zlacker

Ok, but are they wrong?

>>CalRob+(OP)
They are correct:

Daily Sea Surface Temperature (notice the new paradigm started in 2023 and extending into 2024):

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/

Daily Surface Air Temperature:

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world

Daily Sea Ice Extent (click on "Show Southern Hemisphere", also showing concerns of being low in 2023):

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/

The most shocking is the sea surface temperature, but we see rising temperature in all layers of the troposphere. A factor that has dampened global warming for very long, since the last ice age, is the ocean's capacity for absorbing heat. If this gets saturated, and since surface waters don't mix much with deep waters.. If the same surplus heat equivalent to 15 hiroshima bombs per second today hits the surface, and rising. All that goes into heating air and surface, it's going to accellerate warming going forward. Early projections are in fact showing accelleration already.

That most people are incapable of emotionally processing this, is part of the problem.

>>CalRob+(OP)
Yes, because it isn't so expensive to turn things around. An estimated 100-200% in global GDP is needed to reach carbon net zero by 2050. Annually we need to spend 2-6% of GDP to solve this.

>>CalRob+(OP)
Not wrong the science, but on the doomerism, that was my comment. I have a few friends on this extreme-depression-due-to-climate-change and it's not helpful to their health.

Think of it like this, death is unpreventable and we still live our lives. So even if the world collapse was totally unpreventable (I think we can still turn it around), it's still better to go down fighting and living life.

>>oezi+D1
We’re screwed then. The 99% can’t afford to go one to two years without an income, and the 1% simply never will because they don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

>>_y5hn+i1
There's a good chance that the sudden bump in sea surface temperature is a consequence of us cleaning up marine diesel. Which is at least interesting, because it suggests we were doing geoengineering without even knowing it.

(Random thought: what's the sulphur content of automotive diesel? I know it's cleaner, but there are so many more cars than boats. Could we see another sea surface temperature bump as we phase out diesel cars?)

>>allium+z3
It's not about going without that GDP, it's about redirecting it.

Simplified example: pay 6% of the population to plant trees.

> and the 1% simply never will because they don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

That's a lot closer to why we won't do it. Because as a species we can't act for the long term.

>>vasco+N1
How many of your extremely depressed friends are willing to abandon civilization as we know it and relinquish capitalism, transforming political systems into dictatorships focused solely on achieving net zero emissions by 2035 through drastic measures that could potentially result in millions of deaths (indirectly)? None. Consequently, worrying about this issue is as futile as fretting about snow being white. The crypto miners will continue mining, the gas and oil industries will prosper, and the wealthy will ponder the feasibility of establishing bunkers and retreats in New Zealand (which would not offer protection). Our selfishness extends to the point of sheer stupidity; each of us thinks, "What can I do? Nothing," and only a handful among us will take action that doesn't contribute to solving the problem at all. I suppose this is what the great filter looks like.

>>CalRob+(OP)
Yes, they always were. Predicting the end of the wrld is a very old game. Long before the industrial revolution, when people didnt even know about poluton, they already predicted the downfall of everything. It is a mental illness that creeps up on some of us. These people need help.

>>vasco+N1
When I was a kid, I heard that the sun is going to eventually explode, destroying planet Earth and us all. This was deeply saddening for me on a deep level, I remember crying and all. My parents tried explaining this will take 5 billion years, and we will all be long dead anyway but this wasn't really helping. Prior to that I had a major shock when I learned about death, and this was kind of a relapse.

Looking at it now, I think doomerism, preppers, apocalyptic religions and the guy that stands on the street shouting "it's the end of the world" are all a basic part of the human experience. It's not a coincidence every cult eventually reaches the narrative of the impending end of the world.

Death is suppressed and finds other avenues to pop out in

>>flir+y4
It could be that (removing sulphur from shipping fuel):

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping...

It could be the underwater Tonga volcano erruption, which put alot of water into the atmosphere. Water is also a GHG.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/tonga-er...

It could be El Nino part of the ENSO-cycle in addition.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181086972/el-nino-has-offici...

All these are temporary masking conditions. They also add to feedback effects, for increased warming. So could be partly accellerating heating as well.

I think some researchers are seeing accelleration in the overall trend. You can eyeball this with a ruler as well. Even though it might be too early to tell, it's hard to find any negative feedback loops to counter all these positive ones.

For cars, I think we'd probably see increase in surface temperature on land. People might care a bit more then. It could be removed from both gas and diesel. That would bring pollution down, but also remove aerosols currently masking effects from GHG.

https://www.futurity.org/potassium-fuel-sulfur-1369772-2/

UPDATE: As noted in another comment here. Car fuel is quite a bit different category than bunker fuel (heavy fuel oil). We might still observe "unmasking"-impacts if implemented generally though. We'd notice it more too, as the impact would be right where we use our cars.

>>flir+y4
I don't think ships are burning "diesel", but basically crude oil. It's not even in the same category as car fuel.

>>_y5hn+i1
Is 1+ enough of a trend to disregard most of the models? Is there no other explanation for the "new paradigm" of accelerating warming? You're saying that extreme warming scenario is now the correct science. I don't think there is a consensus about this.

>>goatlo+F9
It's not enough to call it a change of trend. I have another comment here where there are other, more temporary factors that also came into play. There's not consensus until after we see the new trend. Likely there are some temporary factors that will make the lines go down again when they wear out. But the overall trend might still be accellerating, just that it's going slower than normal human reference of time.

The increasing sea surface temperature is concerning because it directly is starting to harm millions of sea creatures that cannot adapt fast enough. There are multiple die-offs happening already that might be due to this.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/ocean...

What's concerning is that all the arrows are pointing just one way. The discussion is now wether it's accellerating or not..

>>vasco+N1
I'm nearly a doomer and the bullshit "it'll all be fine" or "human ingenuity will fix it!" Crowd have caused us to waste precious decades. I'm doing carbonthirteen now to try to find a way to help fix it and I encourage everyone who can to do similar. Action is the antidote to despair, but unfounded optimism and stupidity are the fuel for laziness

>>CalRob+(OP)
They might be wrong. And since they might be, and we have a chance to mitigate things somewhat, doom is not a useful response. It is paralysing.

Imagine fighting a war. If you and your fellow troops believe you will definitely lose, what happens to morale and the outcome? Morale collapses and you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The situation is serious but extreme doom predictions are the outlier in all credible models.

>>_y5hn+48
No useful comment, except to say I thought that was a great response. Thoughtful and detailed despite being an extended "it's complicated". My ignorance feels much better informed ;)

>>pk-pro+h5
Comments like we need to “relinquish capitalism” cement the fact for me that climate change doomerism is a thinly veiled attempt to push a collectivist economic system, not an honest attempt to actually help the environment.

I’ll stick with the economic system that has reduced global poverty by 80% in the last century, and brought us everything from clean water to smartphones. Not the economic system that resulted in the genocide of millions, the systematic theft from the working class and which continues to oppress people under crushing dictatorships in places like Cuba and Venezuela.