Climate

9,076 readers

1,951 active

0 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 3 years ago

moderation log

moderators

silence7@slrpnk.net

Solar geoengineering could halve the economic cost of climate change, but stopping it would cause temperatures to rebound sharply, leading to greater damage than unabated global warming (www.newscientist.com)

submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is kind of a big deal — the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2 means that once started, people need to maintain the technical infrastructure for geoengineering for longer than civilizations last.

Archived copies of the article:

The paper is here

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gbzm@piefed.social 1 point 9 months ago* (1 child)

I don't understand how solar geoengineering is even on the table. Wouldn'it fuck up agriculture – and plant life in general – even more than it already is? Isn't it a choice between a famine because of the climate or a famine because the sun is blocked off?

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net [S] 3 points 9 months ago

There is a fair bit of risk. Its on the table because we need to be finishing the fossil fuels phase out around now, not starting it

permalink

fedilink

source

parent