this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2025
100 points (97.2% liked)

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

7578 readers
236 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
100
Removing CO2 from atmosphere vital to avoid catastrophic tipping points, leading scientist says (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

10bn tonnes must be captured from the air every year to limit global heating to 1.7C, says Johan Rockström

Problem is this part:

To achieve this through technological means, such as direct air capture, would require the construction of the world’s second biggest industry, after oil and gas, and require expenditures of about a trillion dollars a year, scientists said. It would need to be done alongside much more drastic emissions cuts and could also have unintended consequences.

That makes it incredibly unlikely that this kind of removal will be done.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

why not stop emitting the co2 we are now pushing out and let the global co2 cycle do the job?

some people are arguing about CCS being inefficient and praise DAC.

1.7 °C arent achievable. why they always build dream castles?

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Even if we set our global net emissions to 0 right now it's not gonna get colder again in our lives or the lives of the next 100 generations. The carbon was in the ground, we burnt it, now it's in the atmosphere as co2. To get it back down, we need negative net emissions aka co2 recapture.

And needless to say, getting our global net emissions anywhere close to 0 isn't even really in reach for the next 50 years, so if we can do recapture alongside reducing emissions that would probably be great. Particularly in the wealthy western nations that might reach at least nominal net 0 at some point in this century.

[–] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

yes indeed. but its about the wall of temperature increase we will soon hit.

everyone will deal with elevated temps if the change is slow.

Im not arguing against recapture. but IMO arguing about technologies wont help us if the system isnt in place.

co2 tax and environment sensitive calculation (lookimg at you capitalism) is not at a place where we can even think of selecting technologies.