this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
24 points (87.5% liked)

Climate

8737 readers
47 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
24
Hacking the atmosphere: Geoengineering gets a reality check | Researchers are starting to explore the tools and systems we need to develop to cool down the planet. (www.technologyreview.com)
submitted 4 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

archived copy of the article

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

It looks like the article you linked discussing the potential effect aerosols have on storms and the heat gradients don't really change in the northern hemisphere with or without the aerosols. The southern there is a slight change but I'm not sure what conclusions can be made from that. They also are assuming either quadrupling or doubling of current CO2 levels which doesn't sound realistic considering renewables and batteries are either cheaper or at price parity in many situations and only getting cheaper by comparison. With most of transportation, energy generation, industrial heat, and space heating greatly reducing their carbon footprint in the next 5-10 years I don't see us doubling our CO2 concentration. Does SO2 cause problems yeah, but in the low concentrations that it would be at and in the upper atmosphere where it would spend less time raining down to earth it's better than the alternative. Are there possible strategies of releasing aerosols in certain locations to minimize the negative externalities idk but that's why the research needs to be done.