this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
43 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5246 readers
282 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes it's obviously way more complex than that. For instance, there are a lot of additional warming factors that haven't been included in current studies or "suprises" to use your euphimism.
The big ones we expect to play a role in the next few decades are in there though. That's enough to be pretty useful.
Pretty useful, in that they predict warming but not necesarily accurate.
I disagree, we do not know how well feedbacks are modelled or even if the models include all significant feedbacks. Correct me if you've found anything that contadicts these:
The albedo effect problem you mentioned is likely to happen faster than predicted as the latent heat of melting isn't considered. The heat it requires to melt all that ice will instead heat the water around the remaining ice at a much higher rate.
IPCC doesn't account for the aerosol cooling effect. If we cut our emissions there would likely be a rapid warming of 0.5-1.0°C within a couple of years as particulates in the air are blocking less sunlight.
The ice sheets don't melt at a steady rate. Last time this much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere they ended up retreating 600m per day which should affect predictions.
Not strictly a feedback loop but worth mentioning... The earth contains less than 20% of the copper needed to produce the renewables required to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years, about 20% of the required nickel and less than 2.5% of the required lithium.
Just no. Ice sheet response tends to be parameterized, where a computationally simple approximation is used, including this.
This is complete nonsense. They've been accounting for it for ages. That's where figures like this come from.
This is well known, and widely discussed.
This appears to be from a single study of a particular set ice sheets off Norway which were grounded below sea level. Thwaites is like that, but much of the big ice sheets are not. Ice melt isn't some simple thing which will happen at the same rate everywhere.
This is a serious misreading of what's going on. There's enough in the earth's crust, but trying to depend only on existing mines would be a bottleneck. That's why a ton of new mines are opening.