this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026

40 points (97.6% liked)

Climate

8453 readers

186 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

The historic U.S. heat wave is rattling climate scientists. Here's what they have to say (www.sfchronicle.com)

submitted 22 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Gift link ,but requires registration. Not including an archive.is link because Hearst has lawyers who don't like that.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SlippiHUD@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

The end of february and early march here in the midwest was similarly brutal.

My local ski hill was poised to have a banner March, they had stockpiled an incredible amount of snow after a great year of natural snow. Nearly 2 times the average amount.

But the last week of february and first week of march was blowtorch weather. Rain and overnight lows higher than average highs. Daytime highs nearly 30° above normal.

It ended up closing its regular closing day.

But what killed me most was the regular people talking about how great it was it was 74° (30 above average) in March. Because it was 20° (10 below average) in February. I had to point out 30 above average in August is 112° before they lost thier sense of giddyness. Its going to be 84 on Sunday, which is 2° away from peak average summer temps. This summer is going to kill swathes of people.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 21 hours ago

what got me is initially folks were talking about how brutal the winter was and I was like. This is kinda what I would call typical before the 90's. Now granted the double tap and what we got after new year maybe would have made it a bit worse than normal even back then but yeah the wierd swings have never been normal. I get it though. Its kinda nice to have some warm weather but while its nice as an individual in a point in time its scary as eff when you think about what its supposed to be and how abnormal it is and how we 100% its an effect from climate change but there are folks who want to pretend it does not exist.

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.zip 8 points 22 hours ago

Yeah it’s been brutal in Northern California. It’s March, and we’re already hitting temps we get in the middle of summer. Barely dropping under 60 overnight.

Pulled out my linen clothes and started thinking about hooking up my AC, in fucking March. My $200 energy bill is about to get even more ridiculous.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

I was just thinking about this: In an alternate universe we'd only be 1 year out of Hilary Clinton's 8 year war on climate change. Think about that protest-non-voters.

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

The Democrats were in charge for half that time, so surely they must have done half the work during that time, right?

Imagine believing campaign promises.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

News flash: When the person before you says they'll go to war on climate change and loses, you don't copy the same platform. Nope. You stay the fuck away from it. And guess what? Biden won.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 9 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

bigger deal is gore. I mean his campaign climate change was a major focus back in the 90's and 100% 911 would have been stopped since the clinton administration was well aware of the dangers of alkaieda but bush did not want to listen to the outgoing administration. The patriot act is literally a work around for a president not doing their job. Then keep in mind that bush junior had two supreme court picks before the citizens united decision.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago

Folks, you once had a president who put solar panels on the White House.

He negotiaded with Iran and GOP politicians sabotaged him.

He was actually a nuclear safety expert.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Both.

But imagine Gore, then Obama, then Clinton. We would actually have progress!

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 20 hours ago

oh yeah but we got so fucked with the hanging chads. I mean with the progress we could have made it would have made it that much harder for them to take hold and then also like obamas administration would have leaned that much more left and it might have made a huge difference with internet laws and things may have been pretty different for swartz and snowden. Manning might not have even been a thing given we would not have the multiwar. Might have had a better canidate than hilary at that point to.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Her winning in the first place is very unlikely, but being re-elected? Even more unlikely. More likely we'd still be 1 year into Trump's second term.

[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I wonder if Trump would be able to run again if he lost in 16. His first term really allowed him to consolidate his power. Basically reshape the RNC, make Fox News his personal megaphone, and make all the wealthy donor contacts that fueled the next 6 years.

However it's not like he was a runaway train that first primary. It was a highly contested field that he probably only came out of because there were so many options. So if he never wins that first election, I wonder if he'd have the momentum to go into a second one or if people would view him as a loser. It's hard to say. So much of what we just take as common knowledge about him now was relatively unknown back then.

Would pundits have spent the intervening years just tearing him apart? Would the people he beat in that primary be circling like wolves? With the party brass view him as the reason they lost and try to distance themselves? It's really hard to say.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah let's just give up. Fuck the environment.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

This is a theoretical alternate timeline we're talking about.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

Indeed it is, and your reply was "unlikely unlikely!". I'm gonna peace out.