this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)

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

5237 readers
334 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
68
What happens if the 1.5C target for global heating is missed? The Guardian asks five climate experts to explain the key differences between 1.5C and 2C (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

My impression is a lot of the high-emissions scenarios being used lets you demonstrate that there is an impact easily, even if the actual date of that impact looks to be somewhat later than under the most likely emissions scenarios.

And yes, the economic models are particularly awful; DICE has a bunch of assumptions in it about economic impact not affecting sectors which operate indoors and about damage being in the form of a fraction of GDP for that sector. eg: if agriculture is 3% of the economy by value, and it goes to zero, the overall impact is a 3% cut to economic output, even though no food means no economy.