• humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    0·
    12 days ago

    There is no dent at all. 3+ppm increase in CO2 is faster than 10 year average. Even as energy transition is progressing globally, war on Russia, forest fires and drought is going to make emissions sticky.

    • perestroika@slrpnk.net
      0·
      13 days ago

      Here is the Mauna Loa data line from 1958, matching the top figure.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg

      The rest has been matched and synchronized to it using other sources. I’m not climate scientist, but I would guess the best sources are ice samples from polar regions where it accumulates from top and melts from bottom. CO2 dissolves in water and when snow falls and turns into permanent ice in such places, it captures a snapshot of that period’s atmospheric gas content, among that the CO2 level.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      0·
      13 days ago

      Lots of different independent methods and sources that correlate, along with some approximations. Actual measured readings aren’t as accurate or match up in the early periods, which is why the IPCC decided to use 1980 as a baseline to start from for consistent and abundant data to compare with. This continues to be a side argument about if we’re really past 1.5C or not, since the graphs start differently. The “good” news is that as time goes on, that argument becomes less relevant because the differences shrink and catastrophic converges.

    • Elyndor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      12 days ago

      Why it should be otherwise? It’s not like we’re sentient creatures, capable of influencing our own habits. We’re just mindless biological automatons, oblivious to the fact that we’re marching to our horrible, painful and IMMINENT demise. It’s not like I care about that either. Give me entertainment, give me food and comfort and I won’t give a duck about future. Why give an effort of thought to such amorphous things when I have so much to enjoy in the present? Clearly, that would be a fool’s errand, and I’m not a fool.

    • DogWater@lemmy.world
      0·
      12 days ago

      Even if there was, there is something like a 15 to 20 year lag time anyway before it would start to show up in data.

      And that assumes we haven’t hit a tipping point into a runaway feedback loop.

      And what’s even worse is that there is a masking effect from increased particulates in the air. Basically a physical cooling effect that is reducing the observable impact of climate change

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      0·
      13 days ago

      I don’t see a dent…

      You won’t. We’re combatting exponential growth. Each year we need to increase our efforts just to prevent worsening, let alone reversal.

      This is because the largest accelerant is completely out of our control now. As the ice caps melt, desalinating our oceans, they also expose rich black soil. The soil absorbs and retains heat far more readily than the white ice, accelerating the warming of nearby ice. As bacteria begins to break down the newly thawed decaying organisms, large amounts of methane are also released into the atmosphere. Methane traps 28x more heat than CO2, then breaks down into CO2 after a decade where it continues to retain heat for centuries.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        0·
        13 days ago

        Not quite correct on methane’s half life. The 28x number is based on normal effect and breakdown over a century’s time. Over 20 years it’s around 84x more than CO2. Over the first few years it can be far over 100x. The caveat of using these numbers now is that they were based on a stable cycle of methane and its fixed-rate reducers in the atmosphere, something that has obviously changed.

        The IPCC still sticks to the 28x number though, because it looks better on the spreadsheets. When they even include methane feedback loops, which to my knowledge they still haven’t really worked into the hard numbers. Why? Because we’re not very sure on how much is being released from year to year, as it’s hard to measure. So since the IPCC only works with known variables, they just leave it out of the equation. Makes sense, right? :clown face:

        You’re right on the rest though. The best result is the methane breaks down quickly, into more CO2 and water vapor. Both GHGs, and the additional water adding to the water content in the atmosphere. Yet another feedback loop.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    13 days ago

    I always want to reply with that chart on every post about some magical new climate technology. Nothing really matters until we stop pulling carbon-based fuels out of the ground and lighting them on fire. That’s it. That’s the only thing that matters. Wind and solar are great but we’re still approving gas/coal/oil projects, at least globally.

    It’s like with the water crisis in the American West. They guilt trip individuals into feeling bad about taking showers but it’s like 80% agriculture. And the majority of that is for animal feed. (I’m not saying everyone go vegan. That’s about as unrealistic as asking everyone to stop fucking to keep the population from growing. I’m saying don’t grow alfalfa in the fucking desert and then blame people who bathe.)

      • silence7@slrpnk.netM
        0·
        13 days ago

        It’s not, but it takes something akin to a religious conversion to move large populations off meat.

        • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
          0·
          12 days ago

          People get really defensive about it. Like it’s kind of shocking. If you told me I had to stop eating almonds, and gave a good argument, I’d listen.

    • ODGreen@slrpnk.netEnglish
      0·
      13 days ago

      This is an excellent point. The energy transition is more accurately an energy addition. Some renewables on top of a still-increasing pile of burning fossil fuels.

      Same with EVs. More are being sold every year but more ICE cars are being sold, too.

      Until the fossil fuel industry actually shrinks, things are hopeless.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      13 days ago

      Nothing really matters until we stop pulling carbon-based fuels out of the ground and lighting them on fire.

      I say it all the time. The only possible way to keep carbon from outside the carbon cycle from entering the carbon cycle is to stop taking carbon from outside the carbon cycle and putting it into the carbon cycle. No amount of coal plant filtration or growing trees or building wind farms will take carbon from inside the carbon cycle out of the carbon cycle.

      400 ppm is too much, and the mechanisms for putting that carbon in the ground is gone and never coming back. The best we can possibly do is stop making it worse, and we won’t, because everyone wants to have a whole chicken in their fridge that’ll end up rotting because the availability of goods, whether we’ll actually consume them or not, is the most important thing in the world.

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        0·
        12 days ago

        You’re not wrong.

        …but on the chicken part. Do people really routinely overstock on perishable items? Like, you can misjudge, but if you keep throwing food out because it’s gone bad, surely you’d adjust your purchasing habits?

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          11 days ago

          You would think, but yes, a lot of people really do routinely but more perishables than they need.

          I owe my perspective on it to this essay. It doesn’t talk about money wasted when food goes bad, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I read it—I didn’t just pay $1.86 for those green onions, it also cost me $1.86 worth of green onions when I threw them away. People don’t even notice how much money they waste on food they never ate because once that 2 lbs of bacon is in their fridge, they no longer assign a dollar value to it.

    • Teppichbrand@feddit.org
      0·
      13 days ago

      First step to prove you actually mean it:
      No more fucking meat on your plate!
      We put like 6 fossil kalories in and get 1 animal tissue kalorie out. This is inane! Our species is about to commit suicide and we point fingers at greedy, selfish billionaires and at the same time keep devouring our biosphere because we’re accustomed to a taste.
      I know this alone won’t save us, but no solution will be enough if we don’t agree on this simple thing:
      Next time, I will no longer knowingly chose exploitation, misery and annihilation.
      Buy cheap legumes or expensive meat alternatives, I don’t care. But stop paying for this madness! Then go for CEOs, billionaires and politicians. But start with the most simple, obvious realization first.

      • killingspark@feddit.orgEnglish
        0·
        12 days ago

        Buy cheap legumes or expensive meat alternatives, I don’t care. But stop paying for this madness! Then go for CEOs, billionaires and politicians.

        The idea of only demanding change from the people in power when the change already happened in the masses seems so weird to me. They have the power (or at least had the power, it might be too late now) of stopping this crisis. Each and every one of us can only contribute a little, and failing every once in a while is only human, considering the amount of ads and the sometimes overhelming disparity between availability of plant/animal based foods.

        We need to make it easy to go as vegan as possible. And we can only do that if the CEOs, Billionaires and politicians do it. Because they are the ones that are making it hard right now.

        • Teppichbrand@feddit.org
          0·
          12 days ago

          I demand change from every single capable human on earth, including the 1% and you. And if the elite isn’t willing then we show them we are better than them. Aren’t we? Or do we watch them do nothing while doing nothing as well?

          • killingspark@feddit.orgEnglish
            0·
            12 days ago

            What I’m challenging is the idea that the responsibilities are equally distributed. With great power comes even greater responsibility. The relationship between the two isn’t even linear, that’s why we tax bigger income and bigger wealth higher than lower incomes and the same applies to this.

            Their potential to change is so much higher that it is fair to demand change more heavily from them than from the average Joe.

            Edit: showing we are “better” is not the goal here and won’t achieve any change in the 1% btw

            • Teppichbrand@feddit.org
              0·
              11 days ago

              I agree again. I want them to be held accountable for everything they do.
              But what to do when the powerful won’t move, because they live even more comfortable and save then us? It’s classic prisoner’s dilemma and I argue in favor of doing what is right, not what others should do first. And it’s not even a sacrifice:
              If you dare to look at each of the animal industries production chains it’s plain evil from start to finish. It needs to be shut down fast. And it takes very little effort to change your diet. Quitting meat, going plant-based, is nothing more than a slight inconvenience. Again, I know this alone won’t save us, but it would have a huge impact on our planet AND our health. It’s the easiest Fuck You! you can send, no need to get off of the sofa, no need to protest, no need to riot. You just vote with your receipt at the supermarket, capitalism-style. It’s an easy step to live up to your convictions and switch off one part of this global suicide machine we’re running.

      • Geth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        0·
        12 days ago

        The irony that someone downvoted you because actually doing anything about it is a step too far for most people.

        • Teppichbrand@feddit.org
          0·
          12 days ago

          They just love to explain to me how their actions doesn’t matter and more rich and powerful people should change first. Comfortably waiting for a revolution. The corporations they buy their stuff from. Those evil billionaires with their private jets!
          But we are all the same.
          You can afford a plane? Of course you fly to visit your friends party in Ibiza. You can afford meat? A car? Holidays in Asia, weekly packages from Amazon? Why say no to a good life, right? We’re just as greedy, shortsighted and selfish, but with less resources.
          So if you understand the horror that lurks in our near future, if you take responsibility for you actions and your life on this planet, then you change, one step at a time. And this really is a no brainer: Go buy some fucking beans.

      • lurklurk@lemmy.world
        0·
        12 days ago

        If this feels insurmountable, find one vegetarian dish you like and put that into your rotation, and you’ve already improved.

        My best tip is to go for something that’s by nature vegetarian like an indian dal or some of the great lebanese stuff like hummus, muhammara, baba-ganoush etc, rather than “I can’t believe it’s not meat!” products.

        Repeat untill you’re on a mostly vegetarian diet you like. If you get close to full vegetarian, start easting vitamin-b supplements.

        • veroxii@aussie.zone
          0·
          13 days ago

          Plastic straws are not the problem. If we use petroleum to make plastic that carbon is effectively captured in that straw. It can create pollution for sure but it’s not adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

          • ddh@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            0·
            12 days ago

            Nothing individually is “the” problem. We have a wide variety of problems to choose from.

          • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
            0·
            12 days ago

            That’s not how anything works!?!?! It was 100% captured in the petroleum, even if the process of petroleum->plastic straw is 99% efficient you’re adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

            And it’s nowhere near that efficient! Cracking alone is 65-86% efficient with probably a minimum of 2 other processing steps of similar efficiency (SWAG of 27-64% final efficiency). The waste isn’t all greenhouse gasses, but a good amount is…

            • veroxii@aussie.zone
              0·
              12 days ago

              The production process for paper straws also produces greenhouse gases. Making paper also used up a tree somewhere. So this notion that switching from plastic straws solves the problem is false. Its impact is negligible.

              It’s virtue signalling by fast food companies who should be focusing on switching to using green energy and using electric transport rather than making us all suffer with soggy straws.

              I’m just replying to the original comment sarcastically joking that giving up plastic straws is the solution when we all know it isn’t.

              • killingspark@feddit.orgEnglish
                0·
                12 days ago

                Also the complete irony of the plastic (coated) containers still often used for beverages, but serving with a paper straw… I always hate it if I am too slow to just refuse the straw. Keep that damn thing. I’d rather just drink from the cup.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      0·
      13 days ago

      800,000 years enough to get the idea?

      Where the current day curve, you may ask. At this scale, it’s that line on the right going straight up.

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.orgEnglish
    0·
    13 days ago

    That period between 1990 and 1995 where there seems to be 3 consecutive years where it slowed to a relative crawl… Imagine if we did that. What if we plateaued there for a few years - decades even - and then started dropping. A wonderful thought.

      • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.orgEnglish
        0·
        13 days ago

        So you’re saying… /j

        On a more serious note, I don’t consider myself to be entirely out of the loop on historical events, but I had just never made the connection that the soviet union fell quite that recently. That’s only a handful of years before I came into the world.

    • Shortstack@reddthat.com
      0·
      13 days ago

      Humans came into existence during the ice caps phase.

      The earth may have seen higher temperatures but we as a species or any of our humanoid ancestors have certainly not.

      It’s disingenuous to frame the issue as just another hot period on earth

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      13 days ago

      Has there ever been a period in Earth’s history where CO2 concentration in the atmosphere changed this quickly without being accompanied by mass extinctions?

      • Linedotdatdot@lemmynsfw.com
        0·
        12 days ago

        Boy, got awful quiet all of a sudden, huh? 🤣😂 Bro is over there desperately trying to convince himself that nah, he could totally live on Venus as long as he only measures the surface temperature as an average over 40 billion years, give or take

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      12 days ago

      I think the point isn’t so much that Earth will heat up but that it will do so at a tremendous pace (in geological timescales). Nature can’t adapt so quickly. Basically it will lead to a mass extinction simply because of how quickly it is happening. Nature takes a longer time to genetically adapt to a changing environment than humans have even existed. That’s the problem.

    • Agosagror@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      12 days ago

      Take the rate of change by time of that curve and plot it, you’ll see a massive spike during today, And a line that bounces around zero for the rest of timeframe.

  • WeUnite@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    12 days ago

    I got one word for you: Vote.

    Corporations like BP push individual responsibility and personal carbon footprint[1] to try to neutralize you from achieving real policy gains which would have a much greater impact than your individual action. Time spent trying to convince people to vote for politicians who take climate change seriously is far more productive than time spent trying to educate people about their so-called carbon footprint. Of course we all play a part but seeing this chart it’s clear we need more action and that’s why I’m saying this.

    [1] https://www.nprillinois.org/2023-12-18/how-big-oil-helped-push-the-idea-of-a-carbon-footprint

  • spector@lemmy.ca
    0·
    12 days ago

    I bought CO2 sensors for an Arduino project. The firmware is calibrated to 400 ppm. It is rapidly becoming in accurate because baseline keeps going up.

  • MNByChoice@midwest.social
    0·
    13 days ago

    The chart indicates another way to fix global warming. We could add to the atmosphere. It would take a massive amount… Maybe have boil the ocean?

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      0·
      13 days ago

      For sure, I mean we could reduce our emissions and try to reuse and recycle. But that doesn’t sound half as fun as “boil the oceans”.

      Also think of the seafood boil we could create. Add a little creole seasoning and we also manage to solve world hunger

      • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
        0·
        13 days ago

        Exactly! You only have to boil so much before it starts a feedback loop and boils itself off. It’s efficiency is genius! Say it with me: “the solution to pollution is dilution.”

        • NaevaTheRat [she/her]@vegantheoryclub.orgEnglish
          0·
          13 days ago

          I think nuclear war is maybe a better option. If we nuke the usa several imbalances are corrected:

          1. turnabout is fair play
          2. nuclear winter buys us time
          3. radiation might help new live forms that can handle living in an irradiated, heat blasted, wasteland evolve

          That way we can keep the oceans.