• 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Hasn’t is been predicted for like…decades now that warming releases more greenhouse gasses which accelerates warming? That the feedback loop creates exactly what we are seeing now?

    Or am I just smoking crack…

    • LUHG@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      10 months ago

      How many people in your circle of life would know what “Feedback Loop” meant in climate change?

      Probably a very low percentage. People think it’s linear and won’t effect them. Sad years ahead mate.

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      If I remember from the last time I was reading about it, the IPCC wasn’t using models that include feedback loops because they tend to be fairly conservative and there’s a number of different ways assumptions can be made.

      I’m a biologist and not a climate scientist, but my understanding is that while feedback loops are widely accepted as being part of the dynamic, there’s a number of different approaches and those are available in individual modeling projects but not in the consensus models. I’m not sure if that’s changed, though.

      • kglitch@kglitch.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The IPCC report must be agreed upon by representatives from every country. Including Saudi Arabia, and USA. So you can imagine how “conservative” it is compared to reality. Anything slightly uncomfortable gets negotiated down to the point where the oil-producing countries are fine with it.

        The 195 member countries of the IPCC sign off on different parts of the report. The summaries for policymakers are “approved,” meaning that “the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion” between the member countries and the authors. The synthesis reports are “adopted,” which implies “a section-by-section discussion.” And the full report, which this year runs nearly 4,000 pages long, is “accepted,” which means both parties agree that “the technical summary and chapters of the underlying report present a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.”

        https://qz.com/2044703/how-governments-of-the-world-have-responded-to-the-ipcc-report

        If people find the IPCC reports alarming as they are, imagine how alarming the draft from the scientists is before the Saudis, Russians and Americans get out the black markers.

      • spaduf@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is largely because we simply don’t have the capabilities to model these systems with the accuracy needed to make useful predictions. Individuals, however, should absolutely be aware that things can go bad far quicker than we’re able to deal with.

    • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, but they’re trying to figure out if that’s where we’re at or if this is a temporary blip from the Honga Tonga Honga Ha’apai volcano.

      Most volcanoes that size would cool the planet by ejecting a bunch of ash and sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. But the Tonga volcano was underwater, so it threw a metric shitton of water vapor into the upper atmosphere instead, and this has a warming effect. This is part of the reason for the increase in precipitation on the West Coast of the US this year.

      Add this volcano on top of the near simultaneous flip into an El Niño pattern, and they’re just not sure how permanent the warming we saw this year is going to be. But any way you go about it, this is really not good. We’ve just experienced dramatic warming from two things that we can’t predict and can’t control, on top of the part where we’re not doing nearly enough about the things we can control.

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yep, it’s been well established for a while. I learned about this 25+ years ago in elementary school. But instead of doing anything since then, we added 2 billion people to the population.

    • Ephera
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, that subtitle is a bit strange. My best guess is that we’re only just smashing through the +1.5°C target and if I remember correctly, some years ago we assumed the accelerating effects wouldn’t really kick in until after that.

      So, maybe that is genuinely a question, whether we’re now at the steep bit of the rollercoaster.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think that they didn’t expect to see it starting that fast. It was predicted to start in a decade or two