this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
41 points (93.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5022 readers
382 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
41
Are climate models overestimating warming? please, God, make these arguments over whether models are too hot or too cold stop, I'm begging you (www.theclimatebrink.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bbuez@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (3 children)

We'll call these hot models, since they obviously are too pessimistic, so we'll make some biased models

1 decade later, "hot models" more accurately predicted our current state

Huh maybe these new models are too pessimistic

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's worth noting that the quotes above are not from the article.

I recommend reading the article.

[–] bbuez@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry! I don't mean to appropriate the article, I did read and agree with what it has to say.

But at the risk of sounding reductionary, the people who care and have influence over climatological matters don't give a shit about what Trump has to spout on the matter, and the people listening to him will not have their minds changed.

And again to be reductionary, we know our effect on the climate, nuance only blurs picture for average people. This is partially talked about in the article as for the planetary/regional temperature difference, but personally I think this is something general science communication could work on, which we've seen as climate change vs global warming, though both describe the same thing.

Models blur the laymans picture and feeds into denial when predictions aren't correct, and as their value lies in future predictions that past trends also corroborate, more emphasis should be put on said measureable effects.

Just my 2¢, no disagreement with the article intended

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Models blur the laymans picture and feeds into denial when predictions aren’t correct, and as their value lies in future predictions that past trends also corroborate, more emphasis should be put on said measureable effects.

No models, no chance of reliable forecasting. What the layman (or the oil-company shill) has to say about errors is irrelevant. All they have are baseless opinions and vested interests. Everyone who works on developing models is constantly bringing in new theory, responding to new kinds of observations as instrumentation and coverage improve, correcting the models based on observations, doing backcasting and improving skill scores.