this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
57 points (96.7% liked)

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

5301 readers
392 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
57
The propane industry’s weird obsession with school buses, explained (www.vox.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

the propane industry sees an opportunity to seize a share of the auto sector. Its representatives are working hard to convince public officials to switch to propane-fueled school buses, which they claim are “near-zero emissions” vehicles that are better for kids and the climate.

Except — that’s not true. Propane is still a polluting fuel: While it is refined differently than diesel and natural gas and combusted in uniquely styled engines, it still has a measurable impact on air quality and the climate. If PERC’s deceptive marketing to children, parents, and school administrators is successful, the propane industry threatens to lock in fossil fuels and their polluting emissions for another generation of schoolchildren.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you don't know, then pertinent information by leading climate scientists who do know, and are worried about it, is available at the link in my comment.

But since you seem inclined to make broad sweeping dismissals based on little more than your own admitted ignorance when you could've just spent like 60 seconds reading, I doubt this quote from the article will help you:

“Hydrogen is a potent short-lived indirect greenhouse gas that is 200 times more potent than carbon dioxide at the time it is released, kilogramme for kilogramme,” Hamburg told EURACTIV.

Hamburg is a former professor of environmental science who served as a lead author for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He says hydrogen is problematic because it interacts with methane in the atmosphere.

“Hydrogen that leaks to the atmosphere is such a potent greenhouse gas because it extends the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere, causing it to stick around and continue contributing to the greenhouse effect,” he told EURACTIV.

“Hydrogen reacts to form tropospheric ozone, which also contributes to the greenhouse effect. And hydrogen also breaks down into water vapour in the stratosphere, which also contributes to the greenhouse effect,” he added.

Maybe it will help other people to know why what you said is wrong.

[–] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I’m not saying it’s not a problem at all, but in general, we should focus our efforts on reducing emissions with high permanence. We’re already committed to an approximate sea level rise of about one meter over the next century, due in large part by CO2’s long half-life in atmosphere, up to 1000 years. By comparison, Methane’s half-life is about 12 years, and H2’s (which I did look up) is only 2 years. This makes it much less of a problem to deal with - not technically but socially.

The problem is that if we are still belching CO2 into the atmosphere in 2050 and find ourselves facing devastating cat6 hurricanes and global famine, the collective “oh shit” moment might spur action, but it’s unlikely to have any positive effect within a century, which would not bode well for civilization. By comparison, if we replaced our CO2 emissions with H2, that same “oh shit” moment could spur action that would mostly resolve things within a decade.

I view these alarmist articles about short-lived emissions the same way I see anti-nuclear rhetoric - a problem to be solved eventually, but not one that should stop us from taking advantage of its massive benefits.