this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
144 points (99.3% liked)

collapse of the old society

1321 readers
10 users here now

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/23918980

In the mid-2000s, the energy imbalance was about 0.6 watts per square metre (W/m2) on average. In recent years, the average was about 1.3 W/m2. **This means the rate at which energy is accumulating near the planet’s surface has doubled. **

FAaFO , we're in the find out phase.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But the economy is doing good and those little arrows are pointing up and numbers are going up instead of down ..... that means it's good.

[–] Pandasdontfly@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

You know we killed the world buuuuuuuuuut for a very short time we made our investors a looooooooot of money!

[–] Sorrow3527@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And if it doesn't look good just incite war's all over the world

Soooo... We're fucked.

[–] OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Kind of the opposite, sadly.

[–] asg101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 week ago

The models were deliberately not measuring/predicting ALL the factors they knew were involved. Back in 1998 I asked a Scripps Institute of Oceanography speaker why the models were ignoring the methane/permafrost feedback loop and was told "we decided to focus on other things"... so yeah, inaccurate models give inaccurate predictions. Get used to hearing "it is all happening faster than we expected" from now until we are incinerated.

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] breecher@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

On the bright side, billionaires have never made so much money as they do now.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

On an annual basis, fossil fuel burning causes way more cooling than heating.

nope nope nope nope

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Exactly. No one wants to read that. It's counter-intuitive, and it goes against the prevailing narrative. But the narrative that the media repeats is based on GWP100 accounting, even though we don't have 100 years to address climate change. As Hansen and colleagues pointed out, people are not well-informed, and that's true of the people deciding climate policy as well. Ignorance and denial of the facts will continue to make the situation ever more dire.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

the cooling is short term. the heating effects will last centuries.

I think you're over invested on this narrative. I have more confidence in NOAA, NASA etc.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

the cooling is short term.

Yes. Exactly. The aerosols have a cooling effect that is fast-acting but short-lasting. Carbon dioxide has a warming effect that is slow-acting but long-lasting. In the long term, the warming effect prevails, but on an annual basis, the cooling effect dominates. We no longer have centuries to address climate change, so considering what the effect of any mitigation strategy will be in the short term is crucial.