this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
366 points (99.2% liked)

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

5055 readers
489 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
366
Revealed: Exxon Made “Breathtakingly” Accurate Climate Predictions in 1970s and ’80s | Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global warming. (www.motherjones.com)
submitted 10 months ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/climate@slrpnk.net
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bearwithastick@feddit.ch 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What I really, really do not understand about these companies is that they could have easily played both sides and come up on top anyway. They could have continued to make a shit ton of money with oil and simultaniously invest in renewable energies and become the big players in that field too.

But I guess paying off corrupt politicans is much easier.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Change costs $.

Doesn’t matter if it’s 1970 or today.

Plus they’d be bucking all the other petro companies trying to sway public opinion in favor of the status quo.

So they went with cheap and easy.

And here we are.