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

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

7578 readers
243 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
[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm not a climate scientist, but my understanding is that oil is matter that was previously part of the climate cycle that was buried, and thus removed from the wheel.

Then we dug it up and burned it, reintroducing it to the cycle for the first time in many millions of years.

So if we stop emitting now, that would be better than not emitting. Not making things worse is a great start. But I think to "fix" it, we need to spend a boatload of money taking all that extra carbon we spent the last hundred years releasing, and put it back in the ground where we found it. Or a big box, or space, or whatever. It needs to be removed, or else this level is the new normal.

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yuppers, net zero is a (useful target) boondoggle, back to where we were (sequestration, net negative, reforestation) should be the actual goal...