this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
572 points (96.3% liked)

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

4695 readers
420 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

You might want to go and tell that to the people down voting your comment. Clearly people are not understanding what you put, an edit might be in order.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I'm not particularly bothered by down votes, to me it sorta weeds out bad faith actors anyway.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

This is a case of you failing to communicate though. Not bad faith actors or whatever.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It makes perfect sense.

"It's literally rocks.." Whats just rocks? Stonehenge!

"You're valuing human life less than rocks, I think that says more about you than them."

What are the protestors protesting for? Climate change.

Ie. If vandalizing Stonehenge is a bigger issue to you than climate change then you're valuing human life less than rocks.

It could not be any more clear and I think that's pretty evident based on the lack of offering a better wording.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It sounded like you are comparing the stonehenge protest to the one with the planes, not with climate change. Safety is critical in aviation, so it might sound dangerous to people that the planes were painted. I would instead say something like "they are valuing literal rocks over the lives of people claimed by climate disasters". Then it's clear you are talking about climate change in the second instance, and not the people flying the plane.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How? Are planes just rocks? Are people?

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

No. You still don't get it. People think you are comparing stone henge (just rocks) to human lives (potential air disaster from painting a plane and damaging something). Rather than the human lives being lost from climate change.

I legitimately can't tell if you are legitimately struggling to understand or you are one of the bad faith actors you talk about.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

How?! Neither I nor the comment I replied to mentioned planes the only way you could make that jump is if you didn't bother to read the chain and instead jump to conclusions based on limited context and the title of the article.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)