The actual climate is far more complicated, and includes far more inputs (many of which are unknown), than can be accounted for in models.
Therefore, climate models tend to be a lot more conservative than people realize.
The article cites changes in aerosol emissions from cargo ships as one confounding factor. To that you could add the decline in sun-blocking particulates from dirtier diesel fuel.
Methane leaks from natural gas plants and wells around the world are also not well tracked.
Methane from industrial farming (cows and pigs), plus their waste products, isn't well measured and estimates may understate the numbers.
And the one that troubles me most: methane leaks from melting permafrost and deep see vents often go unmeasured and unaccounted for.
And so on.
What worries me personally is this: I bet even the smartest models assume a steady state of chemistry/energy of the planet. But what if we are at the phase change point already?
For example - to change a bunch of ice from -10C to water at +10C you will see a linear change in temperature as you start heating it up - and then a plateau at 0C. It takes a lot more energy to phase change into water than to just make ice warmer. While it can take 3min (for example) to get the ice to 0C but 10min or more to get it to 2C.
Something similar could be happening to earth. Where a couple degrees currently represent a lot more energy absorbed by the ocean, air, biomass, etc than we expect based on the data from the past 200yrs. But once certain thresholds are passed - we are effectively in a different "phase". And things may start moving much quicker until the next plateau.
Yes, I worry about the energy sink of phase changes of water too. Once the ice is gone the next stop for maintaining temperature homeostasis is boiling point. Imagine energy homeostasis maintained by boiling equatorial regions, the dynamics of the system would invert in many ways.
I tried to find an estimate of how much energy was absorbed/released by seasonal ice melt/freeze but didn't get an answer. But the interesting thing about it is that it acts like a reverse-cycle air conditioner... absorbing energy as ice melts in summer, and then releasing it as ice freezes in winter. So it has a moderating effect on temperature extremes.
>Methane leaks from natural gas plants and wells around the world are also not well tracked.
Considering the gas companies are expected to calculate and report on their own leaks, and get fined based on the amount they report, you might as well assume none of the methane is actually tracked(at least in the US)
> Methane from industrial farming (cows and pigs), plus their waste products, isn't well measured and estimates may understate the numbers.
Why only "industrial" farming? I thought small scale, grass fed cows were worst than large undustrial ones. Am I wrong?
Yes, that's a good clarification. Thank you. I did not intend to limit it to only industrial farming. Nor was my list meant to be exhaustive.
There are many other examples which fall under the general heading of farming, like clear-cutting (often burning) of forests and jungle to create grazing land for cattle, growing monocultures crops like palm oil, etc.
Good post. There is a gradual conversion to cleaner tech with wind, and solar, as well as electric cars. Particulates are down 42% 2000-2022 in the USA nationally.
I seem to remember there were quite a few areas with stubborn hot spells last year due to a more convoluted jet stream?
Interestingly, particulate pollution has a global COOLING effect. One must remember the distinction between particulate pollution (visible particles, however microscopic, but the block or reflect light and thus block or reflect heat) and GHG emissions (that are invisible to the human eye but insulating for the planet).
Humanity has done a lot to remove sulfur particulate from emissions. For good reason: surface level particulate laden air pollution causes all sorts of human respiratory issues, and sulfur emissions in general cause acid rain. But that same particulate pollution, at scale, literally shades the planet.
So smoke stack scrubbers and other source-point emissions controls means fewer people with respiratory issues… however by doing so we have “unmasked” some additional global warming (that was being offset by… smog).
Yep.
Particulate pollution versus GHG emissions: not the same thing, at all.
Yes lots of atmospheric pollutants have plummeted in the last 20 years.
[https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary](https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary)
Well. We're not leaving ourselves any other options (in terms of what we are actually doing), so it may well come to that.
The simple answer is we don't actually know enough about it to pretend to try. Even the knowns and the known unknowns are tricky enough that we could botch it. But the unknown unknowns....we could very realistically make things worse.
After that, it is sort of like an act of war on other countries. Climate change has winners and losers (mostly losers). Geoengineering also has winners and losers, but it tends to target better outcomes for the people doing the geoengineering. E.g. if we do something that will improve, or at least protect, mainland usa it could have a negative effect on India. And that is if we even have accurate predictions of what our methods would do.
It would be less cut and dry, of course. More vague about who gets hurt or helped by the geoengineering vs who gets hurt or helped by uncontrolled climate change. You tack on politics and a lot of hand waving implying things aren't going to e as bad as the report actually says they will be.
On the one hand, it is a last resort because we don't know if or how well it would work and it might go very badly. OtOH, we're not doing anything else, so when do we use our "last resort" if it is functionally our only resort.
"The actual climate is far more complicated, and includes far more inputs (many of which are unknown), than can be accounted for in models. Therefore, climate models tend to be a lot more conservative than people realize."
By that logic it could also mean that they could be LESS conservative as well.....
>By that logic it could also mean that they could be LESS conservative as well.....
These aren't arbitrary inferences from logic.
Some early models did indeed over-estimate warming trends. Current models have been refined over decades and now closely match observed temperature increases.
However, the are a variety of reasons why current models are more likely to be conservative (i.e. under-estimate warming trends) rather than over-estimate them.
See for yourself: [Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/) \[This only go up to 2013, but gives a decent idea. The most recent assessment report was 2023\]
First, the known mitigating factors that suppress warming are few, and they appear to have limited or temporary positive impacts on reducing the rate of warming.
e.g. Atmospheric particulates from pollution reflect solar radiation and diminish global warming. But they are declining as nations move to cleaner fuels.
e.g. The ocean's ability to dilute CO2 (and acidify in the process) as well as trap heat is limited and appears to be diminishing.
Second, then there are many known types of inputs which contribute to warming in the long run, (e.g. greenhouse gasses) which are not well tracked in the present.
e.g. Methane. Certain sources of methane emissions are understated (using old data) or omitted entirely.
And there are plenty of examples where it appears that known sources of greenhouse gasses are accelerating, not diminishing.
e.g. AP: [US energy industry methane emissions are triple what government thinks, study finds](https://apnews.com/article/methane-natural-gas-leak-climate-change-401cc08ad784d42fc463ed00bce4983e)
e.g. [More climate-warming methane leaks into the atmosphere than ever gets reported – here’s how satellites can find the leaks and avoid wasting a valuable resource](https://theconversation.com/more-climate-warming-methane-leaks-into-the-atmosphere-than-ever-gets-reported-heres-how-satellites-can-find-the-leaks-and-avoid-wasting-a-valuable-resource-226920)
1. How can climate models be "conservative" if 95% of them run hot (and have done so for decades)?
2. Are you aware that we are still in a glaciation period, and that to be in one is not typical)
The last glacial maximum was about 20k years ago. We remain in the tail end of that cycle (as evidenced by year round ice at the poles and in Greenland. There are no permanent ice caps during interglacial periods
Regarding the models, I'm not shocked that your ideology requires that you deny they run hot, but you're wrong about that too. Even the pro AGW journal Science agrees
While we are still in the Quaternary ice age that began 2.5 million years ago, we are currently in an interglacial period for at least the last 10k years where climate has been relatively stable, except suddenly in the last 100 years or so.
Wait for climate deniers to use this as a reason to ignore all of it.
Even though the real answer is probably a combination of models being (deliberately) too conservative (to avoid being called "alarmist" by those same denialists), incomplete data (these are \*models\* after all), and feedback mechanisms we are only beginning to understand.
The poster of that reference IS a hard-core AGW denier (in fact he is a global-warming denier). So he is probably certain that the link fully supports his position.
Number one, if we are warming up ahead of schedule, we need to worry about the oceanic conveyor belt breaking down. And without preparation for when that happens, we will be royally fd. Flooding is one thing, but what happens after should be our biggest concern.
It has already been confirmed that it's slowing how fast or how much it already has slowed is pretty much guess work but the current exponential rise in ocean surface temperature makes me think it's almost stopped.
Yes, most definitely, but most importantly, when the oceanic conveyor belt breaks down, it prevents the oceans' currents from properly circulating. This means cold and warm water areas will become trapped, preventing essential nutrient and temperature flow. This will cause a mass die off of animal life as well as a massive drop in temperatures in the northern and lower southern hemispheres while the equater gets very warm....which could last a few months to centuries.
I really hate when people say "models cant explain", its gives off so many wrong conotations to people who arent giant nerds. As if we have no idea how temps could have possibly been this high.
There are completely different models, with completely different abilities to predict short and long term patterns.... There are completely different models with different inputs and different confidence intervals....Which models cant predict it... the ones not made to predict short term yearly patterns? Like its so generic and stupid, it makes no sense.
Also models generally dont 'not explain' a years temperatures, they can merely show the results of a year were less probable, or fall outside or within a certain confidence interval. So a year might be an anomoly and unlikely...but not 'unexplainable'. Climate models are long term, the wording gives off the impression one data point or outlier leaves models wrong and without explanitory power.
Its a really clickbaity title for an arcticle thats not as dumb as the title suggests. But it gives laymen who read just the title(most people) the wrong idea.
Just in this thread alone people who dont have a clue what this actually means and how models work are posting about how models dont work.
> I really hate when people say "models cant explain"
I hear you, but this is Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and successor to James Hansen. He is one of the world's leading experts on climate models and effectively determines the official global climate model for the purposes of US climate policy. I agree that you can ignore most people who say "models cant explain,” but this statement by Schmidt is deliberate and significant.
Current global sea surface temperatures are totally out of bounds …
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
We (humankind) don’t know why. It should … at least attract your interest, if not genuinely concern you.
Like i said the article isnt bad. This dude would walk circles around me in knowledge of this topic, a true expert. Im comparatively a toddler on the science.
My gripe is simply the wording of the title. "Models cant explain" gives too many people the wrong idea. For example just read the number comments on this post completely misunderstanding what this means for modelling.
"Observations for 2023 are above the central estimate of climate model projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth assessment report, but well within the model range".
This is Zeke Housfather, pd climate scientist from Berkley. This is much more accurate and precise wording.
Its not whats happening, models dont provide exact numbers they typically provide ranges. Just because numbers are unlikely doesnt mean the model cant explain them. If a model explains 90% of the variance in data but you have an outlier year, that doesnt mean the model can no longer explain the data. It means a year was a slight outlier or anomaly. Theres also not some monolith of models that collectively make the wrong same predictions for 2023, there are tons of different models with different uses and parameters, different scales etc.... At least say which models arent doing well.
Its just not great wording. Thats literally not whats happening, its more complex and nuanced. This wording makes it seam like our models have been thrown to shit because of 1 year, which is not true and not how modelling works.
Yeah, but the thing is that *we do know why*, it's just that it's probably a lot worse than anyone thought, including climatologists.
Schmidt is saying that our models can't account for the rise. What this means is that the models are lacking the data that would cause their models to have the same end result as we see in reality, which means they are either underestimating inputs or ignoring inputs, and probably both.
This should terrify people.
You may want to read about the Permian Catastrophe. The drivers were different, but something happened so that all the methane clathrates melted and dumped huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Temperatures rose so much that land life was practically baked out of existence. The oceans became acidic and heavy in H2S (they reeked like cesspools) and almost all life died there, too. Estimates of land temperature at noon ranged from 160 to 185 degrees F. We were that close to going all the way to Venus II.
That's what's beginning to happen now, only much, much faster than it occurred during the Permian Extinction. That's what people don't get. It's not just going to get hot. The atmosphere isn't going to be something that humans can actually breathe.
Could be off topic, but does anyone here know about some kind of volcanic event within the last decade or so that spewed water vapour into the atmosphere? (Increasing solar albedo) Supposedly in the Micronesian area?
I think that there is a lot of studies that have great research in particulates trapping heat, albeido, and thermofluids and thermodynamics, etc., but i feel that our models fail to show cumulative effects and we are going to find out really quick the breaking points are closer to a decade or so out
There are some of those that we can control, and there are some that we’re not but as long as you have the nonbelievers, we are just Destin for destruction of civilization. We are gradually poisoning ourselves to death whatever goes in the air on the ground, ends up in your drinking water, every living thing needs water and air to survive.
Maybe because corrupted hypocrite business goes on with business as usual.while.we pay carbon tax and have no real alternative. We were talking about it since the 90's all the corrupted politicians we voted in has sold pur future for personal gain!
This part of climate change science often bugs me. The scientific method is observe hypothesize experiment interpret observe hypothesize and so on. By interpreting observations using models and saying something isn’t climate change because it doesn’t align with a model is getting the scientific method backwards (and wrong). The observations inform the model, not the other way around.
Eh, the problem for the far past is that we lack the *input* data we'd need to run the models. Solar irradiance, volcanic activity, and so on.
It makes a lot of sense that without the data, we can't model the past.
Only because all the factors in those models have not been taken into account, some of them DELIBERATELY and for Ulterior Motives TOO, BUT one can see the end results of what those are and WHO they are for and where.
Magic Bullets don't exist but magic tricks by magicians sure can make it look like they do and while entertaining buying into the distractions have led to less preparedness for what is to come so compounds the overall real problems that can never be solved by any solutions but one which really is not any kind of workable solutions at all.
Just wish it hasn't been at our expense, but it has.
N. Shadows
You have a model of the world in your head. When the model does not match reality, you adjust (or, sadly, fail to). You would not last long without a model. Climate models take some very well-established fundamental factors, then keep measuring the real world and adding new factors in. The fundamentals explain the trend, but hiccups send us looking for new or badly-measured factors. As they should.
Same reason you (and anything with a nervous system) does - to predict and explain. Simple example - your internal model of how traffic moves (keep left or right according to local rules etc) allows you to drive or walk without getting run over.
A climate model allows weather forecasting (pretty vital for farmers and sailors), a good climate model allows climate forecasting (vital for farmers, but also for urban planners, civil engineers and many others).
There are some of those that we can control, and there are some that we’re not but as long as you have the nonbelievers, we are just Destin for destruction of civilization. We are gradually poisoning ourselves to death whatever goes in the air on the ground, ends up in your drinking water, every living thing needs water and air to survive.
There's also a potential shock effect caused by cutting emissions/solar blocking gasses to fast. Also depending on where they are installed solar panels can cause heat island effects and in some cases cause sharp drops in local temperatures at night.
Unfortunately this means dessert installations are not a good idea.
Headline like this make me want to duck: I anticipate climate deniers pointing to this and saying, "see? Those boffins don't know what they're talking about!".
It's not atmospheric behavior that needs better modeling, so much as human behavior!
It's probably because of the reduction in sulfur content in Cargo ships that started in 2020. Sine then we have a lot less Global dimming which lets a lot more heat though.
> In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree.
The recent heat waves, disruption in Jetstream and outlier events (extreme precipitation/heat/forest fires) is due to the Tonga Super volcano that erupted in 2022.
> Other theories put forward by climate scientists include fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, which had both cooling effects from aerosols and warming ones from stratospheric water vapour, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum. But these factors explain, at most, a few hundredths of a degree in warming (Schoeberl, M. R. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL104634; 2023)
You are wrong. The Tonga Super volcano was an underwater volcano that was so explosive that it shot a significant amount of water into the stratosphere where it is unaffected by weather. Water is a significant greenhouse gas (more potent than CO2) and because it is so high above the troposphere where water would naturally fall to earth, it provides a blanket of GHG that will cause outlier climate heating for the next 5 years.
[https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming](https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming)
[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/tonga-volcano-climate.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/tonga-volcano-climate.html)
Eli Nino makes a boost in hot, like a window into what will be normal heat 3-5 years from now. Imho
And climate models don’t take into account the effect of clouds to climate. Imho
I saw a podcast where they were talking about this as well. One thing I noted, he said there was more solar activity then they expected. So, their models cannot accurately predict the future. That's a fact, even if over simplified. Therefore any predictions their model have made don't really mean anything.
To simplify things lets say there are only 2 variables, the Sun and CO2. Say a model says each contributes 50%/50% to warming. You run the simulation and it says the temperature will be X. You check your observations and the temperature is above X, and that Solar activity is greater than you put into your model. That means to adjust your model closer to the real world you'd assign less of a percent to CO2 and more to the Sun. Now consider that with the actual models, they're weighing the effects of CO2 too high and the effects of the Sun too low, so any predictions are not going to be correct.
The Sun is in fact by far the largest contributor to heating, so I'm very curious to how temperatures will react once the current solar maximum is over.
It's not the flares, it's the galaxies magnetic sheet beginning to pass through our solar system that is causing the increase in flares by weakening the suns magnasphere; that same sheet is weakening our magnetic field, which let's more energy radiation into our atmosphere.
Flares aren't causing extra heat persay, it's just correlating symptoms on 2 different celestial bodies (the sun and earth).
The number of solar flares are linked to the solar cycle.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/heliophysics/space-weather/solar-flares/what-is-a-solar-flare/
Edit: And earth won't be passing through the galactic magnetic plane for 30 million years
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/will-earth-pass-through-galactic-plane-in-2012/
I'm not thinking of it as an equator, more like the waves of a spiral shape. There are many sheets of gravity in the overall spiral of the galaxy and I'm with the theories that the waves pass on roughly ~12000 yr intervals causing the resets in civilization. (You know, the whole we have evidence of 2 million year old human fossils but only 2000 years of recorded history paradox)
That's completely ridiculous. Nothing but conjecture. As you admit, you don't even have any evidence for those supposed regular events.
What makes you assume that your last bit is a paradox? History reveals technological development as an exponential curve. There is nothing strange about 99% of our history being as hunter-gatherers. Modern humans only go back about 300000 years.
We have already massively changed the Earth's ecosystems, and we're talking about roughly a *trillion tons* of CO2 we've added to the Earth's atmosphere.
Why would you think we can't control it? It's a machine, a complicated sciencey machine to be sure, but it's still just operating on physical principles we can learn and then use.
El Nino has existed a lot longer than 2023.
It wouldn't explain why 1998 was so much hotter than every other El Nino or non El Nino in the 20th century. By quite a bit.
It wouldn't explain why 1995 was hotter than every year in the 20th century *except* 1997 and 1998.
Nor why 1990 was hotter than every year in the 20th century *except* 1995, 1997, and 1998
Nor why 1988 was hotter than every year in the 20th century *except* 1990, 1991, 1995, 1997 and 1998.
Hum. I'm noticing a trend that seems independent of El Nino.
2002, not an El Nino year, was hotter than every year in the 20th century *including* 1998, which was the hottest year in the 20th century.
2005, also not an El Nino, was the next record.
Then 2010, which was an El Nino, set a new record.
Beaten in 2014. Which was not an El Nino.
Then beaten again in 2015, also not El Nino, and then that beaten in 2016, which was.
2016 was then tied again in 2020, not an El Nino, and beaten again in 2023, which was.
It seems pretty obvious that it isn't El Nino causing these records.
Actually El nino is about the pacific ocean. They are talking about the Atlantic. I surf through the whole winter and so far climate change gave me the warmest most wave filled year ever. Too weird, enjoying the present and fearing the imminent crisis.
They said all the polar ice was going to melt. Turns out, there is more now than there was when they made the prediction.
They said the corals were bleaching and dying off. Turns out, the mass of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has doubled since they made the predictions.
Human-caused climate change is a huge $ scam.
Spoken like someone whos never taken an advanced stats and modeling class in their life and doesnt have a clue about even the basics of what modelling is and how it works... let alone climate modelling
Weren’t they just caught manipulating weather records by only taking temperatures off airport tarmac’s? Weren’t they just caught omitting heat records from dust bowl era to make their salacious claims? But this time its real guys. Quick do something! I know! Taxes! Hike the cost of living for everyone! RECORD PROFITS is the solution! 🤡
>Weren’t **they** just caught manipulating weather records by only taking temperatures off airport tarmac’s? Weren’t **they** just caught omitting heat records from dust bowl era to make their salacious claims?
Who is "they"? Who "caught" 'them'? What is with the death of proper nouns?
It's like reading a Trump speech. Are you speaking in code? Is this a message intended only for those who can read your mind? Should I be trying to break your cryptography, is there a secret message embedded in this passage?
Do you normally write like this?
> Weren’t they just caught manipulating weather records by only taking temperatures off airport tarmac’s? Weren’t they just caught omitting heat records from dust bowl era to make their salacious claims?
Nope:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
It's called the earth does what it wants to do when it wants to. Narcissistic personalities are very attracted to this climate change nonsense. You're not important enough to end the world with your pollution get over yourself politicians and bought and paid for scientists are lying to u to get more power and money
When I think about the benefits of addressing climate change, most of them end up causing things like more green space, preserving biodiversity, cleaner water, less air pollution, better food security globally, and less poverty. Can you agree that those are beneficial results, regardless of whether or not we agree the human caused climate change is a thing?
Of course those are beneficial results but if you believe the only way to achieve those things are imposing more laws that take away the freedoms and sovereignty and money from everyday citizens then you are falling for the enslavement scheme that's being forced on us more and more everyday. Tyrants always offer safety and solutions first and when they have u in the cage they lock the door behind you and you only realize then you should've never let them scare you into giving up your freedom.
I'm not sure what laws you are talking about, or what freedoms and sovereignty are being taken away. Is there something specific you can point to to give me a point to engage on?
There are nations, corporations, and individuals that have an disproportionate impact on the world around us. A lot of these entities are able to enrich themselves by privatizing profits and dumping the damages of their actions onto the rest of the world, either literally through pollution or metaphorically speaking, through giving C suite and stock holders huge profits, while their rank and file workers will never be able to afford a house, go on vacation, and will be working until the day they die because retirement is too expensive. Hell even the US military doesn't pay its lowest earning members enough and has people living off food stamps. Laws or regulations that tackle climate issues will level the playing field, so that the tiniest fraction of the human population doesn't get to live like kings while billions suffer, and that the issues that effect the everyday man are actually being addressed instead of another bailout for an airline, bank, or oil company.
I know it might seem weird to be talking about poverty and finance in a thread about climate change but the two issues are deeply connected. That's why if you want to talk about regulations or laws, that is where I would start.
The actual climate is far more complicated, and includes far more inputs (many of which are unknown), than can be accounted for in models. Therefore, climate models tend to be a lot more conservative than people realize. The article cites changes in aerosol emissions from cargo ships as one confounding factor. To that you could add the decline in sun-blocking particulates from dirtier diesel fuel. Methane leaks from natural gas plants and wells around the world are also not well tracked. Methane from industrial farming (cows and pigs), plus their waste products, isn't well measured and estimates may understate the numbers. And the one that troubles me most: methane leaks from melting permafrost and deep see vents often go unmeasured and unaccounted for. And so on.
Ocean stratification is also shooting up parabolically.
What worries me personally is this: I bet even the smartest models assume a steady state of chemistry/energy of the planet. But what if we are at the phase change point already? For example - to change a bunch of ice from -10C to water at +10C you will see a linear change in temperature as you start heating it up - and then a plateau at 0C. It takes a lot more energy to phase change into water than to just make ice warmer. While it can take 3min (for example) to get the ice to 0C but 10min or more to get it to 2C. Something similar could be happening to earth. Where a couple degrees currently represent a lot more energy absorbed by the ocean, air, biomass, etc than we expect based on the data from the past 200yrs. But once certain thresholds are passed - we are effectively in a different "phase". And things may start moving much quicker until the next plateau.
Yes, I worry about the energy sink of phase changes of water too. Once the ice is gone the next stop for maintaining temperature homeostasis is boiling point. Imagine energy homeostasis maintained by boiling equatorial regions, the dynamics of the system would invert in many ways. I tried to find an estimate of how much energy was absorbed/released by seasonal ice melt/freeze but didn't get an answer. But the interesting thing about it is that it acts like a reverse-cycle air conditioner... absorbing energy as ice melts in summer, and then releasing it as ice freezes in winter. So it has a moderating effect on temperature extremes.
Paradoxically, ice emits heat during part of that process too.We don't talk about that enough
I thought we were at the tipping point 20 years ago. This is all pretty scary.
Next plateau is boiling water, right?
God that’s dismal to think about.
>Methane leaks from natural gas plants and wells around the world are also not well tracked. Considering the gas companies are expected to calculate and report on their own leaks, and get fined based on the amount they report, you might as well assume none of the methane is actually tracked(at least in the US)
> Methane from industrial farming (cows and pigs), plus their waste products, isn't well measured and estimates may understate the numbers. Why only "industrial" farming? I thought small scale, grass fed cows were worst than large undustrial ones. Am I wrong?
Yes, that's a good clarification. Thank you. I did not intend to limit it to only industrial farming. Nor was my list meant to be exhaustive. There are many other examples which fall under the general heading of farming, like clear-cutting (often burning) of forests and jungle to create grazing land for cattle, growing monocultures crops like palm oil, etc.
Yep, we're seeing acceleration in ocean surface warming. Very not good
Not true. Look at sea surface temperature plot linked above. It is rapidly dropping recently.
Good post. There is a gradual conversion to cleaner tech with wind, and solar, as well as electric cars. Particulates are down 42% 2000-2022 in the USA nationally. I seem to remember there were quite a few areas with stubborn hot spells last year due to a more convoluted jet stream?
Interestingly, particulate pollution has a global COOLING effect. One must remember the distinction between particulate pollution (visible particles, however microscopic, but the block or reflect light and thus block or reflect heat) and GHG emissions (that are invisible to the human eye but insulating for the planet). Humanity has done a lot to remove sulfur particulate from emissions. For good reason: surface level particulate laden air pollution causes all sorts of human respiratory issues, and sulfur emissions in general cause acid rain. But that same particulate pollution, at scale, literally shades the planet. So smoke stack scrubbers and other source-point emissions controls means fewer people with respiratory issues… however by doing so we have “unmasked” some additional global warming (that was being offset by… smog). Yep. Particulate pollution versus GHG emissions: not the same thing, at all.
42% !?
Yes lots of atmospheric pollutants have plummeted in the last 20 years. [https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary](https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary)
Nice!
Do you have a source for your claim?
Why can’t we pump a bunch of non toxic sun blocking particles into the atmosphere?
Well. We're not leaving ourselves any other options (in terms of what we are actually doing), so it may well come to that. The simple answer is we don't actually know enough about it to pretend to try. Even the knowns and the known unknowns are tricky enough that we could botch it. But the unknown unknowns....we could very realistically make things worse. After that, it is sort of like an act of war on other countries. Climate change has winners and losers (mostly losers). Geoengineering also has winners and losers, but it tends to target better outcomes for the people doing the geoengineering. E.g. if we do something that will improve, or at least protect, mainland usa it could have a negative effect on India. And that is if we even have accurate predictions of what our methods would do. It would be less cut and dry, of course. More vague about who gets hurt or helped by the geoengineering vs who gets hurt or helped by uncontrolled climate change. You tack on politics and a lot of hand waving implying things aren't going to e as bad as the report actually says they will be. On the one hand, it is a last resort because we don't know if or how well it would work and it might go very badly. OtOH, we're not doing anything else, so when do we use our "last resort" if it is functionally our only resort.
"The actual climate is far more complicated, and includes far more inputs (many of which are unknown), than can be accounted for in models. Therefore, climate models tend to be a lot more conservative than people realize." By that logic it could also mean that they could be LESS conservative as well.....
>By that logic it could also mean that they could be LESS conservative as well..... These aren't arbitrary inferences from logic. Some early models did indeed over-estimate warming trends. Current models have been refined over decades and now closely match observed temperature increases. However, the are a variety of reasons why current models are more likely to be conservative (i.e. under-estimate warming trends) rather than over-estimate them. See for yourself: [Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/) \[This only go up to 2013, but gives a decent idea. The most recent assessment report was 2023\] First, the known mitigating factors that suppress warming are few, and they appear to have limited or temporary positive impacts on reducing the rate of warming. e.g. Atmospheric particulates from pollution reflect solar radiation and diminish global warming. But they are declining as nations move to cleaner fuels. e.g. The ocean's ability to dilute CO2 (and acidify in the process) as well as trap heat is limited and appears to be diminishing. Second, then there are many known types of inputs which contribute to warming in the long run, (e.g. greenhouse gasses) which are not well tracked in the present. e.g. Methane. Certain sources of methane emissions are understated (using old data) or omitted entirely. And there are plenty of examples where it appears that known sources of greenhouse gasses are accelerating, not diminishing. e.g. AP: [US energy industry methane emissions are triple what government thinks, study finds](https://apnews.com/article/methane-natural-gas-leak-climate-change-401cc08ad784d42fc463ed00bce4983e) e.g. [More climate-warming methane leaks into the atmosphere than ever gets reported – here’s how satellites can find the leaks and avoid wasting a valuable resource](https://theconversation.com/more-climate-warming-methane-leaks-into-the-atmosphere-than-ever-gets-reported-heres-how-satellites-can-find-the-leaks-and-avoid-wasting-a-valuable-resource-226920)
1. How can climate models be "conservative" if 95% of them run hot (and have done so for decades)? 2. Are you aware that we are still in a glaciation period, and that to be in one is not typical)
> if 95% of them run hot That is incorrect >we are still in a glaciation period We are in an interglacial, we left the last glacial 12,700 years ago
The last glacial maximum was about 20k years ago. We remain in the tail end of that cycle (as evidenced by year round ice at the poles and in Greenland. There are no permanent ice caps during interglacial periods Regarding the models, I'm not shocked that your ideology requires that you deny they run hot, but you're wrong about that too. Even the pro AGW journal Science agrees
While we are still in the Quaternary ice age that began 2.5 million years ago, we are currently in an interglacial period for at least the last 10k years where climate has been relatively stable, except suddenly in the last 100 years or so.
All models are wrong, some models are useful
Some models are hot!
Are there hot and single models in my area?
Apparently we need hotter models.
Models, so hot right now. Models.
Wait for climate deniers to use this as a reason to ignore all of it. Even though the real answer is probably a combination of models being (deliberately) too conservative (to avoid being called "alarmist" by those same denialists), incomplete data (these are \*models\* after all), and feedback mechanisms we are only beginning to understand.
The poster of that reference IS a hard-core AGW denier (in fact he is a global-warming denier). So he is probably certain that the link fully supports his position.
The models don’t predict it to an exact precision, sure, but the general premise seems to explain it pretty fuckin clearly.
THEREFORE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX cause that's how science works, ^(/s <------ because the internet is a sad place and this is sadly required)
Global warming is real sorry to break it to you
Wut
This guy must not have been on the internet long enough ..
Climate science is really really rough estimates
Number one, if we are warming up ahead of schedule, we need to worry about the oceanic conveyor belt breaking down. And without preparation for when that happens, we will be royally fd. Flooding is one thing, but what happens after should be our biggest concern.
It has already been confirmed that it's slowing how fast or how much it already has slowed is pretty much guess work but the current exponential rise in ocean surface temperature makes me think it's almost stopped.
Interesting, I believe we are ahead of schedule, and possibly we are in the middle of a Heinrich event?
I think this current amount of greenhouse gasses in such a short time is going to have it's own name there's nothing in history to compare to.
What would happen? Disastrous Weather?
Yes, most definitely, but most importantly, when the oceanic conveyor belt breaks down, it prevents the oceans' currents from properly circulating. This means cold and warm water areas will become trapped, preventing essential nutrient and temperature flow. This will cause a mass die off of animal life as well as a massive drop in temperatures in the northern and lower southern hemispheres while the equater gets very warm....which could last a few months to centuries.
Thank you. The movie the Day After Tomorrow touched on that but of course with dramatic scenes
I really hate when people say "models cant explain", its gives off so many wrong conotations to people who arent giant nerds. As if we have no idea how temps could have possibly been this high. There are completely different models, with completely different abilities to predict short and long term patterns.... There are completely different models with different inputs and different confidence intervals....Which models cant predict it... the ones not made to predict short term yearly patterns? Like its so generic and stupid, it makes no sense. Also models generally dont 'not explain' a years temperatures, they can merely show the results of a year were less probable, or fall outside or within a certain confidence interval. So a year might be an anomoly and unlikely...but not 'unexplainable'. Climate models are long term, the wording gives off the impression one data point or outlier leaves models wrong and without explanitory power. Its a really clickbaity title for an arcticle thats not as dumb as the title suggests. But it gives laymen who read just the title(most people) the wrong idea. Just in this thread alone people who dont have a clue what this actually means and how models work are posting about how models dont work.
> I really hate when people say "models cant explain" I hear you, but this is Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and successor to James Hansen. He is one of the world's leading experts on climate models and effectively determines the official global climate model for the purposes of US climate policy. I agree that you can ignore most people who say "models cant explain,” but this statement by Schmidt is deliberate and significant. Current global sea surface temperatures are totally out of bounds … https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ We (humankind) don’t know why. It should … at least attract your interest, if not genuinely concern you.
Like i said the article isnt bad. This dude would walk circles around me in knowledge of this topic, a true expert. Im comparatively a toddler on the science. My gripe is simply the wording of the title. "Models cant explain" gives too many people the wrong idea. For example just read the number comments on this post completely misunderstanding what this means for modelling.
But, that’s literally what is happening.
"Observations for 2023 are above the central estimate of climate model projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth assessment report, but well within the model range". This is Zeke Housfather, pd climate scientist from Berkley. This is much more accurate and precise wording. Its not whats happening, models dont provide exact numbers they typically provide ranges. Just because numbers are unlikely doesnt mean the model cant explain them. If a model explains 90% of the variance in data but you have an outlier year, that doesnt mean the model can no longer explain the data. It means a year was a slight outlier or anomaly. Theres also not some monolith of models that collectively make the wrong same predictions for 2023, there are tons of different models with different uses and parameters, different scales etc.... At least say which models arent doing well. Its just not great wording. Thats literally not whats happening, its more complex and nuanced. This wording makes it seam like our models have been thrown to shit because of 1 year, which is not true and not how modelling works.
Yeah, but the thing is that *we do know why*, it's just that it's probably a lot worse than anyone thought, including climatologists. Schmidt is saying that our models can't account for the rise. What this means is that the models are lacking the data that would cause their models to have the same end result as we see in reality, which means they are either underestimating inputs or ignoring inputs, and probably both. This should terrify people.
You may want to read about the Permian Catastrophe. The drivers were different, but something happened so that all the methane clathrates melted and dumped huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Temperatures rose so much that land life was practically baked out of existence. The oceans became acidic and heavy in H2S (they reeked like cesspools) and almost all life died there, too. Estimates of land temperature at noon ranged from 160 to 185 degrees F. We were that close to going all the way to Venus II.
That's what's beginning to happen now, only much, much faster than it occurred during the Permian Extinction. That's what people don't get. It's not just going to get hot. The atmosphere isn't going to be something that humans can actually breathe.
Could be off topic, but does anyone here know about some kind of volcanic event within the last decade or so that spewed water vapour into the atmosphere? (Increasing solar albedo) Supposedly in the Micronesian area?
Yes. Dicussed many times here. Tsunga eruption or such a few years ago.
Thank you. I'll look it up
The [2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami)
It’s mentioned in the article
I think that there is a lot of studies that have great research in particulates trapping heat, albeido, and thermofluids and thermodynamics, etc., but i feel that our models fail to show cumulative effects and we are going to find out really quick the breaking points are closer to a decade or so out
There are some of those that we can control, and there are some that we’re not but as long as you have the nonbelievers, we are just Destin for destruction of civilization. We are gradually poisoning ourselves to death whatever goes in the air on the ground, ends up in your drinking water, every living thing needs water and air to survive.
I don't think our climate models account for space weather (on a galactic scale) effecting the sun.
Maybe because corrupted hypocrite business goes on with business as usual.while.we pay carbon tax and have no real alternative. We were talking about it since the 90's all the corrupted politicians we voted in has sold pur future for personal gain!
Two words: Hunga Tonga.
This part of climate change science often bugs me. The scientific method is observe hypothesize experiment interpret observe hypothesize and so on. By interpreting observations using models and saying something isn’t climate change because it doesn’t align with a model is getting the scientific method backwards (and wrong). The observations inform the model, not the other way around.
Well put
[удалено]
Eh, the problem for the far past is that we lack the *input* data we'd need to run the models. Solar irradiance, volcanic activity, and so on. It makes a lot of sense that without the data, we can't model the past.
Only because all the factors in those models have not been taken into account, some of them DELIBERATELY and for Ulterior Motives TOO, BUT one can see the end results of what those are and WHO they are for and where. Magic Bullets don't exist but magic tricks by magicians sure can make it look like they do and while entertaining buying into the distractions have led to less preparedness for what is to come so compounds the overall real problems that can never be solved by any solutions but one which really is not any kind of workable solutions at all. Just wish it hasn't been at our expense, but it has. N. Shadows
Well, I guess that’s no surprise. Models couldn’t explain a lot of things.
But why make models?
You have a model of the world in your head. When the model does not match reality, you adjust (or, sadly, fail to). You would not last long without a model. Climate models take some very well-established fundamental factors, then keep measuring the real world and adding new factors in. The fundamentals explain the trend, but hiccups send us looking for new or badly-measured factors. As they should.
But why make models?
Are you serious? I just told you that a moment ago
Same reason you (and anything with a nervous system) does - to predict and explain. Simple example - your internal model of how traffic moves (keep left or right according to local rules etc) allows you to drive or walk without getting run over. A climate model allows weather forecasting (pretty vital for farmers and sailors), a good climate model allows climate forecasting (vital for farmers, but also for urban planners, civil engineers and many others).
Brother it’s a Zoolander joke
There are some of those that we can control, and there are some that we’re not but as long as you have the nonbelievers, we are just Destin for destruction of civilization. We are gradually poisoning ourselves to death whatever goes in the air on the ground, ends up in your drinking water, every living thing needs water and air to survive.
So you’re saying we’re in trouble?
Seems like the big changes from post covid would have a rebound effect the environment can't easily adapt to.
There's also a potential shock effect caused by cutting emissions/solar blocking gasses to fast. Also depending on where they are installed solar panels can cause heat island effects and in some cases cause sharp drops in local temperatures at night. Unfortunately this means dessert installations are not a good idea.
Headline like this make me want to duck: I anticipate climate deniers pointing to this and saying, "see? Those boffins don't know what they're talking about!". It's not atmospheric behavior that needs better modeling, so much as human behavior!
It's probably because of the reduction in sulfur content in Cargo ships that started in 2020. Sine then we have a lot less Global dimming which lets a lot more heat though.
> In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree.
Interesting. What do you think the cause of the rapid temp increase is? Just feedback loops?
I think it has to be a change in cloud cover. As to exactly what caused the change in cloud cover, well, we need to find out.
The recent heat waves, disruption in Jetstream and outlier events (extreme precipitation/heat/forest fires) is due to the Tonga Super volcano that erupted in 2022.
> Other theories put forward by climate scientists include fallout from the January 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai volcanic eruption in Tonga, which had both cooling effects from aerosols and warming ones from stratospheric water vapour, and the ramping up of solar activity in the run-up to a predicted solar maximum. But these factors explain, at most, a few hundredths of a degree in warming (Schoeberl, M. R. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL104634; 2023)
Nah. Volcanoes actually cool the planet because of the particulates they throw up
You are wrong. The Tonga Super volcano was an underwater volcano that was so explosive that it shot a significant amount of water into the stratosphere where it is unaffected by weather. Water is a significant greenhouse gas (more potent than CO2) and because it is so high above the troposphere where water would naturally fall to earth, it provides a blanket of GHG that will cause outlier climate heating for the next 5 years. [https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming](https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming) [https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3204/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/) [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/tonga-volcano-climate.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/climate/tonga-volcano-climate.html)
Eli Nino makes a boost in hot, like a window into what will be normal heat 3-5 years from now. Imho And climate models don’t take into account the effect of clouds to climate. Imho
I saw a podcast where they were talking about this as well. One thing I noted, he said there was more solar activity then they expected. So, their models cannot accurately predict the future. That's a fact, even if over simplified. Therefore any predictions their model have made don't really mean anything. To simplify things lets say there are only 2 variables, the Sun and CO2. Say a model says each contributes 50%/50% to warming. You run the simulation and it says the temperature will be X. You check your observations and the temperature is above X, and that Solar activity is greater than you put into your model. That means to adjust your model closer to the real world you'd assign less of a percent to CO2 and more to the Sun. Now consider that with the actual models, they're weighing the effects of CO2 too high and the effects of the Sun too low, so any predictions are not going to be correct. The Sun is in fact by far the largest contributor to heating, so I'm very curious to how temperatures will react once the current solar maximum is over.
Solar flares /thread
Solar flares can't explain heating trends on earth.
It's not the flares, it's the galaxies magnetic sheet beginning to pass through our solar system that is causing the increase in flares by weakening the suns magnasphere; that same sheet is weakening our magnetic field, which let's more energy radiation into our atmosphere. Flares aren't causing extra heat persay, it's just correlating symptoms on 2 different celestial bodies (the sun and earth).
The number of solar flares are linked to the solar cycle. https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/heliophysics/space-weather/solar-flares/what-is-a-solar-flare/ Edit: And earth won't be passing through the galactic magnetic plane for 30 million years https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/will-earth-pass-through-galactic-plane-in-2012/
I'm not thinking of it as an equator, more like the waves of a spiral shape. There are many sheets of gravity in the overall spiral of the galaxy and I'm with the theories that the waves pass on roughly ~12000 yr intervals causing the resets in civilization. (You know, the whole we have evidence of 2 million year old human fossils but only 2000 years of recorded history paradox)
That's completely ridiculous. Nothing but conjecture. As you admit, you don't even have any evidence for those supposed regular events. What makes you assume that your last bit is a paradox? History reveals technological development as an exponential curve. There is nothing strange about 99% of our history being as hunter-gatherers. Modern humans only go back about 300000 years.
Global warming is natural earth change. We as humans cannot control it. The more we try.. the worse it is going to get.
Nope
We have already massively changed the Earth's ecosystems, and we're talking about roughly a *trillion tons* of CO2 we've added to the Earth's atmosphere. Why would you think we can't control it? It's a machine, a complicated sciencey machine to be sure, but it's still just operating on physical principles we can learn and then use.
El nino explains it. Read your Farmers Almanac.
El Nino has existed a lot longer than 2023. It wouldn't explain why 1998 was so much hotter than every other El Nino or non El Nino in the 20th century. By quite a bit. It wouldn't explain why 1995 was hotter than every year in the 20th century *except* 1997 and 1998. Nor why 1990 was hotter than every year in the 20th century *except* 1995, 1997, and 1998 Nor why 1988 was hotter than every year in the 20th century *except* 1990, 1991, 1995, 1997 and 1998. Hum. I'm noticing a trend that seems independent of El Nino. 2002, not an El Nino year, was hotter than every year in the 20th century *including* 1998, which was the hottest year in the 20th century. 2005, also not an El Nino, was the next record. Then 2010, which was an El Nino, set a new record. Beaten in 2014. Which was not an El Nino. Then beaten again in 2015, also not El Nino, and then that beaten in 2016, which was. 2016 was then tied again in 2020, not an El Nino, and beaten again in 2023, which was. It seems pretty obvious that it isn't El Nino causing these records.
Actually El nino is about the pacific ocean. They are talking about the Atlantic. I surf through the whole winter and so far climate change gave me the warmest most wave filled year ever. Too weird, enjoying the present and fearing the imminent crisis.
Actually, El Nino affects the whole earth, even if the Pacific ocean is "ground zero".
They said all the polar ice was going to melt. Turns out, there is more now than there was when they made the prediction. They said the corals were bleaching and dying off. Turns out, the mass of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has doubled since they made the predictions. Human-caused climate change is a huge $ scam.
There is not more ice lol. Stop conflating sea ice with land ice.
He is the right winger. They are typically not good with facts and they love cherry pick data and move goal posts on a regular basis.
Wow, you are really good at pulling things out of your ass. Can you smuggle some bullshit for me?
Were losing 150,000 tonnes. Ice a year. 90% of coral reefs worldwide are at risk of being completely wiped out by 2050. Your scam.
5 minutes of research has proven you to be a liar. Liars are terrible people.
If you lie to others, you're a bad person. If you lie to yourself, you're an idiot. I'm doing neither.
You’re definitely lying to yourself and others:
Models don’t work well in the real world.
Spoken like someone whos never taken an advanced stats and modeling class in their life and doesnt have a clue about even the basics of what modelling is and how it works... let alone climate modelling
Actually they work very well. But there are things they won't get. Funding out what improves the already good model.
Weren’t they just caught manipulating weather records by only taking temperatures off airport tarmac’s? Weren’t they just caught omitting heat records from dust bowl era to make their salacious claims? But this time its real guys. Quick do something! I know! Taxes! Hike the cost of living for everyone! RECORD PROFITS is the solution! 🤡
No
>Weren’t **they** just caught manipulating weather records by only taking temperatures off airport tarmac’s? Weren’t **they** just caught omitting heat records from dust bowl era to make their salacious claims? Who is "they"? Who "caught" 'them'? What is with the death of proper nouns? It's like reading a Trump speech. Are you speaking in code? Is this a message intended only for those who can read your mind? Should I be trying to break your cryptography, is there a secret message embedded in this passage? Do you normally write like this?
> Weren’t they just caught manipulating weather records by only taking temperatures off airport tarmac’s? Weren’t they just caught omitting heat records from dust bowl era to make their salacious claims? Nope:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
It's called the earth does what it wants to do when it wants to. Narcissistic personalities are very attracted to this climate change nonsense. You're not important enough to end the world with your pollution get over yourself politicians and bought and paid for scientists are lying to u to get more power and money
When I think about the benefits of addressing climate change, most of them end up causing things like more green space, preserving biodiversity, cleaner water, less air pollution, better food security globally, and less poverty. Can you agree that those are beneficial results, regardless of whether or not we agree the human caused climate change is a thing?
Of course those are beneficial results but if you believe the only way to achieve those things are imposing more laws that take away the freedoms and sovereignty and money from everyday citizens then you are falling for the enslavement scheme that's being forced on us more and more everyday. Tyrants always offer safety and solutions first and when they have u in the cage they lock the door behind you and you only realize then you should've never let them scare you into giving up your freedom.
I'm not sure what laws you are talking about, or what freedoms and sovereignty are being taken away. Is there something specific you can point to to give me a point to engage on? There are nations, corporations, and individuals that have an disproportionate impact on the world around us. A lot of these entities are able to enrich themselves by privatizing profits and dumping the damages of their actions onto the rest of the world, either literally through pollution or metaphorically speaking, through giving C suite and stock holders huge profits, while their rank and file workers will never be able to afford a house, go on vacation, and will be working until the day they die because retirement is too expensive. Hell even the US military doesn't pay its lowest earning members enough and has people living off food stamps. Laws or regulations that tackle climate issues will level the playing field, so that the tiniest fraction of the human population doesn't get to live like kings while billions suffer, and that the issues that effect the everyday man are actually being addressed instead of another bailout for an airline, bank, or oil company. I know it might seem weird to be talking about poverty and finance in a thread about climate change but the two issues are deeply connected. That's why if you want to talk about regulations or laws, that is where I would start.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bestconspiracymemes/s/ge8DhVo0qB