this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
84 points (94.7% liked)

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

5239 readers
561 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
84
COP28 Must Address the US Military as World’s Largest Institutional Emitter (truthout.org)
submitted 11 months ago by sodalite@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vaseltarp@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Soon: The environmental friendly e-Tank

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Maybe they could convert medium and smaller ships to nuclear power? Aircraft are going to be difficult to decarbonize no matter what way you slice it. I think AbramsX was already looking at a piston engine instead of a turbine to decrease fuel consumption.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Part of me can't help but imagine a helpful switch from our nuclear arsenal would be to invest all that fissile material into RAMjet style drones.

Being able to keep them airborne for such extended periods means you can have a shitton more coverage to decapitate a first strike with

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It would be very cool, but using an unshelled nuclear core as a heat source for a ram jet has some pretty bad radiation side effects for the air going though it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

I was talking about the shielded core version, and with non nuclear warheads, basically it would specialize in being fast as all fuck and having cheap munitions to shoot missiles out of the air with.

More importantly, making it public that you're dismantling warheads to achieve this, make a display of exiting the nuclear arms race by developing a tool meant to pose a direct challenge to nuclear hegemony.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Abrams X is possibly a hybrid. Strangely quiet for a tank

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

That would make sense for thermal management for low IR signature too.

[–] guriinii@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

After the last month or so, I'd say it's most likely Zionist Israel.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 4 points 11 months ago

Zionism: polluting both minds and the earth.

[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works -2 points 11 months ago

Where does it get its money/weapons from?