this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
155 points (100.0% liked)

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

150 readers
41 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nyssa@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Unfortunately, I don't know if it would be possible for another species to reach our level of technology or civilization. We built up our society off of easily accessible energy resources (surface-level coal being our first source of industrial energy). This energy excess allowed us to develop other sources of energy, solar, wind, nuclear, etc. But if you tried starting from zero again, you could never get to this point, at least along the same path, as you need a high level of technology to access any available energy resources. Thus, if any new species took our place, they could only ever rise to the level of the pre-industrial revolution.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At the very least, even basic electricity production requires copper windings. Which requires copper wire. Which requires refined copper. Which requires copper ore. Which requires copper mining.

Generations of people with manual tools will need to die in the mines for enough electricity to be generated to run a small medical clinic, let alone get post-climate humans to a point of modern civilization.

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While it's definitely bleak, it's not quite as bleak as that. Remember that we're leaving behind vast amounts of 'waste', much of which contains things like copper, aluminium, steel and other useful components in relatively easily refinable states.

Future civilisations will be digging through our waste, wondering why we were so profligate, but glad to have it all to hand.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had thought about this scenario before too, but now I can think of many other scenarios where this doesn't happen.

Examples: a complete loss of most of humanity's technological know-how to where we don't even know how or why use those materials, loss of knowledge of where many of these (mostly difficult to harvest?) resources are buried, and warring between factions for access to these resources. Not only each of those scenarios individually, but also a combination of all of them plus other factors working against this happening.

I think that the eventual best case scenario for humanity will be going back to pre-industrial living and technology.

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those are fair points, but consider that they just put the next civilization at the same level we were; we didn't have the technological know-how until we invented it, we didn't know how or why to use different ores until we worked it out, we didn't know where the ores were to be found until we gound them, and harvesting pre-refined material is much less intensive than that, and well, we've warred, and continued to war over access to resources.

Basically, we've dug up lots of the easily accessible ore, which has a low density (you need to dig up maybe 4 tonnes of rock to get a tonne of iron ore, and that is only between 50-75% iron, for instance) and buried it more shallowly, and at higher density. There's still work to do to extract it, but it's manageable with fairly low tech.

Energy sources are a little more complex, but we've bound up a lot of hydrocarbons in plastic and the like, which should be usable, if not ideal in their raw form.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those are good points too, that I hadn't thought about. I thought it would be challenging, but maybe it wouldn't be as challenging as I had imagined it.

But who knows, maybe we would be better off going back to pre-industrial times anyway?

[–] notabot@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But who knows, maybe we would be better off going back to pre-industrial times anyway?

But how would I find interesting conversations on Lemmy if my highest tech gadget was a loom?!? :)

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Haha, we would have to go back to the printed press and handwritten letters!

[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perhaps if it’s a few million years later and all us dead humans have turned into coal and oil, like the dinosaurs of the past.

Im quite confident that this takes a few hundred million years until we talk about usable quantities.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a good thing, right? The vast majority of the results of technology and "civilization" has turned out to be nothing but a curse on this planet.

[–] Nyssa@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To an extent, but we have the chance of transitioning into a solar and wind society and remediate that damage. Subsequent species would not have that potential.

[–] xapr@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I wasn't even talking about subsequent species, but our own species in the future. As for solar and wind, I'm afraid that the way that population growth and energy consumption growth interacts with the material requirements for solar and wind, that is also going to hit a wall in the not too distant future.