this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
44 points (97.8% liked)

Climate

8528 readers
207 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
44
The Great Green Wall's one of the world's most ambitious eco-projects. Is it working? | tldr: no (www.npr.org)
submitted 1 day ago by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sltldr: "They're just throwing away money, planting trees in the desert for them to die."

The Great Green Wall is a top down, big government intervention that has little to no local buy-in and isn't sustainable without continued big government funding.

Not surprisingly, the funding has mostly dried up, and so has the land.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you don't understand direct on topic comparisons just say so.

Do I need to point you to an actual definition of a "summary"? I've been chalking it up to tankie bad-faith, but at this point, I'm wondering if it's just aggressive tankie stupidity.

"With the additional information?" Okay, I'm back to assuming bad-faith over illiteracy. Motherfucker, 1) that's outside the boundaries of a summary, and more importantly 2) none of what you said is in the article. Like that's not a summary. That's not even an analysis. A "TL;DR" isn't "here's my shitty opinion on this topic not at all explored in the article."

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Serious question, do you have autism?

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes. Did you know that the word comes from the German Autismus, coined as an alternative to the term at the time "autoerotism"? Derives from Greek "autós + ismós" – "self-ism".