this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
89 points (98.9% liked)

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

5246 readers
589 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
89
Milton Is the Hurricane That Scientists Were Dreading | Climate change set up the Gulf of Mexico to birth a storm this strong, this fast. (www.theatlantic.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I believe the state insurer there (Citizens) is undercapitalized. There's a very good chance that Florida will be forced to collect supplemental assessments from everybody who has any kind of insurance policy there.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I'm surprised there isn't more movement to just completely ban building in these areas. Getting everyone else to cover the cost of their predictable destruction seems very unfair.

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

I think insurance companies pulling out of certain areas will amount to the same thing unless they are forced by regulators to provide coverage. If regulators do force that it will be a bandaid—states need to be starting relocation funds for climate impact

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The problem with that is "these areas" is more or less the entire state.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 3 points 1 month ago

I should have been more specific, I was just referring to the storm surge flooded areas.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I’m not seeing the problem