Somewhat imperfect reporting, but at least PBS is trying to get in the game.
More evidence that the loss of dedicated science and environmental reporters in the last 2 decades is hurting us. A discussion of a carbon tax, but not mention of “fee and dividend” approach.
How was that before, “geological”?
Carozza et al. (Methane and environmental change during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM): Modeling the PETM onset as a two-stage event, 2011., coauthor Gavin A. Schmidt): “To explain the observations, the carbon must have been released over at most 500 years. …” “Durations of 50 and 250 years are data‐compatible …; however, only a duration of 50 years is compatible with 3°C [!] of warming [… – thus more and faster than today !].”
Jaramillo (2010, – 28 [!] coauthors):
“Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event.”
“The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to SPECULATIONS that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.”
Jaramillo & Cárdenas (2013):
“The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.”
Sluijs et al. (2014):
“… speculated that during the PETM, sea level could have risen a maximum of 30 m if several independent mechanisms were combined, including tectonism, steric effects, and a small ice sheet. However, it may be argued that only steric effects contributed; the temperature–density relationship of seawater … … implies a modest sea level rise of 3–5 m rise from the ∼ 5 ◦ C ocean warming …”
“We argue that this fueled shelf eutrophication [as effect sea level rise, atm. CO2 level rise], as widely recorded from microfossil studies, increasing organic carbon burial along many continental margins as a negative feedback to carbon input and global warming.“
If I were to summarize our current dilemma it would be like this: At a gross level Earth’s climate is primarily controlled by Milankovitch Cycles. During those cycles green-house gases (or lack of them) serve the function of hysteresis to “lock in” a “warming peak” (or “cooling trough”).
More: Milankovitch Cycles ended the previous ice age (officially ended 11,700 years ago) which enabled humanity to enjoy a growth spurt taking us from an estimated 1-5 million to the present 7.1 billion despite disease and war. Planet Earth has never seen this situation before which is why we will never find all the answers in the past. Sure there has been lots of biological life on Earth which exceeded the biomass of humanity but nothing before us has been able to create an Industrial Revolution which, ~ 250 years later, has released so much green-house gas that many think there will never be an ice age again as long as humanity is dominant (because human release CO2 has an amplifying effect by releasing other gases like methane). In short: if we can do big engineering like damming rivers, creating ocean connecting canals, and putting men on the moon then getting GHG emissions under control should be doable.
Seafaring nations have measured a sea level rise of ~ 20cm (8 inches) over the past century so for this gentleman’s claim of “a couple of inches over the past 40 years is right in line with official data. Now anyone with secondary school geometry can visualize the beach as the hypotenuse of a right angle. Thinking about that a little further reveals that a small increase in the vertical base will allow the water to travel inward a whole lot more than a couple of inches (provided the angle is less than 45 degrees). This is the reason why cities like Venice Italy and Miami Florida are seeing more flooding with each high tide.
“Fee and Dividend” – a complicated approach that raises fuel costs for the public, supposedly sends them rebates via an expensive bureaucracy, somehow instigates the construction of new renewable infrastructure, artificially raises the price of green energy (it only has to beat the inflated price of FF) and does its best to keep innovation and ownership of green energy firmly within the corporate profit-sphere.
As opposed to simply subsidizing renewables. Or mandating government-run, publicly-owned, non profit green energy entities.
Regarding comments from authors on “buried carbon along rising sea level continental margins”…. realize that carbon starved of it’s chemically favored bonding with oxygen (co2) will instead bond with available hydrogen (methane), which is NOT good news when it burbles to the surface.