this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
6 points (100.0% liked)

Climate

8220 readers
468 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
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Paragone@piefed.social -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Their anchoring on +1.5C is delusion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19798

I tried adding-in the methane, & the current planetary-equilibrium-temperature is more like +8C or +9C, not +1.5C.


The speed-of-warming follows something like a bell-curve:

the speed-of-warming begins at zero, at or before the 1800's, sometime ( global-warming already wiped much ice-shelf off of Antarctica between the original-explorers & when commercial-fishing mapped the edge of it, in the mid 1900's ).

Then the speed-of-change increases, to some maximum.

We haven't reached that point yet.

Then, the speed-of-change decreases, settling-down back to zero, at the new planetary-equilibrium temperature.

So, we're now in the speeding-up portion of the curve, & the slowing-down portion of the curve probably takes as long as the speeding-up portion did.

So, we're looking at it continuing its changing for the next .. century or 2 or 3.

& the speed-of-change is still accelerating, so we're not at the "middle" of that speed-of-change yet.

+1.5C is based on assuming that we can stop it, somehow ( magically? ) outright, from still-speeding-up.

Our behavior proves we "can't", because our profits & wars come 1st.

That isn't going to change ( hell: the regional-consolidation stage of this century, beginning as soon as Trump crosses the total-dictatorship tippingpoint, no sooner than mid-Feb, will itself remove climate-mitigation from ALL our countries' primary-commitments: survival of the imperialism's going to come 1st! ).

So all "plan" type things anchoring to .. delusion .. are kinda not really worthy of respect?

Nice effort, but .. delusion's delusion.

TTBOMK, most of: { California ; Texas ; Sahara ; Saudi Arabia ; India } become uninhabitable, outright, later this century.

Why wouldn't Trump "NEED" to butcher Canada, if taking territory to feed the US is required, since the US is losing territory nearer the equator due to the "hoax" of global-warming, as they call it?

Same with the climate-enforced wars elsewhere.

China, strategically, is probably using coal as a means of snuffing India's competition, later this century, through roasting India into non-competition.

It's really that kind of thing, now..

We're bracing for "warming", while enforcing that perhaps a billion-displaced .. be produced within mere-decades, if that-long.

Bandaids on broken-bones, same as usual..

That powerlaw which maps directly from atmospheric-composition to planet-temperature, that isn't model-which-leaves-out-too-much based, that is simply data/evidence based.

All the climate-models which .. left-out Greenland's ice-melt, until just a couple years ago .. WTF??

That's making-believing, not modeling.

& the fact that Antarctica's interior is heating at 2x the speed allowed by the models .. can't that falsify the models' validity?

They aren't using models which are aggressive-enough to match the actuality!

That powerlaw, though, it does.

At least it does if you add-in the methane, using CO2-equivalent.

Methane we NEED to be keeping out from the atmosphere, immediately.

That researcher whose paper got cross-examined by oceans of authorities, because it stated this fact, was exactly right.

_ /\ _

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 hours ago

Please read the fucking article...

You completely misinterpret their use of 1.5ºC. They use 1.5ºC as a marker because hitting it even once is sufficient to start risking AMOC collapse, with higher temperatures further increasing the chance and the mean time to collapse. As the article points out in section 3, we're already at 1.4ºC, and we're going to shoot well past that.

As for your, er, critical re-examination of scientific papers: You don't seem to be aware that atmospheric methane has a half-life of 10 years, with most methane production coming from the meat and fossil fuel industries that can be stopped.

The nature article's range of +3ºC to 7ºC assuming zero further emissions is bad enough without you needing to make stuff up.