this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
118 points (96.8% liked)

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

5447 readers
652 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
118
Opinion | Is America Just Going to Abandon Its Towns Falling Into the Ocean? (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 2 points 2 days ago

Those are some interesting reads, and really appreciate the response + resources.

I do feel the attempt to buyout the residents in the CA example is a good move, but it does basically amount to abandoning the town (as the OP seems to think will be the norm. Glad the state is attempting to do something to help, even if it feels like a half measure.

It feels like FEMA (as imperfect as they are) would have been a program that would've helped if a landslide wiped out a town though? Either that or the builders of the township would've had to sign away a bunch of their rights to that as part of building into the area (kinda feels like the case for Bayocean?) if it was known to be disaster prone.

Idk, how does the community feel about building in disaster prone areas? Like, if you want to build a house in a flood zone, I think you should be allowed to do it, but also, you're on your own when a flood comes, ya know?