this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
452 points (97.9% liked)

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

5310 readers
419 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
 

The study is this one

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the solution is not something we can throw money at and expect a fast cure. Even cancer has the hope of a treatment that works in months to years. Climate change requires changing nearly everything about how we generate energy and requires us to find novel ways to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. This latter bit can have money thrown at it, but without the former it's pointless. It'd be a cancer treatment while the patient huffs burning asbestos.

The difficulty in treating coupled with the fact that climate change is a slow process that wreaks havoc over years to decades means the short-term-focused economies and markets largely try to adapt to long-term changes instead of solving the issues. When you're only concerned with a few fiscal quarters at a time, why would you think on the scale of decades?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

About 70% of new electric generation is non-emitting already. It's actually not that big a change to go to 100%

So yes, we can do it on a scale of decades

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and electricity only makes up 28% of ghg emissions globally.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're also seeing a big shift to heat pumps for space heating, electrification of transport, and even the beginnings of steel reduced by using hydrogen made with electrolysis instead of using coal. So a lot of things are happening, but not yet on the scale and pace we need.

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

The elephant in the room still exists, all the added CO2. I applaud change, and fast moving even more, but it needs to be faster

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

Not only CO2 but also Methan. It is 84 times more harmful in the first 20 years. But it is degrading on its own with a half-live of 7-12 years in the atmosphere. Methan makes up 20 to 30% of the human made GHG. Change to a plant based diet can reduce the emissions by 40%.

It is one of the few things we can change on our own very fast and does not need additional technological solutions to have a big impact.

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

and the warmer it gets, the more we'll see methane hydrates bubbling up to the surface and adding gigatons more to the problem. vicious cycle.

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

I can't see anything going wrong with this

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Should have started it on the scale of decades 40 years ago when scientists were saying we had 40 years to fix it. Too late now, we're in the beginning of the apocalypse.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're at a point where it's too late to avoid all impact, but we've got a very real choice about exactly how much impact we do see. There's a big difference between 1.5°C and 2°C and more.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

1.5c by 2030s? lol, we'll have 1.6c in the next couple of years. it's bonkers. literally.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, didn't I just read that we hit 1.5C already this year?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only for parts of the year.

We will officially hit 1.5c once the average temperature of that year is 1.5 degrees hotter than pre industrial baseline

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Thanks. Please propagatw this fact more.

I hear and read it too often that people are falling into devastation mode and say, back up, we lost, its over.

However its a difference in being "over" which is 2.5 - 4.5 degrees or above.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

There was this moment after 9/11 when Tom Daschle proposed a 'Manhattan Project for Green Energy' to get us off foreign energy and help avoid climate change. Imagine if Al Gore had been president at the time, what might have happened. This was 20 years ago! But instead we (extremely questionably) got W. Bush and endless wars and 'drill baby drill'. Such a knife's edge for history and we came off the wrong side of it...