this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)

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

5197 readers
1160 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
34
Long-term planning requires climate projections beyond 2100 (www.nature.com)
submitted 3 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We're quite likely to make it past 2050.

[–] Syl 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Limits to growth is wrong then? Is there enough oil and copper at the current rate?

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately we do still have a lot of oil reserves for like a ~~100~~ 47 years. Without oil we'd be forced to massively reorganize global trade and how we live and work.

[–] Syl 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

yes, that's the problem. We may still have 47 years of oil left (I think we have less), but the cost to extract it will rise, and the economy will take a hit. So yes, we have to reorganize or we won't have to only think about the climate...

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah I also was thinking from another perspective another article:

As the world moves away from oil as an energy source, thanks to the shift to electric vehicles, according to BP's 2023 Energy Outlook Report, demand will likely plateau. In October 2023, for instance, the International Energy Agency said it expects oil use to have peaked by 2030, declining after that.

That means we could have enough oil for far longer than the longstanding 50-year projection.

So the status quo for things like tankers and big container ships needed for the current global trade and economic imperialism and also big warships and aircraft carriers and jet powered fighter drones probably won't change for a long time.

So there could be "business as usual or worse" for a long time. Or climate fueled conflicts could disrupt global trade and oil delivery much sooner leading to more conflicts. I guess you could make long term plans for such possibilities.

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That goes beyond the climate issue. OP is referring to climate.

[–] Syl 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

if you don't have enough copper to transition to renewable energy, and don't have enough oil to continue, you're in for some fun times...