this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
105 points (100.0% liked)

science

16127 readers
874 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Earth’s temperature has surged in the past two years, and climate scientists will soon announce that it hit a milestone in 2024: rising to more than 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. But is this sudden spike just a blip in the climate data, or an early indicator that the planet is heating up at a faster pace than researchers thought?

Some scientists argue that the spike can be mostly explained by two factors. One is the El Niño event that began in mid-2023 — a natural weather pattern in which warm water pools in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, often leading to hotter temperatures and more-turbulent weather. The other is a reduction over the past few years in air pollution, which can cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space and seeding low-lying clouds. Yet neither explanation fully accounts for the temperature surge, other researchers say.

Some say that the massive temperature spike might end up being a blip in the climate data, owing in large part to new regulations covering air pollution from ocean-going ships... Not everyone is convinced, however. If the pollution reduction was the primary explanation, warmer temperatures should coincide with the areas most frequented by ships... Nor do the numbers necessarily add up.

Soft paywall so see summary above. The two studies cited in the news:

  • Goessling, H. F., Rackow, T. & Jung, T. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq7280 (2024). (about the El Nino effect)
  • Gettelman, A. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51, e2024GL109077 (2024). (about the reduction in ship tracks)
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

~1.6°C is, approximately, way hotter than scientific models would've told you just a few years ago. Yes we sped up climate change, but don't worry, we haven't even started to hit the brakes on this car, we're still holding down the accelerator while staring at the giant wall directly ahead of us.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

At least I'll be drunk and the wall is too big to swerve around. I'll die in the wreck v. suffocating when Earth O2 levels drop or there's no potable water or I get cooked in extreme heat. BTW, I'm driving very fast, over 100mph already and I'm gonna crash very,very soon.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

short answer: it's complicated

No. It’s not.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"it's complicated"

Meaning the answer is kind of making us sad so we're not going to say it out loud.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

It's said climate scientists did not publish the worst case scenarios because it would be seen as too alarmist. These were basically civilization-ending.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

It is. Being complicated doesn't mean that it's not happening. Cancer is complicated (very much so), yet it is very clearly bad.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not warning or not complicated?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not complicated.

I mean you can make anything complicated because it's particles all the way down, but the heat spikes are because we killed the environment with big oil, cars, water waste and pollution.

People just drop dead now it's so hot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I generally agree with you, but your statement is political, while scientific articles should show the complexity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

We’ve had 50+ years of science about it. A big publication like Nature doesn’t need to couch a discussion about heat records as “complex” - that’s an unforced error to climate denialists.

We’re way past the point where publications should be printing very large monosyllabic words about this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Shorter answer: Yes.

[–] Grandwolf319 10 points 1 month ago

This should honestly be the main thing we talk about for at least a month but instead we are reverting climate policies.

Humans might just be too dumb to pass the great filter.