this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
12 points (92.9% liked)

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

5646 readers
429 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
[email protected]
12
Global economy could face 50% loss in GDP between 2070 and 2090 from climate shocks, say actuaries (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

GDP is a dumb metric but this paper is really good at throwing the William Nordhaus risk model out the window, which is what institutional investors have been using all this time when making investment decisions. IMO I think this is an avenue to Segway institutional investors into looking at things like degrowth, “you can keep investing in extraction but there is an extremely high likelihood you lose all society and wealth. Or you can invest in redistribution and there is a very high likelihood that the planet/society survives, you keep more wealth then you could really need and it will only cost a percentage of your total assets.”

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Good, then we might finally throw GDP as a measurement out the window.