this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
172 points (100.0% liked)

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

5663 readers
657 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
172
Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

How does that apply here? Maybe I am misunderstanding.

My point is this: I don't think will hinder progress if we are told how bad the situation might be.

And yes, might be, not is. I understsnd perfektly well that the abundance of variables makes it difficult to state absolutes. Such is the way with science.

I also acknowledge that there are different predictions amongst the scientific community in regards to how bad it might get. Hansen is making a prediction towards the more pessimistic end. Others try to be overly optimistic.

My point is that I don't think that the ovedy optimistic view is sensible. I understand the value of trying to remain positive and solution orientated, as only on the inevitable doom will lead to lethargy. I suppose we agree on that?

But I also think such a positive approach should be guided by reality. And the reality is defenetly not pointing towards a hopeful future. Hence we have to fight harder. Hence we have to look at the big picture while doing as much as possible within the boundaries of a system that is activly fostering climate change. Grounded on the knowledge of a possible collapse on a global scale within the next 20 to 200 years. We shouldn't disregard that possibility, even if it is not the only possible outcome. It motivates me more than it drives me into giving up already.