
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise Like a ‘Speeding Freight Train’ in 2018 - gigama
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-2018.html
======
hn_throwaway_99
It seems to me we are truly and globally fucked:

1\. There were just _massive_ protests and riots in France (a relatively
ecologically-aware country) due to an increase in the diesel tax of about 8
cents a liter meant to help wean the country off carbon. As a result of the
riots, the tax was cancelled.

2\. Current US administration is going 180 degrees in the other direction,
i.e. doing everything it can to support coal.

3\. Even if places like China and India go all out to try to reduce their
reliance on carbon, their huge populations and still relatively low level of
development mean that there is a tidal wave of new "carbon users" coming.

It's pretty clear to me that the short/medium term incentives to cheap energy
are just much too great to counter the long(er) term impact of climate change.
Major change (i.e. in the 3-4 degree range or more) appears completely
inevitable to me, and we should at least start recognizing and dealing with
that fact. The only thing that can possibly counter this is if the economics
change drastically in favor of non-polluting sources, but given the timescale
in which that would be necessary and the natural equilibrium economic forces
fighting against this (e.g. if wind and solar get much cheaper, could lower
demand for oil, but that would also lower price for oil - some alternative oil
sources might become uneconomic but I'm certainly betting that all the carbon
under Saudi Arabia is eventually going to be in the air), at best we're just
extending the inevitable a little bit.

Drastic climate change is coming, and it is unavoidable. The planet (and I
believe humanity) will most definitely survive, but sunken cities, mass
starvation, climate-change induced wars, stronger and more powerful storms and
fires are coming, and at this point there isn't much we can do to stop it.

~~~
rdm_blackhole
Protesters are not protesting just the taxes on fuel.

They protest the fact that taxing fuel is not the solution if you don't
provide an alternative mode of transport.

Some people live far from the cities, Should they be the ones paying for
everybody else and let the people living in the cities without a car not pay
their fair share of the burden?

The problem with taxing the diesel is that you are telling people that they
are criminals and should stop polluting, but at the same time, airline
companies, and freight transporters don't pay the same taxes.

Rich/urban people don't care, they just rent an Uber or get a Lime and I guess
that's ok, but lately, it seems that the only ones paying the price of carbon
are the lower and middle classes.

Surely, you can understand that people are tired of paying when they can't
even feed their families properly?

Should I remind you that there are 9 million people living close or below the
poverty line in France? And half of those people are actually working or
looking for work but can't find any, yet the government is asking those people
with the least amount of disposable income to foot the bill for the entire
country.

Sounds like a shitty deal to me.

~~~
alphabettsy
I understand your argument, but the people living in rural areas are bigger
contributors to pollution since they tend to drive more and live in single
family dwellings. Why shouldn’t the actual road users pay the cost of using
the road? I agree any industry using fuel should pay an equal tax though.

~~~
ams6110
The people in the cities benefit from the things the rural people produce
(i.e.food). Why shouldn't they shoulder the cost of at least some of the the
externalities also?

~~~
freeone3000
Usually this would be accomplished by farmers passing on higher food prices on
to the supermarkets and the consumer.

~~~
flukus
Unfortunately this doesn't work in a globalized race to the bottom. People can
go buy a cheaper item that was shipped around the world 3 times before landing
on supermarket shelves.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
That is a completely separate problem. If country X can produce food cheaper
than yours, your farmers will be unprofitable and you'll end up importing food
(or subsidizing local food somehow). If both countries impose a carbon tax in
the same amount, nothing about that has changed.

Moreover, the best way to do a carbon tax is to just give the money back to
people -- use it to fund a UBI. Then the amount can be as high as you want
because the higher you make the tax, the _more_ progressive it is, because it
increases the amount of the UBI. Let corporations pay more for diesel with the
money going to individuals. Paying $900/month in additional fuel tax to get
$1000/month in UBI would be great for the poor. Not so much for the oil
companies.

~~~
rlucas
No, you've got comparative advantage crucially wrong. If country X can produce
food a bit cheaper/better than you, but produces shoes much cheaper/better,
then you end up growing at least some of your own food and importing shoes
from X.
[https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativead...](https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Comparative advantage has nothing to do with it. The market price of a global
commodity has the opportunity costs already priced in. It's the reason more
prosperous countries have higher labor costs.

If you and some other country are producing food for the same cost (e.g.
because you pay more for an hour of labor but have better automation), adding
the same cost to each doesn't affect your competitiveness. You both still have
the same costs as each other.

The same amount of fuel tax only affects you differently if you require a
different amount of fuel to produce the same amount of food. Then the party
using less fuel has the advantage and may end up producing more food while the
party using more fuel produces less. But _that 's what we want to happen_ \--
having the other country produce food in that case is the desired outcome,
because it can do it for lower cost once the externalities of burning carbon
are priced in.

~~~
AstralStorm
That does not work because most of the food transportation is by ship freight
and truck, which have enough range to evade your tax.

And the local transport costs are identical between local and export farmer,
while local production is more expensive on labor and fuel.

The only thing to do is to raise duties on food and... it is risky
politically. Alternatively, subsidize much more. Good luck!

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> That does not work because most of the food transportation is by ship
> freight and truck, which have enough range to evade your tax.

Solution: If the carbon tax for the product's production and transportation is
not collected by the country of origin, it is collected by customs on import.

> And the local transport costs are identical between local and export farmer,
> while local production is more expensive on labor and fuel.

If it's more expensive on labor, it was the whole time. If it uses more fuel,
discouraging it is the intended outcome.

------
zackmorris
What does everyone think about an open source project to find and eliminate
all personal nonrenewable carbon emissions? Something like a spreadsheet
across all features that can be optimized, possibly with machine learning. For
example:

* Best/cheapest/easiest rooftop solar parts and suppliers

* Best/cheapest/easiest electric/hybrid cars

* Most practical home greenhouse and hydroponic kits (for growing all non-grain fruits and vegetables at home)

* Most sustainable and local sources of free-range and grass-fed meat and dairy products

* Most feasible carpool/ride sharing services

* Most feasible group living arrangements

Etc etc etc (I'm sure I'm forgetting a few). I know that all of these services
exist in various forms, but we need a plan yesterday that people can just jump
onboard with. I have friends installing amortized solar panels paid for by the
installer, others with backyard chicken coops, some with hybrid and electric
vehicles, and so on.

Things are changing but not nearly at the speed they could be if we made this
all more accessible. I used to be blocked by lack of income, now it's lack of
time. For most people it's probably lack of information and willpower. None of
these are technology reasons. Which suggests to me that these are logistical
problems that we could finally solve relatively quickly.

~~~
ip26
These things are a lot more complicated than that, with a million permutations
across all the zip codes of the world. You're better off focusing on tools to
help people find what suits them, rather than a ten line list "best solar
panel, best car, best rideshare..."

For solar, try: [https://www.energysage.com/](https://www.energysage.com/)

------
calvinbhai
I cannot take any of these reports seriously unless they are comparing
emissions from each country on a per capita basis.

This is an easy way to make US look like a responsible polluter compared to
India and China.

Its a different ball game, if you factor in the total emissions per capita
over last 100 years, in which case, US emissions are probably a few multiples
over China and India combined (that's my guess. I'm too lazy to calculate
these numbers).

~~~
rwcarlsen
Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about per-capita emissions - it just cares
about absolute concentrations of greenhouse gases. If you want to solve the
problem, largest (in absolute terms - not per capita) emitters need to cut
back. Somewhere in the world one human emits more CO2 per capita than everyone
else in the world. If they stop emitting, we haven't solved anything.

~~~
calvinbhai
Earth's atmosphere doesn't care about geo-political boundaries either

Countries won't solve it. If Americans can own up to the fact that per capita
reduction in co2 emissions by them, will have a huge effect on co2 emissions
in the world (because that means practices/regulations/technology that'll
trickle down to largest polluting countries.), then it'll mean genuine
difference.

American media has no right to point fingers at countries that has never been
among the highest per capita polluters in the world, and has been so
historically. Sadly, Americans (those who are into virtue signaling) are too
hung up on stuff fed by NYT to realize that they have been polluting the most,
and them pontificating to others will help no one.

~~~
rwcarlsen
You have some good points. I personally think we still would have an
unacceptably large problem w.r.t. climate change regardless of what happens in
the USA. And the U.S.'s potential for emissions growth is just so much smaller
than other large countries - and ones that have strong, independent
governments to boot. The US is definitely a big player. I think it is still
most useful to look at this in terms of emissions per geo-political entity
rather than per capita since that will be the mechanism by which the problem
is addressed (or not).

~~~
calvinbhai
I agree with you on the "U.S.'s potential for emissions growth is just so much
smaller".

But my POV (as someone who spend 1/3 of my life in US and rest in India) is
that US has huge potential to cut down on unnecessary emissions in terms of
HVAC, lighting, using efficient cars, subsidizing public transport systems.
Hence I have this huge bias against the energy consumption habits of Americans
in the US.

Main problem is that the economy of US and many developed nations run on fuel
burning carbon emitting industries (crude oil, car manufacturing, gas/electric
utilities, car dealerships selling IC engine cars, HVAC equipment). That is
why lobbies in US scuttle any govt moves toward encouraging solar/wind power,
electric cars (It's a surprise for me that Tesla has survived this far),
public transport systems.

I also agree that emissions as a geo-political entity helps in driving global
policies to reduce emissions. But beyond that, if US is not setting an example
like recently GM shut down many sedan making plants in US and Canada (and
POTUS gives an excuse that he'll get rid of subsidies for GM's electric cars
while Americans are moving back to their SUV craze), it's only going to mean
tougher choices for India and China to make, with costs born by those
citizens, and a price will be paid by the current heads of state in the
respective countries because they capitulated to US's pontificating (Eg:
Canada PM has a growing anti incumbency for the next round of elections).

India is making the right moves as of now (crazy huge solar fields and
alliances, massive investments in public transport infra, LPG and electricity
connections / supply to more households etc), but it'll take a decade at least
for any of this to materialize into reduced emissions.

(None of this is even factoring the pollution in China because of US's
consumption of goods manufactured in China and transported to the US, which
gives US kind of a free ticket to pontificate saying they are not the most
most polluting country.)

------
paulddraper
Relatively ignorant observer here. I thought things were looking pretty good
on this front.

How does this headline square with "The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing
Carbon Emissions" (Oct 2017)? [1]

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-
u-s-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-
all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#1b29459f3535)

~~~
merlincorey
The article states that China accounts for twice as much emissions as the
United States:

> The world’s largest emitter is still China, which produces 27 percent of
> global carbon emissions, according to the report. The United States accounts
> for 15 percent of emissions, the European Union 10 percent and India 7
> percent.

> China’s emissions are projected to rise 4.7 percent in 2018, the report
> said. The country is stimulating manufacturing to counterbalance its slowing
> economy, allowing more coal-based manufacturing that it had avoided in the
> past, Dr. Jackson said.

> United States emissions are expected to rise 2.5 percent this year after
> several years of declines, and despite a shift away from coal toward cleaner
> sources of energy. Dr. Jackson attributed part of the increase to a colder-
> than-normal winter in some parts of the country and a hotter summer in other
> parts, which inflated demand for heating and cooling.

~~~
sologoub
EU seems to be doing way better than the US on a per capita basis - 10% for
512 million people versus 15% for 325 million in US.

~~~
rcMgD2BwE72F
Population density (people/km2)

\- EU: 116

\- US: 33

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density#Main_table)

~~~
usaar333
And Sweden has a density of 23 while having lower carbon emissions than the EU
average.

The US's problems include relatively heavy coal (30% still) and a heavy
automobile culture (due to low density of cities, not the country)

~~~
WhompingWindows
We can't conclude the US's low density cities are entirely to blame for a
heavy automobile culture. The auto companies are pumping out gas guzzlers by
the millions, people are buying souped-up F-150's to drive solo to their
office job, they're buying shiny Escalades to take their chihuhua to the
groomer, it's not just about density. There's a real problem with the
consumers themselves demanding these polluting products, with around 40% of
the country thinking climate change is no big deal, and with the corporations
all bowing down to this carbon culture.

------
jhcl
US comments are pretty staggering: "We're probably not the biggest problem so
we won't do anything."

Let's see how many decades it will take before we all find out that this isn't
a country but a world problem.

~~~
village-idiot
“Fuck you, got mine”

------
hwillis
The article offhand mentions that we're on track for RCP 8.5, or 8.5 W/m^2
additional heat in 2100. That should _fucking terrify_ you. That's 4 C global
temperature rise, a .75 meter sea level rise, and a doubling of ocean acidity.
Page 82 of the IPCC report[1] has some fast facts- at RCP 8.5 most of the wild
animals on earth will start dying out from lack of freshwater. Corals and
molluscs will die out, and all ocean species will be affected. All coastal
settlements will need extensive protection from higher sea level, and some
will just be overwhelmed by the ocean. By 2300 they will all be overwhelmed by
rising sea levels. Human food supply is greatly affected in the next 20+ years
under RCP 8.5:

> All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change,
> including food production, access, use and price stability (high
> confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions,
> climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact
> production at local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late 20th
> century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium
> confidence). Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation
> scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the 2030–2049 period showing
> yield gains of more than 10%, and about 10% of projections showing yield
> losses of more than 25%, compared with the late 20th century. Global
> temperature increases of ~4°C or more above late 20th century levels,
> combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food
> security, both globally and regionally (high confidence)

The accompanying chart shows that human food yield is expected to decrease by
~25%.

> By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some
> areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human
> activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence).

What the report doesn't talk about is that by 2200, global temperature rise
would be 6 C. 8 C by 2300. Those are both apocalyptic. The earth has only been
that hot once before[2], and the warming period occurred over 20,000 years,
caused by CO2 being released 20 times more slowly than we add it. Unlike the
Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, species would not be able to adapt to this
change. The mass die-offs would wipe out everything but the most resilient and
isolated disaster species, and the Earth would enter an anoxic event. Methane
and levels of other toxic gases would skyrocket and oxygen levels would
suddenly plummet. Humans would need sealed shelters to survive. There would be
no natural ice anywhere on earth.

Any worse than RCP 8.5 and the earth enters a runaway greenhouse. At that
point the atmosphere turns into Venus, and life on Earth really would be over.

[1]:
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINA...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum)

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> Any worse than RCP 8.5 and the earth enters a runaway greenhouse. At that
> point the atmosphere turns into Venus, and life on Earth really would be
> over.

I don't see how that would be possible (and at least the scientists at the
ICPP don't believe it would be possible either,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect)).

At the end of the day, it is believed that all or almost all of the oil, coal
and natural gas we use comes from biogenic sources, meaning _it used to be in
the atmosphere at some point in the past_. We're basically taking what was
once in the air, then stored underground, and putting it back out in the air
again. Much (if not most?) of Earth's history has been without any ice caps,
so it's not like this state will lead to a Venus-like Earth.

Of course, a 4-8 degree hotter Earth without ice caps still means the deaths
of billions of people, so I'm not saying it's not a total disaster, but I just
don't see how a runaway greenhouse effect is possible just from burning fossil
fuels.

~~~
hwillis
> I don't see how that would be possible (and at least the scientists at the
> ICPP don't believe it would be possible either

That's down to the fact that emitting more than 8.5 RCP requires some insane
choices. Like, as you say, burning pretty much everything. A low-end runaway
greenhouse can happen with 12 W/m^2 forcing[1], which would mean temperature
changes ~20 C compared to 4-8, and multiple times more CO2.

> At the end of the day, it is believed that all or almost all of the oil,
> coal and natural gas we use comes from biogenic sources, meaning it used to
> be in the atmosphere at some point in the past.

That is a very, very silly way to look at it. The total weight of carbon in
the air is 870 gigatons. There are 1000 gigatons in ocean life, 2000 gigatons
in the terrestrial biosphere, and 4000 gigatons in fossil fuel reserves. The
fact that it was in the atmosphere at one point is irrelevant; I've drunk
thousands of gallons of water in my lifetime. If you were to return those to
my body all at once, I would explode.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change)

------
systematical
The solution is to dump money into R&D and figure out how to "scoop" the C02
out of the air and then break it apart into carbon and oxygen. A series of
solar powered drones could hopefully do this. This may sound far fetched, but
I think global political action before its too late is even more far fetched.

Send the money into DARPA and call it increased defense spending to appease
the elephants.

~~~
dredmorbius
We know these methods. They're not high-tech. Swamps, wetlands, tropical
rainforests.

The same landforms which are most under assault by human activity.

[http://www.esassoc.com/projects/wetlands-carbon-
sequestratio...](http://www.esassoc.com/projects/wetlands-carbon-
sequestration)

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=carbon%20sequestration%...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=carbon%20sequestration%20wetlands&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800000000001&as_sdtp=on)

[https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2002...](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2002GB001917)

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=car...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=carbon+sequestration+swamps&btnG=)

[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environment-and-
deve...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environment-and-development-
economics/article/simulating-options-for-carbon-sequestration-through-
improved-management-of-a-lowland-tropical-
rainforest/E6F2DA439C2E0CAC5C5863E1B1FB3E7A)

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=car...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=carbon+sequestration+rainforest&btnG=)

~~~
systematical
The hurdle isn't clean renewable or CO2 sinks, its Republicans. They don't
want to vote on latte lefty soy-boy stuff like this. Which leads me back to my
previous comment. Call it defense spending and scoop it out of the air.

------
libraryatnight
Things are just fucked. It's already too late, the drastic changes are needed
for mitigation at this point - not prevention - and we as a species can't even
accomplish that. Things are going to get much, much worse.

It kills me how many people think the debates that are going now are to
"prevent" climate issues. The time to prevent passed, and now the time to
dampen the blow is passing.

I feel terrible for kids being born right now. They're inheriting an absolute
disaster of a planet.

------
mberning
That is a pretty staggering amount of uncertainty. The US for example looks
like it could be anywhere from 0.5% to 4.5%. That is something I would like to
know with more certainty before undertaking any major public policies.

From a simple triage standpoint it would seem that focusing on developing
economies would hold the most promise. China and India are the likely leaders
and given the population and current state of development could get much
worse.

~~~
iso1337
Per-capita emissions are the highest in the US, Canada, and Australia [1]. The
US is also the second-largest emitter of CO2. There is much to be gained by
focusing on emissions in the US. Unfortunately, most USians would like a large
house with yard, 2+ large cars, etc.

Also think about cultural projections -- Hollywood often depicts wealthy
people shuttling around in large, inefficient SUVs. These images and
aspirations are then transmitted to the rest of the world.

[https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/sc...](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-
impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html)

~~~
mberning
Per capita is a BS way to look at it. If US emissions are growing at 0.5% per
year then there is nothing to do. It will take 140 years to double and the
natural progression of technology will easily solve the problem. Solar and
other renewable technologies are advancing so fast that economic factors will
take over and there will be much less need for fossil fuels very shortly. On
the other hand if a country with a large population is growing emissions at 8%
then that is less than a decade to double which is a huge problem.

On another note, why do resent the lifestyle of average people? Not everybody
wants to live in an urban hellscape with millions of other people. You speak
about it with such contempt.

~~~
iso1337
What is the lifestyle of the average person? It’s certainly not that of a
USian

The average salary worldwide is 10k USD.

I agree that many people would like to live in some sort of idyllic rural or
suburban setting. Indeed, that is what I prefer myself.

However, with 7 billion of us in this planet, we may have to rethink what is
feasible.

------
nategri
How is it the string "corporat*" only shows up twice (in the same comment) in
all these (as of writing) 103 comments.

~~~
WhompingWindows
I checked it out 17 hours later, yours is the third mention. Compa* is not
much better.

What do we do nategri? Hard not to feel hopeless about it all.

------
jf22
I know cryptocurrencies are popular here but IMHO crypto should be immediately
banned before they start generating more and more emissions.

~~~
usaar333
Does that have to be the case? Crypto mining can be done in areas with surplus
hydroelectric power that can't be efficiently distributed elsewhere.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
But in reality, this by and large isn't what's happening. Some mining is done
with surplus hydroelectric power. A lot isn't.

I don't think crypto should be banned because I don't know how you'd enforce
that effectively, but it's a real issue.

~~~
shard972
> I don't think crypto should be banned because I don't know how you'd enforce
> that effectively, but it's a real issue.

You can't think of how cyrpto could be clamped down on but i assume your
onboard with taxing carbon?

Because i can't think how you would enforce that effectively.

------
cwperkins
Part of me hopes there's some strange conspiracy theory like the US is sitting
on some amazing new battery tech, but won't release it until the trade spat
with China is over with. I know I sound like a loon, but a revolutionary new
durable battery will be the holy grail of this century.

------
fromthestart
If you want proof as to how taboo climate science skepticism has become, look
at how quickly (less than ten minutes) my sourced, rational comment in this
thread was down voted and flagged.

Flagged! For skepticism!

~~~
jf22
The evidence is overwhelming.

There is no way to be a "rational" and "sourced" climate skeptic because all
roads lead to the same conclusions.

People like you will cause millions of deaths over the next 100 years.

------
phkahler
>> Even as coal has fallen out of favor in some markets, the rise in emissions
has been driven primarily by stronger demand for natural gas and oil

This is interesting. If you care about CO2 emissions, you don't want to use
coal because it's mostly carbon. But if you care about the greenhouse effect,
you probably want to burn coal rather than gas or oil because those contain a
lot of hydrogen which forms water vapor when burned. And water vapor is a far
stronger greenhouse gas.

Either way I'd prefer if planes burned coal so they wouldn't produce
contrails. Yeah, I know why that's not going to happen.

~~~
upofadown
Water vapour from burning fuel does not contribute to climate change:

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_v...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor)

------
fromthestart
It's hard for me to take climate science seriously when

1\. We know of the state of crisis that all other soft sciences are in
(p-value abuse, publish or perish, institutional bias, replication crisis) [3]

2\. We know that the earth has been substantially warmer in the past (with
accompanyingly higher CO2 levels) and life thrived [2]

3\. We know that we've been coming out of an ice age since long before the
industrial revolution [1]

4\. It is nearly impossible to find studies for possible benefits of a warmer
earth, because the subject is, frankly, taboo. For example, expansion of
arable land from melting permafrost.

5\. We are extrapolating a ~hundred year old trend in a system which normally
evolves on scales of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, and sudden
historic shifts are likely beyond the resolution of geologic records (ice
cores only get you ~<1ma, older records have substantially lower temporal
resolution)

Modern climate science is extremely biased, does not allow for skepticism, and
is therefore bad science.

Of course, none of that precludes erring on the side of caution. But dogma is
bad for everyone.

1.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_glacial_retreat](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_glacial_retreat)

2.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Cha...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png)

3\.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001632871...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717301969)

~~~
rland
I'm just a layman, not a climate scientist, but I don't think the magnitude of
the warming is our big issue. The issue is how quickly it's changing. Previous
warming events happened very slowly; even the quickest ones occurred over
thousands or tens of thousands of years. Ours is happening a couple orders of
magnitude faster.

We can look back, not at the geological record, but at the biological record.
Large, fast shifts like this one cause big extinctions. The biosphere cannot
react quickly without huge, unpredictable changes.

I'm sure there are conceivable benefits to a warmer earth, but we have to get
from here to there without dying and that's what everyone is chiefly concerned
about.

~~~
fromthestart
>Previous warming events happened very slowly; even the quickest ones occurred
over thousands or tens of thousands of years

Here's the problem - we don't actually know how quickly historic shifts have
occurred, because our evidence comes from geologic and fossil records that
simply do not have good resolution past 1Ma or so.

Especially consider all the doomsday runaway scenarios like the clathrate gun
and melting permafrost - did these conditions not exist hundreds of millions
of years ago during other shifts? If these hypotheses are true, then surely
historic warming has occurred with similar rapidity.

~~~
hwillis
> because our evidence comes from geologic and fossil records that simply do
> not have good resolution past 1Ma or so.

That's not true. For any point when oceanic life was common, their sediments
give WAY better resolution than that.

~~~
fromthestart
Not even close.

Fossil dating is based on whether or not certain marker species exist in a
particular rock sample. The very same species that gradually evolve and become
extinct on scales of millions of years. The resolution is piss poor, and so
unreliable that most wells in petroleum forgo biostratigraphic dating
altogether.

~~~
pale-hands
You seem to be conflating the duration of a geologic event (i.e. rate of
change, which is the subject of discussion) with the absolute age.

