• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Well greenhouse gases are often described as a blanket and a blanket doesn’t immediately get warm, it take time. I doubt the trickling effect is much different in lag time than sudden pulses, its just gradually increasing the blanket rather than pulling it all on at once. Its still gonna take time for more solar energy to accumulate by bouncing off the trickling in CO2.

      In the book plows, plagues, and petroleum, the author uses several factors of humans history to argue that man made climate change was slowly having an impact much before the industrial revolution, which is the common “starting point” for most people and scientists. Althought not as drastic as this sudden increase in fossil fuel burning, they argue that impacts such as deforestion and burning of cropland in early human settlements had a measureable impact on carbon sinks and carbon releases, still enough to start skewing the natural rate of climate change.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah… realising I was not making a distinction between greenhouse effect (e.g. increased rate of warming), and the result (e.g. actual increased heat content/temperature. I think the rate of warming increase is basically instant, but yes, it takes some time for the temperature levels to catch up.

        I don’t know if I was explicitly taught it at uni, buy I have always understood as a climate scientist that GHG emissions started before the industrial revolution (albeit small). I think that’s common knowledge in climate science.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        My intuitive answer is that the collapse of globalised industrial society seems fairly likely (as a result of the end of cheap liquid fuel if nothing else). What that looks like is highly dependent on how we respond - it’s not a climate problem, it’s a social problem.

        I don’t think humans are going to go extinct, but a population crash seems likely. And we’re taking out a tonne of other species.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrisis

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I would hazard that the the extintion of Mankind really depends on the innevitable water and food wars escalating out of control in the nuclear era or not.

          A lot of this shit (you also see it in Economics, as Inequality explodes and Social Mobility grinds to a halt) can escalate out of control via the reactions of Human Societies to it (just look at the rise of the Far Right in response to the above mentioned trends in Inequality and Social Mobility).

          As I see it, people’s and countries’ reaction to the problems caused by Climate Change are were the nastiest of nasty shit can come out from.

    • book@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      They may be thinking of the half-life of C02, around 120 years … or the delayed effect of temperature uptake by the ocean. I’m not a clime scientist.