this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
107 points (96.5% liked)

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

5244 readers
426 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
107
Inside the Republican Attacks on Electric Vehicles (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 8 months ago by silence7 to c/climate
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AMOGH_MAHAVARKAR@mastodon.social 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

@nxdefiant @dragontamer clearing forest land for agriculture to feed ever increasing population does seems the baseline solution but then the argument pops up ... isn't knowledge of agriculture by we humans responsible for climate change and all the misery the human race is in?

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Pretty much. We have scientists looking into high density, multi level automated hydroponic crop production in order to stop relying on having enough sky and land for food. Using more land for biomass to produce fuel feels willfully evil at this point.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

clearing forest land for agriculture to feed

All the more reason we should convert land back to native Switchgrass. A native plant that grew from Nevada to Maine that the pioneers / pilgrims saw 500+ years ago. Converting our harmful farmlands back into more natural-looking grasslands is going to improve our environment and ecology.

That's what makes this entire discussion so hilarious. I'm advocating for native plant species of this continent, and yall environmentalists are shitting on the idea. Because modern environmentalists are braindead and don't even think about the natural state of our country, its plantlife or other effects.

That's fine. So I'm just pointing out: switchgrass is an incredibly eco-friendly way forward. Even if we don't use it for biofuel, its already being used to restore marshlands and other areas. Switchgrass also has a carbon-capture profile similar to trees (!!!!), outperforming many other plants in terms of CO2 capture. One way or the other, the people who know better are planting switchgrass and improving our ecology, even if yall can't get behind the idea.