this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
55 points (98.2% liked)

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

5243 readers
374 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
55
A recent piece by Roy Spencer for the Heritage foundation is full of misrepresentations. Let’s play spot the fallacy. (www.realclimate.org)
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 8 points 9 months ago

By its modern definition, the Heritage Foundation is one big fallacy. No one should trust anything they say.

[–] indomara@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Huh, this interesting video about these "hot models" was posted earlier around lemmy.

https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4

(Very basic) Tldr; The hot models are excluded because they do not match historical data, because we don't have historical data on clouds and these models are based on properties of clouds. However some scientists recently compared these models to current clouds to see if they could accurately predict changes in weather, and they could. Suggesting that the models may be closer to accurate than previously believed.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 months ago

Yeah, there's an issue with the latest round of models, where there are two very different estimates of sensitivity coming out of them, and a lot of distrust of the ones which predict a substantial loss of cloud cover at some latitudes. It's not impossible, but very far from a consensus viewpoint as yet.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Aww, no one was here when I predicted it was cherry picking data before reading the article.