this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
91 points (94.2% liked)

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

5257 readers
849 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
91
22 Countries Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity in Push to Cut Fossil Fuels (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 11 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I'm incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NinePeedles@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why are people down voting this? I ask sincerely. I would have assumed the same thing.

[–] dumdum666@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

It is an ideological thing with some people - it doesn’t matter what makes sense economically. You can find a comment on the same level as this one where someone is talking about lacking energy density. I value my time too high to start arguing against something I know is a bad faith argument and nothing will come of it.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because nuclear has WAY more power generation than other renewables.

Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro won't be able to keep up with electricity demand if we want to eliminate fossil fuels. The power density of nuclear just can't be matched.

[–] Hugohase@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Are you sure about that? I just mean on account of that no being true!

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm not talking about what is powering things, I'm talking about what we need in order to power an all-electric future.

Nuclear has a much higher power capacity for generation than solar and wind.

If we want to replace the coal, natural gas, and oil in that graph, we're going to need nuclear.

[–] Hugohase@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

What we need now, to not transform earth into a postapocalyptic wasteland, are renewables. What type of electricity we use after that I don't care about.