Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

zero_gravitas@aussie.zone

The Science Is In: Global Warming Is Accelerating (www.lyrebirddreaming.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by arbilp3@aussie.zone to c/environment@aussie.zone

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And this ever expanding horrific war, and the possibility that Israel might use nuclear weapons, will just make global warming intensify even more.

top 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

IIRC fuel quality standards in shipping were the cause. Less sulfur in fuel = more warming.

Better to feel the warming fast than to paper over it with other pollutants.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We knew this with certainty when methane started escaping from ice caps faster than it could be sequestered.

But I guess its always good to see more data.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

I guess it was about the Siberian permafrost. When that thing will thaw, it’s going to be a shit show.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I get so pissed off about this. Here am I doing my best, with the puny things under my control, and all those who have power and responsibility who could actually achieve something, do NOTHING.

And when the shit hits the fan, we know what the narrative will be and the history books will write:

"Who could have known?"
"Nobody could have known!"
"If we knew about it, we would have done something!"
"We tried everything we could!"

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

No, they will not be able to say that. The facts have been known and recorded in so many places. No one will be able to plead ignorance. When our children are old enough to understand we must also let them know the facts and teach them how to have a propaganda and spin detector AND also teach them lots of self-help skills.

[–] dihutenosa@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You got it the wrong way around. Nukes are going to throw lots of dust in the air, which will reflect solar energy away before it has a chance to heat the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

we just need some unpopulated land to nuke. Of well, I know country which has plenty. But unpopulated island will be better option fallout wise.

[–] dihutenosa@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

After we nuke it, it'll be unpopulated, and there will be no one to complain. Easy!

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

If it were only that simple but it is not. Do a little research and you will learn, for example,

A nuclear winter would not reverse the effects of global warming. The changes in surface temperature, solar radiation and precipitation, would exacerbate some effects, including ocean acidification and damage to the ozone layer. Recent studies modeling the potential climate effects of nuclear war using crop yields, marine fishery and livestock production as indicators, found that production levels across the board would drop catastrophically, leading to global famine. https://www.icanw.org/what_would_nuclear_war_do_to_our_natural_environment

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And we still resist the nuclear option. Two stations, and all coal gone, without any major changes in the network or new technologies, But I bet in 20 years, when shit hits the fan, we will still be debating about it and burning coal.

[–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

But I bet in 20 years, when shit hits the fan, we will still be debating about it and burning coal.

Solar and will will make up near 100% of the grid (backed by batteries), likely in 10 rather than 20 years. Nuclear had its time, which is now long since passed.

[–] TheHolm@aussie.zone -2 points 2 weeks ago

It is not possible to build stable grid on renewables only using current technology. Batteries are not there, world can get enough batteries for cars, not mention grid. And just think about ecological impact of making all these batteries. Grid interconnects is not ready to take load needed for grid only on renewables. List is go on. Full renewable grid is child stories for non engineers at this time. Nuclear is mature and can be integrated to current distribution network without too much troubles. There is no alternative for it unless you are willing to wait another 50 years.