378
submitted 6 days ago by ujeenator@lemm.ee to c/climate@slrpnk.net

No one alive will experience a better climate than we have today. But young people will experience a much more dangerous and chaotic world in the future.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Petter1@lemm.ee 6 points 4 days ago

And of course all those dictators will use the catastrophic events to throw shit at each other, tell the others are the reason for all this and can finally start their wet dream ww3 as well as get rid of all minority “parasites” that waste our now limited resources we all fight for

Very nice

😔

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

Ironically, only unrestrained nuclear war could possibly save us now.

  1. It would move untold gigatonnes of dust into the atmosphere, cutting down on solar radiation in the short term
  2. it would destroy high-tech fossil fuel consumption and most human-caused CO2 production in the short to medium term
  3. said dust would slowly fall out of the atmosphere over the next decade, most into the oceans, releasing phytoplankton from their limiting environmental factors (mainly a lack of iron)
  4. even with reduced sunlight, phytoplankton populations would explode, sucking significant CO2 out of the atmosphere
  5. an extended nuclear winter would produce thin ice sheets across most of the northern hemisphere, dramatically increasing the planet’s albedo once the atmosphere clears up, reflecting most incoming radiation back out and (hopefully) maintaining lower temperatures
  6. lower temperatures planet-wide would produce a much wetter climate, with much more snowfall and more precipitation in arid areas, encouraging increased carbon sequestration by plants.
  7. human populations would crash massively in the first year or three, but - especially in the southern hemisphere - would remain present in relative technological sophistication. We could conceivably stabilize in the very low billion level or high hundreds of millions, with the technological knowledge to rebuild a high-tech civilization without the extensive use of fossil fuels.
[-] Petter1@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago
[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

I know. It’s an exceedingly horrible path, but the alternatives are turning out to be immeasurably worse, and we are rapidly running out of non-catastrophic options.

I am in the northern hemisphere, in a city that is virtually 100% guaranteed to be nuked if such a conflict arises. It’s not an option I want to reach for unless all the other ones are even worse. But “much worse” is likely to occur, sooner rather than later.

this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2025
378 points (98.5% liked)

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

5792 readers
689 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