this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
54 points (98.2% liked)

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

5183 readers
572 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
54
fellas, is this true? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure Swedish engineers have studied this extensively. There's plenty of streets in the cities that ban studded tires, and there's harsh fines if you use studded tires outside of winter.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Banning studded tires because they're obviously worse from the perspective of a highway maintenance engineer who wants to minimize repaving costs is one thing.

Banning them because they're worse than regular tires specifically in terms of dust generated isn't the same thing, and (as a traffic engineer myself) I'm not sure that specific issue has been studied all that much.

Think of it this way: consider all the different possible combinations of road surface and wheel material, and the amount of dust (ablated from the wheel or from the road) they might generate: knobby tires on dirt, slick tires on asphalt, studded tires on snow, every combination of the above, et cetera. I don't know what the contours of that graph would look like. If you think about adding more and more metal to the tires (and to the road), at the limit you've got a railroad and the amount of dust generated would hit a minimum. But what's the shape of the metal content vs. dust curve from "high-mileage/low rolling resistance tire" through "studded snow tire" to "train wheel," and how does it vary depending on surface? I'd be surprised if anybody has rigorously tried to answer that question. It feels like the kind of research that would put somebody in the running for an Ig Nobel Prize, to me.