this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
18 points (82.1% liked)

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

6316 readers
387 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
 

Archived copies of the article:

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Its approach is novel: Most geoengineering research today is led by scientists in the US at universities and federal agencies, and the work they are doing is more or less accessible to public scrutiny. Stardust is at the forefront of an alternative path: One in which private companies drive the development, and perhaps deployment, of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet.

First, that isn't a novel approach. Second, being accessible to public scrutiny should be a requirement, since the consequences will affect all of us. Third, the people behind this have questionable backgrounds.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

Yep: not peer-reviewed, deal breaker. Proprietary, not open-sourced: deal breaker. Benefits a genocidal colonialist state: deal breaker.

[–] thejevans@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

"Wait, so we have all the technology we need to stop climate change, but we have to sacrifice some profits to do so?

Well, since it's impossible to stop climate change with current technology, I guess we just have to dump chemicals into the atmosphere and hope for the best."

[–] PeripheralGhost@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

"We don’t know who struck first, us or them. But we do know that it was us that scorched the sky."

The Matrix (1999), spoken by Morpheus

[–] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn’t that the plot of Snowpiercer?

[–] Nyssa@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

Its definitely the plot of termination shock

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There's a great chapter on geo-engineering in Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything.

Main take aways are that it's extremely dangerous and in a best case scenario likely to render parts of the global south unhabitable.

I think the most significant question, it's a quote from a scientist in that chapter, is "Can the same human beings who accidentally engineered the climate crisis, be trusted to engineer a new, safer climate?". You can draw your own conclusions, but mine is definitely a big no.

Extra point, my own opinion, is that acting like warming is the only thing causing issues for us in climate change is very short sighted. The ocean, our world's most important ecosystem, is being massively impacted by acidification, if that doesn't stop, we'll face big issues, regardless of temperature increase. Plankton creates more than half the worlds oxygen, so, I don't really know what we're gonna do without that.

[–] Nyssa@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago

I think ocean iron fertilization has some promise to it, and it has the benefit of being able to be experimented with at a small scale and subsequently scaled up responsibly to measure effects. Aerosols are kind of a one and done solution, and if for any reason its suspended, their is a boomerang effect that drives warming even higher

[–] ManualOverride@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I don't get all these "geo-engineering" magic bullets. Capitalists are taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air and oceans. The carbon in the air leads to warming, and the carbon in the ocean leads to acidification. Both of these things are disastrous. We need to stop the capitalists. Leave the carbon in the ground, where it belongs. Simple as

[–] relianceschool@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For me, this is the key paragraph:

Few outsiders have gotten a glimpse of Stardust’s plans, and the company has not publicly released details about its technology, its business model, or exactly who works at its company. But the company appears to be positioning itself to develop and sell a proprietary geoengineering technology to governments that are considering making modifications to the global climate—acting like a kind of defense contractor for climate alteration.

If the past year has taught us anything, it's that we don't want to become more beholden to private capital for critical societal needs, and a stable atmosphere is at the absolute bottom of the pyramid. Dave Karpf has a great take on the geoengineering situation, so I'll let his words take it from here:

First, we have to believe that the science of geoengineering is rock-solid. Second, we have to believe the science of real-time climate modeling and forecasting has been basically perfected. You need your climate models to be extremely good in order to forecast what the effects of geoengineering will be. And you need the geoengineering not to have any surprising downstream consequences that the engineers couldn’t predict. You particularly need this because “termination shock” is itself a warning – once you start this process at scale, you cannot end it without disastrous consequences. You had better be right.

Geoengineering would absolutely be a minefield of unintended consequences. It has never been attempted before. We are incapable of testing it at scale without, y’know, actually pulling the trigger and trying. The degree to which we just don’t fucking know what the unintended impacts of geoengineering would be is off the charts here. The models are based on two major volcanic eruptions, with limited contemporaneous data collection. We’re starting from an N of TWO! Model it all you want, but those models will be based on assumptions that can only be refined once we’ve pulled the trigger on the giant silver bullets.