this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
56 points (93.8% liked)

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

5246 readers
635 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
56
Could spraying sea salt into the clouds cool the planet? An experiment in Alameda, Calif. highlights the controversy surrounding research on altering the environment to cool the planet. (wapo.st)
submitted 5 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 58 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Why is there no "controversy" about destroying the planet, ongoingly with petroleum products?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago

It’s the WaPo. They report to you the republiQan talking points in their best liberal-npr-radio voice.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Because we're being wise enough to question if this might have unintended consequences. For example, it might just shift the problem elsewhere and cause more severe draughts for someone else. Just a hypothetical to point out why people might not be immediately onboard with this.

Tho, fun fact, California has been doing this kind of stuff since at least the 60's. It's called cloud seeding and we've had numerous programs running. They just never got much attention. But technically, the chem trails conspiracy is based in a bit of truth. It's just not every airplane, but it's happening. A quick Google search will give you tons of government pages about it. It's not a secret.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Genuine answer: This is controversial because it is to intentionally alter the climate. We use fossil fuels for energy, not to alter the climate. The climate stuff is a negative side effect of fossil fuels.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Once you know the side effects of something, if you continue doing it, that's intentional. So I don't think that distinction makes much of a difference.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago

It makes a massive difference. It's the reason why one of them is considered a controversial new technology.