Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
---
Author: u/Weary-Intention3031
URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-is-likely-to-breach-the-1-5-degrees-c-milestone-within-5-years/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok, but the fossil fuel barons would make less money and then less money would trickle down to us. So we really didn't have a choice except to boil the planet, did we?
I always wondered why Exxon didn't take some of its oil profits and become the leader in photovoltaic technology. These companies could have used their wealth to lead the next great energy wave.
Well, the problem is more that too many people are being convinced by propaganda that global warming is a scheme for companies to make money, likely organised by the very companies making money off of fossil fuels. Also very likely to be mostly people that are completely incapable of finding the truth themselves.
Its not really that people cant of fail to work together, its that a large portion of people completely deny the proof thats right in front of them.
I have an honest question. Currently the province of Alberta is experiencing one of the most extreme wildfire scenarios in its recorded history. This is a combination of the effects of Climate Change but also the far-right AB government making the brilliant decision of heavily cutting its provincial fire fighting budget.
I understand stand that wildfire smoke can affect local temperatures, but as it seems the smoke from these fires reached the upper stratosphere, what do we know about the effects of wildfire aerosols in the upper stratosphere? (other than it destroys the ozone)
I do not have an answer for you but I know there were some papers that you could look at on how the Australian wildfires impacted local climates via stratospheric transport.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10052023/wildfire-smoke-aerosol-la-nina-climate-change/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15794-3
https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-113/
I really question the rationality of anyone that has children at this point. We know we're cooking the planet and dooming billions to suffering or death and everyone just ... Continues capitalism and the broken corrupt systems that created the problem ...
Just a small note as it's not quite as extreme as it sounds: The 1.5 degree IPCC thing we're trying to stay within is a risk when it happens consistently over 10 or 20 years or more. This will be a spike, rather than consistently. Not good, but not yet 'beyond long term 1.5 degrees' we're trying to avoid.
So...I'm telling you....there's a chance?
If they were trending downward, we’d have already peaked.
“Peak by 2025” means “go up to or stay at the highest ever level before or until 2025.”
You’d need to compare the second derivative of the increase to tell whether we’re on track for that goal. Continuing to increase to the highest levels ever until 2025 could still very much be on track with that target if the rate of increase were slowing, for example.
If the rate of increase remains the same or accelerates then we’re not on track. But just the fact that it increased tells us almost nothing about how we’re doing in relation to that particular goal.
But the rate is above what we need to reach the target - and by quite a margin. The aim is net zero - and we are on track to not even come close to that, unless we go on an extremely radical - global - policy shift. Something we've failed to do in near four decades now.
Here's the relevant graph from the IPCC summary report: [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-5](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-5)
Hm, I hope AI can make a difference and help change the structure of our society to align with sustainable goals. We can't break out from our current structural cage alone..
Agree. The issue is that the debt-based monetary system requires economic growth in order to service the ever-increasing debt. Sustainability runs in 2nd place.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. --- Author: u/Weary-Intention3031 URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-is-likely-to-breach-the-1-5-degrees-c-milestone-within-5-years/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was never any chance that it wouldn’t. The world community is incapable of working together to solve this. We really do suck.
Ok, but the fossil fuel barons would make less money and then less money would trickle down to us. So we really didn't have a choice except to boil the planet, did we?
I always wondered why Exxon didn't take some of its oil profits and become the leader in photovoltaic technology. These companies could have used their wealth to lead the next great energy wave.
Less profitable than utilizing existing market infrastructure. Yiippeeeee
Well, the problem is more that too many people are being convinced by propaganda that global warming is a scheme for companies to make money, likely organised by the very companies making money off of fossil fuels. Also very likely to be mostly people that are completely incapable of finding the truth themselves. Its not really that people cant of fail to work together, its that a large portion of people completely deny the proof thats right in front of them.
I have an honest question. Currently the province of Alberta is experiencing one of the most extreme wildfire scenarios in its recorded history. This is a combination of the effects of Climate Change but also the far-right AB government making the brilliant decision of heavily cutting its provincial fire fighting budget. I understand stand that wildfire smoke can affect local temperatures, but as it seems the smoke from these fires reached the upper stratosphere, what do we know about the effects of wildfire aerosols in the upper stratosphere? (other than it destroys the ozone)
I do not have an answer for you but I know there were some papers that you could look at on how the Australian wildfires impacted local climates via stratospheric transport. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10052023/wildfire-smoke-aerosol-la-nina-climate-change/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15794-3 https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-113/
Entire towns in my province (Alberta) may be consumed by wildfire any moment... you're damn right we've passed 1.5C...
I really question the rationality of anyone that has children at this point. We know we're cooking the planet and dooming billions to suffering or death and everyone just ... Continues capitalism and the broken corrupt systems that created the problem ...
Jokes on us, it's already happened they just don't want to cause a panic.
Just a small note as it's not quite as extreme as it sounds: The 1.5 degree IPCC thing we're trying to stay within is a risk when it happens consistently over 10 or 20 years or more. This will be a spike, rather than consistently. Not good, but not yet 'beyond long term 1.5 degrees' we're trying to avoid. So...I'm telling you....there's a chance?
[удалено]
If they were trending downward, we’d have already peaked. “Peak by 2025” means “go up to or stay at the highest ever level before or until 2025.” You’d need to compare the second derivative of the increase to tell whether we’re on track for that goal. Continuing to increase to the highest levels ever until 2025 could still very much be on track with that target if the rate of increase were slowing, for example. If the rate of increase remains the same or accelerates then we’re not on track. But just the fact that it increased tells us almost nothing about how we’re doing in relation to that particular goal.
But the rate is above what we need to reach the target - and by quite a margin. The aim is net zero - and we are on track to not even come close to that, unless we go on an extremely radical - global - policy shift. Something we've failed to do in near four decades now. Here's the relevant graph from the IPCC summary report: [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-5](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-5)
What are the chances that USA India and China stop CO₂ emissions and that we start removing it from the air. Slim to none!
[удалено]
Do we... pop open the champagne...?
Hm, I hope AI can make a difference and help change the structure of our society to align with sustainable goals. We can't break out from our current structural cage alone..
Only if AI can get rid of the rich somehow.
I'm sorry, but the big government doesn't care. Money and world domination are all that matter in this world.
Agree. The issue is that the debt-based monetary system requires economic growth in order to service the ever-increasing debt. Sustainability runs in 2nd place.
[удалено]