this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
95 points (94.4% liked)

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

5240 readers
361 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
95
A second Trump term could slow the shift from fossil fuels as climate threats grow (www.npr.org)
submitted 4 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Worse. His policies would effectively nuke a lot of the global climate progress we've made and set the world back decades—as if we have the time to waste.

[–] vapeloki@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You mean he would nuke a lot of the world. If he gets a second term, we are done for...

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I genuinely doubt he would order a nuke strike. There would be far too much economical backlash from it.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Maybe..... war is extremely profitable to those manufacturing the weapons and material. So long as infrastructure doesn't get destroyed.

I could see drumpf "accidentally" giving Ukraine a nuke "for deterrent", and then when Putin nukes and Ukraine retaliates...... yeah not good, but I could see that as a real possibility due to Drumpfs idiocy