this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
31 points (100.0% liked)

Climate

8384 readers
177 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
31
How subtle word choices can undermine a scientific climate message: Researchers found that framing uncertain events in negative terms such as “unlikely” could sow confusion about climate science (www.anthropocenemagazine.org)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
0 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When projected outcomes are described as “unlikely” or using similar negative terms, people think the projection is backed by less scientific evidence than when those same outcomes are framed in positive terms. They also think there’s less scientific consensus around negatively framed projections than equivalent positively framed ones.

These patterns hold even after controlling for participants’ beliefs about climate change, familiarity with the IPCC (surprisingly, Juanchich says, three-quarters of those who were asked had never heard of the organization), and overall political orientation.

no comments (yet)
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here