this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
25 points (100.0% liked)

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

5240 readers
378 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
[email protected]
25
California's Carbon Deadline Is Approaching. Meeting It Will Take Hundreds of Miles of Pipelines. Plans call for millions of tons of CO₂ to be piped to the Central Valley & Sacramento delta for burial (capitalandmain.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks but I’m not going to take a company trying to get rich off of this technology at their word. The claim that it will stay down there when there’s no solid barrier seems dubious, unless there’s some unique chemical process at play here.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

unless there’s some unique chemical process at play here.

CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ⇌ H+(aq) + HCO3–(aq)

That reaction is taught to High Schoolers and is hardly unique. It's also quite literally the #2 thing explained in the link that @[email protected] gave you.

Are you a science denier?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I’m familiar with this chemistry, but I wonder if you are? Carbon dioxide’s various reactions with water are normally in equilibrium with the atmosphere, meaning if you increase the carbon in the water, it will off-gas any extra carbon until it returns to equilibrium. Hence the need for some unique chemistry (or other process) to keep the carbon in place for an extended period.

Am I a science denier? Would I be a science denier if I questioned Exxon’s public statements about climate change in the 90s? What a silly question.

PS: there’s no chemistry in this link that I can find so I have no idea where you are getting that idea.