this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
74 points (95.1% liked)

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

5282 readers
544 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
74
Geoengineers think they can slow climate change. The catch? No more blue skies. (link.houstonchronicle.com)
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dotslashme@infosec.pub 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes of course. We can't even agree if methane will have an accelerating effect or if methane simply breaks down too fast to have a significant effect. The obvious solution is to add more things and see if it helps. Great plan!

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes of course. We can't even agree if methane will have an accelerating effect or if methane simply breaks down too fast to have a significant effect.

They aren't suggesting to pump methane in the atmosphere.

The obvious solution is to add more things and see if it helps. Great plan!

That's our current course already, since co2 emissions in the atmosphere are still skyrocketing.

[–] dotslashme@infosec.pub 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Bad wording on my part. I mean that we cannot even agree on the effects one more heat-trapping gas would have, and now we plan to add yet another thing that apparently caused a year without summer. Forgive me for having little faith in people that thinks we should pump some other crap up there and see what happens.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago

We do actually agree on that adding more greenhouse gasses is bad. Just because methane breaks down quicker does not mean it is beneficial for our already heating climate. The people who argue against it are typically part of the agriculture lobby, specifically cattle herders etc.

We have seen a similar bullshit resistance with coal miners and the argument of "clean coal". Or with ICE cars and how badly EV batteries are or how they're powered by dirty power plants, etc. It's all bad faith bullshit.