Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_ivshoqq wrote

[removed]

95

dex3r t1_ivsodmd wrote

To most people headlines like that don't meant anything. Glaciers? They have no idea why should the care about glaciers. Even worst, 4 degrees climate change sounds not that bad, but in reality it's a complete disaster.

25

Wiggggles t1_ivv41db wrote

To me it means nothing because we’ve been saying the same thing for 20 years, know what’s coming, are witnessing the effects of global warming etc, and yet the powers that be, or those with real power to change, seem to do nothing.

For me it’s just dispair at this stage

4

wmdolls OP t1_ivschbm wrote

The Three Parallel Rivers nature reserve

in China’s Yunnan province is among 10 sites worldwide where glaciers “could almost completely disappear by 2100’

24

Tractorhash t1_ivudn86 wrote

This will be the largest suprise pickachu face that coal power plants will make when the rivers that supply the water for the plants dries up.

8

rando_khan t1_ivsuwd2 wrote

The article is intended to be a call to action, not to encourage people to embrace doomerism.

Yes, things are bad, which is why we need to work as quickly as possible to save all we can. Vote, push your government, take direct action, donate to people who are taking direct action.

20

MondayToFriday t1_ivuavkh wrote

The pattern is clear, though. Every year, there is a climate summit. Countries bicker, then maybe come to some compromise, and we leave with a cautious sense of optimism. Then a year later it turns out that every country has fallen far short of the stated targets, and there are no repercussions.

The reality is that most people don't care enough about climate change to prioritize it above their own short-term economic well being. Government measures, if they manage to become legislation, get tied up in courts, and get overturned. National elections happen, responsible governments get thrown out, replaced by laissez-faire governments. Russia invades Ukraine, and now petroleum companies are scrambling to increase natural gas development.

People didn't want to be told to put on a sweater in the 1970s. People today in developed nations aren't willing to accept a regression in their lifestyle, and in developing nations aren't willing to forego the cheap easy economic growth from using fossil fuels.

"Get out and vote" doesn't help, when the other side keeps doing those things too.

7

rando_khan t1_ivubduy wrote

In my mind, this is an argument for more local action, and more direct action.

Significant impacts can be made at smaller scales than countries, and public opinion is starting to shift with respect to sustainability.

Even if a lot of the corporate noise about it is greenwashing, the fact that advertising is being targeted that way indicates that people do care enough to change some of their spending habits.

3

Pjinmountains t1_ivvpdv7 wrote

What effort? Right wing climate deniers have dominated public policy for over 40 years. We have barely even slowed the yearly increase in greenhouse gases that we emit as a result. The action we need now is a Time Machine to go back and tell people not to vote for Reagan or other right wing climate liars. Now we need to decide how to deal with the droughts and famines that are starting. Do we continue to transfer the wealth and power of the global economy to a few super rich fascists so they can escape the consequences their lies about climate change, or do we start taxing the fascists and try to mitigate as much of the effects of this disaster as we can without global wars for disappearing resources?

9

savvysearch t1_ivslb53 wrote

I thought the glaciers were unsalveagable regardless of whether we stopped it right now. This was already being said decades ago.

2

wmdolls OP t1_ivsns3r wrote

CO2 emission reach peak again because the war

−2

gabrielhallman t1_ivvut3w wrote

We're going to lose a lot we find beautiful, but it's never to late to learn from the past.

2

Kittenfabstodes t1_ivwqeog wrote

What an inconvenient truth.

If only someone gave us a warning......

2

wmdolls OP t1_ivx0nnd wrote

Who can try control the CO2 emission

1

AutoModerator t1_ivsce43 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

[deleted] t1_ivswqjv wrote

[removed]

1

Bushwhacker42 t1_ivuac8r wrote

Serious question, I thought the glaciers have been receding since the end of the last ice age, like 10k years ago, long before the combustion engine… were these glaciers around BEFORE the ice age? Have there not been times when the polar regions were tropical? Environments change, you can see how much water once flowed through deep canyons. Where I live was once a giant lake through the Jurassic and Triassic times.

I know there is huge impacts from humans on our environment, but… doesn’t nature just kinda change periodically too?

1

Swarna_Keanu t1_ivuu9yo wrote

Not at the speed right now, and if it weren't for us adding IR reflecting gasses to the atmosphere we would be in a cooling phase.

That is the simple physical effect. Some trace gasses, like CO2, Methane and water vapour (among others) reflect infrared energy but let the rest of the energy spectrum pass. As Sunlight hits the Earth part of the infrared wavelength is reflected back into space. Most of the energy passes through. The Earth reflects some of the sunlight, but in that process the light is shifted more towards the IR - and the more trace gases are in the atmosphere the more that reflected shifted towards IR right bounces between them, staying in the atmosphere for longer, and in that process heating it up, before, eventually, finding a way out to space.

That is - basic energy transfer and quite simple Physics. So far we assume that Eustice Foote was the first to uncover it - so, we understood since about the 1860s. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/pt.6.4.20210823a/full/

We know it is us as the CO2 added to the atmosphere carries a clear Fossil Fuel signature - the isotopic count of Fossil Fuel emission is different than "fresh" CO2 and - and we tried loads - there's no other source than our action for the type of CO2 thats increasing.

5

Climate_and_Science t1_ivv3iw2 wrote

The last ice age ended at the start of the Holocene 11,700 years ago. There was a continued slow warming up until about 10,000 years ago. For the next 4000 years global temperatures were fairly static. About 6000 years ago temperatures again began to slowly decrease until the start of the industrial revolution. There are large changes in natural climate related to energy input and atmospheric constituents. Humanity is altering those atmospheric constituents.

5

Bushwhacker42 t1_ivvc2hh wrote

Thank you this was actually very insightful! I’m going to do some more reading into this!

My son got really into dinosaurs, recently learned raptors lived closer to our era than they did to t-Rex. Crazy world history

3