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
[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This feels like semantics though, of course there is an end accompanying the beginning of the next one. So we're on track to cause mass extinction (I'm talking biodiversity in general, not human), i.e., the end of the Holocene by your logic, and something new is starting, which some folks are calling the anthropocene. The question is whether the industrial revolution and it's carbon consequences are enough of a step change to define the end of the Holocene and start of something new. I think what we've caused is likely as consequential as exiting the last ice age, which is the start of the Holocene. And the Holocene wasn't ever defined as the age of humans, so tying the extinction of humans to it seems silly - you seem to be creating an entirely new definition of the Holocene here.

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Well, the way I see it, the current mass extinction cuts off the food chain that we sit on. I doubt, we're going completely extinct, but I don't think many humans will still be around in 500 years. In that case, calling the epoch that follows the mass extinction as anything with "human" in the name, isn't very fitting.

And I'm not saying that the Holocene is currently defined as being about humans. I'm rather saying if people feel like there should be an epoch declared, in which humans altered geology, then I would declare the Holocene as such.
It only started 11,700 years ago. Since then, we've been dropping tools and treasures onto the ground, cultivated farmlands, built pyramids and castles, dug mines and quarries, dammed off rivers and oceans, and so on.

But ultimately, I rather think the post-industrialization time frame is a geological event, not an epoch.