this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
85 points (97.8% liked)

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

5022 readers
389 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
85
Climate scientists flummoxed by unexpected bump in global temperatures (www.motherjones.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NoiseColor@startrek.website 18 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Maybe it's because climate scientists have been underestimating effects for decades so they didn't lose grants for looking alarmist.

[–] hannesh93 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's the thing - if science is projecting something for the future nothing is 100% certain - so they have to widen the range in order to have a statement with a lower number that's "90% certain" even if there's a very high chance that it's going to be way worse

[–] NoiseColor@startrek.website 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Absolutely, but if you ask climate scientists, in private, what they think the numbers are saying, they will tell you a very different story.

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I would guess we've been fucked for at least a couple of decades by now. In their need to "reach a consensus" we have been sold an unrealistic narrative of hope lol

[–] NoiseColor@startrek.website 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, well phrased. All though I think there was hope. There is always hope, but none of the deciders care or have cared.

load more comments (5 replies)