this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
55 points (98.2% liked)

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

5281 readers
594 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
55
The Big Riddle of the U.N. Climate Conference | If rich nations set up a “fund” to help poorer nations and don’t fund it … is it a fund? (newrepublic.com)
submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article archive.today ghostarchive.org web.archive.org

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] benjhm@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

Yes. Its mere existence is progress, albeit painfully slow (recall the 100bn promised at COP15 was only reached last year). USA and some others were fundamentally opposed to the principle of any kind of reparation for loss and damage. Now the fund exists, it’s easier to negotiate higher contributions in return for some other action, step by step, without re-opening the big legal consensus process. Also, the higher the relative contributions to emissions, and the further we pass 1.5ºC, the more pressure to pay for the damage - this is a useful feedback.