this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
133 points (100.0% liked)

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

5316 readers
835 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
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh man wow crazy it's almost like the only way to stop bringing the carbon from outside the carbon cycle to inside the carbon cycle is to stop moving the carbon from outside the carbon cycle to inside the carbon cycle

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thermodynamic limits on carbon removal aren't quite that bad, but the technology is nowhere near as good as the constraints physics imposes.

[–] Wilzax 5 points 1 year ago

We need to build more nuclear plants and use those to power carbon capture devices, not MORE COAL

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah that scam of carbon offsets. Guys let us pollute a little bit more, we promise we'll pull it out of the air later.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is about carbon capture and storage (which takes energy and concrete and by this report doubles the carbon impact of just burning the coal).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah its largely a thing for carbon offset regulations. Like if you emit too much you owe fees but if you "offset" your emissions in some way you can deduct that from your emissions. Stuff like paying tree planting organizations, and imvesting carbon capture technology. The carbon offset scheme dont work, we have to emit less

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You are right, but this isn't about offsets.

[–] KapiteinPoffertje 7 points 1 year ago

The main opportunity of carbon capture technology is to power it with excess clean energy during periods of high renewable availability. If you power it with coal, that would be a bad idea in all cases.

[–] neanderthal 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about ramping up bamboo production? It grows super fast and is relatively useful.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It likely has the same limits as tree planting: you can do it, just not anywhere near enough to make up for the amount of CO2 people dump into the atmosphere after burning fossil fuels.