this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
127 points (92.6% liked)

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

5239 readers
971 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
127
We’re over-freezing our food. Turning up the temperature slightly could avoid 17 Mt of CO2 (www.anthropocenemagazine.org)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by cerement@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
36 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“This temperature corresponds to 0 degrees Fahrenheit, so it was “probably a round, easy number to remember”

That’s what Allouche and team will be working on next, as they build their research summary into a full report, to be published in September 2024. “These findings give good reasons for ‘3 degrees of change’ to be further explored,” Allouche says.

Three Degrees Of Change: Frozen food in a Resilient and Sustainable Food System (PDF)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The international standard for freezing food is -18C, about 0F, they are talking about increasing that by three degrees to about 3F or -15c, which would have no impact on likeliness of food poisoning. People should use private jets less as well but this seems like a change that could be made across an industry more easily. This isn't about people turning up their freezers at home but rather commercial food operations which accounts for a much larger portion of energy used.

[–] Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

This is the internet so take this with a grain of salt. I work in a life safety field and the last 50 years of research has been to shift the evaluation of safety from an arbitrary value for safety to a statistical basis - all in the name of efficiency (cost, material, environmental - pick you’re cause, they all have a voice). There is generally no perfectly safe condition, only a poly at which the number of standard deviations from the norm makes failure so unlikely as to be nearly impossible. We have classes of prevention and imposed conditions and there are under the intersection of (failure in prevention)x(exceptional imposed danger) are dead people, or at least loss of property.

Shifting the freezer set point is moving the prevention curve. The number may be small, but it’s still finite. The question the actuaries will ask is if the economic value of 19MT is worth an increase in probability for the sickness or death of X people. I’m merely arguing that the value, to me personally, is not sufficient.