this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
379 points (93.4% liked)

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

5186 readers
608 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]
379
I’m an Environmentalist. That’s Why I Can’t Vote Green. | Award-winning filmmaker and director of Gasland Josh Fox on why he will never vote for Jill Stein. (www.thenation.com)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

OK, then we just deploy a whole lot of storage capacity as fast as we can to support solar and wind. Nuclear only makes sense if it's cheaper than that, and it's not.

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

Cheaper long term, yes. Higher upfront cost.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not quite sure which way you're pointing. Nuclear is ridiculously expensive up front. It has to run for a long time at 100% to make any kind of economic sense.

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

I’m not concerned about economic sense. I’m worried about keeping the planet habitable.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 20 hours ago

And we have another path for that. We really don't need nuclear at this point.