this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
46 points (100.0% liked)

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

5249 readers
750 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
46
Government drops appeal over climate activist who held sign outside UK court | Judge had thrown out case against Trudi Warner, sign told jurors they had a right to acquit 'according to conscience' (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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
[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My knowledge is probably even lower, but I do recall hearing that most of the US law is just copied from UK law as of the 1700's, with some divergence since then.

[–] ____@infosec.pub 2 points 2 months ago

That’s not per se inaccurate. There would have been relatively little cultural divergence at that point, so large scale “take what you like and leave the rest” would have been reasonable.

Wouldn’t want to copy and paste their laws now (see “Safety of Rwanda” bill under the prior PM), and we made the right decision from the start to dispose of honours with titles altogether.

Not, of course, that we’ve banished the aristocracy, or even the generally well-off, but can you imagine an effusive Sir ($FalconRocketGuy)?