this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
558 points (98.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5431 readers
902 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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You won’t. We’re combatting near-exponential growth. Each year we need to increase our efforts just to prevent worsening, let alone reversal.
This is because the largest accelerant is completely out of our control now. As the ice caps melt, desalinating our oceans, rich black soil is exposed. This soil absorbs and retains heat far more readily than the white ice, accelerating the warming of nearby ground ice. As bacteria begins to break down the newly thawed decaying organisms, large amounts of methane is released into the atmosphere. Methane traps 28x more heat than CO2, then it breaks down into CO2 and water after a decade where it continues to retain heat for centuries.
Not quite correct on methane's half life. The 28x number is based on normal effect and breakdown over a century's time. Over 20 years it's around 84x more than CO2. Over the first few years it can be far over 100x. The caveat of using these numbers now is that they were based on a stable cycle of methane and its fixed-rate reducers in the atmosphere, something that has obviously changed.
The IPCC still sticks to the 28x number though, because it looks better on the spreadsheets. When they even include methane feedback loops, which to my knowledge they still haven't really worked into the hard numbers. Why? Because we're not very sure on how much is being released from year to year, as it's hard to measure. So since the IPCC only works with known variables, they just leave it out of the equation. Makes sense, right? :clown face:
You're right on the rest though. The best result is the methane breaks down quickly, into more CO2 and water vapor. Both GHGs, and the additional water adding to the water content in the atmosphere. Yet another feedback loop.
Wow. Thank you for the detailed correction!