this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
47 points (82.2% liked)

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

5369 readers
807 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] astropenguin5 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So I went and looked at the study they linked for that section, and it had the same number and said the same thing. Their citation for it was the EPA greenhouse gas equivalency calculator, but when I plugged the number into it gave me .072 coal plants for a year.

I'm guessing what happened is the study fucked it up somehow and the article blindly copied it.

[–] lurklurk 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're right... The "more than 20 countries" thing, is about 1000x away from the real number too, so I guess they dropped a "kilo" somewhere and somehow didn't react to getting an obviously absurd result

[–] astropenguin5 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Honestly I could maybe believe the 20 countries thing because it is highly dependent on what countries those 20 are and there's a lot of tiny countries out there

I think they definitely dropped a kilo somewhere for the numbers they got tho

[–] lurklurk 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah, the 20th least polluting country is near 1000x worse than the estimated CO2 footprint in the article