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

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

5243 readers
390 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago (11 children)

This is kind of interesting to me because there are several absolutely a clear mineralogical change that meets this requirement:

But to merit inclusion on the geological scale, any time interval needs to meet certain criteria, such as having a clear, objective starting point in the mineral record.

With maybe the undoubted introduction of plastics into the earths crust as a mineral. Future scientists will absolutely be able to time this change globally because in geological terms, plastics will have been introduced 'everywhere' at about the same time. It will be a distinct marker that can be used to effectively time mass extinctions and a massive change to the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 6 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Just because I have no clue about the definition:
Does plastic count as a mineral?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (6 children)
[–] 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 :-)

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)