this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
47 points (94.3% liked)

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

5493 readers
1508 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
47
Climate Activists Spray-Paint Darwin’s Grave in London to Draw Attention to Climate Disaster (www.democracynow.org)
submitted 16 hours ago by silence7 to c/climate
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Covenant@sh.itjust.works 11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

And again they are getting attention.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I strongly suspect a funding channel originating from fossil-fuel producers.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Okay, assume that's the case.

So the fuck what?

I keep seeing counterpoints that assume that intent informs effectiveness, when that's demonstrably just not the case. If your statement is relevant, that means you must be able to draw a causal link between that hypothesis being true and the campaign being ineffective.