this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
74 points (95.1% liked)

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

5239 readers
427 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
[email protected]
74
What If People Don’t Need to Care About Climate Change to Fix It? (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

What’s key, and you can incorporate data into this, is trying to build a narrative for people which is positive in terms of its future outlook. It’s: “This is the world we can build. We can address climate change alongside other issues. It’s not going to cost you a ton of money. It might save you money. We’ll have cleaner air. We’ll have more energy security.” Which is more appealing than “We’re all going to die from climate change.”

That certainly sounds more persuasive to me.

It's a good article about how advocating for the non-climate benefits of climate solutions might get one further than using the climate argument again.

I like, but also chuckled at this passage.:

What is the appropriate response from the scientific community? To cede the political discussion to nonscientists?

What scientists are often not that good at is explaining to the layman what this actually means for them. You have temperature targets of 1.5 degrees or two degrees. We need to explain in clear language what that means for the average person.

What does a world at two degrees of warming look like?

It is a hard question to answer