• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    18 days ago

    Remember it used to be called global warming, because that’s what’s actually happening. But morons thought a cold winter day disproved global warming, so it was renamed climate change.
    And yes we can reverse global warming, but obviously that won’t recreate polar or mountain ice, or lower sea levels quickly, but we can get the temperature down to stop it first, which will also curb the increase in natural disasters, then the restoring of sea levels and ice will take at least decades and probably centuries.

    • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      17 days ago

      My point is that slowing down the heating of the planet is doable (though you’d need the majority of the world contributing, which is highly unlikely to happen), but we can’t reverse the damage that has already been done, which some people seem to think is possible.

      We’re not as powerful as we think we are.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days ago

        There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

        We’re not as powerful as we think we are.

        We could cause a new ice age easily. Just fire off a few percent of the nukes, and we will revert to an ice age almost immediately.
        Of course a side effect would be massive starvation.

        • gian @lemmy.grys.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          There are gasses and particles that can be released into the atmosphere that will reflect sunlight and warmth away from earth. In theory that could be done very quickly.

          As far as I remember, that was tried with ships and it has some collateral effects that cause different damages to the oceans.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 days ago

            I think I recall the opposite. After having somewhat cleaner fuel, the ships cleaner exhaust caused more warming as the sulfur in the fuel was having a side effect of mitigating warming somewhat. It was raised as a point of maybe we should consider the approach of we are in dire straights.

            • gian @lemmy.grys.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              I remember to have read that change caused some other problems, and these collateral problems were unexpected.

              But I don’t remember if the problem were about the ocean currents or that the ocean was warmer or a mix of the two plus something else.

            • gian @lemmy.grys.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              17 days ago

              My point was that this already tested on a smaller scale with ships: the fuel changed and that changed the exhaust fumes ability to reflect sunlight which cause some problems the proponents of the solution have not foresee.

    • qqq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 days ago

      Hm I always remember hearing this:

      In a confidential memo to the Republican party, Luntz is credited with advising the Bush administration that the phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, which he called a “less frightening” phrase than the former.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/27/americans-climate-change-global-warming-yale-report

    • Karjalan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      I’m pretty sure it wasn’t renamed because people were morons about child weather, at least not completely. It’s always been “climate change”, because that’s a better representation of what is happening.

      The climate is changing, and one is the main side effects it’s global warming… But there’s extra fun side effects, like ocean acidification, that aren’t because of the warning