487
"North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies are going vertical again. And yes, I needed to extend the y-axis."
(lemmy.world)
From Prof. Eliot Jacobson:
Wow! Wow! Wow!
North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies are going vertical again. And yes, I needed to extend the y-axis.
Yesterday's temperature of 24.49°C (76.08°F) was 4.2σ above the 1991-2020 mean. The previous high for July 17 was 23.71°C (74.68°F) in 2020.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1681321023306874880
It takes about ~30 years to see the effects of emissions on the climate. That means the climate crisis we're experiencing right now is only the emissions up to ~1993. Looking at CO~2~ emissions alone, in 1993 the global total was 22.8 billion tonnes. The latest Data available is from 2021, which shows the global CO~2~ emissions at 37.1 billion tonnes. That's in increase of 14.3 billion tonnes of annual CO~2~ emissions in the amount of time it takes us to feel the effects, that's a 61% increase in Annual emissions, Not Total emissions. If we stopped all CO~2~ emissions today, it would continue to get considerably worse for at least the next quarter-century. We are truly ~~Fucked~~ on the bleeding edge of that climate "tipping point" and major changes are about to start happening very rapidly.
source for CO~2~ emissions numbers: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Where did you learn that CO2 emissions take 30 years to have an effect on our atmosphere?? I've never heard that.
30 years isn't a hard number, but it can still take 2-3 decades. It has to do with how CO~2~ changes ocean chemistry, which has broad effects on the rest of the climate. https://info.ecogardens.com/blog/what-is-climate-change-lag-and-why-do-we-care
Edit: I think this is the first place i saw it years ago https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html
I imagine you noticed this but that second citation (from your edit) has this at the top of the article:
Update August 9, 2020: Please be aware that this article was published in 2010 and that its content is no longer considered accurate. As it still gets regularly linked to from other websites, we will not delete or "unpublish" it. Instead, here is the link to a better take on this topic published by our late team member Andy Skuce in 2013: Global Warming: Not Reversible but Stoppable.
Ice free poles by 2030? Sorry but its going to take a lot longer than that for Antarctica to loose all it's ice.
This is a long debunked myth.
Here is an article that goes into some detail.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/
So there is some hope, if we can stop emoting CO2 ASAP. If one finds that a realistic path to belive in on the other hand is a matter of opinion.
I think it's a misunderstanding, not a myth.
CO2 influences the greenhouse effect - keeping more solar energy on Earth.
Solar energy gets converted into heat, heat gets absorbed. Some of it gets absorbed by oceans. Some of CO2 also gets absorbed by oceans - their pH decreases. The greenhouse effect doesn't require great time, but oceanic warming and acidification does require time. Interaction happens on the surface, but the volume is great.
Thus, delays in response are inevitable. Response may also depend on circulation - an ocean current slowing or speeding up.
what about carbon capture?
Imagine a bull in a china shop destroying everything, now there is two options :
Carbon capture is the option 2, we continue to break the carbon molecules for energy pretending that we can recapture later. It's not gonna happen, we need to stop emitting NOW and maybe we can think about carbon capture.
Apparently the scale that's required makes it completely impractical, especially given the timelines that are also required.
It's a pipe dream at the scale we need it
Only in the way that can be monetized or industrialized, and only if we actually cut down on emissions (instead of just slowing the growth rate a little)
There's plastic bottles everywhere. There's people everywhere. What if every human spent an hour a day on little algae bioreactors? It's grade school level science, all you need is bottles, non-potable water, a knife, and any old cloth to strain it out.
And, of course, algae... But once you get started, that'll be easy to come by. It'll even naturally adapt to local conditions, and there's versions that can be used as food - the rest can be dried and used as fertilizer. It not only provides nutrients and increases water retention, it also helps mycillium regrow, repairing the soil. This also reduces runoff and feeds into water tables
Ever since this idea popped into my head, I've felt there's something there - I met someone working for a company that is doing this commercially, and I can't help but think if we can do it in a distributed manner it could help with a lot of issues
No incentive, even for biochar for terra preta.
Gamify it. Everyone starts out with a basic setup. The organization coordinating the effort can add additional incentives. Add achievements, unlockables, larger setups, rare algaes and algae colors. Loot boxes with various supplies. Three factions that compete against each other. Leaderboards, both local and global.
It would be simultaneously competitive and cooperative towards a common goal.