Don’t think I need to summarize this one. This is bad news for everyone.

  • @El_guapazo
    link
    English
    253 hours ago

    Basically it’s too late to stop the process. Even if we switched to renewables entirely, there will be a lag. That lag is now in a positive feedback loop.

    • @Sanctus
      link
      English
      282 hours ago

      Yeah like the science community was saying 10-15 years ago.

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍
        link
        fedilink
        English
        202 hours ago

        I remember some of the early research showing this when I was in college in the late 90s/early 00s. It’s mostly following the worst-case scenario models from the time, except 50 - 80 years ahead of schedule.

        • @Sanctus
          link
          English
          42 hours ago

          Whether you can risk it or can’t. Its time to disobey our leaders. They dont care. They’ve built protections for themselves. They plan on feeding us to the storms.

          • FartsWithAnAccent
            link
            fedilink
            321 minutes ago

            There will be no protection or escape from the environmental changes we’ll be facing, this is not something you can just wait out in a bunker.

            • @Sanctus
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              4 minutes ago

              Yep, they’ll let the climate kill all of us. Because they won’t truly be living either down there. I’m sure all the training courses for guard loyalty in the world won’t actually do shit when you’re physically down in a bunker without hopes of coming out.

  • Icalasari
    link
    fedilink
    42 hours ago

    Huh. That’s oddly freeing

    “Oh we’re all fucked guaranteed. The stress is gone”

    I mean, still gonna be for eco measures and such, but it’s like a weight is off my shoulders in terms of worry

    • @AA5B
      link
      English
      112 minutes ago

      It’s not freeing. We may have locked in some really bad changes but it can always get worse. It more critical than ever to get a handle on our green house emissions

  • @TheDemonBuer
    link
    English
    13
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    So, what does this all mean for us? It means we have even less time to get our act together. Reducing emissions isn’t just a good idea — it’s crucial.

    I don’t think this will motivate countries to dramatically increase emissions reduction efforts, but I think it will motivate countries to begin geoengineering. Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction, and the results are more immediate. Yes, it doesn’t solve the core problem, which is the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, but it treats the symptom, albeit temporarily. Why put a lot of time, money, and effort into fixing the core problem when you can spend comparatively less time, money, and effort just treating the symptom? Then you can just pretend the core problem doesn’t exist and go about business as usual.

    Edit: sorry, I should have added the /s.

    • @NocturnalMorningOP
      link
      English
      10
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I don’t think you realize what a collapsed ocean current means for us. This is existential, not business as usual. Anything we do from here on out that isn’t in service of stopping this is signing our species death warrant.

      • @Mannimarco
        link
        English
        18 minutes ago

        I’m pretty sure that’s already signed, let’s be real, nothing is going to happen, we’re fucked

      • @AA5B
        link
        English
        110 minutes ago

        Haha fricking euros enjoying their moderate climate - wait until they find out what’s real Midwest winter is like. And they want to take my truck and my gas stove? Eff them.

        /too many conservatives probably

      • @FlowVoid
        link
        English
        02 hours ago

        deleted by creator

    • Rhaedas
      link
      fedilink
      22 hours ago

      You tried, but your tone and wording was off. Some people would state all that fully believing things can continue and we’ll tech out way out of trouble. And we WILL absolutely jump to geoengineering to try and preserve status quo, cost or not. The alternative is to change society dramatically, and that won’t happen voluntarily. And the great news is once we start geoengineering, we dare not stop because the reaction will spike things even worse.

    • ignirtoq
      link
      fedilink
      22 hours ago

      Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction

      I don’t know if your whole comment is sarcasm, but every part of this statement is wrong. We are in the very, very early stages of developing the technologies needed for the level of geoengineering required to mitigate what we have already done to the environment. To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables, which should really say how hard and expensive it would be given how utterly daunting of a task full conversion to renewables is.

      Now, putting in token investment and paying lip service to geoengineering, that’s cheaper and easier than switching to renewables. But that’s not even treating the symptoms. That’s just your standard con game against the broader population to try to manipulate the conversation.

      • @TheDemonBuer
        link
        English
        12 hours ago

        Yes, it was sarcasm. But, I think the push for solar geoengineering, or as some people are calling it “solar radiation management” is coming.

        • @AA5B
          link
          English
          17 minutes ago

          Geoengineering is the most expensive, least effective choice. It risks making things worse and it risks triggering conflict over local effects. It’s not a good idea.

          … but it’s starting to look like a necessary one, because we keep screwing up even more

      • @FlowVoid
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables

        The cost of geoengineering solutions has been estimated to be less than $5b/yr, which includes R&D. In other words, this is something that the government of New York City (annual budget: >$100b) could easily do alone without any international support, even in the face of significant opposition.

        In contrast, ending fossil fuel use requires significant international cooperation and is regularly stymied by opposing interests. NYC obviously cannot do it by itself.

        So from a pragmatic perspective, geoengineering is definitely the easiest solution. In fact IMO the lack of progress on emission reduction makes it inevitable, at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.

        • @TheDemonBuer
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          at some point some country will weigh the risks of climate change and take matters into its own hands.

          Yeah, I could see that happening. Maybe even the US. Maybe Elon Musk reads a Twitter thread about geoengineering, decides it’s the solution to warming, starts a company called GeoX and convinces Trump and the Republicans to give him and GeoX $5 billion a year, he buys a bunch of jets, fills them with sulfur dioxide and has them fart out a bunch of it around the Arctic every year. GeoX stocks soar, Musk becomes the first trillionaire, and the US federal government has added only a trivial amount to its already vast debt total. It almost doesn’t matter if it works or not.