this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
358 points (98.4% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5376 readers
1177 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
I'm curious, what could Florida do to reduce ocean temperatures with this money?
I just saw a video that showed it's possible the pollution that cargo ships were emitting were actually seeding enough clouds to somewhat limit the sunlight that hit and warmed the ocean. This effect stopped recently when they were ordered to stop emitting so much of that pollution.
If it's true they were actually helping accidentally, we could spray ocean water and the salt could actually seed clouds in the same way.
If it works, it would be like a bandaid on climate change to keep the ocean temps a few degrees cooler for awhile.
That's an interesting idea, but not something I would expect Florida to have much say in.
They can limit their own greenhouse gas emissions, by doing things like subsidizing the conversion of homes which currently use fossil fuels for heating, hot water heating, and cooking to not do so, as well as subsidize solar panels on home roofs.
This won't lower temperatures from where they are now, but it does reduce the future increase.
Also, it let's people know the issue is serious. If places like Florida that are suffering the effects of climate change already don't take it seriously, when it's to their benefit now, why should other places do anything when it doesn't affect them yet.
Of course they should, and it will.
In all honesty, it sounds nice and I am not against the idea, but I really have a hard time seeing it having any measurable effect.
Each tiny drop on its own raises the water level an imperceptible amout. Together they fill a lake
If they would extract heat from the air or even the water, it would actually help. Not by leaps and bounds but it would at least be carbon negative.
Not to any meaningful degree: the heating from CO2 emitted when your burn coal for energy is about 100000x more than the heat produced from the burning.
That's why the big action which needs to happen is to stop burning fossil fuels.
I was thinking about heat pumps. 300% efficiency
They are electric and could be carbon negative depending on the source of electricity
Unless it's BECCS, the best they're going to be is not adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That's better than burning stuff, but not actually removing CO2