• bric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you want some more optimism, we actually have slowed the rate of warming from what was predicted 20 years ago. The reality we are living in would have been considered an “optimistic prediction” at one point. We are still warming, things are still going in the wrong direction, but the changes that people have been making to mitigate global warming are making an impact. We might still be going over the cliff, but at least we’re doing it with our brakes on instead of full speed ahead. So yes, I do think it will be decades before we truly break temperature records that have been seen by humans, maybe even several decades. That doesn’t downplay the significance of the need to stop it though

    • GitProphet@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I’ve heard about our current climate warming situation I’d downgrade the metaphor from using breaks to taking the foot off the pedal a bit.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can slam the brakes on your Camry but there’s an oil tanker behind you and all they’re doing is laying on the horn and pointing at their green logo while shoving your car off the cliff.

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s what the oil industry likes to think, but they’re actually with us in the Camry. There is only the Camry, we’re all on the Camry together, good and bad.

    • xts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Too bad there’s a lag time of about 40 years on emissions. We’re only feeling the effects of what was emitted in the early 80s. Imagine how bad it’ll be in 20 years time.

        • xts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure. Essentially what happens is the ocean absorbs much of the CO2 that’s released by us. If you’ve ever heard the term “ocean acidification” that’s what causes it.

          Water and the oceans change on a much more gradual scale than the atmosphere, so it takes decades for the CO2 to be released back into the air. For example, if you bring a pot of water to an open flame it still takes time for the water to reach the temperature to boil, it’s not instantaneous.

          The ocean is far more massive than our atmosphere. It’ll take time for the changes to take effect, especially a noticeable one on our end. But if you take a look at the ph levels of the oceans over the last century it becomes abundantly clear we’re messing things up big time.

          • natryamar@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh that’s crazy I didnt know about that. Does the water just absorb the CO2 somehow or does it have to do with algea?

            • xts@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Both! It can absorb it on the surface through atmospheric diffusion and through photosynthesis from both algae and phytoplankton

    • pbkoden@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What about tipping points? I hear about ice cover, ocean currents, and other systems where once we get past a tipping point, additional warming is self sustaining. At that point it doesn’t matter if we have our brakes on, we’ve gone over the cliff right?

      • trafguy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If we end up triggering a self-sustaining feedback loop, that’s how I understand it, yeah. We still do have some very high risk strategies we could implement, like solar shielding to reduce total light reaching the earth, or bioengineering plants that suck up carbon super efficiently, but it’s hard to say what the impacts of those would be

        • toxic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t see either of those happening because there’s no short-term profit. Also, unintended consequences.

        • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t consider solar shielding high risk, since it would be easy to design fail-safe, but I totally wouldn’t trust bioengineering methods, since life uhh… finds a way.