this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
29 points (93.9% liked)

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

5184 readers
566 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
29
The Comet Strike Theory That Just Won’t Die | Mainstream science has done its best to debunk the notion, but a belief in a world-changing series of prehistoric impacts continues to gain momentum. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DistractedDev@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Have you ever played the telephone game? Things change as people retell a story. Science is based on information directly from the source. It has to be verifiable. It's ok to use the stories to learn about a culture and their history, but they aren't suitable for science.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah but you can gleam certain real details by listening to all the stories.

All the stories are going to be unique and different but if they share certain details repeatedly then you can generally assume those details as being actual events rather than just mythology.

Like if every story you hear talks about a mountain breaking and breathing fire you can logically assume there was a volcanic eruption. If every story talks about the earth splitting apart and swallowing buildings whole you can logically assume there was an earthquake.

People didn't always know what certain natural disasters were or why they happened so they would create stories to explain them. Sometimes those stories are simply explained in such a way that a modern person couldn't possibly understand the meaning behind them.

Like sacrificing someone to a volcano to appease the fire god. The fire god is the volcano itself and they're just trying to keep it from erupting and killing them all.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 8 months ago

There are a number of examples of oral traditions including description of events a few hundred years prior. Further than that, and stuff tends to be garbled enough that it's tough to tell whether people are talking about the same event