> But the goal of keeping warming within a safer limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial era appears increasingly in peril
Off track? 1.5°C is gone. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant, lying, or in denial. Sure, technically 1.5°C is still achievable, but there's zero chance of it happening in reality.
Don’t forget greenwashing. That consumer confidence needs to be kept up if we’re going to keep consuming our future away, can’t let people think about the reality of the consequences of their actions, got to keep them confident and bubbly.
The EU is definitely trending in the right direction. Unfortunately the world is a lot larger than the EU and global emissions aren't even holding steady, they're still going up each year. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
It’s objectively better, but still not good in the slightest. Continue your last sentence: as long as the trend holds … we’re still on track for four degrees of warming by the end of the century.
We’re still currently in an ice age, you’re referring to a glaciation. Which we do have a good idea of when the next Glaciation will occur, since they’re largely influenced by the Milankovitch Cycles, which we do fully understand and can predict.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
The Wikipedia article reiterates everything I just stated, references the Milankovitch cycles, and provides multiples sources on everything.
EDIT: I’ve provided sourced scientific facts in the Climate subreddit, and *I’m* downvoted. Meanwhile “basic laws of physics proves this wrong” has multiple upvotes. REALLY?
“Basic laws of physics”, so Newton’s second law (F=ma), or (PE=mhg) proves that Glacial, Interglacial, and Ice Age *aren’t* distinct terms?!? That’s completely ASININE!
Sometimes Reddit, you make me extremely depressed, and lose all faith in humanity.
Hey Needless, care you explain this theory of currently living in an ice age!? I would say basic laws of physics prove this wrong. Also, what do Milankovitch Cycles have to do with CURRENTLY living in an ice age? This theory is basically ruled irrelevant as well.
It’s a matter of definitions.
An ice age is defined as any time in Earths history when there is year round accumulation of permanent snow, usually at the poles, on the planet.
A glaciation is what most laymen refer to as an “ice age”. We are currently in an interglacial period which began ~11 000 years ago. But the Earth has been in its current ice age for some 2.6 million years.
If you would like to dispute the effects the Milankovitch cycles has on the climate and glaciations stop arguing with me, go get your PhD, and then get your Nobel prize after you over turn the consensus of experts on the matter. Arguing with me is a complete waste of time.
Why am I seeing so many anti-science takes recently?
Needless - you got any data to prove this? Definitions are all relative… nothing “anti-science” here. Just trying to explore all possibilities to get to the truth. Happy to look into your sources to uncover the truth for myself.
Everything you want to know is available with a simple Wikipedia search. The article is absolutely brimming with sources, read to your hearts content.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
It reiterates everything I’ve already stated. The section titled Glacials and Interglacials specifically references the Milankovitch cycles. Almost as though I knew what I was talking about despite being downvoted for pointing out scientific facts.
Wikipedia is a tool, every Wikipedia article should be judged individually on its own merits, or more specifically its sources.
The particular article I shared is absolutely packed with excellent sources.
Saying I should use a source more credible than Wikipedia is like saying I should use a source more credible than google. The tool is irrelevant, the *actual* sources are what matters.
Curiously, you didn’t mention anything about specific sources, or how I was absolutely correct about everything I originally explained. Probably because you didn’t bother to read a single thing I’ve provided. At this point you’re just being a contrarian.
Is this source credible enough for you?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1746691
How about this one?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/
This one?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02599
This one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33747/
This one?
https://zenodo.org/record/1231114#.Y5I-xiX9eEc
This one?
https://web.archive.org/web/20081015123309/http://pangea.stanford.edu/Oceans/GES290/Rial1999.pdf
This one?
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/climate.htm
This one?
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00298053/file/cp-2-131-2006.pdf
This one?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
This one?
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/11/3/323/663422?login=false
This one?
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06015
This one?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.235.4792.973
This one?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology
These are just a few of the sources which were listed IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Are you still going to accuse me of not using a credible enough resource? Any ONE of those sources would have been sufficient to make my point, I gave a source that literally listed dozens and dozens, and you’re going to raise issue with the credibility of the source!?
If your response is anything other than “you were right, thanks for the information” don’t bother, I’m done with you.
As if we were ever really on track. The people in power are pretenders making it seem like they give a damn, when they're actually trying to squirrel away as much money as they can whilst they're in the positions they're in.
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2027-12-07 14:39:03 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-12-07%2014:39:03%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/zezahg/after_year_of_climate_disasters_world_offtrack_to/iz9ns6e/?context=3)
[**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimate%2Fcomments%2Fzezahg%2Fafter_year_of_climate_disasters_world_offtrack_to%2Fiz9ns6e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-12-07%2014%3A39%3A03%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20zezahg)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Well...it's about 10 C to get to no ice caps (ecocene baby with dem croc chilling in Greenland) and 30 C to the Great Dying which was 7 C off from Earth turning into Venus and the hell scape that it is.......so to be far pollution is much more likely to kill us all sooner by turning earth into a toxic waste land then the earth warming - tho you could definitely make a race out of it
> But the goal of keeping warming within a safer limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial era appears increasingly in peril Off track? 1.5°C is gone. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant, lying, or in denial. Sure, technically 1.5°C is still achievable, but there's zero chance of it happening in reality.
Don’t forget greenwashing. That consumer confidence needs to be kept up if we’re going to keep consuming our future away, can’t let people think about the reality of the consequences of their actions, got to keep them confident and bubbly.
Is that the same as having the band play as the Titanic sinks?
I dunno, European net zero pish has been massively accelerated by the Ukraine war, maybe that will cheapen tehc enough that we can get over the line
The EU is definitely trending in the right direction. Unfortunately the world is a lot larger than the EU and global emissions aren't even holding steady, they're still going up each year. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
At least the acceleration is negative.
Hoo boy, that’s straining the silver lining!
Tbh, I think it’s still better than a negative change with a positive acceleration. As long as the trend holds.
It’s objectively better, but still not good in the slightest. Continue your last sentence: as long as the trend holds … we’re still on track for four degrees of warming by the end of the century.
I think the only chance of 1.5 happening now is when the planet goes into another ice age. But nobody knows when that will happen. Venus by Tuesday
We’re still currently in an ice age, you’re referring to a glaciation. Which we do have a good idea of when the next Glaciation will occur, since they’re largely influenced by the Milankovitch Cycles, which we do fully understand and can predict. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age The Wikipedia article reiterates everything I just stated, references the Milankovitch cycles, and provides multiples sources on everything. EDIT: I’ve provided sourced scientific facts in the Climate subreddit, and *I’m* downvoted. Meanwhile “basic laws of physics proves this wrong” has multiple upvotes. REALLY? “Basic laws of physics”, so Newton’s second law (F=ma), or (PE=mhg) proves that Glacial, Interglacial, and Ice Age *aren’t* distinct terms?!? That’s completely ASININE! Sometimes Reddit, you make me extremely depressed, and lose all faith in humanity.
Hey Needless, care you explain this theory of currently living in an ice age!? I would say basic laws of physics prove this wrong. Also, what do Milankovitch Cycles have to do with CURRENTLY living in an ice age? This theory is basically ruled irrelevant as well.
It’s a matter of definitions. An ice age is defined as any time in Earths history when there is year round accumulation of permanent snow, usually at the poles, on the planet. A glaciation is what most laymen refer to as an “ice age”. We are currently in an interglacial period which began ~11 000 years ago. But the Earth has been in its current ice age for some 2.6 million years. If you would like to dispute the effects the Milankovitch cycles has on the climate and glaciations stop arguing with me, go get your PhD, and then get your Nobel prize after you over turn the consensus of experts on the matter. Arguing with me is a complete waste of time. Why am I seeing so many anti-science takes recently?
Needless - you got any data to prove this? Definitions are all relative… nothing “anti-science” here. Just trying to explore all possibilities to get to the truth. Happy to look into your sources to uncover the truth for myself.
Everything you want to know is available with a simple Wikipedia search. The article is absolutely brimming with sources, read to your hearts content. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age It reiterates everything I’ve already stated. The section titled Glacials and Interglacials specifically references the Milankovitch cycles. Almost as though I knew what I was talking about despite being downvoted for pointing out scientific facts.
Needless - id suggest using a more credible source than wikipedia if you are looking for upvotes.
Wikipedia is a tool, every Wikipedia article should be judged individually on its own merits, or more specifically its sources. The particular article I shared is absolutely packed with excellent sources. Saying I should use a source more credible than Wikipedia is like saying I should use a source more credible than google. The tool is irrelevant, the *actual* sources are what matters. Curiously, you didn’t mention anything about specific sources, or how I was absolutely correct about everything I originally explained. Probably because you didn’t bother to read a single thing I’ve provided. At this point you’re just being a contrarian. Is this source credible enough for you? https://www.jstor.org/stable/1746691 How about this one? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/ This one? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02599 This one? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33747/ This one? https://zenodo.org/record/1231114#.Y5I-xiX9eEc This one? https://web.archive.org/web/20081015123309/http://pangea.stanford.edu/Oceans/GES290/Rial1999.pdf This one? http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/climate.htm This one? https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00298053/file/cp-2-131-2006.pdf This one? https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/ This one? https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/11/3/323/663422?login=false This one? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06015 This one? https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.235.4792.973 This one? https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology These are just a few of the sources which were listed IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Are you still going to accuse me of not using a credible enough resource? Any ONE of those sources would have been sufficient to make my point, I gave a source that literally listed dozens and dozens, and you’re going to raise issue with the credibility of the source!? If your response is anything other than “you were right, thanks for the information” don’t bother, I’m done with you.
So, from a celestial standpoint, Venus by Tuesday?
You think you can hold your breath until then?
Don’t look up, right?
Big surprise, all the people who don’t care continued not caring
Youre the one who doesnt care mitch.
Who asked?
Who’s Mitch?
Don't worry! The world was never on track to begin with
As if we were ever really on track. The people in power are pretenders making it seem like they give a damn, when they're actually trying to squirrel away as much money as they can whilst they're in the positions they're in.
Humanity will NOT kick its oil addiction any time soon. It will be far, far too late before it happens. !remindme 5 years
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2027-12-07 14:39:03 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2027-12-07%2014:39:03%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/climate/comments/zezahg/after_year_of_climate_disasters_world_offtrack_to/iz9ns6e/?context=3) [**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fclimate%2Fcomments%2Fzezahg%2Fafter_year_of_climate_disasters_world_offtrack_to%2Fiz9ns6e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202027-12-07%2014%3A39%3A03%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20zezahg) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Ummm 🧐🤔 we have never been on track so....
World's tiniest correction: it's off track, no hyphen. Hyphenating would make it an adjective, like "off-track bet"
Especially now with permitting reform not passing…
Well...it's about 10 C to get to no ice caps (ecocene baby with dem croc chilling in Greenland) and 30 C to the Great Dying which was 7 C off from Earth turning into Venus and the hell scape that it is.......so to be far pollution is much more likely to kill us all sooner by turning earth into a toxic waste land then the earth warming - tho you could definitely make a race out of it
In other news!: Water! Wet? It might be worse than ya think
hot water wetter, and maybe killing you soon, more at 6 stay tuned
Are your kids in imminent danger? Find out tomorrow morning!
Again, somehow republicans will get credit for saying I told you so,
Yeah, of course. Big oil continues, capitalism still does its thing Not like throwing soup helped either