this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
29 points (100.0% liked)

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

5244 readers
336 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
29
Global Electricity Demand Is Rising Faster Than Expected, I.E.A. Says | A surge in power use worldwide could make it harder for nations to slash emissions and keep global warming in check. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mac01021@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

This report (https://slrpnk.net/post/14308357) came out, on the same day, about the IEA saying basically the opposite of this. It seems like they don't have a coherent story to tell.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Those two ideas don't clash

Energy use is outpacing renewables so we're still emitting more carbon than ever. When we manage to transition away from fossil fuels, the prices will drop and make that harder

The coherent message is: we can't save ourselves by letting the economics slowly play out

[–] mac01021@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I suppose.

  • One story has the IEA saying global fossil fuel consumption will peak this decade.

  • The other says declining fossil fuel prices will inhibit the transition away from fossil fuel use.

You're right, the two things are consistent in that together they forecast a near-term peak followed be a very slow, drawn-out permanent decline.

I still think it would be much better journalism if the two things would both be discussed in the same news article.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, it would be great if you could write a comprehensive view of a topic and have people read it. Unfortunately, both sides of that are nearly unachievable in this day and age

Science communication is hard. You can't put understanding into words - you have to dance around understanding, over and over from many angles, before you can capture even the most basic understanding of a complex or complicated system

I'm a software dev. My brother started teaching me concepts when I was 14 and he started learning it, I was 22 before he stopped being my mentor and we truly became peers. My friend, who I've been mentoring for the last 3 years, calls me to share achievements and to do after action discussions on his decisions - more and more I have nothing but validation to give him

Everything has endless depth - but understanding can only be learned, not taught. You gain understanding one fragment at a time through thousands of interactions or experiences, not a manifesto