this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
81 points (100.0% liked)

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

7569 readers
335 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
81
Scientists submit coordinated response to Trump admin report casting doubt on climate change: ‘It makes a mockery of science’ (www.cnn.com)
submitted 2 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kapulsa@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago

They are, of course, right in their statement. But why do all those scientists still believe that one more statement will do any good? We've had 6 IPCC reports and thousands of papers and guides for policy makers and such. We do not have an information problem, we have an action problem. If they want to stand for science, they need to actually stand and not just write. It's ironically rather unscientific to keep doing things that have not worked in the past.

They should look at Peter Kalmus, for example. He's doing good.