this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
297 points (98.1% liked)

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

5299 readers
771 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
297
Taking CO2 out of the air would be an absurdly expensive way to fight climate change (www.theverge.com)
submitted 7 months ago by testeronious@lemmy.world to c/climate@slrpnk.net
86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Anticorp@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Redwoods live thousands of years. I'm cool with punting this problem 3000 years into the future.

[โ€“] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

While trees are great and you have a point, we can't just put trees everywhere without consideration of native species. Much of the U.S. for example is prairie/grasslands that doesn't have a high tree density and the carbon is cycled much faster. Also of concern (not my concern but somebody's) is the property value of land used for trees instead of profit.

A acre of hemp regrown every year and a biochar retort could sequester far more carbon than an acre of forest over a given period and can be done on "wastelands". Biochar IMHO is the only carbon sequestration method that actually makes sense.