
No Climate Event in 2,000 Years Compares to What’s Happening Now - smacktoward
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/why-little-ice-age-doesnt-matter/594517/
======
tunesmith
Are these statements accurate?

The increase in the rate of climate change is primarily driven by the
increased emission of greenhouse gasses.

The primary driver of increased greenhouse gasses (GHG) is the burning of
fossil fuels emitting CO2.

In order to stay below 2°C, we need to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2 in
the atmosphere (source: one of the ipcc reports, I forget which).

Our atmosphere currently has somewhere around 1900 gigatons of CO2, as of
2011. (corrected from earlier error.)

We are currently releasing 35-40 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year
(the US releases about 5), and the rate is currently increasing from year to
year.

In order to remain below 2900 gigatons of CO2, we need to reach a GHG emission
rate of 0 (zero) overall within the next 7-12 years, through some combination
of reduction/elimination of burning fossil fuels, and sequestering of current
CO2 from the atmosphere.

Therefore, each person should strive to not only reduce their carbon
footprint, but eliminate it and aim for a negative carbon footprint.

~~~
smnplk
And don't think that driving a Tesla will actually reduce carbon footprint ;)
Also I am not sure if CO2 is really the most problematic greenhouse gas, I
think it's methane. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

~~~
phkahler
I strongly suspect water vapor from con-trails. The tendency to seed cloud
formation is well documented, it's a much stronger GHG than CO2, and
coincidently air travel has grown right along with total fossil fuel usage.
Oh, and the weather forecasters are only recently learning to get it right in
the models.

~~~
aoeusnth1
What would you estimate the ratio of total water vapor from contrails is
compared with the rest of the atmosphere? And if that's small, why would it be
so significant?

~~~
wbrasky
> The tendency to seed cloud formation is well documented

------
Lendal
What if this is as good as it gets? What if everyone who can be convinced, has
been convinced? Will human beings go to their deaths in large numbers
continuing to deny something because they can't handle it? I worry that this
could be the peak level of responsibility that we as a species can manage.

~~~
derg
This is what I worry about.

At this point, it's not a matter of if people will die, but how many people
will die. And if millions of people dying is enough to motivate enough people
to do something.

We're about to find out if the idea of the 'Great Filter'[0] is true or not.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter)

------
xenocyon
This xkcd graphic really shows how massive this effect is:
[https://xkcd.com/1732/](https://xkcd.com/1732/)

A lot of people just don't understand why a couple of degrees is a big deal,
not understanding that the _rate_ of change we are talking about is vastly
different from what our biosphere has experienced in the past.

~~~
merpnderp
Add in the confidence intervals and that graph tells a completely different
story.

------
esarbe
Yep. We're pretty much done for.

To think that just a few years ago we were hoping to keep the rise in
temperature below 2°C. Now it looks like we'll have to deal with temperature
increases of up to 5°C.

I seriously doubt that our global civilsation will survive this.

Edit: Hehe, I seem to have hit a nerve here. Or why else the downvotes?

~~~
axaxs
I don't really understand the defeatist attitude here. By here I don't mean
you, but HN in general this crops up a lot.

Humans as a species have done some pretty impressive things once they put
their mind to it. It seems now, not many people care. But once the issue is
shoved in everyone's face, and big money cities start sinking, I fully expect
a global effort. I can't say with 100% certainty we'll be able to fix it, but
I won't say we're done for, either.

~~~
CalRobert
"', I fully expect a global effort. I can't say with 100% certainty we'll be
able to fix it, but I won't say we're done for, either. "

But by then it's too late. The feedback cycle is measured in decades. It'll
keep getting hotter.

of course, it depends what we mean by "too late" Do I really think climate
breakdown will cause the extinction of the human race? No, I think some
pockets could live on.

I do suspect it could result in a cataclysm greater than any in recorded
history, the collapse of civilization, and billions of deaths though.

It's not crazy to think we'll see nukes fly over this. A number of nuclear
powers stand to see their countries desertified, and billions of desperate
starving people next to now-reasonably-useful land is not a recipe for peace.
You think China's just gonna starve and watch Russia in envy?

Or maybe antibiotic resistance will address the root cause at the source.

I desperately hope I'm wrong. But when people like Greta Thunberg say (I
paraphrase quite liberally) "Why the fuck should I go to school to learn about
grammar when civilization is going to collapse" they kind of have a point.

~~~
axaxs
But these things happen over long periods of time. It's not like China catches
on fire and everyone burns to death (tongue in cheek). People get
uncomfortable, natural disaster increase, so they migrate. At some point
either migration itself becomes an issue, or the last of the poor are tired of
being left behind and mass migrate, perhaps violently. So, a collapse is
possible, but I think of it as more of a slow lean than a collapse, if it were
to happen. And even that would take decades if not centuries. Civilization
collapse is inevitable, we know that from the fact a stars life is finite,
among other things. That shouldn't prevent anyone from trying to live a happy
life, and passing on teachings to the next generation.

------
js8
I feel like this was news 20 years ago:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph)

~~~
esarbe
Yeah, smart people were warning us 20 years ago.

We didn't listen then, we don't listen today.

------
sandinmytea
It's other great unnatural disturbances propelling these developments.

Greenhouse gases have nothing on the aforementioned.

~~~
adrianN
Like what? Cthulu's hot breath?

------
cheeky78
We haven't even been keeping climate data for 2,000 years, so this headline
(and maybe the entire article) is not accurate.

~~~
GlenTheMachine
From the article:

"Drawing on a huge database of climate-recording objects from all over the
world—including tree rings, cave formations, and ancient pollen trapped in
lake mud—the study concludes that 98 percent of Earth’s surface experienced
its hottest period of the past 2,000 years within living memory. That uniform
heat spike “is unprecedented over the Common Era,” it says."

In other words, we have used a variety of scientific techniques to fill in the
global climate data record.

