this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
16 points (90.0% liked)

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

5371 readers
1000 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
silence7
16
The sea is rising — and the clock is ticking | The San Francisco Bay Area will need an estimated $110 billion to combat sea-level rise in the coming decades (paloaltoonline.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7 to c/climate
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

San Francisco Bay is kind of unique; there are parts of it where geology and topography let you build levees and keep back the sea. One community, Alviso, is at ~13 feet below sea level due to land subsidence.

I don't expect people anywhere to stop living in cities; they've got enormous advantages in terms specialization letting people be more productive and therefore society as a whole live better.

[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At a certain point, nature always wins. Why expend absurd amounts of money and labour on a fruitless endeavour?

[–] silence7 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's like paying rent; the landlord still owns the property, but it gets you the ability to to use it for a while.

[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People pay a landlord rent (most often) because they don’t have any other realistic options. In this case we do. The money is going to be spent regardless, why not spend it on something that is more long-term?

[–] silence7 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because a century is longer than a lifetime. That's enough for most people when it comes to a place to live

[–] spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Which is why we are in the mess we are in. Kicking the can down the road.

[–] nature 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but from an anthropologist view, cities (and specialization) have basically been the downfall of our species. I don't know; I guess bolo'bolo mentioned some city-like places supported by farms. (and Çatalhöyük)