this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
106 points (99.1% liked)

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

5244 readers
251 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The sooner we act, the less drastic the measures needed are. That's the reality of it, and something I'll keep on pushing for.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's not untrue but the problem with phrasing it that way is that people will interpret it to mean we can implement relatively unnoticed measures to mitigate climate change. That may have been true 50 years ago but it's not anymore. Meaningful change will be very painful at this point and that's exactly why it's not going to happen until it's literally impossible to ignore the problem. You would think we're there already but humans are very good at maintaining delusional thinking.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hardly; it's largely a matter of how quickly we phase out fossil fuels. Wait longer, and you get to scrap equipment before the ends of its normal useful life instead of getting full use out of what you pay for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We've already waited way too long. That's the point. Talking about it like you are makes it sound like we haven't missed our window for slow and methodical transitions but that part of the conversation happened in the 80s and we decided that path was for pussies. Now here we are in the "October hurricanes are flooding Tennessee" timeline. If that sounds like the right time to be discussing getting the most out of our remaining diesel engines then you're not paying attention.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yes, we've wanted too long for zero impact.

We haven't waited too long to still end up with a habitable planet. Failing to act now puts that at risk.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

At this point we need to essentially end human habitatation of +/-10° from the equator, while eliminating coal, oil, and LNG energy use cases, while eliminating migration laws, while eliminating meat production, while investing tens of trillions into moving our farm capacity indoors and rewilding all previous agriculture sites, while inventing and utilizing an anti ocean acidification technology that doesn't itself cause toxicity among marine life.

And we need to some how conince 8 billion people of that during a time when 7.9...9 billion of them aren't financially capable of changing anything in their life without becoming homeless or dying of starvation.