this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
64 points (97.1% liked)

Climate

8367 readers
214 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The paper is here

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Ugh. I hate it. But I'm also thankful it might be possible.

It would allow the capitalists to continue ruining the world for their own gain, while the world has to clean up after their asses or die.

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

I know, it never should have gotten this bad but if we can get more time for idiots and those without the resources to adopt renewables it should be worth

[–] jafra@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago

Ah right. You mean this way it might take a little bit more time be4 the fallout or hunger games start.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Anything to avoid riding a bicycle and not flying.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago

This actually only matters if we stop flying. Currently, fossil fuel consumption is doing this thing that reduces global warming in the short term (atmospheric aerosols), so if we stop polluting this thing will stop happening. However, spraying salt into the stratosphere would be a far less polluting way to keep doing the same thing.

We can also not do the thing, which means an extra degree of global warming, or we can keep using fossil fuels, which means an extra degree of global warming every decade or two plus that extra degree when fossil fuels run out.

(I say "global warming" deliberately, because these aerosols do lead to more climate change on a continental scale even if on a global scale those changes average out somewhat. 3 degrees of warming with aerosols is worse than 3 degrees without aerosols, though it's still better than 4 degrees).

[–] jafra@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago
[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 15 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Or we could do something that has better long term effects, get rid of the rich, the owners of oil companies, owners of lumberyards, basically all the companies that destroy and pollute our planet and we'll see improvement within a year instead of whatever this bandaid bullshit they've come up with.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 7 points 3 days ago

Nope, its salty rainwater for you.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

I wouldn't heap lumber in with that list. They can be local, sustainable building materials. Also, trees just aren't a great carbon capture. It's when you pull carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for thousands of years and put it in the air that you create the problem.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Both? Both is good.

Because if you read the article you would know that this only works to suppress another degree of global warming that is looming over our heads, one that will happen if and when we stop polluting the planet.

At worst, we could use this to smear out the effects of climate change to allow ecosystems a little more time to adapt. At best, carbon capture becomes viable at some point in the next thousand years and we can gradually stop spraying sea salt while reducing atmospheric CO2 to prevent most of the damage that extra degree would have caused.

(also, plants are the best construction material we have; lumber yards are cool even if the owners aren't).

[–] jafra@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

Maybe we could try some sequestration, too. But only after we stopped flying and consuming like vultures and took the money from the rich. ++ Its equally important to stop polluting the seas with our garbage, reducing CO2 won't help anything if it's the only thing we do.

[–] foxwolf@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago

I'm sure nothing needs those weather patterns. Let us fuck around!

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Genius. Cause all the cars in the world to rapidly rust out. Then they can't emit CO2

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

That's not how it works...

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 3 points 3 days ago

So .... chemtrails?

/s

[–] Armillarian@pawb.social 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I assume this can be done cheaply. It's relatively worth it if we can buy 5-6 years of time

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Its a billions of dollars per year kind of cost

[–] Armillarian@pawb.social 2 points 3 days ago

It cost ~1/5 of the price of a nuclear power plant and save around the same time to build a nuclear power plant.

Its a perfect strategy to buy time to build a nuclear power plant

[–] tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I too, am anxiously awaiting my next protein bar.