this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
178 points (97.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5243 readers
576 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
178
Earth passed a feared global warming milestone Friday, at least briefly | Average global temperatures were more than 2 degrees Celsius above a pre-industrial benchmark on Friday, preliminary data show (wapo.st)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'll note that for most purposes, when people talk about going to 2°C above what it was in the late 1800s, they usually are talking about the long-term average, not one-day events.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But the article did actually explain the difference between crossing this threshold for a day and the average moving up over time. It's like the third sentence. This is further down in the article:

“I think while we should not read too much into a single day above 2C (or 1.5C for that matter) it’s a startling sign nonetheless of the level of extreme global temperatures we are experiencing in 2023,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Stripe and Berkeley Earth, said in a message to The Washington Post.

Climate change is a complex problem that we can only see play out over time. This a newsworthy headline because it is a new milestone -- it's the first time that recorded temps hit 2 degrees above average for a full day. Just because it's not the single most important milestone that announces the apocalypse, doesn't mean it's not significant and newsworthy or "alarmist" in any way to report it. It lets us see the trend as it plays out in real time.

The article literally correctly explained the significance of this event and quoted a scientist telling people not to panic, what's the problem?

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I thought making it plural made it clear already, but I wasn't just talking about this one article.

I'm also not sure where you got 2 degrees above average for a month? The article is about a single day.

[–] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Typo, I'm prone to them early in the morning.

TBH though if you look at the state of climate journalism and think it's alarmist, you're just a climate denier at this point. Anyways, if you're annoyed about climate alarmism, shouldn't you find a climate alarmist article to complain on instead of a reasonable, well-reported article on the matter?

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago

I'm not having a conversation about shit I didn't say.