this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
29 points (91.4% liked)

Climate

8441 readers
347 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 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zd9@lemmy.world 19 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

No shit. American Petroleum Institute, Heritage Foundation, and others have tried pushing this disinformation for years. May these people pay for their crimes to humanity.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 15 hours ago

Humanity will suffer far less consequences than many other inhabitants of the Earth.

[–] data_lore@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

These studies are the reason we are in this problem. Looking at one variable, in isolation if all other, and giving oil barons propaganda to tell the masses. Guess those tobacco advisors hired by oil companies did/are doing their job well.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 14 hours ago

Plants growing in heightened CO2 end up picking up less nutrients and more heavy metals.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Will these plants prevent damage from droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes?

[–] IndignantIguana@piefed.social 6 points 16 hours ago

CO2 has never been a bottleneck for plant growth. It's always been bioavailable nitrogen. This has nothing to do with climate science. If you got this wrong it's because you're a gullible fool.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

TIL any models (still) used this bs.
Wtf.
Dirty money everywhere.

[–] shittydwarf@sh.itjust.works 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Did CO2 come up with that idea??

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 3 points 13 hours ago

No, just those interested in avoiding paying for the externalities from their actions.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 17 hours ago

Wow you think? What, do you do this to animals too? Throw them in double the oxygen and expect everything to work out?

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 3 points 16 hours ago

What made them think CO~2~ was the limiting factor?

[–] 7toed@midwest.social 1 points 15 hours ago

Oh great! I can't wait for carbon dioxide induced blood acidity!