this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
132 points (100.0% liked)

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

5328 readers
484 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
132
The Arctic Could Be Functionally Ice-Free in Just a Few Years (www.scientificamerican.com)
submitted 21 hours ago by ButtKiss@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/climate@slrpnk.net
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Arctic is likely to become “ice-free” by midcentury—and could pass that grim milestone much sooner unless much more is done to combat climate change

Well, good luck with that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] troed@fedia.io -3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Pretty amazing to see all these downvotes on a purely factual statement. Watch it yourselves:

https://youtu.be/7hI5t3Uwfkk?t=1619&si=XtZDhtXoLyoczEG0

[–] parrhesia@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Then maybe you should pay more attention to the actual climate scientists then politicians.

[–] troed@fedia.io -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Oh I do. That's the whole point. This whole thread is about doomists screaming about what's not the current scientific consensus.

[–] parrhesia@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What to you is the current scientific consensus then?

[–] troed@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

To me? It's what you find in IPCC AR6. You read the IPCC reports right?

For stabilised global warming of 1.5°C, an approximately 1% chance of a given September being sea ice free at the end of century is projected; for stabilised warming at a 2°C increase, this rises to 10–35% (high confidence).

[–] parrhesia@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Well I was asking you specifically since your comment made it seem like you didn't think it could be possible. So I was just asking to see what what measure of "doomerism" in particular you followed cuz it all sounds pretty bad to me.

[–] troed@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago

My guess is that I'm the only person in this thread that reads the IPCC reports. "Maybe at the end of the century" is way different from "the next few years".

(PS: The IPCC also states that only half of the reduction of the ice is due to human emissions, so, don't go buying property at sea level regardless of how well we do at stopping said emissions)

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)
[–] troed@fedia.io -1 points 9 hours ago

Do note the article is about a comment in 2009 while I describe something from 2008. You would expect him to make that mistake once - not repeatedly :) Feel free to check the Youtube clip. The words "quick fact" are relevant.

[–] troed@fedia.io -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I was being nice to Gore. The polar ice cap includes a lot more than just the summer sea ice.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

He tried to describe research, and got it wrong. That's going to happen some of the time when a politician (or any other non-expert) tries to describe science. It's not a big deal unless they're doing it consistently or intentionally.