this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
78 points (98.8% liked)

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

6503 readers
441 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
78
Scientists just found a way to break through climate apathy | Findings suggest that if scientists want to increase public urgency around climate change, they should highlight clear, concrete shifts (grist.org)
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Paywall-bypassing link to the paper here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Rhaedas@fedia.io 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Denialists figured that out a long time ago. They just did it with adjusted graphs and cherry picked data to sell their viewpoint, along with flashy websites and enough conspiracy to flavor the appeal. Plus it was always easier to convince someone that the data is wrong or the scientists are in on the lie, than to be upfront and say things are really bad and you'll have to change your way of living to make any difference.

I know this is more about the art of presentation, the same data shown a different way can be understood better. But that's why we have science communicators, to bridge the gap between scientists doing the work to get the data and comprehend it, and the public. We have less and less of those now. I realized the direction we were going when the major news channels got rid of their science sections. (Those news outlets changed a lot more later on too, not in a great way)

[โ€“] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 1 points 4 hours ago

To get a sense of just how bad this is, Sports account for 1% of global GDP, Science accounts for 2%.

Now compare how much coverage the daily news broadcast has for either.