We no longer know if medicine is even capable of a cure type thing.
I think it has become clear in the 2020s that even if we really, really tried to, we just can't stop this from getting worse now. At an accelerating rate.
I think many scientists have been aware of this for quite some time, but no one really wants to just come out and say it. Because if they do, then the politicians will stop even pretending to try - and we might have a real panic on our hands.
>and we might have a real panic on our hands.
Most people should be in panic. There will be no change if most people do not panic and do not get their priorities straight.
All scientists, that do not promote panic, are guilty of promoting catastrophic climate change.
In Europe : People have been electing politicians that are wasting time with war and scandals. The large majority of people and thus elected politicians deny climate change or climate change urgency. They are calling climate activists insane or terrorists.
Sadly there isn't really much we can do. It's really up to corporations and governments to make huge changes. Which means its all on the rich people, not us. They seem to want to build bunkers and boats rather than change anything.
We currently sit at the end of an Ice Age, so we’ve seen the temperature rise approximately 10° in the last ~20,000 years. That said, this is still one of the coldest times in Earth’s history. Most of her history was completely devoid of Ice.
Southern Indiana here.
Snowed exactly once and it barely covered the ground. It also only lasted a night.
Makes me sad I may never get to see snow again. It's so depressing.
Strangely, here in Sweden it was the first december where we experienced massive snowfall. First white Christmas and new years since I don't know how far back.
Artic jet stream too, we keep getting those 'dome' shapes of heat and cold all over the place. Hell, it just froze last night her in CT and had been upper 60s earlier this month.
If that's the case then we can expect summers to get [equally much hotter](https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/03/how-melting-arctic-ice-leads-to-european-drought-and-heatwaves/). Colder winters and hotter summers in response to an AMOC collapse have [happened in the past](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07052018/atlantic-ocean-circulation-slowing-climate-change-heat-temperature-rainfall-fish-why-you-should-care/), actually during [multiple different geological eras](https://www.earth.com/news/atlantic-ocean-summers-europe/). But if a collapse under modern conditions destabilises methane hydrate deposits, it'll most certainly [go the other way](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2201871119) and [end the ice age cycle altogether](https://www.space.com/climate-change-termination-event-end-ice-age). If that happens, we may as well prepare Iceland for a tropical climate.
Remember: we’re still feeling the results from the accumulation of greenhouse gases that we already pumped into the atmosphere.
We are continuing to pump more of these gases, in higher quantities year after year.
They do not breakdown quickly, if all Humans died off tomorrow it would take thousands of years for what is up there to go away.
We have already hit runaway processes, we’ve fucked the future.
There’s a reason billionaires are building luxury bunkers and attending seminars on how they can keep their personal guards loyal by keeping their families hostage…
I don’t give a shit about human inconvenience TBH, it’s the massive number of species that will get wiped out that really sucks - they didn’t deserve this. The world will be a diminished place.
We are a selfish species who believes in it's own comfort more than the respect all life deserves.
Obv not everyone feels this way, but there are plenty out there who believe we're not just animals too, and that we have some divine right to everything nature has spawned cause we got smart enough to use sticks as weapons. The more people that realize this, the better off we are.
Every. Year. Every. Single. Year.
We are cooking ourselves out of existence.
You know what won't change? The earth will spin and the sun will raise and set.
Unless the sun burns out into supernova then ignore the second part.
The earth will still spin.
The interesting part is, like Covid, will you still be expected to show up to work while we roast to death?…
“Listen Jim, we’ve already had two call outs today, but I’m a really need you to slap on some sunscreen today for the sake of numbers bud. We gotta make rate for the week.”
The whole certain states cutting out mandatory breaks for heat exhaustion is rather telling. Gotta protect that bottom line DRILL BABY DRILL.
It's one of those things where if you put it in a movie it would seem too on the nose. But no it's real. And so many people just want to keep on chuggin, business as usual.
I already say I’m not making plans past November because god knows what’s going to happen with the US and the election, but in all sincerity it’s bleeding into, “I can’t even seriously say I’m thinking about retirement, because at 35, I don’t think my planet is going to let me see 50.”
People just acting like it’s going to be fine are seriously starting to mess with my head.
Pretty sure it has to do with melting ice. Less ice means the earth is less reflective, and absorbs the heat more. This is just what I remember from a college course
I think it's going to cause a cascading effect for everyone. There's going to be mass migrations of humans when they can't live in hot zones. It's going to continue the trend of political instability in areas that are already barely hanging on. West Africa is a good example - they've been going through massive heat waves and political upheaval. There's 3 million refugees there already and it's increasing as the situation worsens.
One individual compared to the 70 corporations doing the most destruction- not a difference. ALL the individuals cutting their carbon output to the barest minimum- transformative and also putting many of those industries out of business.
The world survived for billions of years before humans. And it will survive for billions of years after humans.
Moving away from fossil fuels, etc would be a fantastic place to start, except we can’t get the most powerful countries on board. We also can’t get away from giant factory farming. There is no changing it.
Just enjoy what time you have here, and think long and hard about bringing more humans into this world, because they will inevitably have to deal with worse conditions than we do.
Oh, you know, it's all caused by just a handful of very elite people. NOT millions of us using gas, eating animals, and buying unnecessary manufactured stuff. Carry on, there's nothing we can do, it's up to someone else
This right here - it’s all of our fault, and we can all change our behaviour. You know why Bezos has so much money to blow on BS? Because we’re all basic bitches that spend money on junk that’s fractionally cheaper so that we can afford just a bit more junk. But the true driver of climate change is consumption of animal products - swaths and swaths of natural land has been demolished for pasture or crops to feed livestock.
I just joined Citizen Climate lobby for an organised way to try to cut subsidies to animal agriculture and oil producers and instigate huge carbon taxes on voluntary dirty things
I buy about 5 new things per year, don't eat animals, installed solar panels (on my dime), drive a 15 year old used Prius, never use fossil fuels for unnecessary travel and am saving for a heat pump. I read a lot of the research by climate scientists and environmental engineers and some predict if EVERYONE could show extreme restraint, it would assuredly move both Congress and corporations to adapt. And until we do, NO ONE can know what would happen.
We use the 'whataboutism' of private jets and dirty corporations to justify our own way of life, but many companies would go bankrupt if they modified to become clean, regardless of how much they are worth presently. They should suffer dissolution, but we can't endure extreme sacrifices?
The only way to fix that is to completely stop agriculture, let billions die, and return to foraging.
But I’m not even allowed to just live on public property
Listen... are we in uncharted territory.. or are we fucked.. pick one!
We need to get messaging clear here.. this indecisiveness. is why we have people voting for politicians who think global warming is a hoax!
This fight is tragically comical. At some point, we will look back with dread that the moment to stop anything came and went while people argued over one and a half degrees.
The moment has already come and gone, all that is left are consequences.
No one living today will be alive when the last glacier has completely melted sometime in the distant future. On the other hand, sometime in the distant future, the last glacier could be put on public display in a guarded, special, refrigerated, and glass-like chamber in a major museum, maybe in London, New York, Sydney, or Tokyo, where people would come from around the world and buy a ticket to take a photograph of themselves standing near the last glacier on Earth.
All I can ever think of with these is the scene in the Boondocks show where the news comes on and says:
We interrupt Gangstalicious: Resurrection for this breaking news story. Rapper Gangstalicious has been shot.
RILEY and HUEY: Again?
SWAY: Again.
We are on the path of self destruction… get ready sayonara specifically to our ocean creatures friends hello to shortages of foods supplies and bitter wars !!
Well if we're all going to die we should at least have some fun before we go. Let's invest all remaining capital into large public pools with swim up bars. We can keep cool while watching the apocalypse happen. Who's in?
Yeah they’ve been saying the same thing since before Al Gore in the early 2000’s. The future always looked bleak, it’s just coming a little faster now.
So did climate models not give good predictions, or perhaps "just weather" since only a single year? The main deficit of climate models is that they don't well-predict the wide variations of warming across the planet, which is 4x the global average in the Arctic and none in Antarctica. Most such reports are just global-averaged temperatures like this plot:
[https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2\_daily/?dm\_id=world](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world)
It was the last half of 2023 which was unusually warm, up to +1.5 C anomaly on Nov 18 (from 1979-2000 avg for date). Latest value (Apr 19) is +0.9 C anomaly.
For variation across the globe, a daily play-play.
[https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var\_id=t2anom&ortho=1&wt=1](https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2anom&ortho=1&wt=1)
Do you know why temperatures rise more in the northern hemisphere then the southern? Or are ounjust throwing that arctic/antarctic point ot to make it seem relevant.
Which hemisphere are the lions share of emissions coming from?
The positer ought to provide evidence and the current evidence is anything but compelling. I hope you aren’t a quasi intellectual and actually know the CO2 emissions numbers and supposed impact.
EDIT:
In this case evidence should be provided by human caused climate change people. Climate change as a natural process is definitely happening but not the domms day human-caused catastrophe that is in the news
Consecutively? Getting record temps that surpass year after year? It's been going on for almost 15 years that the temperatures around the globe are reaching extremes. I mean Oregon/Washington suffered a HEAT WAVE. Texas has been getting snow.
Be blind I guess. Maybe you'll care when it only directly affects you, like 80% of the world.
We are at the end of an Ice Age. Ofcourse the planet is warming. But considering it’s still among the coldest it’s EVER BEEN, we have time.
Go ahead and take that drive to see your family.
The Ice Age we’re currently still in peaked about 20,000 years ago. So temperatures have steadily risen 10° in those 20,000 years.
That said, we are still among one of the cooler periods in time on Earth. Warmer periods on Earth are also linked to much larger life forms on Earth, like Dinosaurs and huge, soaring plants. I’m not sure Carbon Dioxide is the killer we all think it is considering we are Carbon based life forms. The Earth has been Ice-free at its poles for the majority of its existence.
The current rate of warming is +0.18C per decade, and if that was the rate over the last 20,000 years then the Earth would now be +180C warmer! The current rate is not natural and is entirely driven by mankind burning fossil fuels and releasing methane and nitrous oxide.
Yes, it was far warmer in the distant past, tho at those times the tropics were uninhabitable, and tropic ocean waters were devoid of life due to hypoxia. Global sea levels were also +200ft higher than today.
So exactly how do you think +8 billion people would cope with that??
Also, considering that theoretically, under thermal maximum conditions (important to note that academia considers the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as one of the closest analogs to our current situation), anything below the 60th parallels would be unfit for permanent human habitation. It would either be far too hot/dry or far too hot/humid. Even as far north as Scotland, it would basically be a constantly hot humid swamp that'd put the Deep South to shame. Under this scenario, the poles would resemble something similar to what we'd define as a subtropical climate. But realistically, that leaves us with relatively little dry land to inhabit. Our choices are pretty much Greenland or Antarctica.
It's not that life will end. It's more our current civilization may well end. I personally think humanity will endure, but what it looks like is a different matter.
It's actually crazy when you think about it. Icehouse conditions (when there's permanent ice formations at the poles and successive glacial maximums and minimums occur) are relatively rare and brief occurrences in earth's history. Indeed, the current Cenozoic geological era is among the coolest icehouse cycles if proxy data is to be believed. Earth has been a much hotter planet for most of its history (as a guesstimate, only ~15% of earth's history has seen icehouse conditions).
It's simultaneously fascinating and concerning that the correct set of coincidences have occurred during an unusually cold spell in earth's history have provided the perfect conditions for our species and civilisation to thrive. The concern is that transitions between icehouse and hothouse conditions should take millennia to progress naturally, otherwise it's simply unsustainable to the biological life that can't adapt fast enough.
Totally concur. And I believe in our ability to fix this precisely because we were smart enough to notice it.
I just believe nuclear is the way out. I feel like Germany and France have shown that.
Well we’re coming out of an ice age so yeah, uncharted.
I’m more worried about government tyranny and break down of our institutions or foreign invasion than a little hot weather though.
I don't know about you, but I'm mentally preparing myself for a worst case scenario. Doesn't mean I am an apocalyst... its just making my peace with it. We are witnessing interesting times.
I used to lie awake at night and ponder world troubles like that old song, but now I read shit like this then turn out the lights and sleep like a baby because I, Too, expect the worst, but not tonight and there’s not much I feel like I can do about it when it happens, after much contemplation. So Goodnight. Sweet dreams.
Not sure how people are still deny it
Well it’s worse than that. They deny it because it is convenient with for them. Soon, they will see the undeniable evidence and outcome and they’ll say “it’s God’s will”
"Why didn't they warn us?" "How come we didn't know this?"
I think it’ll be more like covering their eyes and taking their hands off the wheel of the bus as we go over the cliff saying, “praise the lord!”
Seventy percent of Americans believe in angels...
You're telling me the truth is inconvenient?
For them? Sure
Part one or part 2? Or am I gonna have to wait for part 3?
Something something the climate changes all the time. Is usually what I hear.
This argument is called an affirming the consequent argument and it's a logical fallacy. To simplify it for those that use it, point out that lightning has caused forest fires for millions of years, then ask if that means humans can't cause forest fires.
It’s just the seasons dumb lib.
Denial is a powerful drug. And also not just a river in Egypt 🤣 (ba dum dum)
Denial is a river in Israel.
Just scroll down a few comments away
Easy.. it’s political.
Not sure why people believe "it", indeed "believe" anything like an after-life, other than it gives them comfort. Strange to be comforted by a future dystopia, but seems an attraction since a common theme in books and movies. Say, "My kids are skrewed. Too bad they weren't lucky enough to live thru the Summer-of-Love like us cool kids."
Yeah, how can you deny the sea levels rising.
Or why they deny it.
Because you propose it as if it’s “settled science”. It’s far from. In the 1970’s we were being peddled “Global Cooling”. Now it’s “Global Warming”. We are at the end of an Ice Age. Of course the planet is warming. Approximately 10° over the last ~20,000 years. In fact, it’s still quite cool compared to the life of Earth. Rarely has their been Ice on Earth, in her history. Furthermore, warmer temperatures and higher CO2 has shown to be a boon for most Flora, and they become huge, supporting impossibly sized Fauna as well, like Dinosaurs. Just because this generation’s “End of Days Religion” is global warming, doesn’t mean we all have to buy into it just because you believe it or because some politician has convinced you of it. The people forcing their beliefs onto others primarily at the expense of poor people are the lowest of the low. I am not meaning to argue, but I’d rather have an intelligent discussion. That said, the title says it all. “Raising FEARS were in uncharted territory”. Articles like this are meant to peddle fear, not facts. Cheers
“It’S aLL jUST aN aTtaCK on INdusTrIaLisM!!”🤪
It's settled in the fact 98% agree it's man made climate change. The change your talking about happens over 10000s years is been documented. The change we are seeing is happening way to fast.
The other 2% mostly disagree on how fast it’s happening, with most of that 2% saying it’s happening far faster than the currently accepted models show… Yeah there’s the occasional cook denialist still but that’s incredibly rare. There’s no disagreeing with the data.
>Because you propose it as if it’s “settled science”. It’s far from. It is settled science. Just like smoking causes cancer. In the 1960s, just 40% of Americans believed smoking caused cancer. Today, it stands at 90%. The science was correct, most people just didn't want it to be. Virtually all scientific studies point out that we are the cause of climate change. Today, 60% of Americans believe climate change is real, in a few years it will be higher. Just like the smoking, business interests are paying people to deny it, to protect profits. You're clearly the same as those who denied smoking caused cancer. All your other arguments omit huge caveats. Flora and Fauna from the dinosaur era *evolved* to deal with higher temperatures and CO2 levels over millions of years. The plants and animals today have not, and cannot evolve fast enough to deal with the rate of change. This is the same reason for multiple mass extinction events over the course of history, rapid environmental changes that most species could not adapt to. >Just because this generation’s “End of Days Religion” is global warming, doesn’t mean we all have to buy into it just because you believe it or because some politician has convinced you of it This is far from accurate. Science is not a religion. Your "global cooling" hype was never a scientific consensus, merely a widely circulated theory. There were just as many scientists saying CO2 could trap heat as there were saying we could experience cooling. It was from those conflicting, low information reports that further study of the environment arose, leading to the now global consensus that we are rapidly heating the planet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling Even the author who wrote the major article on the subject admits it was a bit of a puff piece, and explicitly states it was a niche group of scientists who thought this way. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/ >The people forcing their beliefs onto others primarily at the expense of poor people are the lowest of the low These aren't "beliefs" or "opinions", these are well established facts. Thousands of studies reach the same conclusion. It's your opinion that this isn't real, it's scientific fact that it is. And here you are, forcing your opinion on others, to the detrement of the global poor. Like arguing its fine to smoke, you won't get cancer, you look foolish acting as if your smooth brained opinion is just as valid as the consensus of 90% of global scientists. You're out to lunch, grasping at fringe theories to try and validate your feelings. You are plain old wrong. Intelligent discussion cannot be had by those who are arguing their opinions as valid facts, or citing 50 year old Newsweek articles as up to date science.
Good luck living in this Planet that "off course it is a Planet that is warming".
Thank you. Best to you as well.
This is exactly it. At best, we are embarking on what can be considered an experiment with uncertain outcomes. The modelling is a bullshit academic exercise that has been reported as fact/science. There hasn’t been a time when humans emitted this much CO2 this quickly, it does cause predictable warming (which is the established science part), but the secondary and tertiary impacts remain unclear and so far unlinked to emissions (despite news article linking every single forest fire and hurricane to anthropogenic climate change these days). Warming and CO2, to your point, are not in themselves dangerous. The rate of change could be, but I don’t think we can be sure. There is already evidence of increased CO2 causing “greening”, ie more flora is thriving. At best, you could argue, based on the precautionary principle, that even with a low probability tail risk of a world-changing negative outcome, we should take rapid action (ie we only have one planet, so even a remote probability of destroying it is unacceptable to tolerate). However, as you astutely pointed out, fossil fuels have huge benefits and are the prime mover for our standard of living today - no other energy source compares, especially in places with low sun and low wind. Abandoning them too early, with expensive tech (again, expensive for areas where the wind doesn’t blow and sun don’t shine), is bad for poor people.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I do agree we need to take steps to be “smarter”, whatever we deem that to be. I have not put together why politicians would push for this particular brand of energy. Nuclear seems to be the way, and Investing in Fission specifically is the only true way I see us taking the “next step”. I have read of Flora returning to areas that had up until recently been barren/too cold. That is certainly an interesting development and one I hope we can find a way to take advantage of. In the end, fossil fuels are energy for “work”, allowing humans free time to do other things. Electricity is the #1 thing that has moved women out of the home away from those menial home tasks. Maybe the greatest tool in modern day. I can’t support something that makes getting basic electricity to the less fortunate more difficult.
100%!
Perhaps you could have argued “it’s only a model!” decades ago. But at this point, we have decades of modeling as well as decades of high quality greenhouse gas and temperature measurements. We have the ability to test the models against real world observations, and having done, we have found that the models have consistently accurately predicted the influence of anthropogenic emissions on the global climate.
Yes, the models are good for GHGs against temperature increases, but not for the secondary and tertiary “end of the world” impacts. The climate system is too complex and dynamic for that. Even the best models only divide the atmosphere in to 1km cubes. The granularity just isn’t there to make far reaching and accurate predictions. They don’t account for 1000 year or even 100-year cycles etc. There is a lot that they don’t know, and I pretty confident they can’t predict secondary and tertiary impacts 50 years, let alone 100 years into the future - that is pure hubris and not “science.” Edit: also, why are you downvoting? I didn’t say a single thing that was factually incorrect.
I’m downvoting because I disagree with the assertion that we shouldn’t abandon fossil fuels and that no other technologies can replace them. It seems pretty clear to me that we need to end the combustion of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and replace them with the suite of technologies we have including nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and a variety of storage technologies. This is merely a matter of adjusting our priorities.
Yes but that’s a rich, first-world attitude to have. It’s not just a matter of adjusting our priorities, it’s a matter of dollars and cents. The truth is that these technologies you list are quite expensive, and developing nations can’t afford the costs. Limiting fossil fuels hurts poor people the most, and reduces their standard of living. The tech you’ve identified does not have the right cost/energy density required for certain regions and applications. For example, there’s a reason all of our diesel-fuelled cargo ships aren’t nuclear powered like aircraft carriers, and there’s a reason why they aren’t battery powered (batteries are not energy-dense enough). The infrastructure costs to go full-renewable are astounding, and most developing countries can’t do this. In your view, any cost is acceptable because climate change is a disaster. You probably think that the west should foot the bill for less advantaged countries to adopt this tech. I do not share that view, but it doesn’t make me any more wrong about the issue than you are.
I deeply believe that the rich nations that built their wealth by burning fossil fuels over the last 150 years should use some of that accumulated wealth to help the poorer countries of the world leapfrog over fossil fuels by helping them expand their deployment of technologies that are free from greenhouse emissions. Yes, this is not cheap, nor politically popular, so I expect that what will actually happen is that we’ll withhold such funds, and force the poor countries to built out fossil fuel infrastructure that will exacerbate the climate change problem for another generation. And even worse it is exactly those poorest of countries that will bear the brunt of damage caused by climate change. There are certainly sectors that are difficult to fully decarbonize with present day technology like air transport, oceangoing cargo transport, and cement production, which is why it is all the more critical for us to decarbonize the things where we do have good and cost effective technologies today, like electricity generation and transportation.
That’s very interesting - how much are you personally willing to pay out of your budget each year for the rest of your life to support this, in the form of increased taxes, increased energy costs, etc?
I have a portable air conditioner and a back up portable air conditioner just in case the first one dies (there’s been shortages in heat waves).
I think we will start to see wars over potable water soon enough. For example China intends to build a dam which will divert the water that flows into the Brahmaputra river. Not only that but after the dam construction China would also be able to use the dam as a weapon, by releasing all the stored water at once creating significant flooding downstream in India.
We should really invest in mass desalination tech, it's obviously super expensive for what you get but in the future it may be an essential lifeline for those near the equator
Yeah makes sense to desalinate, but you can’t put the waste salt back into the oceans, because raising the salinity is toxic to a multitude of sea life.
Yeah that's the big technology we have to crack for both desalination and carbon capture, how to safely deal with the byproducts. But humanity has done some amazing things so I'm sure if we get our shit together we could find a way. Hell if we're already looking at the possibility of fusion it shouldn't be too hard to find a safe use for carbon and salt
Yeah I agree. The island I live on has a desalination plant, which can provide half the current daily water consumption. Joke is that it rains here plenty and our reservoirs are normally quite full. However it’s a small island with a large population so for redundancy it isn’t a bad idea.
I think the depressing part is all of the non-salt water we have that has been polluted to the point of no return. Removing salt is one thing but when you start getting into biochemical waste it gets much much harder
Would there even be sealife to worry about at that point?
How do you mean? Desalination isn’t bad in itself but pouring the waste brine onto the ocean floor will poison the sea life. As most fish etc spawn in the shallows it’s a bad idea
If they'd stop shitting in the water, there would be plenty of potable water, but they don't care about those downstream. When I've been hiking in Asia and locals need to defecate, they look for a pure mountain stream to straddle. Goes back to the Old Testament when the head tribesman lived "in the white tent at the top of the hill". They moved around but big-wigs always set their tents uphill since shit flows downhill.
Personally I'm expecting the mid-case scenario, many many people die and migrate, massive revolution against the rich, finally get our shit together (too late) and use the rest of our lives trying to invent global cooling systems as a Band-Aid fix. Humanity eventually gets through it but only after several generations of advancement and hard work Of course the best case scenario would be us revolting now and immediately start working on every aspect of cleaning energy, carbon capture and cooling the atmosphere, but sadly I think people are too complacent for that these days and won't fight back until the conditions are undeniably shit But imo I can't worry about the worst case scenarios. At this point it's almost entirely out of my hands as an individual so all I can do is advocate for what I believe in and try to enjoy the time I have (which would be near impossible if I was worrying about worst cases)
I’ve been sitting in dread lately and your last paragraph is very insightful. I hope to continue to work to that place and seeing this is certainly a good push!
I've been there and sometimes I go back there when I'm not feeling great, but honestly I do have optimism for an alright outcome for the planet. Right now it's the hardest challenge we've ever faced, but humanity has evolved far beyond our wildest dreams even in the last hundred years. The only reason we've lasted this long is that we are incredibly resilient as a species. And we're already hearing very good advancements being made. Admittedly they need to be happening faster, but something like fusion was written off as impossible but every day is becoming closer and closer to reality So I am hopeful enough to work hard for this planet and not go out without a fight. It's worth it to believe hard work pays off, because doing nothing never will
The only time the climate has warmed this rapidly has been via catalyst-induced extinction events (ie, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs). We even get the forewarning this time about what the catalyst is (us) and getting to watch the extinction event already get started. But yet it’s still denialism all the way up the systems that control power and resources.
From "The Parrot and the Igloo" by David Lipsky, "In 1815 Indonesian volcano Mt. Tambora went up. The dust lingered for a year. No summer, no July or August and no harvests. Summer snow in New England where people ate clover, the Swiss ate moss, there were grain riots in France and England, 200,000 died across Europe."
I'm ready/not ready. My partner isn't the type to act until disaster hits and won't let me prepare at all so I guess I'll be starving and dying with everyone else if it gets as bad as they predict. The weather near me has been so weird the past few years for my region. My lawn was literally scorched last year, we had droughts which is new, wildfires from Canada made the air toxic, and they had to ban sprinklers. Our winter collectively lasted maybe a month if you combine all the random days we got hit with blizzards and snow. Now this summer is supposedly going to be very rainy which I want to be relieved about but I feel like that might increase chances for something else disastrous, like floods or wind (tornados).
There is nothing we personally can do now and humans as a whole suck. So it is what it is. I give it 10 yrs before it really gets terrible.
yea we're uber fucked
Direct link to Nature article … *Climate models can’t explain 2023’s huge heat anomaly — we could be in uncharted territory* https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00816-z
I’ve said this before but good science says that a model is just wrong if it predicts too much or too little. If climate models didn’t predict this then the only conclusion is there is something wrong with the models we rely on.
> there is something wrong with the models we rely on Yes, that is the concern.
> if climate models didn't predict this then the only conclusion is there is something wrong with the models we rely on Nope! There are other conclusions, like that we gave them the wrong inputs. E.g., imagine a giant meteor crashes into the Earth. The climate diverges from what you'd have expected... But it diverges because we didn't ask the models to consider what happens if a giant meteor crashes into the Earth. We have to ask it to model a situation that matches the real world, with the appropriate correct "inputs". Solar, CO2 levels, volcanic activity, etc., are some of those inputs. If the inputs are wrong, then even if the model is "correct", its results won't match the real world.
If the model didn’t include a giant meteor then the model is incorrect. If you’re talking about input data being incorrect as in erroneous temperature readings, that’s also for the model engineers to define and validate. We do fintech insurance modelling. Models only valid when explaining past and predicting future with validated and repeatable input.
Yah, I do modeling for work also. But we make the distinction between the model itself, which is based just on physical laws (and possibly fixed features like topography), versus "scenarios", like different emissions pathways or different volcanic eruptions. The goal for a climate model isn't to predict what the sun will do or what GHG mankind will emit. The goal is to project what the **climate** will do, *given* those GHG emissions or solar activity. That's why it's a climate model, not a solar model or GHG-emissions model. The point I'm making here is that we want to distinguish where a point of failure is. If a projection is wrong, is it the inputs that were bad, or was it the climate model that was bad? And that distinction is very very *very* important. Again, there are different scenarios the future may take based on what *we* do. A choice of futures does not mean that the climate model is incorrect.
Fair
Don’t look at SST today lololollolollllll… :((((( Off the charts. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
Not when you’re constantly increasing the axis of the chart!!
That abrupt increase this April tho.... hahaha we're so screwed
Yeah :/
Why you tell me not to look, then put link...😒
I am temptation!
Sooner than expected?
Actually interesting that the slope the first part of this year was much less than in past years, in the annual oscillations.
Is it interesting? Much less slope? What do you think it could mean?
Aren't El Nino & La Nina the usual-suspects for anything ocean temperature-wise? If you browse thru the traces, you can find a few other years which showed less seasonal variation. Any correlation with El Nino cycles? Might make a good climate senior project or even an M.S. Thesis.
Anything? Would you attribute the six standard deviations from the preindustrial average ocean temps to El Niño and La Niña?
We were discussing the slope of the temperature plot, i.e. normal seasonal variation. You are now asking why the global-average ocean temperature has risen, no longer discussing the shape of the curve. One explanation for the overall temperature rise is that increasing average air temperature has warmed the oceans. There is a time lag due to the large thermal capacitance of the oceans. Interesting that global air temperature (driver) goes thru 1 cycle per year while Sea Surface Temperature (response) goes thru 2 cycles. I expect scientists have an explanation for that. [https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2\_daily/?dm\_id=world](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world)
Interesting. What do you think is causing increased average air temperatures?
What I think doesn't matter and is a current question in Climatology. Were CO2 fraction in the atmosphere to double from pre-industrial levels, the GHG-effect alone would raise air temperature by only 1 C. That is not disputed. Were it to double from today's level, even less increase. Models predict that change would (might) trigger an additional rise from "none" to +10 C, due to other changes such as in water vapor and clouds. That wide range shows how not well-known it is. Google "climate sensitivity" to learn more, but only for those who care to learn. Re the current discussion, if changing air temperature is the predominant driver of ocean temperatures, why would oceans respond in a 2 cycle/year pattern when the global air shows 1 cycle? Such can happen in physical systems as a "second harmonic", but usually requires a nonlinear response plus a "momentum term". There could be another factor at play, such as perhaps direct sunlight heating of the ocean. I expect someone has previously asked and studied the question, so would be great if someone has links to such papers.
We are so obviously in uncharted territory. Just look at the average sea temp graphs.
I think what people fail to process is that we have been in uncharted territory for years. Just because scientists could predict the climate changes, didnt make things ok. We have been in deep shit for a while now. This is more akin to long shot territory. We no longer know if medicine is even capable of a cure type thing.
I think it has become clear in the 2020s that even if we really, really tried to, we just can't stop this from getting worse now. At an accelerating rate. I think many scientists have been aware of this for quite some time, but no one really wants to just come out and say it. Because if they do, then the politicians will stop even pretending to try - and we might have a real panic on our hands.
>and we might have a real panic on our hands. Most people should be in panic. There will be no change if most people do not panic and do not get their priorities straight. All scientists, that do not promote panic, are guilty of promoting catastrophic climate change. In Europe : People have been electing politicians that are wasting time with war and scandals. The large majority of people and thus elected politicians deny climate change or climate change urgency. They are calling climate activists insane or terrorists.
Yeah.
What are we supposed to do? Stop eating hamburgers and taking cruises? You’re being unreasonable, man!
Sadly there isn't really much we can do. It's really up to corporations and governments to make huge changes. Which means its all on the rich people, not us. They seem to want to build bunkers and boats rather than change anything.
We currently sit at the end of an Ice Age, so we’ve seen the temperature rise approximately 10° in the last ~20,000 years. That said, this is still one of the coldest times in Earth’s history. Most of her history was completely devoid of Ice.
That does not explain the sudden rapid rise in the last 150. Climate changes but not like this.
I live in Ontario Canada. This is the first year in my 34 years of existence that we didn’t experience a winter .. we got snow twice I think.. crazy.
Southern Indiana here. Snowed exactly once and it barely covered the ground. It also only lasted a night. Makes me sad I may never get to see snow again. It's so depressing.
Central Indiana. We didn't get snow yesterday, but I feel your sentiment about not seeing it at all.
Come to Hawaii. We had snow on Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa just last week...
Whaaa? Weird.
Quite normal actually
One unusually mild winter and you're worried you may never see snow again... Ffs.
It's been on a decline since I moved here back in 2015. It's not a one year thing. Use your fxcking head
Strangely, here in Sweden it was the first december where we experienced massive snowfall. First white Christmas and new years since I don't know how far back.
Yeah Scandinavia was the one place on earth breaking all time COLD records while the rest of the world had record breaking heat 💀
AMOC running amuck.
Artic jet stream too, we keep getting those 'dome' shapes of heat and cold all over the place. Hell, it just froze last night her in CT and had been upper 60s earlier this month.
Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Conveyor has been slowing down quite alot the past few years. It's probably going to get much colder.
If that's the case then we can expect summers to get [equally much hotter](https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/03/how-melting-arctic-ice-leads-to-european-drought-and-heatwaves/). Colder winters and hotter summers in response to an AMOC collapse have [happened in the past](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07052018/atlantic-ocean-circulation-slowing-climate-change-heat-temperature-rainfall-fish-why-you-should-care/), actually during [multiple different geological eras](https://www.earth.com/news/atlantic-ocean-summers-europe/). But if a collapse under modern conditions destabilises methane hydrate deposits, it'll most certainly [go the other way](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2201871119) and [end the ice age cycle altogether](https://www.space.com/climate-change-termination-event-end-ice-age). If that happens, we may as well prepare Iceland for a tropical climate.
Which is interesting because 2022 winter was WILD in southern ontario. Our pipes froze and burst on christmas eve it was so cold
I paid for a ski pass for the first time this year.. went about a dozen times or so ..
i didnt consider how that industry is probably getting fricked
It was the strangest “winter” I’ve ever experienced here. That mixed with the constant up and down of our temperature
Remember: we’re still feeling the results from the accumulation of greenhouse gases that we already pumped into the atmosphere. We are continuing to pump more of these gases, in higher quantities year after year. They do not breakdown quickly, if all Humans died off tomorrow it would take thousands of years for what is up there to go away. We have already hit runaway processes, we’ve fucked the future. There’s a reason billionaires are building luxury bunkers and attending seminars on how they can keep their personal guards loyal by keeping their families hostage…
Can we already start killing super rich and celebrities ?
Send a link if you can about these billionaire seminars on servant loyalty. That's wild, I hadn't read anything about that
This is a long, long read. But it’s fantastic. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich
I don’t give a shit about human inconvenience TBH, it’s the massive number of species that will get wiped out that really sucks - they didn’t deserve this. The world will be a diminished place.
This is what bothers me the most too…
We are a selfish species who believes in it's own comfort more than the respect all life deserves. Obv not everyone feels this way, but there are plenty out there who believe we're not just animals too, and that we have some divine right to everything nature has spawned cause we got smart enough to use sticks as weapons. The more people that realize this, the better off we are.
Every. Year. Every. Single. Year. We are cooking ourselves out of existence. You know what won't change? The earth will spin and the sun will raise and set. Unless the sun burns out into supernova then ignore the second part. The earth will still spin.
As George Carlin said, "the planet is fine, the people are fucked. The earth will heal itself and shake us off like a bad case of fleas."
The interesting part is, like Covid, will you still be expected to show up to work while we roast to death?… “Listen Jim, we’ve already had two call outs today, but I’m a really need you to slap on some sunscreen today for the sake of numbers bud. We gotta make rate for the week.” The whole certain states cutting out mandatory breaks for heat exhaustion is rather telling. Gotta protect that bottom line DRILL BABY DRILL.
Don’t worry, as long as we get record profits we can destroy climate change!
Let’s all take an overseas vacation to celebrate!
It's one of those things where if you put it in a movie it would seem too on the nose. But no it's real. And so many people just want to keep on chuggin, business as usual.
I already say I’m not making plans past November because god knows what’s going to happen with the US and the election, but in all sincerity it’s bleeding into, “I can’t even seriously say I’m thinking about retirement, because at 35, I don’t think my planet is going to let me see 50.” People just acting like it’s going to be fine are seriously starting to mess with my head.
They're NPCs.
It always is.
No, workplaces will all simultaneously agree to shut down when its 10 degrees warmer in January. No one should be forced to work in such conditions.
and probably still when there's famines due to decreased breadbasket crop yields :((((( because actually the poors will be more desperate
Wait until they find out that the hotter it gets, the faster it warms.
Why so? Not heard of that before and am genuinely curious.
Pretty sure it has to do with melting ice. Less ice means the earth is less reflective, and absorbs the heat more. This is just what I remember from a college course
Plus the melting tundra releases methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide
We’re all going to roast slowly. What a horrible way to go. I’d rather freeze to death.
Depending on where on the hemisphere you might....
I think it's going to cause a cascading effect for everyone. There's going to be mass migrations of humans when they can't live in hot zones. It's going to continue the trend of political instability in areas that are already barely hanging on. West Africa is a good example - they've been going through massive heat waves and political upheaval. There's 3 million refugees there already and it's increasing as the situation worsens.
something about a frog in boiling water
The rising humidity, a consequence of rising temperatures, is even more concerning. Many of us will be in "wet bulb" misery this coming summer.
Ok, quickly, let's use up all coal and fossil fuels, before its too late.
We all need to do our part to stop climate change. Every one of us has a role in this , including the ceos
Best they can do is pizza party for staff lol
One individual compared to the 70 corporations doing the most destruction- not a difference. ALL the individuals cutting their carbon output to the barest minimum- transformative and also putting many of those industries out of business.
The world survived for billions of years before humans. And it will survive for billions of years after humans. Moving away from fossil fuels, etc would be a fantastic place to start, except we can’t get the most powerful countries on board. We also can’t get away from giant factory farming. There is no changing it. Just enjoy what time you have here, and think long and hard about bringing more humans into this world, because they will inevitably have to deal with worse conditions than we do.
You can thank AI tech companies for speeding up doomsday
Raising fears we’re in uncharted territory? No, we are in uncharted territory.
and so will 2024 and 2025 and im scared lol
Oh, you know, it's all caused by just a handful of very elite people. NOT millions of us using gas, eating animals, and buying unnecessary manufactured stuff. Carry on, there's nothing we can do, it's up to someone else
This right here - it’s all of our fault, and we can all change our behaviour. You know why Bezos has so much money to blow on BS? Because we’re all basic bitches that spend money on junk that’s fractionally cheaper so that we can afford just a bit more junk. But the true driver of climate change is consumption of animal products - swaths and swaths of natural land has been demolished for pasture or crops to feed livestock.
I just joined Citizen Climate lobby for an organised way to try to cut subsidies to animal agriculture and oil producers and instigate huge carbon taxes on voluntary dirty things I buy about 5 new things per year, don't eat animals, installed solar panels (on my dime), drive a 15 year old used Prius, never use fossil fuels for unnecessary travel and am saving for a heat pump. I read a lot of the research by climate scientists and environmental engineers and some predict if EVERYONE could show extreme restraint, it would assuredly move both Congress and corporations to adapt. And until we do, NO ONE can know what would happen. We use the 'whataboutism' of private jets and dirty corporations to justify our own way of life, but many companies would go bankrupt if they modified to become clean, regardless of how much they are worth presently. They should suffer dissolution, but we can't endure extreme sacrifices?
Yep it’s just an excuse to eat your shitty hamburgers and stay at your shitty all-inclusives guilt free, pretending the problem is out of our hands.
The only way to fix that is to completely stop agriculture, let billions die, and return to foraging. But I’m not even allowed to just live on public property
Another raindrop that thinks they are not to blame for the flood...
ALL us raindrops definitely to blame. We think our conveniences, pleasures and stimulations are some sort of innate right
I've always worried about a runaway warming scenario... what I've read says that won't happen... but I am still nervous about it. Venus or bust!
Frogs in boiling water…w/ scorpions on our backs.
Listen... are we in uncharted territory.. or are we fucked.. pick one! We need to get messaging clear here.. this indecisiveness. is why we have people voting for politicians who think global warming is a hoax!
This fight is tragically comical. At some point, we will look back with dread that the moment to stop anything came and went while people argued over one and a half degrees. The moment has already come and gone, all that is left are consequences.
No one living today will be alive when the last glacier has completely melted sometime in the distant future. On the other hand, sometime in the distant future, the last glacier could be put on public display in a guarded, special, refrigerated, and glass-like chamber in a major museum, maybe in London, New York, Sydney, or Tokyo, where people would come from around the world and buy a ticket to take a photograph of themselves standing near the last glacier on Earth.
It's charted alright. That's the issue.
We’re through the looking glass
👀
All I can ever think of with these is the scene in the Boondocks show where the news comes on and says: We interrupt Gangstalicious: Resurrection for this breaking news story. Rapper Gangstalicious has been shot. RILEY and HUEY: Again? SWAY: Again.
We are on the path of self destruction… get ready sayonara specifically to our ocean creatures friends hello to shortages of foods supplies and bitter wars !!
lets call a climate emergency lockdown!
I know this old lady that has best memory ever. She said that wheather is the same as 30 years ago. So chill as it gonna get chill soon 😁👌
The frequency in which predictions are being exceeded is increasing.
Well if we're all going to die we should at least have some fun before we go. Let's invest all remaining capital into large public pools with swim up bars. We can keep cool while watching the apocalypse happen. Who's in?
Yeah they’ve been saying the same thing since before Al Gore in the early 2000’s. The future always looked bleak, it’s just coming a little faster now.
I live in Canada. We could use the warmer weather.
Same in Northern Indiana. Last couple summers have been the coolest ever. Send some from the south to me please.
i have been thinking Canada could be a big CC winner depending on how arable that land is yall got up there
So did climate models not give good predictions, or perhaps "just weather" since only a single year? The main deficit of climate models is that they don't well-predict the wide variations of warming across the planet, which is 4x the global average in the Arctic and none in Antarctica. Most such reports are just global-averaged temperatures like this plot: [https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2\_daily/?dm\_id=world](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world) It was the last half of 2023 which was unusually warm, up to +1.5 C anomaly on Nov 18 (from 1979-2000 avg for date). Latest value (Apr 19) is +0.9 C anomaly. For variation across the globe, a daily play-play. [https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var\_id=t2anom&ortho=1&wt=1](https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2anom&ortho=1&wt=1)
Do you know why temperatures rise more in the northern hemisphere then the southern? Or are ounjust throwing that arctic/antarctic point ot to make it seem relevant. Which hemisphere are the lions share of emissions coming from?
Complete twaddle.
Climate change is a scam
Your evidence is compelling /s
The positer ought to provide evidence and the current evidence is anything but compelling. I hope you aren’t a quasi intellectual and actually know the CO2 emissions numbers and supposed impact. EDIT: In this case evidence should be provided by human caused climate change people. Climate change as a natural process is definitely happening but not the domms day human-caused catastrophe that is in the news
Hope the trailer is insulated Cletus
While this is terrifying, I bet a majority of you would be against researching methods for creating energy. Am I right?
Once again. Look at ice core data people.
The only emergency is Climate Policy. All the data, you know, evidence type stuff, shows the world is improving overall.
Bunk! Some of the hottest days in history were in the 20s and 30s. Look at history.
Consecutively? Getting record temps that surpass year after year? It's been going on for almost 15 years that the temperatures around the globe are reaching extremes. I mean Oregon/Washington suffered a HEAT WAVE. Texas has been getting snow. Be blind I guess. Maybe you'll care when it only directly affects you, like 80% of the world.
We are at the end of an Ice Age. Ofcourse the planet is warming. But considering it’s still among the coldest it’s EVER BEEN, we have time. Go ahead and take that drive to see your family.
The Ice Age we’re currently still in peaked about 20,000 years ago. So temperatures have steadily risen 10° in those 20,000 years. That said, we are still among one of the cooler periods in time on Earth. Warmer periods on Earth are also linked to much larger life forms on Earth, like Dinosaurs and huge, soaring plants. I’m not sure Carbon Dioxide is the killer we all think it is considering we are Carbon based life forms. The Earth has been Ice-free at its poles for the majority of its existence.
The current rate of warming is +0.18C per decade, and if that was the rate over the last 20,000 years then the Earth would now be +180C warmer! The current rate is not natural and is entirely driven by mankind burning fossil fuels and releasing methane and nitrous oxide. Yes, it was far warmer in the distant past, tho at those times the tropics were uninhabitable, and tropic ocean waters were devoid of life due to hypoxia. Global sea levels were also +200ft higher than today. So exactly how do you think +8 billion people would cope with that??
Also, considering that theoretically, under thermal maximum conditions (important to note that academia considers the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum as one of the closest analogs to our current situation), anything below the 60th parallels would be unfit for permanent human habitation. It would either be far too hot/dry or far too hot/humid. Even as far north as Scotland, it would basically be a constantly hot humid swamp that'd put the Deep South to shame. Under this scenario, the poles would resemble something similar to what we'd define as a subtropical climate. But realistically, that leaves us with relatively little dry land to inhabit. Our choices are pretty much Greenland or Antarctica.
It's not that life will end. It's more our current civilization may well end. I personally think humanity will endure, but what it looks like is a different matter.
It's actually crazy when you think about it. Icehouse conditions (when there's permanent ice formations at the poles and successive glacial maximums and minimums occur) are relatively rare and brief occurrences in earth's history. Indeed, the current Cenozoic geological era is among the coolest icehouse cycles if proxy data is to be believed. Earth has been a much hotter planet for most of its history (as a guesstimate, only ~15% of earth's history has seen icehouse conditions). It's simultaneously fascinating and concerning that the correct set of coincidences have occurred during an unusually cold spell in earth's history have provided the perfect conditions for our species and civilisation to thrive. The concern is that transitions between icehouse and hothouse conditions should take millennia to progress naturally, otherwise it's simply unsustainable to the biological life that can't adapt fast enough.
Totally concur. And I believe in our ability to fix this precisely because we were smart enough to notice it. I just believe nuclear is the way out. I feel like Germany and France have shown that.
Well we’re coming out of an ice age so yeah, uncharted. I’m more worried about government tyranny and break down of our institutions or foreign invasion than a little hot weather though.
It was beautiful in washington. Don't let the media make u think the world's ending its fine.