I remember when they wanted to keep it within 1°C. Now it’s 1.5°C. In a few years, people will all be surprise Pikachu’d that nobody has done anything, and the goalpost will move to 2°C.
In a few years the temperature rise will move to 2, not just the goal posts.
So I wonder which we’ll hit first:
- 1.5° ten year moving average?
- 2.0° one year average?
It’s a race toward doom!
Global Warming Speedrun Any%
Curb your cynicism, folks. It can get a lot worse.
Will*
The difference between will and could here is intention and cynicism somewhat acts as climate doomerism, the child of climate action denial. Cynicism is giving control to Shell and Aramco.
Not OP, but I don’t think the reply can be interpreted as cynicism. Even if we were to stop GHG emissions entirely tomorrow things would continue to get worse for a while, since the cycles in nature that those gases go through are quite long. And we are not in fact stopping all GHG emissions tomorrow. Stating facts is not per se cynical.
I’d like to see that data - if we magically stopped emitting excess carbon tomorrow, what would global warming look like and when.
I’m sure it’s counter-productive though. Both those who don’t want to face reality and those giving up in the face of reality are likely to seize on it
I don’t have sources at hand so this is off the top of my head, but IIRC stabilising carbon levels in the atmosphere would leave us with as an additional increase of 0.5-1°C over the next hundred years. Current anthropogenic emissions are roughly 10 Gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/a), while natural carbon sinks take up roughly 5 GtC/a. This means we would have to cut emissions in half to reach that point. Even if we were to magically get to a rather unlikely zero emissions, so 0 GtC/a, the carbon that is already in the atmosphere only gets sequestered at a rate of 5 GtC/a still, so it would take some time to return to pre-industrial concentration levels. Further warming would stop relatively fast, but it wouldn’t reverse the damage that has already occurred due to the warming so far. Many ecosystems would still fail because their equilibrium has already been irrecoverably disrupted and they are just limping along in a proverbial death spiral. Which is the problem with reducing the question to climate effects. So even if we had this magical carbon switch, which we sadly don’t, things are all but guaranteed to get worse for a good while there.
deleted by creator
I don’t view it that way. The way I see it, every time we remind people of how fucked we are, we bring the public one step closer to codifying ecoterrorism into law.
deleted by creator
its a mean avg for 10 years, so 1 year above that doesn’t mean we hit it. rm we are at 1.1
Which is part of the problem… TEN YEARS after we’ve breached 1.5 degrees, we might be committed to do something.
We haven’t reached 1.5 degrees on the ten year average, so there’s no need to act. When we get there, there will be no point in acting because it’ll be too late. How could we possibly have seen this coming - it’s not like scientists have been screaming it at us for the last half century…
Can’t change it through advocacy or direct action, can’t hold those responsible to account, but can’t roll over and die - Guess I’ll bitch about it online as I struggle to afford a house in the economy fucked by the same class interests that doomed the species.
Yep, let’s not worry about it. We have not hit the target so it must not be a problem. We can deal with it later if it happens. /s
deleted by creator
