this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
66 points (93.4% liked)

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

5394 readers
294 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Boondoggle. What's the hullabaloo about this tomfoolery? It's all gobbledygook to me.

[–] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This hubbub may evolve into a kerfuffle or a donnybrook.

[–] proper@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

I hope we aren’t hornswoggled by this boondogle

[–] ODGreen@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

Embattled plan called "malarkey" by experts.

[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

pshh. what a waste. all you have to do is dunk your head underwater and breathe in the oxygen.

bam: two free hydrogen.

[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 month ago

Don't they know that government funds are meant for corporate bailouts??

[–] MonkCanatella@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 month ago

hydrogen is just a fossil fuel investment. yeah let's just keep pouring money and resources into hydrogen, which requires natural gas for production in 95% of cases. We'll get to green hydrogen later, after we've left you with the bag

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 month ago

NIMBYs everywhere, go figure.

The "blue hydrogen", "produced from natural gas which is then sequestered" bit is a ridiculous stretch though. Forcing byproducts back into the ground is one of the "justifications"/"pros" for fracking.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

What else? solar freaking roadways?

[–] hypna@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

You can't ask the government to drive innovation and take on difficult challenges if people keep labelling everything that might not work out a boondoggle. The IRA was like $800 billion. It's okay if 7 is spent on a longshot.