this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
14 points (88.9% liked)

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

5240 readers
666 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
14
Conspiracy Theorists and Vaccine Skeptics Have a New Target: Geoengineering | Around the country, people with a deep distrust of government want to preemptively ban the use of aerosols to reduce heat (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 month ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ecoenginefutures@slrpnk.net 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, they might be against it for the wrong reasons, but it would be better if we tried to fix the climate without aerosol…

[–] hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

Agreed geoengineering is bad science/engineering IMO. You can't know what the long term effects would be until after its been deployed. The safest bet would be to just ditch fossil fuels but that's not as sexy.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 month ago

They're trying to make this the new recycling aren't they... Pitching an idea that seemingly would work, and feels like we're doing something without actually addressing the problem

When the media starts over focusing on something odd, it's because billionaires have an agenda