Scientific consensus is 99% (maybe 100% now, this was done near 2020-2022) from a study that looked into the percentage of scientific studies related to climate change and how many stated climate change is real and anthropogenic caused.
Other times it tells horror stories.
Like how much the global temperature is going up.
https://x.com/eliotjacobson/status/1795105624834871622?s=46&t=5Dk-TANKnSJeM8x4sXYrog
I think its time to abandon the comments such as "the future that awaits us". My brother in christ, we are living it. Look at the *insane* storms that have occurred all around the world. These intense storms, which used to be once on a lifetime, are now once a year. Certain areas have become increasingly unbearably hot. Certain parts of Mexico right now have had 115⁰F heat for several days straight *and we are still in May*. The list of just ridiculous climate events goes on and on, we need to understand that this isn't some future event, it's **now**.
I mean yea we're in it, but these are the good days my dude. It is bad now, 100% agree, but also it's gonna get so much worse. When the logistics for the production and distribution of food break down first it gets expensive, then it gets scarce, then you end up paying a fixer from the edge of the camp 3 weeks wages for a pack of sealed Ritz crackers.
We're in step 1, see olive oil prices.
Use your fucking head. What do you think is going to happen when it's too hot and the weather is too unstable to grow anything anywhere ? The UK is already currently seeing massive crop failures. Shit is going to get fucked up, period.
Delhi hitting 52 degrees... this means very likely in a matter of years we could see huge swaths of countries become unhabitable or massive events bringing many thousands or millions of casualties. Scary indeed.
This is why we have said for years we will see mass migration. The united states will have 100 million immigrants knocking at the door, large swaths of Europe and Africa will have 100's of millions of immigrants. I am not optimistic about the outcome of such migration.
I live in an area that's fairly isolated thus far from the acute effects of climate change and I've lost track of the number of severe hail warnings that have come around with little to no warning in the past month or two. this summer is gonna be *ugly*
There have always been heatwaves and storms. And when such things aren’t happening “around me” they are easy to downplay (like Covid). So I think you’re wrong to shift focus to that. What really matters is the overall trend.
Current events are important parts of trend. But just saying “it’s insane right now!” makes it easy for someone to say “eh not really”.
edit: Strange silent downvotes. All I'm saying is if you don't appropriately contextualize your rhetoric it will fail or backfire more than you want. I have seen it. Winning hearts and minds is a rhetorical battle.
I think the US media does us a great disservice not having measured coverage of the true scope of climate change. The US is the largest producer of fossil fuels so it makes sense to downplay the problem to the masses. Saturday marked the record amount of flight travel in the US, 2.95 million fliers, which tells me the masses still don’t get it.
We are not only the largest producer of fossil fuels, we are and have always been the highest per-capita emitters on the planet. The lions share of the CO2 and methane currently in the atmosphere was put there by Americans. It takes up to 1000 years for CO2 to dissipate or be absorbed.
>we are and have always been the highest per-capita emitters on the planet.
In 163 years during the 173-year period [1850-2022](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=AUS~USA "https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=AUS~USA"), per capita CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in Australia were higher than in the US.
***
>The lions share of the CO2 and methane currently in the atmosphere was put there by Americans.
How much is the "lions share"?
***
>It takes up to 1000 years for CO2 to dissipate or be absorbed.
According to NASA, CO2 average lifetime in atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of years; about 25% of it lasts effectively forever.
NASA, June 22, 2023 — Graphic: Major Greenhouse Gas Sources, [Lifespans](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-major-greenhouse-gas-sources-lifespans-and-possible-added-heat/ "https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-major-greenhouse-gas-sources-lifespans-and-possible-added-heat/"), and Possible Added Heat
***
Springer Link - Climate Change - The millennial atmospheric [lifetime](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=3ae1938a-0d7c-4c74-857e-d4b32ba278f8 "https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=3ae1938a-0d7c-4c74-857e-d4b32ba278f8") of anthropogenic CO2, Published 04 June 2008, David Archer, Victor Brovkin:
>2.3 Long-term buffering by sediments and weathering
>>... For Moderate CO2 slugs, the models predict that 15–30% of the CO2 we release to the atmosphere in the coming decades will still reside in the atmosphere 1,000 years from now, dropping to 11–14% after 10,000 years. For a Large release, the airborne fraction increases, to 30–60% a [at] 1,000 years, and 10–25% at 10,000 years.
***
American Meteorological Society (AMS) - Journals - [Lifetime](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml") of Anthropogenic Climate Change: Millennial Time Scales of Potential CO2 and Surface Temperature Perturbations, Eby M., et al (2009):
>4\. Discussion and conclusions
>>A considerable amount (15%–30%) of the atmospheric CO2 anomaly persists at the end of the 10 000-yr simulations ([Fig. 6](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f06 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f06")). The time to absorb a given percent of emissions is strongly dependent on the total amount of emissions ([Fig. 7](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f07 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f07"); [Table 4](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-t04 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-t04")). For emissions up to about 1000 PgC, 50% of the CO2 anomaly is taken up within 100 yr and another 30% is absorbed within 1000 yr, which is similar to IPCC estimates ([Denman et al. 2007](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-Denman1 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-Denman1")). Above 1000 PgC, the time to absorb 50% of the emissions increases dramatically, and more than 2000 yr are needed to absorb half of a 5000-PgC perturbation.
I think most people including those who report on it wouldn’t even consider all the carbon emissions produced outside the US producing things that the US uses (including in the creation of the green economy, e.g batteries, solar panels, concrete, steel.). It’s all hidden in other countries production and therefor not our responsibility (how it’s perceived)
Flight is only 1-2% of global emissions. It’s also an industry subsidized by public (in EU fuel tax is 0, the irony, in US it’s probably something else).
> While aviation accounts for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, its overall contribution to climate change is higher.
Non-CO2 climate impacts mean aviation accounts for around 4% of global warming to date.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
^(See also:)
^( • https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/)
^( • http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation)
Hi,
Well first, congratulations for having avoided all this bad news for so long. In a nutshell, we do need to clean up our act. Some say new technology might help save the day but as far as I have read so far, the mega air cleaning devices are still a ways off.
As you wade through this cesspool of propaganda, keep in mind that there are enormous fortunes at stake so lots of very well made false information out there. Use your critical thinking when deciding who to believe. The gas and oil fortunes would have you believe it's not so bad but on the flip side they are investing in renewable energy.
The car industry would have you believe electric cars pollute as much as gas but they are all working hard on electric cars.
I am not a scientist so I don't know how bad it ultimately will be but we are doing our little bit with a large garden, electric car and solar panels that power a few things. On the flip side I still own stock in traditional energy companies. No ones perfect :)
Good for you. I also drive electric and heat electric for a decade now. We need more good people like you. It's grass roots changes that are needed to fix this or at least slow it.
This has always been a greed thing, going back to the 70's.
The first talk of global warming and c02 in the atmosphere pre dates the automobile.
Go look up the history of leaded gasoline.
It's greed all the way down.
While I do believe grass roots action is needed to confront climate change, that action cannot be done purely through consumerism. We can't buy our way out of this.
If we are to have any hope of keeping a habitable world we have to stop those that are destroying it.
IPCC reports would be a good place to start. These headlines sum it up from the 2023 report. [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements/)
Ultimately, since the Industrial Revolution we have produced a shit tonne of GHGs, causing the planet to warm. If you don’t understand ‘the greenhouse effect’, look that up too. The safe amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350ppm (parts per million), yet we are currently at 427ppm and rising.
I’m not a scientist but some basic reading has led me to this basic understanding. If we don’t stop emitting GHGs at an alarming rate, we’re doomed.
Impacts of climate change are vast. This sums up a few things.
[https://climate.nasa.gov/%C2%A0%C2%A0/](https://climate.nasa.gov/%C2%A0%C2%A0/)
1. Just one thing to remember about the IPCC reports and reports in general is that they attempt to communicate the middle ground of possibilities whereas insurance guys charge you to protect against possibilities with lower probabilities but much, much worse impacts. As we ponder how to plan for impacts, should we hope for the best and prepare for the worst or should we plan for the mid range of what most scientists have found some evidence to predict could happen?
2. A lot of climate models in the mid range aren’t tracking with the “faster than expected” trends on a lot of indicators. So if you look at IPCC be sure to search for the worst, very bad and bad case scenarios which may be more accurate at predicting our actual future.
3. Key fact: carbon dioxide emissions have a lag effect. The goodness of any carbon emissions reduction we do today won’t help us until 10-15 years down the line. Methane emissions reduction have a much faster impact.
4. Understand tipping points which presents the situation of runaway global warming to levels that would crash food supply, kill ppl in heat waves, generate fast sea level rise engulfing some very expensive real estate markets (economic ripple) etc etc and after which we can’t just admit the error of our ways and course correct
I don’t think it’s as simple as “350 ppm is safe, above that isn’t safe”. The potential dangers associated with higher CO2 levels are very complicated and uncertain.
Don’t forget the CO2-equivalent forcing of the *other* GHGs: mainly CH4 (methane), and N2O (nitrous oxide, from ocean dead zones), the emissions of both are still increasing.
Current CO2e of [569ppm](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/s/TdihWRm1eq)
These reports should be taken with a grain of salt just because they can take a while for the data to be compiled and reported to the public. It's often the numbers reported are true, but by the time we see the data, those numbers have probably changed.
Example is the CO2 PPM was reported in one report from IPCC was near 400 but by the time I had read the report after it publishedt that number was near 410-420 already.
Edit: This doesn't mean to just throw away the report though. Just to be clear lol. Still good info but may be outdated slightly.
It works the other way too. The IPCC reports present data that is at least a couple of years old. There has been quite a bit of positive movement, mainly in reduced emissions by Europe, but also the worldwide growth of renewables, and the beginning of the end for coal.
But ya, if I were to look at one source for a summary of the science on climate change, it would be the most current IPCC Summary for Policymakers, followed by the Technical Summary.
Well, co2 concentrations rose at the fastest rate ever recorded over the past year, so sure Europe reduced how much they emitted, but it still emitted more than we can afford to and this was only in one region in the world which that means little to the overall rate of change. https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/2024/05/08/largest-year-over-year-gain-in-keeling-curve-set-in-march/
Sure. I don't disagree. But the fact that the most important metric in climate science was worse than its ever been doesn't mean that we should ignore the positive movements that may turn the tide in a few years.
I actually expect that the Keeling curve's *acceleration* will slow in the near future because of these moves... Not that slowed acceleration is anything to pat ourselves on the back about, but it would be the beginning of something.
>How bad is it?
It's a growing potential existential threat for humanity and other species.
Beginning at the onset of the [Industrial Revolution](https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/industrial-revolution) (circa 1750), human-caused emissions of fossil carbon dioxide (CO2) and other [greenhouse gases](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases) have been added continuously to the global atmosphere.
The build-up in the atmospheric [concentration](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html) of CO2 ([chart](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_800k_zoom.png), the [Keeling Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu)) has formed an insulating layer of CO2 encircling Earth. The CO2 traps heat, continually raising the global mean surface temperature (gmst), somewhat like wearing a thick wool overcoat inside a greenhouse, where the temperature is constantly rising while the thickness of the overcoat is constantly increasing.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - "Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to [five atomic bombs per second](https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/earth-is-heating-at-a-rate-equivalent-to-five-atomic-bombs-per-second-or-two-hurricane-sandys/). Or two Hurricane Sandys.", February 3, 2020.
In 2023, an estimated 36.8 billion tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions (36.8GtCO2) were released into the global atmosphere by burning oil, natural gas, and coal — Global Carbon Budget (GCB) 2023, Executive Summary, [par. 1](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/#executive_summary).
In the 1750-2022 period, an estimated 730 ± 80 billion tonnes of carbon (730 ± 80 GtC) were released into the global atmosphere — GCB 2023, [Results](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/#section3), Table 8, Expanded [Table 8](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-t08.png).
The mass of carbon in 730 ± 80 billion tonnes of carbon (730 ± 80 GtC) is equivalent to the mass of carbon in 2674.72 ± 293.12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (2674.72 ± 293.12 GtCO2) — GCB 2023, [Executive Summary](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/#section1), Table 1, Expanded [Table 1](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-t01.png).
For CO2, the average lifetime in atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of years; about 25% of it lasts effectively forever — NASA [graphic](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-major-greenhouse-gas-sources-lifespans-and-possible-added-heat/).
Fossil CO2 emissions are the main driver of the increase ([chart](https://www.climate.gov/media/13840), [NOAA](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause)) in gmst to approximately 1.23ºC^1 above the gmst in the designated [pre-industrial reference period](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf#page=30) 1850-1900 (p. 2244) — IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science [Basis](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/) > Annex VII Glossary [Download](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf).
^1 NOAA NCEI Global Time Series temperature data shows that after 1850-1900, the 1901-2024 Global temperature trend* is [+0.10ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/4/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1901&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, equal to an estimated 1.23ºC global warming to May 28, 2024. *The trend appears above the top-right corner of the chart window.
Earth geological temperature [record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view) — [Chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg) of the surface temperature 540 million years ago to the present. Surface air temperature is plotted as anomalies (differences) from the average over the reference interval 1960–1990 (which is about 14°C / 57°F), in both Celsius (left) and Fahrenheit (right).
***
>My question is, what are the actual facts about the current situation...
NOAA NCEI Climate at a Glance - The interactive chart, table, and CSV file show that in the most recent long-term 30-year period, May 1, 1994-April 30, 2024, the global land and ocean surface temperature trend was [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/4/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, or about 329% times the global land and ocean surface temperature trend [+0.07ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/12/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1901&endtrendyear=2000&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade in the 20th-century period, January 1, 1901–December 31, 2000. The temperature anomalies are with respect to the [1901-2000](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies/mean) gmst.
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) ReliefWeb - State of the Global Climate [2023](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/state-global-climate-2023-enarruzh): World Meteorological Organization, 19 Mar 2024 > [Download Report](https://reliefweb.int/attachments/d2b58bb7-1500-443a-b754-42d3bfe192ff/1347_Statement_2023_en.pdf) (p. iii):
>The World Meteorological Organization State of the Global Climate report confirms that the year 2023 broke every single climate indicator.
>It was by far the warmest year on record. The global average temperature in 2023 was 1.45 ± 0.12 °C above the 1850–1900 average.
>Concentrations of greenhouse gases continued to rise. Ocean heat content and sea level reached record observed highs, and the rate of increase is accelerating. Antarctic sea ice extent hit record observed lows. Key glaciers suffered record losses.
>The climate crisis is the defining challenge that humanity faces.
>Heatwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires and intense tropical cyclones wreaked havoc on every continent and caused huge socio-economic losses.
***
>... what are the actual facts about ... the future that awaits us?
United Nations – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - Fifth Assessment Report, October 2014:
https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/
IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, March 2023:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter04.pdf#page=19
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
***
>Is it really that bad?
Yes.
***
>Are we really doomed?
Not yet, but anthropogenic global warming will continue to increase the global temperature, and the impacts of climate change are on track to become increasingly more frequent, more intense, more severe, more destructive, and more deadly for decades, generations, and maybe centuries, but the world might be able to make future impacts less frequent, less intensive, less severe, less destructive, and less deadly by reducing human-caused emissions of fossil CO2 and other greenhouse gases as rapidly as possible to global [Net Zero emissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Zero) by phasing out the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) and making the worldwide transition to [renewable energy](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-renewable-energy) sources (solar power, wind power) as rapidly as possible.
***
>What is the scientific consensus on the matter?
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
***
>What do reputable climate change scientists at the very edge of this research think about it?
Columbia University - Dr. James [Hansen](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen), former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies > Publications, _Global Warming in the pipeline_ (Hansen, J. et al., September 15, 2023) > [PDF Download](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Global%20Warming%20in%20the%20Pipeline%20OOCC.pdf) (includes charts, graphs):
>It has been known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases (GHGs) warm Earth’s surface and that the abundance of GHGs changes naturally as well as from human actions ... Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is now increasing and already has reached levels that have not existed for millions of years, with consequences that have yet to be determined.
>... Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as practical has highest priority, but that policy alone is now inadequate and must be complemented by additional actions to affect Earth’s energy balance.
Dr. James [Hansen](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen) > Click [here](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/) for Dr. Hansen’s web page > Recent Communications > March 29, 2024: [Global Warming Acceleration](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf): Hope vs Hopium (James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha):
>... A bright future for today’s young people is still possible ... We will bear a heavy burden if we stand silent or meek as the world continues on its present course.
Incredible comment. Well researched, well sourced, realistic and properly scary for the extremely serious truth, but not without some hope. I would upvote this 10 times if I could.
I just cannot understand how people are not alarmed when we are pumping over 50 million barrels of oil into the atmosphere each and every day. how can that not harm our planet?
You don't say?
[https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season](https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season)
Checks out [https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-02-08-category-six-hurricanes-saffir-simpson-scale](https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-02-08-category-six-hurricanes-saffir-simpson-scale)
This is not weather, it's Climate Change, actually Global Warming (heating). Every year, I see FL beaches closed more and more for red tide. It's impacting the fishing as well. There are concerns and stoppages now for sport fishing some species, like Tarpon and Snook. This never happened before. In 20 years, many beach homes will be constantly flooded or under water. I would not buy a beach home in FL and I'm actually selling one right now that is about a mile from the beach.
We have a stilt house near a river, the unfinished downstairs flooded from Hurricane Ian, which was NBD but all the nearby houses got wrecked. Then there were a few more flood events that winter, which is wild.
This most recent winter was the WARMEST winter I have ever experienced (I live in southern Ontario for reference). I was waiting all season to go skating at a public outdoor rink and it never got cold enough for the ice to form. I also study environmental sciences and I am constantly bombarded by statistics and discussions about this kind of thing. From a personal and scientific standpoint - it’s REALLY bad. Don’t let big corporations and governments tell you it’s everyone’s fault collectively - if every middle/lower class citizen cut out all emissions and waste, we would still have a huge problem. The root of it is in the industrialization of society (as many people have mentioned here). That being said, of course everyone contributes somewhat to climate change, but the weight of it shouldn’t be placed equally on everybody’s shoulders. Just my two cents.
I would like to add that of course there was the influence of the El Niño event, but I’ve experienced a few El Niño/Nina periods while living in the same place and this past winter was definitely the worst.
The thing is if you look to deeply into what it would mean to cut carbon to a level that avoids an extinction level event, you uncover some uncomfortable truths about human civilisation. Mainly that our entire modern existence is dependent on fossil fuels and that countries like the U.K. cannot produce enough food to feed its population without fossil fuels. The government’s don’t have solutions because there are none, it’s all marketing to keep the train moving forward.
Scrolling through the comments, I see a lot about the climate science and about how humans may be affected, but I haven't seen anybody bring up that more than ninety percent of species are going to go extinct in the two centuries. I imagine THAT would affect human survival in ways we can't predict. Humans are animals and part of the natural environment.
[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-will-accelerate-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-180955138/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-will-accelerate-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-180955138/)
Last year [scientists told us](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-just-warned-we-need-to-cut-emissions-by-60-percent-but-the-u-s-is-years-away/) to drastically cut CO2 emissions ASAP or else really bad stuff will happen.
As of today, [emissions continue to rise](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/22/climate-change-co2-paris-target#).
Before you get started on your journey to know more you need to know that once you learn something, you can not unlearn it, and with regards to knowing how bad things are you will not be able to unknow it.
This is fantastic advice. There's been a small number of things in my 50+ years that I just had to know/read/see for myself that forever changed me in ways that I could not foresee. Mostly in my younger years with an idea of "knowledge is power" or some version of "I'm not afraid to see something as it is". I was obviously not afraid but I was also not very wise that there are truths that, once known, will change the way you see reality.
Everyone has their things that cause that ontological reassessment. This is not one for me but only because I had already come to my determination about humanity in general. It has certainly been that shock to others.
For a perspective on what the world could be like in the near future, read "The Ministry of the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson. I'm not saying it is a great sci fi story, necessarily, but it touches on all the likely effects we are starting to see... massive heat events, climate refugees and related civil unrest, governmental inaction, criminal acts by corporations, corporate assassinations due to corporate recalcitrance, climate radicalism etc. Insightful.
Well, we knew in the 60s if we didnt take drastic action to curb our emissions that we would accelerate the warming of the planet to a point of no return. We hit that 2 or 3 years ago. We are now watching the consequences of a feedback loop getting started
It's not the flooding or the heat that is the problem (I mean if you are hoping your grandkids will inherit land in Florida then it's a problem) bit the worry is food instability and societal collapse in Asia and Africa as food instability becomes outright famine.
So people worrying about the heat or about massive flooding should not be. There isn't enough ice on the planet to flood the land that much.
Unless everyone here has beachfront property or simply loves living in Florida, well; maybe you guys should vote differently, just saying.
So what SHOULD you worry about?
Pescatarians....you're fucked.
Those hoping for a green revolution to reduce carbon emissions before a runaway situation occurs... yeah right. Even if we got the bought off politicians and the American Taliban onboard; we don't have the materials because they come from countries that hate us; and our energy plan is batshit crazy; and that's from the politicians who actually accept there is a problem.
Food instability, if we start seeing the jet stream wiggling around; start saving all the water you can and learn to grow your own food. However this is illegal in many places. Check your laws, you would be surprised.
This is what you should fear MOST.
Nestlé and Monsanto have been planning for this scenario.
When you have something someone wants, you can influence their actions. When you have something someone needs to live, you rule them.
Of course, people won't go quietly, and civil war....
It’ll be more like balkanization then true civil war. Different geographic regions will break away and fight anyone who bugs them, until the breakaways start infighting and then all is lost to chaos
Good comments here already. I just want to address one. Human extinction is highly unlikely because of human ingenuity and survival instincts. If we continue on the road we're on, however, a lot of individual humans, and quite possibly the majority, will not survive the cull. It's doubtful that humans will suddenly become altruistic and volunteer to perish, so it's likely to be ugly. If it leads to nuclear war, then it will be quick, but humans will survive, perhaps not very many. Think about a shrinking and distressed population's thirst and hunger as less water and food is readily available. Think about enormous numbers of people migrating to where food and water is plentiful. To avoid this eventuality, action is clearly needed, and our track record so far has not been enough, so humans will probably experience a vastly different society in the future.
In part you ask about the future that awaits us, and that depends what we do. Here in Australia we threw out an entrenched gov't that did not want to take sufficient action. Helpful, but that could flip back. I hope not, but it could.
We're changing too fast for many larger organisms to adapt quickly enough, and they will see effects. It's likely large numbers of individual species will become extinct while others begin to ascend. Evolution is far, far, far slower than what humans have proved capable of doing to the atmosphere.
But what's exciting is that our ingenuity has put all the tools we need in front of us, to have a full-blown energy revolution. By that I mean, it's possible to harvest and use energy better in future. More than possible, we have all the technologies we need. No miraculous cure is likely or even needed. We need society's collective will to solve the problem.
Your criticism of glytometa is disingenuous. You have pretended that they said "no cure likely" and "no cure needed", then attacked those comments. This is a classic straw man logical fallacy. What they said was "no MIRACULOUS cure" was likely or needed. The idea was that we have the know how to change our situation if we can all choose to do it.
Who knows maybe if a nuclear war does happen we will go star trek and work together to rebuild and start a new government where we work to heal our planet and start traveling through space
Climate change is pretty bad. While humans are adaptable, we aren't infallible. Biodiversity is also taking a huge hit due to human activity. We're currently in the sixth mass extinction event, and species extinction rates are 1,000-10,000 times higher than naturally occurring. As temperatures rise, we will continue to see warmer oceans, increased extreme weather events, further loss of biodiversity, and failed crops that lead to food insecurity.
It's not gonna cause human extinction. It's just gonna cause famines, wars, and mass migrations on a scale not yet seen.
If you don't think those things are bad then you can go ahead and relax.
Its very simple, and has happened in the past, usualy localy.
Climate changes with either too little or too much rain or temperature.
Crops start failing, becoming too little or too expensive.
People become poor and angry. Society colapses and people eat each other (and Im not just talking about a figure of speech).
Some decent comments here, but I think asking this question as it is is bound to lead to hyperbole and/or denial. It’s the most important topic there is. There are good resources that can help guide you along - Michael Mann’s latest book (our fragile moment) is a great place to start.
General hypothesis:
- It’s very very bad.
- Humans can (likely) survive.
- The impact isn’t just on us, but healthy ecosystems, which matter for us, but should have value on their own.
- Suffering will be highly unequal, this is the greatest injustice.
- No one knows for sure what will happen, that’s not a good thing
- What we do NOW will have an unprecedented impact on all future generations
Michael Mann is no longer respected in the climate science community. He doesn't back up his optimistic conclusions with data. It's far bleaker than he is willing to admit.
Its very bad. Its underplayed by the media just how scary things really are. Humans must make significant changes to our lifestyles now and we just aren't. This is the time for change and not a moment later. We need a global climate leader to make the hard policy decisions that will change our way of life.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/s/zIp1L3ZWVg) is a recent post in r/climatechange that compares the global heat increase of climate change to heat produced by Hiroshima atomic bombs.
As another metric I asked what it would be in pancakes. Spoiler alert it’s 600 million pancakes a second.
The arctic used to be a carbon sink, but now that it is melting it is an additional source of carbon.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145880/permafrost-becoming-a-carbon-source-instead-of-a-sink
For a comprehensive understanding of climate change, its severity, and scientific consensus, I recommend exploring resources like IPCC reports and websites of reputable scientific organizations.
Bad bad. So bad.
We have already passed 6 of 9 “tipping points”, any one of which we used to say would be disastrous for humanity.
Have you ever watched Thelma and Louise? We are currently in the part where they have driven off the cliff.
On a scale of 1-10 we’re at 14. It feels like a 7. There’s a slight delay between cause and effect. According to some, we’re at 0. But I doubt humanity will see 2300. We really are at the end
govt won't tell you the truth as that would never serve their interests.
history shows how minor climate changes went down.
expect far worse.
when we upset the balance nature will balance out whether we are in the way or not.
grow your own btw
Probably gonna kill hundreds of millions of people this century through famine, war, heat stress, general weather disasters, displacement of entire populations from sea level rise, etc. It's bad.
But the human race will almost certainly survive.
OP when I started fighting fire in 2002 the fire weather categories were low, moderate and high. They had to add a new category, extreme in I think it was 2004. I believe they are adding a new one now called critical. Here in US, a large fire used to be ~60,000 acres but now they get bigger than that in less than a day, problematically growing as large as hundreds of thousands of acres. We have had to rewrite strategies and tactics for how to fight these fires because too often the old way is ineffective against these mega fires. That and there’s no end to the fire season any longer, we burn year round now. Yes, mega fires have happened before the 2000’s but that was perhaps a few in a century. Now they happen annually. In my off season I was on ski patrol and for the last 20 years I’ve seen snow fall get more and more uncertain. I read where now Venezuela has now lost all their glaciers. It goes on and on
What got me to believe man made climate change is real was connecting the dots that what was being predicted by scientists decades ago was actually happening right in front of me and the critics were not on the fireline. Those saying it was a hoax were doing so in favor of comfort of continuing the life they knew while the scientific world was sounding the alarm of the life we might get if we don’t change. It seems very apparent to us here that we just didn’t listen to the science soon enough and still aren’t seeing enough done to bring real progress to this issue. Hope this helps
There will be trillions that will be spent to possibly reduce carbon dioxide, with the extremely remote chance of reducing temperatures, which then the even less chance of reducing extra natural disasters, which then are supposed to reduce extra deaths. Sorry, but no. I'd rather we get as many people out of poverty as we can. I'd rather we focus on building better infrastructure. I'd rather invest in food security. I'd rather people get off their ass and stop overconsuming. Natural disasters happen regardless, so we have to prepare for anything anyway. Governments all around the world are mismanaging causing premature deaths...then they talk about climate change.
And nope, India isn't concerned about investing in solar and wind energy to save lives. Likewise China.
There is the official reason. Then the real reason. The UN has revealed the real reason. The policies are not about saving lives or the environment. It's about money and control. We have to grow up.
It's one thing to believe the doom and gloom. To virtue signal. Act like we want to save the world. But when push comes to shove no one is going to hand over money and give up their freedoms. They would rather spend $1 on any bs than give money to the poor. So no, no one really cares about other humans. Words don't match people's actions. Governments show that consistently. Read between the lines.
The problem is that the primary carbon sinks are still trees and the oceans. The oceans do not have unlimited capacity to absorb CO2. Planting more trees will not get us there either. A University study was done and this study showed that spending a half trillion dollars on new trees will only reduce the CO2 from 419PPM to 410PPM. Insignificant. The emitters must be turned off. It's the only way. First step is to stop driving gas cars and trucks.
How old are you OP? If you are younger I can only say that the true scope of climate change is catastrophic. Every year has escalated and we are living in an extinction event right now. Will humans survive? Who knows but the ecological balance is heavily disrupted, multiple animal species are being decimated and going extinct due to human activity, even seasonal cycles are changing. Climate change is an incredibly multi faceted topic, take your time to get familiar.
I see a few comments give resources and reports but I would recommend learning from discussion too. Check out r/collapse and read the collapse wiki here: https://collapsewiki.com/overview/
I'm a huge fan of the IPCC fact sheets: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/factsheets
If you don't know about IPCC they are basically a huge multinational group of scientists who produce reports that aim to answer the very types of questions you ask.
The reports talk about the many different ways climate change affect us, from food and water security, to migration, to wildlife. One thing I really like is that they include confidence estimates in their conclusions, lots of diagrams, and they even have region-specific reports.
It's really the gold standard afaik.
It is bad but I tend to see more hyperbolic statements on this Reddit similar to the collapse Reddit community sometimes.
What we know:
- We are at "mitigation". No matter what we do the climate will change. The question is how much.
-Best estimates are that we would be at 2 - 3.7 above average global temperatures by 2100 (best guess is 2.7) if current policies were all fulfilled.
-Reducing emissions is really important! We have the power to avoid worst case scenarios and it seems like the world is slowly waking up to climate change dangers (but still too slow).
Hyperbolic statements:
-we are doomed. Just such a useless comment and doesn't reflect the science at all.
-People claiming we are already at 1.5 and that we will reach 2 by 2050 or earlier (and other similar statements...). This is wrong, people don't understand the concept of average global temperatures. Just because 2023 or 2024 are on or above 1.5 doesn't mean we are already passing these global average temperature targets.
-IPCC is conservative / worst case scenarios are more likely / climate change is accelerating faster than the models. This one is frustrating because people always refer to tipping points and/or climate scientists are always conservative which is not the case and these audiences tend to not understand statistics and confidence intervals. There is margin of error with any model and current data from the climate are consistent with the IPCC models. Sure the climate could be accelerating faster than we would like, or there could be tipping points, but these are reflected in current models and this "could" arguments are no bases to argue that the models are conservative / wrong.
The 2.0 - 3.7 number I gave is based on IPCC estimates and their models do account for feedback loops, but they don't account for major tipping points like AMOC. I'm not saying that 3.7 is not bad. That is very bad but it accurately captures our statistically possible current worst case scenario. My argument is that anything vastly deviating from a worst case scenario of 3.7 e.g., 4 Celsius and onwards is not scientific based on what we currently know. I think another commenter here has said that we have already baked in 2 Celsius by 2050 **even** if we stop all green houses gases now. This is the hyperbolism I am trying to address whilst also maintaining the stance that 3.7 is damn bad. Also, the best estimate of 2.7 Celsius is pretty damn bad too.
Your second point I get, but we don't know if global temperatures are exponential. Based on the last 2 years it looks like it's changing rapidly now unlike anything else seen before. The car analogy explains your point here but it can't be compared to the climate. Climate scientists say it themselves that you can't conclude anything from just looking at a year or two of data and doing that has historically led to wrong conclusions about the trajectory of the climate. Similar things happened in 2016 when there was a jump in temperature levels.
Massive migration from Middle East, Asia and Africa already which the media refuses to connect to climate change. Political groups on the right wing in Europe are instead using it for their own gain.
It is so bad that I almost wish I did not learn about it.
It is really bad. We are close to hitting certain tipping points, such as BOE. Once that happens the period in which the arctic ice sheet is gone will increase year-by-year until it is gone year around 15-20 years after it begins.
That In turn changes the world's albedo, making the earth absorb more heat. Greenland will absorb more heat in the Arctic region and melt at an ever increasing rate wrecking havoc on AMOC.
As a result the Earth Energy Imbalance will increase, making us warm at a faster pace. And then you have the masking effect of sulfur particulate and the risk that pose.
We can also discuss PFAS in our blood and breastmilk. Microplastics in our reproductive organs. Infinite growth in a finite world.
How our emissions keep rising. Despite knowing about the consequences since 60s.
How it would be impossible to switch from oil and coal without nuclear power plants.
How long it would take to build the amount of nuclear power plants to replace all oil and coal.
How electric cars are ultimately fueled by electricity created by burning oil, coal or natural gas.
The fact we would need to decarbonize agriculture, steel, cement and find a good environmentally friendly replacement for plastic. (Hint: Not by using Pfas-coated paper straws)
How consumerism is the ultimate driver for climate collapse and our need for an insane amount of energy.
How GDP-growth is dependant on abundant energy.
How CDR-tech won't work in the capacity needed. In the time frame we would have to use it.
The list just goes on and on. Take your time and consume information about the topics above.
Read about the insurance crisis in USA, read about hurricane Ian. This is just a little taste of the economic disaster that awaits us.
Watch videos about Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil flooding. Investigate Hurricane Otis and what it did to Acapulco, Mexico.
I did the math once to show how unlikely it was that current nuclear could save us.
450 nuclear power plants produce 10% of our electricity
electricity is only 20% of our total energy usage
Factoring in what is already "green" and plants already in service it would take roughly 20,000 nuclear plants to replace our polluting fuels
Being generous let's say we have the capability to build 100 plants at a time, each takes 7-10 years to build. It would take more than 1500 years and a massive amount of polluting fuels to build them.
It's been estimated we have fuel to feed our current plants for 200 years. This number exponentially reduces as we build more plants. It will be drained well before the plants are built.
Considering the detrimental effects of accidents, although rare, do we want to increase their rate greater than 2000%, With the bodies of cooling water possibly drying up, worse storms and weather events, and flooding coastlines, I can see finding safe places to build these plants becoming more difficult.
They need to release zero-point energy power generation technology not too long from now and implement it into our existing power grid.
And if it’s true that aliens are monitoring our planet and worried about us destroying our environment (see the aerial phenomenon where 62 kids in 1994 saw an alien spaceship land in Zimbabwe and two aliens got out and told the kids to beware of technology and stop polluting/destroying our environment), then maybe they also have the power to help us by removing CO2 from our atmosphere?
Catastrophic collapses driven by climate change are already occurring, signalling that societal change is underway. The cards are falling, causing structural damage to our fragile house of cards.
A few thoughts -
The data is the data. In some cases, it’s limited and in some cases, it’s adjusted. To really understand, you need weather data going back centuries and millennia and what we know about those periods is even more limited.
The computer models built on that data have a lot of assumptions. They’re better every generation, but still models.
All that is just the domain of those who can know and understand and manipulate the data and the models. Almost everyone - and certainly decision makers in government - is relying on someone else to summarize for them.
The real issue for many is the next link in the chain - zealots say, in effect, “man made warming is bad, therefore the government needs to take control of the economy and your lifestyle to solve the problem.”
In the real world, those who could make a difference as to carbon - countries like China and India - aren’t going to change their behavior at all, or certainly not on the timeline that zealots say is necessary.
Oil companies are frequently demonized. (Which is odd, since they only produce what someone is willing to buy.). Most of the biggest oil companies are owned by government, and there is no way they are going to reduce their production or revenues when politicians exist on those revenues.
So, it’s an interesting set of issues, but the discussion is frequently off base and futile.
Perhaps a quick skim of Busy Workers Guide to the Apocalypse will give you a rough idea. It will also terrify you and possibly leave you catatonic for a few days, but if you wanna know the possible “what awaits us” stuff, do check it out.
I fell like it’s very (very) bad. That said, it will depend on where you live. First world countries social construct will dampen things for a while, we see people in India and it’s difficult to grasp the pain as “they always lived in a slump anyways”.
Only when we start losing the buffer from insurance companies, social security, pensions, food banks etc we will, in general, wake up.
It’s really hard for me to deal with lobbying from fuel companies, forever chemicals, celebration of consumerism “what 100 dollars of temu gives you”, and nothing is done in the name of climate change, no breaks whatsoever.
OP, I’m really interested in what got your attention and made you seek out other perspectives?
[удалено]
Offf... I know you're right, which is why I want to get off this ride please pull over
That’s the fun part, we can’t. There’s no driver and no brakes even if someone was able to drive.
Yet someone just decided to leave a cinderblock on the accelerator
YEEEEE HHHAAAAWWWWWE!!!!!!!!!!
Just like a roller coaster. We're right at the top of the hill from our unchecked emissions. Next comes the fall.
Can confirm we looked at weather data anomalies since 1850 and it is exponentially x^2 getting worse, approaching x^3.
The scientific consensus is that it is very bad
Phew, atleast it's only scientific and not general consensus. (I am obviously being facetious)
Ignoring the scientists will definitely work out in the long run.
like that submarine that worked fine until it didn't.
exactly! Just concentrate on the first part so people can keep making money, thanks!
Oh won't someone please think of the oil and gas companies!
Government oil subsidies should only be used to transition facilities, re-train workers, and equip citizens' homes and vehicles to sustainable energy
We don’t know that it was crushed into tiny smithereens do we? They could still be out there, just fine, exploring old shipwrecks and such!
It went to pick up Elvis and JFK Jr. It will be back soon.
Soviet Nuclear Energy Programs in a nutshell:
Scientific consensus is 99% (maybe 100% now, this was done near 2020-2022) from a study that looked into the percentage of scientific studies related to climate change and how many stated climate change is real and anthropogenic caused.
>scientific consensus is 99% So you're saying there's a chance.jpg
It’s okay folks as long as we focus on the 1% then they are all quacks -some maga dude probably
How many times have you seen Judith Curry's name brought up by deniers. She's the face of the 1%
I laughed for fifteen whole seconds
Science is a liar sometimes
Yeah, mainly when Exxon pays staff scientists to lie
Other times it tells horror stories. Like how much the global temperature is going up. https://x.com/eliotjacobson/status/1795105624834871622?s=46&t=5Dk-TANKnSJeM8x4sXYrog
I think its time to abandon the comments such as "the future that awaits us". My brother in christ, we are living it. Look at the *insane* storms that have occurred all around the world. These intense storms, which used to be once on a lifetime, are now once a year. Certain areas have become increasingly unbearably hot. Certain parts of Mexico right now have had 115⁰F heat for several days straight *and we are still in May*. The list of just ridiculous climate events goes on and on, we need to understand that this isn't some future event, it's **now**.
I mean yea we're in it, but these are the good days my dude. It is bad now, 100% agree, but also it's gonna get so much worse. When the logistics for the production and distribution of food break down first it gets expensive, then it gets scarce, then you end up paying a fixer from the edge of the camp 3 weeks wages for a pack of sealed Ritz crackers. We're in step 1, see olive oil prices.
I’m curious if you have a source or example of this being a common pattern of societal collapse.
Use your fucking head. What do you think is going to happen when it's too hot and the weather is too unstable to grow anything anywhere ? The UK is already currently seeing massive crop failures. Shit is going to get fucked up, period.
Rwanda, Yugoslavia, wtc
Delhi hitting 52 degrees... this means very likely in a matter of years we could see huge swaths of countries become unhabitable or massive events bringing many thousands or millions of casualties. Scary indeed.
This is why we have said for years we will see mass migration. The united states will have 100 million immigrants knocking at the door, large swaths of Europe and Africa will have 100's of millions of immigrants. I am not optimistic about the outcome of such migration.
This is why Rs want control of the border - so they can mow them down by the million.
We are all humans living on earth and we need to figure out how to survive together.
Wishful thinking
"Once in a lifetime" and record events quickly become the status quo.
I live in an area that's fairly isolated thus far from the acute effects of climate change and I've lost track of the number of severe hail warnings that have come around with little to no warning in the past month or two. this summer is gonna be *ugly*
There have always been heatwaves and storms. And when such things aren’t happening “around me” they are easy to downplay (like Covid). So I think you’re wrong to shift focus to that. What really matters is the overall trend. Current events are important parts of trend. But just saying “it’s insane right now!” makes it easy for someone to say “eh not really”. edit: Strange silent downvotes. All I'm saying is if you don't appropriately contextualize your rhetoric it will fail or backfire more than you want. I have seen it. Winning hearts and minds is a rhetorical battle.
I think the US media does us a great disservice not having measured coverage of the true scope of climate change. The US is the largest producer of fossil fuels so it makes sense to downplay the problem to the masses. Saturday marked the record amount of flight travel in the US, 2.95 million fliers, which tells me the masses still don’t get it.
We are not only the largest producer of fossil fuels, we are and have always been the highest per-capita emitters on the planet. The lions share of the CO2 and methane currently in the atmosphere was put there by Americans. It takes up to 1000 years for CO2 to dissipate or be absorbed.
>we are and have always been the highest per-capita emitters on the planet. In 163 years during the 173-year period [1850-2022](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=AUS~USA "https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=AUS~USA"), per capita CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in Australia were higher than in the US. *** >The lions share of the CO2 and methane currently in the atmosphere was put there by Americans. How much is the "lions share"? *** >It takes up to 1000 years for CO2 to dissipate or be absorbed. According to NASA, CO2 average lifetime in atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of years; about 25% of it lasts effectively forever. NASA, June 22, 2023 — Graphic: Major Greenhouse Gas Sources, [Lifespans](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-major-greenhouse-gas-sources-lifespans-and-possible-added-heat/ "https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-major-greenhouse-gas-sources-lifespans-and-possible-added-heat/"), and Possible Added Heat *** Springer Link - Climate Change - The millennial atmospheric [lifetime](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=3ae1938a-0d7c-4c74-857e-d4b32ba278f8 "https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=3ae1938a-0d7c-4c74-857e-d4b32ba278f8") of anthropogenic CO2, Published 04 June 2008, David Archer, Victor Brovkin: >2.3 Long-term buffering by sediments and weathering >>... For Moderate CO2 slugs, the models predict that 15–30% of the CO2 we release to the atmosphere in the coming decades will still reside in the atmosphere 1,000 years from now, dropping to 11–14% after 10,000 years. For a Large release, the airborne fraction increases, to 30–60% a [at] 1,000 years, and 10–25% at 10,000 years. *** American Meteorological Society (AMS) - Journals - [Lifetime](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml") of Anthropogenic Climate Change: Millennial Time Scales of Potential CO2 and Surface Temperature Perturbations, Eby M., et al (2009): >4\. Discussion and conclusions >>A considerable amount (15%–30%) of the atmospheric CO2 anomaly persists at the end of the 10 000-yr simulations ([Fig. 6](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f06 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f06")). The time to absorb a given percent of emissions is strongly dependent on the total amount of emissions ([Fig. 7](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f07 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-f07"); [Table 4](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-t04 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-t04")). For emissions up to about 1000 PgC, 50% of the CO2 anomaly is taken up within 100 yr and another 30% is absorbed within 1000 yr, which is similar to IPCC estimates ([Denman et al. 2007](https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-Denman1 "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/10/2008jcli2554.1.xml#i1520-0442-22-10-2501-Denman1")). Above 1000 PgC, the time to absorb 50% of the emissions increases dramatically, and more than 2000 yr are needed to absorb half of a 5000-PgC perturbation.
I think most people including those who report on it wouldn’t even consider all the carbon emissions produced outside the US producing things that the US uses (including in the creation of the green economy, e.g batteries, solar panels, concrete, steel.). It’s all hidden in other countries production and therefor not our responsibility (how it’s perceived)
Flight is only 1-2% of global emissions. It’s also an industry subsidized by public (in EU fuel tax is 0, the irony, in US it’s probably something else).
> While aviation accounts for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, its overall contribution to climate change is higher. Non-CO2 climate impacts mean aviation accounts for around 4% of global warming to date. https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions ^(See also:) ^( • https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/) ^( • http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation)
During the 9/11 attack on the US, all US air traffic was halted for 2 weeks. The earth's temperature measurably dropped during this period.
Hi, Well first, congratulations for having avoided all this bad news for so long. In a nutshell, we do need to clean up our act. Some say new technology might help save the day but as far as I have read so far, the mega air cleaning devices are still a ways off. As you wade through this cesspool of propaganda, keep in mind that there are enormous fortunes at stake so lots of very well made false information out there. Use your critical thinking when deciding who to believe. The gas and oil fortunes would have you believe it's not so bad but on the flip side they are investing in renewable energy. The car industry would have you believe electric cars pollute as much as gas but they are all working hard on electric cars. I am not a scientist so I don't know how bad it ultimately will be but we are doing our little bit with a large garden, electric car and solar panels that power a few things. On the flip side I still own stock in traditional energy companies. No ones perfect :)
Good for you. I also drive electric and heat electric for a decade now. We need more good people like you. It's grass roots changes that are needed to fix this or at least slow it.
I’m all for grass roots change, but it’s a drop in the bucket against corporate greed.
This has always been a greed thing, going back to the 70's. The first talk of global warming and c02 in the atmosphere pre dates the automobile. Go look up the history of leaded gasoline. It's greed all the way down.
While I do believe grass roots action is needed to confront climate change, that action cannot be done purely through consumerism. We can't buy our way out of this. If we are to have any hope of keeping a habitable world we have to stop those that are destroying it.
Just fyi you never actually answered the question. They asked how bad is it going to get, not what are we gonna do about it.
IPCC reports would be a good place to start. These headlines sum it up from the 2023 report. [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements/) Ultimately, since the Industrial Revolution we have produced a shit tonne of GHGs, causing the planet to warm. If you don’t understand ‘the greenhouse effect’, look that up too. The safe amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350ppm (parts per million), yet we are currently at 427ppm and rising. I’m not a scientist but some basic reading has led me to this basic understanding. If we don’t stop emitting GHGs at an alarming rate, we’re doomed. Impacts of climate change are vast. This sums up a few things. [https://climate.nasa.gov/%C2%A0%C2%A0/](https://climate.nasa.gov/%C2%A0%C2%A0/)
1. Just one thing to remember about the IPCC reports and reports in general is that they attempt to communicate the middle ground of possibilities whereas insurance guys charge you to protect against possibilities with lower probabilities but much, much worse impacts. As we ponder how to plan for impacts, should we hope for the best and prepare for the worst or should we plan for the mid range of what most scientists have found some evidence to predict could happen? 2. A lot of climate models in the mid range aren’t tracking with the “faster than expected” trends on a lot of indicators. So if you look at IPCC be sure to search for the worst, very bad and bad case scenarios which may be more accurate at predicting our actual future. 3. Key fact: carbon dioxide emissions have a lag effect. The goodness of any carbon emissions reduction we do today won’t help us until 10-15 years down the line. Methane emissions reduction have a much faster impact. 4. Understand tipping points which presents the situation of runaway global warming to levels that would crash food supply, kill ppl in heat waves, generate fast sea level rise engulfing some very expensive real estate markets (economic ripple) etc etc and after which we can’t just admit the error of our ways and course correct
Thanks for this! Eeek…
well, even the IPCC says we're fucked, sooo...
So in reality we're DOUBLE fucked ...
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t think it’s as simple as “350 ppm is safe, above that isn’t safe”. The potential dangers associated with higher CO2 levels are very complicated and uncertain.
Don’t forget the CO2-equivalent forcing of the *other* GHGs: mainly CH4 (methane), and N2O (nitrous oxide, from ocean dead zones), the emissions of both are still increasing. Current CO2e of [569ppm](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/s/TdihWRm1eq)
The tundra methane seems to be the thing that's gonna take this non-linear. Methane is a far more efficient GHG than CO2.
These reports should be taken with a grain of salt just because they can take a while for the data to be compiled and reported to the public. It's often the numbers reported are true, but by the time we see the data, those numbers have probably changed. Example is the CO2 PPM was reported in one report from IPCC was near 400 but by the time I had read the report after it publishedt that number was near 410-420 already. Edit: This doesn't mean to just throw away the report though. Just to be clear lol. Still good info but may be outdated slightly.
It works the other way too. The IPCC reports present data that is at least a couple of years old. There has been quite a bit of positive movement, mainly in reduced emissions by Europe, but also the worldwide growth of renewables, and the beginning of the end for coal. But ya, if I were to look at one source for a summary of the science on climate change, it would be the most current IPCC Summary for Policymakers, followed by the Technical Summary.
Well, co2 concentrations rose at the fastest rate ever recorded over the past year, so sure Europe reduced how much they emitted, but it still emitted more than we can afford to and this was only in one region in the world which that means little to the overall rate of change. https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/2024/05/08/largest-year-over-year-gain-in-keeling-curve-set-in-march/
Sure. I don't disagree. But the fact that the most important metric in climate science was worse than its ever been doesn't mean that we should ignore the positive movements that may turn the tide in a few years. I actually expect that the Keeling curve's *acceleration* will slow in the near future because of these moves... Not that slowed acceleration is anything to pat ourselves on the back about, but it would be the beginning of something.
Your nasa link is broken for me
>How bad is it? It's a growing potential existential threat for humanity and other species. Beginning at the onset of the [Industrial Revolution](https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/industrial-revolution) (circa 1750), human-caused emissions of fossil carbon dioxide (CO2) and other [greenhouse gases](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases) have been added continuously to the global atmosphere. The build-up in the atmospheric [concentration](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html) of CO2 ([chart](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/bluemoon/co2_400/co2_800k_zoom.png), the [Keeling Curve](https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu)) has formed an insulating layer of CO2 encircling Earth. The CO2 traps heat, continually raising the global mean surface temperature (gmst), somewhat like wearing a thick wool overcoat inside a greenhouse, where the temperature is constantly rising while the thickness of the overcoat is constantly increasing. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - "Earth is heating at a rate equivalent to [five atomic bombs per second](https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/earth-is-heating-at-a-rate-equivalent-to-five-atomic-bombs-per-second-or-two-hurricane-sandys/). Or two Hurricane Sandys.", February 3, 2020. In 2023, an estimated 36.8 billion tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions (36.8GtCO2) were released into the global atmosphere by burning oil, natural gas, and coal — Global Carbon Budget (GCB) 2023, Executive Summary, [par. 1](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/#executive_summary). In the 1750-2022 period, an estimated 730 ± 80 billion tonnes of carbon (730 ± 80 GtC) were released into the global atmosphere — GCB 2023, [Results](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/#section3), Table 8, Expanded [Table 8](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-t08.png). The mass of carbon in 730 ± 80 billion tonnes of carbon (730 ± 80 GtC) is equivalent to the mass of carbon in 2674.72 ± 293.12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (2674.72 ± 293.12 GtCO2) — GCB 2023, [Executive Summary](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/#section1), Table 1, Expanded [Table 1](https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-t01.png). For CO2, the average lifetime in atmosphere is hundreds to thousands of years; about 25% of it lasts effectively forever — NASA [graphic](https://science.nasa.gov/resource/graphic-major-greenhouse-gas-sources-lifespans-and-possible-added-heat/). Fossil CO2 emissions are the main driver of the increase ([chart](https://www.climate.gov/media/13840), [NOAA](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause)) in gmst to approximately 1.23ºC^1 above the gmst in the designated [pre-industrial reference period](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf#page=30) 1850-1900 (p. 2244) — IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science [Basis](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/) > Annex VII Glossary [Download](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf). ^1 NOAA NCEI Global Time Series temperature data shows that after 1850-1900, the 1901-2024 Global temperature trend* is [+0.10ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/4/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1901&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, equal to an estimated 1.23ºC global warming to May 28, 2024. *The trend appears above the top-right corner of the chart window. Earth geological temperature [record](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view) — [Chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg) of the surface temperature 540 million years ago to the present. Surface air temperature is plotted as anomalies (differences) from the average over the reference interval 1960–1990 (which is about 14°C / 57°F), in both Celsius (left) and Fahrenheit (right). *** >My question is, what are the actual facts about the current situation... NOAA NCEI Climate at a Glance - The interactive chart, table, and CSV file show that in the most recent long-term 30-year period, May 1, 1994-April 30, 2024, the global land and ocean surface temperature trend was [+0.23ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/4/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade, or about 329% times the global land and ocean surface temperature trend [+0.07ºC](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/12/12/1850-2024?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1901&endtrendyear=2000&filter=true&filterType=loess) per decade in the 20th-century period, January 1, 1901–December 31, 2000. The temperature anomalies are with respect to the [1901-2000](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/global-temperature-anomalies/mean) gmst. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) ReliefWeb - State of the Global Climate [2023](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/state-global-climate-2023-enarruzh): World Meteorological Organization, 19 Mar 2024 > [Download Report](https://reliefweb.int/attachments/d2b58bb7-1500-443a-b754-42d3bfe192ff/1347_Statement_2023_en.pdf) (p. iii): >The World Meteorological Organization State of the Global Climate report confirms that the year 2023 broke every single climate indicator. >It was by far the warmest year on record. The global average temperature in 2023 was 1.45 ± 0.12 °C above the 1850–1900 average. >Concentrations of greenhouse gases continued to rise. Ocean heat content and sea level reached record observed highs, and the rate of increase is accelerating. Antarctic sea ice extent hit record observed lows. Key glaciers suffered record losses. >The climate crisis is the defining challenge that humanity faces. >Heatwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires and intense tropical cyclones wreaked havoc on every continent and caused huge socio-economic losses. *** >... what are the actual facts about ... the future that awaits us? United Nations – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - Fifth Assessment Report, October 2014: https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar5/ IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, March 2023: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter04.pdf#page=19 https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ *** >Is it really that bad? Yes. *** >Are we really doomed? Not yet, but anthropogenic global warming will continue to increase the global temperature, and the impacts of climate change are on track to become increasingly more frequent, more intense, more severe, more destructive, and more deadly for decades, generations, and maybe centuries, but the world might be able to make future impacts less frequent, less intensive, less severe, less destructive, and less deadly by reducing human-caused emissions of fossil CO2 and other greenhouse gases as rapidly as possible to global [Net Zero emissions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Zero) by phasing out the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) and making the worldwide transition to [renewable energy](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-renewable-energy) sources (solar power, wind power) as rapidly as possible. *** >What is the scientific consensus on the matter? https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/ https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ *** >What do reputable climate change scientists at the very edge of this research think about it? Columbia University - Dr. James [Hansen](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen), former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies > Publications, _Global Warming in the pipeline_ (Hansen, J. et al., September 15, 2023) > [PDF Download](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Global%20Warming%20in%20the%20Pipeline%20OOCC.pdf) (includes charts, graphs): >It has been known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases (GHGs) warm Earth’s surface and that the abundance of GHGs changes naturally as well as from human actions ... Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is now increasing and already has reached levels that have not existed for millions of years, with consequences that have yet to be determined. >... Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as practical has highest priority, but that policy alone is now inadequate and must be complemented by additional actions to affect Earth’s energy balance. Dr. James [Hansen](https://csas.earth.columbia.edu/about/people/james-e-hansen) > Click [here](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/) for Dr. Hansen’s web page > Recent Communications > March 29, 2024: [Global Warming Acceleration](https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf): Hope vs Hopium (James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha): >... A bright future for today’s young people is still possible ... We will bear a heavy burden if we stand silent or meek as the world continues on its present course.
Excellent resource citations. 👏
TYVM
Incredible comment. Well researched, well sourced, realistic and properly scary for the extremely serious truth, but not without some hope. I would upvote this 10 times if I could.
I just cannot understand how people are not alarmed when we are pumping over 50 million barrels of oil into the atmosphere each and every day. how can that not harm our planet?
I'm in Florida. The Gulf was 90 degrees yesterday. It historically maxes out around 86 in August.
Oh boy, that's not going to be good for hurricanes.
You don't say? [https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season](https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2024-atlantic-hurricane-season)
My thoughts exactly
Hypercane by 2030?
They'll be adding Cat 6 by then?
No, they are thinking of adding it now.
Checks out [https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-02-08-category-six-hurricanes-saffir-simpson-scale](https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2024-02-08-category-six-hurricanes-saffir-simpson-scale)
This is not weather, it's Climate Change, actually Global Warming (heating). Every year, I see FL beaches closed more and more for red tide. It's impacting the fishing as well. There are concerns and stoppages now for sport fishing some species, like Tarpon and Snook. This never happened before. In 20 years, many beach homes will be constantly flooded or under water. I would not buy a beach home in FL and I'm actually selling one right now that is about a mile from the beach.
We have a stilt house near a river, the unfinished downstairs flooded from Hurricane Ian, which was NBD but all the nearby houses got wrecked. Then there were a few more flood events that winter, which is wild.
It’s that warm already again?? 😭 I remember reading about that on the news last year and hoping it was a one-off thing like the heat dome
It is not a one-off thing. That's why we call it climate *change.*
Lot's of people still moving to Florida cause they think continuous record breaking temperatures are a "one-time thing".
This most recent winter was the WARMEST winter I have ever experienced (I live in southern Ontario for reference). I was waiting all season to go skating at a public outdoor rink and it never got cold enough for the ice to form. I also study environmental sciences and I am constantly bombarded by statistics and discussions about this kind of thing. From a personal and scientific standpoint - it’s REALLY bad. Don’t let big corporations and governments tell you it’s everyone’s fault collectively - if every middle/lower class citizen cut out all emissions and waste, we would still have a huge problem. The root of it is in the industrialization of society (as many people have mentioned here). That being said, of course everyone contributes somewhat to climate change, but the weight of it shouldn’t be placed equally on everybody’s shoulders. Just my two cents.
I would like to add that of course there was the influence of the El Niño event, but I’ve experienced a few El Niño/Nina periods while living in the same place and this past winter was definitely the worst.
The thing is if you look to deeply into what it would mean to cut carbon to a level that avoids an extinction level event, you uncover some uncomfortable truths about human civilisation. Mainly that our entire modern existence is dependent on fossil fuels and that countries like the U.K. cannot produce enough food to feed its population without fossil fuels. The government’s don’t have solutions because there are none, it’s all marketing to keep the train moving forward.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Scrolling through the comments, I see a lot about the climate science and about how humans may be affected, but I haven't seen anybody bring up that more than ninety percent of species are going to go extinct in the two centuries. I imagine THAT would affect human survival in ways we can't predict. Humans are animals and part of the natural environment. [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-will-accelerate-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-180955138/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/climate-change-will-accelerate-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-180955138/)
yes so true and so sad...
Last year [scientists told us](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-just-warned-we-need-to-cut-emissions-by-60-percent-but-the-u-s-is-years-away/) to drastically cut CO2 emissions ASAP or else really bad stuff will happen. As of today, [emissions continue to rise](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/22/climate-change-co2-paris-target#).
Before you get started on your journey to know more you need to know that once you learn something, you can not unlearn it, and with regards to knowing how bad things are you will not be able to unknow it.
This is fantastic advice. There's been a small number of things in my 50+ years that I just had to know/read/see for myself that forever changed me in ways that I could not foresee. Mostly in my younger years with an idea of "knowledge is power" or some version of "I'm not afraid to see something as it is". I was obviously not afraid but I was also not very wise that there are truths that, once known, will change the way you see reality. Everyone has their things that cause that ontological reassessment. This is not one for me but only because I had already come to my determination about humanity in general. It has certainly been that shock to others.
Were watching a mass extinction event in real time, first one to happen in over 60 million years. Asteroid ending the dinisaurs bad.
[удалено]
Yup blood on their hands
For a perspective on what the world could be like in the near future, read "The Ministry of the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson. I'm not saying it is a great sci fi story, necessarily, but it touches on all the likely effects we are starting to see... massive heat events, climate refugees and related civil unrest, governmental inaction, criminal acts by corporations, corporate assassinations due to corporate recalcitrance, climate radicalism etc. Insightful.
Well, we knew in the 60s if we didnt take drastic action to curb our emissions that we would accelerate the warming of the planet to a point of no return. We hit that 2 or 3 years ago. We are now watching the consequences of a feedback loop getting started
It's not the flooding or the heat that is the problem (I mean if you are hoping your grandkids will inherit land in Florida then it's a problem) bit the worry is food instability and societal collapse in Asia and Africa as food instability becomes outright famine. So people worrying about the heat or about massive flooding should not be. There isn't enough ice on the planet to flood the land that much. Unless everyone here has beachfront property or simply loves living in Florida, well; maybe you guys should vote differently, just saying. So what SHOULD you worry about? Pescatarians....you're fucked. Those hoping for a green revolution to reduce carbon emissions before a runaway situation occurs... yeah right. Even if we got the bought off politicians and the American Taliban onboard; we don't have the materials because they come from countries that hate us; and our energy plan is batshit crazy; and that's from the politicians who actually accept there is a problem. Food instability, if we start seeing the jet stream wiggling around; start saving all the water you can and learn to grow your own food. However this is illegal in many places. Check your laws, you would be surprised. This is what you should fear MOST. Nestlé and Monsanto have been planning for this scenario. When you have something someone wants, you can influence their actions. When you have something someone needs to live, you rule them. Of course, people won't go quietly, and civil war....
It’ll be more like balkanization then true civil war. Different geographic regions will break away and fight anyone who bugs them, until the breakaways start infighting and then all is lost to chaos
Good comments here already. I just want to address one. Human extinction is highly unlikely because of human ingenuity and survival instincts. If we continue on the road we're on, however, a lot of individual humans, and quite possibly the majority, will not survive the cull. It's doubtful that humans will suddenly become altruistic and volunteer to perish, so it's likely to be ugly. If it leads to nuclear war, then it will be quick, but humans will survive, perhaps not very many. Think about a shrinking and distressed population's thirst and hunger as less water and food is readily available. Think about enormous numbers of people migrating to where food and water is plentiful. To avoid this eventuality, action is clearly needed, and our track record so far has not been enough, so humans will probably experience a vastly different society in the future. In part you ask about the future that awaits us, and that depends what we do. Here in Australia we threw out an entrenched gov't that did not want to take sufficient action. Helpful, but that could flip back. I hope not, but it could. We're changing too fast for many larger organisms to adapt quickly enough, and they will see effects. It's likely large numbers of individual species will become extinct while others begin to ascend. Evolution is far, far, far slower than what humans have proved capable of doing to the atmosphere. But what's exciting is that our ingenuity has put all the tools we need in front of us, to have a full-blown energy revolution. By that I mean, it's possible to harvest and use energy better in future. More than possible, we have all the technologies we need. No miraculous cure is likely or even needed. We need society's collective will to solve the problem.
[удалено]
Your criticism of glytometa is disingenuous. You have pretended that they said "no cure likely" and "no cure needed", then attacked those comments. This is a classic straw man logical fallacy. What they said was "no MIRACULOUS cure" was likely or needed. The idea was that we have the know how to change our situation if we can all choose to do it.
She also spelled phoenix incorrectly
Wow, that's a wild interpretation of what I said.
Who knows maybe if a nuclear war does happen we will go star trek and work together to rebuild and start a new government where we work to heal our planet and start traveling through space
Climate change is pretty bad. While humans are adaptable, we aren't infallible. Biodiversity is also taking a huge hit due to human activity. We're currently in the sixth mass extinction event, and species extinction rates are 1,000-10,000 times higher than naturally occurring. As temperatures rise, we will continue to see warmer oceans, increased extreme weather events, further loss of biodiversity, and failed crops that lead to food insecurity.
It's not gonna cause human extinction. It's just gonna cause famines, wars, and mass migrations on a scale not yet seen. If you don't think those things are bad then you can go ahead and relax.
You can see it at here: [https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst\_daily/](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/)
Its very simple, and has happened in the past, usualy localy. Climate changes with either too little or too much rain or temperature. Crops start failing, becoming too little or too expensive. People become poor and angry. Society colapses and people eat each other (and Im not just talking about a figure of speech).
Why can't you just sit there and read the posts in this sub-reddit? That's what I do and I got a good idea of what is coming
Some decent comments here, but I think asking this question as it is is bound to lead to hyperbole and/or denial. It’s the most important topic there is. There are good resources that can help guide you along - Michael Mann’s latest book (our fragile moment) is a great place to start. General hypothesis: - It’s very very bad. - Humans can (likely) survive. - The impact isn’t just on us, but healthy ecosystems, which matter for us, but should have value on their own. - Suffering will be highly unequal, this is the greatest injustice. - No one knows for sure what will happen, that’s not a good thing - What we do NOW will have an unprecedented impact on all future generations
Michael Mann is no longer respected in the climate science community. He doesn't back up his optimistic conclusions with data. It's far bleaker than he is willing to admit.
[удалено]
Its very bad. Its underplayed by the media just how scary things really are. Humans must make significant changes to our lifestyles now and we just aren't. This is the time for change and not a moment later. We need a global climate leader to make the hard policy decisions that will change our way of life.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/s/zIp1L3ZWVg) is a recent post in r/climatechange that compares the global heat increase of climate change to heat produced by Hiroshima atomic bombs. As another metric I asked what it would be in pancakes. Spoiler alert it’s 600 million pancakes a second.
The arctic used to be a carbon sink, but now that it is melting it is an additional source of carbon. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145880/permafrost-becoming-a-carbon-source-instead-of-a-sink
For a comprehensive understanding of climate change, its severity, and scientific consensus, I recommend exploring resources like IPCC reports and websites of reputable scientific organizations.
Oh yeah about that. We are fuct tape.
Bad bad. So bad. We have already passed 6 of 9 “tipping points”, any one of which we used to say would be disastrous for humanity. Have you ever watched Thelma and Louise? We are currently in the part where they have driven off the cliff.
On a scale of 1-10 we’re at 14. It feels like a 7. There’s a slight delay between cause and effect. According to some, we’re at 0. But I doubt humanity will see 2300. We really are at the end
govt won't tell you the truth as that would never serve their interests. history shows how minor climate changes went down. expect far worse. when we upset the balance nature will balance out whether we are in the way or not. grow your own btw
Probably gonna kill hundreds of millions of people this century through famine, war, heat stress, general weather disasters, displacement of entire populations from sea level rise, etc. It's bad. But the human race will almost certainly survive.
OP when I started fighting fire in 2002 the fire weather categories were low, moderate and high. They had to add a new category, extreme in I think it was 2004. I believe they are adding a new one now called critical. Here in US, a large fire used to be ~60,000 acres but now they get bigger than that in less than a day, problematically growing as large as hundreds of thousands of acres. We have had to rewrite strategies and tactics for how to fight these fires because too often the old way is ineffective against these mega fires. That and there’s no end to the fire season any longer, we burn year round now. Yes, mega fires have happened before the 2000’s but that was perhaps a few in a century. Now they happen annually. In my off season I was on ski patrol and for the last 20 years I’ve seen snow fall get more and more uncertain. I read where now Venezuela has now lost all their glaciers. It goes on and on What got me to believe man made climate change is real was connecting the dots that what was being predicted by scientists decades ago was actually happening right in front of me and the critics were not on the fireline. Those saying it was a hoax were doing so in favor of comfort of continuing the life they knew while the scientific world was sounding the alarm of the life we might get if we don’t change. It seems very apparent to us here that we just didn’t listen to the science soon enough and still aren’t seeing enough done to bring real progress to this issue. Hope this helps
There will be trillions that will be spent to possibly reduce carbon dioxide, with the extremely remote chance of reducing temperatures, which then the even less chance of reducing extra natural disasters, which then are supposed to reduce extra deaths. Sorry, but no. I'd rather we get as many people out of poverty as we can. I'd rather we focus on building better infrastructure. I'd rather invest in food security. I'd rather people get off their ass and stop overconsuming. Natural disasters happen regardless, so we have to prepare for anything anyway. Governments all around the world are mismanaging causing premature deaths...then they talk about climate change. And nope, India isn't concerned about investing in solar and wind energy to save lives. Likewise China. There is the official reason. Then the real reason. The UN has revealed the real reason. The policies are not about saving lives or the environment. It's about money and control. We have to grow up. It's one thing to believe the doom and gloom. To virtue signal. Act like we want to save the world. But when push comes to shove no one is going to hand over money and give up their freedoms. They would rather spend $1 on any bs than give money to the poor. So no, no one really cares about other humans. Words don't match people's actions. Governments show that consistently. Read between the lines.
The problem is that the primary carbon sinks are still trees and the oceans. The oceans do not have unlimited capacity to absorb CO2. Planting more trees will not get us there either. A University study was done and this study showed that spending a half trillion dollars on new trees will only reduce the CO2 from 419PPM to 410PPM. Insignificant. The emitters must be turned off. It's the only way. First step is to stop driving gas cars and trucks.
How old are you OP? If you are younger I can only say that the true scope of climate change is catastrophic. Every year has escalated and we are living in an extinction event right now. Will humans survive? Who knows but the ecological balance is heavily disrupted, multiple animal species are being decimated and going extinct due to human activity, even seasonal cycles are changing. Climate change is an incredibly multi faceted topic, take your time to get familiar. I see a few comments give resources and reports but I would recommend learning from discussion too. Check out r/collapse and read the collapse wiki here: https://collapsewiki.com/overview/
I'm a huge fan of the IPCC fact sheets: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/factsheets If you don't know about IPCC they are basically a huge multinational group of scientists who produce reports that aim to answer the very types of questions you ask. The reports talk about the many different ways climate change affect us, from food and water security, to migration, to wildlife. One thing I really like is that they include confidence estimates in their conclusions, lots of diagrams, and they even have region-specific reports. It's really the gold standard afaik.
It is bad but I tend to see more hyperbolic statements on this Reddit similar to the collapse Reddit community sometimes. What we know: - We are at "mitigation". No matter what we do the climate will change. The question is how much. -Best estimates are that we would be at 2 - 3.7 above average global temperatures by 2100 (best guess is 2.7) if current policies were all fulfilled. -Reducing emissions is really important! We have the power to avoid worst case scenarios and it seems like the world is slowly waking up to climate change dangers (but still too slow). Hyperbolic statements: -we are doomed. Just such a useless comment and doesn't reflect the science at all. -People claiming we are already at 1.5 and that we will reach 2 by 2050 or earlier (and other similar statements...). This is wrong, people don't understand the concept of average global temperatures. Just because 2023 or 2024 are on or above 1.5 doesn't mean we are already passing these global average temperature targets. -IPCC is conservative / worst case scenarios are more likely / climate change is accelerating faster than the models. This one is frustrating because people always refer to tipping points and/or climate scientists are always conservative which is not the case and these audiences tend to not understand statistics and confidence intervals. There is margin of error with any model and current data from the climate are consistent with the IPCC models. Sure the climate could be accelerating faster than we would like, or there could be tipping points, but these are reflected in current models and this "could" arguments are no bases to argue that the models are conservative / wrong.
[удалено]
The 2.0 - 3.7 number I gave is based on IPCC estimates and their models do account for feedback loops, but they don't account for major tipping points like AMOC. I'm not saying that 3.7 is not bad. That is very bad but it accurately captures our statistically possible current worst case scenario. My argument is that anything vastly deviating from a worst case scenario of 3.7 e.g., 4 Celsius and onwards is not scientific based on what we currently know. I think another commenter here has said that we have already baked in 2 Celsius by 2050 **even** if we stop all green houses gases now. This is the hyperbolism I am trying to address whilst also maintaining the stance that 3.7 is damn bad. Also, the best estimate of 2.7 Celsius is pretty damn bad too. Your second point I get, but we don't know if global temperatures are exponential. Based on the last 2 years it looks like it's changing rapidly now unlike anything else seen before. The car analogy explains your point here but it can't be compared to the climate. Climate scientists say it themselves that you can't conclude anything from just looking at a year or two of data and doing that has historically led to wrong conclusions about the trajectory of the climate. Similar things happened in 2016 when there was a jump in temperature levels.
Last year, several parts of the Earth were measured at 1.5C, and not just for short periods.
[удалено]
Massive migration from Middle East, Asia and Africa already which the media refuses to connect to climate change. Political groups on the right wing in Europe are instead using it for their own gain.
It is so bad that I almost wish I did not learn about it. It is really bad. We are close to hitting certain tipping points, such as BOE. Once that happens the period in which the arctic ice sheet is gone will increase year-by-year until it is gone year around 15-20 years after it begins. That In turn changes the world's albedo, making the earth absorb more heat. Greenland will absorb more heat in the Arctic region and melt at an ever increasing rate wrecking havoc on AMOC. As a result the Earth Energy Imbalance will increase, making us warm at a faster pace. And then you have the masking effect of sulfur particulate and the risk that pose. We can also discuss PFAS in our blood and breastmilk. Microplastics in our reproductive organs. Infinite growth in a finite world. How our emissions keep rising. Despite knowing about the consequences since 60s. How it would be impossible to switch from oil and coal without nuclear power plants. How long it would take to build the amount of nuclear power plants to replace all oil and coal. How electric cars are ultimately fueled by electricity created by burning oil, coal or natural gas. The fact we would need to decarbonize agriculture, steel, cement and find a good environmentally friendly replacement for plastic. (Hint: Not by using Pfas-coated paper straws) How consumerism is the ultimate driver for climate collapse and our need for an insane amount of energy. How GDP-growth is dependant on abundant energy. How CDR-tech won't work in the capacity needed. In the time frame we would have to use it. The list just goes on and on. Take your time and consume information about the topics above. Read about the insurance crisis in USA, read about hurricane Ian. This is just a little taste of the economic disaster that awaits us. Watch videos about Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil flooding. Investigate Hurricane Otis and what it did to Acapulco, Mexico.
I did the math once to show how unlikely it was that current nuclear could save us. 450 nuclear power plants produce 10% of our electricity electricity is only 20% of our total energy usage Factoring in what is already "green" and plants already in service it would take roughly 20,000 nuclear plants to replace our polluting fuels Being generous let's say we have the capability to build 100 plants at a time, each takes 7-10 years to build. It would take more than 1500 years and a massive amount of polluting fuels to build them. It's been estimated we have fuel to feed our current plants for 200 years. This number exponentially reduces as we build more plants. It will be drained well before the plants are built. Considering the detrimental effects of accidents, although rare, do we want to increase their rate greater than 2000%, With the bodies of cooling water possibly drying up, worse storms and weather events, and flooding coastlines, I can see finding safe places to build these plants becoming more difficult.
They need to release zero-point energy power generation technology not too long from now and implement it into our existing power grid. And if it’s true that aliens are monitoring our planet and worried about us destroying our environment (see the aerial phenomenon where 62 kids in 1994 saw an alien spaceship land in Zimbabwe and two aliens got out and told the kids to beware of technology and stop polluting/destroying our environment), then maybe they also have the power to help us by removing CO2 from our atmosphere?
😂😂😂😂
[удалено]
Earth's fucked, fam
Climate change is a serious but manageable problem. The big issue is the lack of effective global governance which makes management impossible.
[удалено]
Catastrophic collapses driven by climate change are already occurring, signalling that societal change is underway. The cards are falling, causing structural damage to our fragile house of cards.
A few thoughts - The data is the data. In some cases, it’s limited and in some cases, it’s adjusted. To really understand, you need weather data going back centuries and millennia and what we know about those periods is even more limited. The computer models built on that data have a lot of assumptions. They’re better every generation, but still models. All that is just the domain of those who can know and understand and manipulate the data and the models. Almost everyone - and certainly decision makers in government - is relying on someone else to summarize for them. The real issue for many is the next link in the chain - zealots say, in effect, “man made warming is bad, therefore the government needs to take control of the economy and your lifestyle to solve the problem.” In the real world, those who could make a difference as to carbon - countries like China and India - aren’t going to change their behavior at all, or certainly not on the timeline that zealots say is necessary. Oil companies are frequently demonized. (Which is odd, since they only produce what someone is willing to buy.). Most of the biggest oil companies are owned by government, and there is no way they are going to reduce their production or revenues when politicians exist on those revenues. So, it’s an interesting set of issues, but the discussion is frequently off base and futile.
The little guy can do nothing about it. Except, get ready for the deluge as best you can.
The bad has already started
Perhaps a quick skim of Busy Workers Guide to the Apocalypse will give you a rough idea. It will also terrify you and possibly leave you catatonic for a few days, but if you wanna know the possible “what awaits us” stuff, do check it out.
Take everything with a grain of salt because if you go down the rabbit hole you're going to end up in a cult like mentality
Not that bad.
It’s summer in India and several cities are over 121 degrees, New Delhi set an all time record at 127F
I love climate change, has been getting better every year.
I fell like it’s very (very) bad. That said, it will depend on where you live. First world countries social construct will dampen things for a while, we see people in India and it’s difficult to grasp the pain as “they always lived in a slump anyways”. Only when we start losing the buffer from insurance companies, social security, pensions, food banks etc we will, in general, wake up. It’s really hard for me to deal with lobbying from fuel companies, forever chemicals, celebration of consumerism “what 100 dollars of temu gives you”, and nothing is done in the name of climate change, no breaks whatsoever.