this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
176 points (99.4% liked)

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

7217 readers
190 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
176
Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 months ago by poVoq@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Global pledges and targets, if reached leave us with 2.1C. That was before the US elected Trump again, which means not pledges and commitments from them. Also obviously pledges and targets have to be reached and that gave us 2.7C. That again was before Trump was elected again and the massive problems the second largest emitter being activly hostile to climate action brings. So it will not just be the US, Trump has already anounced that he is working to sell more US oil and gas, which means making other countries emit more.

So yeah he is probably right. It can be changed, but that is going to a bloody hard journey.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Were those pledges from before or after February 2022?

February 2022 is when Russia expanded their invasion of Ukraine. A lot of the gas that Russia is not exporting to the eu anymore, is now being flared off instead, and I wonder if that is included in those predictions.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

All pledges made until November 2024. Also Russia does flare a lot, but that is wasting resources. They prefer to sell it or keep it in the ground. I can not find numbers for 2024, but in 2023 they flared 28bcm of gas and in 2019 it was about 20bcm. So they do flare gas, but not even close to as much as they used to export to the EU.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Thanks for looking it up. It does look a lot less bad than I expected.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (4 children)

The word of one scientist does not consensus make. No matter how renowned. Remember, making targets seem impossible is a tactic to keep going as we are since there's "no point in even trying".

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sure but didn't we already hit 1.5 C warming? We've barely slowed the amount of CO2 we are dumping in the atmosphere. Even If we stopped all CO2 emissions today we are getting to 2C.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 9 points 6 months ago

Unfortunately we haven't even slowed it at all. 2024 was the highest-emission year yet. We're still accelerating

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Scientific truth is not reached by committee. Especially in the case of Hansen, he’s consistently been way out in front of said committee, and typically he’s been right every time.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

And beeing told lies by people refusing to engage with the reality of how bad climate change is set to be is a good tactic, yes?

[–] Tgo_up@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How does that apply here? Maybe I am misunderstanding.

My point is this: I don't think will hinder progress if we are told how bad the situation might be.

And yes, might be, not is. I understsnd perfektly well that the abundance of variables makes it difficult to state absolutes. Such is the way with science.

I also acknowledge that there are different predictions amongst the scientific community in regards to how bad it might get. Hansen is making a prediction towards the more pessimistic end. Others try to be overly optimistic.

My point is that I don't think that the ovedy optimistic view is sensible. I understand the value of trying to remain positive and solution orientated, as only on the inevitable doom will lead to lethargy. I suppose we agree on that?

But I also think such a positive approach should be guided by reality. And the reality is defenetly not pointing towards a hopeful future. Hence we have to fight harder. Hence we have to look at the big picture while doing as much as possible within the boundaries of a system that is activly fostering climate change. Grounded on the knowledge of a possible collapse on a global scale within the next 20 to 200 years. We shouldn't disregard that possibility, even if it is not the only possible outcome. It motivates me more than it drives me into giving up already.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com -4 points 6 months ago

Also, I'm fairly certain I remember the name, and he's been on the doomer circuit for a while, now (iirc). This is his schtick, to go around giving quotes and sound bites to journalists.

The thing is, cynicism is easy and cheap. The universe is ruthlessly neutral, so being on the side of "everything sucks and we're going to die" appears intelligent to some, but it's actually the laziest, safest bet you could make.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Member 1.5 or bust?

We bust. Bad.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org -4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I usually like TheGuardian but doomer clickbait like this isn't helping at all. Yeah it's looking grim right now, so let's focus on solutions and change that's already happening, instead of disencouraging people who care. People who don't will not after reading this.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 9 points 6 months ago

What's clickbait about it? The guy is as renowned in his field as it suggests, and he did say exactly that.

There's no line at which our failure means we should give up. 4C is better than 5C, 5C is better than 6C and so on