this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
26 points (100.0% liked)

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

7415 readers
245 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
26
Is this the most embarrassing error in the DOE Climate Working Group Report? mistaking detection for emergence (www.theclimatebrink.com)
submitted 1 day ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blargle@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Why does this article insist on pretending that the report was unintentionally wrong?

[–] logi@piefed.world 3 points 1 day ago

This seems to be as close as they get:

This serves as a litmus test for the report’s scientific credibility. A commitment to scientific integrity requires the authors to produce a point-by-point response to the expert comments, overseen by an independent review editor.

A refusal to do so would suggest that the report should be viewed as an advocacy piece rather than a scientific document, and its conclusions should be treated with caution.

iftheycouldread.gif

load more comments (1 replies)