this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
183 points (97.9% liked)

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

5186 readers
342 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, it is true though. It's difficult to attribute any individual storm to climate change. A statistically significant rise in the number and intensity of storms though would be a strong indicator. Does anyone know if there's a website or scientific journal currently tracking this?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That’s really my point though. It is literally true, and we, as scientists, feel a moral obligation to point that out. Journalists similarly feel a moral obligation to find a scientist that will give them a quote they can pull to say exactly that.

And we are tracking things all over the board in terms of storms and intensities and such, but even those articles come with caveats about how we are tracking more storms and fires now and so on. All of that is, again, literally true.

However, the average reader of USA Today isn’t thinking like that. A scientist looking at the data is thinking “Holy crap we are fucked.” They think “I’m sure if it was important scientists and politicians would be saying “Holy crap, we’re fucked!” We are being done in by a crisis of caveats.

And just for the record, I do think we’re fucked. Like, it’s not going to get fixed. To be perfectly honest, my level of investment in the survival of humanity as we know it has decreased to the point of not caring all that much, and I suspect we’re going to see an extinction event that will wipe out a huge number of species. We know how this movie is going to end, and the idea that we can change it is an illusion because that’s just not how people work at the end of the day.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So just blanket attribute them to it.

The media exaggerates and makes shit up all the time, at least this would be beneficial.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I disagree with this. Don't give deniers any more ammunition than they already have. There's enough verifiable data on the topic that we don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot by resorting to sloppy science.

That said, I would love to see every news story end with: "In recent years there's been a statically significant increase in severe weather due to climate change."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re worried the people who already ignore all the evidence and believe it’s all lies will, what exactly?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People like that point at any article with weak data as validation that climate change has no basis. It's better to not give them that opportunity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don’t need that opportunity because they’ll just make shit up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still, better to use solid data when making arguments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Facts clearly don’t work.

We’ve known them for over a century and done nothing.

I’d rather see the media using its huge influence over the population to be at least be making them worried about climate change instead of ignoring it.

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

Again, there are many people that use the "doom and gloom" climate change prophecies that haven't come true yet as an excuse to ignore the problem entirely. Better to be factual and correct.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

There was an article posted the other day about that. I agree. Various media outlets needs to start stepping up and getting loud about it.

I love that idea. On TV weather, talk about it constantly.