this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
7 points (76.9% liked)

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

5246 readers
337 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
7
The dangers of "overshooting" the Paris climate targets (www.axios.com)
submitted 2 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why are we worrying about something that isn't anywhere near feasible?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Every step we take past 1.5°C means increased risk of losing major ecosystems and habitable areas.

Paris called for limiting the long-term average temperature increase to 2°C which remains attainable.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you guys using the same definition of "overshooting the target"?

You seem to refer to it as "shooting over the 1.5C goal", while the other commenter above might interpret it as "overshooting the reduction needed to get to the target", so more like "having too little CO2".

The headline is confusingly worded and allows both interpretations.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The article makes it clear that they're talking about going past 1.5°C

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 4 points 2 months ago

And my comment makes it clear, that I'm talking about the headline.

Are you actually surprised people react based on a headline?