this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
90 points (100.0% liked)

Climate

8669 readers
307 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 2 years ago

Red states hate their constituents and it shows.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 15 points 2 years ago

Louisiana Conservatives enjoying their "small government," yet?

[–] blaine@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

This is good news, right? The only way we can force wealthy, waterfront homeowners to move back from the coasts that are going to be increasingly hit by hurricanes is to stop insuring their idiotic behavior. This is a necessary adaptation to the climate crisis in a place where the reality of the issue seems to have overcome the partisan divide.

Seems like this would be a policy democrats and progressives would be cheering for, no?

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Or we just let them build their castle in a bog

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

That one sank into the swamp

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

After a few iterations they’ll have a stable base.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Are we going to evacuate everything west of the Rockies over forest fires and anywhere with a river due to more frequent floods and the plains due to tornados? Honestly, I feel like Louisiana might be the most prepared for climate change since we deal with it all the time (much like the Netherlands) whereas a minor storm can hit NYC and flood the subways.

I happen to be in Utah right now and there were two 100 year floods in the high desert in two weeks. It was about an inch of rain and it wrecked things. New creeks formed and got mud everywhere. In New Orleans, an inch of rain is a normal summer day and our houses are raised and natural and manmade drainage exists. The problem is climate change, not climate. The traumatic floods aren’t going to be in places that always flood. It’s going to be in places where what used to be snow slowly melting is now just water rushing down a mountain.

[–] blaine@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately, the facts don't agree with your feelings.

Louisiana leads the country for the number and percentage of homes that have had more than three flood claims filed on the same property.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/344607-the-same-houses-flood-every-year-and-we-keep-paying-for/

[–] card797@champserver.net 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah. I am just maintaining my flood insurance until the next one. I'll either raze the house or raise it. Flood plain Louisiana is just not sustainable. Gotta move to the Northshore or North of BR. Speaking for the SE anyway.

[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Wouldn't that be illegal as it's a breach of contract? If not.. then it makes sense not to get home insurance.

[–] ramble81@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

The companies just opt to not renew it. That is legal as it would be illegal to force someone into a perpetual agreement. Then you’re SOL when your lender requires insurance (to insure what is technically their property) and there’s none of be found.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That doesn't really help anyone with a mortgage. The lenders require insurance until you're paid off

[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

That's true.