this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
64 points (98.5% liked)

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

7217 readers
258 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@slrpnk.net
64
The uninsurable world: what climate change is costing homeowners | Rising premiums are a de facto ‘carbon price’ on consumers as extreme weather events become more frequent (www.ft.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article: ghostarchive.org archive.today

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think I heard this on Les Stroud's Surviving Disasters, but North America is unique in that many places haven't been largely inhabited for enough time to find out they are prone to disasters (some definitely are but people are stubborn enough to go back). Whereas, ancient Asians and Europeans may have had the chance in the past to relocate out of floodplains or other disaster-prone areas, for example.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago

There are some examples of what you describe, such as the the lack of written records meaning that residents of the Pacific Northwest US not being aware of the earthquake and tsunami risk until recently, but knowledge doesn't result in people actually taking action to keep people out of harms way. There are great examples in Europe and Asia of people simply staying in risky spots for a variety of reasons, such as the large population living around Vesuvius or in parts of Bangladesh which flood during typhoons.