this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
89 points (100.0% liked)

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

5205 readers
710 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
silence7@slrpnk.net
89
Leak at First CO2 Injection Site in US Exposes Dangerous Folly of Carbon Capture (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 1 month ago by RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works to c/climate@slrpnk.net
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] auk@slrpnk.net 33 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It never even occurred to me that carbon capture might be storing a giant tank of gaseous carbon dioxide. I assumed that it meant chemically reacting the carbon into some kind of solid material which was then discarded as waste, because trying to store huge chambers full of gaseous CO2 at a scale that can impact climate change is clinically insane.

[–] Tiptopit@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago

Also if there is a big leak everything around is just dead

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago

There are methods to solid capture, similar to what happens over millennia naturally. It takes a lot of energy and more importantly, water flow, and like everything else can't possibly scale up to get enough of a percentage in the air and oceans to make a difference. It also probably has its own waste, as it's a complex chemical process and not just one simple reaction.

[–] will_a113@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago

The argument was that before we drilled holes into them, those stone formations had held similarly sized pockets of natural gas for eons, so just refilling them with CO2 would be fine. It sounds not completely stupid on first thought.

On second thought it sounds completely stupid tho.

[–] girsaysdoom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Welp, that was bound to happen eventually.

Too bad the solid version of this isn't as easy to implement. Burying algae using open growth pools are probably the best migration method I've heard of so far. Brilliant Planet seems to have an effective process.