this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
127 points (99.2% liked)

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

5257 readers
733 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
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is from a time when there was trust in science, when it was revered. A time long ago.

[–] FaelNum@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Science should never be trusted. The whole point is that you can test it and verify it. Take nothing on trust or faith. Verify, verify, and verify with that scientific method.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure...but the tiny fraction of papers which claim that it's not a result of people dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are so riddled with errors that there's a survey paper describing the ways they go wrong. That's a situation you get after people are done testing and probing and looking for ways to prove the mainstream idea wrong. At which point, it's best to run with what's now known.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

This is somewhat of a fallacy.

The body of knowledge, collectively referred to as science (not the scientific method itself), should indeed the testable. However, one cannot possibly have the time required in their lifetime to test the entire corpus. At some point you need to defer to experts in most fields.

I'm a geophysicist. I cannot even test the body of knowledge within my own field -- it is far too large. But from my own background and abilities, I can usually tell if something is legitimate or snake oil fairly quickly within the body of knowledge of my own field. I have to assume that fields outside of mine are going the same. If I don't, I become a crazy person.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“Every one of the things you would do to ameliorate [climate change] makes sense on completely separate grounds, they are worth doing apart from [climate change].”

[Sagan uses “greenhouse warming” in his keynote]