this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
54 points (98.2% liked)

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

5186 readers
829 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
 
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] huskypenguin@sh.itjust.works 33 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Cars are a major factor in micro plastic pollution. Tires and brakes.

[–] federalreverse@feddit.de 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

True but not relevant here.

[–] huskypenguin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Why? I read the "dust" as microplastic.

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They definitely tear-up the asphalt. I don't use them, but a lot of people here do in the winter. There's also a date at which they have to be removed or the driver will be fined.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

Over here the majority don't respect the dates because they would need a second set of winter tires for the winter-spring in-between season...

[–] clark@midwest.social 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

In Germany studded tires have been banned since the 1970s.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 months ago

To be honest I didn’t even know studded tires were a thing. I’ve heard of snow tires but never bought any since there is no snow here.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Seems obvious that they would wear away the asphalt, but since non-studded tires just wear away the rubber instead, it's not obvious to me which alternative is actually worse.

They need to do a scientific study about it that considers both the difference in material (rubber vs asphalt) as well as potential differences in amount and particle size distribution.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure Swedish engineers have studied this extensively. There's plenty of streets in the cities that ban studded tires, and there's harsh fines if you use studded tires outside of winter.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Banning studded tires because they're obviously worse from the perspective of a highway maintenance engineer who wants to minimize repaving costs is one thing.

Banning them because they're worse than regular tires specifically in terms of dust generated isn't the same thing, and (as a traffic engineer myself) I'm not sure that specific issue has been studied all that much.

Think of it this way: consider all the different possible combinations of road surface and wheel material, and the amount of dust (ablated from the wheel or from the road) they might generate: knobby tires on dirt, slick tires on asphalt, studded tires on snow, every combination of the above, et cetera. I don't know what the contours of that graph would look like. If you think about adding more and more metal to the tires (and to the road), at the limit you've got a railroad and the amount of dust generated would hit a minimum. But what's the shape of the metal content vs. dust curve from "high-mileage/low rolling resistance tire" through "studded snow tire" to "train wheel," and how does it vary depending on surface? I'd be surprised if anybody has rigorously tried to answer that question. It feels like the kind of research that would put somebody in the running for an Ig Nobel Prize, to me.

[–] cron@feddit.de 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Whoever uses studded tyres probably has a good reason for it. And they are very rare, even here in the alps with long and snowy winters.

[–] dafo@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I learned recently when looking for new winter tyres for it car that there are three-ish classifications for winter tyres: unstudded, studded, Nordics.

You will end up in a ditch without studded tyres here. In the winters we'll have a constant decimeter of ice on the pavements. The busy roads will have two tyre tracks between a 5-10 cm thick layer of ice and snow, which looks to lead to asphalt. But no, it's the absolutely most slippery ice you will ever come across.

The city buses stopped using studded tyres a couple of years ago for environmental reasons. You almost feel shame hitting the stop button, because the driver has to slow down well before the stop and takes a good minute for it to ~~get~~ slide up to speed again

For reference, somewhere in Västerbotten, Sweden

Btw this "book" was made by the tallinn city government, some time ago

[–] nyhetsjunkie@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That is at least the reasons for how studs are regulated i Norway. Regions with milder winter climate have fees for studs. Instead most vehicles uses studless winter tires during winter. The exeption being mostly transport and construction vehicles.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They definitely leave rubber particles everywhere. That part I know.

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

"Fellas"? Do you not want any input from non-fellas?

[–] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

fellas are people who are subscribed to this community, i guess?

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean we're not all fellas. No need to refer to a specific gender, right?

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Fellas

Fellows

Followers

Followers of this Lemmy community

Language comprehension is important...

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Avoiding casual misogyny is also important. You should avoid using gendered language like that when there's really no need.

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Usage of gendered language isn't inherently casual misogyny. For it to be misogynistic, it must actively harm or belittle women. While I fundamentally agree with reducing gendered language where possible (as I am a NB gender abolitionist myself), I don't think a silly meme on Lemmy is worth getting overly concerned about. It makes the whole movement look pedantic.

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It may not be intentional, not plenty of women feel harmed, belittled, and ignored by the use of language like that. So we should stop using it. It doesn't add anything, and it does, in fact, harm people.

And for the record, it's not the meme, it's the title of the post. I just think that making the explicit or implied assumption that you're talking to a bunch of dudes whenever you post online is just not helpful, that's all.

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It may not be intentional, not plenty of women feel harmed, belittled, and ignored by the use of language like that. So we should stop using it. It doesn’t add anything, and it does, in fact, harm people.

I understand your concern about the unintentional harm that gendered language can cause. While it's true that language can affect people in non-obvious ways and I support the idea of being mindful of our words and reducing gendered language where possible, I also think it's important to balance this with context and intent.

And for the record, it’s not the meme, it’s the title of the post

The title is a spin on the "Fellas, is it gay...." meme