this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
15 points (94.1% liked)

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

6070 readers
314 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
15
Study: Climate change will reduce the number of satellites that can safely orbit in space. (news.mit.edu)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by ice@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Increasing greenhouse gas emissions will reduce the atmosphere’s ability to burn up old space junk, MIT scientists report.

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is therefore an increased chance that a Starlink satellite falls on Elon.

So it's not all bad news.

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, the article says the exact opposite. The proposed problem is that less satellites de-orbit on schedule because atmospheric drag is reduced. Debris and derelict satellites stay in LEO for longer than they were scheduled to, and will be scheduled to stay in space longer in the future. Both of these factors significantly reduce the ability of LEO to 'carry' more satellites. This is amplified massively by mega constellations such as Starlink, but it's probably to their benefit; they get to keep their expensive littering satellites in service for longer and will use less of the expensive argon to maintain their orbit.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 5 points 1 day ago

Proof that there is no god.