this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
48 points (94.4% liked)

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

5243 readers
200 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
48
These Cities Aren’t Banning Meat. They Just Want You to Eat More Plants. Meat and dairy production are linked to emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] federalreverse@feddit.de -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What makes you so sure there can only be one singular big culprit, rather than multiple culprits of different sizes?

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, but that 35-40% is not right by any means.

That's the point I am making. All old studies should be taken with a bucket of salt.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Ok, I see. But still, 99% seems a little much, given a billion cows, the vast majority of which kept under conditions defined by humans to increase milk and meat production.

[–] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What exactly do you mean?

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

N3m37h's apparent belief that absolutely every other industry besides oil/gas is irrelevant for climate change. Oil/gas is obviously the biggest chunk but agriculture, construction, etc. all need to change too.

[–] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think what they're saying is that the amount of pollution caused by oil and gas makes that caused by agriculture irrelevant.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

Ass u me much?

This is what I was referring to