this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
28 points (93.8% liked)

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

5243 readers
408 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
28
Geologists Make It Official: We’re Not in an ‘Anthropocene’ Epoch (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Why wouldnt it?

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't know the definition
I was of the opinion that some specific chemical properties must be met.

And that was the reason why I asked in this humble way

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'm not trying to push back against the humility, but I asked it that way to try and get you to consider some underlying assumptions you might have. Its more of a rhetorical approach, not meant in rudeness. Imagine it to have a /c or 'casual' or curious tone.

[–] Deebster@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago

I like the idea of having more "intent" markers; /s seems to be the only one people recognise (and I've seen some on here push back against it as a Reddit thing).

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

All good
Text based communication misses many layers, so it's sometimes hard to see what the other side actually wanted to say.
I completely get your approach though, because I'm basically doing the same, when it comes to SW dev.

To be honest, I've never really thought about the definition of minerals. I just understood it as stones and salts. So I was pretty confused that plastics should be minerals as well.
Was just looking for a easy to swallow definition of them.
If you want to go deeper and explain more, that would be very much appreciated :-)

[–] zout@fedia.io 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because it is made from organic compounds, not minerals?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_mineral

Mississippian

The Mississippian was proposed by Alexander Winchell in 1870 named after the extensive exposure of lower Carboniferous limestone in the upper Mississippi River valley. During the Mississippian, there was a marine connection between the Paleo-Tethys and Panthalassa through the Rheic Ocean resulting in the near worldwide distribution of marine faunas and so allowing widespread correlations using marine biostratigraphy. However, there are few Mississippian volcanic rocks, and so obtaining radiometric dates is difficult.

Mississippian

The carboniferous Mississippian is defined by a strata of what is effectively of organic origin.