this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
97 points (92.9% liked)

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

5237 readers
454 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
 

In addition to actual reporting, the NYT creates newslike ads for the fossil fuels industry. This results in disproportionate attention on high-risk approaches that involve anything other than phasing out fossil fuel use.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 3 months ago

It is easier to think about blocking the sun than to overcome capitalism that is destroying the planet

Capitalist Realism in its essence

We're doomed

[–] Geek_King@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This type of geoengineering feels real ripe for the law of unintended consequences.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

I don't doubt that. However, mobilizing a truly sufficient "mundane" response may fail. If it does, the end result may indtead be a global response in the form of drastic geoengineering when the consequences of climate change are truly starting to have an effect.

The fact that these sorts of solutions exist is also why I really don't vibe with doomers. Climate change is not going to be the "end of the world", or even the end of civilization. Humanity will prevail, the real question is how. Climate change is a (relatively) slow catastrophy, and the worst case isn't everybody dead, but rather a miserable existence where where global standard of living is thrown back maybe a hundred years with the added bonus of our enviroment being generally miserable to live in.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Wouldn't cutting down emissions be less precarious, easier to implement gradually, less unpredictable, more economically feasible in the long run, and less risky to fall on our heads?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 12 points 3 months ago

All of those except that it means less profits for the people who own big oil.

[–] sudo42@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If we eliminated all CO~2~ emissions tomorrow, we would still be stuck with all the CO~2~ we've already released. A lot of the CO~2~ we've released has been taken up by the oceans. We have to find a way to sequester that C0~2~ "back in the ground" in order to back to levels we had years ago in order to head off/reverse global climate change.

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Global warming is not something that would have been prevented by not industrializing. It would have instead been slower and more gradual, but inevitable all the same. What is fucking the planet is not the fact it's happening, it's the rate at which it's happening. If all human-created global emissions were to cease immediately today, disasters would still happen regardless. This is why some scientists are proposing geoengineering solutions: to prevent the inevitability regardless of CO2 release.

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This petro puppet proposes perverse pseudoscientific prattle

[–] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

That's a really neat alliteration! And also very true!

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)
[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Tell me, does it fail catastrophically?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There are a bunch of issues:

  • It requires maintaining technical infrastructure for longer than civilizations last
  • It changes the pole-to-equator temperature gradient, altering weather patterns worldwide
  • It changes rainfall distribution in ways that we're not clear on yet, potentially risking agriculture
  • If we keep on burning fossil fuels but limiting temperature increase with a scheme like this, we still end up with ocean acidification, killing off pretty much everything with hard body parts in the oceans
[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

If you let a sabretooth tiger loose into a playground full of unsuspecting children in order to catch the rats that are eating all the shrubs, does it fail catastrophically? Or was it just catastrophic to begin with?

In the struggle against human-caused climate change, this is a completely new avenue for humans to change the climate.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago

Say the line Bart!

Sigh Simpsons did it

YAAAAAAAAY!

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 months ago
[–] ShaunaTheDead@fedia.io 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Blocking the sun is not a practical solution. Putting something up in the atmosphere is untested and super dangerous. It could cause all life on Earth to die out like the Matrix.

Physically blocking the sun is also practically impossible. It requires that we put an object in space in a Lagrange point (gravitationally stable points around Earth) which is very far away and the sun shield would have to be approximately the size of Brazil. Launching that much material into space and getting it into position, and then unfurling it would be a HUUUUUUGE undertaking the likes of which we have never seen. Plus, launching all those rockets, mining the materials, etc, would emit so many tonnes of green house gasses that by the time we actually did it we might be in an even worse position.

[–] datelmd5sum@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

couldn't we like nuke the Moon or something?

[–] ShaunaTheDead@fedia.io 2 points 3 months ago

If we were speed running the extinction of humanity, then yes!

[–] aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago

Far safer to bump earth's orbit a notch or two further out.

And while we're at it, adjust the axis tilt a bit.

Let Musk handle it.

[–] karpintero@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is the plot for Snowpiercer. So we should also start building a train that will circle the frozen planet

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

And Matrix, and Simpsons episode

[–] MrPlow@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

The Simpsons did it already.

[–] vegafjord@discuss.online 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Delusional, just insane.

Technology will not save us, but guillotines will.

[–] Nasan@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 months ago

Guillotines are technology, laser guillotines are what we should be developing.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

?

Global warming is nothing but a math equation at the end of the day. Change the input value, change the result.

The real problem is what you do with all the snakes after they eat the mice.

[–] vegafjord@discuss.online 3 points 3 months ago

Earth isnt a machine, we cant just fix it like a broken machine. Earth is a body with a fever due to CO2 intoxication. We need to let Earth lash itself back into wellbeing, without our invasive engripments.

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

It's a bit more than a math equation; things like how much ice there is are meaningfully path dependent. Just dropping CO2 concentrations won't get us back the world we had.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago

That's just another part of the equation.

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have a great idea on how to block the sun!

They're called trees.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We should focus on planting trees in downtown areas with sprawling pavement acting as giant radiators.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago

That's a completely reasonable adaptation measure.

[–] zqwzzle@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

Blocking the sun and letting the AI overthrow us? Sounds like a plan.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

This is MUCH EASIER then just not giving CEOS Taxpayer Dollars to Continue Polluting and Killing Us!

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago

Someone check if the scientist is a vampire or part of the thrall.

[–] celeste@kbin.earth 2 points 3 months ago

Picture looks like he came up with the idea in time-out corner.

[–] schizoidman@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Isn't that what an umbrella is for?

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

At an individual level, yes.

[–] schizoidman@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Then we need umbrellas for all to solve climate change /s