5 ms·

I find this view to be somewhat whitewashed, at best. There are multiple obvious, and meaningful, barriers. The effects of carbon dioxide production are not si

I find this view to be somewhat whitewashed, at best. There are multiple obvious, and meaningful, barriers. The effects of carbon dioxide production are not simply a collection of linear relationships. One tonne of CO2 today doesn't have just as much impact as one tonne of CO2 last year. There are points at which ocean acidity levels become incompatible with certain forms of life. There are limits to carbon sinks. There are points at which positive feedback loops become active. All of these things - and more - mean that there are very marked differences in the impact of the first coal fire and a steel plant (for a topical example) even after you normalize for the amount of carbon dioxide produced. Presenting current and modern carbon dioxide production as simply a continuation of the first coal fire is at a minimum ridiculous.

Retric 6y ago
1 ton of atmospheric CO2 released in 2020 is exactly the same as 1 ton of atmospheric CO2 left over from coal fires in 1020. There is vastly more CO2 from fossil fuel entering the atmosphere today, but it’s only a difference in quantity. Which is the issue, CO2 produced today will generally still be around in another 1,000 years. Across geologic timescales it’s going to be sequestered, but on human timescales it’s basically permanent. There isn’t a clear transition point where suddenly this ton of CO2 kills of the Great Barrier Reef, it’s a very gradual transition that means coral has a very slightly harder time growing today than it did yesterday. Not burning a ton of coal in yesterday would have been as useful as not burning a ton of coal tomorrow, the only difference is we can’t go back to yesterday.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  The difference is that, barring time travel, there is nothing we can do to prevent the emission of a ton of CO2 that was emitted in 1020 (and even with time travel there is little contemporaneous technology we could replace it with.) But there is potentially a lot we can do (at various levels of cost) to prevent the emission of one ton of CO2 in any future year and the consequences of that additional emission may be disproportionately worse. Your own post acknowledges this, and it’s very much the point of the GP poster.
- jamescrowley 6y ago
  The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
- jamescrowley 6y ago
  The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger, but with every increase in temperature the greater the risk. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
  - Retric 6y ago
    We have already reached many tipping points, and in the future we will eventually reach many more. However, that is simply another way that the effects of CO2 is non linear even though the quantity of CO2 is linear.

Retric 6y ago

1 ton of atmospheric CO2 released in 2020 is exactly the same as 1 ton of atmospheric CO2 left over from coal fires in 1020. There is vastly more CO2 from fossil fuel entering the atmosphere today, but it’s only a difference in quantity. Which is the issue, CO2 produced today will generally still be around in another 1,000 years. Across geologic timescales it’s going to be sequestered, but on human timescales it’s basically permanent. There isn’t a clear transition point where suddenly this ton of CO2 kills of the Great Barrier Reef, it’s a very gradual transition that means coral has a very slightly harder time growing today than it did yesterday. Not burning a ton of coal in yesterday would have been as useful as not burning a ton of coal tomorrow, the only difference is we can’t go back to yesterday.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
matthewdgreen 6y ago
The difference is that, barring time travel, there is nothing we can do to prevent the emission of a ton of CO2 that was emitted in 1020 (and even with time travel there is little contemporaneous technology we could replace it with.) But there is potentially a lot we can do (at various levels of cost) to prevent the emission of one ton of CO2 in any future year and the consequences of that additional emission may be disproportionately worse. Your own post acknowledges this, and it’s very much the point of the GP poster.
jamescrowley 6y ago
The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
jamescrowley 6y ago
The problem is there are clear tipping points - where one extra ton could trigger outsized negative outcomes. And worse, one tipping point could trigger many others. Scientists just don't know when they will trigger, but with every increase in temperature the greater the risk. For example, the loss of sheet ice. And bleaching events themselves in the reefs too I suspect would fall in this category. Some research here in case you're interested: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6421/1379
- Retric 6y ago
  We have already reached many tipping points, and in the future we will eventually reach many more. However, that is simply another way that the effects of CO2 is non linear even though the quantity of CO2 is linear.