this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
156 points (98.8% liked)

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

5239 readers
435 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
156
Why was Hurricane Helene so bad? Fossil fuel pollution. (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

When we add excessive amounts of it, it is definitely pollution. I think it's time to start talking about it as such.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm talking about changing minds. CO2 emissions have already been framed as pollution for decades, and that narrative has demonstrably failed to move the public consciousness. Just saying "oh it's definitely pollution when there's too much of it" is dismissive and will change zero minds, assuming that's your goal here.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

so you think NOT calling it pollution is going to change minds? what are you arguing for exactly?

the problem is not people getting hung up on CO2 being labeled as "pollution", that's silly. the problem is people are in denial because they don't want to change their carefree 20th century lifestyles.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Public consciousness has shifted dramatically over the last couple of decades... How would you demonstrate it?