> Humans didn't change the climate in the past 365 days, but that volcano did [...] The culture war around climate change is preventing us from having nuanced discussions about the sources,
When you suggest that explanations are mutually exclusive you are participating in that war.
Are they? This article focuses on the temperature delta from 2022-2023, not our impact collectively. The thesis is that human (in)action can't explain the severity of the delta over a single year. The eruption appears to fill in the gap.
This qualifies as culture-war gas? The article does not ignore human climate impact. There's a big CO2 graph right in the middle.
> this one volcano produced a warming effect on the planet equal to about 5.2 years worth of total global carbon emissions in one go, and it’s going to be stuck up there for over half a decade.
> If you believe that CO2 is slowly warming the planet, then the net result of this one very unusual volcano will be to fast forward global warming five years, and keep us at that fast-forward location for between five and ten years, and then will slowly abate. But because 2023 internet life is a sea of culture war, that straightforward scientific conclusion has gotten churned into the modern media culture war engine, dragging the study’s authors into the milieu.
I don't understand the point the author is trying to make. Climate-change is not that bad because without the volcano we would have had five more years? Also "believe" in climate change? What? Is this a new “enlightened centrism”-meme?
The fact that a volcano accelerated climate change by 5 years, means we have 5 fewer years to deal with the problem. It made this whole situation even worse.
Excellent article in my estimation, stressing the need for some sort of nuance beyond "Other side bad". For those curious as to how a volcanic eruption could cause an increase in tempratures when often volcanic detonations are correlated with cooling the author explains:
> Normally volcanos provide a net cooling effect on the planet because the soot and garbage (and sulfate aerosols) they eject block out a little bit of sunlight. This one certainly had that, but because it was a submarine volcano, it also boiled a giant chunk of the ocean itself, and sent it hurdling up towards the boundary of space.
zamalek|2 years ago
When you suggest that explanations are mutually exclusive you are participating in that war.
liquidise|2 years ago
This qualifies as culture-war gas? The article does not ignore human climate impact. There's a big CO2 graph right in the middle.
V__|2 years ago
> If you believe that CO2 is slowly warming the planet, then the net result of this one very unusual volcano will be to fast forward global warming five years, and keep us at that fast-forward location for between five and ten years, and then will slowly abate. But because 2023 internet life is a sea of culture war, that straightforward scientific conclusion has gotten churned into the modern media culture war engine, dragging the study’s authors into the milieu.
I don't understand the point the author is trying to make. Climate-change is not that bad because without the volcano we would have had five more years? Also "believe" in climate change? What? Is this a new “enlightened centrism”-meme?
The fact that a volcano accelerated climate change by 5 years, means we have 5 fewer years to deal with the problem. It made this whole situation even worse.
gustavus|2 years ago
> Normally volcanos provide a net cooling effect on the planet because the soot and garbage (and sulfate aerosols) they eject block out a little bit of sunlight. This one certainly had that, but because it was a submarine volcano, it also boiled a giant chunk of the ocean itself, and sent it hurdling up towards the boundary of space.
Thus increasing the water vapor in the air.
jiofj|2 years ago
[deleted]