this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
103 points (99.0% liked)

Climate

8636 readers
234 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Not really a fair comparison.

Fossil fuels have been sequestered for tens to hundreds of millions of years and represent additionally hundreds of millions of years of carbon accretion.

And we burn enough fossil fuels that it's like burning down the entire Amazon rain forest every couple months.

So over a year or so. That's kind of like burning down every piece of vegetation, and every building, and pretty much anything that's flammable on the surface of the Earth ... burnt to ashes and dust.

How that's as bad as burning some wood pellets I'm really not sure how you conflate such things....

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 4 points 4 weeks ago

Another important thing is that the vast majority of petroleum (crude oil) came from sea life, algae and plankton, which still act as "carbon sinks" but are dying off in the oceans thanks to pollution, acidification and warmer waters.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's more that converting a power plant from burning fossil fuels isn't going to improve things, as the change in forest cover associated with that conversion results in similar emissions. We need to stop burning stuff at scale.

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

as the change in forest cover associated with that conversion results in similar emissions

It doesn't. The Amazon is still massive. Land use change had turned the Amazon into a source and not a sink of carbon.

You can burn all the trees you want... Again. This is conserved. The carbon released will grow exactly that amount of new trees.

Unless you also stop the cycle. Then we're really fucked.

Like 116F... Plants die. If the equatorial or other regions hit that consistently, desertification is guaranteed.