Photograph via snooOG

This is a place for the rational discussion of the science of climate change. If you want to post about politics or climate policy, try /r/ClimateNews or /r/climatepolicy.

This is a place for the rational discussion of the science of climate change. If you want to post about politics or climate policy, try /r/ClimateNews or /r/climatepolicy.

Subreddit rules:

  1. No politics. Your post will be silently deleted if it is about politics.

  2. Don't disparage the sub as a whole.

  3. No video posts.

  4. No meta. Take it to modmail.

  5. Don’t discourage people from convincing others that climate change matters.

A big climate change reading list by /u/discoastermusicus



96,174 Subscribers


Do you think that the rise of mass agriculture led to the climate change crisis?

In my anthropology class we debated whether the rise of agriculture as the main source of subsistence is the “founder” of our climate change crisis. What are your guys’ thoughts?

00:18 UTC


will the climate on earth be closer to that of the cambrian period if climate change isn’t haltered?

or if not, what period in prehistory you guys predict will be the closest?

/english is not my first language so sorry for any possible grammatical errors

20:02 UTC


School Project

I’m doing a school project about different car manufacturers Scope 1,2 and 3 emissions and I’m having a hard time finding information about it. Does anyone know any good places I can find good information regarding this subject. Preferably for the companies Tesla,Ford,Volkswagen and Toyota.

19:41 UTC


How to get a career in climate change work?

Hey all,

Hope this works as a place to ask this question. I am currently working a very unsatisfying sales job in the trades industry, and have been reconsidering what I want to do as of late. I’m 25M with about 3-4 years sales experience (including jobs worked during school) and a degree in history.

Like most younger people, climate change is a defining issue that I want to help combat. I just don’t know how to get my foot in the door in the industry of climate work. I have no scientific background, though I do enjoy research.

Any suggestions on where I should start looking?

13:02 UTC


Is there any hope?

Is there anything being done to curb climate change? Is there hope that this problem will be solved or are we just too far gone now and fucked at this point?

04:16 UTC


The Role of Energy Storage Systems in Combating Climate Change

🎙️🔋Hear from experts in the energy storage industry as they discuss the role of battery storage in combating climate change and transitioning to renewables.

It’s a pleasure to welcome Mike Wietecki of Powin and John Thomas of ESS for a live panel discussion to discover how Powin and ESS are making a difference in the fight against climate change.

Join the conversation on the challenges and opportunities in the energy storage industry. From permitting delays to investment needs, explore how we can accelerate the adoption of storage solutions for a clean energy future.

Listen to the full episode via the links below to learn more!

#hardwaretosaveaplanet #energystorage #netpositivegrid

Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/3yd3mti

Spotify: https://bit.ly/4b8B4Pn

14:25 UTC


Why do Cleantech firms, and initiatives fail?

Cleantech companies have definitely seen high profile failures over past few years. I guess some cleantech founders would have been better off opening a new British restaurant in downtown Palo Alto.

09:41 UTC


Climate change is making my pollen allergy worse

I live in Norway and have pretty bad birch pollen allergy.

In the past, birch pollen season lasted throughout May. Luckily, the season would start much later in the inland mountain range. That meant I could drive a couple of hours and stay in my family's mountain cabin. At that altitude, pollen season didn't start until June and was much milder. So I could escape during the worst of it.

Well, this season the pollen arrived at the same time in the mountains as in the lowland coastal areas. I've never seen that before.

To make matters worse, all of May has been sunny with high temperatures, which again, is not normal on the Norwegian west coast. Usually we would get periods of rain that washed away the pollen.

This sucks.

09:06 UTC


It's 27c in Toronto Canada...

It's crazy how Toronto hit 27 degrees in May and it's going to continue like this til next week... I'm so worried and scared now about my kids

01:57 UTC


Give me some good news about Climate Change

I'm in the doom and gloom mindset right now and could use some good new

22:26 UTC


if i were to live on gunnbjørn fjeld in 2050, how safe would i be from climate change?

this is for a school project and i need to figure out if i need to change my location or not

18:08 UTC


Urban farming

Urban farming, I belive, is a great way to reduce food miles and increase local food security. What policies or community efforts have been successful in promoting urban agriculture in your area?

09:26 UTC


Satellites temperature measurement are likely becoming increasingly unreliable: an underappreciated topic

We have a few space satellites that measure global temperature independently of ground stations.

My basic understanding is that they measure incoming (from earth) radiation level (irradiance).

Then with some maths, they derive the temperature from the received light spectrum.

Some satellites measure incoming infrared radiation, but the most popular ones measure incoming microwave radiation.

My main question is related to the use of thermometers on board of those satellites, their purposes.

Let's take for example the famous UAH satellite, its founder, Roy Spencer, says the following:

>  Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

platinum thermometers are simply a more accurate version of thermometers versus mercury based ones.

He says the satellite has onboard (redundant (2)) thermometers. Why and at which step in the temperature calculus pipeline are those thermometers used in the satellite?

The satellites are in near space (very cold) and their face that is solar exposed could be very hot. In both ways (space cold and heat) seems highly unrelated to measuring earth surface temperature.

If so, then what are the purpose of those thermometers onboard? How do they relate with the spectroscopic measure of incoming radiation?

Here is my tentative understanding:

I was able to find this UAH paper that says:

> the spacecraft experience a slight E-W drift during the course of their operational life.

> the (microwave) instrument is exposed to more direct sunlight and warms as a result. This warming is evidenced in the on-board platinum resistance thermometer which is embedded in the hot-target plate. Christy et al. 2000 discovered the dependency of variations in the hot-target plate temperature (HTPT) and errors in the atmospheric temperature reported by the instrument. The instrument error was eliminated by determining a linear coefficient which when multiplied by the HTPT anomaly would account for much of the error.

from https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/68728.pdf

The paper they cite is most likely:


> As mentioned in Christy et al. (1998), we discovered a spurious influence on the calculation of Tb due to the temperature of the instrument itself

According to this, it seems that the two thermometers, which are near the sun exposed part (plate) and the radiometer, are used to algorithmically correct the bias/drift effect of satellite temperature variation on the accuracy of the radiometer that measure microwaves.

Besides this correction, that was added in the 2000s, my question is, did the two themometers had, and still have another role in the earth temperature calculus? Do the radiometer needs them, independently of aforementioned drift.

> The determination of earth-viewed Tb from the ob-served digital counts is based on an interpolation scheme between two temperature anchor points: cold space and the onboard warm target plate T W . The MSU reports the intensity of microwave radiation as digital counts for the 11 earth views and for cold space and the warm target. The temperature for cold space is known (2.7 K) and that of the warm target is monitored by the two PRTs. Thus a relationship is then computed between counts and Tb given the digital counts and temperatures of the anchor points (Spencer et al. 1990).

If "earth viewed Tb" means earth calculated temperature (?) then it seems the radiometer alone cannot work (?) and needs to do the difference between the cold and hot zone of the satellite.

It seems to not be the same thing as aforementioned bias drift correction but the difference to me is unclear. The argument for this role of the thermometer being different is that it was described in 1990, before the drift was known (it seems but not sure).

note that they mention errors corrections can be non linear.

> In general, as the instrument heats (T W increases) the calculated earth-viewed temperature based on laboratory nonlinear calibration coefficients becomes too warm.

Meaning that the warmer the radiometer is, the warmer (non linearly) the earth calculated temperature is.

anyone knows what the "cold target counts" terminology actually means in regards to the radiometer?

note that the idea of using coorbiting satellites thermometer data for increased redundancy is promising.

Anyway here is my discovery, that is in fact known but it seems nobody had connected the dots before.

Christy discovered that the temperature variation of the radiometer affects the earth temperature calculus (non linearly).

They also measured that past similar satellites had anomalous drifts/temperature records because (among other things like orbital decay, instrument gain and diurnal bias) they were not correcting for their discovered bias.

HOWEVER, it seems no one has considered that there is a meta-drift, a drift over the drift since the 2 thermometers that are used to correct the radiometer bias, have themselves an intrinsic temperature drift over time that is an artificial warming effect.

It is known that thermometers (mercury, alcohol) artificially gain 0.7 degree per century.

for platinum thermometers, the temperature drift is between 2-10 millikelvin per year hence up to 1 degree of warming per century....

but in an environment like space (extreme cold, extreme heat when sun aligned, and lower gravity (could affect thermal expansion/accuracy) the effect could be bigger or faster especially with solar radiation.

source: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SPIE.9258E..1AD/abstract

Of course, here even if the thermometers were to have their temperature artificially increase by 1 degree (or more via accellerated space aging), the effect would not directly translate to an artificial increase of earth calculated temperature by 1 degree.

According to Christy's paper, the average UAH satellite monthly temperature was 280 degree at the time. So it would shift to an artificial 281 monthly temperature.

It appears there was a drift of 2 degree between 1979 to 97 for a similar satellite (see figure 5) albeit data is not clean at the end, and also, it might be natural space temperature variance (or via orbital decay/change) (no idea) instead of accelerated thermometer aging.

For N-6 (assuming it is representative..) the monthly mean hot plate variance was of 4 degree hence a thermal drift of 1-2 degree could affect the monthly variance by 25 to 50% which is huge but unclear to me how much the algo is sensitive to the variance versus the absolute temperature. Also daily variance is probably much larger.

The actual effect on earth calculated temperature could be calculated from figure 6, but I am too much of a noob to do the maths sadly.. If anyone could answer how much an artificial gain in thermometer temperature of say 1 degree would do on earth temperature that would be great.

For reference, when the bias was not corrected they observed ~0.8 degree of earth calculated temperature variance bias.

Note that this could have two effects as according to my partial understanding, the thermometer is used two times, 1) for the radiometer to work (related to "counts") they need to know the difference between the cold (fixed temp) and hot plate. and 2) for correcting the non linear bias of radiometer temperature. 1 and 2 might be the same thing but IMO they are not.

Note that independently of thermometer drift and temperature effect on radiometer, the radiometer could itself have also an age drift independent of temperature cf paper aforementioned instrument gain.

While the magnitude of the thermometer drift on earth temperature is unknown (to me) but can be calculated, it could be significant and falsify the satellite temperature record to an extent, and it should worsen in the following decades (especially if aging is non linear also there will be considerably more cosmic rays radiations during the incoming maunder like minimum (maybe arround 2030) which is predicted to reduce (temporarilly) the sun magnetosphere by something like 40% IIRC.

Most importantly this bias can be corrected, via analyzing coorbiting satellites with the UAH (or RSS) that are more recent, e.g. if a spacex satellite came with a thermometer and is nearby, then it could be cross correlated and used to assess how much the UAH thermometers have drifted empirically.

20:41 UTC


I need help, please...

Okay I never posted in this Sub before, I don't know how things work and what is the common consensus here, this Post might not be allowed here and maybe it will make my situation even worse, but I'm completely desperate and I need help...

This is something that have been affecting me a lot in the past Months... I got interested, no, I was basically forced by myself to learn about Climate Change and Global Warming, because nowadays everywhjere I go people talk about it, and never in my life I felt so scared and hopeless...

The more I searched, the worse it got, I was able to find people giving a spark of hope, pointing out many advancements we made like Kurzgesagt, and it helped me a lot, but then I found out how this is seen as a completely unrealistic view...

Everywhere I went people acted like it is the Apocalypse, like we are all doomed and there's nothing we can do, that doing small things does not change anything, and that all the Projects to fix Climate Change are bullshit and will not work...

And that's not just Internet Doomers, Scientists are hopeless too, and whenever someone brings up solutions, hundreds of people point out there's way more problems and how this is worthless... The most optimistic views are that we only have less than 6 years left to do something, but most people say we are many years late, and that we will never be able to do anything at this point...

I always supported Projects that seek ALternative Energies and ways to geenrate it outside the Planet, but everyone tells me this will not work and that we need to change Politics and the whole Economy to do something, and that I should forget about these "childish dreams"...

Everyone seems so confident that by 2050 it will be over, that Humanity will not survive this Century and many are cheering about it.. I was born in 2002, so I WILL be alive, and even if I wasn't, I don't want Future Generations to face this Apocalyptic Scenario, I'm not having Children nor will get married (i'm Asexual), I just care about people even if I will never know them...

Since I was a Kid I was so hopeful for Humanity, every Year I saw we improving Socially, Minorities being more and more accepted, Technology advancing to a point it felt like Magic, amazing people becoming Famous and doing wonderful things, we are far form Perfect, but we kept improving every single Year, I knew in the Future we would get even better, but now all this seems meaningless, because it feels like there's no Future...

Exploring Space, reviving Extinct Species, discovering the Mysteries of Earth's Past, figuring out Quantum Physics, turning Sci-Fi Technology real, not being Prejudiced becoming Common Sense, is this really just a Dream now...?

Many people were extremely rude to me because I said I believed we could change this, calling me stupid, insensitive, ignorant, saying that people like me are the problem and that I should just accepted we are doomed and that Humanity should just be extinct...

I always tried to keep a positive view, but it's becoming impossible to do so, not because I believe it's over, but because everyone tells me I should not have hope and even feel BAD for having hope, I really wanted to believe we were doing something, I wanted to believe the future was not lost, but everyone seems to consider this just a stupid dream now...

So why should I keep trying? Why should I keep living if Humanity will be doomed in a few years according to everyone..? Why should I have dreams if I'm gonna be alive when the World ends..? Why should I keep trying if everyone tells me I'm stupid for trying..?

Is this really the end..? There's really nothing we can do..? Are all the dreams I ahd since I was Kid just that, a dream...? Please someone.. Anyone help me...

16:37 UTC


Help: Americans trust Climate Change is real, want to be part of the solution, but don’t know what to do. Seeking poll results.


I’m seeking the results of a poll that I read a couple of years ago.

I’m an Ecologist and former climate scientist writing a book about the ecological solutions to climate change.

I saw a poll of the US public a couple of years ago that was very striking to me.

It said the majority of Americans trusted climate change was real, wanted to be a part of the solution and didn’t know what to do.

I’m seeking that poll - I wanted to check the data and methodology and include it in my writing.

Does anyone know where it was from, or have a link to it?

Thank you, I appreciate your help.

16:17 UTC


What are the opportunity costs of animal agriculture?

Very insightful article from Our World in Data.


I was aware that animal foods had a much bigger environmental impact than plant foods but I was curious about the opportunity costs for land that is used to raise animals (or grow feed for animals) vs. some alternative, like rewilding. I was surprised that land use change is only factored into the carbon cost of a food if it occurred in a given year so, if cows are grazing on land that was deforested a century go, or even last year, that land use change is not part of the emissions calculus.

Fully animal-free diets would offer the most benefit, potentially drawing down as much carbon as 15 years worth of global emissions, but there is huge benefit just from the removal of beef, lamb, and dairy as well.

What do you think are the obstacles to transitioning to a more plant based food system? What would convince people of the necessity of making this change?

14:08 UTC

Back To Top