this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
105 points (97.3% liked)

196

16985 readers
1330 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
moss@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
moss@lemmy.world
queue@beehaw.org
funky_rodent@lemmy.blahaj.zone
PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone
threegnomes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.world
remotelove@lemmy.ca
Roflmasterbigpimp@feddit.de
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemm.ee
qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
qaz@lemmy.sdf.org
qaz@lemmy.world
qaz@sh.itjust.works
105
Top climate scientist decrules 2C climate goal 'dead' (www.rfi.fr)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by BearGun@ttrpg.network to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Welp, it's official. Been a good(?) run everyone. Here is the paper that is referred to.

Edit: So, reading the actual paper, the article is somewhat sensationalized (shocker, i know). It is still possible to prevent collapse, but it requires extensive and fairly quick reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago

well yeah if you look at it like that, then it might seem so. but they're underestimating exponential growth

sources for the pictures: the first two are from ourworldindata.org, the last one is a plot i made my self, based on the extrapolation in the third picture.