this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)

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

5243 readers
186 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 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

Dr. Doherty and her colleagues stressed that research into cloud brightening must not be seen as an alternative to cutting emissions, but rather a strategy that might one day become necessary to buy the world some time until those emissions are reduced.

I’m not delighted that this needs to be experimented with (and I don’t think anyone is), but as long as it’s used as intended, it could turn out to be a net positive.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

“The City is evaluating the chemical compounds in the spray to determine if they are a hazard either inhaled in aerosol form by humans and animals, or landing on the ground or in the bay.”

If it comes from the bay, I think it's safe to assume it can go into the bay. :)

As for the rest, I think it's OK for them to evaluate - and they are likely to reach the concusion that spraying seawater into the air is what the sea does on its own, and humans are pretty well adapted to reasonable amounts, so the instruction will be:

  • "spray it from the leeward side, it's polite that way"
  • "don't put your face in front of the working sprayer"
  • "don't use the sprayer during algal blooms"
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

I really hope we don't get brain injuries from this

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

“Fucking with the environment is killing the planet.”

“Hey, I bet we can fix it by fucking some more with it!”

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s a lot of effort to solve a problem that could be severely dented by pursuing policies that take cars off the road and hold corporations responsible for the environment.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Yeah I think that’s pretty obvious. The problem is that we as citizens can’t really seem to make that happen. A lot are trying and making a lot of noise and yet the politicians and corporations are barreling on down the road. All I’m saying is that if I’m a scientist who has an idea that might help buy time for our species, it might be worth pursuing because I can’t just go snap my fingers and make every city build usable public transportation.