this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
120 points (97.6% liked)

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

5091 readers
1103 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
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NocturnalMorning 68 points 9 months ago (2 children)

So the U.S. military has made the assessment that climate change is the single greatest threat to U.S. national security in the history if the U.S., and they've also simultaneously shrugged and said, nah man, we aren't going to do anything about it.. do I have that right?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago

Don't be silly. I'm sure the U.S. military has drawn up several contingency plans to massacre climate migrants.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

there's a tremendous push to diversify the military's fuel use with EV stuff. they know what's coming.

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/energy-and-environment/2023/10/09/us-army-ready-to-pursue-electric-light-recon-vehicle/

[–] FartsWithAnAccent 21 points 9 months ago

sigh

We're in for an increasingly rough ride in the coming years...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If the rhetoric is that Santa delivers coal to bad kids then why are we subsidizing that industry?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Because the bad kids love coal, and they also run shit

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

the US military runs on fossil fuel, can't disempower the military

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The bulk of their operations are logistics, which can be decarbonized. And military use isn't generally subsidized in the usual sense of that word.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

military still has to buy it. i mean the infrastructure to produce oil has to be there and in good working order. subsidized by the public as required.

military will only decarbonize if it's a strategic advantage that they understand. i haven't heard any talk of them doing that except in out in the outer rim where it's difficult to ship fuel.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

typical rug-pulling from the US's part. Otherwise how could they have become the first world superpower smh