this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
358 points (98.9% liked)

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

5298 readers
459 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
358
Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds | Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'll note that 2.5°C of warming by 2100 is a significant improvement over the trajectory we were on a decade ago, even if still far from where we need to be

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Now imagine what the fuel economy would be without the monstrous height and weight.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 months ago

It is glorious.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You miss my meaning. I'm not arguing that taller vehicles like a suburban are equivalent to a Nissan leaf.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That's because I think you're missing what's relevant. Comparing it to fuel efficiency from the 70s is not the right metric. It's meaningless.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You're the one that mentioned now and what used to be.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Height. And I did not say the 60s or 70s either. I really don't see this being productive anymore. (Well never was.)