this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
73 points (98.7% liked)

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

5257 readers
655 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
73
Heat Is Costing the U.S. Economy Billions in Lost Productivity (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

The Nordhaus estimates were always known for having limited utility for large changes in temperatures.

They assumed that damage to a sector wouldn't matter much if it was currently a small part of the economy. For example, if agriculture was 2% of the US economy, and agricultural output went to zero, the result would be 2% damage to GDP. The real world doesn't work that way though: people who are starving to death don't work, so GDP would go to zero in that case.