this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
69 points (97.3% liked)

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

5186 readers
551 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
 

Access options:

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The biggest threat is nuclear warming

The fuck?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 months ago

Pretty much. It's like listening to two people trying to have a detailed conversation about a book, but one of them didn't read it, and read a review of some other book instead, and the second didn't read anything at all, and is just confabulating.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We need to remember that flaming ball of nuclear death in the sky that's cooking us; that's the important nuclear warming.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Quick shoot nukes at it to dissipate the heat!

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago

I think the better option is to command an army of tigers.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well, people who don't have oceanfront property right now will have one soon without having to move. /s

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah, no joke. That is very likely what he means.

[–] ColonelThirtyTwo@pawb.social 20 points 2 months ago

Well you see, the oceanfront properties we already sold will be underwater, so we can build new ones and sell them again!

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

At the risk of being nerd sniped, I wonder if that's true or false. The intuitive answer is with higher sea levels more land would be underwater, meaning the land area has decreased and so its perimeter should decrease; in some cases lowlands like Florida or islands would completely disappear. But low lying basins flooding and turning into bays might offset that...Call XKCD.

[–] Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Aside from that, if all the current waterfront property goes underwater, then previously undesirable land will slowly become more valuable, once we know where coastlines will land (it depends on when and at what temperature warming starts to flatten out). When that happens, it becomes another avenue for wealth transfer to the rich.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Flatten out? That's optimistic

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

well, eventually we'd run out of ice to melt.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 3 points 2 months ago

I think liquid water still expands when heated, so the oceans would still have quite some potential for sea level rise after the ice was gone.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago

The guy is just so ignorant.

[–] paw@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I mean new ocean front property is somehow more if you don't remove the lost property. /s

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Knowing Trump he technically meant New ocean front property deals

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago

They're not reducing the 30g chocolate ration. They're increasing it to 25g.