No, we had precisely zero measurable impact on the Keeling curve.
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
550 points (98.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5441 readers
255 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
Only positive thing I can see there is, that the last few years seem to be linear growth instead of the exponential before...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Our masters prefer profit much much much more than planetary survival.
I got one word for you: Vote.
Corporations like BP push individual responsibility and personal carbon footprint[1] to try to neutralize you from achieving real policy gains which would have a much greater impact than your individual action. Time spent trying to convince people to vote for politicians who take climate change seriously is far more productive than time spent trying to educate people about their so-called carbon footprint. Of course we all play a part but seeing this chart it's clear we need more action and that's why I'm saying this.
[1] https://www.nprillinois.org/2023-12-18/how-big-oil-helped-push-the-idea-of-a-carbon-footprint
politicians who take climate change seriously
lol
load more comments
(7 replies)
So how do we have readings going so far back, like even in the late 1800s? Is this just an assumed average for back then?
Lots of different independent methods and sources that correlate, along with some approximations. Actual measured readings aren't as accurate or match up in the early periods, which is why the IPCC decided to use 1980 as a baseline to start from for consistent and abundant data to compare with. This continues to be a side argument about if we're really past 1.5C or not, since the graphs start differently. The "good" news is that as time goes on, that argument becomes less relevant because the differences shrink and catastrophic converges.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Incapable until directly affected