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

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

4757 readers
1274 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
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lurklurk 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

This is hugely incorrect

... equivalent to 281,315 metric tons of CO2. This is roughly the same quantity of emissions that 75 coal-fired power plants produce in a year, and it exceeds the annual emissions of 20 individual countries and territories.

A single medium sized (1MW) coal power plant outputs about 6.3 million metric tons CO2 per year, so the comparison is three magnitudes off

I wouldn't trust any other numbers from that site without verification


[–] astropenguin5 6 points 2 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 3 points 2 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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 2 points 2 months ago

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

[–] Vodica -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Looks like is just one more HAMAS propaganda.

[–] dot0 2 points 2 months ago

I am Jack's utter lack of surprise at finding bigotry in your comment history. absolute clown.