this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
127 points (99.2% liked)

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

5184 readers
566 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
What are the odds that extreme weather will lead to a global food shock? The insurance giant Lloyd’s evaluated the risks in a recent study. (yaleclimateconnections.org)
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The report looked at “major,” “severe,” and “extreme” scenarios. The authors found that the “major” case would cost the world $3 trillion over a five-year period, which they estimated has a 2.3% chance of happening per year. Over a 30-year period, those odds equate to about a 50% probability of occurrence — assuming the risks are not increasing each year, which they are.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jadero@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

As with most endeavours, it helps to do some networking. Get out there at all hours and all conditions (be safe!) checking to see who is out when. Pay special attention to those who seem to catch fish quickly; anyone can catch their limits if they spend 40+ hours a week with wet line.

Try to make the acquaintance of the successful ones and get tips. Some will be secretive, but most are happy to share their knowledge. It quickly becomes apparent that they are mostly doing the same things at the same times.

I used to consider myself a pretty good angler. Then we moved to live at a lake that I had never fished before. I was getting skunked so often that I just assumed the fishing wasn't great. Then I started hanging out with others and learned that my old techniques were useless, except under specific circumstances. I adopted the new techniques and now think that this lake may be one of the best fisheries in the province for subsistence angling.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I guess that's what happened to me. I learned to fish in the high Sierra Nevadas, and I'm still pretty good up there. But those techniques don't seem to work in the PNW.

The best fisherman I know says to walk until you can smell the fish. That always seemed nonsensical to me, and I assumed he was trolling me. But last year I was walking along the water's edge and actually smelled fish! So I think he was being truthful. I'll definitely give that a try this spring.

[–] jadero@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 months ago

I've stopped to fish where I can smell fish and been successful, but I always just assumed confirmation bias or pattern seeking was happening. Maybe I'll have to pay more attention!