this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
204 points (95.1% liked)

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

5397 readers
134 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
204
A ‘doom loop’ of climate change and geopolitical instability is beginning (theconversation.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wish you were correct, but the popular press is usually loaded with optimism, especially techno-optimism.

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

So this is wrong then ?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10192715/

There is clear evidence that the prevalence of negative media reporting has increased substantially over the past years. There is evidence that this negative reporting adversely affects social interactions, and thereby also health and well-being outcomes. Given the wide reach of negative media reporting and the contagion of such reporting and the resulting interactions, the effects on health are arguably substantial.

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Your drawing a false equivalency. Just because there is an over-reporting of negative stories does not mean that all negative stories are false.

While climate change news is A popular target for doom scroll fodder, I think in this case it is accurate, and I think it is important to understand the situation well, even if it's not good news.

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Apart from the fact I’m not drawing any equivalence and I never said the story was false.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, but how you gonna win internet points if you're not overly cynical to the point of hyperbole? /s

I appreciate you pointing out the obvious negative bent of most current news media. It's why I don't bother with them anymore; they don't care about an accurately weighted story, they want clicks and subscriptions.

[–] franklin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

It always reasonable to expect bad news from the popular press .

This It implies that they're only reporting it because it is bad news. Which has a whole other host of implications and make sure you're aware of it.

Perhaps I read too much into it, but I don't believe that's the case.