this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
83 points (96.6% liked)

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

5243 readers
419 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
83
This word was rejected by geologists. But it’s already taken over the world. A panel of scientists rejected the term “Anthropocene” — but others keep using it. (wapo.st)
submitted 5 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I get why geologists might be hesitant to add a whole new epoch named after us, they deal in absurdly long timescales. That said, I’ve read a number of climate and environment papers going back at least 5 to 10 years where Anthropocene is used without a second thought.

We did this, so it’s only fitting that we at least take the inconsequential step of calling a spade a spade.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

there is also plastic age...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/04/plastic-pollution-fossil-record

After bronze and iron, welcome to the plastic age, say scientists

Plastic pollution is being deposited into the fossil record, research has found, with contamination increasing exponentially since 1945.

Scientists suggest the plastic layers could be used to mark the start of the Anthropocene, the proposed geological epoch in which human activities have come to dominate the planet. They say after the bronze and iron ages, the current period may become known as the plastic age.

The study, the first detailed analysis of the rise in plastic pollution in sediments, examined annual layers off the coast of California back to 1834. They discovered the plastic in the layers mirrors precisely the exponential rise in plastic production over the past 70 years.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

Well, there's also the point that the holocene just started 11,700 years ago. That's basically yesterday, in geology terms. We can be the dominant occurence of the holocene. We don't need to give it a new name, just because we've now entered industrialization and whatnot.