this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
88 points (91.5% liked)

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

5493 readers
278 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jkintree@slrpnk.net 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The language model for diffy.chat has been trained not to respond from its own learned parameters, but to use the Diffbot external knowledge base. Each sentence or paragraph in a Diffy response has a link to the source of the information.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That's still not into the realm where I trust it; the underlying model is a language model. What you're describing is a recipe for ending up with paltering a significant fraction of the time.

[–] jkintree@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Did you even try diffy.chat to test how factually correct it is and how well it cites its sources? How good does it have to be to be useful? How bad does it have to be to be useless?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I tried it. It produces reasonably accurate results a meaningful fraction of the time. The problem is that when it's wrong, it still uses authoritative language, and you can't tell the difference without underlying knowledge.

[–] jkintree@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago

There does need to be a mechanism to keep the human in the loop to correct the knowledge base by people who have the underlying knowledge. Perhaps notification needs to be sent to people who have previously viewed the incorrect information when a correction is made.