this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
100 points (93.1% liked)

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

5244 readers
278 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
100
‘What if there just is no solution?’ How we are all in denial about the climate crisis (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 5 months ago by hanrahan@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/10713443

For denial doesn’t only amount to rejecting the evidence, he argues – it also consists of denying our role in the climate crisis; absolving ourselves through “carbon offsets, hybrid cars, local purchases, recycling”. And in this, far more of us are implicated.

In some ways, this argument might not seem all that new. Multiple authors have pointed out that green capitalism, not rightwing deniers of the crisis, is our greatest obstacle to properly confronting the problem. DeLay agrees. The difference is the lens he brings to it – using psychoanalysis to explain the mechanisms behind denial.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's the joy of nonlinearities. Every new threshold opens up a qualitatively new world of suckage.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah that's my point. The chain reaction stuff associated with 1.5 isn't catastrophic to the human race or civilization. It might be catastrophic to the Western liberal political paradigm but that's about it. Shits going to suck, a lot of people are going to die, but on the whole we can get through it. The chain reactions associated with the next threshold are fun things like ocean acidification that extends so far it kills all marine life and forces a ground up redo of our drinking water systems. The complete loss of reflectivity at the poles. Uninhabitable latitudes extending into developed countries. The loss of arable land too quick for the northern latitudes to replace.

So we get locked into a higher stable level even if we contain it and we get to deal with a food and water crisis. All while we get to see how much the EU actually likes Spain and Italy.

And in case anyone reading this is like, so what? We still don't know how much crap is hiding in the permafrost. Just that it keeps heating up ahead of schedule. So the sooner we can contain this, the better our chances at still having a functioning civilization in 100 years. Which could be really important if the anti-aging scientists turn out to be right.