this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
35 points (100.0% liked)

Climate

8451 readers
334 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
 

Physical inactivity rises alongside temperature. A study in Lancet projected up to 520,000 additional deaths by 2050 and $2.59 billion in annual productivity losses.

Access options:

The paper is here

top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mannimarco@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 16 hours ago

Oh no!, not the productivity!

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

I don't think this is the only mechanism by which global warming kills

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Would this increase or lower CO2 emissions?

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

It lowers the chance of a successful revolution, thus increasing expected CO2 emissions.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lower I guess, but depends who's dying.

Rich boomers that use lots of resources: significant lowering.

Poor developing nations elderly and infirm: barely noticeable?

~500,000 additional deaths by 2050 ain't gonna do much to move the needle unless it's all the billionaires and the 0.1% - we live on a planet with ~8,300,000,000 people and that's expected to hit around 10 billion by 2050.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

It's the latter who will die mostly; the well-off largely install air conditioning.