this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
464 points (84.5% liked)

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

5237 readers
448 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
464
Eating Meat Is Bad for Climate Change, and Here Are All the Studies That Prove It (sentientmedia.org)
submitted 10 months ago by veganpizza69@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
401 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Clent@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Fuck this is tiring.

These aren't new studies.

I've already read them and many more.

The source site has a stated goal of proving factory farming is bad for the environment. It has an agenda that nearly lines up with every in these comments who is downvoting me.

This is not science.

Me pointing out the emotions in others response is not an emotional reaction, it's an observation.

This fact that you are confused by this tells me how emotionally invested you are in this topic.

This simply isn't how science works.

This is how religious devotion operates.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you're doing great, sweetie

[–] 0x520@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

Or: All my emotions are science, by Mr. Rational himself. Its actually hilarious how much time you are willing to spend showing that your emotional responses are actually scientific with more emotional rhetoric and how little time you are willing to put into showing a single way that a single point in the article is wrong using science that shows otherwise. "I don't like the rhetorical slant of the article," does literally nothing to disprove the science they useto support their conclusions. But you are clearly the one single person on this planet that doesn't let their emotions guide what they believe. Ok.