this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
1203 points (97.3% liked)

World News

39151 readers
2050 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 317 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

A decade ago, It was predicted that we would hit 1.5°C between 2050-2060, and even as recently as 2 years ago the prediction had moved forward to between 2030-2040.
The next decade or two are going to be very... interesting

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 150 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The IPCC calculations were always criticized for being overly optimistic. Anyone following this debate knew that we would hit 1.5 C sooner rather than later.

We are definitely going to hit 3 degrees in our lifetime, once the melting tundras release their methane store.

[–] kale@lemmy.zip 58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Melting tundra releases methane, accelerating the increase in temperature. Rising temperature reduces polar ice, making oceans absorb more heat, accelerating heating. Climate pattern changes cause more frequent and larger wildfires, accelerating heating.

There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases that I'm not aware of, but there are a lot of positive feedback processes which is concerning.

I believe the IPCC 1.5C was criticized because it included effects of a carbon sequestering process that hasn't been invented yet. That's pretty optimistic.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases

Nuclear war, for one. In a more naturalistic vein, asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruptions. People worried about climate change just refuse to look on the bright side.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Still better than patroling the Mojave.

[–] Graphine@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Which is why I support the idea of setting up bases on the Moon and/or Mars.

Everything is accelerating, and nobody gives a fuck to do anything before it's too late. I hate the argument that NASA doesn't push its budget to prevent CC or even Space X. Because stopping CC is a global effort on a colossal scale. It's not going to work until it's too late. Might as well get off this rock.

Edit: Very fucking optimistic of you all

[–] frenchtoast@lazysoci.al 9 points 1 year ago

Ignore them. They're so hopelessly black-pilled, they're not likely to support any significant course of action.

We're gonna have to kickstart human expansion into space to not only save ourselves from climate collapse but also what's left of the biosphere. You're not wrong at all.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we can't make Earth livable we certainly can't make the Moon or Mars livable. At best it will be a handful of people living miserably for a short time. "Get off this rock" just isn't a realistic option, and we don't have the time to make it so.

[–] bravosimona@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The Earth would be more habitable than the Moon and Mars even in worse than worse case scenario climate change conditions. The atmosphere will still protect us from cosmic radiation, and we won’t need pressurized suits and habitats. A lot of people will suffer and die, but humanity will not go extinct because of climate change, our society will though.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you think leaving earth is going to solve our problems then I have a huge fucking bridge to sell you.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure Musk already sold it to him. It leads to Mars and is made of rainbows.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If anyone is curious about what 3C looks like, here's a solid video on how a 3C world would look.

https://youtu.be/uynhvHZUOOo?si=yk8rvR1Bg3t4aKGe

It's 16 minutes so as a TL;DW: Not "extinction event" but extremely bad. Areas of the globe will simply become unlivable - and these areas tend to be highly populated. The resulting mass migrations and shortages of water/food will lead to conflict, often between nuclear powers. End result: humanity will keep on living, but it will be a significantly more deadly environment and a significantly more conflict-prone political environment. Economic collapse will hit major metropolitan centers.

If watching the video bums you out try to focus on the absolutely bonkers cool sideburns the climate scientist has. Cheered me up a little. Like a handsome person telling you that you have a bad disease.

Anyway, vote for climate-positive outcomes wherever possible and consider joining a climate lobbyist group. I'm a member of this one but I'm sure there are others.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/

[–] milkjug@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As if all that is not depressing on its own, there just a little less than half of the world that believe it’s a hoax. While they’re being cooked alive. And continue to vote for politicians that perpetuate the idea it’s a hoax.

[–] hellerpop@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At least we now get some attention by constantly overhitting the predictions.

[–] ruford1976@lemmy.world 95 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

what's worse is that it's actually 1.6 C

it says in the article here

Data released last week from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.

[–] rallatsc@slrpnk.net 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes but only for a couple of months, averaged over the whole year it's significantly lower than that. Probably still on track to hit the annual average of 1.5 sometime in the next 10-20 years. Still definitely a dire situation but not entirely out of left field based on the recent estimates.

The recent records have now lifted the year-to-date global temperature to the end of August to 1.35C above pre-industrial levels, just 0.01C behind 2016 — the current record holder

[–] ruford1976@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

i had my doubts. i was questioning the lack of coverage of this news.

regardless there is still good reason to be concerned.

[–] BaronDoggystyleVonWoof@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Soooo 3 degrees bij 2050? We are so fucked.

[–] Sylver@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, it’s honestly horrifying to see the lack of reaction around the world. If you live anywhere near the coast, you better get the fuck out or tell your kids to.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.ml 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm already telling people to get out of Florida*. I expect multiple Katrina-level events over the next 15 years. "Florida refugees" is going to become a common phrase.

Orlando might be more likely to survive than Miami or Tampa, but do you really want to be in the city surrounded by devastation?

We, as humans, seem to have lost the ability to plan more than 20 years into the future. Florida is still building in areas that are going to be crushed, and the only reaction is from insurance companies.

We're not trying to prevent it. We're not building any kind of defenses or contingency plans. We're not encouraging people to move out. We're not preventing people from moving in. In fact, we're building new and encouraging people to move IN to Florida. It's full on head in sand.

[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

look at their leadership. look at their voters. look at the short-term profit potential.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Look at the percentage of these purchases that are foreign investors making cash offers and I think u start to see why the insurance companies leaving isn't having the effect it should.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

If that massive icesheet in Antarctica gives way, Florida will be under water.

At the rate we're going, I think it will take a cataclysm of that level before people will realize how important this thing is.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man I have like 5 family members and friends just move to Florida. They were tired of the high taxes and politics of California. At least they won't burn in a wildfire though!

[–] vivadanang@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I wonder if FL is attracting a certain type of moths to a flame... recently had a neighbor move to clearwater

I'm literally living 6 meters below sea level. Please send help!

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago

It's nice by the coast though, I'd just put aquatic pilings under my house and have a ruggedised shelter built into it. Even if I live to a hundred and fifty with all the ice melted my land will still be under less water than the intercoastal platforms we've been routinely building since world war one.

[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still tracking for 8.5C by 2100!

[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We will need to drop some ice cubes in the ocean around that time.

[–] griD@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Thus solving the problem once and for all! Once. And. For. All.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Supposedly the new stringent heavy shipping emissions controls are having an impact on the greenhouse effect. Reduction of sulfur dioxide which had a reverse greenhouse effect is warming the oceans up more.

"Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/#:~:text=Global%20emissions%20of%20sulphur%20dioxide,warming%20coming%20from%20greenhouse%20gases.

So this may be our first example of the threats of NOT enacting terraforming for climate change will have.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It proves that creating cloud cover will impact ocean temperature. There are methods of doing this without creating acid rain. Just spray ocean water as a fine mist into the air and you should get some nice fluffy clouds. We have the capability to cover entire oceans in cloud cover to mitigate global warming.

Obviously this would have some unpredictable impacts on weather patterns, but we're already dealing with that no matter what we do. We're at a point where we're desperate enough to try some crazy schemes like this.

[–] Coreidan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Ah so we’re entering the scorched sky time line of the apocalypse.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

After September 11th and the COVID lockdowns, scientists noted an increase in global surface temperature due to the absence of contrails. So yes, this is actually something we are already doing!

Sulfur dioxide however is an even more effective reflector of sunlight compared to water vapor. And don't forget, water vapor is itself a very greenhouse agent that contributes toward planetary heating.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hank Green had a pretty decent video in this.

https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL

We can do the same thing without the horrible pollution that ships produced.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe by "interesting," you mean "moist." At least, for everyone above/below ±35° latitude.

Also, I hope you enjoyed photosynthesis while it lasted because once the permafrosts at ±60° latitude thaw, we're in for a tough time.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Hate to break it to you, but everyone in the world is either above or below ±35° latitude.

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yup. Good luck out there.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't quite figure out if it's supposed to mean everyone within 35° of the equator latitude, or everyone outside it.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I believe they meant above 35°N / below 35°S, so the latter.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

There's probably a guy standing with his feet on the North Carolina and Georgia border, he's above and below the 35th parallel but he's not either above or below it...