this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
112 points (98.3% liked)

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

5298 readers
519 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@slrpnk.net
112
Air-Conditioning Use Will Surge in a Warming World, U.N. Warns | By 2050, electricity use for cooling could double, driving up the greenhouse gas emissions that cause warming. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ech@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Here's a question - if increased electricity use is driving up greenhouse gases, wtf are we supposed to do to solve all this?

We really need to focus on replacing our electricity infrastructure with renewable sources ASAFP. Personally, I think nuclear is the best choice, but anything is going to be better than gas or coal, and they need to be implemented NOW. In a world where widespread electrification is the end goal, electricity use is set to exponentially increase. If that's just going to make things worse, too, we are leaving ourselves with zero options in the face of literal apocalypse.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think nuclear is the best choice

I used to think this as well, but I've been so impressed with how cheap solar and wind have become, and more importantly, they're able to be brought online extremely quickly compared to Nuclear, which takes decades.

I had hoped SMR (Small Modular Reactors) would make it more viable, but all attempts so far have ballooned in cost quite badly, and they're taking a very long time to get off the ground, making Solar and Wind once again the most appealing option.

The increased demand from Air Conditioning in particular lends itself to Solar being the optimal solution, as A/C demand is highest during the day, where solar can really mop up.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 5 points 11 months ago

Solar is cheap, easy to scale, easy to repair. Solar is the best option for 90% of the human population. Nuclear is an excellent option for already rich and populous countries that can afford to build and maintain it, and who also have much higher demand for electricity in the first place.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

wtf are we supposed to do to solve all this?

Maybe nuclear fusion, but that’s down the line (~2030.. bit late) with some skepticism.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago

If nuclear fission is to expensive and long to build, then how is something that is orders of magnitude more expensive and so complex we haven’t even managed to do it yet going to make things better?