this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
58 points (100.0% liked)

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

5356 readers
1216 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
58
The Australian Public Servant Who Helped The Oil Industry Convince The World That Stopping Climate Change Was Too Expensive (drilled.media)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ohwhatfollyisman 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

extremely shortsighted thinking especially for a civil servant from a country which has the bulk of its population and investment on its coastlines.

i wonder what his stance on the now-annual wildfires are.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

i wonder what his stance on the now-annual wildfires are.

We've always had issues with wild fires, economists will give 0 fucks anyway as Sydney, or Melboure is not burning.

As another example, dipshits like Nordhaus think Agriculture is unimportant as its only a small part of GDP. That eating is vital need seems to have escaped them.

https://theintercept.com/2023/10/29/william-nordhaus-climate-economics/

Ignorance of systems has its way of plowing forward, juggernaut-like. Nordhaus has opined that agriculture is “the part of the economy that is sensitive to climate change,” but because it accounts for just 3 percent of national output, climate disruption of food production cannot produce a “very large effect on the U.S. economy.” It is unfortunate for his calculations that agriculture is the foundation on which the other 97 percent of GDP depends. Without food — strange that one needs to reiterate this — there is no economy, no society, no civilization. Yet Nordhaus treats agriculture as indifferently fungible.