this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
116 points (98.3% liked)

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

5205 readers
709 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
116
Only 60% of Australians accept ‘climate disruption’ is human-caused, global poll finds (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 months ago by hanrahan@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10807072

Australia has one of the lowest rates of people acknowledging that 'climate disruption' is caused by humans

Colour me not suprised

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So what you are saying is a majority of people

I mean, I guess, technically, yeah... But geez, for something that's been settled science for well and truly over two decades now, that's a pretty appalling score.

[–] Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"Well and truly over two decades" is definitely true...

https://xkcd.com/2889/

Exxon had a report in the 80s talking about a 1°C rise in "40 years" ie literally right now

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, the point in time that I was trying to point to was not just when some science had been done, but when the amount of research into the area was so overwhelming, and so widely available, that any lay person who even just casually reads reliable news sources cannot possibly not be familiar with it. The point at which there is no longer any excuse for not knowing about and accepting the science, beyond wilful ignorance. A deliberately vague concept that can't be pinned down to one specific date, but that has, as its absolute upper bound the Kyoto Protocol, which was first signed over two decades, but not quite three, ago.

[–] Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago

Yeah fair enough, I didn't mean to contradict you, more add on to your comment