this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
155 points (100.0% liked)

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

5394 readers
219 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
155
The Arctic Could Be Functionally Ice-Free in Just a Few Years (www.scientificamerican.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by ButtKiss@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/climate
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Arctic is likely to become “ice-free” by midcentury—and could pass that grim milestone much sooner unless much more is done to combat climate change

Well, good luck with that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] troed@fedia.io -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I was being nice to Gore. The polar ice cap includes a lot more than just the summer sea ice.

[–] silence7 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

He tried to describe research, and got it wrong. That's going to happen some of the time when a politician (or any other non-expert) tries to describe science. It's not a big deal unless they're doing it consistently or intentionally.