this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
30 points (87.5% liked)

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

5212 readers
749 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
[email protected]
30
Building with wood instead of concrete or steel is touted as a way to cut carbon emissions. But determining how it stacks up, climate-wise, isn’t easy. (www.bloomberg.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago

That's a lot of words to say nothing.It reads like it's written by big cement money since almost all arguments it brings up apply to concrete and steel as well, and that it comes to no conclusions just strengthen that feeling as it creates FUD without anything that could backfire. Of course it could also be based on actual research with real concerns about greenwashing that just communicates really poorly. But in any case there is nothing to be gained from this article.

I had hoped it would contain some data about origin, if local species are getting replaced, or anything else possibly interesting.